Petition

[Flosman]

BTW the anology of saving change and baseball is terribly flawed. Good offensive teams would probably be much more successful if they could save there runs until they need them. Do you see the flaw? Of Course you will be better of with more money generally but you really only need it when you need it and in baseball there are no loans you can take out on runs.

[bryanman8]

There is no way Chen doesn't get on a rotation. He had a 3.83 ERA our next best was Lopez with a 4.90. So why in hell would anyone want to take Chen out of a starters jobs. There is no stat that is 100% going to tell you how a pitcher is going to be in the next season. You look at stats that support your cause and say the other stats don't matter.

He had a 5 something DIPS which is terrible. That's why. DIPS is ALWAYS A BETTER PREDICTOR OF NEXT YEAR'S ERA THAN ERA ITSELF. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that. ERA is a crappy stat and the opinion that a pitcher had a great season because of an ERA is quite franky wrong.

Example for the last line? I didn't think so.

And Drungo, so sorry to ashame our nice little group. Please, disown me because I advocate a NEW IDEA which may result in pitchers with ERAs of like 7 not being in a rotation!

[Frobby]

I'm tired of your insistence that things that relate to clubhouse affairs and the dugout are more important than performance. That's your opinion. This is mine. Mine is meant to prevent things that are statistically detrimental, like sacrifice bunting and giving 93 innings to a pitcher with a DIPS over 5 last year.

I think you have to separate out in-game decisions like sacrifice bunting, which really have no personal element to them, from personnel decisions. They are two different animals.

As to Perlozzo's bunting decisions, it is easier to see your point. Some decisions to bunt are just stupid. But last time I looked, every manager in the league makes occasional use of the bunt. Who are the top teams?

Detroit - 33 sac bunts

Yankees - 30 sac bunts

White Sox - 35 sac bunts

Twins - 23 sac bunts

A's - 21 sac bunts

Red Sox - 18 sac bunts

3 of the 6 do it as often as the Orioles do. Should Torre, Guillen and Leyland be fired?

Regarding DIPS, is that really a manager's decision? Did he decide to bring Chen back and give him a $4.25 mm contract? Once that decision was made, and after Chen had a solid spring training, who SHOULD have been starting in Chen's place in April and May? And I suppose that, by your logic, we should have actually taken Chen out of the rotation LAST year, based on the bad DIPS ERA he was generating? When Penn comes up, maybe we should pull Benson (5.79 DIPS ERA) from the rotation, and leave Rodrigo Lopez (4.79 DIPS ERA) in?

Now, if you want to use DIPS to argue that we should jettison Benson this offseason, fine. Again, not Perlozzo's decision.

[bryanman8]

BTW the anology of saving change and baseball is terribly flawed. Good offensive teams would probably be much more successful if they could save there runs until they need them. Do you see the flaw? Of Course you will be better of with more money generally but you really only need it when you need it and in baseball there are no loans you can take out on runs.

I don't know if your whole thing is a reference to playing for one run late in the game...that I'm fine with. I'm not fine with the times when Fahey was hitting 2nd and he'd bunt in like the first inning, nor playing for one with your hottest hitter up in a tie ballgame in extra innings in Texas where it would result in your real best hitter having the bat taken out of his hands after him.

Bottom of the 9th, runner on 1st, no outs, tie game; sac bunting is fine.

[TyCobb]

He had a 5 something DIPS which is terrible. That's why. DIPS is ALWAYS A BETTER PREDICTOR OF NEXT YEAR'S ERA THAN ERA ITSELF. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that. ERA is a crappy stat and the opinion that a pitcher had a great season because of an ERA is quite franky wrong.

Example for the last line? I didn't think so.

And Drungo, so sorry to ashame our nice little group. Please, disown me because I advocate a NEW IDEA which may result in pitchers with ERAs of like 7 not being in a rotation!

There is NO STAT that PREDICTS next season, NO STAT.

[Frobby]

ERA is a crappy stat and the opinion that a pitcher had a great season because of an ERA is quite franky wrong.

See, you lose me with statements like that. The objective of a pitcher is to allow as few runs as possible. The fewer runs he allows, the better a season he has had. It's that simple.

Now, if you want to argue that DIPS ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself is, I will assume you have statistical research that back it up, so that's fine.

[bryanman8]

There is NO STAT that PREDICTS next season, NO STAT.

You're so freaking ignorant. Your job is to get the BEST IDEA of what's going to happen next year. I know that no stat is 100% perfect. There are stats that give you a very good idea of what's going to happen though and it's far better to base decisions on the historically accurate stats than absolutely nothing.

I was 99.9% sure Bruce Chen would stink this season, Kevin Millwood would be a bad signing for the Rangers, Jon Garland would have a huge fall-off...

[bryanman8]

See, you lose me with statements like that. The objective of a pitcher is to allow as few runs as possible. The fewer runs he allows, the better a season he has had. It's that simple.

Now, if you want to argue that DIPS ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself is, I will assume you have statistical research that back it up, so that's fine.

