Orioles Win First Series 7-4

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

The point is, Castro didn’t really do anything wrong.     He induced a grounder on a pitch that was about 4-6 inches off the plate, that happened to find a hole.   And yes, it’s too bad it affects LeBlanc’s ERA.    

Oh I didn’t suggest Castro did anything wrong, Per se. The difference between a “god he sucks” hit and a routine grounder to short is nothing more than placement. I just think it’s really unfortunate that those runs are changed to the guy who put them on, and not the guy who let them score.

[BohKnowsBmore]

20 minutes ago, Philip said:

Oh I didn’t suggest Castro did anything wrong, Per se. The difference between a “god he sucks” hit and a routine grounder to short is nothing more than placement. I just think it’s really unfortunate that those runs are changed to the guy who put them on, and not the guy who let them score.

But the alternative doesn't really make any sense. Let's imagine a game with two innings and two pitchers (for one team).

Pitcher A:

Inning 1 is 1-2-3, with some mix of balls in play and strikeouts, it doesn't really matter.

Inning 2 he loads the bases with some mix of balls in play, walks, and/or hit batsman, again it doesn't really matter.

Pitcher B:

Comes in to inning 2 in relief of Pitcher A (with bases loaded and no outs). Pitcher B strikes out the first two batters he faces. The third batter he faces hits a dying quail that falls in the Bermuda Triangle. Because there were two outs, guys were running and two score, men on first and third. He strikes out the final batter. Other team scored two runs.

Would it make sense at all for Pitcher A to carry a 0.00 ERA and Pitcher B to carry an 18.00? You may feel that the inverse isn't particularly fair to Pitcher A because Pitcher B "let them score," but I think that's the preferable option given imperfect choices.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

But the alternative doesn't really make any sense. Let's imagine a game with two innings and two pitchers (for one team).

Pitcher A:

Inning 1 is 1-2-3, with some mix of balls in play and strikeouts, it doesn't really matter.

Inning 2 he loads the bases with some mix of balls in play, walks, and/or hit batsman, again it doesn't really matter.

Pitcher B:

Comes in to inning 2 in relief of Pitcher A (with bases loaded and no outs). Pitcher B strikes out the first two batters he faces. The third batter he faces hits a dying quail that falls in the Bermuda Triangle. Because there were two outs, guys were running and two score, men on first and third. He strikes out the final batter. Other team scored two runs.

Would it make sense at all for Pitcher A to carry a 0.00 ERA and Pitcher B to carry an 18.00? You may feel that the inverse isn't particularly fair to Pitcher A because Pitcher B "let them score," but I think that's the preferable option given imperfect choices.

Yes that’s the classic issue, but dying quails score runs, and the picture who gave up the dying quail Should suffer some blame.

I like the idea of maybe half-and-half, or letting the score decide. For instance,if the previous pitcher left a guy on third, and the batter hits a SF, which would normally be just an out, the run goes to the Previous pitcher. If the previous pitcher left a guy on first who comes around to score it’s on the reliever.
This might be a bit complex but I do think a more fair way of addressing the problem could be found.

[BohKnowsBmore]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes that’s the classic issue, but dying quails score runs, and the picture who gave up the dying quail Should suffer some blame.

I like the idea of maybe half-and-half, or letting the score decide. For instance,if the previous pitcher left a guy on third, and the batter hits a SF, which would normally be just an out, the run goes to the Previous pitcher. If the previous pitcher left a guy on first who comes around to score it’s on the reliever.
This might be a bit complex but I do think a more fair way of addressing the problem could be found.

But why is the dying quail he gave up so much worse than one given up had he come in with the bases empty? Yes the situation is different, but if we're trying to compare who gives up the most runs, it would seem most logical to do it the way we do now. We have things like WPA to account for the situation. Rather than twisting and contorting relatively simple metrics in the pursuit of perfection, I think it makes more sense to have multiple data points like WPA, etc. to allow us to paint a more comprehensive picture.

Under what you're proposing, Pitcher A's line looks significantly better because he was pulled. if he allowed three straight runners, it's likely he would have let them score himself. It seems almost counterproductive to shift that blame/burden to the next guy.

[HowAboutThat]

26 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

But why is the dying quail he gave up so much worse than one given up had he come in with the bases empty? Yes the situation is different, but if we're trying to compare who gives up the most runs, it would seem most logical to do it the way we do now. We have things like WPA to account for the situation. Rather than twisting and contorting relatively simple metrics in the pursuit of perfection, I think it makes more sense to have multiple data points like WPA, etc. to allow us to paint a more comprehensive picture.

Under what you're proposing, Pitcher A's line looks significantly better because he was pulled. if he allowed three straight runners, it's likely he would have let them score himself. It seems almost counterproductive to shift that blame/burden to the next guy.

I agree it is a bit tricky, but regarding your question, “that’s baseball.” A dying quail scores a run just as much as a solid single or a ringing double. The point is that the previous pitcher didn’t let the guys score.

maybe he would have, but that’s idle speculation. The reliever DID let the guy score and it is moot whether it’s a dying quail or a heroic homer.

I always hated reading about what a fantastic reliever Brian Matusz was because his era was so marvelous, but he was letting inherited runners score right and left.

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, Philip said:

I agree it is a bit tricky, but regarding your question, “that’s baseball.” A dying quail scores a run just as much as a solid single or a ringing double. The point is that the previous pitcher didn’t let the guys score.

maybe he would have, but that’s idle speculation. The reliever DID let the guy score and it is moot whether it’s a dying quail or a heroic homer.

I always hated reading about what a fantastic reliever Brian Matusz was because his era was so marvelous, but he was letting inherited runners score right and left.

First of all, I don’t remember anyone saying Matusz was a “fantastic” reliever.    He was an OK LOOGY and took tons of criticism here.   

Second, the average percentage of inherited runners allowed to score is about 29%.    Matusz had a 23% average in his career, which is better than average.    But he got worse as his career progressed: 0% in 2012, 14% in 2013, 20% in 2014, 37% in 2015, 50 in 2016 (small sample, 2 out of 4).