Colton Cowser 2024

[baltfan]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

The betting line doesn't reflect it but Austin Wells is coming up strong when it comes to Rookie campaigns.

He's got more rWAR (.1 less fWAR) in far fewer at bats.

 

 

Agree on this. Colton needs to get it going.

[SemperFi]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

Two questions:

1.  Where is this list published?

2. Are you sure that “Clutch Ratings” are measured in WAR?   I do not think they are.  More likely they are based on WPA and related metrics, which are not WAR-based.  

Hi Frobby,

 @Warehouse is correct, the list is from Baseball Prospectus.  That list was provided as a request for large sample size-but it's not WAR as I referenced it in my original post.  

 

 

 

[baltfan]

4 hours ago, SemperFi said:

Hi Frobby,

 @Warehouse is correct, the list is from Baseball Prospectus.  That list was provided as a request for large sample size-but it's not WAR as I referenced it in my original post.  

 

 

 

I very much appreciate your backing up your arguments vs others that just reflexively say SSS or parrot a conclusion that they read.  It’s pretty obvious that you take the time to understand   

[SemperFi]

17 hours ago, baltfan said:

I very much appreciate your backing up your arguments vs others that just reflexively say SSS or parrot a conclusion that they read.  It’s pretty obvious that you take the time to understand   

 “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” 

Herbert Spencer

Hi Baltfan-Thanks for the kind words.  I really enjoy the level of information exchange OH provides and I have learned often through due diligence prior to posting that I am either wrong or my assertion cannot be supported.  I generally provide footnotes or references.  

The game has changed dramatically since I played and coached-I learn something everyday on OH if my mind is open to it.  From my research I am well aware that my opinion on the topic is in the minority but it's a topic that has been openly debated for the last 50 years.  

Edited September 6 by SemperFi

[Tony-OH]

On 9/5/2024 at 9:56 AM, EnochRoot said:

I got an email that I received a permanent downvote for using the phraise GTFO. Whoops. Gonna get another one for that.

He’s using garbage statistics becase Cowser isn’t carrying a telephone pole uphill in a rainstorm as well as David Ortiz once did. It’s stupid, and this site should be better than that. 

You are not going to last long here unless you change your attitude quickly. This is not how we communicate around here. Quite simply, adjust your tone.

[Tony-OH]

On 9/5/2024 at 10:23 AM, interloper said:

Apparently! Lol. 

Just saying, typically you don't see everyone downvoting at the first sign of disagreement around here. When that does happen, usually that person ends up just antagonizing people and they don't last long. 

Not saying he's not free to do it. 

I agree with this. While we don't have "rules" per se on up or down voting, down voting should be for when someone breaks a rule or attacks people personally, not for just a disagreement of thoughts. 

[Frobby]

On 9/4/2024 at 4:05 PM, SemperFi said:

 

Nonetheless I'll repeat-Cowser hits so far below the mean in leverage situations that it can't be explained by just bad luck.  He has a BABIP of .214 with the higher K's (34%) and a much lower walk rate (4%).  And that K rate kills you as there is no runner advance.  He OPS's 300 points higher in low leverage.  He's bad, he's really bad-but so is Bryce Harper (this year).  https://tinyurl.com/yc53zr23

Since you bring up Harper, doesn’t he disprove that an extremely poor performance in high leverage situations in a single season must the the product of some innate flaw in the player, as opposed to random variation?   Harper had the 10th best wRC+ in high leverage situations last year (168), and this year he’s one of the 10 worst (31).   So, it’s hard to just look at Cowser’s numbers from one year and draw conciusions solely on those numbers.   For me, you really need to combine looking at the numbers and watching him play a lot to formulate an opinion.

Edited September 6 by Frobby

[SemperFi]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Since you bring up Harper, doesn’t he disprove that an extremely poor performance in high leverage situations in a single season must the the product of some innate flaw in the player, as opposed to random variation?   Harper had the 10th best wRC+ in high leverage situations last year (168), and this year he’s one of the 10 worst (31).   So, it’s hard to just look at Cowser’s numbers from one year and draw conciusions solely on those numbers.   For me, you really need to combine looking at the numbers and watching him play a lot to formulate an opinion.

