Jump to content

Petition


bryanman8

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Great post Paul. This is spot on.

The O's could not take him out of the rotation. I think they realized he probally wans't as good as he pitched last year and that theory is backed up a bit by the fact they put our best pitcher last year in the #5 spot to start the season.

Bryan...If you are a GM and you tell your players who have seen the team have consistently bad pitching that your best pitcher from a year ago in which we were in first place for 60 days would not be in the rotation, you lose their respect and there's a good chance that the clubhouse is divided somehow from day 1.

Although I agree with this, I'm going to switch sides for a minute. The REASON you lose respect is because of the conventional wisdom. Bryan is arguing that sometimes you have to challenge the conventional wisdom and follow logic instead. I believe that can be done, when handled properly.

SOMEBODY decided to stop having his starting pitchers go 9 innings. Did he risk angering his starting pitchers and causing some issues with his staff? Undoubtedly. SOMEBODY decided to go with a five man rotation. Did that piss off the other four guys? Probably.

If you have a pitcher who seemed to have a good season but who you think is going to tank due to DIPS, then isn't the logical thing to do to trade the pitcher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, since it's like 50 against 1, and some people have made my ears bleed, I'm going to bow out again. Need some backup to arrive.

I wonder why its 50-1...

You are one of the brightest people on this board, if you could only deal with us "common folk" a little better... :002_ssad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it done, oh wise one?

I just look it up. Don't calculate it, lol.

Did that actually make any sense to you? It's a representation of ERA. You really think they'd both be in the 2s the last 2 years?

Garland's is 4.56 this year. Millwood's is actually 3.87, which is pretty weird so perhaps Texas has just made him far worse, but I had predicted he'd be around a 4ish ERA pitcher for a year than nowhere near the ace Texas paid him to be, slowly becomming worse and worse throughout his contract. Said he was a 2-3 starter now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garland DIPs (if I did the math right according to Dreslough)...

2005 - 2.84 (through 221 IP)

2006 - 2.84 (through 173 IP)

Millwood DIPs...

2005 - 2.63 (through 192 IP)

2006 - 2.68 (through 176 1/3 IP)

Garland

2005- DIPS 4.39

2006 DIPS 4.56

Millwood DIPS...

2005- 3.88

2006- 3.87

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wasn't Chen worth more to the O's if they kept him around and hoped he could at least come close to last year's performance in th #5 slot in the rotation as opposed to getting less than fair value for him on the trade front?

When you say "less than fair value" do you mean less than what a 3ish ERA pitcher is worth or less than Chen's actual value? I bet he'd have been worth a lot more in the trade market then than he ever will be as a player. Thus, fair value really wasn't a consistent 3.5 ERA pitcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked you can't scream in words. I am confused why I am ignorant. ERA pretty much tells you how effective that pitcher was for that season. YOu look at OBP and say that the most important thing for an offense is to score runs. Well the most important for pitching is to limit the offense of the other team. If Chen had the BEST ERA on the staff, he was the BEST pitcher on the staff. By the way I do look at stats, but I don't look at stats and say that is all I need to know. I actually watch the games. Stats are pretty much numbers to describe what is not possible(watching ever single second of that players season.) I feel bad for people that look at stats and since it indicities something they use it for everything. I wonder what is the variance on DIPS ERA and the ERA of the next season. I bet it would be more than a run. I could do a better job with out looking at anything but ERA.

Most people scream in words. I don't know what else you can scream in. TYPING IN ALL CAPS is generally considered screaming.

ERA doesn't tell how effective that pitcher was for that season. It tells how many runs he allowed, that's all. Sometimes it's an accurate measure of the pitcher. Sometimes it's not. All the time, DIPS is a much better predictor of next year's ERA than ERA itself. So, if anything, DIPS is the one that's really telling how effective a player REALLY was for that season.

OBP is what leads the most to scoring runs. Striking out guys and not walking guys and getting groundballs is what leads the most to not allowing runs. Not some ridiculous formula that misvalues errors, values the bullpen behind you way too much, and counts on defense and luck way too much.

