Worst piece of fanposting ever?
Another reason to believe that HaloHeaven.com is the place where all the ignorant fans gather.
about 2 years ago
radiohix
41 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Eh, there's some people arguing against him.
But geeze, gotta wonder how people can actually argue that Saunders’ run support is somehow part of his “intangibles”. Man, he WILLS those guys to score 10 for him!
USG
But he's a WINNER!
Loved the part when they were arguing about David Eckstein "Grission"They’re SO ignorant: I’ll love it when they’ll finish behind the Rangers and the M’s!
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
God, please let it actually turn out this way.
No more BS career years coming from nowhere and then a long series of claims that the luck of the Rally Monkey.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 4, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
I just think they misspelled "weiner" in the title...
Saunders is sorta good, sometimes…
Rock me, sexy Jesus...
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 5, 2010 2:15 PM EST reply actions
There was nothing wrong with that post.
I mean, except that part about Mike Scosciaoaua being awesome.
It amuses me, sometimes, how you guys can jump all over something that doesn’t look at everything from a strictly mathematic viewpoint.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Sure there is
“In fact, Saunders has never had a losing record at any level of professional play. Ever. Certainly, this pattern can’t always be attributed to the players around him, and should consequently not be dismissed as a statistic of lesser import. How do you earn the WS title? Wins. Pure and simple.”
And then in the comments section, people go on to essentially say that Saunders’ run support is a result of his “being a winner” as compared to a cause. And don’t get me started on David Eckstien. I don’t think everything needs to be strictly mathematical. I just think that, when something flouts common sense, it’s bad.
And quite frankly, it’s the fanpost that tries to partially discredit the ways of WAR and the like. He says it’s Saunders that “stumps the sabermetricians”, but it’s not. The Angels outperforming expectations has always been more a matter of career years. Saunders is easy to explain: He gets really lucky because his team scores a bunch of runs in his start.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 6, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, I'm not saying there are things in that post that aren't debatable
However, the fact that when he’s on the mound his team wins is not 100% dismissible. He’s right. You have to win to get to the dance.
What’s in the comment section is not the same as the actual fanpost and therefore irrelevant.
People have different criteria for why they would want certain players on their team. To call this fanpost “the worst piece of fanposting ever” is dismissive and silly. He doesn’t completely discredit sabermetrics, and says so at the end. But there’s nothing wrong with looking at the game from outside the calculator.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
It's not dismissive and silly, it's hyperbole.
But, yes, being on the mound when your team wins is 100% dismissible.
USG
It's 100% dismissible in a small sample size.
Over the course of a career, though, not so much.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Is there any one example of a mediocre pitcher who won a lot of games with both a mediocre ERA and less-than-ridiculous run support?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 7, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Bert Blyleven?
Just kidding (sort of).
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to troll, but I found Bloggy’s comment interesting. It’s a shame that baseball to some fans has become all about numbers, where a person can’t say “I really like So-and-So, he just seems like a winner to me” without someone WARgasming all over him. I understand all of the advanced metrics, but has that understanding made the game more enjoyable to me? I don’t know, sometimes ti’s just fun to watch a game without thinking about OBP, VORP, etc.
Saunders is probably my favorite player on the Angels. I don’t know why, maybe it’s the “cut of his jib” or whatever. And, I don’t have any numbers to back it up, but I think the Angels have a good chance of winning that game because he’s on the mound, and even if they don’t win, I’ve enjoyed the game. Isn’t that what it’s all about?
Kind of my point.
I think all the advanced metrics are important. I certainly don’t completely dismiss them even if I don’t exactly understand them.
But I don’t think they are all-important, either. And if a guy starts the game on the mound and the team ends the game with a Double-Yew, well, that’s good. And if that happens all the time, well then there’s something to that.
While I don’t think that a pitcher can will runs across the plate, to paraphrase from above, there is something to be said for a pitcher that always seems to pitch well enough to keep his team in the ballgame. Should you pay him like an ace? NO. Is he useful to have on the team? Absolutely.
To dismiss someone thinking that as “the worst piece of fanposting ever”, hyperbolic or no, is elitist.
It’s all about the balance, people.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Yes, but any guy with a middling ERA can keep his team in the game.
The fanpost attempts to bring gut feeling and surface appearances into the world of analysis. By all means, you can talk about how you feel a guy is a winner, or how a guy just does things right. But then he uses this sentence to pretty much start it out.
