Gausman is beginning to remind me of Guthrie

[Phantom]

I don't think your numerical analogy is that good, because this particular coin has been flipped a lot more than 10 times, and in any event, human beings are not coins, and not all of them react identically.

Not all coins react identically either, but it's a good comparison because we have studied a lot of coins and a lot of major league pitchers and have concluded that they almost all behave this one way. So if you're going to tell me that this one coin is behaving differently, you're going to need more proof than just results. After all, if you view pitchers by their results, ~50% of pitchers pitch worse in situations where the team is ahead and ~20% pitch significantly worse and ~5% pitch way worse and ~1% pitch crazy worse and all of that just means we have a completely random distribution of data. No one is actually pitching worse in that case.

So I appreciate your skepticism, I'm just suggesting you bring way, way more to a situation like this. Correlation is a dangerous thing.

[Frobby]

Not all coins react identically either, but it's a good comparison because we have studied a lot of coins and a lot of major league pitchers and have concluded that they almost all behave this one way. So if you're going to tell me that this one coin is behaving differently, you're going to need more proof than just results. After all, if you view pitchers by their results, ~50% of pitchers pitch worse in situations where the team is ahead and ~20% pitch significantly worse and ~5% pitch way worse and ~1% pitch crazy worse and all of that just means we have a completely random distribution of data. No one is actually pitching worse in that case.

So I appreciate your skepticism, I'm just suggesting you bring way, way more to a situation like this. Correlation is a dangerous thing.

Let's say you went to Las Vegas, played the roulette wheel for 2 hours, and the ball landed on red 75% of the time. Would you not have any concerns that the wheel wasn't correctly balanced? It is always going to be mathematically possible for something to happen by chance, but I don't think you can just assume that's the explanation.

Also, it has been a very long time since I have looked at the baseball literature on this topic. I have no idea if there are other guys out there with splits as extreme as Gausman in as many reps, and just how far of an outlier he is. The player I compared him to, Guthrie, only had a .009 difference in his career. His five years in Baltimore were +.068, +.089, +.193, -.026 and -.029. Gausman's +.225 differential for his career is more extreme than any single season Guthrie played here.

[PressBoxOnline]

Paul Folkemer says part of Kevin Gausman's 2016 winless streak may be chalked up to bad luck, but he still has himself to blame:

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/06/21/kevin-gausman-remains-winless-with-disappointing-outing-in-texas

[Phantom]

Let's say you went to Las Vegas, played the roulette wheel for 2 hours, and the ball landed on red 75% of the time. Would you not have any concerns that the wheel wasn't correctly balanced? It is always going to be mathematically possible for something to happen by chance, but I don't think you can just assume that's the explanation.

Of course there is always that chance. My point is, as with a roulette wheel or a coin flip, my instinct would be that it was just the random way random data falls randomly. i might suspect, but I probably wouldn't believe it until I had a huge sample or some proof. And that's my point here. If he is pitching worse in specific situations, shouldn't it show up in stats other than results that include a ton of noise? Wouldn't his velocity or release point or pitch selection or movement be different?

Also, it has been a very long time since I have looked at the baseball literature on this topic. I have no idea if there are other guys out there with splits as extreme as Gausman in as many reps, and just how far of an outlier he is. The player I compared him to, Guthrie, only had a .009 difference in his career. His five years in Baltimore were +.068, +.089, +.193, -.026 and -.029. Gausman's +.225 differential for his career is more extreme than any single season Guthrie played here.

If you tell me where you are pulling these stats from, I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can figure out just how much of an outlier Kevin is.

[LA2]

So you agree, the coin is weighted? This is the type of conclusion you reach when all you do is look at results.

If you want to believe that Gausman pitches different when he has the lead, shouldn't there be some better proof of this? Is his pitch selection changing? Is something happening to his velocity or control?

a

I think these questions are a promising approach to take.

[Frobby]

If you tell me where you are pulling these stats from, I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can figure out just how much of an outlier Kevin is.

My stats come from BB-ref. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=gausmke01&year=Career&t=p Look near the bottom of "clutch stats" for "ahead" and "behind."

[Phantom]

My stats come from BB-ref. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=gausmke01&year=Career&t=p Look near the bottom of "clutch stats" for "ahead" and "behind."

Thanks. Anyone know if there is a way to export BR split data en masse like fangraphs lets you?

The sample size for Gausman is actually smaller than I expected. Only 320 PAs while ahead with a .235 OPS difference? Hell, look at some of these splits just from some Chris Tillman seasons:

314 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .207

176 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .308

297 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .122

[oriolediehard]

The incompetent bad umpiring ball/strike calls kill Gausman command. Here is a Showalter quote:

"It is all about secondary pitch command. When those pitches are working for strikes,

his fast ball is better than it already is. But when he has to rely on it heavily, hitters can sit on it.

