I wasn't getting off track. You brought up the scenario and said "it wouldn't work" which would obviously seem to indicate you thought the team would not be good. That's how JORR and I interpreted it. I didn't realize your point was that it was unfair to the pitchers. But why is it unfair if W/L isn't important?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I meant it would be impossible to get the five best pitchers on the planet. And I'm saying that if we take JORR'S theory a step further, we are saying offense doesn't matter at all. You could have a group of high schoolers as a lineup, but it wouldn't matter because the better pitcher should win anyway.

W/L is not irrelevant, but it's also flawed if used alone to evaluate a pitcher.

I was kidding about the pot, and I'm disappointed there was no witty retort.

_________________

Too high to think of a comeback.

But JORR has always said he allows for exceptions, like all rules do. If an offense scored 200 total runs in a 162 game season I'm positive he would say the W/L record of that teams pitchers should be disregarded, or at the very least viewed within the context of having an unrealistically bad offense behind him. He's used the specific criteria of less than a run difference between the offenses as a point where the offenses of each team are not important. I agree with him on that. A lineup of high school hitters would be quite a few runs per game worse than any other team's offense, which would invalidate the starting pitcher W/L record theory.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Okay, but then the statistic is no longer W/L. It is W/L within a certain criteria. We have now abandoned the theory that a pitcher is charged with always beating the other pitcher. JORR clearly stated in another thread that run support is a myth. That doesn't seem to align with what you're saying here.

_________________

He's always maintained that it's a myth within the parameters that these are all major league offenses. Introducing a lineup of high schoolers would completely change the argument.


It's similar to vegan's(and many others) NBA star theory. Vegan says if an NBA team has the two best players in a series they will always win. But that's going with the assumption that these are all obvious pro players. I'm sure he would agree that Durant, Westbrook, and 10 fat middle aged guys would get swept every time by the Spurs. That's not abandoning his original star player theory. It's modifying it given the change in situation and circumstance.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Thanks. What does JORR think about the Middle East situation? How about this year's draft?

_________________

I hate you. I hope Leash Jr becomes a Republican, a Spurs fan, and someone who embraces W/L and the value of the RBI.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You forgot Packers fan.

Have a good Memorial Day, my friend.

_________________

You too man.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Well, it certainly wasn't friendly. Nor did it move the discussion forward. Anyway, many people have made the statement that "W/L record is meaningless" or some variation thereof, on this message board, on the radio, and in life. I hear Len Kasper say it almost every time he comes on with Mac & Spiegel.

I've never denied that a pitcher can be stuck on a bad team with a poor offense and that that could have an effect on his W/L record. But as bad as the Cub offense is, it's shown itself to be capable of scoring 17 runs in a game vs. the defending NL champs. It may well be that Jeff Samardzija is a poor victim who is actually a great pitcher ready to join a superior offense and win 17 games each season. You won't know that until after you pay him. And when you pay him, you may find out that he receives more "support" but then allows more runs. And then the argument will simply be that he isn't pitching as well as he did with the Cubs. And my argument will be that he's pitching the same way within a different context and that's he's a loser. And we'll never really know the truth because it can't be measured.

But back to Sheehan and his stupidity regarding Price. Clearly, he's dazzled by Price's inhuman K/BB rate. That's blinding him to reality. And although real SABR guys like to talk about science a lot, the blowhards like bernstein and Sheehan are not up to scientific rigors. They see an angle and write the narrative. They don't ask the right questions because the answers might ruin their story. I haven't examined every batted ball Price has allowed but I look at his strange K/BB ratio along with his higher ERA and huge amount of hits allowed and the first question I ask is, is he throwing too many strikes? And that raises a larger baseball question about throwing strikes. If there was a mythical pitcher capable of throwing a strike every time, should he actually do it? I think the answer is obvious.

