Fatter than Joey

Pitcher HR rates jump all over the place from year to year, so it's very difficult to extract much from them. So did Davis's K rate as well -- If you are going to say that his increased K rate is a good thing -- which is OK with me -- then you need to look at the other things that bumped as well. I won't argue with the flucuation of HR rates. However if you are going to say -- "Wow, Pitcher X's K rate went from 5 to 7" in a given year, then you need to look at the HR rate, SLG, and what happened on the other end of the coin, and not just conclude that the pitcher just struck out more batters, w/o some give and take in the other aspects of their stats.

So to say that the increased K rate in 2005 compared to 2004 made him worse off means ignoring his entire previous career. And he pitched more innings in 2005 than he did in 2004 so the idea that he didn't go any further in games is wrong. I would never say his increased K rate made him worse. The increased K rate is a result of his different "approach" in 2005 versus 2004. He struck out more batters, but he gave up nearly, 2x as many HRs, he gave up more Runs, SLG, BA, OPS, etc. This trend continued into 2006. I am not sure if it was a mechinical difference, or the way he approached batters. 2004 was Davis's career year. He had a great year. 2005 got worse, as did 2006, and I am guessing 2007. or he had a bad year. His stats seem to point that 2004 was the abnormality not pre- or post-2004. All that doesn't mean that having him pitch to contact will make him better. Sure - I am speaking in generalities using Davis as an example -- however, when your walks are distributed evenly over the lineup, it probably speaks to some additional ERs that other pitchers won;t have. In my opinion, I think Davis's days as a strikeout pitcher are forever gone, and he will need to learn how to get batters out other than striking them out, otherwise he will get creamed in ARI.

I swear, people must think a BB is worse than a base hit on a ball in play. Not me. Anymore than I think a K is better than a groundout. When Davis's K rate went up from 2004 to 2005 -- he also got hit much harder. He gave up almost 2x as many HRs. If you look at Davis, his BBs, Runs, ERA, OPS, etc, have all risen each year since 2004. The Ks was about the only positive thing that went up (from 2004, to 2005). I am all for walks, to certain players, however, I think rather than trying to K a 7th-9th batter, letting that guy hit the ball is probably better than walking them. If you look at Davis who he walks, there is almost an even distribution (walking the 7th hitter at a higher rate than the 4th and 3rd). All in all -- Walks don't bother me, if the pitcher has the stuff to blow away the next batters, how ever, I think for most pitchers, I like the pitch to contact approach. I would trade less BBs more groundouts at the expense of more Ks and more pitches thrown (for non-power pitchers)

A strikeout results in an out 99.9% of the time, a ball in play about 70%. I know which one I prefer. A walk results in an out 0% of the time. I'd rather see pitchers hit their spots and get groundouts/singles than K's/BB's. BBs are very tolerable if you have a pitcher like Nolan Ryan that can gun down the next three batters w/o breaking a sweat, but with a pitcher like Doug Davis, the bases loaded 2b or the 3 run HR seem to follow the BBs more tham anything else. All pitchers are susceptible to the big inning. When Doug Davis's Ks went up, it seemed to me that his BBs went up as well, along with his pitch count, and inability to "eat innings". Obviously a Ben Sheets is different, as he is able to punch batters out.

fatter than joey: I can respect your opinions. I may not agree with them. but I can understand where you are coming from. My views are different. That's 100% acceptable -- If everyone agreed with me, I'd have no one to argue with. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Expecting a high school student to be able to understand statistical formulas is expecting a lot - especially in Beardstown, IL. Yeah -- Expecting a high-school kid to code is a lot to, but if they really want to, they can find a way to learn. Your #1 goal in starting this site was to eliminate trolls. However, in doing so, you will always have others mocking this site as an elitist site. Conventional wisdom tells us, you can never make everybody happy. Resturaunts are a good example of this, they all cater towards different clientel.

