2013 MLB Discussion

The Phillies have fired Charlie Manuel and have named Ryne Sandberg as interim manager. I figured they'd let Manuel go in the offseason, but never thought they'd do it so soon.

 
pitfallharry219 said:
The Phillies have fired Charlie Manuel and have named Ryne Sandberg as interim manager. I figured they'd let Manuel go in the offseason, but never thought they'd do it so soon.
Click to expand...
I never understood why managers are fired mid-season. They are not getting back in the playoff hunt and interim managers never do well if they get the full-time job.
 
DNukem170 said:
I never understood why managers are fired mid-season. They are not getting back in the playoff hunt and interim managers never do well if they get the full-time job.
Click to expand...
Well, Jack McKeon's World Series ring from 2003 can argue that point. The worst was when Milwaukee fired Ned Yost in the middle of September when the Brewers were leading the wild card race.

 
Damn, I had completely forgotten that Manuel had been in Philly since 2005. Damn fine run, too. World Series championship, 2 pennants, and only one (partial) season under .500.

 
I'm not a fan of the decision.  There's nothing Ryne can do now, what's the point?  Let Manuel finish out the season, hell, they were going to honor him this weekend for getting 1000 managerial wins.  Amaro sucks.

 
Miguel Tejada has been suspended for 105 games. Dont understand how they came to that number.

If I was Raphael Palmiero, I would use this to highlight that Miggy did give him a tainted substance.
 
CaseyRyback said:
http://deadspin.com/report-a-rods-camp-leaked-biogenesis-docs-with-ryan-b-1153471780

Cannot defend this if it is true.
Click to expand...
The stuff that keeps coming out is so ridiculous, it's hard to even judge it at this point. Because if it IS true...then he's the biggest scum on the face of the planet, who clearly doesn't give a shit about anything but himself. But if it's NOT true...then yeah, this is a witch hunt. They've painted it out to be one extreme or the other. There's no middle ground anymore.

 
A-Rod got plunked in his first at bat by Dempster. Surprising that Dempster didn't get tossed immediately, which pissed off Girardi.
 
He threw the ball BEHIND him on the first pitch, threw inside on the next 2, and then hit him on a 3-0 pitch. Dempster probably should have been tossed, and Joe did the right thing going nuts and getting tossed.

 
The booth said it best: you don't throw behind a batter by missing. The first pitch was without question on purpose. That's when the warning should have come, knowing the situation.

 
Pujols is out for the year. He probably would have only been out for part of the year if the Angels DL'd him months ago when they should have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MLB has suspened Ryan Dempster for 5 games for hitting A-Rod. I'm surprised after they didn't do anything to Strasburg after throwing at two batters in Atlanta.

 
Because of off days, Dempster will not miss a start. Good suspension, I think. Also, Girardi got fined. That I cannot explain. 

 
What exactly is it about the Orioles not being able to hit with RISP lately? Right now they are 3-for-24 this series.
 
bigdaddybruce44 said:
That was scary to watch. A broken jaw is awful, but thank goodness it wasn't any worse.
Click to expand...
Yeah, definitely glad he's gonna be okay. It could've easily been an eye injury. I've not seen it yet, and don't think I'll look for it. I still remember when Dennis Martinez nailed Kirby Puckett in the face, and that was awful. Anyways, it looks like Heyward will be back around the start of the playoffs, so that's good news.

 
A couple big series in the AL Wild Card race this weekend: Rays (1st) vs Yankees (5th, 3.5 GB), and A's (2nd) vs Orioles (4th, 3 GB)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope the O's can beat up on the A's so the Rangers can start putting some room between them in the AL West standings. I'd rather potentially face the O's pitching staff in the playoffs than the A's.

 
Better season? In what way?

Harvey- 9-5, 2.27 era, 191k, .93 whip, .203 baa, 1 cg, 1 sho, 178.1 ip 

Kershaw- 13-7, 1.72 era, 188k, .86 whip, .182 baa, 3 cg, 2 sho, 198.1 ip

Kershaw is also a better hitter. It's not even close imo. Only thing Harvey has is a better k/9

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Harvey has a better fWAR, FIP, xFIP, K/9 and BB/9. They're close, but Harvey is statistically the better pitcher. Also, record and ERA don't matter so don't use those at benchmarks for judging pitchers against each other.

