Pitching & Defense

gig wrote:
>
> *Pirates starters are 8-1 with a 2.32 ERA in their last 11 starts, during a
> stretch that has seen Pittsburgh go 11-5.
>
> *The Pirates played their 10th consecutive errorless game.

And the bottom line? It has made watching this team, win or lose, a lot
of fun.

Alan
'loves a well-played game'
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

gig wrote:
>
> *Pirates starters are 8-1 with a 2.32 ERA in their last 11 starts, during a
> stretch that has seen Pittsburgh go 11-5.
>
> *The Pirates played their 10th consecutive errorless game.

A long time ago Bill James noticed the correlation between run
differential and your w/l record as a team.

Over the course of a season, each ten run differential translates to one
game. So if you score 100 and allow 90, you should expect to be one
game above .500, for example. While Pirates have only scored 158 times,
Pirates have allowed only 174 runs, and (big surprise) are two games
below .500 today.

Paul's favorite team, the Reds, which he often offers for comparison,
have scored thirty more runs than the Bucs, 188. However, they've given
up 244 runs to the opposition. That should put them 6 or 7 games below
..500. Since they are currently 12 games under, Paul can reasonably
expect them to improve, their record is much worse than the run
differential would predict.

James had another bit of wisdom about one-run games and how your record
in those is an indicator of a team about to dramatically improve or
decline.

Big Gaudy Stats notwithstanding, it's important to do the 'little
things' well. Check out Adam Dunn's performace with runners at third
and less than two outs. It helps explain his odd HR/RBI ratio. When
Dunn hit 46 HRs last year, he barely cleared 100 RBI. In both 2003 and
this season, it's about a 1 to 2 ratio, 12 homers and 24 RBI this
morning. IMO, OPS and that stuff is out the window, SLG don't mean spit
if it doesn't result in runs. Adam may make the All-Star team, I don't
know. But I'd rather have Jason Bay than Adam Dunn in my lineup. Check
out the performance difference between them in situational stats, Bay
improves dramatically with runners on. Home Runs are fine, but a SF is
much better than a K.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

> Check
> out the performance difference between them in situational stats,

Situational stats are extremely important in short stretches, like the
playoffs. Over the course of a season, they usually even out. This is the
Barry Bonds Syndrome. He's not a good situational hitter, and that's why he
flops in the playoffs.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Mr. Brian Allen wrote:
>>Check
>>out the performance difference between them in situational stats,
>
>
> Situational stats are extremely important in short stretches, like the
> playoffs.

Situtational stats are a complete and utter fallacy. Players don't
choose when or how they get hits, they just do.

If you believe that things like hitting with runners in scoring position
are anything other than random chance then you also believe that a .300
hitter is CHOOSING not get a hit seven out of ten time he comes to the
plate.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Alan Williams wrote:

> There are many ways to skin a cat, and hitting 30 homers (while driving
> in only 70 runs a year!) is a one-dimensional approach to baseball.
> It's possible to win without sluggers, with or without speed, with or
> without a HOF starter. The Cardinals of the early 1980's, the Reds of
> the early 70;s, the Go-Go White Sox, the 1976 Yankees, the 1965 Dodgers
> are all different teams, built on different concepts and united by one
> thing. They won.

Typical failure to put things in context.

The production of the major league teams during those periods was
different than it is today and even though the numbers are lower for
each of them, but so were they across the league.

Each of those teams that won was near the top of their league in
slugging, on base and OPS even if the rates for them and the whole
league was lower than what you would typically expect from a team today.

Each of those teams was built on precisely the same concept as a winning
team today... not making outs, getting on base and collecting more extra
base hits scores runs and wins games.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Alan Williams wrote:

> And the bottom line? It has made watching this team, win or lose, a lot
> of fun.

Apparently that nearly empty stadium of booing people yesterday thinks
otherwise.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Another Day Another OS wrote:
>
> Alan Williams wrote:
>
> > And the bottom line? It has made watching this team, win or lose, a lot
> > of fun.
>
> Apparently that nearly empty stadium of booing people yesterday thinks
> otherwise.

