rluzinski

I think they just get a better look at a sinker than a righty would.

4 games is huge with regard to making the playoffs but not huge with regard to expected vs. actual results. That's the point. "The overall question/comment is that this team needs to win more road games." The "overall question/comment" couldn't be more explicit, as it is in the title of the thread. That's the question I've been attempting to answer.

The first 2 ERA's listed are 2011 preseason projections, the last last is their current ERA: [b]PLAYER <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ZiPS MARCEL ACTUAL[/b] Greinke <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.23 3.38 5.04 Marcum <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.35 3.70 3.39 Gallardo 3.49 3.68 4.08 Wolf <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4.09 3.98 3.65 Narveson 4.76 4.40 4.74

Yes, my wish was always to have Betancourt fail so miserably that Josh Wilson would be the starting SS for the Brewers in July. A dream come true. I'm not interested in any player getting "bashed" in this thread. I simply want a list of players that fans least enjoy watching. No one is making you play along.

You mean, like like every baseball statistic ever created or will ever be created? I agree that just using FIP is probably too extreme. The pitcher should get some credit for the result of balls-in-play. How about, average ERA and FIP, to at least give defenders some of the credit for sucking?

The RR thread had me curious which Brewer players, Brewer fans extract the least enjoyment from watching. I don't want to turn this into anything personal, like "I just HATE player X!" but we ARE supposed to enjoy watching these guys perform. If, for whatever reason, you cringe every time the player trots out of the bullpen or gets a start in the field, I want to see their name here. List your top cringe-inducing players (up to 5) and I will compile them. If the guy sucks or is under performing but you still want to see him get playing time so he has a chance to prove the world wrong, don't list him! Here's mine: 1. Betancourt2. Kotsay

I guess, IMO, 50+ games is not a small sample. Some would argue otherwise. This has little to do with opinion. I'm saying it's a small sample because math suggests that it is. We want to know how much their road record represents their true talent on the road. I'm sure you've seen me do this exercise before but if God told us what the Brewers' odds were of winning each of their first 50 road games, we would still have little idea what their road record would end up being over that period. As an example, if God said that they had a 50% chance of winning each of those games, we'd expect a 25-25 record. But there would be a 10% chance that they would win 17 or less just by chance alone and god would just shrug his shoulders. Provided you are willing to pretend the odds of winning each of those games are identical, you can explore whatever hypothetical you want here: http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx In reality the odds vary for each game, but that same uncertainty is still there. The team all know they are getting poor results on the road, and press even more, and start to put out performance that actually matches the results. It's possible that is happening.... and it's possible that it's not. I happen to believe that as professional athletes, they've largely conditioned themselves to deal with the ups and downs a 162 game season can deal you (I'm sure there are exceptions, as with everything). I think it's the media and fans that have the harder time dealing with this kind of stuff.

http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/banghead.gif EDIT: But who am I to argue with genius that uses a guy batting .244/.301/.333 against RHP so far this season in the 3-hole? RR is insane.

Russ, I'm not singling out you, or anyone else, but it seems over the past 12 to 18 months, any discussion that even hinges on soemthing that can't be statistically measured is scoffed at, if not outright dismissed here anymore. Is it pointless to discuss? Sure! So is everything else we throw around here. We can speculate about anything we want. There IS a human element to the game that can't be discounted. As I said before, like everyone else, I can't prove what has caused the Brewers to perform so badly. I can only attempt to estimate what I would expect the road record to be and what the odds are that the actual record WAS simply a result of a bad bounce or whatever. And obviously, there is uncertainty in those estimates. The trouble starts when people start some thread titled, "THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A SMALL SAMPLE ANYMORE!!! WHAT IS CAUSING THIS!?" Almost always, it is STILL a relatively small sample and bad luck HAS contributed to the difference between expectation and reality. I say "contributed" because it's usually just some combination of luck and actual skill being worse than expected. Greinke is an excellent example of that. His current projected ERA is worse than when the season started because he's pitched poorly in some regards. It isn't THAT bad, however, because bad luck has most likely contributed to his bad numbers. Anyone saying that it's all bad luck is probably sinning as bad as someone saying luck has nothing to do with it.

The Orioles are paying Hardy a little less than what an average player makes on the open market. Assuming he is still an above average defensive SS, he doesn't have to hit well at all in order to be worth that. I think both Hardy and the Oriloes know he isn't expected to continue to SLG .490.

I know there's nothing statistical to analyze, all the road stats will show as that they suck. But this team is absolutely shizophrenic. The road/home OPS splits are absolutely atrocious, and at some point it can't just be written off due to statistical variance. There is plenty to analyze. First off, 48 games is a small enough sample that it could easily just be statistical variance. Do I know it is? Of course not. No one does. It's the most likely explanation, however. Hell, it's the only explanation we really have right now. As usual, I just think baseball fans are underestimating how much statistical variance plays a role in baseball. Second, attributing certain characteristics to an entire team is convenient but not really logical. As I said earlier, we can identify which specific players have performed especially poor on the road and see if they've shown a propensity to do that in the past. Have the Brewers lost more games on the road than their Pythagorean record would suggest? Have the won more games at home than expected? The Brewers road record simply isn't that unbelievable, IMO. The Brewers have a Pythagorean record of 46-49, for a .484 win%. I think they are a better team than that but let's say that represents their true talent. An average home road split is 54%/46%. As a real rough calculation, we can simply subtract 4% from the Brewers overall pythagorean record. .484 - .04 = .444. Using that as their "expected" road record this year: Road Record: Actual: 17 - 31 Expected: 21 - 27 4 less loses than expected in that scenario.