Chen gave up the fewest runs last year. He was not the best pitcher. He didn't change and like become a moron. He just is not a very good pitcher. He got extremely lucky when he had that great ERA. He was never the best actual pitcher. You're so fundamentally wrong.

I don't look at stats and say that is all I need to know either. In fact, I prefer scouting to stats when it comes to draft prospects, to an extent.

I actually watch the games too. If you didn't know, I just had an internship and watched all the games for like a month. If you didn't know, I really want to call you something again but the reactions of the mods forbids me from doing so.

I feel bad for people so uneducated in statistical analysis that they know less about baseball than everyone on the forum.

Your last few thoughts are jumbled and don't even make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Bill James know? He predicted Markakis would get over a .900 OPS this year, and he's only at .850. ;)

I may be wrong, but I recall that in various preseason projections that he made, long before spring training, wildcard pegged Markakis' OPS at .850.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people scream in words. I don't know what else you can scream in. TYPING IN ALL CAPS is generally considered screaming.

ERA doesn't tell how effective that pitcher was for that season. It tells how many runs he allowed, that's all. Sometimes it's an accurate measure of the pitcher. Sometimes it's not. All the time, DIPS is a much better predictor of next year's ERA than ERA itself. So, if anything, DIPS is the one that's really telling how effective a player REALLY was for that season.

OBP is what leads the most to scoring runs. Striking out guys and not walking guys and getting groundballs is what leads the most to not allowing runs. Not some ridiculous formula that misvalues errors, values the bullpen behind you way too much, and counts on defense and luck way too much.

Chen gave up the fewest runs last year. He was not the best pitcher. He didn't change and like become a moron. He just is not a very good pitcher. He got extremely lucky when he had that great ERA. He was never the best actual pitcher. You're so fundamentally wrong.

I don't look at stats and say that is all I need to know either. In fact, I prefer scouting to stats when it comes to draft prospects, to an extent.

I actually watch the games too. If you didn't know, I just had an internship and watched all the games for like a month. If you didn't know, I really want to call you something again but the reactions of the mods forbids me from doing so.

I feel bad for people so uneducated in statistical analysis that they know less about baseball than everyone on the forum.

Your last few thoughts are jumbled and don't even make sense.

I think I know a little more about statisics than you do. Aren't you like 15 or something around that. I am a Junior with a Double major in Information Systems and Mathematics. When I use CAPS, it is because I want to highlight that part of the post. Not allowing runs is the pitcher job. If he allows the fewest runs, he has done his job the best. Chen did that last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I know a little more about statisics than you do. Aren't you like 15 or something around that. I am a Junior with a Double major in Information Systems and Mathematics. When I use CAPS, it is because I want to highlight that part of the post. Not allowing runs is the pitcher job. If he allows the fewest runs, he has done his job the best. Chen did that last year.

Obviously, the correlation between mathematical courses and statistical knowledge in baseball doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, the correlation between mathematical courses and statistical knowledge in baseball doesn't exist.

Well Math Stats and Baseball Stats are the same exact thing. I am sure Bill James have Math people, help him to come up and improve stats for baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bit of a background in Mathematics and Statistics as well (definitely more business related than baseball related), and one of the first things I learned when I got my Six Sigma black belt (Nerdy business statistics accreditation) was that the numbers don't lie, that's what the statisticians are for. Using any statistic as a predictor is valid as long as you understand the inherent flaws in predictive statistics. That is why mutual funds are obligated to say that "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backup has arrived Bryan! For real though I completely agree with your argument, but ditch the tone. Condesencion won't sway anyone to your side.

Not to rehash the Chen argument, but any GM who had taken Chen out of the rotation before the season began, after he had the best ERA of any starter in '05, would have:

1. completely lost the respect of his players; and

2. probably lost his job, as dictated by reason #1

They might have temporarily lost respect, but that's because the baseball world is still buying into the old book. What Bryan is arguing is that a revolution in terms of thinking needs to occur. ERA is not a great statistic, so saying that he was the team's best pitcher because he had the best ERA is only correct if you believe that ERA is a good measure of success. Bryan does not believe this, so there's no logical inconsistency.

