Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 122

Thread: Murphy: Inteview with Terry Ryan

  1. #81
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer FrodaddyG's Avatar
    Posts
    536
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    Nice. Average in the year Pelfrey was injured.
    Yeah, why bother factoring in the injury that made the guy miss a year when talking about durability?

  2. #82
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    Nice. Average in the year Pelfrey was injured.
    Well since his point was that innings pitched was the best way to judge pitchers I guess I thought it was best to use well .... you know....Innings pitched. My bad!

  3. #83
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    Well since his point was that innings pitched was the best way to judge pitchers I guess I thought it was best to use well .... you know....Innings pitched. My bad!
    My bad, I thought people here were not supposed to count time injured against performance, see any Marcum thread

  4. #84
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FrodaddyG View Post
    Yeah, why bother factoring in the injury that made the guy miss a year when talking about durability?
    I thought he innings pitched idea was about quality of work of the pitcher. Sort of veered of the durability topic. My bad for misreading what was posted

  5. #85
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thrylos98 View Post
    here are 4 mediocre pitchers on the leaderboards for IP for 2012

    Justin Masterson: 206.1 IP, 4.93 ERA, 1.454 WHIP, 6.9 K/9, 1.81 K/BB
    Jon Lester: 205.1 IP, 4.82 ERA, 1.383 WHIP, 7.3 K/9, 2.44 K/BB
    Ian Kennedy: 208.1 IP, 4.02 ERA, 1.301 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, 3.40 K/BB
    Clayton Richard: 218.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 1.235 WHIP, 4.4 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

    and this blast from the near past, closer to home

    2011 Carl Pavano: 222 IP, 4.30 ERA, 1.360 WHIP, 4.1 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

    Do those exceptional IPs made them good pitchers?
    No.

    Compare those numbers with those of the kid from Washington they "shut down" per club's choice.
    Who is the better pitcher?
    So your implying those guys don't have value? Almost any team would take them in their rotation.

    And I also applaud you on your brilliant use of the four worst big inning guys and the one brilliant low inning guy from last year.
    Last edited by drjim; 02-10-2013 at 08:55 AM.
    Papers...business papers.

  6. #86
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    So perhaps you can tell me how these statements mesh because they seem to be contradictory.





    The average innings pitched per year over the last 3 years:

    Joe Saunders 197IP
    Kevin Correia 157IP
    Mike Pelfrey 139IP
    A good example of why no one stat is perfect. And also that I am probably too high on Pelfrey right now.
    Papers...business papers.

  7. #87
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    Pitcher A, 200 IP, 7.2 K/9, 3.50 ERA. Pitcher B, 200 IP, 5.6 K/9, 5.25 ERA

    How is IP the most important stat here?
    This is a ridiculous game to play.

    How about:
    Pitcher A: 3.00 ERA 3 innings
    Pitcher B: 3.20 ERA, 230 innings

    or

    Pitcher A: 5.30 ERA, 120 innings, 110 Ks, 80 BBs
    Pitcher B: 3.25 ERA, 125 innings, 96 Ks, 21 BBs

    You can prove a whole lot of nothing throwing out random stats.
    Papers...business papers.

  8. #88
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,688
    Like
    32
    Liked 769 Times in 422 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    This is a ridiculous game to play.

    How about:
    Pitcher A: 3.00 ERA 3 innings
    Pitcher B: 3.20 ERA, 230 innings

    or

    Pitcher A: 5.30 ERA, 120 innings, 110 Ks, 80 BBs
    Pitcher B: 3.25 ERA, 125 innings, 96 Ks, 21 BBs

    You can prove a whole lot of nothing throwing out random stats.
    They don't have to be random. These two guys are sitting immediately next to one another when you align the 2012 season by IP:

    Pitcher A: 191.2 IP, 5.07 ERA, 47/147 BB/SO
    Pitcher B: 191.1 IP, 3.90 ERA, 89/221 BB/SO

    What does IP tell you there? And what is the defining stat that makes you like pitcher B compared to pitcher A?

    It's ERA. If you're going to glom onto one pitching stat (not including advanced metrics), ERA is the obvious choice. Innings Pitches tells you nothing about quality of pitcher unless you get to the far end of the spectrum (if a guy throws 230+ IP, you know he was at least an effective pitcher, if not a great one). Hanging on to this notion that IP is the most important pitching stat is ridiculous. Just give it up.