i have a problem with fatter than joey's expressed attitude in his post above. he wants people to debate him and back up their points with factual evidence. he wants new posters to get up to speed and debate him at his level of knowledge. Why should we demand or expect any poster to get up to speed and talk to you at your level? 1.) I enjoy debate. I really do. Do I want people to back up their points with factual evidence? Absolutely -- what are my alternative options? Generally speaking, when people don't have evidence or data, they just present their argument louder. -- I want no part in that. 2.) Do I want posters to get up to speed? -- You are darn tootin' I do. I never engage myself in foriegn economic policy debates, for the simple reason, I am not well-read on the topic. I wouldn't debate Alan Greenspan on interest rates, I would certainly ask him questions, but I would not presume to debate him, because I am not up to his speed. I'm not even sure what level you are at and how much i need to learn so that I can converse with you. I will converse with anybody. I love talking about the 1970s-80s Brewers, and I have had a lot delightful conversations at Miller Park, with kids that had questions about those teams. Now, I don't want to hear "Bill Hall is better than Gorman Thomas", unless you have done some reading/research or lived through both eras. I think people have a responsibility to understand what they are talking about before talking. -- Simple as that. Should they just remain silent and not post? There is a lot of conventional wisdom about silence and listening/learning. Should people not post? -- No -- ask questions, ask for opinions, etc... If you don't understand a stat speak up. If I had lunch with Alan Greenspan, I would let him do all the talking about interest rates. Surely if they tried to engage you in a debate about stats, it would not be a fair discussion and would end up in a basic name calling session. I don't know about this -- I stated Charlie Moore (1982) was better so far than Corey Hart -- someone posted a contrary informed opinion and that was that. Solid evidence always will trump the intelligence of a poster. -- Really that's all I am hoping for -- Informed debate. Most debates here rarely degenerate into name calling. How about a new approach? Lower yourself to the level of the person you are talking to? Why? -- I won't do this. I certainly will be civil, however, if people want to understand stats and the history of the Brewers, it should be their burden to inform themselves. I am not a big fan of dumbing down anything. I think it's way past time for the "hazing" to stop. I was never hazed. BFnet has been supercool to me from post #1. there is no way a 9th grade poster can expect to engage in an intelligent conversation if the conversation is taken to a college graduate's level of complexity. None of the discussion on this board requires college level education. What's wrong with a 9th grader learning how to use statistics to predict things? The math isn't that hard. 9th graders can be civil and ask questions when something trips them up. Do you want it to remain an open forum where anybody can post their thoughts? or do you want to limit posts to only intelligent debate? if you look around, very few sports forums are focused on intelligent factual discussions. I think there are plenty of threads on this forum that are neither "intelligent" or "debate". I like intelligent factual discussions, that's why I gravitate towards BFnet and not some of the ESPN sites that are populated by unmedicated ALLCAP ranting. I think everybody here wants people to post their opinions, but doing so in a manner where grammar, spelling, factual data, etc., are all at least given a thought.

I personally hate the use of stats to form conclusions to baseball debate topics. and why do i hate the use of stats in baseball stats so much? because for every stat in baseball that a conclusion is based on, there exist at leasts 10 other stats and formulas that can prove that stat wrong or predict a totally different outcome. See here is a problem -- This statement means nothing, because it is not true -- this is something that people say, that doesn't mean anything, nor is it true. I would love for you to show me an example to illustrate your point. If you don't like Doug Davis because it takes him 1 Hour to get through an inning. -- thats fine. No one said that stats are the only evidence. If you are going to argue a point you better bring more to the table than empty rhetoric, otherwise people are going to call you out on it.

When I first got here I got shot at left and right, now I think that I fit in ...or maybe we are just reloading.... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif a new poster comes and posts something without doing any research. I think that they leave themselves open for this then. The guy came in and said -- "Every pitcher with an ERA over 4.00 sucks". -- If you said that at the bar, at a game, people would immediately call you out for the nonsense that they perceive it to be. I have always felt it is the responsibility of the new people to get up to speed with the thread of the existing posters. I think this whole idea "of how we treat new people " is a bunch of poop. I have asked questions from accounting, baseball, fixing a lamp, and the collective generous nature of the posters who have helped me (and the wealth of their knowledge) always has astounded me. I have found this forum incredibly fun, and thoroughly well-behaved for an internet site. Sure people can get snippy and disagree -- but like my old man always said -- learn to take a punch now and then buttercup. I agree that debates should be civil, and lines shouldn't be crossed, but c'mon, if you are going to make a bold statement that some are going to find silly, then you need to either be able to sufficiently back up your statement, get thumped, or re-evaluate your position. I am not interested in hurting anyone's feelings, but I think people should be able to have their opinions (if shared and expressed) called out without getting all sensitive.