Doubters—mostly sabermetricians, writers at ESPN, and the like—underestimate us year-after-year, choosing instead to side with the “numbers” rather than their gut which reminds them that any team Scioscia puts out on the field will find a way to win.
And suggests that Saunders is the reason for this. He’s not. Saunders is a symptom. The “explanation” is that the Angels got career or breakout years out of half their damn team
I suppose you could say this is the will of some team-wide desire to win, but really, what makes them so special? Is it Scoscia? Really? A 50-year-old who called for the suicide squeeze in 2008? No. It’s a combination of a team with some young breakout talent and some dumb luck. It happens.
The fanpost is bad because it tries to use some idea of intangibles to explain why sabermetricians project the Angels low. But that’s not it at all. It’s not about the heart and grit of David Eckstien (who has an entire career now built around a 3-game hot streak. Anyone can get hot for 3 games. Julio Lugo once went 14-26 with 3 doubles, a homer and 3 steals in a 7 game stretch.) or the “winning ability” of Saunders (the fan post is misleading, by the way. While over the course of his AAA career Saunders had a winning record, in 2007 he had a 4-7 record thanks to his 5.11 ERA. If you cut him, he bleeds just like anyone else), it’s a matter of a strong offense backed by unpredictable performances.
USG
I'm not saying the post is correct, or even necessarily good.
But there is nothing wrong with liking having a guy on your team. And you can certainly disagree with any of the points he makes, and I disagree with many myself.
But I also think that folks can play different with different folks on the mound. Why not? They’re humans, not computer programs. Sure. Maybe he pitches well enough to win.
Feel free to argue that two years of full service isn’t enough to be so sure of yourself and that you predict a big comedown. I’d be inclined to agree with you.
But I don’t entirely dismiss intangibles.
And Scoscia’s a tool.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
But he was gloriously inconsistent
Saunders
Wins
16 Starts – 16-0 – 1.93 ERA, 1.063 WHIP
Losses/NDs
15 Starts – 0-7 – 8.13 ERA, 1.92 WHIP
so is that “always keeping you in games?”
Compared to someone like Tim Lincecum
Wins
15 Starts – 15-0 – 1.15 ERA, 0.872 WHIP
17 Starts – 0-7 – 3.90 ERA, 1.24 WHIP
I don't think anyone in his right mind would compare him to Lincecum
But maybe instead of “always keeps you in games” a better way of putting it is “has a tremendous amount of potential” or “positives greatly outweigh negatives” or whatever.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Yeah
Lincecum was a bad compare just noting that in almost half of Saunders starts he was awful……His team would have to had scored over 8 runs! to win those games..while a stud like Lincecum can still lose 7 because his team couldn’t score 4 runs. It’s why going with W/L is so darn awful when analying a pitcher
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you, but ACTUALLY.....
…if you look at the info you gave on Saunders, in the 16 starts he won, he pitched well and in the 15 starts he either lost or ND’d he didn’t. The won/lost record certainly seems to add up there.
Just saying.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Seems like there's too few ND's in the "pitched well" column.
See: Offense
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 16, 2010 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
No there's not.
Bob set up the categories of Wins and Losses/NDs. That’s why there’s no NDs in the “pitched well” column. There is no “pitched well” column.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
He said in all no decisions he did not pitch well.
So we can call it a row, if you want. But he stated: “Win = Pitched Well” “Loss/ND = Did not pitch well”
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
He did NOT say that in all no decisions he did not pitch well.
He lumped the no decisions in with the losses. He may have pitched well in some of them, we don’t know based on what he provided. But the data from the no decisions (good, bad, or mediocre) goes into the numbers he gives.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Sorry, HE didn't.
You did.
…if you look at the info you gave on Saunders, in the 16 starts he won, he pitched well and in the 15 starts he either lost or ND’d he didn’t
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 19, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Based on the information supplied, Ben Buchanan, that's a true statement.
I mean, I could make it a little more convoluted by saying:
“If you compile the data on the 16 starts he won, Saunders’ ERA and WHIP are quite impressive indicating he pitched well over those starts whereas in the 15 starts he either lost or ND’d the numbers considerably less impressive. The numbers given, of course, are averages based on those 15 starts and do not give any indication of a start-by-start performance.”
