Old school stats vs. new school stats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    Although less obvious, I was including the balls that "get through".

    A sure handed fielder with the speed of Usain Bolt wouldn't have made the "flip" play; or the relay throw in the '99 NYY Red Sox POs.

    While what you say is true to an extent, he partly makes up for with his play around second base, rare mental mistakes, and sure hands. Speaking of sure hands, when the NYY won the WS, the entire infield made a record setting (lowest #) 15 errors. You don't think that wasn't a factor?

    Regardless, the 15 games a season is beyond ridiculous. For example, for those who care about such stats, Babe Ruth's best WAR wasn't even +15! (It was 13.7)

    Is Derek Jeter, a future 1st ballot HOFer, in the negative, and by defense alone, WORSE than Babe Ruth's best season?

     




     

    I agree that Jeter partly makes up for his lack of range in other areas. UZR does give him credit for that. For an infielder, UZR has 3 components - double play runs (and I think Yankees fans might be surprised that Jeter rates slightly below average in that category), range runs (which is his obvious weakness), and error runs (in which he scores very well).

    I would also give Jeter credit for the intangibles that he brings to the field, which UZR obviously does not account for.

    And I believe you missed the decimal point on my 1.5 games per season. I agree, 15 games a season for one player would be absurd! 1.5 games is still significant, IMO.

     

     



    You're right, I did. My bad. And now I'm more apt to agree with you. 1.5 games due to his defensive liability sounds about right.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I was thinking this as well. I can't ever remember him making a "bad" defensive play in the clutch (although I've seen good, i.e, the flip play, one of the greatest plays in BB history, and if he doesn't make that play, they don't go to the WS), but I'm sure this has happened.

    We sometimes don't remember or even recognize plays not made that other great-ranged SSs might have made easily or otherwise.

    Jete rarely botches plays right to him. He does have a great relay arm both in strength and accuracy. He does have great leadership qualities. But, all of these combined, in my opinion, do n.ot come close to outweighing his horrible range.

    Over the last 3 years combined, Jeter has made 1,465 total plays (PO+A) in 3537 innings at SS.

    Others:

    B Ryan  1,777 in 3359  (1871 pro-rated to 3537 innings that Jete had) +395

    A Ram   2,083 in 4151  (1774 vs Jete)  +298

    Andrus 1944 in 3885   (1770)  +294

    Penning 1726 in 3382  (1805) +329

    Peralta  1377 in 2915   (1670) +205

    Y.Esco  1823 in 3551   (1816) +340

    Hardy     1826 in 3430  (1883) +407

    Aybar     1778 in 3631  (1732) +256

    Reyes    1722 in 3669  (1660) +195

    A Esco  1912 in 3918   (1726) +250

    Desmond 1743 in 3665  (1682) +217

    S Castro  1961 in 3875  (1789) +313

    Rollins  1384 in 3315 (1476)  +11

    Jeter        1465 in 3537

    Jeter is in last place out fo qualifying SSs over the last 3 years.

    Here are the play differentials per season:

    B Ryan   +132

    A Ram     +100

    Andrus   +98

    Penning  +110

    Peralta   +68

    Y.Esco   +113

    Hardy      +136

    Aybar      +85

    Reyes     +65

    A Esco    +83

    Desmond +72

    S Castro  +104

    Rollins   +4

    If these SSs played the same innings as jeter over the last 3 years, this is how many more plays they'd have made per season that Jeter. 

    It is not a stretch to say that there are SSs making 80-120 more plays over a season than Jeter. Yes, there are other factors involved, and these numbers aren't absolute numbers uneffected by other influences, but the sample size is large and the UZR Range factor numbers backs up the evidence that Jeter just doesn't get to as many balls hit in his area than other SSs.

     A lot more!

     

     

     



    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. Just not sure that I buy your contention that whips lack of range negates every other of his attributes...that not even s considering what he does with the bat.

