That's Polo's schtick. If he disagrees with you, he dismisses your point out of hand and will bring it up every like 5 minutes to point out how ridiculous it is. He's one of the more intelligent annoying posters.

 

I've had my problems with Polo in the past on another board. I think it is mainly because at times neither one of us actually comes through in a post the point we are actually trying to make. But I got his point on this one just fine. It's not the catchers fault for DTrain's atrocious season this year, it's DTrain's fault.

So basically you posted to get a rise, but when an actual fact-based counter-arguement comes up, rather then trying to debate that, you instead put your hands over your ears and keep saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and nothing to actually back your side up. If that's what you set out to accomplish, well, congratulations.

I don't consider your "bad luck" argument regarding DTrain's high batting average allowed and high number of HRs allowed to be fact based. I consider your argument to be head-stuck-in-the-sand based. You threw some stats in making the argument but unfortunately you misinterpreted the stats.

So basically you posted to get a rise, but when an actual fact-based counter-arguement comes up, rather then trying to debate that, you instead put your hands over your ears and keep saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and nothing to actually back your side up. If that's what you set out to accomplish, well, congratulations.

I don't consider your "bad luck" argument regarding DTrain's high batting average allowed and high number of HRs allowed to be fact based. I consider your argument to be head-stuck-in-the-sand based. You threw some stats in making the argument but unfortunately you misinterpreted the stats.

 

How do you explain a player who has been fairly good his entire career all of a sudden losing the ability to pitch? And if he regains form, what do you attribute it to? An off year, sure. But why? There's got to be a reason. You don't forget how to pitch, especially since has as much to do with factors a pitcher cannot control than it is on what he can control.

 

Greg Maddux in 1998: 251 IP, 201 H

Greg Maddux in 1999: 219.3 IP, 258 H

Greg Maddux in 2000: 249.3 IP, 225 H

 

How do you explain that away aside from saying he had "a bad year"? Thats not an explanation, thats a description. What is the reason for it?

 

That is "luck", or "factors beyond a pitcher's control", or "ahdunbefk" if that's what you want to call it. It's the same thing.

If anyone can explain why he had a "bad" year in '99 it's Maddux himself.

 

If I had to make a guess I would say he probably didn't have his normal pin point control throughout that season (lack of execution is not bad luck, BTW) and he probably had a couple of bad games that skewed his stats a bit.

 

I thought that you had agreed, on a separate thread, that how hard a hitter hits the ball will impact his BABIP so doesn't it follow that how hard a pitcher is hit will impact his BABIP allowed?

If anyone can explain why he had a "bad" year in '99 it's Maddux himself.

 

If I had to make a guess I would say he probably didn't have his normal pin point control throughout that season (lack of execution is not bad luck, BTW) and he probably had a couple of bad games that skewed his stats a bit.

 

I thought that you had agreed, on a separate thread, that how hard a hitter hits the ball will impact his BABIP so doesn't it follow that how hard a pitcher is hit will impact his BABIP allowed?

 

He had his usual pinpoint control that season, actually allowing less walks than the year before. Not an excuse.

 

Your logic makes sense except a pitcher has no control over how hard the ball is hit. He could be throwing meat balls all day but if the hitters don't make solid contact, it doesn't make him a good pitcher. He might've just faced tougher competition, or had a worse defense behind him. These are not things he can control.

 

Here's a breif summary of Voros McCracken's groundbreaking study on the subject that eventually lead to the development of DIPS and BABIP, among other things:

 

McCracken's findings implied that major league pitchers had relatively little control over the outcome of balls put into play against them. Specifically, McCracken found that the percentage of balls put into play against a particular pitcher that fell for hits did not correlate well across seasons. This implied that elements beyond the pitcher's control, including his defense, ballpark effects, the weather, and most importantly, randomness, had significant effects upon his performance. This theory flew in the face of conventional wisdom, but has been confirmed (at least in its simplest form) by many researchers.

If anyone can explain why he had a "bad" year in '99 it's Maddux himself.

 

If I had to make a guess I would say he probably didn't have his normal pin point control throughout that season (lack of execution is not bad luck, BTW) and he probably had a couple of bad games that skewed his stats a bit.