Kershaw has the wins (LOL) and is on the better team so will win the Cy Young because the voters are really, really dumb.

 
NinjaPenguin777 said:
Better season? In what way?

Harvey- 9-5, 2.27 era, 191k, .93 whip, .203 baa, 1 cg, 1 sho, 178.1 ip

Kershaw- 13-7, 1.72 era, 188k, .86 whip, .182 baa, 3 cg, 2 sho, 198.1 ip

Kershaw is also a better hitter. It's not even close imo. Only thing Harvey has is a better k/9
Click to expand...
Harvey: 1.99 FIP , 2.63 XFIP, 9.64 K/9 1.56 BB/9 0.35 hr/9 SIERA: 2.71

Kershaw: 2.39 FIP 2.94 xFIP 8.53 K/9 1.95 BB/9 0.41 hr/9 SIERA: 3.12

Harvey has been a better pitcher. In 21 less innings, however.

 
I'm all for advanced stats but sometimes people look way too much into them. Basically all FIP does is tell you which guy gets more strikeouts and it assumes everything else is out of the pitchers control.  The biggest constant in all of these advanced stats is that they all ASSUME things about a pitchers performance and they all attempt to answer what their stats "should be". I'm not concerned with making stats a guessing game because that's all that is. What is their performance on the field? That's all that matters. If you don't believe me, look at the fan graphs definitions of FIP, xFIP, and Siera.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/siera/

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/fip/

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/xfip/

So how exactly is Harvey a better pitcher than Kershaw if you aren't counting era? All these assumed stats? Harvey should be better according to what's on paper. That's great. Last time I checked the games are played on the field. Advanced stats can't take the human element into account, or umpires, or luck, or just the fact that some guys just have "it". We might as well just play baseball like an RPG on paper if we're going to throw out on field performance and just assume things

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh boy, we have a dinosaur in here!

Numbers don't lie.  He strikes out more hitters, walks less batters, gives up slightly less home runs and runs, all while playing on a team that is pretty bad. They're both amazing pitchers, but Harvey has been the best pitcher in baseball this year. Don't let all the ESPN articles about the Dodgers lead you astray. Of course this could all change with a little over a month left in the season.

And the whole "the game is played on the field" argument is faulty and skewed at best. If that were the case, nobody would pay attention to any type of stats. And front offices wouldn't have numerous modern statisticians in their employment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NinjaPenguin777 said:
I'm all for advanced stats but sometimes people look way too much into them. Basically all FIP does is tell you which guy gets more strikeouts and it assumes everything else is out of the pitchers control. The biggest constant in all of these advanced stats is that they all ASSUME things about a pitchers performance and they all attempt to answer what their stats "should be". I'm not concerned with making stats a guessing game because that's all that is. What is their performance on the field? That's all that matters. If you don't believe me, look at the fan graphs definitions of FIP, xFIP, and Siera.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/siera/

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/fip/

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/xfip/

So how exactly is Harvey a better pitcher than Kershaw if you aren't counting era? All these assumed stats? Harvey should be better according to what's on paper. That's great. Last time I checked the games are played on the field. Advanced stats can't take the human element into account, or umpires, or luck, or just the fact that some guys just have "it". We might as well just play baseball like an RPG on paper if we're going to throw out on field performance and just assume things
Click to expand...
FIP, SIERA and xFIP are exact indicators of the pitcher's performance on the field. Why should the performance of the defense that's backing the pitcher and the skill of the relievers who come in with men on base matter in the evaluation of the pitcher's performance?

Pitcher simply don't have the control of balls that are put in play. A pitcher who has on outfield of Gardner/Trout/Heyward has significant advantage over a pitcher who has Duda/Dunn/Ibanez backing him up. Dodgers have a team UZR of 14.4. Mets? -5.0.

 
GhostShark said:
Matt Harvey has a better fWAR, FIP, xFIP, K/9 and BB/9. They're close, but Harvey is statistically the better pitcher. Also, record and ERA don't matter so don't use those at benchmarks for judging pitchers against each other.

Kershaw has the wins (LOL) and is on the better team so will win the Cy Young because the voters are really, really dumb.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's fair to lump ERA in with wins as a statistic. Soccer is having almost exactly this problem right now at the striker/10 position, where advanced metrics peeps are arguing that a bunch of other stats are more important than goals scored and goals shouldn't even be in the discussion. When one steps back and thinks critically, that's where "we stats nerds" jump the shark.