     




    Yes, Brendan Ryan is fabulous.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    It's the specific bad plays (not scored as errors) that we need identified.  If a log of these plays was readily available then UZR would be much more transparent for the average fan.

     

    We'll probably get that kind of data eventually.  But it'll be after Jeter retires. :-)



    I'm guessing there will eventually be a log of such data.  I understand what you're saying about not having the specific bad plays identified.  Having read what I've read about UZR, I have confidence in the system. 

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Does anyone recall the Larry David episode (CYE) where he gets outed as a swan killer because of an argument he had with the stone mason over Jeter's defensive prowess? The ending was hilarious.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    I was thinking this as well. I can't ever remember him making a "bad"defensive play in the clutch (although I've seen good, i.e, the flip play, one of the greatest plays in BB history, and if he doesn't make that play, they don't go to the WS), but I'm sure this has happened.

     



    Most of the times, I bet the fans don't even realize when he has made a bad defensive play.  It's not that he actually made a bad play, but more so that he failed to make a play at all.  No error is assigned, and most fans just take it as a hit by the opposition.

     

    Sometimes his plays look spectacular, but are they really?  A player with poor range can make a routine play seem spectacular, whereas a great defender with good range and agility will make the tough plays look routine.

    Costing a team runs defensively does not just mean making a bad play in the clutch.  If Jeter allows a groundball hit that the average SS would have turned into an out, he is indirectly costing his team runs. 

    Maybe a run scores on that play.  Maybe a run scores two batters later.  Maybe no runs score but the pitcher has to throw 20 extra pitches.  How many repercussions can that have, not just in that game but possibly in the next day's game?  Maybe no runs score that inning but it turns the line up over so that the big bats get an extra AB later in the game and drive in the game winning run.

    It's hard to quantify, because we're not talking necessarily talking about a bad play that results directly in a Yankee loss.  However, Jeter, on average, has cost his team about 1.5 games a season because of his defense.



    Well said.

    Not helping the opps make outs that other SSs do, keeps the inning going. My guess is that if he allows 80-120 more hits than the best SSs, it make a much bigger difference than 1.5 games (which is maybe how he compares to the avg SS).

    Jeter makes up for much of this with his bat and leadership, but it does not take away from the fact, yes fact, that he is one of the worst fielding SSs of the past decade.

    There are 23 qualifying SSs over the last 10 years.

    Jeter ranks (out of 23):

    T6 in Fldg% (.978)

    2nd ErrR  (+32.6) Proof he makes the plays he gets to.

    21st DPR (-5.0)

    23rd in RngR (-92.5) That's worse than the next bottom 2 combined!!! 

       (S Drew -35.1 and Betancourt -43.6) That closes the case for me. He's not just horrible in range, he is beyond horrible.

    21st in UZR/150 (-7.2) Betancourt is -8.2 and Hanram is -9.1.

    As I said, I would not argue with anyone who says he is only the 3rd worst fielding SS the past decade, but to me, his exponentially horrible range makes him the absolute worst of the decade.

    I'd say the same thing if he was on the Sox.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Horrible is A. Nunez

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    2012  NYY  Putouts:

    LF   283     Avg 294  21st in MLB

    RF  303     Avg  312    15th 

    (((  Home and away, and of course YS RF is smaller  ))))

    Just not sure that I buy your contention that whips lack of range negates every other of his attributes...that not even s considering what he does with the bat.

    Who said that?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    2012  NYY  Putouts:

    LF   283     Avg 294  21st in MLB

    RF  303     Avg  312    15th 

    (((  Home and away, and of course YS RF is smaller  ))))

    Just not sure that I buy your contention that whips lack of range negates every other of his attributes...that not even s considering what he does with the bat.

    Who said that?

    Tom,

    Thanks, for the numbers wonder if you include how many times a ball is caught by the center fielder on the right side of second. If the numbers would be even more skewed to the right at Yankee stadium....

