The Bullpen Has Blown 7 Games for Trachsel

[Sports Guy]

I'd say most good staffs have more than two guys throw 200 innings. The Red Sox this year will have 3, and that's with nominal ace Schilling hurt. The LAA will have three. The Tigers will have three, or be close. I think you need AT LEAST 850-900 innings from your starters, ideally another 100.

I love it how it's a waste of time for you to explain yourself. If it's such a waste of time then why do you have 45,000 posts?

No, it is a waste of time for me to explain myself to YOU...Big difference.

And you'd say most staffs?

Well, if Guthrie ends up being as good as many think he will, we should have 3 next year who can throw 200 innings...So, you are wrong there.

And you gave me the example of the best staffs in the game....How does that equal MOST?

[tim27]

You have a luxury that the Baltimore Orioles most certainly don't.

Why don't the O's have that luxury? They'll be paying Gibbons more than that to sit at home. They'll be paying Baez more than that to get scorched in the 8th. They'll be paying Payton that to have 400 abs with a .700 ops. They'll have a starting rotation making under 10 mill next year. They could most certainly carry Trasch next year and not bust the budget- it's not as if they're going to sign any big-time FA.

[Old#5fan]

You were right because he got hurt...Had nothing to do with his talent.

Technically true, but posters here were deriding me for making that observation based on how great his stats were in meaningless spring training games (another topic that I am sure has been argued here previously). I was basing it on watching him pitch in the regular season the previous year. He just did not look like a good major league pitcher to me and no doubt it was due to his being damaged goods.

So my point is made that you cannot soley rely on stats. The same argument was made with Tejada as posters were saying his field (stats-wise) was not a problem but many of us saw that it was by observation. Now the stats are reflecting it moreso but the problem was visible previously as well.

The point I am making is over-reliance on stats is a faulty stance to take. Watching a player's on-field performance will tell an experienced baseball fan of many years much more about a player. I agree if you are young and have not played the game or followed it very long you probably would get caught in the trap of placing your views of a player disproportionally based on stats. I just wish to caution against this. That is all, I am through with my "preaching" on this for now.

[tim27]

No, it is a waste of time for me to explain myself to YOU...Big difference.

And I'm the one that trolls your posts? O-KAY. If it's a waste of time to explain yourself to someone who won't neccessarily agree with what you say then I guess it is a waste. I'll give you the advice you give everyone who has a problem with you: Put me on ignore.

And you'd say most staffs?

Most good staffs. And, despite our pathetic bullpen, we have a good starting rotation and its only getting better.

Well, if Guthrie ends up being as good as many think he will, we should have 3 next year who can throw 200 innings...So, you are wrong there.

But you don't believe that do you? You don't think we can count on him to finish next year in the rotation let alone with 200 innings. So that's a pretty hollow argument coming from you.

[tim27]

And you gave me the example of the best staffs in the game....How does that equal MOST?

Didn't I say "most good staffs"? I know reading comprehension is tough for you SG. You just can't wait to make you point no matter what the other guy is saying. It must be nice living in a world where all dicussions equate hollering at a brick wall.

[RShack]

Furthermore, the best predictor of an individual's performance is the past performance of that very individual, not normative data about everybody. And even that is a poor predictor.

This isn't really true.

Actually, it is... whether it's baseball or anything else about people...

Sports Guy]

Let's say a player is 35 years old....They were very good up until age 32(10 year period)...In the last 3 seasons, they have been on the decline....What do you think happens...They revert back to the form of their 20s and their prime or they keep declining as they get into their mid to upper 30s?

In your example, what about referring to the 3-year trend in the past performance of that individual is NOT looking at that individual's past performance?

Reading Comprehension 101? Or Logic 101? Hmmm, I'm not sure...

[Sports Guy]

But you don't believe that do you? You don't think we can count on him to finish next year in the rotation let alone with 200 innings. So that's a pretty hollow argument coming from you.

Doesn't matter if i believe it or not...You do and you are the one sayign we need Trax for insurance despite the fact that i would think you ebleive we have 3 200IP pitchers(or at least 2 and one who will go 180+)

So really, what do we need Trax for?

The idea of needing him for insurance is bogus.

[NewMarketSean]

Technically true, but posters here were deriding me for making that observation based on how great his stats were in meaningless spring training games (another topic that I am sure has been argued here previously). I was basing it on watching him pitch in the regular season the previous year. He just did not look like a good major league pitcher to me and no doubt it was due to his being damaged goods.