No, the fewer runs he allows, the fewer runs he allowed. Which was good at the time and that's great. But it doesn't mean the PITCHER HIMSELF was that good. All of the time we see pitchers who are better putting up worse ERAs than pitchers that are worse, and usually this corrects itself the next season.

Chen could have been exactly the same this year and last year. Last year, he got very lucky. This year, he got unlucky. He's a 5-6ish ERA pitcher. Contrary to popular belief, luck, defense, randomness, etc. all play a huge role in influencing ERA. There are far fewer varying factors in DIPS, and that's a reason why it's a much better predictor of next year's ERA.

[DrungoHazewood]

I know. That's why the people who make up the 'history of baseball' aren't always right. I'm sure you know that.

Proposal on what's undervalued in baseball today:

The insistance on sending out a pitcher who you know is going to have an ERA above 5 because he improves the clubhouse is making teams give up way more than they should. It's stupid and outdated.

But you don't know that. It worked out that way in this case, but I'd bet someone with a different axe to grind could find plenty of counterexamples.

DIPS ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than plain old ERA, but it's just that: a predictor. And just one data point. What were Chen's previous DIPS ERAs and how did they compare to his straight ERAs? What effect would park and defense have on his real performance? Are there types of pitchers who consistently out- or underperform their DIPS predictions?

You could reasonably say Chen would regress this year, but no one could have made a fact-based prediction that he'd be among the worst starters in baseball.

Average, or slightly below, and I'd be on board with you. But running down the street yelling "he had a DIPS ERA of 5.00!!! I knew he'd be terrible!" and I'll take that with a big grain of salt.

[Frobby]

You're so freaking ignorant.

You would get a lot better reception around here if you didn't have phrases like this in so many of your posts.

I like statistics, and I learn a lot from posters like you, Drungo and 1970. But this is baseball we're talking about. The tone just isn't necessary.

[DrungoHazewood]

You're so freaking ignorant. Your job is to get the BEST IDEA of what's going to happen next year. I know that no stat is 100% perfect. There are stats that give you a very good idea of what's going to happen though and it's far better to base decisions on the historically accurate stats than absolutely nothing.

I was 99.9% sure Bruce Chen would stink this season, Kevin Millwood would be a bad signing for the Rangers, Jon Garland would have a huge fall-off...

That's enough of that. Either debate in a civilized fashion without the namecalling, or you're going to get some time off.

[bryanman8]

But you don't know that. It worked out that way in this case, but I'd bet someone with a different axe to grind could find plenty of counterexamples.

DIPS ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than plain old ERA, but it's just that: a predictor. And just one data point. What were Chen's previous DIPS ERAs and how did they compare to his straight ERAs? What effect would park and defense have on his real performance? Are there types of pitchers who consistently out- or underperform their DIPS predictions?

You could reasonably say Chen would regress this year, but no one could have made a fact-based prediction that he'd be among the worst starters in baseball.

Average, or slightly below, and I'd be on board with you. But running down the street yelling "he had a DIPS ERA of 5.00!!! I knew he'd be terrible!" and I'll take that with a big grain of salt.

What would it matter how Chen's DIPS compared to his regular ERA? Trying to suggest that he's permanently lucky or something?

The second-question is already analyzed enough; and to the third question, no.

I could have also made the executive decision not to put him on the rotation based on the fact that even when he was 'great' last season, he had a 5 DIPS. If he gets a bit worse next year, we're in big trouble. I didn't expect him to fall off this much, and I don't really care--this argument was not meant to be on DIPS, it was meant to be attacking the distaste of some to making smart statistical decisions simply because clubhouse affairs are hindered. Both are opinions. Paul continually tries to insist that mine is wrong, and thus I'm forced to rub stuff like Bruce Chen's ERA in his face, and he's still gonna say he doesn't care because it was a clubhouse decision and I'll always be wrong. Baseball refuses to adapt.

[orioles119]

I was 99.9% sure Bruce Chen would stink this season, Kevin Millwood would be a bad signing for the Rangers, Jon Garland would have a huge fall-off...

Well aren't you psychic. Come on, man... you CANNOT 100% know what's going to happen the next season. Did you predict that Corey Patterson would become somewhat reliable for the Orioles or did you think he would stink given his years in Chicago?

[AgentOrange]

You're so freaking ignorant. Your job is to get the BEST IDEA of what's going to happen next year. I know that no stat is 100% perfect. There are stats that give you a very good idea of what's going to happen though and it's far better to base decisions on the historically accurate stats than absolutely nothing.

I was 99.9% sure Bruce Chen would stink this season, Kevin Millwood would be a bad signing for the Rangers, Jon Garland would have a huge fall-off...

Wow, you think Jon Garland has had a huge fall off? He has been terrific since the AS break...

Millwood also is ranked 9th in IP and has 2 CG... I guess by your standards, he is a bad signing, but I believe they like what they have.

[bryanman8]

That's enough of that. Either debate in a civilized fashion without the namecalling, or you're going to get some time off.

Saying that someone is ignorant is not name-calling. When he's screaming ridiculous things into my face with his continuous insistance that his complete distrust of stats is right, the 'freaking' slipped and looked pretty bad. For that, I apologize.