If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   After getting a new,huge contract this off-season, Tim Lincecum throws third straight no-hitter....just kidding, he's 0-2 with an ERA of 10.54 and still needs a haircut   (sfgate.com) divider line 169
    More: Fail, Tim Lincecum, Aubrey Huff, Angel Pagan, Jimmy Rollins, Roy Halladay, no-hitter, RBI, whales  
•       •       •

727 clicks; posted to Sports » on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-17 08:19:54 AM  
...thus proving that marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug
 
2012-04-17 09:31:11 AM  
A good pitcher off to a rough start? Yeah, that never happens.
 
2012-04-17 09:52:59 AM  
Not to be a jerk but isn't the fakeout part of these "Just Kidding" headlines supposed to be somewhat believable?

/And sample size how does it work and all that...
 
2012-04-17 09:55:22 AM  
Big Time Timmy Jim!
 
2012-04-17 09:56:32 AM  
He can always go back to acting. He was pretty good in Dazed and Confused.
 
2012-04-17 10:00:40 AM  
The only thing worth worrying about is the fact that Lince stopped throwing the slider. He threw it 15% of the time last year, and it was arguably his second best pitch. If he's not throwing it for health reasons...that's not good.

But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.
 
2012-04-17 10:02:17 AM  
So now 2 or 3 games is representative of what he will do the entire season? If he has a 10.54 ERA at the All-Star Break then say something. But until then shut your hole.
 
2012-04-17 10:05:55 AM  

stoli n coke: He can always go back to acting. He was pretty good in Dazed and Confused.


Too many balks from touching his face on the mound. Once he gets that under control, he will be GREAT!
 
2012-04-17 10:07:05 AM  

DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.


This is why these advanced stats in sports are idiotic.

Everbody watching can see he's not performing well, by all standard measures he's not performing well, but LOOK AT THAT xFIP!
 
2012-04-17 10:14:25 AM  

MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.

This is why these advanced stats in sports are idiotic.

Everbody watching can see he's not performing well, by all standard measures he's not performing well, but LOOK AT THAT xFIP!


That's kind of like saying "Well, this company has shady accounting practices, has a bunch of pending lawsuits, and is under investigation by the SEC...but the stock has gone up each of the last 3 days, so I should definitely, definitely buy!"
 
2012-04-17 10:23:00 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.

This is why these advanced stats in sports are idiotic.

Everbody watching can see he's not performing well, by all standard measures he's not performing well, but LOOK AT THAT xFIP!

That's kind of like saying "Well, this company has shady accounting practices, has a bunch of pending lawsuits, and is under investigation by the SEC...but the stock has gone up each of the last 3 days, so I should definitely, definitely buy!"


Not exactly. You're not giving enough information. Realistically, those numbers are only really comparable against his own history(though that BABIP is unreasonably high for any person, but then again their fielders don't inspire either).
 
2012-04-17 10:30:06 AM  

bhcompy: Realistically, those numbers are only really comparable against his own history(though that BABIP is unreasonably high for any person, but then again their fielders don't inspire either).


In the last 20 years, the lowest LOB% i can find is 58.5. His HR/FB is slightly more possible (the highest in the last twenty years is 19.7%), but very rare. Only 10 guys have had HR/FB's higher than Lince's current rate in that time span.
 
2012-04-17 10:34:46 AM  

DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.


These stats are an excellent measure of how a pitcher is throwing the ball. They just don't reflect anything that happens after that, so it's hard to put a lot of value in them.
 
2012-04-17 10:35:57 AM  
Lincecum doesn't really have a new huge contract, he only has a two year deal, awful headline.
 
2012-04-17 10:36:51 AM  

Uncle Pooky: These stats are an excellent measure of how a pitcher is throwing the ball. They just don't reflect anything that happens after that, so it's hard to put a lot of value in them.


That makes no sense. Can a pitcher control what happens after the ball leaves his hand? No?

Then if we're trying to figure out how good a pitcher is, why should we care about that?
 
2012-04-17 10:36:55 AM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.

This is why these advanced stats in sports are idiotic.

Everbody watching can see he's not performing well, by all standard measures he's not performing well, but LOOK AT THAT xFIP!

That's kind of like saying "Well, this company has shady accounting practices, has a bunch of pending lawsuits, and is under investigation by the SEC...but the stock has gone up each of the last 3 days, so I should definitely, definitely buy!"

Not exactly. You're not giving enough information. Realistically, those numbers are only really comparable against his own history(though that BABIP is unreasonably high for any person, but then again their fielders don't inspire either).