    Besides, declaring one statistic the best is a silly notion in the first place. Why would anyone in their right mind choose one statistic when you have hundreds available to you?

  9. #89
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer FrodaddyG's Avatar
    Posts
    536
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    You can prove a whole lot of nothing throwing out random stats.
    You realize why people think you're being a bit silly, though, don't you? IP is a purely quantitative stat. It tells you nothing about what transpired during the time frame that the pitcher was on the mound, just that he was out there. It's like someone using ABs as the primary measure of a hitter.

  10. #90
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,688
    Like
    32
    Liked 769 Times in 422 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by FrodaddyG View Post
    You realize why people think you're being a bit silly, though, don't you? IP is a purely quantitative stat. It tells you nothing about what transpired during the time frame that the pitcher was on the mound, just that he was out there. It's like someone using ABs as the primary measure of a hitter.
    You mean PAs. We don't want to confuse the situation by subtracting walks, sacrifices, and HBP from a player's effectiveness.

  11. #91
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,917
    Like
    465
    Liked 595 Times in 322 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    This is a ridiculous game to play.

    How about:
    Pitcher A: 3.00 ERA 3 innings
    Pitcher B: 3.20 ERA, 230 innings

    or

    Pitcher A: 5.30 ERA, 120 innings, 110 Ks, 80 BBs
    Pitcher B: 3.25 ERA, 125 innings, 96 Ks, 21 BBs

    You can prove a whole lot of nothing throwing out random stats.
    Just oversimplifying your oversimplification.

  12. #92
    Senior Member All-Star IdahoPilgrim's Avatar
    Posts
    2,421
    Like
    2
    Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    I think what this all comes down to is what you expect from your starting pitchers.

    Do we expect our pitchers to be dominant and able to shut teams down and virtually win games on their own? Or do we want pitchers who can just keep the game close, who can eat up innings, and give the offense a chance to win the game by scoring runs?

    Obviously, it depends on what the rest of the team looks like. If you have confidence in your offensive capabilities, you are more willing to accept a rotation of #3 & #4 starters. If you don't have confidence in your ability to produce runs, you are more likely to demand/need better starting pitching to compensate. My guess is that Twins feel good enough about their offense that a rotation of dependable if unspectacular starters is OK for them. Time will tell if we got that (or if their analysis of offensive capability is accurate).

    Obviously, you'd like to have both good pitching and good hitting. Doesn't happen that often in real life, though. When it does, it usually means World Series.

  13. #93
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    772
    Like
    344
    Liked 64 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Twins Twerp View Post
    Sounds better than I hope he has an above average obp+ with a solid iso power rating. The article wasn't for twins daily but a newspaper and since only gpas read newspapers with there morning viagra and oj, using saber stats would have been a bad idea.
    Hey, Twerp! I resemble that!

  14. #94
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sbknudson View Post
    IDo we expect our pitchers to be dominant and able to shut teams down and virtually win games on their own? Or do we want pitchers who can just keep the game close, who can eat up innings, and give the offense a chance to win the game by scoring runs.
    You know what good teams do? A little of both. I think the Twins have conditioned us in some very strange ways about how a team can be assembled. Even then, innings eaters still have to minimize the runs they give up or you won't want them out there eating innings since they aren't "keeping you in the game".

  15. #95
    The King In The North All-Star Nick Nelson's Avatar
    Posts
    1,623
    Like
    5
    Liked 65 Times in 24 Posts
    Blog Entries
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Ok, serious question. Is pitching a lot of innings is a predictor of being durable and pitching a lot of innings in the future?
    It's a better predictor than not pitching a lot of innings.

    But I think you're getting at an important point that I've preached often. A pitcher is only injury-prone until he's not, and vice versa. Carl Pavano's a fine example -- he's gone back and forth about four times in his career. Pitchers with a relatively clean bill of health suffer major injuries all the time, it's the name of the game.

  16. #96
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    Just oversimplifying your oversimplification.
    So saying IP is the most important stat is an oversimplification? I would disagree with that interpretation.
    Papers...business papers.

