Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Bloomberg)   Matt Moore becomes the youngest pitcher to start 8-0 since some guy named Babe Ruth. That's just nutty   ( bloomberg.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Matt Moore, Babe Ruth, American League, Rays, guy named, Justin Masterson, Yankees, Joe Maddon  
•       •       •

637 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 May 2013 at 11:57 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-20 11:46:14 AM  
I'm sure you meant to say "some lady named Ruth," submitter.
 
2013-05-20 11:58:48 AM  
yay wins
 
2013-05-20 12:07:31 PM  
Oh, and, subby? Bloomberg is partially to blame here, but he's the youngest AL left hander, not just the youngest, to do it since Ruth. Clemens was younger when he did it in '86 as a righty; I'm not sure who in the NL was younger because I don't actually care about wins.
 
2013-05-20 12:08:12 PM  
the King of Clout?
i716.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-20 12:10:07 PM  
1) This streak will not continue for long if Moore can't find the plate (26 unintentional BB in 55 IP).  Tampa's defense is good, but it's not so good that batters will hit .197 on batted balls all season.

2) Then again, Bartolo Colon is presently trolling the K/BB aficionados, having pitched 47.1 innings, striking out 27 and walking.... 2.  13.5 BB:K!  Record pace!  Eat it, Bret Saberhagen!
 
2013-05-20 12:15:13 PM  
Who gives a sh*t about his record?
Can he hit?
 
2013-05-20 12:24:57 PM  

Crewmannumber6: the King of Clout?
[i716.photobucket.com image 850x567]


Yeah yeah.
 
2013-05-20 12:28:24 PM  

skrame: Crewmannumber6: the King of Clout?
[i716.photobucket.com image 850x567]

Yeah yeah.


On an unrelated note, my daughter just got a job as a lifeguard for the summer. I told her that officially makes her Wendy Feffercorn.
 
2013-05-20 01:11:15 PM  

DeWayne Mann: yay wins


It's 1/2 of the only stat that matters: TWTW (theWilltoWin).
 
2013-05-20 01:13:12 PM  

Crewmannumber6: skrame: Crewmannumber6: the King of Clout?
[i716.photobucket.com image 850x567]

Yeah yeah.

On an unrelated note, my daughter just got a job as a lifeguard for the summer. I told her that officially makes her Wendy Feffercorn.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-20 01:14:09 PM  

Tiberius Gracchus: DeWayne Mann: yay wins

It's 1/2 of the only stat that matters: TWTW (theWilltoWin).


Seems like it's only a quarter.

Or do prepositions and articles not matter in your world?
 
2013-05-20 01:16:37 PM  
Wins are a team stat, therefore Matt Moore's 8-0 record is more a product of the team's weak pitching than Matt Moore's ability.
 
2013-05-20 01:18:51 PM  

Outrageous Muff: therefore Matt Moore's 8-0 record is more a product of the team's weak pitching


Welp, you just broke my brain. Good job.
 
2013-05-20 01:20:35 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Tiberius Gracchus: DeWayne Mann: yay wins

It's 1/2 of the only stat that matters: TWTW (theWilltoWin).

Seems like it's only a quarter.

Or do prepositions and articles not matter in your world?


They don't matter, that's why they're in lowercase letters when written out. Clearly. I think. I don't know - Hawk frightens me, but his TWTW rant is amazingly lulzy.
 
2013-05-20 01:24:30 PM  

Crewmannumber6: skrame: Crewmannumber6: the King of Clout?
[i716.photobucket.com image 850x567]

Yeah yeah.

On an unrelated note, my daughter just got a job as a lifeguard for the summer. I told her that officially makes her Wendy Feffercorn.


Wendy Feffercorn, the hot lifeguard that all the boys lust over reminds you of your daughter. And you told her that.

That's... that's just messed up.

/checking profile to see if from the South
 
2013-05-20 01:29:12 PM  

Tiberius Gracchus: They don't matter, that's why they're in lowercase letters when written out. Clearly. I think.


Disagree. While there are very few stats with lowercase letters, I'd argue that the most important letter in wOBA is the w.

Tiberius Gracchus: Hawk frightens me, but his TWTW rant is amazingly lulzy.


