Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There is still hope

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nathanKent
    replied
    Originally posted by Scartissue View Post
    In the last 3 days alone, we've had pitchers with the following line:

    Carmona 9.0 IP 3 H 2 BB 5 K 1 ER 113 pitches
    Beckett 9.0 IP 4 H 0 BB 8 K 0 ER 108 pitches
    Zambrano 6.0 IP 4 H 1 BB 8 K 1 ER 85 pitches
    Webb 7 IP 4 H 3 BB 9 K 1 ER 89 pitches

    Compare the above with:

    Davis 5.2 IP 5 H 4 BB 8 K 4 ER 112 pitches

    "Dominating" may be difficult to define precisely, but like pornography vs. art, I know when something is pornographic and not artistic when I see it.

    My standard for "dominating" isn't impossibly high, I don't have to go back to Koufax to find a dominating game. WHIP isn't the end all be all, but that's not the only measure I cited. Earned runs and pitches thrown were also mentioned. Except for strikeouts, Davis's outing doesn't remotely resemble what the others did. This is just taking the best of 3 days of playoff play. There were at least 3 other pitchers not on that list that did better than Davis (Francis, Hammels, Pettite).

    Furthermore, for the season, Davis' WHIP is 1.6 with a season ERA of 4.25, so the WHIP for the game is exactly in line with his season WHIP, but the ERA are worse. However, even if he gave up 4 earned runs in 9 innings, I still cannot call that a dominating game.
    Maybe not dominating, but controlling....he kept an unproductive offense in check. Davis's season WHIP of 1.59 largely reflects the number of hits he was giving up (close to 7 per outing, and averaging about 5.2 IP per game), and he was having a horrible September.

    My point is only that his WHIP for this one game doesn't line up with what he did to the Cubs's offense. It's a stat that's only meaningful with a sample size larger than one outing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    Originally posted by rockin500 View Post
    he was effective enough. dominating is such a variable word. for the 5 innings i actually watched, outside of a mistake to soto, davis was making the cubs batters look stupid.

    WHIP is not something you use on a one game basis. its all about sample size and one game is worthless as a sample size for average bases stats.

    In the last 3 days alone, we've had pitchers with the following line:

    Carmona 9.0 IP 3 H 2 BB 5 K 1 ER 113 pitches
    Beckett 9.0 IP 4 H 0 BB 8 K 0 ER 108 pitches
    Zambrano 6.0 IP 4 H 1 BB 8 K 1 ER 85 pitches
    Webb 7 IP 4 H 3 BB 9 K 1 ER 89 pitches

    Compare the above with:

    Davis 5.2 IP 5 H 4 BB 8 K 4 ER 112 pitches

    "Dominating" may be difficult to define precisely, but like pornography vs. art, I know when something is pornographic and not artistic when I see it.

    My standard for "dominating" isn't impossibly high, I don't have to go back to Koufax to find a dominating game. WHIP isn't the end all be all, but that's not the only measure I cited. Earned runs and pitches thrown were also mentioned. Except for strikeouts, Davis's outing doesn't remotely resemble what the others did. This is just taking the best of 3 days of playoff play. There were at least 3 other pitchers not on that list that did better than Davis (Francis, Hammels, Pettite).

    Furthermore, for the season, Davis' WHIP is 1.6 with a season ERA of 4.25, so the WHIP for the game is exactly in line with his season WHIP, but the ERA are worse. However, even if he gave up 4 earned runs in 9 innings, I still cannot call that a dominating game.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockin500
    replied
    he was effective enough. dominating is such a variable word. for the 5 innings i actually watched, outside of a mistake to soto, davis was making the cubs batters look stupid.

    WHIP is not something you use on a one game basis. its all about sample size and one game is worthless as a sample size for average bases stats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Did you actually watch the game? Did you think Davis looked like a pitcher with a seasonal WHIP of 1.4? Did you say to yourself wow this guy is getting batted around? Did you say we should have 4 or 5 runs against him already? Not until the 6th inning did Davis ever get himself into trouble. Not until the 6th inning did Davis ever have more then one base runner. I might be wrong but not until the 6th inning was a single Cub runner standing on second. When that happens you don't score runs and the pitcher is controlling the game. It wasn't a bad outing for Davis. Yes he left the game with 2 men on and they scored. Sometimes it happens but generally with 2 outs it doesn't happen. But it did and it gets tacked on to his run total but it doesn't negate what he did to the Cubs in that game.
    I didn't say he was getting batted around, I said he was not dominating. The post I responded to is that he was "having his way" with the Cubs' lineup, i.e. he did what he wanted to, i.e. he dominated the Cubs. Again, who in their right mind says that his performance was dominating, even in the broadest sense of the word? Are you really saying he was dominating? There's a difference between a decent game and dominating, and you do not seem to know the difference. I'm not sure whether I'd categorize his game as decent, but I know for damn sure it wasn't dominating.