  17. #97
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    They don't have to be random. These two guys are sitting immediately next to one another when you align the 2012 season by IP:

    Pitcher A: 191.2 IP, 5.07 ERA, 47/147 BB/SO
    Pitcher B: 191.1 IP, 3.90 ERA, 89/221 BB/SO

    What does IP tell you there? And what is the defining stat that makes you like pitcher B compared to pitcher A?

    It's ERA. If you're going to glom onto one pitching stat (not including advanced metrics), ERA is the obvious choice. Innings Pitches tells you nothing about quality of pitcher unless you get to the far end of the spectrum (if a guy throws 230+ IP, you know he was at least an effective pitcher, if not a great one). Hanging on to this notion that IP is the most important pitching stat is ridiculous. Just give it up.

    Besides, declaring one statistic the best is a silly notion in the first place. Why would anyone in their right mind choose one statistic when you have hundreds available to you?
    I said IP was the most important. I stand by that. But I also thought I was pretty clear that it was far from the only stat or a be-all end-all stat. To look solely at IP would be silly, just like it would be silly to look at any one stat to determine effectiveness. I would assume this is self-evident. I would put ERA second.
    Papers...business papers.

  18. #98
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    969
    Like
    3
    Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Nelson View Post
    It's a better predictor than not pitching a lot of innings.

    But I think you're getting at an important point that I've preached often. A pitcher is only injury-prone until he's not, and vice versa. Carl Pavano's a fine example -- he's gone back and forth about four times in his career. Pitchers with a relatively clean bill of health suffer major injuries all the time, it's the name of the game.
    Heh, I suppose that's true, that not pitching a lot of innings probably means that, for whatever reason (injury or performance) a pitcher won't likely pitch "a lot" in the future (whatever that number means), but it does seem like a guy is durable until he isn't as you point out.

  19. #99
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    969
    Like
    3
    Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    I said IP was the most important. I stand by that. But I also thought I was pretty clear that it was far from the only stat or a be-all end-all stat. To look solely at IP would be silly, just like it would be silly to look at any one stat to determine effectiveness. I would assume this is self-evident. I would put ERA second.
    I'd encourage you to go to Fangraphs here: Major League Leaderboards Ľ 2012 Ľ Pitchers Ľ Dashboard | FanGraphs Baseball

    You can play around with what stat you'd like to rank pitchers by, WAR, ERA, IP, xFIP, whatever.

    It's interesting to note, and not surprising that IP will correlate with what most of us consider good pitchers and bad pitchers at the extreme ends of the spectrum. However, for a massive number of pitchers, it doesn't correlate at all. Jarrod Hudson had a 3.47 ERA but only threw 187 IP, putting him in the bottom 3rd of the majors of qualified pitchers in IP. There are a ton of pitchers like this: Samardzjja, Lynn, Hellickson, Moore, Hudson...

    How can IP be the most important stat if there are pitchers like this in the bottom of the league in IP? Meanwhile Clayton Richard and Justin Masterson threw over 200 IP. I'd take any of the pitchers I named above over them for last season's performance. How can that be considered if IP is the most important stat?
    Last edited by Alex; 02-10-2013 at 10:28 PM.

  20. #100
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    They don't have to be random. These two guys are sitting immediately next to one another when you align the 2012 season by IP:

    Pitcher A: 191.2 IP, 5.07 ERA, 47/147 BB/SO
    Pitcher B: 191.1 IP, 3.90 ERA, 89/221 BB/SO

    What does IP tell you there? And what is the defining stat that makes you like pitcher B compared to pitcher A?

    It's ERA. If you're going to glom onto one pitching stat (not including advanced metrics), ERA is the obvious choice. Innings Pitches tells you nothing about quality of pitcher unless you get to the far end of the spectrum (if a guy throws 230+ IP, you know he was at least an effective pitcher, if not a great one). Hanging on to this notion that IP is the most important pitching stat is ridiculous. Just give it up.

    Besides, declaring one statistic the best is a silly notion in the first place. Why would anyone in their right mind choose one statistic when you have hundreds available to you?
    This is a great post. I mirrored your thoughts about ERA here last fall. I agree that we should not be closed-minded and focus on one stat for any player. But, for pitchers, ERA would be the one to separate those with equal IP

    "I think about baseball a lot, and ERA is the MOST important stat for a pitcher in my opinion. Your starter's ERA is what you're facing, on average, as an offense (until or if the starter exits, obviously)." - me.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.