You know, as bad as the TWTW thing was, there was a lot more going on there that bothered me more. One of his comments that led to that appearance was that "sabermetrics cost a lot of people their jobs," acting like that was just a terrible tragedy. He mentioned it in the interview as well, but it somewhat got ignored.

It was never totally lear who he was talking about there, but I can't come up with anyone that would make that a problem. Is he talking about managers getting fired for doing stupid things like bunting? That's a good thing. Is he talking about GMs getting fired for trading Bobby Bonilla for a terrible pitcher? Again, good thing. Scouts? Bad players? I'm not seeing why "better analysis leads to replacing bad employees with good ones" is a problem. It's not like these jobs disappear forever; they just go to different, likely more deserving candidates.

The other piece of stupidity that really stuck out was the whole "wouldn't you want to know how often it worked in the past? NO!" thing, which is just bizarre.
 
2013-05-20 01:33:41 PM  
I remember Moore's first game for Durham; Struck out 13 in 7 innings, game lasted an hour and 55 minutes. Sadly he wasn't here too long before he got sent up.
 
2013-05-20 01:42:52 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Tiberius Gracchus: Hawk frightens me, but his TWTW rant is amazingly lulzy.

You know, as bad as the TWTW thing was, there was a lot more going on there that bothered me more. One of his comments that led to that appearance was that "sabermetrics cost a lot of people their jobs," acting like that was just a terrible tragedy. He mentioned it in the interview as well, but it somewhat got ignored.

It was never totally lear who he was talking about there, but I can't come up with anyone that would make that a problem. Is he talking about managers getting fired for doing stupid things like bunting? That's a good thing. Is he talking about GMs getting fired for trading Bobby Bonilla for a terrible pitcher? Again, good thing. Scouts? Bad players? I'm not seeing why "better analysis leads to replacing bad employees with good ones" is a problem. It's not like these jobs disappear forever; they just go to different, likely more deserving candidates.

The other piece of stupidity that really stuck out was the whole "wouldn't you want to know how often it worked in the past? NO!" thing, which is just bizarre.



The best part was easily the "sabermetrics ignores defense" line. There was an entire MVP debate last year that centered largely on how much defense matters with saber people taking the guy who played really good D. Apparently Hawk missed that
 
2013-05-20 01:45:18 PM  

Rex_Banner: The best part was easily the "sabermetrics ignores defense" line. There was an entire MVP debate last year that centered largely on how much defense matters with saber people taking the guy who played really good D. Apparently Hawk missed that


Look here, son, I've got a copy of the rulebook open, and rule number 1 is "catch the ball." You only have to do it once, and that's approximately how many times Cabrera did that last year.
 
2013-05-20 01:46:31 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Oh, and, subby? Bloomberg is partially to blame here, but he's the youngest AL left hander, not just the youngest, to do it since Ruth. Clemens was younger when he did it in '86 as a righty; I'm not sure who in the NL was younger because I don't actually care about wins.


Not even a widdle bit?
 
2013-05-20 01:46:48 PM  

DeWayne Mann: You know, as bad as the TWTW thing was, there was a lot more going on there that bothered me more.


<snip>

I'll give him this - he's one of the few people from that old guard who vocalizes his distrust of the new direction of baseball analysis without couching it in terms of wishy washy excuses. But in the end he's just a confused old man lashing out at things he doesn't understand because they make him scared and angry. Heck I'm not sold on all of the SABR stuff yet, am not convinced of the predictivity of certain stats, whether they bring clarity worth the mathematical burden, etc. 

Hawk instead feels like Al Campanis struggling to explain why there are no black members of upper management- fumbling around in confusion, revealing on accident a lot of the inner workings of the old guard thought process, only Hawk lashes out instead of looking dazed (cuz he's Hawk effing Harrleson - the single worst announcer in Major League baseball).
 
2013-05-20 01:52:40 PM  

DeWayne Mann: One of his comments that led to that appearance was that "sabermetrics cost a lot of people their jobs," acting like that was just a terrible tragedy. He mentioned it in the interview as well, but it somewhat got ignored.

