Matt Harvey

[GiambiJuice]

Did he get out-pitched or did The Cardinals out hit the Mets? I think that those are two different things.

Batted Ball FIP, which estimates the expected number of runs scored based on K's, BB's and batted balls, says that:
Adam Wainwright would be expected to give up 2.94 runs per 9 innings pitching as he did today. It says that Harvey would be expected to give up .5 runs per 9 innings pitching as he did today. Plenty of evidence that Harvey out-pitched Wainwright, but will still take the loss.

Fair enough...I was just saying "outpitched" on a simplistic level (i.e. Harvey gave up a run and Wainwright didn't).

[Paulypal]

Fair enough...I was just saying "outpitched" on a simplistic level (i.e. Harvey gave up a run and Wainwright didn't).

Harvey was out pitched. Wainwright gave up zero runs. Hard to outpitch someone when they shut you out.

Saying the Mets were out hit is like saying the sun is coming up tomorrow.

Either way its a loss.

[Strawman]

Did he get out-pitched or did The Cardinals out hit the Mets? I think that those are two different things.

Batted Ball FIP, which estimates the expected number of runs scored based on K's, BB's and batted balls, says that:
Adam Wainwright would be expected to give up 2.94 runs per 9 innings pitching as he did today. It says that Harvey would be expected to give up .5 runs per 9 innings pitching as he did today. Plenty of evidence that Harvey out-pitched Wainwright, but will still take the loss.

Yeah that other key statistical barometer MOE* shows that it was dead on accurate - Wainwright was better than Harvey today by a run.

* My Own Eyes

[filihok]

Yeah that other key statistical barometer MOE* shows that it was dead on accurate - Wainwright was better than Harvey today by a run.

* My Own Eyes

The Cardinals may have been a run better than the Mets but Harvey had more K's, less walks, more ground balls, less outfield fly balls, more infield fly balls, and less line drives against a better line up than Wainwright did.

I don't see how Wainwright pitched better.

[Paulypal]

The Cardinals may have been a run better than the Mets but Harvey had more K's, less walks, more ground balls, less outfield fly balls, more infield fly balls, and less line drives against a better line up than Wainwright did.

I don't see how Wainwright pitched better.

0 < 1

[filihok]

0 < 1

Thanks.

Matt Harvey and Adam Wainwright were the only two players responsible for those number are they?

Measuring things that the pitchers are most responsible for, Harvey was slightly better than Wainwright

[Paulypal]

Thanks.

Matt Harvey and Adam Wainwright were the only two players responsible for those number are they?

Measuring things that the pitchers are most responsible for, Harvey was slightly better than Wainwright

I understand what your saying, but man o' man do I wish Wainwright slightly outpitched Harvey and the Mets win.

[mandrake]

The Cardinals may have been a run better than the Mets but Harvey had more K's, less walks, more ground balls, less outfield fly balls, more infield fly balls, and less line drives against a better line up than Wainwright did.

I don't see how Wainwright pitched better.

Did somebody pitch a shut out? Shutouts can't be beat. As Lombardi said "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

By the way, I may have missed this stat......did you ever play competitive sports, even at a HS or College intramural level? Or higher? Just asking.

[filihok]

Did somebody pitch a shut out?

No.

Who would you say pitched better?
Justin Verlander going 9 innings giving up 9 hits, 1 run, 3 walks and 9 K's against the Baseball-Fever All-Stars with the AL Gold Glover winners playing defense behind him
or
CC Sabathia going 9 innings giving up 9 hits, 1 runs, 3 walks and 9 K's against the NL All-Stars with another group of Baseball-Fever All-Stars playing defense behind him?

As noted above, Harvey and Wainwright weren't the only players responsible for the final score in that game. So, simply saying that Wainwright was better than Harvey because the Cardinals beat the Mets doesn't really make any sense.

[EasilyFound]

The Cardinals may have been a run better than the Mets but Harvey had more K's, less walks, more ground balls, less outfield fly balls, more infield fly balls, and less line drives against a better line up than Wainwright did.

I don't see how Wainwright pitched better.