Really, what PLAYERS have performed poorly on the road this year and have they ever shown an issue in the past? That's the question that should be asked.

The Brewers have been outscored overall, so it's not like they've proven to be anything more than average on the field.

Every year, 1 or two random teams perform terrible on the road, relative to expectations. It's odd that the teams changes every year, though. At least that means that the Brewers will probably do better on the road next year!

It doesn't artificially inflate anything. WAR is simply a framework: (WINS - WINS_replacement level) x playing time Like I said before, it's more of a value stat than a "who is more skilled" stat. If your point is that Pedro was way more dominant in his prime than Niekro, no one will argue with you. So why do people continue to use a player's WAR to assess who is having a better season or who is the better player? That happens all the time. If we are comparing two players roughly the same PA/IP, it is like an unregressed projection that ignores anything but the current year's projection, so I am not that fond of it being used that way either. It is not a a real projection nor is it really value, as it is context neutral (over a career, context evens out almost completely). Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Three nobody really seems to understand precisely how it derives it's outcome. We seem to know what goes in but not sure what measure of each and such. Hell Rluz once said he wasn't exactly sure how it was derived and he's one of the most astute stats guy here. I don't recall when I made that comment but I linked to the fangraph's very in depth explanation of how it is derived. One of the beauties of WAR is that it ISN'T a black box. Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">My final issue is more based on my skepticism of the very concept that one stat can be all encompassing than on WAR itself. I understand the desire for an easy to read, easy to understand number that encompasses everything we need to know about a player or when comparing two players. Even the greatest proponents of WAR would not suggest that it renders all other stats irrelevant. Nor should they pretend that there isn't room to ammend/improve the current incarnations of it. As previously mentioned, Fangraphs and Baseball Reference uses two different version. I think the concept of wins (or runs) above replacement times playing time is a valuable framework to explore, however.

It's probably more accurate over a career but I share still your concerns. Of course, nothing stops you from just comparing batting or pitching WAR and ignoring defense altogether. Hell, Fangraphs and Baseball Reference doesn't even use the same methodology for pitching WAR. WAR is just a basic framework; people can mold it all different kind of ways. There is nothing absolute about them. A link to Fangraph's WAR primer: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/#winvalues

If Niekro had a higher WAR, he was a better pitcher, case closed.The guy is asking for an explanation for what WAR is and you respond with a snarky comment that only highlights your ignorance of it. WAR doesn't tell you who was "better"; that's a very subjective term in the first place. WAR stands for wins above replacement. Replacement level is the theoretical performance you would get from a typical AAA "lifer", which is considered "freely available". If you don't like the whole concept of replacement level, just pretend it's "wins above average" because it doesn't matter what the baseline is when you are just comparing players. A win is toughly equal to 10 runs so WAR basically is adding up all the runs scored or saved above a base line for the player's career. There is one TERRIBLY important category that Niekro crushes Pedro in and that's IP (nearly twice as many!). That might not make Niekro "better" but some consideration should be made for career length. I consider WAR more of a value stat than a "better" stat. A 4.0 ERA starting pitcher with 225 IP is more valuable to a team than a reliever with a 3.5 ERA in 50 IP. "Better player" comparisons usually center around a player's prime years production.

RR had Gomez batting 2nd for the first few months (and still does when he starts!). RR also reiterated on numerous occasions that Gomez really impressed him during spring training. I agree that you should always take public praise of a player by his manager with a grain of salt but in this case, RR "saw SOMETHING... and so did Dale!" He really believed that Gomez had magically turned into a competent hitter.

I find it hard to believe the Brewers didn't have to give up real prospect and the Mets STILL gave $5 mil cash back? No one other team was available that was willing to spend more than $3.5 mil for almost half a season of K-Rod? Even if an extra relief pitcher wasn't on the top of Melvin's list for a mid-season upgrade, I could see how that would be too good of a deal to pass on.

I wasn't suggesting that I know how much more Melvin has to spend. That would be pure speculation. I said that whatever he goes have has a limit. I guess that the ownership group could allocate X for a a relief upgrade and Y for SS but that would seem a poor way to allocate dollars. Cost is no object? That phrase is only used when discussing hypotheticals.

Of course not. I guess it's easier to make assertions than it is to back them up with evidence.

WAR is context neutral. Furthermore, Fangraph's WAR uses FIP. If you want context, use WPA: http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Brewers&pos=all&stats=pit&qual=0&type=3&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

"You don't count on Greinke because of what he can do. You count on pitchers based on what they are currently doing." What times pan do you use to define "current"? I see baseball fans using much too short of time spans, typically. It seems like you are advocating throwing everything out that hasn't occurred this year. That would be a big mistake. I'll be happy to wager that Greinke will perform better than Wolf going forward, however.

SS is harder than 2B and Weeks is barely average at 2B defensively.

It certainly eats up a portion of whatever finite financial resources Melvin has to play with. Perhaps Melvin already has a plan for upgrading SS but if he doesn't, his options are more limited now than they were before. There's really no way around that. Without knowing what Melvin gave up (probably very little) and how much the Mets kicked in, it's impossible to evaluate this trade in isolation. If Melvin got $5 mil back, I can't argue with it, though. Upgrading 25 high levelerage innings during a playoff race is certainly worth that.