I'm just trying to understand you. You now want to take a relatively small sample within a larger season and use it as evidence of "run support". This is exactly why I use quotation marks around "run support". Because it doesn't exist. It's a fiction. At the very least, the people who use it aren't certain how to define it. Is it the amount of runs that the opposing pitcher allows in the games that the pitcher in question started? It can't be that, because that's as dumb as Tim McCarver saying, "The team that scores the most runs will win this game." Is it the overall offensive capabilities of a team as evidenced by their average runs per game? I was pretty sure that was what you meant by "run support" since you have previously been so vociferous in your opposition to my contention that a fraction of a run per game is negligible. But now, run support means something else. Apparently the amount of runs a team has scored since the trade deadline.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

You're not making any sense.


A fraction of a run is a lot. That's the point


In the first half of the season, Oakland's offense was deep and dangerous, arguably the very best in baseball, scoring 4.91 runs per game.

Since the break, however, the A's are managing merely 4.28 runs per—a decrease of more than half a run.


If you werent so deep in the forest of your misguided opinions you'd see what run support is


Run support = runs scored while that pitcher pitches. (Its why Gavin Floyd won 17 games one year and why Felix Hernandez only won 14)

Getting Miguel Cabrera out has a difficulty level. Its much higher than Javier Baez. A pitcher facing the Cubs and Tigers. even on the same day, has a much different difficulty level.

Its not dumb. Its just simple but you dont like it because it undermines your whole take.


No one has changed what run support is. You're misunderstanding/misapplication cant be put on other people.


Do you even realize what you're sayiing? You're essentially arguing that the runs the A's scored before Samardzija was on the team should somehow be helping him win now?


I shouldnt have to point out this very obvious truth but when judging Samardzija on the A's you should ignore everything that happened before he was...On the A's

RPB I agree. Complaining about the way he has pitched is silly. That being said I couldn't be happier with him gone. He'll never be worth $100M in my baseball world.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Agreed

I dont think anyone believes that (including Samardzija himself)

You have changed the definition though. The A's average more runs per game than anyone Samardzija faces.

If " run support" means the runs scored by a pitcher's team in the games he pitches, then that is far more dependent on the opposing pitcher than on the .007 percent of the seasonal at-bats of the batters in that game. If so many pitchers can limit a higher scoring offense better than Samardzija limits a lower scoring one, how good can Samardzija be?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

what's the A's run support in the games he's pitched so far?

I honestly havent looked. I know they've been bad overall lately.

That's not reality though. The team that put up those numbers had Moss hitting a ton of homers and Cespedes. That is not the Curren A's team.


I never said Samardzija was great. He's good. He's a good pitcher.

They've scored a total of 5 runs in 3 of his 4 defeats.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

But you said that "Run support = runs scored while that pitcher pitches". You also said "You're essentially arguing that the runs the A's scored before Samardzija was on the team should somehow be helping him win now".
So how would the team's overall run support (including games he doesn't pitch) be considered in your argument. It seems contradictory.

FYI, the A's have scored 5.36 runs per games in games started by Samardzija.

He's gave up a total of 7 earned runs in those games.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Run support is what they score in his starts

Runs per game is what the offense generally scores. Usually the two are similar. When they're vastly different the W-L % is affected.

The A's have been vastly different in August than they were the first four months. You can ignore that i guess, but I think it matters.


Its a pretty small sample size so far with Samardzija. He's been pretty average though.

That isn't the answer to the question.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

So, in spite of his greatness, lesser guys have pitched better vs. a better offense in those games, right?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

When Samardzija gives up 2 or less runs, he's 4-1. When he gives up 3 or more runs, he's 0-3.

The point I was making is most pitchers will usually win games where they only give up 2 runs. The results haven't been there but with the exception of the game he gave up 7 runs in he has been good. He's never been great to me and it's unlikely that he ever will.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

His 4 losses


8ip 3ER
6.1ip 3ER
3.2ip 7ER
8ip 1ER



3 of those are decent starts

That's probably true, but I'm not certain. It actually may not be. There are forty qualified starters and the highest ERA is Chris Archer with 3.40. The median is around 3.00. It's not 1994 anymore. I think we need to adjust our thinking on what constitutes a "good" outing for a pitcher.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

and...

And nothing. They are decent starts.

There's another interesting argument here. I know the popular sentiment is also that "RBI are meaningless". bernstein was lauding the Lester deal for Oakland and going on about how Cespedes isn't as good as people think based upon certain "numbers". I assume mainly his relatively low OBP. This is the same argument that is often used to denigrate guys like Joe Carter and Jim Rice.

But as you correctly point out, the Oakland offense is vastly different (worse) without Cespedes. I assume whoever has taken his place gets on base more than 30 percent of the time. But the game doesn't work that way- by simply plugging numbers into spots. Cespedes is a lineup centerpiece. Pitchers are game planning around his position in the order. "Am I facing him this inning?" "Can I get this last out so he is leading off the next inning?" "I don't want to face him with men on base." That's a run producer. He's not just some lucky guy who comes up with a lot of men on.

Where the anti-RBI argument goes wrong is the assumption that some other guy with a higher OBP or some other guy who came up with more men on would automtically drive in more runs. Obviously, the men have to be on base for them to be driven in. That's an incontrovertible fact. What isn't a fact is that some guy with a higher OBP can be plugged into the spot of a Rice or a Carter or a Cespedes and drive in the runs those guys did/do.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Id say this is a good argument for why opposing pitchers often have vastly different jobs. All that psychology is worth something.


The problem with the RBI stat is guys on bad teams get punished. But that's not an argument against clutch

I like BA with RISP or with Runners on base

This is true. OBP is important but in a run scoring situation having a guy that is feared in the lineup is even more important. The guys in front of him will see better pitches.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I would say "punished" is too strong a word. Yeah, they may have less chances. But everyone knows a bad team. Sure, a guy drives in 100 runs on a team that scores 500, he's a beast, and probably had a better season than the guy who drives in 120 on a team that scored 850. The thing is- and as we're in agreement in the case of Cespedes- the difference between a "good" offense and a "bad" one is often that centerpiece middle of the order guy himself.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I guess "decent" wasn't good enough on those days.

Yep. Other times the offense might have made it good enough.

Oakland is 22nd in runs scored since the trading deadline. The Cubs are 15th.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

So then a fraction of a run per game over the course of a season isn't a big thing? Or it is? I'm so confused!

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Of course it is.

Nothing IMU wrote suggests anything different.

Poor Jeff Samardzija can't get a break. Cubs can't score when he pitched here now Oakland can't either. All he does is pitch great.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.