Jeremy Guthrie in 2008 Predictions

[Lucky Jim]

The continued representation of the statistical interpretation of what did happen happen in baseball history as a factual or final interpretation is enormously misleading, IMO.

Have not the tools of sabermeticians improved over the past 15 years? Have not these tools changed previous statistical interpretations of what happened? If so, why do the statisticians post here and elsewhere with such certainty that their "interpretation" today is fact?

I am not saying these tools are not extremely useful since they clearly are. My issue is with the presentation of the statistical interpretation of baseball events as factual when it is not.

They're not saying that the interpretation is a fact. There saying the interpretation is derived from fact. There's a difference. The number of runs or hits or innings pitched by Guthrie are all facts. The predictive analysis that comes out of that is an interpretation. You're accusing them of something they haven't claimed.

[El Gordo]

The continued representation of the statistical interpretation of what did happen happen in baseball history as a factual or final interpretation is enormously misleading, IMO.

Have not the tools of sabermeticians improved over the past 15 years? Have not these tools changed previous statistical interpretations of what happened? If so, why do the statisticians post here and elsewhere with such certainty that their "interpretation" today is fact?

I am not saying these tools are not extremely useful since they clearly are. My issue is with the presentation of the statistical interpretation of baseball events as factual when it is not.

You know what they say; it's not the tool, it's the person who uses the tool. If you give a pefectly good tool, like statistcal analysis, to a pedantic ideologue, then he will bludgeon you over your head with it.

[Sports Guy]

At least you are consistent. Your negative assessment of Guthrie flew in the face of the facts all last season. I guess we will be hearing through 2008 about how what Guthrie achieves is statistically unlikely as he continues to lead the Orioles staff -- not as a third or fourth starter but as #1.

Share with me these facts.

Here are my facts:

Many of his peripherals were in the "lucky range".

He was a medicore MiL pitcher.

He was 28.

He pitched to an ERA of about 5 over the course of 2+ months.

[DrungoHazewood]

The continued representation of the statistical interpretation of what did happen happen in baseball history as a factual or final interpretation is enormously misleading, IMO.

Have not the tools of sabermeticians improved over the past 15 years? Have not these tools changed previous statistical interpretations of what happened? If so, why do the statisticians post here and elsewhere with such certainty that their "interpretation" today is fact?

I am not saying these tools are not extremely useful since they clearly are. My issue is with the presentation of the statistical interpretation of baseball events as factual when it is not.

I present what I say as the best way to interpret the data we have with the knowledge we have. It's implicit in everything I write that there's fuzzy stuff around the edges. I almost always say "largely" or "probably" or "likely". I rarely say "100%" or "definitely".

If you want to take a word like "likely" and infer that I think sabermetrics has come to and endpoint and no further research or advancement is necessary I think you're drastically misreading things.

[El Gordo]

Share with me these facts.

Here are my facts:

Many of his peripherals were in the "lucky range".

He was a medicore MiL pitcher.

He was 28.

He pitched to an ERA of about 5 over the course of 2+ months.

Looking at Gutherie's nimbers it seems his BB per 9 is pretty good and his K9 over 6 is ok. What seems to be the consitant problem is his WHIP. That would be a function of being able to locate his fast ball effectively IMO. It is quite possible for him to be able to master that and continue to be an effective SP. I also think you have to take into account his late start in baseball.

[Lucky Jim]

Looking at Gutherie's nimbers it seems his BB per 9 is pretty good and his K9 over 6 is ok. What seems to be the consitant problem is his WHIP. That would be a function of being able to locate his fast ball effectively IMO. It is quite possible for him to be able to master that and continue to be an effective SP. I also think you have to take into account his late start in baseball.

Perhaps. In the end, we're always dealing with "likelihood" and probability. We sometimes mistake these for something more secure...mostly because we're always trafficking in uncertainty and so the least uncertain things begin to seem like "facts".

Guthrie may continue as he pitched last year. He may get better. He's still most likely to regress. And he's probably more likely to get worse than get better. That's not a knock on him, or his talent. And he's a great guy. But historically, he's not favorably positioned to improve.