It was never totally lear who he was talking about there, but I can't come up with anyone that would make that a problem. Is he talking about managers getting fired for doing stupid things like bunting? That's a good thing. Is he talking about GMs getting fired for trading Bobby Bonilla for a terrible pitcher? Again, good thing. Scouts? Bad players? I'm not seeing why "better analysis leads to replacing bad employees with good ones" is a problem. It's not like these jobs disappear forever; they just go to different, likely more deserving candidates.


I guess you could argue that players who have skills that are difficult to measure (clubhouse leadership, coontil recently) catcher framing, "coachability" (*), smart guys who relay observations to other players and managers, etc.) could be undervalued by a shop that focuses excessively on numerical analysis.

Of course, Harrelson is famous for claiming that you "can't measure" things like clutch hitting or hustle, when in fact it's quite easy to do so.  It's safe to assume that any Harrelson argument is a dumb argument, but I'm trying to give a reasonable version of how sabermetrics could get a valuable player/coach fired.

(*): Here I mean guys that management are convinced will improve because they listen to advice, practice hard, etc.  Measurable down the road, but not early on.
 
2013-05-20 01:57:49 PM  

keypusher: DeWayne Mann: Oh, and, subby? Bloomberg is partially to blame here, but he's the youngest AL left hander, not just the youngest, to do it since Ruth. Clemens was younger when he did it in '86 as a righty; I'm not sure who in the NL was younger because I don't actually care about wins.

Not even a widdle bit?


....ok, I admit, I actually did take a peak at who did it in the NL. I found someone who was like, a month older than Matt Moore and then gave up.

But, no. Don't even care about wins a widdle bit.

Tiberius Gracchus: But in the end he's just a confused old man lashing out at things he doesn't understand because they make him scared and angry. Heck I'm not sold on all of the SABR stuff yet, am not convinced of the predictivity of certain stats, whether they bring clarity worth the mathematical burden, etc.


The problem, to me, is that Hawk is actually paid to analyze (and, frankly, teach about) the game. It's like having an astronomy professor at a major university still talking about how there are 9 planets. I don't care if that's how things were for 85% of his life; it's not how they are now.
 
2013-05-20 02:01:39 PM  

chimp_ninja: I guess you could argue that players who have skills that are difficult to measure (clubhouse leadership, coontil recently) catcher framing, "coachability" (*), smart guys who relay observations to other players and managers, etc.) could be undervalued by a shop that focuses excessively on numerical analysis.


I'm not entirely sure we can count any of those people as having lost their job. I mean, take Jeff Francouer. If sabermetrics was really getting these sorts of players fired, Jeff Francouer would not be in the league.

chimp_ninja: I'm trying to give a reasonable version of how sabermetrics could get a valuable player/coach fired.


The one that I sort of glossed over, but is sticking in my head, are the scouts. Some teams HAVE downsized their scouting departments. The issue is, as far as I know, none of them are what we would consider terribly sabermetric. For instance, I think the Orioles got rid of a bunch of minor league scouts.
 
2013-05-20 02:03:54 PM  
You're killin' me smalls.
 
2013-05-20 02:08:08 PM  
By the way, since this thread is a bit more appropriate, I'm gonna C&P my rant from yesterday:

I already hated pitcher wins, but [Saturday] my Red Sox almost lost the game because of them. Ryan Dempster was walking the house, and had 120 pitches already in the 5th. But Ferrell decides to leave him in solely so he could try and get the "win" (since you have to finish 5 innings). Instead, the Twins make a big comeback, and nearly tie the game, before Dempster finally got pulled.

Absolutely ridiculous managing, and all because of that stupid, worthless stat.
 
2013-05-20 02:12:24 PM  

Tiberius Gracchus: Heck I'm not sold on all of the SABR stuff yet, am not convinced of the predictivity of certain stats, whether they bring clarity worth the mathematical burden, etc.


The most critical people of SABR methods are other SABR people.

There's been arguments for years about "catcher's ERA", for example, centering on whether or not a good catcher really helps a pitcher's performance.  It was tricky to measure before the invention of PitchFx, which tracks pitched balls to a fraction of an inch.  You had to find a pitcher who threw a lot to several different catchers who were very different in ability to see anything before PitchFx, but nearly all teams use a system where one guy gets 80% of the starts, and only one other guy gets the other 20%.  Detecting a small difference between Catcher A and Catcher B was hard, especially when they're catching the same staff, coached by the same guys, selected by a GM who does/doesn't value that sort of thing, etc.  There was no meaningful way to lump all catchers from 30 teams into one study and see who did the best job of helping pitchers.