 

I thought that you had agreed, on a separate thread, that how hard a hitter hits the ball will impact his BABIP so doesn't it follow that how hard a pitcher is hit will impact his BABIP allowed?

 

He had his usual pinpoint control that season, actually allowing less walks than the year before. Not an excuse.

 

Your logic makes sense except a pitcher has no control over how hard the ball is hit. He could be throwing meat balls all day but if the hitters don't make solid contact, it doesn't make him a good pitcher. He might've just faced tougher competition, or had a worse defense behind him. These are not things he can control.

 

Here's a breif summary of Voros McCracken's groundbreaking study on the subject that eventually lead to the development of DIPS and BABIP, among other things:

 

McCracken's findings implied that major league pitchers had relatively little control over the outcome of balls put into play against them. Specifically, McCracken found that the percentage of balls put into play against a particular pitcher that fell for hits did not correlate well across seasons. This implied that elements beyond the pitcher's control, including his defense, ballpark effects, the weather, and most importantly, randomness, had significant effects upon his performance. This theory flew in the face of conventional wisdom, but has been confirmed (at least in its simplest form) by many researchers.

The loss of pin point control would not necessarily lead to higher walks. If he misses inside the strike zone that would make his pitches more hitable and that would lead to the higher BABIP allowed with similar walks as the previous year.

 

Obviously I disagree with your stance that pitchers have no control over how hard their pitches are hit. If that's the case why do pitchers go through all the effort to throw pitches with movement down the corners of the strike zone? Why not groove straight meatball after straight meatball down the middle of the plate if what kind of pitches they make makes no difference in how hard their pitches are hit?

The loss of pin point control would not necessarily lead to higher walks. If he misses inside the strike zone that would make his pitches more hitable and that would lead to the higher BABIP allowed with similar walks as the previous year.

 

Obviously I disagree with your stance that pitchers have no control over how hard their pitches are hit. If that's the case why do pitchers go through all the effort to throw pitches with movement down the corners of the strike zone? Why not groove straight meatball after straight meatball down the middle of the plate if what kind of pitches they make makes no difference in how hard their pitches are hit?

 

It's not a matter of control over how hard the ball is hit. The three things a pitcher has main control of is K/9, BB/9, and HR/9. But once the ball is put in play, he has nothing to do with the outcome.

 

There are certain "types" of pitchers who can induce more groundballs or infield flies, but they still can't control what happens once the ball is hit.

If anyone can explain why he had a "bad" year in '99 it's Maddux himself.

 

If I had to make a guess I would say he probably didn't have his normal pin point control throughout that season (lack of execution is not bad luck, BTW) and he probably had a couple of bad games that skewed his stats a bit.

 

I thought that you had agreed, on a separate thread, that how hard a hitter hits the ball will impact his BABIP so doesn't it follow that how hard a pitcher is hit will impact his BABIP allowed?

 

He had his usual pinpoint control that season, actually allowing less walks than the year before. Not an excuse.

 

Your logic makes sense except a pitcher has no control over how hard the ball is hit. He could be throwing meat balls all day but if the hitters don't make solid contact, it doesn't make him a good pitcher. He might've just faced tougher competition, or had a worse defense behind him. These are not things he can control.

 

Here's a breif summary of Voros McCracken's groundbreaking study on the subject that eventually lead to the development of DIPS and BABIP, among other things:

 

McCracken's findings implied that major league pitchers had relatively little control over the outcome of balls put into play against them. Specifically, McCracken found that the percentage of balls put into play against a particular pitcher that fell for hits did not correlate well across seasons. This implied that elements beyond the pitcher's control, including his defense, ballpark effects, the weather, and most importantly, randomness, had significant effects upon his performance. This theory flew in the face of conventional wisdom, but has been confirmed (at least in its simplest form) by many researchers.

The loss of pin point control would not necessarily lead to higher walks. If he misses inside the strike zone that would make his pitches more hitable and that would lead to the higher BABIP allowed with similar walks as the previous year.

 

Obviously I disagree with your stance that pitchers have no control over how hard their pitches are hit. If that's the case why do pitchers go through all the effort to throw pitches with movement down the corners of the strike zone? Why not groove straight meatball after straight meatball down the middle of the plate if what kind of pitches they make makes no difference in how hard their pitches are hit?