It doesn't really matter, does it? Whether Harvey out pitched Wainwright or the other way around. It just doesn't matter. Whether you measure MOEs or the BB Flip per 9 innings.

Pfft.

All that matters today is that the Mets lost, and the Cards won.

Some much effort is put into finding a new-fangled stat to show who is the best and who is better than another or the best. Getting to the point where you guys are running out of acronyms for all of your different formulas. How long before someone finds a way to measure the percentage of line drives that were fractions of an inch from being a fly ball or a ground out or vice versa. I mean, you talk about walks and K's but other websites will show how many of the balls should have been strikes if the ump was calling by the correct strike zone and next thing you'll be telling me that if the ump had called the true strike zone then the pitcher would have had 1.2 more K's per 9 and .67 fewer walks per 9, which undoubtedly will prompt some quick-minded statistical major to develop the eBatted Ball FIP or the aBatted Ball FIP.

Ever think maybe there is no "true" "estimated" or "adjusted" statistical measure of the game of baseball?

Maybe?

[mandrake]

It doesn't really matter, does it? Whether Harvey out pitched Wainwright or the other way around. It just doesn't matter. Whether you measure MOEs or the BB Flip per 9 innings.

Pfft.

All that matters today is that the Mets lost, and the Cards won.

AMEN !!!!! ALL that matters is win or losses.

"Statistics are for losers” 1960 credited to University of Tennessee football coach Robert Neyland (1892-1962).

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. " Mark Twain

[Bothrops Atrox]

AMEN !!!!! ALL that matters is win or losses.

"Statistics are for losers” 1960 credited to University of Tennessee football coach Robert Neyland (1892-1962).

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. " Mark Twain

Aren't Wins and Losses statistics? And are they not subject to the same contextual issues that warranted those famous quotes?

[Bothrops Atrox]

Some much effort is put into finding a new-fangled stat to show who is the best and who is better than another or the best. Getting to the point where you guys are running out of acronyms for all of your different formulas. How long before someone finds a way to measure the percentage of line drives that were fractions of an inch from being a fly ball or a ground out or vice versa.

Sabermetricaly speaking, this is a good point. Much of game-to-game pitcher LD rate is nothing more than random fluctuation. So using in-game LD rate to judge a pitcher is not very sabermetricaly at all.

[filihok]

It doesn't really matter, does it?

In the grand scheme of things baseball doesn't really matter, does it?

To most people baseball doesn't matter at all.
On a website geared towards people who want to discuss baseball, baseball probably matters more.
To some people whether or not the Mets won may matter.
To other people it may matter which pitcher pitched better.

It doesn't matter to me
But I do find it interesting

Ever think maybe there is no "true" "estimated" or "adjusted" statistical measure of the game of baseball?

Maybe?

No. Because there absolutely is.

AMEN !!!!! ALL that matters is win or losses.

You don't even believe that.
I'd be willing to wager that you discuss individual players: compare them, consider how much they contribute to helping a team to win. You probably even use (gasp) statistics to do so.

"Statistics are for losers” 1960 credited to University of Tennessee football coach Robert Neyland (1892-1962).

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. " Mark Twain

A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire

[filihok]

Some much effort is put into finding a new-fangled stat to show who is the best and who is better than another or the best. Getting to the point where you guys are running out of acronyms for all of your different formulas. How long before someone finds a way to measure the percentage of line drives that were fractions of an inch from being a fly ball or a ground out or vice versa. I mean, you talk about walks and K's but other websites will show how many of the balls should have been strikes if the ump was calling by the correct strike zone and next thing you'll be telling me that if the ump had called the true strike zone then the pitcher would have had 1.2 more K's per 9 and .67 fewer walks per 9, which undoubtedly will prompt some quick-minded statistical major to develop the eBatted Ball FIP or the aBatted Ball FIP.

Sabermetricaly speaking, this is a good point. Much of game-to-game pitcher LD rate is nothing more than random fluctuation. So using in-game LD rate to judge a pitcher is not very sabermetricaly at all.

Hit f/x is basically what EF described.


I also recently posted this, which is in a similar vein.