With PitchFx, people have determined that some catchers consistently expand or contract the strike zone, regardless of umpire or pitcher.  So a guy like Jonathan Lucroy or Jose Molina basically steals a couple wins per full season of play by converting balls into called strikes.  Putting Ryan Doumit or Jesus Montero back there has the opposite effect.
 
2013-05-20 02:15:08 PM  

DeWayne Mann: By the way, since this thread is a bit more appropriate, I'm gonna C&P my rant from yesterday:

I already hated pitcher wins, but [Saturday] my Red Sox almost lost the game because of them. Ryan Dempster was walking the house, and had 120 pitches already in the 5th. But Ferrell decides to leave him in solely so he could try and get the "win" (since you have to finish 5 innings). Instead, the Twins make a big comeback, and nearly tie the game, before Dempster finally got pulled.

Absolutely ridiculous managing, and all because of that stupid, worthless stat.


still nothing worse than a home team leaving the closer in the pen during extra innings.
 
2013-05-20 02:20:32 PM  

chimp_ninja: The most critical people of SABR methods are other SABR people.


Did you catch any of the Jon Heyman/Colin Wyers thing last week? I want to frame that whole "discussion" for whenever someone claims that there's some sort of sabermetric groupthink going on.
 
2013-05-20 02:21:00 PM  

DeWayne Mann: chimp_ninja: I guess you could argue that players who have skills that are difficult to measure (clubhouse leadership, coontil recently) catcher framing, "coachability" (*), smart guys who relay observations to other players and managers, etc.) could be undervalued by a shop that focuses excessively on numerical analysis.

I'm not entirely sure we can count any of those people as having lost their job. I mean, take Jeff Francouer. If sabermetrics was really getting these sorts of players fired, Jeff Francouer would not be in the league.


It's probably preventing him from getting offers from the Red Sox, Rays, etc.

chimp_ninja: I'm trying to give a reasonable version of how sabermetrics could get a valuable player/coach fired.

The one that I sort of glossed over, but is sticking in my head, are the scouts. Some teams HAVE downsized their scouting departments. The issue is, as far as I know, none of them are what we would consider terribly sabermetric. For instance, I think the Orioles got rid of a bunch of minor league scouts.


You'd think that teams would just replace "old-school scouts" who evaluated guys by the cut of their jib, and bring in video-review scouts with the computer skills necessary to assess a guy's speed, arm, the break on his curve, etc.  Sponsor some nice camera setups in developmental hotbeds, and relay all that information back to a central hub where specialists are gathered.

One of the big problems with the old system is that literally one guy would be watching a prospect.  If he wasn't an expert on, say, reading the breaks outfielders get on fly balls, it just wasn't in the reports.  Now, the guy at the park only needs to know how to gather the data, not analyze it.

Probably less expensive than having to pay dozens of experts to sit around backwaters.
 
2013-05-20 02:26:16 PM  

DeWayne Mann: chimp_ninja: The most critical people of SABR methods are other SABR people.

Did you catch any of the Jon Heyman/Colin Wyers thing last week? I want to frame that whole "discussion" for whenever someone claims that there's some sort of sabermetric groupthink going on.


Yup.  I certainly take the various defensive metrics with a grain of salt, and tend not to form much of an opinion from them unless they all agree over a few seasons.  Ditto the "skill vs. luck" DIPS argument, etc.  It's now pretty clear that "orthodox" DIPS is flawed, but probably still closer to the truth than just going off ERA.

Of course, the Hawk Harrelsons of the world see this and just conclude "Look!  Sabermetrics was wrong!" without noting that they weren't nearly as wrong as the previous methods of evaluation.
 
2013-05-20 02:27:53 PM  

chimp_ninja: It's probably preventing him from getting offers from the Red Sox, Rays, etc.


But that sort of thing has been going on far longer than sabermetrics has been around. The 70s Athletics loved speedy guys and hated power hitters. Was anyone blaming stopwatches for getting guys fired?

chimp_ninja: One of the big problems with the old system is that literally one guy would be watching a prospect.