 

Common sense dictates (atleast for me) if a pitcher loses the control over his pitches, his pitches will find everything else besides that little box called the strikezone more often than not over the course of the season. (30 starts, 100 pitches a start)

 

Pitchers can throw a pitch to a certain spot to minimize their chances of getting hit hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it controlling it. Once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand he really has no control over it.

Common sense dictates (atleast for me) if a pitcher loses the control over his pitches, his pitches will find everything else besides that little box called the strikezone more often than not over the course of the season. (30 starts, 100 pitches a start)

 

Pitchers can throw a pitch to a certain spot to minimize their chances of getting hit hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it controlling it. Once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand he really has no control over it.

 

Seems to me you are saying that if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger it's not my fault the bullet hits you, it's the bullet's fault.

Either that or you are saying that if Olivo had caught those pitches they wouldn't have gone for home runs or hits. So Willis having a bad year is Olivo's fault.

May as well look up the stats on all of Miggy's and Hanley's errors while Olivo was catching vs when Treanor was catching and then blame Olivo for all those errors as well. If he would have caught those pitches they wouldn't have been hit, hence no error would have been made. No sense in blaming a MG or MGIT while Olivo is right there.

Common sense dictates (atleast for me) if a pitcher loses the control over his pitches, his pitches will find everything else besides that little box called the strikezone more often than not over the course of the season. (30 starts, 100 pitches a start)

 

Pitchers can throw a pitch to a certain spot to minimize their chances of getting hit hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it controlling it. Once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand he really has no control over it.

 

Seems to me you are saying that if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger it's not my fault the bullet hits you, it's the bullet's fault.

Either that or you are saying that if Olivo had caught those pitches they wouldn't have gone for home runs or hits. So Willis having a bad year is Olivo's fault.

May as well look up the stats on all of Miggy's and Hanley's errors while Olivo was catching vs when Treanor was catching and then blame Olivo for all those errors as well. If he would have caught those pitches they wouldn't have been hit, hence no error would have been made. No sense in blaming a MG or MGIT while Olivo is right there.

 

WTF?

 

My post has nothing to do with Olivo. This is a strictly batter-pitcher post. A pitcher cannot control how hard a ball is hit.

 

Go back and read the post.

The notion that a pitcher can not control how hard a ball is hit would seem to defy the laws of motion. Would not the velocity of the pitch have some factor in how hard it was hit?

The location of the pitch would seem to also factor into the equation, in regards to the location affecting the arc of the swing and bat speed, and location on the bat where the ball makes contact.

Let's focus on the REAL battle, and just all agree that cERA is relatively worthless and that Dontrelle will probably be a 1.35-1.40 whip pitcher next year despite his struggles this year.

 

Olivo OPS .651, BB 8

Dontrelle OPS .671, BB 5

 

I can't wait to see who wins.

 

Olivo OPS .640, BB 8

Dontrelle OPS .715, BB 5

 

Come on Dontrelle. WALK WALK WALK

I think location, movement and velocity have a lot to do with how hard a ball is batted and have a hard time believing that some think these things have nothing to do with it and that it all comes down to luck (from the pitcher's perspective).

 

Yes, a "nasty" pitch can be pummeled and a "meatball" can be popped-up but the nasty pitch is much more likely to be popped-up and the meatball is much more likely to be pummeled. Again, I don't know how anyone can disagree with this.

I think location, movement and velocity have a lot to do with how hard a ball is batted and have a hard time believing that some think these things have nothing to do with it and that it all comes down to luck (from the pitcher's perspective).

 

Yes, a "nasty" pitch can be pummeled and a "meatball" can be popped-up but the nasty pitch is much more likely to be popped-up and the meatball is much more likely to be pummeled. Again, I don't know how anyone can disagree with this.

 

Nobody has said pitch location and velocity doesn't affect the end result of an at bat. What bothered me was the use of the word control. We all agree a pitcher's job is to get outs and looking a little deeper, prevent the ball from being put in play. I wouldn't call what a pitcher does "controlling." I'd call it minimizing his chances of being rocked instead. Read my post above.

