|
Spaceman Future! posted:Doesent K%-BB% serve as a reasonable substitute though? Its a quick glance that gives a good idea of control and pitch effectiveness. If, regarding control and effectiveness, you mean the K/BB ratio, then you would be right. Although a declining trend in K per 9 innings is also typically a big red flag. For example, Scott Kazmir. Dude started off with a K/9 of over 10 (that's more than one strikeout per inning). But his K/BB ratio better than 3 only once, so you knew early on that his control was always questionable. However, when you saw his K/9 drop from 10.4 to 6.4 in 3 years, everyone knew he was about to implode. Very next year: ERA of almost 6 and a K/BB ratio just over 1. Done.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 13:39 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 06:45 |
|
|
Edit: Meant to post this in the N/V thread. VVV the idea of arbitrary denominators really screws with my head. After thinking more about per inning denominators, or even per at bat, I wonder how many other metrics in the world are completely using the wrong denominators. Plate appearances for batters kind of makes sense because, in baseball, you're fighting to prevent outs when you're on offensive. If we really wanted to see how effective a hitter is, though, wouldn't the most effective offensive metric include things like how many pitches he sees and not just the outcome of the PA? tadashi fucked around with this message at Dec 13, 2011 around 17:54 |
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 14:00 |
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:If, regarding control and effectiveness, you mean the K/BB ratio, then you would be right. Although a declining trend in K per 9 innings is also typically a big red flag. K%-BB% is better than K/BB, and K% and BB% are better than the per 9 versions because they don't have innings in the denominator.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 17:24 |
|
|
tadashi posted:VVV the idea of arbitrary denominators really screws with my head. After thinking more about per inning denominators, or even per at bat, I wonder how many other metrics in the world are completely using the wrong denominators. Plate appearances for batters kind of makes sense because, in baseball, you're fighting to prevent outs when you're on offensive. If we really wanted to see how effective a hitter is, though, wouldn't the most effective offensive metric include things like how many pitches he sees and not just the outcome of the PA? Not really, because outside of a certain number of pitches needing to be thrown for a walk or a strikeout, the number of pitches seen doesn't really provide the quality of the outcome. When you look at the hitters that see the most P/PA, it's generally hitters that are good, that's true. But seeing more pitches doesn't necessarily result in a better outcome, and if it did folding that into a metric would just double it up. poo poo pitchers might throw fastballs straight down the middle, and a good hitter will smoke them. If he hits the 2nd one into the stands why is that worse than hitting the 7th pitch?
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 18:49 |
|
|
So I have kind of a weird question: I've only just recently gotten into baseball after loving it when I was little. Being from Baltimore, I am (kind of unfortunately) an Orioles fan. I know why the Orioles are bad, for the most part (pretty much everything can be led back to Angelos, correct?). But what I don't know is why other bad teams are bad. Can fans of some of these teams explain why? Is it the similar to the Orioles Owner issue? Or are there other reasons? The Pirates and the Royals are the first two that come to mind, but I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. Sorry if this is a weird question, but I'd really love to know about the other people who share my pain!
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 20:17 |
|
|
LtTennisBall posted:So I have kind of a weird question: Astros are bad because they had tasted success, and gambled away the future while simultaneously not building a farm system, in hopes of "winning now" for about a decade.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 20:20 |
|
|
LtTennisBall posted:I know why the Orioles are bad, for the most part (pretty much everything can be led back to Angelos, correct?). You play your own division more than any other division, so the Orioles have been in the same division as the perennially-contending Yankees and Red Sox, as well as in the same division as the Rays, who used to be bad but have turned into a serious powerhouse under Joe Maddon. Add in the Blue Jays who have won the World Series and always put out strong teams, and the Orioles have an uphill battle all year long. Of course, bad leadership makes a big difference which is only amplified by the uphill battle. They basically have to be better than the Yankees AND the Sox in one year to have a chance for the postseason - bottom line.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 20:30 |
|
|
As for the Royals, here is one of the greatest baseball articles of the past few years to explain.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 21:01 |
|
|
DannoMack posted:Are there any huge examples of guys getting chance after chance after chance based on their potential/high draft position in MLB? It seems to happen a lot in the NBA (with guys like Darko and Kwame getting paid every couple of years), and I was wondering if there was a poster child for the baseball version of this? This got kinda lost, but yeah, the minor league systems available means that if you're drafted in the first round, you're getting minor league invites until your retirement. Posterchild for this is probably Matt Bush. Drafted first overall despite having Justin Verlander, Jered Weaver, and Billy Butler available because Bush was a "local product" who would sign cheap. He hit .221/.279/.276 as a 19-year-old in A-ball, was his only full season starting. On the bench in the low minors until 2010, when he decided to learn to pitch, and is now a mediocre 25-year-old reliever in AA for the Rays.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 21:25 |
|
|
LtTennisBall posted:So I have kind of a weird question: In the end, everything goes back to ownership. The Orioles being as gutwrenchingly bad over the last two years as they were is also due to an unhealthy amount of terrible luck, as Andy MacPhail was actually not a bad GM -- just a really hamstrung one.