And generally for only one or two games. It's a pretty big mess, all around.

Which reminds me:

http://scouts.baseballhall.org/

Come for David Eckstein being described as a "gritty gamer type", stay for Dave Littlefield calling Derek Jeter a "young colt" with a "hi [sic] butt" (and also being really, really wrong about everyone else he scouted).
 
2013-05-20 02:30:19 PM  

chimp_ninja: Of course, the Hawk Harrelsons of the world see this and just conclude "Look! Sabermetrics was wrong!" without noting that they weren't nearly as wrong as the previous methods of evaluation.


I think that the key phrase here is "previous methods of evaluation." I'm not entirely sure that's how Hawk would describe what used to go on. It was just "going by your gut" and things like that.
 
2013-05-20 02:45:57 PM  

DeWayne Mann: chimp_ninja: Of course, the Hawk Harrelsons of the world see this and just conclude "Look! Sabermetrics was wrong!" without noting that they weren't nearly as wrong as the previous methods of evaluation.

I think that the key phrase here is "previous methods of evaluation." I'm not entirely sure that's how Hawk would describe what used to go on. It was just "going by your gut" and things like that.


I'm pretty sure "going by your gut" was the method of evaluation back when Hawk played MLB.  (Ironically, he was a pretty valuable hitter who was probably undervalued because of his .239 lifetime average and the effects of his era on offense.  Of course, sabermetrics would have also noted that lumbering 1B/COF types with a 110 OPS+ aren't particularly rare.)
 
2013-05-20 02:46:23 PM  
www.survivinggrady.com
 
2013-05-20 02:49:21 PM  

chimp_ninja: I'm pretty sure "going by your gut" was the method of evaluation back when Hawk played MLB.


Don't forget about when he GMed, too.
 
2013-05-20 03:04:28 PM  
The take-home message for me is that a Ruth record stood up for 90+ years.  A pitching record.  Dude could really play baseball.
 
2013-05-20 03:05:16 PM  
Sure pitcher wins aren't a great stat to determine how well a guy is pitching, but it sure is neat to see something that hasn't happened in a long time.
 
2013-05-20 03:31:34 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The take-home message for me is that a Ruth record stood up for 90+ years.  A pitching record.  Dude could really play baseball.


It's worth noting that in 1916, Ruth was not only a good pitcher, he was rivaled only by Walter Johnson as the best pitcher in the AL.  +8.7 WAR just from pitching, 1.75 ERA, batters hit .201 (and slugged .221) against him, and he gave up zero HR in 323.2 IP.  Granted, peak of dead ball, but it was also an era when guys put up .400 AVGs by hitting 200+ singles every year.  A .201 average against was crazy.

Then, to top it off, he pitches a complete game 2-1 victory in Game 2 of the World Series.  Did I mention it was a 14-inning game?

If the Red Sox had been smart enough to let Ruth bat every day for his age 20-24 seasons, he probably would have retired with about 850 HR, and would also still be the all-time leader in runs, RBI, walks, and maybe total bases.
 
2013-05-20 04:14:24 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The take-home message for me is that a Ruth record stood up for 90+ years.  A pitching record.  Dude could really play baseball.


Yes, but it wasn't really a record; it's a stat with a qualifier. A ton of people have started 8-0**, but it's not worth anything because they're older than Moore or Babe Ruth*?

I'm a decent web designer/Xbox player/insert-other-things-skrame-does, but there are a ton of people better than me. However, I stand a damn good chance at being the absolute best "web designer born in Harvey, IL but living in NW Indiana" -or- "Halo 3 player born on [my birthday] with plates in his head".

*And because they're pitcher's wins, the merits of which have already been addressed.
** From ESPN/Elias: Seven other current major-league pitchers have started seasons 8-0 or better: Jesse Crain (8-0, 2005 Twins); Jon Garland (8-0, 2005 White Sox); Jose Contreras (9-0, 2006 White Sox); Jered Weaver (9-0, 2006 Angels); Josh Beckett (9-0, 2007 Red Sox); Tommy Hunter (8-0, 2010 Rangers); and Nate Jones (8-0, 2012 White Sox). [I think it's interesting that 3 of the 7 were on the Sox.]
 