    I believe Moon not once but twice has said as much regarding Jeter's lack of range outweighing his coverall ability to play the position. A position that I disagree with...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    Actually, the Yanks have more LH'd starters than most teams, so they probably see more RH'd batters than average. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I am just speculatiing on this.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    Actually, the Yanks have more LH'd starters than most teams, so they probably see more RH'd batters than average. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I am just speculatiing on this.

     



    aside from Sabathia not sure i agree...Petitte Is the only other lefty that's toed the rubber for them and his numbers are better vs righties. Nova, Burnett, Hughes, Kuroda and Colon all are right handed and represent the lion share of games started in the last few years for the Yanks. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    Actually, the Yanks have more LH'd starters than most teams, so they probably see more RH'd batters than average. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I am just speculatiing on this.

     

     



    aside from Sabathia not sure i agree...Petitte Is the only other lefty that's toed the rubber for them and his numbers are better vs righties. Nova, Burnett, Hughes, Kuroda and Colon all are right handed and represent the lion share of games started in the last few years for the Yanks. 

     



    I'm talking about Jeter over the last decade. The Yanks have had more lefties than the average team over that period. But, I think you are right, they havn't had many lefties I can think of. I was mistaken with this point.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to youkillus' comment:

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.

     



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     



    I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    I haven't read all the posts yet, but I just wanted to weigh in with a thought or two.

    Regardless of whether or not they're old school or new school, any one stat is useless unless they're used in context with other stats.

    For example, OPS is a great stat, but if the batter has a low BA w/RISP -- Drew a couple of years ago -- then in my opinion that great OPS loses some luster. If a hitter has 40 HRs, that looks great, but if he's batting .210 with 70 RBIs and a .280 OBP in 600 PA, then those 40 HRs aren't so great.

    ERA is a great stat and a lousy stat. A low ERA tells a lot about a pitcher. It's hard to distort a bad (or even mediocre) ERA with two or three great starts. Yeah, those great starts will help but only two a point. On the other hand, two or three really horrible stats can easily distort an otherwise great ERA. Look at Lester and Beckett last year. I forget the exact numbers, but Beckett and Lester each had ERAs in the mid- to high 4.00s (maybe even low) after 13 starts for Beckett and 15 (maybe 17 starts) for Lester. But if you took away their two worst starts, Beckett's ERA was around 2.50 and Lester's 3.50 -- something like that. (WHIP is the same way).

    So no matter what stats you are looking at, you need to look at more than one stat and you have too look deep into individual stats to see what's going on.

     



    Don't quite understand taking away their two worst starts, or figuring, for example,

     

    Beckett's ERA taking away his first innings.  The bad starts, the bad innings, count.

     

     



    Who said the starts didn't count? (And I never said, take away a bad inning.) The point was how horrible starts affect an ERA. For example, let take two pitchers in this hypothetical example:

    Pitcher A: 20-10 in 30 starts. In the 20 wins, he went 7 IP with 2 ER every start for an ERA in those 20 starts of 2.57. In his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start for an ERA of 7.20. For the season, his ERA is 3.78. (190 IP, 80 ER). An excellent season by any standard.

    Pitcher B: He also went 20-10 in 30 starts and in the 20 wins, he went 7 IP, with 2 ER every start. And in 8 of his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start. However, in his last two bad starts, they were horrible starts -- 2 IP, 8 ER both starts. So for the season, his ERA is 4.35.

    A 3.78 ERA vs. a 4.35 ERA looks like a big difference, but can we honestly say Pitcher A was that much better than Pitcher B. They were equal in the number of good starts and equal in eight of their 10 bad starts. The only difference was that Pitcher A was simply bad in his last two bad starts while Pitcher B was horrible.

    Back to Beckett and Lester -- no one is saying don't county those bad starts. The point is, if they were simply bad -- which still means two bads starts and losses -- instead of horrible, their ERAs would have been much lower and thus, a better indicator on  how they've pitched.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

     

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     OBP is interesting because of the walk component, yet walks as % of PA was greater in losses than in wins. This might lead us to think that high OBP that is a result of a high batting average is more important than when BB inflate OBP. James' second rated component, SLG% is supported by the data I found, but it may actually be number one, as XBH were much more prevalent in wins than losses. Can you comment on IBB? Why would there be so many more in wins than losses? Is it an effect of strategy? If you're already losing, are you more likely to walk a dangerous hitter than to let him potentially pile on? Or is it causing the win itself?