    And yes, I saw the game. I can ask you the same thing. Why did he take 112 pitches before he finished? A pitcher in complete control doesn't take that many pitches before the sixth inning is finished. Both Zambrano and Webb finished off more batters with less than 90 pitches.

    Who cares whether it happened in the first inning or the 6th inning? Why does that matter in the least bit? A pitcher is responsible for the entire time he is out there. It doesn't matter if runs score with 2 outs or not. In fact, with 2 outs, the guy on first gets a head start and at the latest starts running on contact. Who gets the blame for the runs in the 6th? Cruz? Maybe part of the blame, but long ago, baseball people correctly decided inherited runners get charged to the guy who put them on. Cruz allowed one hit and had one strike out. Without Davis, no runs are scored on Cruz's watch. Those runs were earned, and properly charged to Davis.

    You claim to be this great stats guy, but you are so quick to abandon the hard numbers whenever they don't suit your needs. Pose the question to people you respect (assuming such people exist)--did Davis dominate the Cubs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Did you actually watch the game? Did you think Davis looked like a pitcher with a seasonal WHIP of 1.4? Did you say to yourself wow this guy is getting batted around? Did you say we should have 4 or 5 runs against him already? Not until the 6th inning did Davis ever get himself into trouble. Not until the 6th inning did Davis ever have more then one base runner. I might be wrong but not until the 6th inning was a single Cub runner standing on second. When that happens you don't score runs and the pitcher is controlling the game. It wasn't a bad outing for Davis. Yes he left the game with 2 men on and they scored. Sometimes it happens but generally with 2 outs it doesn't happen. But it did and it gets tacked on to his run total but it doesn't negate what he did to the Cubs in that game.

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanKent
    replied
    Originally posted by Scartissue View Post
    If we don't look at how many runs a pitcher gives up or how many baserunners he allowed, I don't know how else you would fairly measure a pitcher's performance for a given game and conclude he did or did not dominate. I just don't buy the idea that you look to whether the outs came at the right times.

    Webb dominated. Zambrano dominated. But Davis? No way.
    I didn't say that. I said a larger sample size is needed. A 1.4 WHIP sounds pretty bad. Four singles and a homer sounds pretty good (Zambrano, BTW, gave up three singles and a homer).

    Now, do I think Davis put on as dominant a performance as Zambrano? Absolutely not. All I'm saying is there's a disparity between what you'd expect from a guy with a 1.4 WHIP and what Davis did to our offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    If we don't look at how many runs a pitcher gives up or how many baserunners he allowed, I don't know how else you would fairly measure a pitcher's performance for a given game and conclude he did or did not dominate. I just don't buy the idea that you look to whether the outs came at the right times.

    Webb dominated. Zambrano dominated. But Davis? No way.

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanKent
    replied
    Originally posted by Scartissue View Post
    That's not the point. If Derrick Lee goes 0 for 4, in game one, I wouldn't say he's a bad player because his playoff average is .000, but I would still say he had a bad game unless he was really robbed of some hard hit balls.
    I agree, but what I'm saying is calculating a player's ERA from a single game (or less than that) isn't a reflection of much of anything. It's like the stat I always tout out about Dempster's ERA against the Mets this year (39.something) and how it artificially inflates his season ERA because of a couple of bad innings. If Dempster pitches a complete game (try not to laugh at the absurdity of that idea) against the Mets, he's not giving up 39 runs.

    Likewise, saying a guy has a 1.4 WHIP over 5 innings is pretty meaningless. That's an indication of one not-so-great inning, not a reflection of how the guy consistently pitches from inning to inning, which is what WHIP is designed to tell you. It roughly translates into a guy who pitched 4 innings of 1.0 WHIP baseball but also had one inning where he allowed three baserunners.

    Finally (and only because I don't believe in subtlety), to verify what I'm talking about, which measure is closer to accurately describing Kevin Hart's capacity as a MLB pitcher--the 11.0 innings of 0.82 ERA baseball in the regular season or the 2.0 innings of 18.00 ERA baseball in the postseason? Neither. Obviously a 0.82 can't be maintained, even by the best pitchers, and the 18.00 is an indication (again) of one bad inning. He's probably more of a 5.00ish ERA kind of guy in real life.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockin500
    replied
    its not over until we say its over!