We just need to plan accordingly. The only thing we shouldn't do is bank on him being a legit #1 or #2 pitcher this year.

[Sports Guy]

Perhaps. In the end, we're always dealing with "likelihood" and probability. We sometimes mistake these for something more secure...mostly because we're always trafficking in uncertainty and so the least uncertain things begin to seem like "facts".

Guthrie may continue as he pitched last year. He may get better. He's still most likely to regress. And he's probably more likely to get worse than get better. That's not a knock on him, or his talent. And he's a great guy. But historically, he's not favorably positioned to improve.

We just need to plan accordingly. The only thing we shouldn't do is bank on him being a legit #1 or #2 pitcher this year.

Yea...IF you look at his DIPs, FIP and things like that, it tells you he should be around what Drungo thinks..4.50 ERA.

But that is with some things going right.

It wouldn't shock me to see him have a 4 ERA but it wouldn't shock me to see him in the bp by June either.

[Since'54]

Share with me these facts.

Here are my facts:

Many of his peripherals were in the "lucky range".

He was a medicore MiL pitcher.

He was 28.

He pitched to an ERA of about 5 over the course of 2+ months.

Peripherals? So what. I was more than satisfied with the end result.

Minor league record? See previous answer

28 years old? Relevance?

late season ERA? I'll stick with the season-long figures.

I know you and some others believe arcane baseball statistics are the next best thing to communication with Nostradamus when it comes to predicting future seasons. Guthrie last year was a good test of that theory. This year will be another.

[Boy Howdy]

After pitching Winter Ball..

FWIW, in the winter of 2006-2007, Guthrie threw 27 1/3 innings in 5 starts in the Dominican League.

0-1, 2.63

19 H

10 BB

16 K

[Sports Guy]

Peripherals? So what. I was more than satisfied with the end result.

Minor league record? See previous answer

28 years old? Relevance?

late season ERA? I'll stick with the season-long figures.

I know you and some others believe arcane baseball statistics are the next best thing to communication with Nostradamus when it comes to predicting future seasons. Guthrie last year was a good test of that theory. This year will be another.

Well, reading your answers here i see no reason to attempt to have an intelligent baseball conversation with you.

[Boy Howdy]

ZIPS has Guthrie's 2008 projection looking like this

6-8, 4.84 in 28 games (23 starts)

145 IP

159 H

50 BB

89 K

21 HR

He's tough to project, but if he's healthy enough to make all of his starts, I think he'll win at least as many as he loses with a better than league average ERA. Out on a limb? I'll say 12-11, 4.32

[Moose Milligan]

When he was at his peak in ATL, I read an interview with him. The interviewer was asking him about his success. Maddux said something about how he figured things out, and what it was that he figured out. He said it was no accident, no freak thing, and it wasn't that he had more talent either. He said it was because he figured something out. Naturally, the guy asked him what it was. Maddux said he wasn't talking about it now. Maybe when he retired. Or maybe not, he wasn't sure. Then, he changed the subject.

He's got plenty of talent.

Making his pitches move the way he does, that's a God given gift, and he's worked at it.

Being able to paint the black the way he does, that's talent.

Yes, he had to work hard at it, but Greg Maddux is one of the more talented people to play the game. Just because he doesn't overpower people doesn't mean he's not talented.

[Since'54]

Well, reading your answers here i see no reason to attempt to have an intelligent baseball conversation with you.

Uh-Oh....... Looks like more sleepless nights for me.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Uh-Oh....... Looks like more sleepless nights for me.

Make sure you use them to learn something about statistical analysis.

[square634]

Peripherals? So what. I was more than satisfied with the end result.

Minor league record? See previous answer

28 years old? Relevance?

late season ERA? I'll stick with the season-long figures.

I know you and some others believe arcane baseball statistics are the next best thing to communication with Nostradamus when it comes to predicting future seasons. Guthrie last year was a good test of that theory. This year will be another.

Did you say these same things about Rodrigo Lopez? What about Jose Mercedes and Bruce Chen?