 

Bobbob was simply arguing a contact pitcher is less likely to really "control" his statistics than a strikeout pitcher because the contact pitcher is dependent on so many more variables. The explanation under that paragraph illustrates the point he was trying to make.

I think location, movement and velocity have a lot to do with how hard a ball is batted and have a hard time believing that some think these things have nothing to do with it and that it all comes down to luck (from the pitcher's perspective).

 

Yes, a "nasty" pitch can be pummeled and a "meatball" can be popped-up but the nasty pitch is much more likely to be popped-up and the meatball is much more likely to be pummeled. Again, I don't know how anyone can disagree with this.

That's kind of why the whole "defies conventional wisdom" tag is assigned to McCracken's study. We'd think that these things have a tangible impact, but statistics show that, for the most part, they don't. You can't refute a "conventional wisdom defying" study by simply restating conventional wisdom. However, this isn't to say that what pitch is throw is inconsequential. Obviously, no pitcher can throw meatballs all day and expect to have similar success as the stud pitcher with an arsenal of nasty pitches. That's pretty obvious. However, you make the leap by implying that because these differences exist they'll necessarily be hit differently. I think that good pitches are less likely to be hit. A hitter will, more likely than not, hit a meatball. He'll struggle to hit the nastier pitch. However, once the guy makes contact with either pitch, the pitcher has no control over how well that pitch will be hit. When I say this, I'm not asking you to believe it because you can follow my line of reasoning. I'm asking that you believe it because there are far more intelligent people than me who have run the data and have yet to come up with a better conclusion.

 

That's the problem that I think most people have with a lot of what comes out of the analysis community. They assume that we're out to prove something that defies conventional wisdom for the sake of defying conventional wisdom. True statistical work (the kind that gets accepted by the community) expresses no preference for a particular result. You go where the data leads you. If data suggested batting average was a good stat to use, we'd be talking about the merits of batting average. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't. You have to hold an open mind and be willing to change your opinion if the data changes. That's my main frustration with alot of the points that you make Polo. You seem to go into any stat discussion with an opinion that the conclusions drawn from certain studies are invalid because they conflict with your existing viewpoints, and clarification of those studies might as well fall upon deaf ears because your opinion remains unchanged.

 

Most of these studies have been rigorously tested and critiqued by people who know what they're doing. Any time I present findings to my stats professor, it isn't a fun conversation. It's basically an interrogation where he tries to poke as many holes in my findings as possible. And, if I can't justify why I made a certain decision or an inconsistency in my work, I have to basically go back to square one and see where I went wrong. Hell, this is for stuff that isn't even going to get published. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that those of us who have read the study ought to be capable of speaking on behalf of Voros McCracken. We've read the study's findings. We've seen that it's been more or less confirmed by other independent studies. So, we allow those findings to alter the way we understand baseball. Do we have minor reservations? Absolutely. But, given the fact that there isn't a better alternative explanation, I'm willing to accept that conclusion until one does arise.

Let me put it another way...

 

a.) a pitcher controls the quality of pitches he makes

b.) the quality of pitches he makes impacts how hard his pitches are hit

c.) and thus a pitcher controls how hard his pitches are hit

 

Do you disagree with a or with b or with c or with all of them?

Let me put it another way...

 

a.) a pitcher controls the quality of pitches he makes

b.) the quality of pitches he makes impacts how hard his pitches are hit

c.) and thus a pitcher controls how hard his pitches are hit

 

Do you disagree with a or with b or with c or with all of them?

 

I disagree with B and therefore C.

 

Here's how I would amend it:

 

b.) the quality of pitches he makes impacts how hard whether his pitches are hit

Let me put it another way...

 

a.) a pitcher controls the quality of pitches he makes

b.) the quality of pitches he makes impacts how hard his pitches are hit

c.) and thus a pitcher controls how hard his pitches are hit

 

Do you disagree with a or with b or with c or with all of them?

 

I disagree with B and therefore C.

 

Here's how I would amend it:

 

b.) the quality of pitches he makes impacts how hard whether his pitches are hit

 

/conversation

Common sense dictates (atleast for me) if a pitcher loses the control over his pitches, his pitches will find everything else besides that little box called the strikezone more often than not over the course of the season. (30 starts, 100 pitches a start)

 

Pitchers can throw a pitch to a certain spot to minimize their chances of getting hit hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it controlling it. Once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand he really has no control over it.

