I especially enjoy how we make every journeyman pitcher look like Cy Young , we stink ......really bad it is a shame we couldnt move some players because this team needs to be altered greatly

 

This is one of the reasons why I'm against going solely by what is observed. While it may seem like we make every journeyman look like Cy Young, we're 2nd in the NL in runs scored. There are 14 other teams in the National League that a pitcher would prefer to face than the Marlins. Bad offensive outings happen. When your starting pitching is as bad as ours has been this season, there's going to be a lot of games where the offense can't bail out the pitching.

 

Wellll... What I have observed is how bad this team is vs sinkerball pitchers. Alot of that has to do with the free swinging style of most of our bats, IMO. Vs this kind of pitcher that translates into alot of ground ball outs. And this guy's last few outings have been pretty damn impressive. His last one a 74 pitch complete game vs a division rival?? Very nice.

Actually this game ended up pretty much the way I thought it would. And that was paying attention to the fact that Scotty was 6-2 at home and 2-6 away going into this game. When I see the opposing pitcher is this type I just cringe.

 

I'm not arguing that all observations are invalid. The point I was trying to make with my original post is that when we go SOLELY by our observations we can often come to misleading conclusions. Suppose we saw all games where the Marlins faced journeyman pitchers. The expectation in those games would be for our team to take advantage of sub par pitching and drive in alot of runs, or at least more than normal. Now, suppose there are two different scenarios. 1) We lose and only score 2 runs in that game. 2) We perform as expected. Which game are you more likely to vividly remember and have a much easier time recalling? Psychology tells us that we're far more likely to recall the anomaly, the game that defied our expectations, because we're naturally more interested in exceptional circumstances.

 

Now, when we are formulating an opinion about how our team performs against journeyman pitching, the first thing that comes to mind is: "Remember that game where the Marlins got completely shut out by Crappy Pitcher X." And, a few similarly exceptional games will also come to mind. So, it's not uncommon to make the logical leap that we must make bad pitchers look good based on what we can recall. The problem with that is that we're not remembering the outings where we did meet expectations. There was nothing special about those games, so we just kind of forgot about them or have a hard time recalling them. It's here where stats can help us integrate over all games and formulate opinions with a more complete set of information than simply going by our memory.

 

I really wish there was a way for me to check out the stats for how our team has performed against sinkerball pitchers. You can find individual scouting reports that tell you how well individual players hit sinkers, sliders, curves, etc. but I'm not aware of any report that tells you how well a team has performed against a particular type of pitcher. It'd be really cool to test your hypothesis.

I agree. The Ump was horrible. Worse I've seen all year. Guy should retire already.

and Freomming has a reputation of being one of the better umps in the game too.

The funny thing is I don't think people really go by their observations.. they go by the observations of the announcers. People tend to parrot what the announcers say.

I especially enjoy how we make every journeyman pitcher look like Cy Young , we stink ......really bad it is a shame we couldnt move some players because this team needs to be altered greatly

 

This is one of the reasons why I'm against going solely by what is observed. While it may seem like we make every journeyman look like Cy Young, we're 2nd in the NL in runs scored. There are 14 other teams in the National League that a pitcher would prefer to face than the Marlins. Bad offensive outings happen. When your starting pitching is as bad as ours has been this season, there's going to be a lot of games where the offense can't bail out the pitching.

 

Wellll... What I have observed is how bad this team is vs sinkerball pitchers. Alot of that has to do with the free swinging style of most of our bats, IMO. Vs this kind of pitcher that translates into alot of ground ball outs. And this guy's last few outings have been pretty damn impressive. His last one a 74 pitch complete game vs a division rival?? Very nice.

Actually this game ended up pretty much the way I thought it would. And that was paying attention to the fact that Scotty was 6-2 at home and 2-6 away going into this game. When I see the opposing pitcher is this type I just cringe.

 

I'm not arguing that all observations are invalid. The point I was trying to make with my original post is that when we go SOLELY by our observations we can often come to misleading conclusions. Suppose we saw all games where the Marlins faced journeyman pitchers. The expectation in those games would be for our team to take advantage of sub par pitching and drive in alot of runs, or at least more than normal. Now, suppose there are two different scenarios. 1) We lose and only score 2 runs in that game. 2) We perform as expected. Which game are you more likely to vividly remember and have a much easier time recalling? Psychology tells us that we're far more likely to recall the anomaly, the game that defied our expectations, because we're naturally more interested in exceptional circumstances.

 

Now, when we are formulating an opinion about how our team performs against journeyman pitching, the first thing that comes to mind is: "Remember that game where the Marlins got completely shut out by Crappy Pitcher X." And, a few similarly exceptional games will also come to mind. So, it's not uncommon to make the logical leap that we must make bad pitchers look good based on what we can recall. The problem with that is that we're not remembering the outings where we did meet expectations. There was nothing special about those games, so we just kind of forgot about them or have a hard time recalling them. It's here where stats can help us integrate over all games and formulate opinions with a more complete set of information than simply going by our memory.

 

I really wish there was a way for me to check out the stats for how our team has performed against sinkerball pitchers. You can find individual scouting reports that tell you how well individual players hit sinkers, sliders, curves, etc. but I'm not aware of any report that tells you how well a team has performed against a particular type of pitcher. It'd be really cool to test your hypothesis.

 

I "remember" someone posting quite a alot this year "observing" that we hit only bad pitchers good, and do not perform well enough against the good ones. "Seems" like someone got a little stuck on that point.

 

:whistle

I don't like to blame the game on an Ump, but balls and strikes were unbearable last night. Why did we have so many strikeouts and sh*tty hit groundballs? Because our guys figured out that they had to swing at EVERYTHING, because if they didn't it would be called a strike anyways. And then, to show a complete lack of constancy, our pitchers got squeezed into a strikezone the size of a matchbox!

 

 

 

 

I knew something didn't seem right with balls and strikes.