Jump to content

Schmuck gives Matusz a B+ for the year


Going Underground

Recommended Posts

Caveat: this is based on a table using data from 1993-2010; scoring has dropped since then, so the numbers I provided may be a little high.

Here is a 2015 runs expectancy matrix: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819115 As I suspected, the numbers I gave before were a little high compared to now. I think it is still correct to say that the total number of inherited runners one would have expected to score is between four and five, as follows:

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and allowed 1 to score (expected: 0.42 - 0.09 = 0.33)

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, and allowed him to score (expected: 0.63 - 0.24 = 0.39)

- Came in with 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, didn't allow any runs (expected: 0.87 - 0.09 = 0.78)

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.63-0.24 = 0.39)

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 3rd, allowed both to score (expected: 0.46 - 0.09 = 0.37)

- Came in with 0 out, bases loaded and allowed all three to score (expected: 2.24 - 0.46 = 1.78)

- Came in with 2 outs, runner on 1st and didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.20 - 0.09 = 0.11)

- Came in with 0 outs, runners on 1st and didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.82 - 0.46 = 0.36)

Total expected inherited runners to score: 4.51. Like I said, between 4 and 5, compared to the 7 Matusz allowed. So if you added 2.5 ER and recalculated his ERA, he'd be equivalent to a pitcher with a 3.08 ERA who had allowed an average number of inherited runners to score. Not really too terrible.

(Explanation for the equations: The first number in each equation is the total expected runs in the inning given the runners and the number of outs. The second number is the total expected runs if there had been nobody on base and the same number of outs. By subtracting that out, you get the expected runs coming from the inherited runners (not anyone who gets on base afterwards).)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Here is a 2015 runs expectancy matrix: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819115 As I suspected, the numbers I gave before were a little high compared to now. I think it is still correct to say that the total number of inherited runners one would have expected to score is between four and five, as follows:

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and allowed 1 to score (expected: 0.42 - 0.09 = 0.33)

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, and allowed him to score (expected: 0.63 - 0.24 = 0.39)

- Came in with 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, didn't allow any runs (expected: 0.87 - 0.09 = 0.78)

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.63-0.24 = 0.39)

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 3rd, allowed both to score (expected: 0.46 - 0.09 = 0.37)

- Came in with 0 out, bases loaded and allowed all three to score (expected: 2.24 - 0.46 = 1.78)

- Came in with 2 outs, runner on 1st and didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.20 - 0.09 = 0.11)

- Came in with 0 outs, runners on 1st and didn't allow him to score (expected: 0.82 - 0.46 = 0.36)

Total expected inherited runners to score: 4.51. Like I said, between 4 and 5, compared to the 7 Matusz allowed. So if you added 2.5 ER and recalculated his ERA, he'd be equivalent to a pitcher with a 3.08 ERA who had allowed an average number of inherited runners to score. Not really too terrible.

Very informative. Thanks, Frobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much disagree with Schmuck's assessment of Matusz. From my Orioles midseason report card:

Meanwhile, Matusz's first-half ERA (2.36 during 26 games) looks fine on the surface, but he struggled with his command, issuing 16 walks in 26.2 innings. He has also become unreliable in close games. In situations classified as "high leverage" -- critical spots during which the game is on the line -- Matusz has walked 10 of the 28 batters he's faced this season. Barring a second-half renaissance, the O's might soon part ways with Matusz, their first-round draft pick in 2008.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grades from the 81-game mark: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/148973-Some-thoughts-at-the-halfway-point-(42-39)

Scmuck's grades from the 88-game mark: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck-blog/bs-sp-orioles-player-grades-0715-20150714-story.html#page=2

Generally speaking, I am a tougher grader than Schmuck. The only players I graded higher than him were:

Chen (A for me, B+ for Schmuck). I don't see how he gave Ubaldo a higher grade (A-) than Chen, who has a better ERA and throws more IP per game.

Gausman (C+ for me, C for Schmuck)

Gonzalez (C+ for me, C for Schmuck). Gonzo had a bad start in the intervening week between my grades and Schmuck's.

Hunter (C+ for me, C- for Schmuck).

Roe (A- for me, B for Schmuck). I was grading based on expectations, which were literally nonexistent for Roe.

Paredes (A for me, A- for Schmuck). See Roe.

Snider (C for me, C- for Schmuck).

I was lower on Britton (A+/A), Matusz (B+/C-), Norris (D-/F), Tillman (D/D-), Joseph (B/C+), Wieters (B/B-), Cabrera (D/F), Davis (B/C+), Flaherty (B/B-), Hardy (B/C-), Machado (A/A-), Pearce (C/D), De Aza (D/D-), Jones (B+/C+) and Young (C-/D-). In most cases, the difference was that I was grading on expectations, and had high expectations for many of these players.

Much as I like my guy Ubaldo, I agree with you. Chen should get an A and Ubaldo an A-.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...