 

Seems to me you are saying that if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger it's not my fault the bullet hits you, it's the bullet's fault.

Either that or you are saying that if Olivo had caught those pitches they wouldn't have gone for home runs or hits. So Willis having a bad year is Olivo's fault.

May as well look up the stats on all of Miggy's and Hanley's errors while Olivo was catching vs when Treanor was catching and then blame Olivo for all those errors as well. If he would have caught those pitches they wouldn't have been hit, hence no error would have been made. No sense in blaming a MG or MGIT while Olivo is right there.

 

WTF?

 

My post has nothing to do with Olivo. This is a strictly batter-pitcher post. A pitcher cannot control how hard a ball is hit.

 

Go back and read the post.

 

Responded to two different theories at the same time. Sorry if you can't keep up with that.

Tonight I tried to notice how frequently Olivo looked into the dugout before running through the signs, but I honestly was not in a good position. Seemed more frequent the first two innings, but lessened as the night went on.

 

Of course he could have been looking at a woman in the stands for all I know.

 

I haven't paid much attention to that in quite some time. I think the catcher is checking the dug out only in certain situations. The game plan has already been set as to how each batter is going to pitched to. Plus I think he talks to the manager/pitching coach in the dugout while we are at bat going over how a pitcher is and what pitches in his arsenal are effective or not on that particular evening.

I'm sticking with DTrain is having a bad year because of DTrain. Dosen't seem to matter who is behind the plate. He gives up bunches of hits/homers regardless. Olivo is going to be gone after this year anyways. I don't see how blaming him for DTrain's woes is doing anything other than making some feel superior in some way.

Common sense dictates (atleast for me) if a pitcher loses the control over his pitches, his pitches will find everything else besides that little box called the strikezone more often than not over the course of the season. (30 starts, 100 pitches a start)

 

Pitchers can throw a pitch to a certain spot to minimize their chances of getting hit hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it controlling it. Once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand he really has no control over it.

 

Seems to me you are saying that if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger it's not my fault the bullet hits you, it's the bullet's fault.

Either that or you are saying that if Olivo had caught those pitches they wouldn't have gone for home runs or hits. So Willis having a bad year is Olivo's fault.

May as well look up the stats on all of Miggy's and Hanley's errors while Olivo was catching vs when Treanor was catching and then blame Olivo for all those errors as well. If he would have caught those pitches they wouldn't have been hit, hence no error would have been made. No sense in blaming a MG or MGIT while Olivo is right there.

 

WTF?

 

My post has nothing to do with Olivo. This is a strictly batter-pitcher post. A pitcher cannot control how hard a ball is hit.

 

Go back and read the post.

 

Responded to two different theories at the same time. Sorry if you can't keep up with that.

 

Ok "responded."

 

:lol

To compare the BA allowed off batted balls (excluding Ks) off nasty pitchers compared to meatballers I took the 10 best active and the 10 worst active pitchers in ERA+ from baseball-reference.

 

The average BA allowed off batted balls by the 10 best (Nasty Guys) is .313.

The average BA allowed off batted balls by the 10 worst (Meatball Guys) is .333.

 

The difference could arise primarily because the Nasty Guys make more nasty pitches and nasty pitches don't get hit as hard as meatballs or it could arise primarily because of the luck factors (defense, randomness) espoused by the Voros guy and bobbob, Festa and CrimsomCane.

 

I'll just say that I don't think the Nasty Guys allow a lower BA off batted balls because they're lucky. Now I promise I'm done with this thread.

=====

I would have used OPS rather than BA but I don't know of a quick and easy way of doing it with OPS.

To compare the BA allowed off batted balls (excluding Ks) off nasty pitchers compared to meatballers I took the 10 best active and the 10 worst active pitchers in ERA+ from baseball-reference.

 

The average BA allowed off batted balls by the 10 best (Nasty Guys) is .313.

The average BA allowed off batted balls by the 10 worst (Meatball Guys) is .333.

 

The difference could arise primarily because the Nasty Guys make more nasty pitches and nasty pitches don't get hit as hard as meatballs or it could arise primarily because of the luck factors (defense, randomness) espoused by the Voros guy and bobbob, Festa and CrimsomCane.