Finally, there was a time when walks were viewed as something a pitcher allowed rather than as something that a batter drew. That's why guys like Max Bishop and Ferris Fain and Eddie Yost were under-appreciated in their times. That's changed today to the point where a guy who walks a lot is revered. But it leads me to the question of why then, do we see a strikeout as something a pitcher achieves rather than as a failing of the batter? And should we reexamine that viewpoint in light of the fact that teams are striking out an average of 7+ times per nine innings regardless of who is throwing the baseballs?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

They dont ask ANY questions. David Price is awesome. That's the story. How can we explain away that his whip is higher than his career average?

if that pitcher existed, he would simply be dominant. You realize how big the strike zone truly is, don't you?

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.

You're assuming this pitcher can also throw it on the corners of the zone. If he's all over the strike zone he's going to get hit.

And hitters can cover enough of it. They're going to guess and sometimes be correct. Thought process, DJ.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I don't care for all this blaspheming.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I believe Maddux could throw a strike 100 times in a row if he wanted to.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Maybe. There have been a lot of guys with freakish control. Lamar Hoyt and Dennis Eckersley come to mind. Anyway, the point is if you're striking out so many guys and walking so few but getting hit so hard, it's more likely that there's something wrong with the pitch selection than that you're unlucky.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Colon threw 38 straight strikes in a game a couple years ago

As a hitter if you know a strike is coming every time, that would be pretty easy. See and swing.

I dunno at what point you could rule out chance causing the results. mebbe 100 balls in play? 200?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Again, I haven't seen Price pitch much this season, but I remember several games where Buerhle was striking out an uncharacteristic number of guys but getting banged around between those strikeouts. I'm certainly not comparing Buerhle to Price from a stuff standpoint. Price clearly has more room for error. But I do think it's pretty obvious that if you throw too many pitches in the strikezone, eventually guys are going to start lashing them all over the field.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

he's lost a good 3-5mph on his fastball and he's hot garbage this year. and that's the worst timing imaginable for the rays.

_________________

But he's striking out more guys than ever. Which leads back into my question, if we think a hitter is responsible for drawing a walk as much or more than a pitcher is responsible for issuing it, why don't we view strikeouts the same way?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I have a pretty simple theory


Dont give up over 1 HR per start


I guess Sheehan would say those home runs are just dumb luck, but Price is nearing his nearing his yearly average and its May

I don't think the SABRmetric viewpoint is that homers are dumb luck. I believe they are categorized as something a "pitcher can control". Although, I don't see why playing in a larger park that just happens to hold a ball that was crushed wouldn't be lucky. I don't think SABRmetrics have yet supported the concept of "pitching to the park".

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I know, that's why Sheehan is a moron. The two things they insist are most important (pitcher strikeouts and homeruns given up) tells the whole story.

But like we said, he had his answer first and then went looking for data to back it up.

From a statistical standpoint, I think BABIP only applies to pitching (relatively small variation across pitchers, whereas hitters have a bigger range). As for why or whether the data is useful, I think it's like comparing fundamental analysis with technical analysis of the financial markets. Some stats are presented as empirical evidence/proof without knowing the underlying causes. I believe the BABIP stat is one of those (it seems to be counterintuitive -- one would think that a good pitcher can "saw off" a batter and get him to hit weaker balls, but for some reason, most pitchers, good and bad, will end up with about the same BABIP). If the data is pretty consistent, even if unexplained, I think it's okay to consider it.

_________________

Of course. Mike Trout is going to have a higher BABIP than Gordon Beckham. The batting average on line drives and bunts is higher than on other types of batted balls.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Its only useful to check and see if extremes are involved


Like when a guy is at .423, he's probably getting a little lucky. And vice versa.

I think it's probably a mistake to view a hitter that way. As Jawbreaker points out, batters can have widely varying BABIP. So maybe the guy is just having a good year and cracking a lot of line drives or laying down good bunts. It seems pitchers will always be around .300 over a large enough sample, so if a pitcher is allowing that .423 BABIP, he's probably the guy getting unlucky.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I guess how it depends on you define "widely"

Not gonna find too many .420 bapips for a full season.

I should have mentioned this in the first post but its good to put perspective on small sample sizes too.


When 4th OF guy career .240 guy is hitting .380 at the end of April sometimes you can see why.




But when a guy is above .400 or below .200 there is probably some luck involved.