I'm not arguing that ERA/Goals are the end all be all, but it's pretty damned ludicrous to suggest they're just the ends, not the means. Goals/Runs/Runs Against are an excellent aggregation of everything else since, you know, goals and runs are the point.

Just sayin.

"Mario Gomez isn't a class striker. All he does is score goals."

lolwut

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
I don't think it's fair to lump ERA in with wins as a statistic. Soccer is having almost exactly this problem right now at the striker/10 position, where advanced metrics peeps are arguing that a bunch of other stats are more important than goals scored and goals shouldn't even be in the discussion. When one steps back and thinks critically, that's where "we stats nerds" jump the shark.

I'm not arguing that ERA/Goals are the end all be all, but it's pretty damned ludicrous to suggest they're just the ends, not the means. Goals/Runs/Runs Against are an excellent aggregation of everything else since, you know, goals and runs are the point.

Just sayin.

"Mario Gomez isn't a class striker. All he does is score goals."

lolwut
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread any further but the reason soccer is having the same issue with goals is that top teams today are providing their strikers with incredible service. There is nothing special about being a poacher. The majority of fans today prefer a striker who has the ability to score goals from outside the box or run past a defender. Scoring 20-30 goals with a team like Bayern isn't as great an achievement. In baseball terms, that's the equivalent of winning 15-18 games with the Yankees. Yes it obviously takes skill and you need to be a very good player (that's a given). You're not in the starting 11 at a world class team unless you are a very good player. Additionally, I think it's a generational thing. Older folks have a tendency to overvalue wins/goals as a stat because at the end of the day scoring a goal or getting a win is the point of the game. My dad swears that Van Basten is the greatest number 9 he's ever seen. I am a diehard Dutch fan and grew up rooting for AC Milan but for me Ronaldo (Brazilian) was a better striker.

I am not calling Gomez a poacher but he's not in the same class as Ibra, Van Persie, Cavani, or Suarez. He will never score the audacious goal (ie bicycle kick from 40 yards out). As I said earlier, if you play for one of the top 5 teams in the world your life as a number 9 is so much easier. Personally, I prefer someone like Van Persie because he is clinical in his finishing and has the ability to get past a defender and score.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kill3r7 said:
Not to derail the thread any further but the reason soccer is having the same issue with goals is that top teams today are providing their strikers with incredible service. There is nothing special about being a poacher. The majority of fans today prefer a striker who has the ability to score goals from outside the box or run past a defender. Scoring 20-30 goals with a team like Bayern isn't as great an achievement. In baseball terms, that's the equivalent of winning 15-18 games with the Yankees. Yes it obviously takes skill and you need to be a very good player (that's a given). You're not in the starting 11 at a world class team unless you are a very good player. Additionally, I think it's a generational thing. Older folks have a tendency to overvalue wins/goals as a stat because at the end of the day scoring a goal or getting a win is the point of the game. My dad swears that Van Basten is the greatest number 9 he's ever seen. I am a diehard Dutch fan and grew up rooting for AC Milan but for me Ronaldo (Brazilian) was a better striker.

I am not calling Gomez a poacher but he's not in the same class as Ibra, Van Persie, Cavani, or Suarez. He will never score the audacious goal (ie bicycle kick from 40 yards out). As I said earlier, if you play for one of the top 5 teams in the world your life as a number 9 is so much easier. Personally, I prefer someone like Van Persie because he is clinical in his finishing and has the ability to get past a defender and score.
Click to expand...
Oh god. What have I done. I can't... I want so badly.. no.

fuck yes.

My favorite comps for this would be Gomez vs Torres vs Soldado. I don't think it's instructive to go RvP vs Cavani vs Suarez (Ibra, etc.) because they are just unquestionably world class, game changing players. I like the shade underneath because those guys don't have absolutely complete skill sets. It's easier to see difference.

No one can question that Gomez, Torres, and Soldado got top shelf (if not absolutely world class) service last year. But Gomez isn't going to turn a defender like Soldado, and Soldado can't play at the top of the box and utterly destroy a CB like Gomez can. And Torres, for all of ridiculous service he gets, can't do shit with it (at least, compared to what he SHOULD do with it. Guy had a solid, underrated year (though whether that's even possible is another argument..)).