They should go back to dueling... Dick Cheney would be good at that -- In fact I'd bet they'd write a song about it... It probably would go something like this... Ah 1 and a 2 and a... In a ranch near Kingsville rode a stranger one fine day Hardly spoke to folks around him didn't have too much to say No one dared to ask his business no one dared to make a slip for the stranger there among them had Birdshot on his hip Birdshot on his hip It was early in the morning when he drove into the town He came riding from the White House slowly lookin' all around He's an outlaw loose and running came the whisper from each lip And he's here to do some business with the Birdshot on his hip Birdshot on his hip In this town there lived an lawyer by the name of Whittington Many quail had tried to flee him and those many quail were gunn?d He was vicious and a killer though a senior of seventy eight And the notches on his shotgun put his meals on his dinner plate Meals on his dinner plate Now Dick Cheney started talking made it plain to folks around Those many flocks of quail wouldn't be flying too long in town He came here to take quail back dead from the blast of his shotgun And he said it didn't matter he was hunting with Whittington Hunting with Whittington Wasn't long before the story was relayed to Whittington But the lawyer didn't worry, quail that fleed before were gunned Many quail had tried to flee him, and those birds had made a slip No quail would be shot by Dick Cheney with the Birdshot on his hip Birdshot on his hip The morning passed so quickly it was time for them to hunt It was twenty past eleven when they walked out with their guns Secret Service looked on from the Humvee holding their breath They feared a flock of quail was about to meet their death About to meet their death There was forty feet between them when they stopped to make their play And the swiftness of Dick Cheney is still talked about today Whittington had not cleared leather before pellets his face did rip And the Dick Cheney's aim was deadly with the Birdshot on his hip Birdshot on his hip It was over in a moment and the Secret Service had gathered round There before them lay the body of the lawyer on the ground Oh he might have went on hunting but he made one fatal slip When he tried to match Dick Cheney with the Birdshot on his hip Birdshot on his hip

I rented Clerks 2. I didn't care for it. Specifically I didn't like the actors or the jobs that they did. (I realize they were in #1) The dialogue was incredibly clunky I thought -- You have a show like Seinfeld, where you have their "rants at the diner" -- however, either the dialogue is superior, or the actors do a better job selling it, and you have a funny show.

"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." I hate Deal or No Deal -- but it's sort of like American Idol to me. it doesn't offend me, to each their own, etc. The problem I have with extreme makeover though is larger. 1.) I do not like fix-it shows where problems are addressed by either super big piles of money or super skilled craftmen. 2.) It seems like rather than give one family, 1 million dollars, perhaps they could give 10 families 100,000 -- especially in the wake of Katrina, etc. I would rather watch a show where they were installing dry-wall, fixing plumbing, wiring, patching holes, etc. instead of giving one family a 10,000$ pair of washer/dryers. 3.) That head carpenter guy looks like he took a ball-peen hammer to the back of the head.

This is what made me happy to see Davis hit the road -- the "I-won't-give-you-a-pitch-to-hit-so-I-will-walk-you-and-the-guy-following-you-and-give-up-a-3-run-HR" mentality is not a great one IMO. Keep the pitch count down, get guys to ground out on 2 pitches rather than K them on 7.

Black Dahlia That family reminded me of my inlaws -- w/o the wealth, sort of a poor-man's version of that family.