Yes to your first point and that is true of most players leverage will even out over time however your point about innate flaws is interesting -I think CC will adjust but no one really looks at a guy like Mike Young (old Oriole with failed trajectory) as they don't create enough  relevant history.  I enjoyed the last article from @Warehouse  this is essentially my position-it also details the wild discepancies from Y/Y. : https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/38398/prospectus-feature-revised-look-clutch-hitting-part-1/

"The thinking about clutch hitting shifted somewhat in 2004, when Bill James wrote “Underestimating the Fog,” also in the Baseball Research Journal. James suggested that prior analyses, including Cramer’s, are limited by the data at our disposal. He posited that clutch hitters may, in fact, exist, though we may not know how to identify them. Many subsequent studies have attempted to reach a conclusion, and while most fall on Cramer’s side, the question remains open." - c.2018

Should facing Mariano Rivera with the RISP in the 9th weigh the same as facing Dylan Bundy with RISP in the first?  Totally different circumstances and likely outcomes which is what James was getting at.  

To your last point-I agree 100%-the genesis of the argument was your recent dissapointment in CC's performance with RISP.  My point before it evolved was that Colton lacks confidence and it is affecting his hitting in "clutch" situations.  We saw it last year with his defense-Ben McDonald even commented on it in the last game.  That same timid OF is now elite in coverage.  Although he has a powerful arm he struggles with accuracy, I expect that will improve-he's hitting cut's much, much better.  

Cowser is a perfect fit in LF in Camden Yards, he's likeable and and his coverage and baserunning are elite.  He's a big part of the Orioles future and IMO the leverage stats will even out over time as they do with most but right now he is struggling and it's difficult to watch.  

Maybe he's just a sensitive guy-I know I am. 

 

[SemperFi]

I don't want to hijack this thread but for those that are interested:

Underestimating the Fog (Bill James)-or the original title-The Problem of Distinguishing Between Transient and Persistent Phenomena When Dealing with Variables from a Statistically Unstable Platform.  https://sabr.org/research/article/underestimating-the-fog/

Excerpt:

"I have come to realize, over the last three years, that a wide range of conclusions in sabermetrics may be unfounded, due to the reliance on a commonly accepted method which seems, intuitively, that it ought to work, but which in practice may not actually work at all."

" Dick Cramer, in the clutch-hitting study, did the same thing, and catcher-ERA studies, which look for consistency in catcher’s impact on ERAs, do the same thing; they compare one comparison offshoot with a second comparison offshoot. It is a comparison of two comparison offshoots.

When you do that, the result embodies not just all of the randomness in two original statistics, but all of the randomness in four original statistics. Unless you have extremely stable “original elements” — original statistics stabilized by hundreds of thousands of trials — then the result is, for all practical purposes, just random numbers.

We ran astray because we have been assuming that random data is proof of nothingness, when in reality random data proves nothing. In essence, starting with Dick Cramer’s article, Cramer argued, “I did an analysis which should have identified clutch hitters, if clutch hitting exists. I got random data; therefore, clutch hitters don’t exist.”

Cramer was using random data as proof of nothingness — and I did the same, many times, and many other people also have done the same. But I’m saying now that’s not right; random data proves nothing — and it cannot be used as proof of nothingness.

Why? Because whenever you do a study, if your study completely fails, you will get random data. Therefore, when you get random data, all you may conclude is that your study has failed. Cramer’s study may have failed to identify clutch hitters because clutch hitters don’t exist — as he concluded — or it may have failed to identify clutch hitters because the method doesn’t work — as I now believe. We don’t know. All we can say is that the study has failed.

Dealing now with the nine conclusions listed near the start of the article, which were:

-Clutch hitters don’t exist.

-Pitchers have no ability to win, which is distinct from an ability to prevent runs.

-Winning or losing close games is luck.

-Catchers have little or no impact on a pitcher’s ERA.