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 22:03 |
|
|
Bush and Verlander got the same bonus. Total value of Verlander was higher because he signed an MLB contract (which made a fuckton of sense).
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 22:35 |
|
|
leokitty posted:Bush and Verlander got the same bonus. Total value of Verlander was higher because he signed an MLB contract (which made a fuckton of sense). Why did it make sense? Was it just because he was likely to make the majors fairly quickly and it helped with signability? Because he was fairly likely to be a Super 2?
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 23:40 |
|
|
LtTennisBall posted:So I have kind of a weird question: Although if I'm to believe what I'm reading/hearing from our farm system, sounds like the Padres are beginning to be on the upswing...right? I hope?
|
| # ? Dec 13, 2011 23:59 |
|
|
CraigK posted:This got kinda lost, but yeah, the minor league systems available means that if you're drafted in the first round, you're getting minor league invites until your retirement. You forgot to cite his greatest accomplishment as a Padre quote:The 2004 first overall pick in the draft was released Friday, in part for his inability to contribute to any team in the Padres organization, but more for his ability to act like a complete rear end in a top hat.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 00:39 |
|
|
DrGonzo90 posted:Why did it make sense? Was it just because he was likely to make the majors fairly quickly and it helped with signability? Because he was fairly likely to be a Super 2? The former; he was a 21-year-old college junior at the time he was drafted; he spent 2004 looking to sign, signed in August of '04, and only made 20 starts in the minors by the time he was up for good at 22.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 00:40 |
|
|
DrGonzo90 posted:Why did it make sense? Was it just because he was likely to make the majors fairly quickly and it helped with signability? Because he was fairly likely to be a Super 2? Verlander was a pretty complete product and going to hit MLB very quickly since he didn't have much doing to do in the minors. MLB deal made total sense for him. The signability guy that year was Jered Weaver, IIRC. He had no business sliding down to 12 but Boras scared everyone else off.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 01:01 |
|
|
leokitty posted:Verlander was a pretty complete product and going to hit MLB very quickly since he didn't have much doing to do in the minors. MLB deal made total sense for him. I guess I just don't really understand what the MLB deal gained the Tigers, since Verlander had a clause that allowed him to void the contract and go to arb once he was arb eligible. What's the benefit of signing him to a MLB deal?
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 01:16 |
|
|
DrGonzo90 posted:I guess I just don't really understand what the MLB deal gained the Tigers, since Verlander had a clause that allowed him to void the contract and go to arb once he was arb eligible. What's the benefit of signing him to a MLB deal? It's a way to pump up the deal and spread out the money. Adding clauses like that are a different animal.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 01:17 |
|
|
leokitty posted:It's a way to pump up the deal and spread out the money. Yeah, I see now that the signing bonus was payable over like 4.5 years, I guess that at least helps the team a bit. Thanks for the explanation.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 01:18 |
|
|
DrGonzo90 posted:Yeah, I see now that the signing bonus was payable over like 4.5 years, I guess that at least helps the team a bit. Thanks for the explanation. A lot of times teams sign people to MLB deals stupidly but with Verlander I think other than the funky clauses it was a decent decision. Also I just noticed my horrible grammar oh no 
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 01:21 |
|
|
LtTennisBall posted:So I have kind of a weird question: The Seattle Mariners hired Bill Bavasi as their GM in 2003, and for five years he drafted poorly, signed bad players to ridiculous contracts, and repeatedly got bent over on every trade he made. To top it off, they're more or less just an asset of the Nintendo corporation. While their de-facto majority owner is the richest man to own an MLB team, he's never even been to a single game and clearly doesn't give one God drat about how they do. Despite not making the playoffs the past 10 seasons, they've made a profit 9 of those years and that's good enough for them. While their current GM is light years better than Bavasi, barring a new owner, things will likely never change.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 04:10 |
|
|
Why did Boston bid $51,111,111.11 on Matsuzaka? Why all the 1s?
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 04:29 |
|
|
They knew the other teams would top out at $51,111,111.10
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 04:39 |
|
|
DannoMack posted:Why did Boston bid $51,111,111.11 on Matsuzaka? Why all the 1s? All I can think of when looking at that figure is an IP address.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 04:45 |
|
|
DannoMack posted:Why did Boston bid $51,111,111.11 on Matsuzaka? Why all the 1s? http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/?p=804 John Henry posted:“When we were attempting to purchase the Red Sox, I did not want my name thrown around in the media for quite some time. Therefore, all of the potential investors and bankers knew me only as “Investor 11.” We had extraordinarily good fortune in bidding for the team. In fact, at one point Mr. (Charles) Dolan had won the bidding before asking to purchase the entire club rather than the half that was originally for sale. We were lucky to win the bidding when the second bids were taken. So although I am decidedly not superstitious, I decided, for good luck, to throw in as many 11s as I could." Entire story in the link.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2011 05:01 |
|
|
Oh hey, a safe space! That means that I can ask a really stupid question! I'm wondering, how many of you guys are fans of Scott Atchison, or even know who he is? From what I've read, he was a really low draft pick. My stake in this is he married a dear family friend that I have known my entire life. They had a daughter, Callie, born with thrombocytopenia-absent radius. Basically she has no forearms, her hands connect around the elbow. ESPN has a nifty article about it that I enjoyed as a guy who only watches hometown college baseball games here. She's a fireball of a little girl and gets all the love in the world. I don't think Scott's career is going into the tubes anytime soon, but he's not a huge name in MLB. Does anyone follow his career and can maybe give me some insight into how he plays? It's really weird to focus the conversation at a family-and-friends dinner on his career. But hey, he married a girl I dearly love, and I'd like to learn more about what he does.