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.

     



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     

     



    I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

     

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     



    And yet, the last 4 TC winners were all on at least pennnant winners: Mantle, FRobby, Yaz, & Cabrera. Who would have thought?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    I haven't read all the posts yet, but I just wanted to weigh in with a thought or two.

    Regardless of whether or not they're old school or new school, any one stat is useless unless they're used in context with other stats.

    For example, OPS is a great stat, but if the batter has a low BA w/RISP -- Drew a couple of years ago -- then in my opinion that great OPS loses some luster. If a hitter has 40 HRs, that looks great, but if he's batting .210 with 70 RBIs and a .280 OBP in 600 PA, then those 40 HRs aren't so great.

    ERA is a great stat and a lousy stat. A low ERA tells a lot about a pitcher. It's hard to distort a bad (or even mediocre) ERA with two or three great starts. Yeah, those great starts will help but only two a point. On the other hand, two or three really horrible stats can easily distort an otherwise great ERA. Look at Lester and Beckett last year. I forget the exact numbers, but Beckett and Lester each had ERAs in the mid- to high 4.00s (maybe even low) after 13 starts for Beckett and 15 (maybe 17 starts) for Lester. But if you took away their two worst starts, Beckett's ERA was around 2.50 and Lester's 3.50 -- something like that. (WHIP is the same way).

    So no matter what stats you are looking at, you need to look at more than one stat and you have too look deep into individual stats to see what's going on.

     



    Don't quite understand taking away their two worst starts, or figuring, for example,

     

    Beckett's ERA taking away his first innings.  The bad starts, the bad innings, count.

     

     

     



    Who said the starts didn't count? (And I never said, take away a bad inning.) The point was how horrible starts affect an ERA. For example, let take two pitchers in this hypothetical example:

     

    Pitcher A: 20-10 in 30 starts. In the 20 wins, he went 7 IP with 2 ER every start for an ERA in those 20 starts of 2.57. In his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start for an ERA of 7.20. For the season, his ERA is 3.78. (190 IP, 80 ER). An excellent season by any standard.

    Pitcher B: He also went 20-10 in 30 starts and in the 20 wins, he went 7 IP, with 2 ER every start. And in 8 of his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start. However, in his last two bad starts, they were horrible starts -- 2 IP, 8 ER both starts. So for the season, his ERA is 4.35.

    A 3.78 ERA vs. a 4.35 ERA looks like a big difference, but can we honestly say Pitcher A was that much better than Pitcher B. They were equal in the number of good starts and equal in eight of their 10 bad starts. The only difference was that Pitcher A was simply bad in his last two bad starts while Pitcher B was horrible.

    Back to Beckett and Lester -- no one is saying don't county those bad starts. The point is, if they were simply bad -- which still means two bads starts and losses -- instead of horrible, their ERAs would have been much lower and thus, a better indicator on  how they've pitched.

     



    You make a good point with this post.

    I would say pitcher B did worse, but not by as much as his ERA indicated. Pitcher A did give his team a slighlty better chance of winning since letting up 4 ERs in 5 IP is not impossible to win with while 8 ERs is nearly so.

    There are also many comparisons made between pitchers who get cheap wins because their team scores for them while other get losses of no decisions due to poor run support. Consider this real life case.

    Pitcher A finishes 6th in WHIP in the AL (1.182) one season with a decent 4.13 ERA, but goes 10-11. Here are the particulars of his 30 starts:

    ERS   W-L-ND

    0       3-0-2

    1       3-2-0

    2       1-0-3

    3       1-4-3 

    4        1-1-0

    5+      1-5-0

    This pitcher had 0-3 ERs in 22 of his 30 starts (73%). He had 24 of 30 with 4 or less (80%).

