Vanilla P & S interviewed live wire Jack McDowell Friday. 2 non sports, "data is god" guys interviewing a highly successful ex MLB pitcher who is anti sabermetrics, and highly opinionated about it. P & S mocked JM after he hung up. But, didn't really confront him on his anti data opinions when he was on the air. Then, praised each other for showing remarkable restraint during the interview. JM is attacking P & S bread & butter (data) both having little experience actually playing sports.

A true rarity on the Score to have a contradictory opinion. Even Shane R slipped and said, "That was the most entertaining conversation I've heard on this show in weeks".

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/b ... 0551585580

I imagine the arrogance of two guys who work in radio thinking they understand more about how the game is played than a Cy Young winner. It's sort of like a bunch of guys on a message board thinking they understand more about doing a radio show than Laurence Holmes.

Seriously, McDowell makes a lot of good points that the fan who has been immersed in statistics/analytics and thinks he is the equal of a big league GM because he has won his fantasy league three years in a row just doesn't want to acknowledge.

For example, Parkins obviously believes that the pitchers today are "better" and capable of striking out more batters than Jack McDowell. He doesn't seem to grasp that modern batters strike themselves out. In McDowell's era no batter wanted to strike out. Today's batters don't care about that. If you sent Parkins himself out to pitch a big league inning and made him stay out there until he recorded three outs, it's almost a certainty that at least one of those outs would be a strikeout. Of course there would be multiple hits and runs scored between the outs, but I guess he could say he was great because he struck some goof out.

Parkins also doesn't seem to understand that if you take a bunch of pitchers and train them to understand that they are supposed to be weaker the third time through the order, most of them will be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like when they first started with the pitch counts. The first generation of pitchers that was raised with pitch counts started looking toward the dugout when they got near 100. They expected that they were finished.

But I do think there are actual scientific causes for the inability of pitchers to go deep into games and their propensity for injury. And it isn't because they throw harder or are "better." I suspect that the problem is specialization. The arms never get a chance to heal. Warren Spahn pitched his high school baseball season then put down his glove and played football and basketball for the rest of the year and didn't throw a baseball for months. Today's top pitchers NEVER let down. They throw 12 months a year.

_________________
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

The data shows velocity + overuse = Injury. "Baseball" has decided to underuse starters(big money) and overuse the bullpen(small money).

He was also right on the one kneed catchers and the over dramatization of framing. Launch angle has been exposed.

McDowell was right a few times and made food for thought on others.

I am absolutely shocked that a notorious P&S basher is critical of their interview with JM and that an anti-metrics guy uses it as an excuse to trot out his tired, antiquated views. Yawnnnn!

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

After the interview reaching Parkins comparing projected pitchers salaries to projected analytical situational data was Parkins falling back to his high school debating glory days.

P & S referred to JM as "entertaining". Never discussing any possible validity of his points.

They portrayed JM post interview as a "zoo exhibit" compared to their "lovers of logic" views.

I think there's something to the third time through the line up phenomenon other than a self-fulfilling prophecy dynamic. Pitcher fatigue in combination with a batter's familiarity with the pitcher, give the batter a relative advantage.

However, I feel that modern baseball people fail to grasp that when you pull your starter, you're bringing in an unknown quality from the bullpen. Sure, your starter might not be as effective in the fifth inning as he was in the first, but is he really going to be worse than the guy coming out of the pen? Most starters are starters for a reason, they're better pitchers than a reliever.

Also, it's one of my biggest sports radio pet peeves when a show has a guest on, the hosts don't criticize the guest while he's on the air, and bad mouth him when he's off. If you gave the guy a chance to respond to your arguments while he was on the air and want to discuss those responses when he's off, fine. But, you can't introduce those arguments for the first time when the guest does not have a chance to respond to them.

So you actually think the Parkins and Spiegel know more about baseball, how to play baseball, how to get guys out in baseball, than a former Cy Young winner.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

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

Likely three time winning fantasy GM. Probably subscribes to Prospectus. Possibly took a 101 level statistics class but doesn't really have the slightest understanding of the field. Not as unique as he thinks. Yawnnnnn!

_________________
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

Sure. But it would be like every racehorse never being allowed to work beyond 3 furlongs and then when they all failed going a mile to use the "statistics" to support the idea that horses can't run a mile effectively.

_________________
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

That's really the question, isn't it? But it isn't the one that's being asked. The question being asked is if the starter is worse the third time through the line up than he was the first two times and obviously in most cases the answer to that is yes. But what they should be asking is whether he's better the third time through the lineup than some middle reliever is the first.

I realize this is antiquated thinking but there's an old saying about Bob Gibson after he's thrown eight shutout innings. Who is the best cardinal pitcher available to finish the game? Bob Gibson.

