MLB Topics

Started by Mr. Ypsi, February 08, 2008, 06:32:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Ypsi

In the entire history of the Cleveland Indians, only two players have had a career record of 30+ HRs and a .350+ batting average: Babe Ruth and Miggy Cabrera.  I'd say Miggy was in pretty good company, but I'm starting to think the Babe is in pretty good company! ;)  Miggy went 7 for 11 against Cleveland this weekend, which LOWERED his batting average against them this season!  (In 9 games, he is 22-34, 5 HRs and 15 RBIs.)  Probably that cannot continue, but at the moment he has the highest BA against a single team with 30+ ABs in the history of MLB.

And he is not leading in the voting for AL 1st B. :o ::)

mr_b

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2015, 12:16:08 AM
In the entire history of the Cleveland Indians, only two players have had a career record of 30+ HRs and a .350+ batting average: Babe Ruth and Miggy Cabrera. 
I didn't know either Miggy or the Babe played for the Indians.  Or are you talking about players who played *against* the Indians?

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: mr_b on June 15, 2015, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2015, 12:16:08 AM
In the entire history of the Cleveland Indians, only two players have had a career record of 30+ HRs and a .350+ batting average: Babe Ruth and Miggy Cabrera. 
I didn't know either Miggy or the Babe played for the Indians.  Or are you talking about players who played *against* the Indians?

Yeah, I didn't exactly word that clearly! :P

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2015, 12:16:08 AM
In the entire history of the Cleveland Indians, only two players have had a career record of 30+ HRs and a .350+ batting average: Babe Ruth and Miggy Cabrera.  I'd say Miggy was in pretty good company, but I'm starting to think the Babe is in pretty good company! ;)  Miggy went 7 for 11 against Cleveland this weekend, which LOWERED his batting average against them this season!  (In 9 games, he is 22-34, 5 HRs and 15 RBIs.)  Probably that cannot continue, but at the moment he has the highest BA against a single team with 30+ ABs in the history of MLB.

And he is not leading in the voting for AL 1st B. :o ::)

Cabrera is going to wind up at/near the top of a lot of all-time lists. I could see 600 HRs, 3,500 hits, and 2,000 RBI, which is insane.

Mr. Ypsi

#124
A scoring rule that has always nagged at me - why does the ENTIRE blame (in terms of ERA) for inherited baserunners who score go to the previous pitcher?  Shouldn't the guy who actually let them score get some of the blame?  I'm thinking of this today because the Tigers' Joba Chamberlain finally had his totally misleading 1.something ERA explode to 3.something after he started the tenth and gave up 3 earned runs.  I suspect that both he and Al Albuquerque (whose ERA is also 3.something) would have ERAs well over 5.00 if they received any blame for inherited runners who scored.

While a reliever who takes over a bases loaded (or even just man on third) situation with no outs who holds the opponent to a single run has done an excellent job, a reliever who comes in with men on first and second and two outs and gives up two runs has done the job of an arsonist! :o

So ideally, position of the runners and number of outs could be factored in, but that gets potentially very complicated.  I doubt it will ever happen, but can anyone explain why a simple .5 run for each of the first guy who let 'em on and for the reliever who let 'em in wouldn't be more fair and illuminating?

(And maybe it would even help brain-damaged managers like Brad Ausmas make better decisions.  He lifted finally cleared-to-play Bruce Rondon after two batters - both of whom he struck out - and totally wasted the two best relievers the Tigers have: Blaine Hardy and Alex Wilson - pulling Hardy after 3 batters, and two outs, and pulling Wilson after ONE batter, an out.  It may have been a blessing that the Tigers did not tie it in their tenth inning comeback - they no longer had a single player on the bench, and essentially no bullpen - and that is in only TEN innings!  I realize Sparky Anderson is dead, but some days I think he would STILL be better than Ausmas! ::))

Mr. Ypsi

Steven Matz (Mets) made his MLB debut today, going 7.2 innings with 2 earned runs.  He got the win largely by his own efforts, since he went 3 for 3 with 4 RBIs, both MLB records for a pitching debut.  I try not to get too carried away with a single performance, so I won't say "Move, over Babe - another pitcher/slugger has arrived!" :o ;D

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 25, 2015, 08:27:59 PM

So ideally, position of the runners and number of outs could be factored in, but that gets potentially very complicated.  I doubt it will ever happen, but can anyone explain why a simple .5 run for each of the first guy who let 'em on and for the reliever who let 'em in wouldn't be more fair and illuminating?


Eh, maybe it'd be better, but it still wouldn't solve the issue of position of runners and outs. I mean, if you come up with runners on the corners and no one out, a 6-4-3 double play may be a great outcome, even if a run scores.

The better solution may simply be to not pay attention to reliever ERA

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 30, 2015, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 25, 2015, 08:27:59 PM

So ideally, position of the runners and number of outs could be factored in, but that gets potentially very complicated.  I doubt it will ever happen, but can anyone explain why a simple .5 run for each of the first guy who let 'em on and for the reliever who let 'em in wouldn't be more fair and illuminating?


Eh, maybe it'd be better, but it still wouldn't solve the issue of position of runners and outs. I mean, if you come up with runners on the corners and no one out, a 6-4-3 double play may be a great outcome, even if a run scores.

The better solution may simply be to not pay attention to reliever ERA

To some degree I agree, but it is not just the relievers who are affected.  The ERA of starters can also be impacted, depending upon whether the bullpen is as good as the Royals or as pathetic as the Tigers.