So I love the Soldado vs. Gomez as a true primer, with Torres throw in to start just to show that quality 10 + monstrously absurd service doesn't equal success (don't get me on the little stuff, we can argue that later :D).

Both sold this window. Both the same age. Both play a true 10. Both had great teams, but Gomez's was a better team. Soldado is the "complete" player, while Gomez is a (that word that I hate so fucking much) "poacher".

I watched a ton of both last year (brother in law is a Mexican homer, ergo Vela, ergo Sociedad) and I love watching Bayern. I like Mandzukic and thought he made the wingers more dangerous via link up (as if Ribery and Robben needed the help), but I thought there was a narrow-ness missing without Gomez. There's something about the gritty in the hole play of a super strong 10 that locks up the CBs in the middle of the field. It cracks open space outside and forces the mids to lay lower against you, else let your wingers run 1-1 at the outside backs all day. I know this is the holy no-no of statistic nerds, but we don't have a way to capture the very real outside space created by a truly feared poacher like Gomez. Oh, and he scores a metric asston of goals. That's always nice.

Soldado by contrast is a technical guy. Having Vela run buck wild outside last year helped Soldado find his own space. I think we've seen Soldado struggle (good games, just not $30m transfer fee good) in the first two games because the Spurs don't have that guy (and not to be a homer, but I think they miss Dempsey's nose for seams more than they realize, Siggy isn't that guy). Both goals are PKs, which are, well, not what we're really looking for here. Soldado needs someone to play off of. Gomez by contrast, IS the guy you play off of.

Gomez was $20m. Soldado was $30m. That was just a long winded way of saying that I think the age of the technical 10 is overrated. But we'll see. This is a great experiment. Gomez to Fiorentina was God's gift to stat nerds wondering if the power 10 can do it without Muller feeding him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
Oh god. What have I done. I can't... I want so badly.. no.

fuck yes.

My favorite comps for this would be Gomez vs Torres vs Soldado. I don't think it's instructive to go RvP vs Cavani vs Suarez (Ibra, etc.) because they are just unquestionably world class, game changing players. I like the shade underneath because those guys don't have absolutely complete skill sets. It's easier to see difference.

No one can question that Gomez, Torres, and Soldado got top shelf (if not absolutely world class) service last year. But Gomez isn't going to turn a defender like Soldado, and Soldado can't play at the top of the box and utterly destroy a CB like Gomez can. And Torres, for all of ridiculous service he gets, can't do shit with it (at least, compared to what he SHOULD do with it. Guy had a solid, underrated year (though whether that's even possible is another argument..)).

So I love the Soldado vs. Gomez as a true primer, with Torres throw in to start just to show that quality 10 + monstrously absurd service doesn't equal success (don't get me on the little stuff, we can argue that later :D).

Both sold this window. Both the same age. Both play a true 10. Both had great teams, but Gomez's was a better team. Soldado is the "complete" player, while Gomez is a (that word that I hate so fucking much) "poacher".

I watched a ton of both last year (brother in law is a Mexican homer, ergo Vela, ergo Sociedad) and I love watching Bayern. I like Mandzukic and thought he made the wingers more dangerous via link up (as if Ribery and Robben needed the help), but I thought there was a narrow-ness missing without Gomez. There's something about the gritty in the hole play of a super strong 10 that locks up the CBs in the middle of the field. It cracks open space outside and forces the mids to lay lower against you, else let your wingers run 1-1 at the outside backs all day. I know this is the holy no-no of statistic nerds, but we don't have a way to capture the very real outside space created by a truly feared poacher like Gomez. Oh, and he scores a metric asston of goals. That's always nice.

Soldado by contrast is a technical guy. Having Vela run buck wild outside last year helped Soldado find his own space. I think we've seen Soldado struggle (good games, just not $30m transfer fee good) in the first two games because the Spurs don't have that guy (and not to be a homer, but I think they miss Dempsey's nose for seams more than they realize, Siggy isn't that guy). Both goals are PKs, which are, well, not what we're really looking for here. Soldado needs someone to play off of. Gomez by contrast, IS the guy you play off of.