_________________
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’m sure there’s a few Cy Young award winners are indeed baseball idiots whose ideas should be ignored. But Jack isn’t one of them. There’s still a weird Hub Arkush “where’d you play your college ball?” appeal to authority going on.

Yeah, I don't like that either. But I find those who arrogantly dismiss the thoughts of the greatest second baseman to ever play as if he has no insight to be worse.

_________________
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'd always been pro-sabermetrics, but to passionately defend them now is to embrace the unwatchable state of the game today. It doesn't work when everyone does it.

_________________

I didn't hear the interview. But McDowell spent last year as the manager of the Appalachian League team near me, the horribly renamed but family friendly Burlington (NC) Sock Puppets.

He wasn't invited back to manage this year.

In interviews last year around promoting that team, he seemed a bit of a crackpot. But that may have been a little bit of keyfabe.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

The reliance on analytics has ruined the game. But I would go further than that. There's a generation of know-it-all fans like Parkins and the guy who took a shot at me above who are just as arrogant and hidebound as the scouts that SABRmetrics has replaced.

The Royals played in two WS and won one very recently doing the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom demands.

_________________
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 don't know this for fact, but I would have to assume that when the quants came up with the third time through the lineup theory, they looked at data from before the point when pulling the starter the third time through became a common practice. Stated another way, I'll bet if you look at data from the 80's you'll see a drop off in effectiveness the third time through the lineup.

I’d agree with that. Where I took issue with JM was when he stated that pitchers don’t have more velocity now than in his era based in the eye test, and also when he made the blanket statement that there are no analytics stats that are useful today. I think Speigel was right when he said there is a bit of truth on both sides.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

Interesting that you (correctly) cite KC when JM stated that every team followed analytics. And FWIW, both P&S agree that analytics has made the game worse for the fans.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

The difference in where they measure is true and it does have an effect but to say they are throwing at the same velocity is silly. These guys are trained for pure velocity and many more rely upon that now than back in his day.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

Guests with contrary opinions were common place at the old Score. This use to happen all the time on various subjects.

That gets back to whether the fresh guys in the pen are better than the starter at that point. There were plenty of guys who handled line-ups the third time through.

_________________
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

Thanks Vito for the link. I'll listen to it later.

As for P/S knowing more than a Cy Young Award winner. I can assure you, they wouldn't know more than a guy who played Single A. Anyone who's actually played the game on any professional level will know 1000x more than some writer/radio person. Doesn't need to be a Cy Young winner.

Ya this sabermetrics has ruined baseball. I'm talking from attracting new fans. It's like some foreign language they're speaking, WAR, BWAR, etc.... I don't mind if they kept it to themselves but these sabermetric guys have some insecure need to tell everyone how smart they are and if you're not on board they think of you as a ignorant fan.





Damn - best baseball post I've read anywhere in quite some time. I really like the self-fulfilling prophecy theory.

That and the fact they know they only need to get a limited number of outs. When starters were expected to go 7-8 innings they didn't just let it all hang out in the first.

McDowell touched on that without really getting into it and Stone talks about it on occasion. A pitcher used to game plan. Okay, I'm not gonna show this guy this pitch in the fourth because I'm gonna use it to wipe him out in the seventh. That approach is gone. The pitcher doesn't worry about the seventh because he won't be in the game.

_________________
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

This is a bad take.
Just because you play baseball on any level (especislly single A) doesn't mean you're somehow more qualified to speak of it than someone who has observed baseball for 40 years and makes a living writing and dissecting it. There are some guys who played ball who are the dumbest motherfuckers you've ever met.
Now I agree that some sabr guys are preening needing to be the smartest man in the room wieners. But I feel like Spiegel geeks out hard at baseball and has seen more games and has talked about it more with people who know baseball than anyone here or some chikfila cashier who moonlights as a A ball right fielder.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

That’s fine . Matt Spiegel doesn’t know more about baseball than Jack McDowell though . Period end of story .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

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

Spiegel's baseball talk forte is interviewing knowledgeable ex players, or baseball people, and trivia. His charade as being a baseball expert on the Score is ridiculous.

I think there will be a trend towards more pitchers who are good to be able to go 9-14 batters once a series. What the Rays called a "bulk pitcher" as they learn to throw more pitches. They can probably stretch out to twice through the order in the occasional spot start as well. Seeing guys once a series would make it more difficult for batters to make adjustments.

That is how I thought the White Sox should have used Kopech last year, 40-50 outings all at least two innings and preferably 3 to 4. 45 outings averaging 2.5 IP would have been 115 innings.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

I caught a lot of this. The old man kept yelling and yelling at the cloud