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 30, 2015, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 25, 2015, 08:27:59 PM

So ideally, position of the runners and number of outs could be factored in, but that gets potentially very complicated.  I doubt it will ever happen, but can anyone explain why a simple .5 run for each of the first guy who let 'em on and for the reliever who let 'em in wouldn't be more fair and illuminating?


Eh, maybe it'd be better, but it still wouldn't solve the issue of position of runners and outs. I mean, if you come up with runners on the corners and no one out, a 6-4-3 double play may be a great outcome, even if a run scores.

The better solution may simply be to not pay attention to reliever ERA

To some degree I agree, but it is not just the relievers who are affected.  The ERA of starters can also be impacted, depending upon whether the bullpen is as good as the Royals or as pathetic as the Tigers.

Sure. The general point is that ERA is a flawed stat

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 30, 2015, 04:44:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 30, 2015, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 25, 2015, 08:27:59 PM

So ideally, position of the runners and number of outs could be factored in, but that gets potentially very complicated.  I doubt it will ever happen, but can anyone explain why a simple .5 run for each of the first guy who let 'em on and for the reliever who let 'em in wouldn't be more fair and illuminating?


Eh, maybe it'd be better, but it still wouldn't solve the issue of position of runners and outs. I mean, if you come up with runners on the corners and no one out, a 6-4-3 double play may be a great outcome, even if a run scores.

The better solution may simply be to not pay attention to reliever ERA

To some degree I agree, but it is not just the relievers who are affected.  The ERA of starters can also be impacted, depending upon whether the bullpen is as good as the Royals or as pathetic as the Tigers.

Sure. The general point is that ERA is a flawed stat

EVERY stat (pitching, hitting, fielding) in isolation is a flawed stat! ;)  Still, with the possible exception for starters of Quality Starts, ERA is probably the single best stat available - I just think it could be tinkered with for improvement.  (For hitters, if I had to go with just one it would be OPS - combining getting on base with hitting for power.)

cubs

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 08:21:45 PM
Still, with the possible exception for starters of Quality Starts, ERA is probably the single best stat available
Disagree....  Giving up three earned runs in six innings is considered a "quality" start. That works out to a 4.50 ERA for the game.

Now if the formula was two earned runs in six innings for a quality start, that is something I could get on board with.  Hell, four earned runs in 8 innings isn't considered a quality start, and that probably did more to help a team's bullpen!!!
2008-09 and 2012-13 WIAC Fantasy League Champion

2008-09 WIAC Pick'Em Tri-Champion

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: cubs on June 30, 2015, 09:49:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 08:21:45 PM
Still, with the possible exception for starters of Quality Starts, ERA is probably the single best stat available
Disagree....  Giving up three earned runs in six innings is considered a "quality" start. That works out to a 4.50 ERA for the game.

Now if the formula was two earned runs in six innings for a quality start, that is something I could get on board with.  Hell, four earned runs in 8 innings isn't considered a quality start, and that probably did more to help a team's bullpen!!!

Agree to semi-disagree: even at the current definition it at least gives a team a decent chance to win.  Whatever gives the bullpen a rest, and doesn't require the offense to go too overboard is good.

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 08:21:45 PM

EVERY stat (pitching, hitting, fielding) in isolation is a flawed stat! ;)  Still, with the possible exception for starters of Quality Starts, ERA is probably the single best stat available - I just think it could be tinkered with for improvement.  (For hitters, if I had to go with just one it would be OPS - combining getting on base with hitting for power.)

There's lots wrong with ERA. Besides the reliever issue you mentioned, it doesn't take into account the quality of the fielders behind you or your ballpark. Their are better stats out there that account for some of those factors

Quality starts is garbage. It only accounts for two factors of a pitcher's performance and has an absurdly low standard to clear. As such, it treats the following two performances equally:

9 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 16 K
6 IP, 5 H, 3 R, 4 BB, 6 K

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Bombers798891 on July 01, 2015, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 30, 2015, 08:21:45 PM

EVERY stat (pitching, hitting, fielding) in isolation is a flawed stat! ;)  Still, with the possible exception for starters of Quality Starts, ERA is probably the single best stat available - I just think it could be tinkered with for improvement.  (For hitters, if I had to go with just one it would be OPS - combining getting on base with hitting for power.)

There's lots wrong with ERA. Besides the reliever issue you mentioned, it doesn't take into account the quality of the fielders behind you or your ballpark. Their are better stats out there that account for some of those factors

Quality starts is garbage. It only accounts for two factors of a pitcher's performance and has an absurdly low standard to clear. As such, it treats the following two performances equally:

9 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 16 K
6 IP, 5 H, 3 R, 4 BB, 6 K

ERA, of course, partially corrects for bad fielding, since it only counts EARNED runs.  (I've long felt that unearned runs due to an error by the pitcher should be charged against his ERA.)  I prefer the basic stats (however flawed in isolation) that one can easily calculate in one's head as the game progresses over the 'advanced' stats.  (That may be heresy for a retired stats prof, but so be it! :D)

As to QS - ANY stat can be attacked with a reductio ad absurdum scenario.  Obviously QS does not by itself distinguish between a complete game, one-hit shutout and a middling (though qualifying) performance.  What I like about it as one quick-and-dirty statistic is in sorting out the starters who are reasonably consistently giving their team a decent chance to win and those who are subject to frequent meltdowns.  If you consistently get to the seventh with only three runs, you are saving a lot of wear-and-tear on your bullpen and a decent offensive team should win a majority of those games.

Jim Dixon

I hosted a wood bat summer player a few years ago who had an era of 0.00 but allowed three inherited runners score for the Giants in his only appearance in 2014.  The low era did not keep him on the team as he was sent back to AAA and removed from the 40 man roster. 

The bottom line is that player evaluation is not one dimensional.