The Bullpen Has Blown 7 Games for Trachsel

[BigDawg819]

So you're fine with betting on a historically unique performance? I think I said at the time of the Trachsel signing that occasionally you'll see someone with ugly K rates have a decent year. It does happen. But those players, almost without exception, drastically decline the next season. Trachsel doesn't even have the benefit of an exceptionally low walk rate, or any other exceptional performance measures. It's all smoke and mirrors, unless you believe he's figured out an entirely new, unique way of pitching successfully.

Just because someone has run 100 yards on the edge of the Grand Canyon without falling over doesn't mean you should bet on him making it through the next 100 yards. I'm not sure there's a single player in all of major league baseball with a higher likelihood of collapse than Steve Trachsel.

There is, his name is Danny Baez......

[tim27]

So you're fine with betting on a historically unique performance? I think I said at the time of the Trachsel signing that occasionally you'll see someone with ugly K rates have a decent year. It does happen. But those players, almost without exception, drastically decline the next season. Trachsel doesn't even have the benefit of an exceptionally low walk rate, or any other exceptional performance measures. It's all smoke and mirrors, unless you believe he's figured out an entirely new, unique way of pitching successfully.

Just because someone has run 100 yards on the edge of the Grand Canyon without falling over doesn't mean you should bet on him making it through the next 100 yards. I'm not sure there's a single player in all of major league baseball with a higher likelihood of collapse than Steve Trachsel.

Didn't you say that last season too? I mean, if you keep predicting his decline and you wait long enough I'm sure it'll come to pass. I mean, he is like 38 years old.

FWIW, I'm not saying it won't happen; I expect it to as well. Hell, he could get bombed all September and this makes this pretty much a moot point. But if he continues to pitch well for the rest of the season then I have no problem bringing him back next year as insurance for the young pitchers we have in the rotation. Like Frobby said, I wouldn't go into a year I was going to compete with Traschel as one of my five starting options (although the Mets did last year and they did all right) but in a rebuilding year, solely as insurance, there is nothing wrong with him being here.

[RShack]

Didn't we hear the same things about Traschel last year? Now, maybe he does fall off the cliff, but I was hearing the same things about Traschel last April and it hasn't happened yet. What makes his failure inevitable next year, when supposedly it was inevitable this year and it didn't happen?

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people.... (well, maybe Stats 201)...

[DrungoHazewood]

Didn't you say that last season too? I mean, if you keep predicting his decline and you wait long enough I'm sure it'll come to pass. I mean, he is like 38 years old.

FWIW, I'm not saying it won't happen; I expect it to as well. Hell, he could get bombed all September and this makes this pretty much a moot point. But if he continues to pitch well for the rest of the season then I have no problem bringing him back next year as insurance for the young pitchers we have in the rotation. Like Frobby said, I wouldn't go into a year I was going to compete with Traschel as one of my five starting options (although the Mets did last year and they did all right) but in a rebuilding year, solely as insurance, there is nothing wrong with him being here.

Do you really think that the Orioles would bring back Steve Trachsel as insurance? If they pick up his $4.75M option for 2008 he's going to be in the rotation come hell or high water. That money virtually guarantees him 15 starts.

I wouldn't guarantee him anything. The only way I'd even consider bringing him back is if they decine his option and resign him at the league minimum, or on a minor league deal. And we know that's not happening.

[tim27]

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people....

So I guess you think Wang is a fluke because he doesn't k enough batters, right?

[tim27]

Do you really think that the Orioles would bring back Steve Trachsel as insurance? If they pick up his $4.75M option for 2008 he's going to be in the rotation come hell or high water. That money virtually guarantees him 15 starts.

I wouldn't guarantee him anything. The only way I'd even consider bringing him back is if they decine his option and resign him at the league minimum, or on a minor league deal. And we know that's not happening.

Hey, I already admitted that is a concern of mine. If- IF- they use Traschel as an emergency option for the young starters, and keep him in the pen for the rest of the time to be long-relief for the inevitable 2.1 inning start that Olson/Liz is going to give you every other week, then I have no problem with them picking up his option. But if I had to choose between 20 starts of Traschel and no Traschel for next year and I had to choose right now, I'd choose no Traschel.

[Sports Guy]

Didn't you say that last season too? I mean, if you keep predicting his decline and you wait long enough I'm sure it'll come to pass. I mean, he is like 38 years old.

FWIW, I'm not saying it won't happen; I expect it to as well. Hell, he could get bombed all September and this makes this pretty much a moot point. But if he continues to pitch well for the rest of the season then I have no problem bringing him back next year as insurance for the young pitchers we have in the rotation. Like Frobby said, I wouldn't go into a year I was going to compete with Traschel as one of my five starting options (although the Mets did last year and they did all right) but in a rebuilding year, solely as insurance, there is nothing wrong with him being here.

