Assume 22 starts, 132 IP, 3.25 ERA from Gausman this year...

[tntoriole]

No, unfortunately, the loss of Wieters, the marked decline of Hardy's power, the regression of Davis and Manny, the continued absence of any production at all from 2B and catchers who provide little, if any, offensive contribution will keep us out of the playoffs, imho. Gausman's development will help us but not quite enough. I hope I am mistaken.

[TakebackOPACY]

Data, please. Really, if you're going to assert that there is a spill-over effect from one starter's performance to the next you're going to have to provide something factual to back that up.

Sorry Drungo, but if you're going to assert that there is no spill-over effect from one starter's performance to the next, you're going to have to provide something factual to back that up.

UpstateNYfan, when you reply to someone's post starting with:

You really believe this crap?

how do you expect that person to reply?

Each pitcher's start is totally independent of the previous event.

You really believe this crap?

[DrungoHazewood]

I believe starters feed off each other's success.

I'll counter that with a cliche: Momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starter.

[Frobby]

Sorry Drungo, but if you're going to assert that there is no spill-over effect from one starter's performance to the next, you're going to have to provide something factual to back that up.

I think this would be a very difficult thing to prove or disprove with data. Let's say Gausman goes out and throws a great game, and the next day Jimenez goes out and throws a great game. Things you'd want to know: Were both games in the same ballpark, and is it a hitter-friendly or pitcher-friendly park? What was the weather? Was the opponent the same, and is it a good-hitting team or a weak-hitting team? Has that team been particularly hot or cold before facing Jimenez and Gausman?

I'm not going to say that the performance of one starting pitcher has zero effect on the others'. I just think that as a matter of pure logic, the effect is not likely to be very significant.

[mdbdotcom]

I'm not going to say that the performance of one starting pitcher has zero effect on the others'. I just think that as a matter of pure logic, the effect is not likely to be very significant.

Pure logic? Never heard of that kind of logic. Good one.

[TakebackOPACY]

As for the original post, Gausman is currently at 2.74 after 4 starts and 23 innings. So you're hypothetical has him approx. at 18 starts and 109 innings pitched with a 3.36 era averaging 6.056 ip/start the rest of the way.

If they're otherwise good enough to be on the bubble, he might put them over it.

[TakebackOPACY]

I think this would be a very difficult thing to prove or disprove with data. Let's say Gausman goes out and throws a great game, and the next day Jimenez goes out and throws a great game. Things you'd want to know: Were both games in the same ballpark, and is it a hitter-friendly or pitcher-friendly park? What was the weather? Was the opponent the same, and is it a good-hitting team or a weak-hitting team? Has that team been particularly hot or cold before facing Jimenez and Gausman?

I'm not going to say that the performance of one starting pitcher has zero effect on the others'. I just think that as a matter of pure logic, the effect is not likely to be very significant.

Good post. And on a separate note, I agree.

[LoyalBirdFan]

Are we discussing string theory? Does everything that happen have an effect on what happens in the future?

:scratchchinhmm:

I know this.... One guy I played with performed great when we were winning and visa versa. I'd say he was extreme when it came to his desire to win.

[mdbdotcom]

It's simple, really. A rising Tide raises all Birds.

[Ohfan67]

I think this would be a very difficult thing to prove or disprove with data. Let's say Gausman goes out and throws a great game, and the next day Jimenez goes out and throws a great game. Things you'd want to know: Were both games in the same ballpark, and is it a hitter-friendly or pitcher-friendly park? What was the weather? Was the opponent the same, and is it a good-hitting team or a weak-hitting team? Has that team been particularly hot or cold before facing Jimenez and Gausman?

I'm not going to say that the performance of one starting pitcher has zero effect on the others'. I just think that as a matter of pure logic, the effect is not likely to be very significant.

There are tons of studies of "momentum" in baseball. There are many, many, many types of time series analyses that can handle all of these autocorrelated issues.

This is a related piece from just three days ago: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/do-we-give-momentum-too-much-credit-in-baseball-061714

A quick look at a sampling of these studies suggests that if momentum exists in baseball, it has a small effect on performance.

[Ohfan67]

Sorry Drungo, but if you're going to assert that there is no spill-over effect from one starter's performance to the next, you're going to have to provide something factual to back that up.

)

This made me giggle.

[mdbdotcom]

There are tons of studies of "momentum" in baseball. There are many, many, many types of time series analyses that can handle all of these autocorrelated issues.

This is a related piece from just three days ago: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/do-we-give-momentum-too-much-credit-in-baseball-061714

A quick look at a sampling of these studies suggests that if momentum exists in baseball, it has a small effect on performance.

What studies have been done on the impact of team chemistry and social proof?

Is there a member of the 1966 Orioles who has not asserted that Frank Robinson made them all better? I'm not suggesting that Gausman is going to have as great an effect, but I do think that adding a pitcher with his level of talent to the rotation will make them all better.

[Flosman]

The problem advanced stats guys have with momentum, protection and the like is it is not really measurable and even less provable. But baseball is not really predictable to the degree that splitting out what causes deviations is easy or in many cases even possible. The deviations the advanced stat guys can't explain by normal patterns are simply put in the random (luck) bin. I suspect that a lot of the deviations are not random but rather hard to identify.

[DrungoHazewood]

The problem advanced stats guys have with momentum, protection and the like is it is not really measurable and even less provable. But baseball is not really predictable to the degree that splitting out what causes deviations is easy or in many cases even possible. The deviations the advanced stat guys can't explain by normal patterns are simply put in the random (luck) bin. I suspect that a lot of the deviations are not random but rather hard to identify.

If you can't quantify something, especially if you can't even prove it exists, you can't use it to make decisions. If Gausman makes everyone a better pitcher, great, but that's gravy, that's a bonus. You absolutely do not ever count on something like that.

A secondary problem I have with the unmeasurables is that they are a BS dump (that's a Bill James phrase). Since you can't measure them they become the cause of and cure for all the great and terrible things in baseball, and the best part is you can't prove it right or wrong. Guy's in a slump? It's because the momentum created by his lineup protection's leadership is all off. Go ahead - prove that's not the case. Any version of reality you want can be explained by intangible qualities, and if you try to dispute that Buck's leadership is worth 20 games (good or bad)... well, you don't get it.

[Ohfan67]

What studies have been done on the impact of team chemistry and social proof?

Is there a member of the 1966 Orioles who has not asserted that Frank Robinson made them all better? I'm not suggesting that Gausman is going to have as great an effect, but I do think that adding a pitcher with his level of talent to the rotation will make them all better.

I was typing a response, but it's a waist of electrons. Obviously you are going to believe whatever you want to believe. But don't you think it's odd that there's very, very little evidence that it exists?

Frank Robinson made the O's better because he scared the crap out of opposing pitchers and his team mates. But seriously, ball players are full of baloney all the time. Didn't you ever listen to Joe Morgan broadcast a game?