Agreed. To me, most advanced statistics are the shady accounting practices. They completely take the heart (and fun) out of the game while still managing to inaccurately portray certain players' worth.
 
2012-04-17 10:38:47 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: while still managing to inaccurately portray certain players' worth.


That's because you're defining worth wrong. Unless you believe some people are naturally luckier than others.
 
2012-04-17 10:47:36 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Uncle Pooky: These stats are an excellent measure of how a pitcher is throwing the ball. They just don't reflect anything that happens after that, so it's hard to put a lot of value in them.

That makes no sense. Can a pitcher control what happens after the ball leaves his hand? No?

Then if we're trying to figure out how good a pitcher is, why should we care about that?


I'm sure there are lots of people in San Francisco who are happy to know Lincecum is off to a great start so far this year, putting up some of the best numbers of his career.

/I'm having a hard time locating the "Good Pitcher" column in the standings.
 
2012-04-17 10:50:13 AM  

Uncle Pooky: I'm sure there are lots of people in San Francisco who are happy to know Lincecum is off to a great start so far this year, putting up some of the best numbers of his career.

/I'm having a hard time locating the "Good Pitcher" column in the standings.


Is the point of this discussion "Has Lincecum been a good pitcher this year?" or "Have the Giants, as a whole, sucked when he's pitching?"

If it's the former, then we want to look at his FIP, xFIP, etc. If it's the latter, then, fine, go with ERA or whatever.

But using ERA to decide the former makes absolutely no sense.
 
2012-04-17 10:52:54 AM  

DeWayne Mann: AdmirableSnackbar: while still managing to inaccurately portray certain players' worth.

That's because you're defining worth wrong. Unless you believe some people are naturally luckier than others.


WTF does that even mean? How do you know how I'm defining worth? What does luck have to do with this conversation?

My point is that I'll take most simple stats plus the "eyeball test" over most advanced stats any day in baseball. Most advanced stats are interesting anecdotes but people take them way, way too seriously when determining how good a player is (usually without watching him play).
 
2012-04-17 10:55:18 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: But other wise, he's not even bad in the small sample size we have. His FIP is, yes, higher than the last few year...by like, less than a quarter of a point. His xFIP is the lowest of his career. HIs K rate is the highest of his career; his BB rare the lowest.

But that .426 BABIP...the 42.1% LOB...the 16.7% HR/FB? These are all likely to change.

This is why these advanced stats in sports are idiotic.

Everbody watching can see he's not performing well, by all standard measures he's not performing well, but LOOK AT THAT xFIP!

That's kind of like saying "Well, this company has shady accounting practices, has a bunch of pending lawsuits, and is under investigation by the SEC...but the stock has gone up each of the last 3 days, so I should definitely, definitely buy!"


Actually it's the opposite of that. A low xFIP but high ERA will tell you that the stock price is very low, and that you should buy because it's likely going to go up.

Baseball is the best sport for statistics. The sample sizes are huge considering they play 162 games a year. Not to mention that every little thing is recorded on every pitch. There's a reason advanced stats make sense for this sport and no other. And there's a reason the records are considered precious.

If you don't like stats, don't follow baseball.
 
2012-04-17 10:55:23 AM  
No hitters? I hear he is a bigger fan of one hitters.

Badump bump! Yeah!
 
2012-04-17 10:57:14 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: WTF does that even mean? How do you know how I'm defining worth? What does luck have to do with this conversation?

My point is that I'll take most simple stats plus the "eyeball test" over most advanced stats any day in baseball. Most advanced stats are interesting anecdotes but people take them way, way too seriously when determining how good a player is (usually without watching him play).


Please rank the following 4 stats in the order of how well they reflect a PITCHER'S worth:

Wins

K/BB

ERA

FIP

Simple question.

As for the eye test, remember, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter is a hit every couple of weeks. The eye test is terrible for reasons like that alone. When you further consider that it's literally impossible for one person to watch every player in any reasonable amount of time, you quickly realize the eye test lends itself to things like confirmation bias.
 
2012-04-17 10:57:51 AM  

DeWayne Mann: That makes no sense. Can a pitcher control what happens after the ball leaves his hand? No?

Then if we're trying to figure out how good a pitcher is, why should we care about that?


They control how hard the ball will be hit back at their fielders and the batters ability to place the ball.

Sometimes a pitcher has a high "BABIP" or "HR/FB" because there's no movement on the pitch., not because of a statistical anomally.
 
2012-04-17 10:57:52 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: My point is that I'll take most simple stats plus the "eyeball test" over most advanced stats any day in baseball.


And I'll put my team of guys with good numbers up against your team of guys who look nice any day of the week
 
2012-04-17 10:58:28 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: DeWayne Mann: AdmirableSnackbar: while still managing to inaccurately portray certain players' worth.