A couple thoughts on the whole education thing. I went to college for engineering -- the skill I used the most -- writing. It would be nothing to write a 40 page lab report in an evening. My studies were primarily in materials, which uses statistical probability a lot -- you can't count electrons -- however you can calculate the probability they will be at a certain spot, or part of current. It amazes me how little people understand stats, but talk about them all day long. For example, my mother has a friend who has 6 girls and 0 boys, my mom is convinced that the odds of that happening (6 kids the same sex) is like one in a million. -- when in fact the odds are one in 32, (if you treat a birth like a coin flip). I enjoy math, and I think people should have a rudimentary understanding of calculus. My motivation was getting a job which paid well. However, when I was young, I thought learning about wood/metals was useless -- what I found though as I got older in life, is that regardless if I will NEED to use it, I will WANT to use those skills at some point in my life. I am by no means a skilled carpenter, but I do enjoy the fact that I can build some simple things in my garage (shelves e.g.) and do a lot of repairs on my house and car. As I get older, I regret not taking my history classes more seriously -- I read a lot of biographies and the such now in my spare time. -- Do I NEED to know why Roosevelt ran against Taft, no, but its historical significance puts a lot of things into perspective today when I look at the state of affairs of the country in 2007. One of my pet-peeves regarding my inlaws, is when I am over at their house, inevitably we will end up watching Jeopardy or playing Trivial Pursuit, and if I do well I am classified as being a "storehouse of useless information" -- and perhaps thats true to a degree -- I just find it nice to be well-rounded and continually learning.

I liked Toby getting shut out by Pam -- "Don't you have a daughter?" I also missed the part when they asked about the merger and Jim's date said "everyone quit or got fired" -- does that mean Andy's gone, or did I miss something. I'm looking forward to Dwight hosting SNL.. He is the sort of actor that usually does well in that scenario.

I've started watching Arrested Development on DVD recently and can't understand why it was cancelled. It's hilarious. Fox seemed to want to have this show cancelled -- they moved it into just about every time slot available. It's really too bad that this show didnt start out on HBO.

What are the winter meetings about? Basking in my awesomeness http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Seriously -- I am coming in from up north --- I can drive people to and from the event if rides are needed -- I'd be happy to pick people up in Madison if needed, if you are thinking about having a couple of drinks, or don't have wheels. -- I have a van.

"You found Uncle Al!" "Yeah, What a weirdo"

I'm going to try and make it.

Has anyone seen Hard Candy? I have -- This is a dark little film about a 14 year old girl and a 30ish year old predator, and their ever-changing relationship. It's a good film, not for everyone though.

Huh, I know my wife has classified you guys (and gals) as "the group of dorks you talk to during the Brewers game". She gets annoyed as I watch the game and chuckle during the in-game chats. Funny thing though, I posted a picture of the kids in some sort of Halloween thread -- and she became concerned that our kids would get abducted, and I said -- c'mon, they're dorks, dorks don't abduct children, and she said -- "you know what I mean" -- so I acted like I did, -- but I didnt.

I saw a bad movie. The Messengers. It's like a bad episode of Ghost Whisperer, without Jennifer Love Hewitt's "talents". I was really hoping I could see more ads about condo investment opportunites, or answer more trivia questions about "Cars" once the movie started.

It was probably those pants she had on at the end Yeah -- I actually asked my wife if they had pants like that back, then, and if so, why'd they stop wearing them.

I could not buy into Jessica Biel Maybe this is where I thought the love-story got in the way of the story -- perhaps a better actress would have done a better job.

The Illusionist -- Overall, I thought it was pretty decent. The performances of Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are (expectedly) very good, and make the movie worth watching. I also thought the color and cinematography was interesting, and did a good job of setting the mood for the film. The storyline wasn't real smooth, and it was a little obvious. Still, it's worth checking out IMO. I saw this movie last night -- I agree with DJ43 -- this is a very decent movie. However, I felt like the love-interest got in the way with what could have been an exceptional movie -- I think the movie could have stood on its own, focusing on the conflict between a magician and a government in turmoil -- plus with the added impact of spiritualism, which would undermind the more secular government. I feel like they added the love story to make the movie more easy for the general public to want to see.