Gomez was $20m. Soldado was $30m. That was just a long winded way of saying that I think the age of the technical 10 is overrated. But we'll see. This is a great experiment. Gomez to Fiorentina was God's gift to stat nerds wondering if the power 10 can do it without Muller feeding him.
Click to expand...
We should consider starting a Soccer discussion thread so folks don't get pissed but IMO what sets Soldado apart from Gomez is his ability to take on defenders occasionally and making those runs into space when the service is less than stellar. Gomez is more of a conventional forward who will eat you alive in the box. I would rate both players about the same. I do believe that Gomez chose the right league for his skill set. The long game is conducive to a tall forward. To me Gomez is this generations Ruud Van Nistelrooy. Always under appreciated because he doesn't score those beautiful goals... merely a "compiler".

Now turning our attention to El Nino, 5 or 6 years ago there was no better striker in the world then Torres. The complete package of what you would want from a true 9. Pace, strength and most importantly the audacity to try the impossible. Today he is a shell of his former self. His confidence is shot and he has lost it all. His touch which was sublime once upon a time has failed him completely. I think he should return to Atletico (less pressure might do wonders for his confidence).

http://youtu.be/jiU2RAufb0o

 
All right Killer. That's enough for us. I could talk forever... Torres at Athletico would be interesting. I thought Chich might end up there too. But Villa had that stunner the other day...

:D

To the rest of you, you're fuckin up if you aren't watching soccer. It's a baseball stat nerd's wet dream. Billy Beane is huge into soccer (He's left the country to go watch soccer during the baseball season). It's 90 minutes of probabilities screaming at every motion. And there's at least 4 leagues worth of awesome doing it, each with a different flavor and tactics focus. And they sell players, which means you get an exact dollar figure valuation instead of trying to bullshit it together via trade value. 

And then at the end of the year, THEY ALL fuckING PLAY EACH OTHER TO SEE WHO IS THE CHAMPION. It's fantastic. 

You should try it.

/so how bout them Dodgers huh? Pity the Sox saw our 3, 4, 5 pitchers. 

edit: oh god, that goal at 2:50. Devastating. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully the Rangers can step up their offense against the Mariners. For some reason, they lit up Chris Sale (8ER in 7 innings) but could only muster 4 total runs against the duo of Quintana and Danks. That is not acceptable. The usual suspects of Moreland, Andrus, Profar, Murphy and the bench bats are all slumping again. And who knows how much time Leonys might miss because Davis Murphy forgot how the outfield works. 

 
Wow guess Cy Young arguement was for naught since Harvey is done for year and possibly next with torn ucl.
 
While the Harvey/Kershaw argument is interesting (I lean Harvey, slightly. Kershaw's innings advantage made up the difference, mostly), here's another one:

Pitcher A: 2.94 xFIP, 3.12 SIERA, 25.0% K, 5.7% BB, 46.4% GB, 63.4% first strike, 76.5% contact

Pitcher B: 2.96 xFIP, 2.98 SIERA, 25.9% K, 5.3% BB, 46.5% GB, 63.6% first strike, 75.6% contact

Pitcher A is Kershaw. Pitcher B is Chris Sale. Sale has had 8 starts against the top three offenses in baseball against lefties (by wOBA), and 12 of his 24 starts have come against teams in the top 8. He also pitches in the AL and in one of the worst parks in baseball for pitching.

Chris Sale is insanely underrated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what it is about young killer pitchers blowing their arms. It seems like it's happening more often. Is it just selection bias? Is it a pitch type? Velocity? 

 
Because management and coaching staffs preach high speed fastballs above all else, so starters are becoming more throwers and less pitchers. High school and college pitchers are also pitching much harder than they used to.
 
Soriano hit his 400th career homer tonight. Interestingly, he is 15 steals away from 300. He could become only the 5th player in history to reach both. The other 4 are:

Bonds

Mays

A-Rod

Dawson

 
speedracer said:
I wonder what it is about young killer pitchers blowing their arms. It seems like it's happening more often. Is it just selection bias? Is it a pitch type? Velocity?
Click to expand...
These elbow injuries were career enders 40 or 50 years ago, and even now, shoulder surgeries are really bad news for pitchers. If this were 1963, guys like Liriano, Strasburg, Harvey, Jarrod Parker, Adam Wainwright, Chris Carpenter, etc, etc would be retired.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top