You simply don't show that kind of disloyalty to a player and expect to have any ground to stand on as a GM. These decisions don't exist in a vacuum. You have to be held accountable for your actions. (Are you still interning with a team? If so, you'll probably get a sense of this, if you haven't already.) I've never heard a GM say, "Sure, he had our best ERA last year, but I'm concerned about his DIPS, so we're not even going to give him a chance to crack our rotation this year." How do you think the team would react to that? Who would ever trust that front office again?

Would you consider it disloyalty to bench a player with a .225 avg? Would the player feel betrayed? No, because that statistic is accepted as truth. Most people thought it was appropriate to send Ensberg to the minors, despite a .850+ OPS, because dumber old school heads prevailed. Benching someone because of uncommon statistics would not be well received, but it would be if those statistics became more common. That's what Bryan' fighting for, shifting importance onto better statistics.

Nobody likes being benched, but nobody likes losing either. Bryan's is offering an opinion considered radical by most players, but you don't think they would come around if the team won more? Isn't that where respect really comes from, the ability to win? If Bryan's way does that more than the old way, he would win respect.

Peripherals or not, the Orioles had to at least give Chen a few starts to prove that last year was a fluke. Turns out it was, and he was yanked from the rotation. Fine. But if they hadn't at least given him a chance to build on his '05 success, they'd be alienating their team.

But what does any of this have to do with Sam Perlozzo? You're comparing apples and wildbeests.

Again you're assuming he had a great year last year, you're assuming the validity of ERA. This is exaclty what Bryan's disputing. Take away defense and luck, and Bruce Chen by himself as a pitcher did not have a great year last year.

I don't know what this "every time" stuff is, because I don't recall having any other arguments with you in the last few months. Not sure where this hostility is coming from.

And yes, of course this is my opinion. That's what this board is for-- sharing opinions. And in my opinion, calling for a manager's firing because he bunts too much seems like an overreaction, considering there are so many other, more important aspects of managing than how often you bunt.

Also, as far as Perlozzo goes, it's wrong to characterize my position as "clubhouse affairs are more important than performance." For a manager, earning the respect of his players and getting them to play hard and all that other off-field stuff is PART of "performance." In fact, it's the most essential part of a manager's job. As long as Perlozzo is succeeding in those aspects, does it really make sense to fire him for bunting too many times?

First off Bryan said it's more then bunting too many times, this is the latest example of a season full of poor decisions. Back to respect I'll just say what I said before. Winning earns respect. If people know their efforts and cooperation will lead to more winning, they'll do it.

Question-- is there any way to measure how Perlozzo's strategical decisions have affected the Orioles' performance? Is there any way to know what the team's record would be under a different manager? Which managers is Perlozzo better or worse than, from a strategic standpoint?

I can't comment on how he compares to other managers, I haven't followed other teams. Even if he compared favorably, that would only mean that baseball as a whole has a big problem, not that Perlozzo's doing a great job.

How does Perlozzo's startegy affect Orioles performance? Tough question but it can be answered statistically, it would take an enormous comprehensive effort to answer though. Given a bunch of specific situations, if people made decisions that had a greater chance of producing runs, or preventing them in that specific situation, it would add up at the end of the season. The right decisions might not even make a difference at the end of the season (see last night), but that would be highly unlikely.

I don't think we can answer those questions. Like I said, every manager in the majors will make some decisions we disagree with. We come down hard on Perlozzo because he's the only manager we watch on an everyday basis, but I betcha we'd be complaining just as much about Joe Torre or Bobby Cox's in-game decisions if we saw them every day, too. It's the nature of the beast.

That's my point. The decisions a manager makes during a game can be second-guessed until the cows come home, but there's so much more to managing than just calling for a bunt or bringing in a relief pitcher. Firing a well-respected manager in his first full year like Perlozzo just because he called for a bunt at an inopportune time would be a backwards-thinking, overzealous way of doing things.

The call for his firing was an overreaction, even Bryan admitted that. As to the respect thing, I've made my opinion known on that. What's really discouraging is Perlozzo's repetition of the same mistakes, I don't care if it's your first year if you don't learn from your screw ups. It shouldn't take you a year to realize what you've done wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...