2013-05-20 04:15:22 PM  

chimp_ninja: If the Red Sox had been smart enough to let Ruth bat every day for his age 20-24 seasons, he probably would have retired with about 850 HR, and would also still be the all-time leader in runs, RBI, walks, and maybe total bases.


And probably a 300 game winner as well.  Pitch him one game, outfield for the next three, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-05-20 04:32:26 PM  

skrame: ** From ESPN/Elias: Seven other current major-league pitchers have started seasons 8-0 or better: Jesse Crain (8-0, 2005 Twins); Jon Garland (8-0, 2005 White Sox); Jose Contreras (9-0, 2006 White Sox); Jered Weaver (9-0, 2006 Angels); Josh Beckett (9-0, 2007 Red Sox); Tommy Hunter (8-0, 2010 Rangers); and Nate Jones (8-0, 2012 White Sox). [I think it's interesting that 3 of the 7 were on the Sox.]


It's worth noting that two of those guys have never started a major league game in their life.
 
2013-05-20 05:02:18 PM  

skrame: Yes, but it wasn't really a record; it's a stat with a qualifier. A ton of people have started 8-0**, but it's not worth anything because they're older than Moore or Babe Ruth*?


Heck, you'd expect an average pitcher to start off 8-0 every 256 pitcher-seasons, and there are ~350 pitchers in baseball each year.  (Relievers may not reach 8 decisions in a year, but there's still ~150 starters.)  It's not weird to expect someone to go 8-0 every year, and the Elias numbers you gave support that-- 8 guys in the last 9 seasons, including only guys who are still active.

If the pitcher would normally have a .600 winning percentage, that chance rises to once per 60 pitcher-seasons.  Last year, 31 qualifying starters had a .600 or better, so you'd expect one team's "#1" starter to do it every other season or so.

So, not that weird.  Want a record that will be very hard to break?

In 1912, Rube Marquard started 19-0.  (Of course, he was playing for a .682 team that led the league in every meaningful offensive category, which didn't hurt.)
 
2013-05-20 05:07:30 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Outrageous Muff: therefore Matt Moore's 8-0 record is more a product of the team's weak pitching

Welp, you just broke my brain. Good job.


Err...maybe he....wait,....err....yeah.
 
2013-05-20 05:15:09 PM  

skrame: AliceBToklasLives: The take-home message for me is that a Ruth record stood up for 90+ years.  A pitching record.  Dude could really play baseball.

Yes, but it wasn't really a record; it's a stat with a qualifier. A ton of people have started 8-0**, but it's not worth anything because they're older than Moore or Babe Ruth*?

I'm a decent web designer/Xbox player/insert-other-things-skrame-does, but there are a ton of people better than me. However, I stand a damn good chance at being the absolute best "web designer born in Harvey, IL but living in NW Indiana" -or- "Halo 3 player born on [my birthday] with plates in his head".

*And because they're pitcher's wins, the merits of which have already been addressed.
** From ESPN/Elias: Seven other current major-league pitchers have started seasons 8-0 or better: Jesse Crain (8-0, 2005 Twins); Jon Garland (8-0, 2005 White Sox); Jose Contreras (9-0, 2006 White Sox); Jered Weaver (9-0, 2006 Angels); Josh Beckett (9-0, 2007 Red Sox); Tommy Hunter (8-0, 2010 Rangers); and Nate Jones (8-0, 2012 White Sox). [I think it's interesting that 3 of the 7 were on the Sox.]


The article said he got 8 wins in 9 starts.  Is that remarkable/noteworthy given that SPs pitch fewer innings nowadays?  Not snarking, just curious.
 
2013-05-20 05:20:58 PM  

keypusher: The article said he got 8 wins in 9 starts. Is that remarkable/noteworthy given that SPs pitch fewer innings nowadays? Not snarking, just curious.


Not particularly, more just quirky.  Usually, even a good pitcher takes a loss or two, or at least a couple of no decisions due to poor offense, or the bullpen blowing a lead.

This particular stat isn't exactly gonna get him a Cy Young award, or an MVP trophy, it just a nice little piece of info that the only person to accomplish it younger is one of the all time best players.  Really all it means is he's a very good young pitcher, and that's the extent of it.
 