My comments are based solely on the splits provided by Bob. I’m not saying that he pitched poorly in all no-decisions, but if you lump all the no-decisions in with all the losses, you get bad numbers.
If he had decided to give the number of starts where he pitched at least 6 innings and gave up three or less runs vs. the starts where he did not, then we could talk about how offense helped or hindered his won/loss record.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
I kinda did that on purpose
Mainly because it almost split his starts directly in half versus his wins
It’s pretty easy to pull out the NDs Splits:
8 Games 7.16 ERA, 1.932 WHIP
Still kinda shows that in games he won he was very good and in games he didn’t win he was pretty darn awful
This was to come against the “always keeps us in games” theory
I'm not overly familiar with Saunders...
…which is why I came up with the “always keeps us in games” thing, but with the info you gave I’d go with the “has tremendous potential” angle or maybe “the team has a good chance to win that game” or something.
It doesn’t really change my original point.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Who would you rather have?
I guess the thought here is that since Saunders didn’t pitch well in half his starts, he didn’t give his team a chance to win. Think about these two pitchers. Each makes 30 starts, 9 innings in each game.
Pitcher A: Allows 4 runs in each game.
Pitcher B: Allows 1 run in half his games. Allows 7 runs in half his games.
Each has an ERA of 4.00. Obviously, this is an extreme situation (and an unrealistic one). But, it’s basically asking the question: would you rather have a guy who keeps you in every game, or a guy you pretty much earns you a win in half his starts and pretty much earns you a loss in half his starts? I think I’m leaning towards Pitcher B, but I’m really not so sure.
Assuming that he has to pitch the full 9?
I’d take pitcher B. Because pitcher B has 1 run/game stuff, but he can’t always access it. That tells me that it is likely a mental issue and with the right support people he could get closer to the one run guy on a more regular basis than the 7 run guy.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
That's a good point
I wasn’t thinking of it like that, but that makes some sense. Even if Pitcher B couldn’t fix his inconsistency problems, it’s not the worst thing in the world. In fact, there is evidence that inconsistent pitchers are more valuable than consistent pitchers (if their overall ERAs are similar). So, even though Saunders is inconsistent, the fact that he is very good when he is “on” makes him more valuable than his ERA would indicate.
Is there any one example of a mediocre pitcher who won a lot of games with both a mediocre ERA and less-than-ridiculous run support?
Don Sutton?
Technically, I suppose.
But when he pitched well, he had good W-L records, and when he pitched poorly, he had bad W-L records. More a matter of pitching 23 seasons and having his numbers dragged down by some bad years.
Basically, when Sutton posted Saunders-like records, he was typically pitching a TON better than Saunders.
USG
I wouldn’t say his numbers were dragged down by some bad years. If anything, there were dragged up by some good years. He had 14 seasons where his ERA+ was between 92 and 112. His career ERA+ is 108. He was a pretty good pitcher who is in the HoF because he won 324 games. His run support was pretty much average other than 1974 when he went 19-9.
Also, I’m not saying Saunders is the next Sutton. I’m not even saying Saunders is good. But, I do think some pitchers are better than others at winning “winnable” games…if that makes sense.
An ERA+ of 100 is league average.
Of his 23 seasons, 8 were below average.
Of his 774 starts, 178 were complete games, thus ensuring him a decision.
Over the span of 23 seasons, he amassed a W-L% of .559, notably lower than Saunder’s .686. He amassed 300 wins through volume. Not like Saunders, who amasses his wins through the luck of having a lot of runs scored for him.
Look at the other leaders in runs scored. Is Branden ****ing Looper really a guy who knows how to win? Or could it be the obvious: That these guys’ win-loss records come as the result of the massive number of runs scored for them?
USG
Again, I’m not comparing him to Saunders. Or Looper. I just used him as an example of someone who won a lot of games without an impressive ERA and without a “massive number of runs scored” for him. A .559 W-L% is impressive considering his slightly above average ERA+ and his average run support. In other words, he outperformed his stats.
.559 isn't all that impressive, really.
And his offense gets a little bit of a pass for playing in Dodger stadium. Remember that ERA+ is park adjusted, so he takes a hit for being in a pitchers park.
USG
"he outperformed his stats."
No. His TEAM outperformed his stats.
They won some games in spite of him. And they let him down less often in others.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