I thought the Reds were on the Road....I understand they are being booed
fairly lustily at home.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Another Day Another OS wrote:
>
> Mr. Brian Allen wrote:
> >>Check
> >>out the performance difference between them in situational stats,
> >
> >
> > Situational stats are extremely important in short stretches, like the
> > playoffs.
>
> Situtational stats are a complete and utter fallacy. Players don't
> choose when or how they get hits, they just do.

They don't choose *how* to get a hit....damn you're an idiot. I suppose
that every so often God makes a guy dragbunt or go to the opposite
field. Predestination at work in the batter's box.

>
> If you believe that things like hitting with runners in scoring position
> are anything other than random chance then you also believe that a .300
> hitter is CHOOSING not get a hit seven out of ten time he comes to the
> plate.

Then remind me to never play Black Jack with Adam Dunn at the table,
cause his *luck* for the last three years with RISP or Men on third and
less than two outs has been abysmal.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Alan Williams wrote:


> They don't choose *how* to get a hit....damn you're an idiot.

Your lack of fundamental baseball knowledge is surpassed by your lack of
reading comprehension.

"Players don't choose WHEN OR HOW they get hits, they just do."

Every major league hitter has an understanding of what it takes to get a
hit and presumably when they step to the plate, each and every single
time they step to the plate, they are trying to do just that. The best
are actually trying not to make outs and getting a hit is one way to
avoid and out.

Since even the very best hitters usually fail to get a hit more than
they succeed, it's very obvious to even a causal observer that there is
more to it than simply CHOOSING to or knowing HOW to get a hit.

Batters try to get hits to the best of their ability and that ability
combined with a multitude of other ever changing factors determines
whether they get a hit or not - there is no choice involved.

If you believe that situation statistics, such as hitting with runners
in scoring position, are indicative of a particular skill on the part of
individual players; then you are essentially arguing that some players
can control WHEN they get hits AND they choose to wait to get their hits
when men are on base or in scoring position and choose not to at other
times...

Which of course is a patently absurd idea.

Situational statistics are for the most part absolute bunk.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"Another Day Another OS" <UspammerzSux.TakeThisOut@stayaway.com> wrote in message
news:d6sl0u$h4s$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
> Mr. Brian Allen wrote:
>>>Check
>>>out the performance difference between them in situational stats,
>>
>>
>> Situational stats are extremely important in short stretches, like the
>> playoffs.
>
> Situtational stats are a complete and utter fallacy. Players don't choose
> when or how they get hits, they just do.
>
> If you believe that things like hitting with runners in scoring position are
> anything other than random chance then you also believe that a .300 hitter is
> CHOOSING not get a hit seven out of ten time he comes to the plate.

A pretty cynical view, isn't it? Are you saying there are no such thing as
"clutch hitters"? It's all just mechanical chance? Perhaps some players just get
geared-up in big situations and respond better? This type of thinking reduces
everything to mere numbers. No spirit? No soul? Yuck.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Oh Me Oh My wrote:
>
> Alan Williams wrote:
>
> > They don't choose *how* to get a hit....damn you're an idiot.
>
> Your lack of fundamental baseball knowledge is surpassed by your lack of
> reading comprehension.

A more reasonable postulate, you write very poorly. More likely, you
write first and think after.

>
> "Players don't choose WHEN OR HOW they get hits, they just do."
>
> Every major league hitter has an understanding of what it takes to get a
> hit and presumably when they step to the plate, each and every single
> time they step to the plate, they are trying to do just that. The best
> are actually trying not to make outs and getting a hit is one way to
> avoid and out.
>
> Since even the very best hitters usually fail to get a hit more than
> they succeed, it's very obvious to even a causal observer that there is
> more to it than simply CHOOSING to or knowing HOW to get a hit.
>
> Batters try to get hits to the best of their ability and that ability
> combined with a multitude of other ever changing factors determines
> whether they get a hit or not - there is no choice involved.