2013-05-20 05:28:48 PM  
What does baseball have to do with a candy bar named after a President's daughter, Einsteinmitter?
 
2013-05-20 07:23:16 PM  

DeWayne Mann: By the way, since this thread is a bit more appropriate, I'm gonna C&P my rant from yesterday:

I already hated pitcher wins, but [Saturday] my Red Sox almost lost the game because of them. Ryan Dempster was walking the house, and had 120 pitches already in the 5th. But Ferrell decides to leave him in solely so he could try and get the "win" (since you have to finish 5 innings). Instead, the Twins make a big comeback, and nearly tie the game, before Dempster finally got pulled.

Absolutely ridiculous managing, and all because of that stupid, worthless stat.


Worthless? Nah.  Nice stat for trends.  Are there better stats? Sure.  But this is an easy stat to understand, and not everyone is as smart or cares as much as you.
 
2013-05-20 07:25:44 PM  

bhcompy: Nice stat for trends.


So what part of leaving Dempster in too long helped establish a trend?
 
2013-05-20 07:28:56 PM  

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Nice stat for trends.

So what part of leaving Dempster in too long helped establish a trend?


Forcing a situation to gain a stat is not the same thing as earning a stat normally.  You need (#games * 3.1) to qualify for a batting title.  If you have a broken ankle and you're short a few at-bats, your coach would be stupid for putting you in to meet the minimum.
 
2013-05-20 07:31:34 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Nice stat for trends.

So what part of leaving Dempster in too long helped establish a trend?

Forcing a situation to gain a stat is not the same thing as earning a stat normally.


So I tell a story, and you reply with something that has nothing to do with that story? Cool.

bhcompy: If you have a broken ankle and you're short a few at-bats, your coach would be stupid for putting you in to meet the minimum.


Especially since, unless your name is Melky Cabrera and the year is 2012, those ABs are added automatically.
 
2013-05-20 07:44:28 PM  
Although, in fairness, if it wasn't for wins, I never would've known about this neat trend:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?t=p&id=parrama01&ye ar =2009#58-61-sum

4 wins in 4 games? He must've been the best pitcher in the game!
 
2013-05-20 07:55:32 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Although, in fairness, if it wasn't for wins, I never would've known about this neat trend:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?t=p&id=parrama01&ye ar =2009#58-61-sum

4 wins in 4 games? He must've been the best pitcher in the game!


And who treats wins like that?  Do you treat batting average like that? Home runs? OBP? OPS+? WAR? No, you don't, so quit being a tool.  It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.  Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"
 
2013-05-20 07:59:22 PM  

bhcompy: And who treats wins like that?


People that don't think wins are worthless, presumably.

bhcompy: Do you treat batting average like that?


Me? No. Other people? Absolutely.

bhcompy: It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.


Oh, LONG TERM trends.

Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

bhcompy: Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"


Except for all the many, many times that doesn't work, sure.
 
2013-05-20 08:02:59 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?


Where did I say that? Can you even read?
 
2013-05-20 08:06:12 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?


No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?
 
2013-05-20 08:10:27 PM  

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?


No, you can brush up on your reading comprehension
 
2013-05-20 08:13:12 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?

No, you can brush up on your reading comprehension


Well, I just read and understood 5 words in a row. What a good trend I'm on!

I mean, sure, 3 of them were "a" and the other two were "the." And I got a lot of help from these 9 other guys who explained them to me. But those words totally belong to me.
 
2013-05-20 08:51:19 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?


You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?
 
2013-05-20 08:55:03 PM  

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?


Way to show the world that you're an illiterate moron. CLEARLY, what he said was "wins show trends when I want them to but not other times when they don't."

Why can't you see that?
 
2013-05-20 09:15:46 PM  

DeWayne Mann: chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?

Way to show the world that you're an illiterate moron. CLEARLY, what he said was "wins show trends when I want them to but not other times when they don't."

Why can't you see that?


For the reading impaired: Worthless? Nah.  Nice stat for trends.  Are there better stats? Sure.  But this is an easy stat to understand. It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.  Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"

No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".  Reading: So hard.
 
2013-05-20 09:18:50 PM  

bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".


Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.
 