That's because you're defining worth wrong. Unless you believe some people are naturally luckier than others.

WTF does that even mean? How do you know how I'm defining worth? What does luck have to do with this conversation?

My point is that I'll take most simple stats plus the "eyeball test" over most advanced stats any day in baseball. Most advanced stats are interesting anecdotes but people take them way, way too seriously when determining how good a player is (usually without watching him play).


Luck has everything to do with this conversation. FIP is "fielding independent pitching". It takes the luck out of the equation, because fielders generally do the right thing.

And the only "eyeball" test I see with Timmy is that his velocity is a little down, which means his changeup isn't as effective. This is a major problem, but it's only April and he's one of the best in the league. I think he'll correct himself sooner rather than later.
 
2012-04-17 10:58:34 AM  

homarjr: Actually it's the opposite of that. A low xFIP but high ERA will tell you that the stock price is very low, and that you should buy because it's likely going to go up.


It was not meant to be an exact analogy. Merely to illustrate that ignoring peripheral information like that is a bad idea.
 
2012-04-17 10:59:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: Sometimes a pitcher has a high "BABIP" or "HR/FB" because there's no movement on the pitch., not because of a statistical anomally.


I'd like to see your research on this. I can give you plenty of research that you're wrong, if you'd like.
 
2012-04-17 11:01:25 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Please rank the following 4 stats in the order of how well they reflect a PITCHER'S worth


K/BB is probably first, followed by FIP. Depends on the pitcher though. Ground ball pitchers won't have a high K rate, but are still effective at getting outs.

ERA would be next. FIP is a better valuation for a pitcher because it determines future worth. However, it needs to be compared to a pitcher's career FIP to be used properly.

Wins is dead last. No question.

The best stat might very well be innings pitched. If you can go 7 or 8 innings a game, you're more than likely playing very well.
 
2012-04-17 11:04:13 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Please rank the following 4 stats in the order of how well they reflect a PITCHER'S worth:

Wins

K/BB

ERA

FIP


Trick question. The only relevant one is quality starts.
 
2012-04-17 11:04:53 AM  

homarjr: K/BB is probably first, followed by FIP. Depends on the pitcher though. Ground ball pitchers won't have a high K rate, but are still effective at getting outs.


The only reason I'd switch K/BB & FIP is because K/BB tells us nothing about HRs. Otherwise, this is my ranking.

homarjr: The best stat might very well be innings pitched. If you can go 7 or 8 innings a game, you're more than likely playing very well.


This is a good point, though it might overrate good pitchers on teams with bad bullpens and underrate bad pitchers on teams with good bullpens. Let's say you have, I dunno, James Shields starting, and in your bullpen you have a bunch of guys like Fernando Rodney. You might leave Shields in a little longer than you probably should.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:08 AM  

DeWayne Mann: I'd like to see your research on this. I can give you plenty of research that you're wrong, if you'd like.


Have fun with your advanced numbers. Mathmatical masturbation for the sake of it.

What's funny is for 95%+ of players, the advanced stats will show the same 'result' as the old classic stats. If he bats .330 every year with 110 RBIs, most likely his stupid stats will be good too.

There's just a few people who drive the stat geeks crazy every year, because they can't add in the human element of the game...which is what makes any sport interesting.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:40 AM  
I think BIJPMLU is the only reliable indicator of a pitcher's ability, and Tim's is still down around the .26 level which makes him one of the elite pitchers in the league.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:49 AM  

grinding_journalist: Trick question. The only relevant one is quality starts.


I....was not expecting that. I don't even know if this is serious or making fun of me or making fun of someone else or what.

Though I feel I'm required to counter with "Well, what about Game Score?"
 
2012-04-17 11:06:42 AM  

MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: That makes no sense. Can a pitcher control what happens after the ball leaves his hand? No?

Then if we're trying to figure out how good a pitcher is, why should we care about that?

They control how hard the ball will be hit back at their fielders and the batters ability to place the ball.

Sometimes a pitcher has a high "BABIP" or "HR/FB" because there's no movement on the pitch., not because of a statistical anomally.


A really good major league pitcher who is only 28 years old doesn't suddenly get hit THAT much harder unless:

a) there is an injury that he's hiding or doesn't know about
b) it's a statistical anomaly

He's striking out a lot of guys, which really makes me think he's healthy. That leaves option B.
 
2012-04-17 11:10:58 AM  

MugzyBrown: 110 RBIs


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

i2.kym-cdn.com

MugzyBrown: If he bats .330 every year with 110 RBIs, most likely his stupid stats will be good too.