What a numbskull you truly are. You think a man just goes to the plate
swinging the bat and hoping to get a hit? Fool. You go up there
looking for a fastball to drive, or a changup to drive, or a curve ball
to take the other way, a sinker to golf for a Sac Fly, an outside pitch
to drag bunt...of COURSE major league hitters have to decide HOW to get
a hit. How many times have you seen a pitcher determined not to give a
hitter a pitch he can pull? And you think hitters dont adjust? Damn,
you are dense.

>
> If you believe that situation statistics, such as hitting with runners
> in scoring position, are indicative of a particular skill on the part of
> individual players; then you are essentially arguing that some players
> can control WHEN they get hits AND they choose to wait to get their hits
> when men are on base or in scoring position and choose not to at other
> times...
>
> Which of course is a patently absurd idea.
>
> Situational statistics are for the most part absolute bunk.

Now that you've knocked stuffing out of your strawman, try answering my post.

Freak it, man, you write like a Reds Fan.

Alan
'home of Ernie Lombardi'
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam DeleteThis @consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:h5m4915or0g3jbdjq8g5d0nn5uvh8n0119@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:10:38 -0400, "gig" <osled DeleteThis @lycos.com> gave us:
>>"Another Day Another OS" <UspammerzSux DeleteThis @stayaway.com> wrote in message
>>news:d6sl0u$h4s$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
>>> Mr. Brian Allen wrote:
>
>>>>>Check
>>>>>out the performance difference between them in situational stats,
>
>>>> Situational stats are extremely important in short stretches, like the
>>>> playoffs.
>
>>> Situtational stats are a complete and utter fallacy. Players don't choose
>>> when or how they get hits, they just do.
>
>>> If you believe that things like hitting with runners in scoring position are
>>> anything other than random chance then you also believe that a .300 hitter
>>> is
>>> CHOOSING not get a hit seven out of ten time he comes to the plate.
>
>>A pretty cynical view, isn't it? Are you saying there are no such thing as
>>"clutch hitters"? It's all just mechanical chance? Perhaps some players just
>>get
>>geared-up in big situations and respond better? This type of thinking reduces
>>everything to mere numbers. No spirit? No soul? Yuck.
>
> That depends on how you define "clutch hitter". If you use the phrase
> to denote a batter who consistently raises his level of performance in
> tough situations over the level at which he achieves normally, then
> the studies I've read have identified a grand total of two "clutch
> hitters" over the course of the past quarter century: Tony Fernandez
> and Paul Molitor.

According to that definition. But define "consistently", define "tough
situation"... these are abstract terms.

But no matter, I'm sure if you took a survey of major league players over the
past 1/4 century who actully played the game (rather than just analyze it from
outside with mere numbers), you'd get a few more. But that's the trouble with
mere numbers, they don't tell the whole story, and never will. As the saying
goes, "Ya had'a be there."

> The problem with situational statistics is that you don't see any
> consistent performance by players from year to year.

> For instance, in 1996, Brian Jordan was great in so-called "clutch"
> situations. With runners in scoring position, he hit 422/453/701, and
> with RISP and 2 out, he hit 405/463/703. The very next year, he hit
> 244/380/268 with RISP and 188/458/188 with RISP, 2 outs.

That wasn't the original contention though. The original contention was they
didn't exist at all, that it was just mere chance. A player could be clutch one
year and not the next, but that doesn't mean it's mere chance. People grow and
change and for whatever reason, don't always remain the same, but I wouldn't say
it's a random thing or just due to mere chance.

But ask any HOFer who they played against (or with); ask them who were the
clutch hitters of their time and I'm sure they'd tell you quite a few who, over
their entire career would be considered "clutch".
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Att: 20,853

This is a nearly empty stadium? What do you think the capacity is?
120,000?

--
ROBERT MARSILI
"Another Day Another OS" <UspammerzSux.TakeThisOut@stayaway.com> wrote in message
news:d6slgd$h96$2@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
> Alan Williams wrote:
>
>> And the bottom line? It has made watching this team, win or lose, a lot
>> of fun.
>
> Apparently that nearly empty stadium of booing people yesterday thinks
> otherwise.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense