Is John Means one of the top six starters in the AL East in 2022?

[Aristotelian]

Having a good defense can certainly help suppress ERA which was the metric used in the original post. That doesnt change the actual talent level of the pitcher but improves the outcome. I'd say Means is in the second tier but is probably a #1 starter on most teams. Last year he was tied for #8 in WAR.

[Sports Guy]

35 minutes ago, Philip said:

There is no need for the actual evidence to exist, it’s like conducting an experiment to confirm that the sun rises in the east.

I made my point, I justified it, if you have a problem go back to yelling at wildcard. I was just defending him.

Yes, you made a false point that has no evidence behind it but hey, it sounds good in your head, so therefore it must be right!

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, wildcard said:

No reaching.  Baseball is a team sport.  When there are good players around your pitchers they do better.   

I’ll buy your argument about the catcher. I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence that good offense helps pitchers to pitch better.  You could just as easily argue that pitchers allow more runs when they know they can get away with it.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, you made a false point that has no evidence behind it but hey, it sounds good in your head, so therefore it must be right!

I did not make a false point I made a legitimate point I defended it. You’re welcome to ignore it or disagree with it, but needless contention is fruitless. If you don’t agree, fine go live your life. Shut up charge on. Whatever. I don’t need an experiment to know the sun rises in the east. I can look and use common sense. That is inadequate for some people.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

I did not make a false point I made a legitimate point I defended it. You’re welcome to ignore it or disagree with it, but needless contention is fruitless. If you don’t agree, fine go live your life. Shut up charge on. Whatever. I don’t need an experiment to know the sun rises in the east. I can look and use common sense. That is inadequate for some people.

So what is your point exactly?   Tell me which parts of this you agree or disagree with:

1.  Good defense helps all pitchers to some degree.   
2.  Good defense helps some pitchers more than others, depending on how many batters the pitcher strikes out, how many he walks, whether he allows fly balls vs. ground balls, and how homer-prone he is.

3.   Whether a team has a good offense is essentially irrelevant to the performance of that team’s pitchers.

 

[Sports Guy]

54 minutes ago, Frobby said:

So what is your point exactly?   Tell me which parts of this you agree or disagree with:

1.  Good defense helps all pitchers to some degree.   
2.  Good defense helps some pitchers more than others, depending on how many batters the pitcher strikes out, how many he walks, whether he allows fly balls vs. ground balls, and how homer-prone he is.

3.   Whether a team has a good offense is essentially irrelevant to the performance of that team’s pitchers.

 

He thinks there is some psychological advantage to pitching with a team that has a good offense because it’s easier to pitch when your team is scoring runs. 

It sounds good in theory but in actuality, there isn’t any evidence that it’s actually helpful, at least not that I’ve seen.  Maybe there is, I don’t know.  But it sounds like one of those things that people say and it sounds like it makes sense but the reality is that it’s not true.

[Pickles]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He thinks there is some psychological advantage to pitching with a team that has a good offense because it’s easier to pitch when your team is scoring runs. 

It sounds good in theory but in actuality, there isn’t any evidence that it’s actually helpful, at least not that I’ve seen.  Maybe there is, I don’t know.  But it sounds like one of those things that people say and it sounds like it makes sense but the reality is that it’s not true.

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Now, I'm not defending the original statement, because I believe that while it probably is true in a micro level, over the course of 162 games it's pretty non-existent.

But I hate to see the logic of "Well, you can't prove it is true, so that proves it is false."

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Now, I'm not defending the original statement, because I believe that while it probably is true in a micro level, over the course of 162 games it's pretty non-existent.

But I hate to see the logic of "Well, you can't prove it is true, so that proves it is false."

But if you make a statement you should be able to have some evidence for it beyond, well it's obviously true.

I can prove the sun rises in the East.  I can't prove that the Sun is carried across the sky in a chariot even if folks at one point might have thought that was the case.

For generations baseball experts and fans alike knew that elite pitchers had the ability to suppress BABIP by inducing weak contact.  It was just common sense.  Turns out, when the research was actually done, that it isn't something that very many pitchers can do to any meaningful degree over the course of multiple seasons.

How long did football coaches and fans know that black players couldn't make it as quarterbacks?

 

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

But if you make a statement you should be able to have some evidence for it beyond, well it's obviously true.

I can prove the sun rises in the East.  I can't prove that the Sun is carried across the sky in a chariot even if folks at one point might have thought that was the case.

For generations baseball experts and fans alike knew that elite pitchers had the ability to suppress BABIP by inducing weak contact.  It was just common sense.  Turns out, when the research was actually done, that it isn't something that very many pitchers can do to any meaningful degree over the course of multiple seasons.

How long did football coaches and fans know that black players couldn't make it as quarterbacks?

 

I'll agree with the first.  But we're often dealing with things that can't be quantified.

That seems to drive a certain kind of person mad.  And rather than admitting certain things can't be quantified, they will invent and then grasp desperately at "numbers" as evidence of whatever argument they are making.

I've been reading this board for almost 20 years now I guess.  That's corresponded with a great deal of advancement of statistical analysis of the game.

There's been many rather laughable thesis adopted by a majority if the board- only to be jettisoned in 12 months; often times with the exact opposite thesis taken up in its place.

A great example of this is the value of defense.  When I joined the board, in the wake of Moneyball, defense was seen as unimportant and negligible- largely because it couldn't be quantified.  Within probably two years, we had people making outrageous claims about defensive value based on the first generation of publicly available defensive "stats."

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I'll agree with the first.  But we're often dealing with things that can't be quantified.

That seems to drive a certain kind of person mad.  And rather than admitting certain things can't be quantified, they will invent and then grasp desperately at "numbers" as evidence of whatever argument they are making.

I've been reading this board for almost 20 years now I guess.  That's corresponded with a great deal of advancement of statistical analysis of the game.

There's been many rather laughable thesis adopted by a majority if the board- only to be jettisoned in 12 months; often times with the exact opposite thesis taken up in its place.

A great example of this is the value of defense.  When I joined the board, in the wake of Moneyball, defense was seen as unimportant and negligible- largely because it couldn't be quantified.  Within probably two years, we had people making outrageous claims about defensive value based on the first generation of publicly available defensive "stats."

I'm still in the camp that as long as TTO baseball is king defense isn't an overriding concern.

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm still in the camp that as long as TTO baseball is king defense isn't an overriding concern.

Well, this is a valid concern.

How many of those defensive stats have changed their formula to account for this/shifting?  And if they have, how many of them have gotten it right?

I mean, define "overriding."  I very much want to be a good defensive baseball team.  And I think it affects winning and losing.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pickles said:

Well, this is a valid concern.

How many of those defensive stats have changed their formula to account for this/shifting?  And if they have, how many of them have gotten it right?

I mean, define "overriding."  I very much want to be a good defensive baseball team.  And I think it affects winning and losing.

I'd like a good defensive team as well.

But if it a choice between good defense and lots of dongs, I'll take the dongs.

I think dongs affect willing and losing.

 

Yes I'm being overly simplistic because dongs is fun to type.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd like a good defensive team as well.

But if it a choice between good defense and lots of dongs, I'll take the dongs.

I think dongs affect willing and losing.

 

Yes I'm being overly simplistic because dongs is fun to type.

There's obviously harmony between all parts that affect winning and losing: defense, pitching, and hitting.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pickles said:

There's obviously harmony between all parts that affect winning and losing: defense, pitching, and hitting.

Sure but I don't think it's an even split between the three.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure but I don't think it's an even split between the three.

No.

But there's no magical formula for "how much" defense is worth.  Or anything else for that matter.

Value can only be judged in context.