Miguel Gonzalez Out Bud Norris In For Game Three

[waroriole]

But then would could just as easily argue that Bud doesn't control what happens to the ball after it is put in play' date=' he can just limit the amount of times it is put in play. So 12 K's would be the best example of Bud. And Bud is going to give up about 4 runs a game on most good days. 12 K's probably guarantees that is all he is going to give up. So a performance like that would probably guarantee we get the best of Bud.[/quote']

One could also argue that a P has as much control over where the ball is put in play as he does over whether the ball is put in play.

I don't get how people can argue that a P can't induce weak contact

[waroriole]

Bud Norris doesn't even average 6 innings for us' date=' and gives up 3.65 runs a game. I think you're expectations for Norris are a little unrealistic. He's basically a league average starter. If he gives us a full 6 innings tomorrow and only gives up 4 and strikes out 12, we should take that all day.[/quote']

So, his ERA should be 6.00 against the Tigers?

[Reboulet'sStache]

I am not projecting at all. I stated what he has done, on average over 6 innings, how is that projecting over 9? Fact, his ERA is 3.65 and if he only pitches 6 innings, he does not give up, on average 3.65 runs per game, as you stated earlier(because he does not pitch an average of 9 innings per game).

I never said he gives up 3.65 runs per game if he was to pitch 6 innings.

You said the video isn't indicative of the kind of pitcher Norris is, because the other team scored 4 runs, and people put too much of an emphasis on strikeouts and not enough on era.

1. I said that might be true, but one could just as easily argue that era isn't necessarily indicative of a pitcher too. Things like defense can boost a pitcher's era or hurt it, and that isn't necessarily the pitcher's doing.

2. I said that Bud isn't the kind of pitcher that takes a team into the 7th inning. He usually gets through a lineup a few times, and looses his effectiveness. He has an era of 3.65, but that is without even averaging 6 innings a start for us. If we were having him take us into the 7th this year, I would expect his overall era to be higher, because he is now pitching past the point of effectiveness, so there would be an exponential increase.

[Reboulet'sStache]

One could also argue that a P has as much control over where the ball is put in play as he does over whether the ball is put in play.

I don't get how people can argue that a P can't induce weak contact

One could certainly argue that too. I was just sticking up for Bud.

[Frobby]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=gonzami03&year=Career&t=p

He also has a career ERA 3 points higher against the Tigers than any other team he's faced (in 17 IP his ERA is 8.47).

Not like Bud has done much better, but I think he gives us a better chance to win.

I'm not a big believer in small sample stats like those. I just like Gonzo's ability to stay calm in big moments. But as I said, I'm fine either way.

[Beast]

Another possible consideration for tomorrow's game is the late afternoon start time. Bud, as the harder thrower, may be helped more by shadows than Miggy would be. I expect the shadows may play an unexpectedly big role in hitters' ability to pick up pitches.

[Moshagge3]

You don't trust the Stone Cold Killer? Why, his 7 inning 1 run performance against the Yankees wasn't good enough for you? I'd trust the guy with my life. But I'm also fine starting Norris with Gonzo behind him for Game 4 if needed.

Should have been 7 innings 0 runs. Adam Jones misplayed a fly ball into a Jeter triple. :angryfire:

[Can_of_corn]

One could also argue that a P has as much control over where the ball is put in play as he does over whether the ball is put in play.

I don't get how people can argue that a P can't induce weak contact

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/sabermetrician-exile

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-BABI?urn=mlb,203710

McCracken was working on a premise so radical that even he sometimes laughed at it.

Pitchers have very little control over what happens on balls hit into the field of play.

Baseball theory was fairly well-honed from more than 100 years of observation and analysis, and a college dropout paralegal wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on it. Never mind that a pitcher can dictate every plate appearance. He chooses what to throw, where it goes, the speed, the break. McCracken was saying that when bat met ball and sent it toward dirt or grass, the advantage almost entirely disappeared. It defied logic.

McCracken checked and re-checked the numbers until they winnowed away the thought that there had to be a mistake. His hypothesis was correct. Pitchers control three things: strikeouts, walks and home runs -- defense-independent pitching statistics, he called them, shortened to DIPS, which isn't exactly the sort of acronym on which careers are made. Everything else -- including hits allowed -- involves a pitcher's eight teammates and thus is prone to wild fluctuations. Some years, more balls fall for hits. In others, they don't. In 1999, Pedro Martinez gave up the third-highest batting average on balls in play. The next year, he allowed the lowest.

The McCracken piece is very good.

[CA-ORIOLE]

We have a rested BP. so I think Norris at full tilt for 5 and PB for 4 is a good plan for game 3.

[Moshagge3]

McCracken's ideas may hold up when you zoom out and look at a whole season of work, but less so in a single game. When Verlander got Jones to pop up with runners on the corners, did you think, "oh Verlander is lucky that wasn't a ringing double" or did you think "he got Jones to swing at a pitcher's pitch"? When Delmon Young hit a three-run double did you think "Soria got unlucky that wasn't a pop-up" or did you think "what a horrible pitch"?

[waroriole]

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/sabermetrician-exile

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-BABI?urn=mlb,203710

The McCracken piece is very good.

If I'm not mistaken, nobody is saying a P has no control over balls in play, just that in rare occurrences it can fluctuate wildly (Pedro). The fact that many guys tend to over or under perform based on their fielding independent numbers consistently, tells me that while it's a useful tool, the way it's presented and the way it's used causes more confusion and misunderstandings than good. Of course, this is JMO and one I've shared many times.

It's a shame the guy never trademarked his formula.

[waroriole]

McCracken's ideas may hold up when you zoom out and look at a whole season of work, but less so in a single game. When Verlander got Jones to pop up with runners on the corners, did you think, "oh Verlander is lucky that wasn't a ringing double" or did you think "he got Jones to swing at a pitcher's pitch"? When Delmon Young hit a three-run double did you think "Soria got unlucky that wasn't a pop-up" or did you think "what a horrible pitch"?

Arrieta used to constantly underperform relative to his FIP, but that was largely because he threw meatballs when pitching out of the stretch. There's usually a better answer when you don't generalize things and put P into the same categories.

[Can_of_corn]

If I'm not mistaken, nobody is saying a P has no control over balls in play, just that in rare occurrences it can fluctuate wildly (Pedro). The fact that many guys tend to over or under perform based on their fielding independent numbers consistently, tells me that while it's a useful tool, the way it's presented and the way it's used causes more confusion and misunderstandings than good. Of course, this is JMO and one I've shared many times.

It's a shame the guy never trademarked his formula.

I don't think anyone who understands the principle at all think that it is completely random for all pitchers in all situations. I do think that your earlier comments, to which I responded, are speaking of a level of control that doesn't exist.

[waroriole]

I don't think anyone who understands the principle at all think that it is completely random for all pitchers in all situations. I do think that your earlier comments, to which I responded, are speaking of a level of control that doesn't exist.

You don't think a P can induce weak contact or, if I word it better, increase the likelihood of weak contact?

[Tony-OH]

Bud is really good vs. RHB's, and that's all Detroit has - except for Martinez...

Also, Bud dominated them the first two times through the lineup last time out.

Yep.

Bud Norris vs RHP: .226/.293/.366/.659

Miguel Gonzalez vs RHP: .249/.306/.418/.724

With Norris' ability to miss bats more than Gonzalez, he seems to a better matchup. Expect Gonzalez though to be his handcuff if things don't work out early.