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    Originally posted by nathanKent View Post
    I might also add to this that after two postseason games, nobody has a postseason AVG or OBP or ERA or WHIP. Those are measures of a player's overall ability, and thus require a larger sample size to be accurate. It's just like at the beginning of the year when batters are 2 for 5, not .400. Any sample size smaller than 5 games, you might as well be making up numbers.
    That's not the point. If Derrick Lee goes 0 for 4, in game one, I wouldn't say he's a bad player because his playoff average is .000, but I would still say he had a bad game unless he was really robbed of some hard hit balls.

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanKent
    replied
    I might also add to this that after two postseason games, nobody has a postseason AVG or OBP or ERA or WHIP. Those are measures of a player's overall ability, and thus require a larger sample size to be accurate. It's just like at the beginning of the year when batters are 2 for 5, not .400. Any sample size smaller than 5 games, you might as well be making up numbers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    He threw 5 innings of ball in which except for the Soto hit he did not allow the Cubs to bunch any of their hits or walks. He allowed few players to put the ball in play or to put the ball in play hard. His WHIP ratio is practically meaningless on a game by game basis. At the game level it matters what kind of hits he was giving up and when he was allowing baserunners. 3 of the 7 baserunners allowed until the 6th were in one inning. The inning in which Soto homered. Even then after the homer he struck out 3 players while allowing one walk to end the inning. It wasn't a dominating performance on the level of Koufax or anything like that. But Davis shut the Cubs down rather well yesterday. He gave up 4 singles and a homer.
    Sometimes I think you just make up new theories as you go along to prove whatever point you want to at the moment. He was charged with 4 runs, he allowed 9 baserunners, he threw 112 pitches before finishing the 6th inning, yet you want to argue that he shut down the Cubs because he spread the number of hits over innings and didn't allow extra base hits, and he stepped up his game at the right time. However, he did have 2 innings when things did get bunched up and he did allow a home run, and somehow, we're supposed to discount those innings, which are inconvenient to your argument.

    Although Cruz came in and gave up a double, how do we know that Davis would have done better had he been left in? Melvin didn't want him to continue because he thought he'd get a better result with Cruz--it wasn't to save Davis for game 6.

    Well, at some point, the law of averages catches up to someone, and "timely" outs suddenly don't come. People bother to measure things such as WHIPs and BABIP, precisely because when they are out of whack with runs allowed, it indicates that a pitcher may have been lucky. Things tend to get out of whack especially in a small sample sizes, so I don't agree that it's irrelevant on a game by game basis.

    By the way, the argument that pitchers should be evaluated based on whether they induced outs at the right time is often used to justify why wins matter as a stat. I'm not saying there's no such thing as timely pitching, but I wouldn't put too much weight to it, because more often than not, it's just dumb luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    He threw 5 innings of ball in which except for the Soto hit he did not allow the Cubs to bunch any of their hits or walks. He allowed few players to put the ball in play or to put the ball in play hard. His WHIP ratio is practically meaningless on a game by game basis. At the game level it matters what kind of hits he was giving up and when he was allowing baserunners. 3 of the 7 baserunners allowed until the 6th were in one inning. The inning in which Soto homered. Even then after the homer he struck out 3 players while allowing one walk to end the inning. It wasn't a dominating performance on the level of Koufax or anything like that. But Davis shut the Cubs down rather well yesterday. He gave up 4 singles and a homer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scartissue
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Doug Davis' line looked pretty good until after that second out in the 6th inning.

    Up until that point it was 5 hits, 2 walks, and 2 runs in 5.2 innings. He wasn't overly dominant in that nobody got on base but accept for that floater thrown at Soto he was never in trouble and the Cubs never looked good against him

    Juan Cruz giving up the double bloated his ERA for the game but if the score was closer I doubt Cruz comes in and I doubt the Cubs score.
    Even through 5 innings, he had a whip of 1.4. A WHIP of 1.4 isn't good and usually translates into an ERA somewhere around low to mid 4s. Therefore, I don't think his performance was dominating during even the first five innings. I was responding to the post that he was having his way with the lineup. Even if you ignore Cruz, during all the innings he pitched, his WHIP was 1.6, which usually translates to an ugly ERA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Doug Davis' line looked pretty good until after that second out in the 6th inning.

    Up until that point it was 5 hits, 2 walks, and 2 runs in 5.2 innings. He wasn't overly dominant in that nobody got on base but accept for that floater thrown at Soto he was never in trouble and the Cubs never looked good against him

    Juan Cruz giving up the double bloated his ERA for the game but if the score was closer I doubt Cruz comes in and I doubt the Cubs score.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X