So, in a year where you want to compete, you don't keep the vet pitcher....In a year where you want to rebuild, you keep the vet pitcher and use him over the young pitcher?

That makes no sense.

[tim27]

So, in a year where you want to compete, you don't keep the vet pitcher....In a year where you want to rebuild, you keep the vet pitcher and use him over the young pitcher?

That makes no sense.

What part of SOLELY AS INSURANCE don't you understand?

[Sports Guy]

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people.... (well, maybe Stats 201)...

Yea, you are right...Let's ignore stats, history and trends.

Let's just say that every player can buck any trend, so wtf, let's see what happens.

We are playing the odds.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people....

So you're of the opinion that Trachsel is likely to continue his currently adequate ERA?

Don't you ever consider that a player who isn't just slightly bucking trends, but is orders of magnitude and many standard deviations from the mean, is all that more unlikley to work out? This is the same as the Tejada/Hernandez argument. When you've deviated a bit from normal I can accept that you may have unique attributes that mean you'll buck overall trends. But when you're off the scale, in a bad way, there's almost no chance of that.

Luis Hernandez is so bad that it's almost inconceivable that he has some kind of unique set of skills that'll let him eventually succeed. Steve Trachsel's secondary numbers are so terrible that it almost guarantees failure in the future. Both of these players have profiles that don't have future success even a trivial percentage of the time.

[Old#5fan]

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people.... (well, maybe Stats 201)...

Yeah if baseball was like a computer game then analysis of stats should be able to predict the winners each season. Of course stats don't account for the human factor, or unexplained anamolies.

I would love some statistician for example to explain why Corey Patterson for example reversed his trend from last season where he could hit LH pitching but hit well against RH pitching and this year it is just the reverse.

My theory on this is he worked hard during the offseason to improve and maybe took a lot of extra batting practice and worked out against a LH pitcher. However, by doing so he diminished his previous ability to hit a RH pitcher. I don't know if this is a valid theory but it is the only one I can think of. Otherwise it just doesn't make a lick of sense!

[DrungoHazewood]

What part of SOLELY AS INSURANCE don't you understand?

So what part of spending $4.75M on a pitcher precludes him from being insurance don't you understand? What part of $4.75M is about $4M too much for an insurance policy don't you understand?

[Sports Guy]

What part of SOLELY AS INSURANCE don't you understand?

I understand that you are completely wrong if you think he is insurance..If they pick up his option, he is in the rotation regardless of his or others performance until at least May, if not longer.

To think otherwise is ridiculous.

And in a rebuilding year, you know who is insurance for a young pitcher? ANOTHER YOUNG PITCHER!

As of now, the Orioles have these guys who should be in the majors next year:

Bedard

Loewen

DCab

Guthrie

Penn

Olson

Burres

Liz

We also have guys like JJ Johnson who could be in the mix.

This is before you make any trades, sign any MiL FAs or sign the next RLo or Guthrie(if you do).

We don't need a 4.75 million dollar insurance policy, especially one who is likely to be the worse starter in the AL next year.

BTW, the premise of this thread is Trax has been unlucky because of the pen...Well he has been very lucky to even have a chance to win most of these games so it evens out.

[Old#5fan]

So you're of the opinion that Trachsel is likely to continue his currently adequate ERA?

Don't you ever consider that a player who isn't just slightly bucking trends, but is orders of magnitude and many standard deviations from the mean, is all that more unlikley to work out? This is the same as the Tejada/Hernandez argument. When you've deviated a bit from normal I can accept that you may have unique attributes that mean you'll buck overall trends. But when you're off the scale, in a bad way, there's almost no chance of that.

Luis Hernandez is so bad that it's almost inconceivable that he has some kind of unique set of skills that'll let him eventually succeed. Steve Trachsel's secondary numbers are so terrible that it almost guarantees failure in the future. Both of these players have profiles that don't have future success even a trivial percentage of the time.

Yeah, and Corey Patterson was so bad last year at hitting LH pitchers that many Orioles fans wanted him gone or at least out of the lineup against lefties. Now this year the opposite is true! Splain that one Ricky!

IMHO that is just another example of how you simply cannot predict the future based on past stats even in the major leagues from year to year. To predict or project stats from the minors to majors is nothing more than a crapshoot period.

[RShack]

This is the *classic* OH misuse of stats... using normative data to predict individual performance... it's nice to be aware of normative data, you'd be a dope not to consider what is normal... but reaching predictive conclusions about individuals based only on normative data is simply a very wrong thing to do... yet it happens around here every time... what I am saying is not some radical idea, it's one of the basics ... it's from "Stats 101", people.... (well, maybe Stats 201)...

Yea, you are right...Let's ignore stats, history and trends.

SG, for you, I recommend "Reading Comprehension 101" before "Stats 101"....