 

I'll just say that I don't think the Nasty Guys allow a lower BA off batted balls because they're lucky. Now I promise I'm done with this thread.

=====

I would have used OPS rather than BA but I don't know of a quick and easy way of doing it with OPS.

 

 

I would say the gap of .020 is equivalent to about 10 extra hits per season, which can probably be accounted for very neatly with home runs allowed. Which is one of the three things that most "luck" advocates would say aren't controlled by luck. So, if you take those away, they have essentially the same BABIP.

Tonight I tried to notice how frequently Olivo looked into the dugout before running through the signs, but I honestly was not in a good position. Seemed more frequent the first two innings, but lessened as the night went on.

 

Of course he could have been looking at a woman in the stands for all I know.

 

I haven't paid much attention to that in quite some time. I think the catcher is checking the dug out only in certain situations. The game plan has already been set as to how each batter is going to pitched to. Plus I think he talks to the manager/pitching coach in the dugout while we are at bat going over how a pitcher is and what pitches in his arsenal are effective or not on that particular evening.

I'm sticking with DTrain is having a bad year because of DTrain. Dosen't seem to matter who is behind the plate. He gives up bunches of hits/homers regardless. Olivo is going to be gone after this year anyways. I don't see how blaming him for DTrain's woes is doing anything other than making some feel superior in some way.

For someone who is supposedly going to be gone soon, they are certainly starting him fairly frequently. That's neglecting the fact that he has a bonus on the table related to games started.

 

Matt is hurt. Yesterday he was riding a stationary bike. There is even some question if he will even catch BK. Trying to get out of last place I would think starting a catcher that knows the pitching staff is better than starting a guy that was called up from AAA as an insurance policy. No matter how much you hate Olivo and want to make him the scapegoat for the pitchers' and teams' woes this year.

Bottom line. Olivo will be gone after the season ends. You will have to find another scapegoat for any and all loses next year. Two years ago wasn't it Trader Jack? Maybe I forgot a player tho. I seem to remember Paulie being labeled "the worst catcher ever"...until he got traded. Last year it was Reggie. This year Olivo. Next year PTBNL.

Fans need a specific person to push blame towards when things don't go their way. I believe it is just human nature. Sad, but true.

Tonight I tried to notice how frequently Olivo looked into the dugout before running through the signs, but I honestly was not in a good position. Seemed more frequent the first two innings, but lessened as the night went on.

 

Of course he could have been looking at a woman in the stands for all I know.

 

I haven't paid much attention to that in quite some time. I think the catcher is checking the dug out only in certain situations. The game plan has already been set as to how each batter is going to pitched to. Plus I think he talks to the manager/pitching coach in the dugout while we are at bat going over how a pitcher is and what pitches in his arsenal are effective or not on that particular evening.

I'm sticking with DTrain is having a bad year because of DTrain. Dosen't seem to matter who is behind the plate. He gives up bunches of hits/homers regardless. Olivo is going to be gone after this year anyways. I don't see how blaming him for DTrain's woes is doing anything other than making some feel superior in some way.

For someone who is supposedly going to be gone soon, they are certainly starting him fairly frequently. That's neglecting the fact that he has a bonus on the table related to games started.

 

Matt is hurt. Yesterday he was riding a stationary bike. There is even some question if he will even catch BK. Trying to get out of last place I would think starting a catcher that knows the pitching staff is better than starting a guy that was called up from AAA as an insurance policy. No matter how much you hate Olivo and want to make him the scapegoat for the pitchers' and teams' woes this year.

Bottom line. Olivo will be gone after the season ends. You will have to find another scapegoat for any and all loses next year. Two years ago wasn't it Trader Jack? Maybe I forgot a player tho. I seem to remember Paulie being labeled "the worst catcher ever"...until he got traded. Last year it was Reggie. This year Olivo. Next year PTBNL.

Fans need a specific person to push blame towards when things don't go their way. I believe it is just human nature. Sad, but true.

Actually it goes Lowell/whoevers decision it was not to let Hammer start, Reggie/Joe, Olivo/CF/Fredi/Willis/Olsen/Kranitz