Time to Follow the Rays SP Theory

[FlipTheBird]

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's the future.  Maybe not the immediate future but its time will come. 

When? 2070? I'm just not seeing the evidence that it's going to grow beyond a brief experiment by a team that knew 2018 was a lost cause and didn't have many starting arms and routinely has to punt its core players to stick to a budget that's only bigger than Oakland's. It'd take an enormous fundamental shift in how pitching is perceived nationwide - hell, worldwide - to become the norm.

[sportsfan8703]

I’m sure they’re are plenty of journeymen relievers out there that are like I can do what Sergio Romo does. 

Really I think the “opener” is just an added gimmick. I think O’day would’ve been a perfect fit for us  

For us it would be more like we have something Hess and Ramirez, but it doesn’t fit into convential thinking. So now we have to turn Hess and Ramirez into relievers because they can’t go 5-6?  They are valuable developed arms,  put the players in a situation where they can produce and go with it. 

[Can_of_corn]

20 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’m sure they’re are plenty of journeymen relievers out there that are like I can do what Sergio Romo does. 

Really I think the “opener” is just an added gimmick. I think O’day would’ve been a perfect fit for us  

For us it would be more like we have something Hess and Ramirez, but it doesn’t fit into convential thinking. So now we have to turn Hess and Ramirez into relievers because they can’t go 5-6?  They are valuable developed arms,  put the players in a situation where they can produce and go with it. 

If it ends up reducing scoring than it isn't a gimmick.

[Ohfan67]

A One standard deviation difference is not statistically meaningful. It is looking at tea leaves and kidding yourself that it means something. A three standard deviation difference is statistically interesting, but if you make 20 random comparisons you are likely to get one by random chance. The “analysis” that CoC posted makes at least 9! Comparisons, but actually a lot more because he does it across years. He doesn’t report a single three deviation difference as far as I saw. To me that is a very strong indicator that scoring doesn’t vary among innings in a meaningful way. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

A One standard deviation difference is not statistically meaningful. It is looking at tea leaves and kidding yourself that it means something. A three standard deviation difference is statistically interesting, but if you make 20 random comparisons you are likely to get one by random chance. One standard deviation difference means nothing. 

It's consistent over a very long period of time.

Yes we are talking about an advantage in the margins.

[Ohfan67]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

It's consistent over a very long period of time.

Yes we are talking about an advantage in the margins.

See my updated post. That analysis does not say what that guy thinks. At all. 

[Ohfan67]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's consistent over a very long period of time.

Yes we are talking about an advantage in the margins.

9! Is 9 factorial by the way. And he did that many comparisons for every year.  His lack of finding a three standard deviation difference with that many comparisons would be highly statistically significant supporting the hypothesis that scoring doesn’t vary among innings. 

[Ohfan67]

Btw, I’m not poo pooing the first inning reliever idea, but I hope the Rays have a better analysis to support their strategy than the one posted here. And I suspect they do. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

Btw, I’m not poo pooing the first inning reliever idea, but I hope the Rays have a better analysis to support their strategy than the one posted here. And I suspect they do. 

I didn't provide it as a piece of analysis, I provided it simply to show the numbers.

[Ohfan67]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I didn't provide it as a piece of analysis, I provided it simply to show the numbers.

I hear you. I would like to see a really good analysis. That guys work suggests to me that it might be noise, which really wouldn’t be surprising given the number of humans and random variables involved. 

[sportsfan8703]

Evan Phillips will be used as an “opener” tonight. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Evan Phillips will be used as an “opener” tonight. 

So who is the starter that will be following him?

 

[sportsfan8703]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So who is the starter that will be following him?

 

I’m watching the pre game MASN show and this is what Buck was calling it. He said it’s not a bullpen game. He said a guy that can give them some length will come in after Phillips. Who that guy is?  I don’t know. I’m too detached from the every day workings of the team right now. 

[OriolesMagic83]

I I think the idea of an opener is as valid as a closer.  The first 3 hitters in a lineup are usually 3 of the best 4 hitters on the team.  If you can shut the other team down the first inning, you have a much greater chance to win. 

[Il BuonO]

9 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’m watching the pre game MASN show and this is what Buck was calling it. He said it’s not a bullpen game. He said a guy that can give them some length will come in after Phillips. Who that guy is?  I don’t know. I’m too detached from the every day workings of the team right now. 

I’m thinking Gilmartin. Not a starter but has pitched multiple innings.