So my point is made that you cannot soley rely on stats. The same argument was made with Tejada as posters were saying his field (stats-wise) was not a problem but many of us saw that it was by observation. Now the stats are reflecting it moreso but the problem was visible previously as well.

The point I am making is over-reliance on stats is a faulty stance to take. Watching a player's on-field performance will tell an experienced baseball fan of many years much more about a player. I agree if you are young and have not played the game or followed it very long you probably would get caught in the trap of placing your views of a player disproportionally based on stats. I just wish to caution against this. That is all, I am through with my "preaching" on this for now.

Old#19Fan, when have you ever been wrong in your 40 years of astute TV watching and ignoring stats? When have your eyes ever deceived you, and a player you liked never panned out? That of course is if they ever have deceived you, oh wise and mighty TV watcher.

[Sports Guy]

Actually, it is... whether it's baseball or anything else about people...

In your example, what about referring to the 3-year trend in the past performance of that individual is NOT looking at that individual's past performance?

Reading Comprehension 101? Or Logic 101? Hmmm, I'm not sure...

But a 10 year performance should be looked at before a 3 year performance, right?

Shouldn't we ignore those trends of the last 3 years??

[osfan83]

Why don't the O's have that luxury? They'll be paying Gibbons more than that to sit at home. They'll be paying Baez more than that to get scorched in the 8th. They'll be paying Payton that to have 400 abs with a .700 ops. They'll have a starting rotation making under 10 mill next year. They could most certainly carry Trasch next year and not bust the budget- it's not as if they're going to sign any big-time FA.

This is why they don't have that luxury. They already will have too much money tied up in players that will probably contribute very little to great success. Replace the contracts of Gibbons, Payton and Baez with league minimum contracts, and you might then have the luxury to spend 5Mil on an over 35, mediocre at best, insurance policy.

[RShack]

But a 10 year performance should be looked at before a 3 year performance, right?

Shouldn't we ignore those trends of the last 3 years??

SG, what are you doing? You can do better than this...

[Mackus]

I'd be glad to pay him 4.75 next year solely as insurance because I wouldn't ever base my playing time arrangements on financial concern.

If we had to have him back, I agree completely that we shouldn't base his playing time on his salary.

But, since it is our option to pay him that, it'd be silly to pick it up. We can find a guy just as likely to help us out for far less. The Mets got Jorge Sosa this year for about a million or so. Guys like that are usually available if you want an insurance policy. Then take that extra $4M and spend it on something actually useful, like perhaps another reliever or a decent DH.

[Witchy_Chick]

No, it is a waste of time for me to explain myself to YOU...Big difference.

And you'd say most staffs?

Well, if Guthrie ends up being as good as many think he will, we should have 3 next year who can throw 200 innings...So, you are wrong there.

And you gave me the example of the best staffs in the game....How does that equal MOST?

This guy will hit 200 IP. And so will this guy. And this one will probably be within 30-40 IP (depending on # starts, IP/game, injury-avoidance). And that's not a good staff.

And who the friggin' hell are the three 200 IP pitchers with LAA? Top three (at the moment) are Lackey (181 1/3), Escobar (172), and Weaver the younger (only 133). Weav' ain't pitching 67 innings in the final month of the season.

Witchy

[Sports Guy]

SG, what are you doing? You can do better than this...

Just trying to figure out what little logic you have.

Basically, you are saying that stats mean something if you want them to mean something...That is how i am taking it.

That while things will likely normalize, you don't really know.

You also said past performance is the biggest key...I gave you an example and yet you sit there and don't really answer me.

So, which is it? When does past performance matter? How far back do you go?

And if you do it over a few years(like in my example), aren't you then looking at trends, both historical and current? And isn't this going against what you are saying?

[Mackus]

Why don't the O's have that luxury? They'll be paying Gibbons more than that to sit at home. They'll be paying Baez more than that to get scorched in the 8th. They'll be paying Payton that to have 400 abs with a .700 ops. They'll have a starting rotation making under 10 mill next year. They could most certainly carry Trasch next year and not bust the budget- it's not as if they're going to sign any big-time FA.

I've never thought that past mistakes were good justification for making more mistakes, but thats just me.