    His record 8-6 with 8 no decisions in 0-3 ER allowed games and 9-7 with 8 ND is 0-4 Earned run games.

    With a little luck he might have gone 17-8 and been a hero, but instead he was called upon to retire by several posters on this board, most loudly by the clown himself, softy.

    Even after making the allstar game the following year, little changed.

     

    Pitcher B had essentially the same defense behind him, had an almost identical ERA (4.03) and WHIP (1.187), but went 12-10 with these particulars in 27 starts:

    ERS  W-L-ND

    0       2-0-0

    1       3-2-2

    2       1-2-2

    3       3-0-0

    4       1-2-1

    5+     2-4-0

    This pitcher went 9-4 in games with 0-3 ERs allowed with 4 NDs. 17 of his 27 games were 0-3 ER games (63%) and 21 of his 27 starts were 0-4 ER games (75%).

    Pitcher B had a slightly better ERA, more wins, less losses and almost the same WHIP, but who gave his team more of a chance to win?

    A or B?

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Yeah Moon, good post. That's why I alway say that no matter what stat you're looking at, you have to look a bit more in depth.

    My example, I kept it simple to make my point. In real life, you can look at Lackey and Lester from 2010. Looking at their ERAs, it looked as if Lester was considerbly better than Lackey. But it you look at their starts, Lester had just two more good starts (22-20) if memory serves me correctly and they had about the same number of bad starts. The difference was Lester was a bit mroe dominant in his good starts -- (Lackey was very good, however, in his good starts) while Lackey's bad starts were worse than Lester's bad starts.

    So in the end, there was a big difference in ERA but less of a difference in giving the Sox the chance to win. Lester's ERA accurately showed how good he was, while Lackey's ERA was a bit distorted.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Yeah Moon, good post. That's why I alway say that no matter what stat you're looking at, you have to look a bit more in depth.

    My example, I kept it simple to make my point. In real life, you can look at Lackey and Lester from 2010. Looking at their ERAs, it looked as if Lester was considerbly better than Lackey. But it you look at their starts, Lester had just two more good starts (22-20) if memory serves me correctly and they had about the same number of bad starts. The difference was Lester was a bit mroe dominant in his good starts -- (Lackey was very good, however, in his good starts) while Lackey's bad starts were worse than Lester's bad starts.

    So in the end, there was a big difference in ERA but less of a difference in giving the Sox the chance to win. Lester's ERA accurately showed how good he was, while Lackey's ERA was a bit distorted.



    the eye test....good point...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    I get your point Roy.  Mainly my reaction was knee-jerk to hearing people parade stats of guys minus their poor 1st innings or disastrous outings, and not specifically to your post.  So, sorry, I didn't really address your specific post.

    Finally the numbers though tell a lot of the story anyway.  Sure, context and details of performance matter, and there are fine lines of gradations among very good good average and poor, an important out here and there a pitcher manages at a given point can make a huge difference.  That's all the difference there is, yet give me Lester before Lackey any day, no matter the small difference in keeping a team in games, small differences count big.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    It's easy to use the "eye test" for Sox players. We watch all their games, but when you compare our players to others, it's hard judge without the stats or metrics.

    Also, if the stats don't seem to jive with your observations, they can be used to help you watch more closely to see if you are missing something or being overly generous to our own players.

    More than once, the numbers have made me look closer and sure enough, I realized I had been wrong initially.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.



    It does have an impact for sure, but does a team really have less of a chance of winning if a pitcher let's up 4 runs in the first then shuts out the team for 5 innings (4 ERs in 6IP for an ERA or 6.00) or lets up 4 in the 6th after a shutout for 5 innings (4 Ers in 6IP and a 6.00 ERA)?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances.

     



    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.

     

    Also the Yankees have been consistently near the top in pitching numbers, so they should have less fielding chances overall than other teams. 

     

     

Share