|
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 05:08 |
|
|
Red Harvest posted:I don't think Scott's career is going into the tubes anytime soon, but he's not a huge name in MLB. Does anyone follow his career and can maybe give me some insight into how he plays? It's really weird to focus the conversation at a family-and-friends dinner on his career. But hey, he married a girl I dearly love, and I'd like to learn more about what he does. I hope it's not too much of a disappointment to you, but his career actually pretty much is in the tubes. He's an old, mediocre middle reliever, which is basically the least valuable player imaginable without being actively terrible. I wouldn't be too surprised if a team makes him a minor-league offer and invites him to training camp, and he could definitely stick around as a depth guy for a while, but he's not long for the Majors. 
Mornacale fucked around with this message at Dec 22, 2011 around 05:25 |
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 05:23 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:I hope it's not too much of a disappointment to you, but his career actually pretty much is in the tubes. He's an old, mediocre middle reliever, which is basically the least valuable player imaginable without being actively terrible. I wouldn't be too surprised if a team makes him a minor-league offer and invites him to training camp, and he could definitely stick around as a depth guy for a while, but he's not long for the Majors. Well that's... honestly kind of a downer. But it's far easier to ask this question to the internet than to his face, so thank you for the information! I'm not a huge baseball fan, and honestly all I care about is that he makes his wife and daughter happy. He's a really great guy, his wife loves him, and we can't keep his daughter still for two seconds. I swear she's more active with half arms than I ever was with complete ones. Again, sort of a bummer to hear that, but thank you very much for cluing me in. I really appreciate it! That leads me to a followup question though: As a second- or third- or whatever-string pitcher, does he make boatloads of money, or just enough? This is DEFINITELY not the kind of question I can ask him, and it would be good to know that, even if he's not bound for the majors for long, he can still pay for all the expensive medical treatment his daughter is going to need. I realize that you kind folks may not know exactly how much each player makes, but even a ballpark estimate would be nice to know.
|
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 05:38 |
|
|
he made $440,000 last year, according to bb-r (a bit above league minimum), and the red sox declined his option for 2012, so, while i don't want to be captain bringdown, i really hope he's been doing some smart investing
|
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 06:03 |
|
|
Mornacale was nice enough to talk to me over IM chat and set some of my fears to rest. They've known since the very first ultrasound that there might be some issues and that they would need to budget for their child's medical care. Callie's medical issues should be well covered, seeing as they both know that she will need medical care most of her life, they have planned accordingly. Thanks for making this a safe haven to ask total moron questions like this one!
|
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 06:49 |
|
|
This is probably the least useless the newbie thread has ever been 
|
| # ? Dec 22, 2011 12:53 |
|
|
Well, if we're going to start bragging here, my best friend is second cousin to Joe Mauer. Oh, wait... 
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2011 17:30 |
|
|
Congrats on being two degrees away from a cake eater.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2011 17:34 |
|
|
Hipster_Doofus posted:Well, if we're going to start bragging here, my best friend is second cousin to Joe Mauer. Worst comes to worst I'm sure Atchison could go back to Japan for a couple of years, it seems like he did reasonably well in his time there and I'm sure the money is pretty decent. e: f,b.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2011 18:01 |
|
|
The Prisoner posted:Is your best friend also a cake eater? Haha no not even close. Also she has never even met him.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2011 18:06 |
|
|
Following on from the mention of stats books in the N/V thread, can anyone recommend some good, general baseball books. I think i saw one called Flip Flop Fly Ball mentioned, are there any others?
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2012 12:04 |
|
|
Lungboy posted:Following on from the mention of stats books in the N/V thread, can anyone recommend some good, general baseball books. I think i saw one called Flip Flop Fly Ball mentioned, are there any others? Moneyball and Baseball Between the Numbers are good reads too.
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2012 19:01 |
|
|
Lungboy posted:Following on from the mention of stats books in the N/V thread, can anyone recommend some good, general baseball books. I think i saw one called Flip Flop Fly Ball mentioned, are there any others? flip flop fly ball is just cool infographics, it won't really teach you much that said, go buy it, the author is awesome
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2012 19:12 |
|
|
Lungboy posted:Following on from the mention of stats books in the N/V thread, can anyone recommend some good, general baseball books. I think i saw one called Flip Flop Fly Ball mentioned, are there any others? Do you mean other stats books or just books that are good that happen to be about baseball in some way?
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2012 20:07 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 06:45 |
|
|
Just good baseball books, stats don't interest me all that much.
|
| # ? Jan 7, 2012 14:08 |
|