Mugzy, meet Vinny Castilla. He played for colorado. He hit .299, and averaged .65 RBI per game.

Then he left colorado. He hit .250 and averaged .51 RBI per game.

Then he went back to colorado for a season. He hit .271 and averaged .89 RBI per game.

Guess what? At no point during all this, his stupid stats were good.
 
2012-04-17 11:11:40 AM  

Rex_Banner: a) there is an injury that he's hiding or doesn't know about


And as I said in my Boobies, this is why the slider thing is the only reason I'd worry.
 
2012-04-17 11:11:52 AM  
A really good major league pitcher who is only 28 years old doesn't suddenly get hit THAT much harder unless:

a) there is an injury that he's hiding or doesn't know about
b) it's a statistical anomaly

He's striking out a lot of guys, which really makes me think he's healthy. That leaves option B.


c) He's lost control of one of his pitches and is able to maximize his other pitches for some batters, but not others.
 
2012-04-17 11:11:59 AM  

The Great EZE: Not to be a jerk but isn't the fakeout part of these "Just Kidding" headlines supposed to be somewhat believable?

/And sample size how does it work and all that...


Give Subby a break, it's not his fault he's retarded, he was born that way
 
2012-04-17 11:12:38 AM  

MugzyBrown: c) He's lost control of one of his pitches and is able to maximize his other pitches for some batters, but not others.


Research, please.
 
2012-04-17 11:14:27 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Uncle Pooky: I'm sure there are lots of people in San Francisco who are happy to know Lincecum is off to a great start so far this year, putting up some of the best numbers of his career.

/I'm having a hard time locating the "Good Pitcher" column in the standings.

Is the point of this discussion "Has Lincecum been a good pitcher this year?" or "Have the Giants, as a whole, sucked when he's pitching?"

If it's the former, then we want to look at his FIP, xFIP, etc. If it's the latter, then, fine, go with ERA or whatever.

But using ERA to decide the former makes absolutely no sense.


I haven't mentioned ERA... so no, I won't go with it. My point about a pitcher's stats (specifically, the stats you mentioned) being hard to assign a value to was because of the team aspect. If the Giants, as a whole, suck when Lincecum is pitching, then all those excellent pitching stats provide nothing of merit. While they may point to a pitcher being "good," at the end of the day there's 24 other guys on the roster who also contribute to the team's record - which is the only stat that matters.
 
2012-04-17 11:16:27 AM  
Research, please.

He gave up 5 runs to the Phillies who are fielding an lineup that looks like the AC Surf.
 
2012-04-17 11:16:46 AM  
Everyone knew his body could not cope with his pitching style. His tendons are going to completely give out within another year and then he'll be lucky just to get the ball across the plate.
 
2012-04-17 11:18:10 AM  

Uncle Pooky: I haven't mentioned ERA... so no, I won't go with it. My point about a pitcher's stats (specifically, the stats you mentioned) being hard to assign a value to was because of the team aspect. If the Giants, as a whole, suck when Lincecum is pitching, then all those excellent pitching stats provide nothing of merit. While they may point to a pitcher being "good," at the end of the day there's 24 other guys on the roster who also contribute to the team's record - which is the only stat that matters.


Do you really not see the problem in this paragraph?
 
2012-04-17 11:18:12 AM  

MugzyBrown: c) He's lost control of one of his pitches and is able to maximize his other pitches for some batters, but not others.


He's K'ing righties and lefties at very similar rates (although that breaks a very small sample down even further, but whatever).
 
2012-04-17 11:18:49 AM  

MugzyBrown: Research, please.

He gave up 5 runs to the Phillies who are fielding an lineup that looks like the AC Surf.


Excellent research. I will submit it to SABR immediately.
 
2012-04-17 11:20:11 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: a) there is an injury that he's hiding or doesn't know about

And as I said in my Boobies, this is why the slider thing is the only reason I'd worry.


I agree completely. But I think he's healthy, just being cautious. Which of course is worrisome in the long term
 
2012-04-17 11:20:36 AM  
But he's forgiven since he smokes marijuana.
 
2012-04-17 11:21:06 AM  

WhyteRaven74: A good pitcher off to a rough start? Yeah, that never happens.


They can't all be Justin Verlander.
 
2012-04-17 11:23:08 AM  

ongbok: So now 2 or 3 games is representative of what he will do the entire season? If he has a 10.54 ERA at the All-Star Break then say something. But until then shut your hole.


While I agree that 2-3 starts isn't enough to judge, waiting for half the season to say something is going too far in the other direction. Give him 5-6 and see how it goes. That's enough to panic.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report