2013-05-20 09:21:56 PM  

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.


To whom?
 
2013-05-20 09:23:55 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?


Well, let's see.

You can't use them to compare two pitchers.

You can't use them to determine anything about how good a pitcher is.

You CAN use them for some nebulous idea of a "trend," except there are several far better stats that can do that too.

...so I'd say that means they're worthless to everyone.
 
2013-05-20 09:28:28 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?


Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?
 
2013-05-20 09:31:12 PM  

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?


Shoot, even that tells me more than wins. Clearly, Bronson Arroyo read the rule book one or twice.
 
2013-05-20 09:37:49 PM  

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?


All stats have value, it's context that matters, but you knew that.

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, let's see.

You can't use them to compare two pitchers.

You can't use them to determine anything about how good a pitcher is.

You CAN use them for some nebulous idea of a "trend," except there are several far better stats that can do that too.

...so I'd say that means they're worthless to everyone.


Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less.  It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.  Of course, Moneyball explains this concept quite well.
 
2013-05-20 09:40:58 PM  

bhcompy: All stats have value, it's context that matters, but you knew that.


Ok, I'll give wins a value of .000000001, where Quality Starts have a value of 10 and FIP- has a value of 15 billion.

Fair enough?

bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis. Of course, Moneyball explains this concept quite well.


So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.
 
2013-05-20 09:45:36 PM  

DeWayne Mann: So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.


Dumb enough to get paid a lot of money to do what you're doing without the armchair.  If those idiots are the ones getting paid hundreds of thousands to millions, how does that reflect on you?
 
2013-05-20 09:50:53 PM  

bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.


Well, that must explain why high-strikeout guys like Josh Hamilton, Curtis Granderson, Dan Uggla, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, and Adam Dunn all make the major league minimum, therefore Placido Polanco is automatically President and Reggie Jackson has to sponge bath David Ortiz.

Kyle Lohse had the best winning percentage in baseball last year.  I recall that teams were engaged in a bidding war of epic proportions over him this past offseason.

You are smart and understand how baseball teams make personnel evaluations.  Don't let every person you open your mouth in front of tell you otherwise, sweetie-cakes.
 
2013-05-20 09:51:31 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.

Dumb enough to get paid a lot of money to do what you're doing without the armchair.  If those idiots are the ones getting paid hundreds of thousands to millions, how does that reflect on you?


Well, ignoring the fact that I have absolutely no desire to do anything related to baseball as a career...

You know who else got paid millions of bucks? The CEOs of Lehman Bros, Goldman-Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc.

But hey, those guys clearly knew better than everyone warning about things like subprime mortgages.
 
2013-05-20 10:59:24 PM  

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.

Well, that must explain why high-strikeout guys like Josh Hamilton, Curtis Granderson, Dan Uggla, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, and Adam Dunn all make the major league minimum, therefore Placido Polanco is automatically President and Reggie Jackson has to sponge bath David Ortiz.

Kyle Lohse had the best winning percentage in baseball last year.  I recall that teams were engaged in a bidding war of epic proportions over him this past offseason.

You are smart and understand how baseball teams make personnel evaluations.  Don't let every person you open your mouth in front of tell you otherwise, sweetie-cakes.


Are you Ricky Bobby?  Everything is binary with you.  If you aren't first, you're last, apparently.

And for every Hamilton making a quarter billion there's a Dunn making a few tens of million.  Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.
 
2013-05-20 11:02:20 PM  

bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.


You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.
 
2013-05-20 11:35:48 PM  

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.

You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.


For a very good power hitter it is respectable, but not great considering all of the players in front of him on the salary scale.
 
2013-05-20 11:41:58 PM  

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.

You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.

For a very good power hitter it is respectable, but not great considering all of the players in front of him on the salary scale.


And how many of those people play what is quite possibly the worst defense OF ALL TIME?

I mean, shoot. When Adam Dunn signed his contract with the White Sox (which, again, pays him an average of 14 million a year), his career OPS+ was 133, and he was coming off a season with a 138 OPS+.

David Ortiz's career OPS+ RIGHT NOW is 138. And do you know what his highest salary in any season was? 14.575 million (though he has a small chance of making 15 this year).

So how much, exactly, do you think Dunn should be making?
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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