This is especially true when the ump won’t give you the corner, which happened several times in the

three-run fourth inning of the Rangers. Those blown calls could have made all the difference."

http://thebaltimorewire.com/2016/06/21/baltimore-orioles-90-feet-from-victory/?utm_campaign=FanSided+Daily&utm_source=FanSided+Daily&utm_medium=email

[Old#5fan]

The incompetent bad umpiring ball/strike calls kill Gausman command. Here is a Showalter quote:

"It is all about secondary pitch command. When those pitches are working for strikes,

his fast ball is better than it already is. But when he has to rely on it heavily, hitters can sit on it.

This is especially true when the ump won?t give you the corner, which happened several times in the

three-run fourth inning of the Rangers. Those blown calls could have made all the difference."

http://thebaltimorewire.com/2016/06/21/baltimore-orioles-90-feet-from-victory/?utm_campaign=FanSided+Daily&utm_source=FanSided+Daily&utm_medium=email

There you go Phantom save all that mind numbing statistical analysis and trust what Buck with all his actual experience, wisdom and observation skills and knowledge have determined to be the problem. It's really fairly straight forward and not involving math/extensive analysis at all. That is just a HUGE waste of time IMO and totally worthless endeavor.

[Frobby]

Thanks. Anyone know if there is a way to export BR split data en masse like fangraphs lets you?

The sample size for Gausman is actually smaller than I expected. Only 320 PAs while ahead with a .235 OPS difference? Hell, look at some of these splits just from some Chris Tillman seasons:

314 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .207

176 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .308

297 PAs while ahead, OPS difference: .122

It's a good reminder that even though Gausman has spent parts of four seasons in the majors, he's still relatively inexperienced in terms of IP (341 to date). Which supports an argument that this stat hasn't had enough time to stabilize.

[Phantom]

There you go Phantom save all that mind numbing statistical analysis and trust what Buck with all his actual experience, wisdom and observation skills and knowledge have determined to be the problem.

Ahh. Just like the umpires with all their expertise, are never wrong and should not be questioned.

It's really fairly straight forward and not involving math/extensive analysis at all. That is just a HUGE waste of time IMO and totally worthless endeavor.

You're right. Taking a rigorous scientific approach to conventional wisdom has never garnered anything of value in human history. Stop questioning. Fall in line. Really just a waste of time.

[Old#5fan]

Ahh. Just like the umpires with all their expertise, are never wrong and should not be questioned.

You're right. Taking a rigorous scientific approach to conventional wisdom has never garnered anything of value in human history. Stop questioning. Fall in line. Really just a waste of time.

We aren't talking about curing cancer or anything as earth shattering life and death way of looking at this! This is baseball Ohantom and watching it is supposed to be fun! Lighten up a bit!!!

[Ohfan67]

We aren't talking about curing cancer or anything as earth shattering life and death way of looking at this! This is baseball Ohantom and watching it is supposed to be fun! Lighten up a bit!!!

True, but since the second someone first calculated a batting average analyzing the game has been fun for many (really everyone because every fan loves high batting averages, etc.).

[Phantom]

We aren't talking about curing cancer or anything as earth shattering life and death way of looking at this! This is baseball Ohantom and watching it is supposed to be fun! Lighten up a bit!!!

If it's supposed to be fun, then why are you declaring something I do for fun (statistical analysis of a game) a "HUGE waste of time" and a "totally worthless endeavor"?

If you are happy taking Bucks word for it. That's fine. If you are happy with what your eyes tell you. That's fine. If correlation is the end of the story for you, that's fine. But telling me to stop there just because you do is not fine.

[Old#5fan]

If it's supposed to be fun, then why are you declaring something I do for fun (statistical analysis of a game) a "HUGE waste of time" and a "totally worthless endeavor"?

If you are happy taking Bucks word for it. That's fine. If you are happy with what your eyes tell you. That's fine. If correlation is the end of the story for you, that's fine. But telling me to stop there just because you do is not fine.

I just didn't want to see you go through what I would consider pure hell doing all that tedious work for to accomplish nothing but giving yourself a headache. You couldn't pay me $100 an hour to go through all that! Then some of you really seem so serous and almost angry in an obsessive manner when the more average Joe fan like myself just can't relate taking baseball so serious unless you are getting paid well for doing all that hard tedious and difficult work which really for a casual fan just seems out there,