Jump to content

John Means - Playoff Starter


wildcard

Recommended Posts

Just now, DirtyBird said:

My argument is that Means was more effective last night than Grayson was on Thursday.

Are you arguing otherwise, because Grayson had more K’s?

How many of those strikes were 2 strike foul balls? That hurt him much more than it helped. Maybe the game Adley was calling was part of the problem too.

Grayson threw a higher percentage of strikes.

Is it your argument that pitchers should be throwing pitches that hitters can more easily square up and put into play?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the IP leaders, I'd say the majority are high K guys, but there are a good number of below average K guys in the mix. Logan Webb is #1 in IP with just under 9 K/9. The extreme outlier is Mikolas (#11) with 122 K/187 IP. Gibson and Corbin are a couple of others. In short, I think either strategy can work. The most important factor is command, but that is difficult to quantify. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

OK, stick with me here for a second.

Means threw 96 pitches, 65 of which were strikes.

Grayson thew threw 99 pitches, 73 of which were strikes.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue because you practically supported his point. Under those pitch statistics is the fact that Grayson made it 5 innings. Means made it 7.1 (throwing less pitches). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Looking at the IP leaders, I'd say the majority are high K guys, but there are a good number of below average K guys in the mix. Logan Webb is #1 in IP with just under 9 K/9. The extreme outlier is Mikolas (#11) with 122 K/187 IP. Gibson and Corbin are a couple of others. In short, I think either strategy can work. The most important factor is command, but that is difficult to quantify. 

You talked about IP..what about the quality of those innings?

Gibson had thrown a lot of innings but how much quality has there been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue because you practically supported his point. Under those pitch statistics is the fact that Grayson made it 5 innings. Means made it 7.1 (throwing less pitches). 

It’s one start. It means nothing, literally nothing.

Project those starts out over a longer period of time.

Which starter would you expect to be more successful? The one throwing more strikes, missing more bats and getting more Ks or the one who is dependent upon luck? 
 

Most of this is elementary school math that simply can’t be argued against, at least intelligently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dystopia said:

There was this pitcher called Greg Maddux, perhaps you’ve heard of him?

Maddux got his share of Ks and he had 15 years of a BB rate of 1.5 or lower and his career BB rate was 1.8.

And for most of his career, his swingstr% was at or above league average and for his career, he was a little under league average in that stat but that was mostly pushed down by the last few years of his career, where his missed bats really dropped.  And those years were some of the worst of his career as well.

 

Edited by Sports Guy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Grayson threw a higher percentage of strikes.

Is it your argument that pitchers should be throwing pitches that hitters can more easily square up and put into play?

 

My argument is that it is dumb to not watch a game, and evaluate performance based on one stat.

But how many of Grayson's strikes were fouled off 2 strike pitches? Are they more advantageous to the pitcher or opponent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You talked about IP..what about the quality of those innings?

Gibson had thrown a lot of innings but how much quality has there been?

Well, that's changing the question but it's a great point. Based on a quick look at the ERA leaders you have a similar mix of majority high K guys but plenty of a pitch to contact guys. So I'd say the same, that either strategy can work with good execution. Of course I would rather be able to strike guys out than not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Well, that's changing the question but it's a great point. Based on a quick look at the ERA leaders you have a similar mix of majority high K guys but plenty of a pitch to contact guys. So I'd say the same, that either strategy can work with good execution. Of course I would rather be able to strike guys out than not. 

 

How are you defining pitch to contact guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...