-A pitcher has little or no control over his hits/innings ratio, other than by striking batters out and allowing home runs.

-Base running has no persistent impact on a team’s runs scored, other than by base stealing.

-Batters have no individual tendency to hit well or hit poorly against left-handed pitching.

-Batters don’t get hot and cold.

-One hitter does not “protect” another in a hitting lineup.

On [1), it is my opinion that this should be regarded as an open question. While Dick Cramer is a friend of mine, and I have tremendous respect for his work, I am convinced that, even if clutch-hitting skill did exist and was extremely important, this analysis would still reach the conclusion that it did, simply because it is not possible to detect consistency in clutch hitting by the use of this method."

He goes on to question the other conclusions.  It's a very interesting read.

Here is Birnbaum's response:  https://sabr.org/journal/article/response-to-mapping-the-fog/

 

Edited September 6 by SemperFi

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, SemperFi said:

I don't want to hijack this thread but for those that are interested:

Underestimating the Fog (Bill James)-or the original title-The Problem of Distinguishing Between Transient and Persistent Phenomena When Dealing with Variables from a Statistically Unstable Platform.  https://sabr.org/research/article/underestimating-the-fog/

Excerpt:

" Dick Cramer, in the clutch-hitting study, did the same thing, and catcher-ERA studies, which look for consistency in catcher’s impact on ERAs, do the same thing; they compare one comparison offshoot with a second comparison offshoot. It is a comparison of two comparison offshoots.

When you do that, the result embodies not just all of the randomness in two original statistics, but all of the randomness in four original statistics. Unless you have extremely stable “original elements” — original statistics stabilized by hundreds of thousands of trials — then the result is, for all practical purposes, just random numbers.

We ran astray because we have been assuming that random data is proof of nothingness, when in reality random data proves nothing. In essence, starting with Dick Cramer’s article, Cramer argued, “I did an analysis which should have identified clutch hitters, if clutch hitting exists. I got random data; therefore, clutch hitters don’t exist.”

Cramer was using random data as proof of nothingness — and I did the same, many times, and many other people also have done the same. But I’m saying now that’s not right; random data proves nothing — and it cannot be used as proof of nothingness.

Why? Because whenever you do a study, if your study completely fails, you will get random data. Therefore, when you get random data, all you may conclude is that your study has failed. Cramer’s study may have failed to identify clutch hitters because clutch hitters don’t exist — as he concluded — or it may have failed to identify clutch hitters because the method doesn’t work — as I now believe. We don’t know. All we can say is that the study has failed.

Dealing now with the nine conclusions listed near the start of the article, which were:

-Clutch hitters don’t exist.

-Pitchers have no ability to win, which is distinct from an ability to prevent runs.

-Winning or losing close games is luck.

-Catchers have little or no impact on a pitcher’s ERA.

-A pitcher has little or no control over his hits/innings ratio, other than by striking batters out and allowing home runs.

-Base running has no persistent impact on a team’s runs scored, other than by base stealing.

-Batters have no individual tendency to hit well or hit poorly against left-handed pitching.

-Batters don’t get hot and cold.

-One hitter does not “protect” another in a hitting lineup.

On [1), it is my opinion that this should be regarded as an open question. While Dick Cramer is a friend of mine, and I have tremendous respect for his work, I am convinced that, even if clutch-hitting skill did exist and was extremely important, this analysis would still reach the conclusion that it did, simply because it is not possible to detect consistency in clutch hitting by the use of this method."

He goes on to question the other conclusions.  It's a very interesting read.

Here is Birnbaum's response:  https://sabr.org/journal/article/response-to-mapping-the-fog/

 

Bill James, Kevin Goldstein, and others that have journeyed from the world of stats to actually working for clubs have all come away realizing that their statistical analysis was too simplistic in many cases.  A great example of this was the whole “anyone can be a closer” argument. 

[Sports Guy]

Cowser’s wrist is wrapped tonight. His hands/wrist have been bothering him. 

[Just Regular]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-roy-candidate-colton-cowser-contemplates-contact/