April 2, 201214 yr I love how one misplayed ball in one opportunity in a field that NOBODY is familiar with yet makes Coghlan a gold glove outfielder by comparison.
April 2, 201214 yr I love how one misplayed ball in one opportunity in a field that NOBODY is familiar with yet makes Coghlan a gold glove outfielder by comparison. He's been mediocre defensively the last two years, though, so I'd probably say he's not very good overall anymore. But yeah, that seems like an overreaction.
April 2, 201214 yr I love how one misplayed ball in one opportunity in a field that NOBODY is familiar with yet makes Coghlan a gold glove outfielder by comparison. He's been mediocre defensively the last two years, though, so I'd probably say he's not very good overall anymore. But yeah, that seems like an overreaction. Yeah, I know he hasn't been a good defender. Just, still, I expect there will be a few misplays there the first 5-10 games or so.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year. Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5. When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR. That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem.
April 2, 201214 yr I would expect a few misplays anywhere, at anytime. They happen. More-so than usual, at any rate.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year. Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5. When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR. That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem. You don't have to go that far, just look at his past years. 2006 - 11-11 2007 - 2-6 (MLB/Minors) 2008 - 15-8 2009 - 13-9 2010 - 14-9 2011 - 10-12 He's pretty much a 10-15 win guy, averaging 13-10, pretty decent.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year.  Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5.  When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR.  That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem. You don't have to go that far, just look at his past years. 2006 - 11-11 2007 - 2-6 (MLB/Minors) 2008 - 15-8 2009 - 13-9 2010 - 14-9 2011 - 10-12 He's pretty much a 10-15 win guy, averaging 13-10, pretty decent. That completely misses the point of my post, for a lot of the same reasons why wins are a bad stat by which to judge a pitcher's quality.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year. Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5. When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR. That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem. While there are issues with your methods (WAR doesn't really work that way), I'll take it at face value and say he would need to put up 3.5 WAR over the remaining starts to be average. Last season, Anibal put up a 3.8 WAR in 196.1 innings with a 3.67 ERA. He put up 4.4 WAR in 195 innings in 2010 with a 3.55 ERA. Taking out Nolasco's two starts where he gave up 20 ER in 4.1 innnigs last year, he put up a 3.86 ERA in 201.2 innings last season. Doesn't seem all that unlikely. And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value?
April 2, 201214 yr He had an LD% of ~24 last year. And, along with that, a career high GB% and FB%. Can't just take one number out of context. How did I take one number out of context? I was simply saying he allowed a lot of line drives. I never said anything about GB's or FB's. Also, more GB's and less K's isn't really a good thing, ever. All it means is that he's letting more hitters put the ball in play more which will result in more hits, LD's or not.
April 2, 201214 yr I am still honestly confused on how WAR gets calculated ... is there any formula for it or what's the deal with that? Anyways, Qbanj - wins are like saves. Overrated stat. All depends on situations and things have to go right. Would you honestly take Ricky over JJ just because Ricky averages more wins? [Just asking]
April 2, 201214 yr And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value? I absolutely think it's much worse. Arguably 5 runs sort of keeps the team in the game and I wouldn't classify that as an automatic loss. I think at 9 runs, you can forget it. I think that by the time you hit 9 or 10, it doesn't really matter anymore.
April 2, 201214 yr I am still honestly confused on how WAR gets calculated ... is there any formula for it or what's the deal with that? Anyways, Qbanj - wins are like saves. Overrated stat. All depends on situations and things have to go right. Would you honestly take Ricky over JJ just because Ricky averages more wins? [Just asking] No I get it. I know Wins can be misleading since it is codependent on how your offense did those games, however, it is a bit more reliant than saves. Also, using JJ and Nolasco was a bad example, I would still take JJ, since he's averaging 11-5. However, Nolasco - k/9 7.7 / BB/9 2.1 / HR/9 1.15 / ERA 4.5 JJ - K/9 8.3 / BB/9 3 / HR/9 .56 / ERA 2.98 My point is, yeah W/L might not mean anything, but in the long run, better pitchers have better W/L's.
April 2, 201214 yr My point is, yeah W/L might not mean anything, but in the long run, better pitchers have better W/L's. Only broadly speaking. There are countless cases pitcher A having better numbers than pitcher B, but pitcher B has more wins. That makes W/L pretty much useless for serious statistical analysis.
April 2, 201214 yr No, but I'm concerned I might barf on my computer if I see a whole bunch of these are you concerned threads this season. Just sayin....
April 2, 201214 yr He has been horrible since 2008 when it looked like he would turn into a solid #2.. When you post a 5.06, 4.51, and 4.67 era in the NL the last three seasons you're not a quality pitcher. You guys say he has potential but the dude is 29 years old. At this point you're what your stats say you're. Luckily we have 3 solid starters in J.J., Buehrle, Anibal, and another in Zambrano who could very well have a season where his era is back in the 3.50 range.
April 2, 201214 yr And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value? I absolutely think it's much worse. Arguably 5 runs sort of keeps the team in the game and I wouldn't classify that as an automatic loss. I think at 9 runs, you can forget it. I think that by the time you hit 9 or 10, it doesn't really matter anymore. In major league history, a starting pitcher has given up 5 or more runs in less than 2 innings 5,982 times, and his team has won 655 times. That is a 10.9 winning percentage. In major league history, a starting pitcher has given up 9 or more runs in less than 2 innings 95 times, and his team has won 1 times. That is a 1.1 winning percentage. 5 runs doesn't really keep the team in the game either. It keeps you more in the game, but your chances of winning are pretty significantly reduced. My point is that, while it's significant, the difference between the 1st run and the 5th run is far greater than the 5th and the 9th, so at some point each additional run is worth less.
April 2, 201214 yr By the way, Qbanj, I think I was snarkier than I intended. Haven't read all these posts yet, but my bad if I seemed (especially) like a douche there.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year.  Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5.  When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR.  That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem. While there are issues with your methods (WAR doesn't really work that way), I'll take it at face value and say he would need to put up 3.5 WAR over the remaining starts to be average. Last season, Anibal put up a 3.8 WAR in 196.1 innings with a 3.67 ERA. He put up 4.4 WAR in 195 innings in 2010 with a 3.55 ERA. Taking out Nolasco's two starts where he gave up 20 ER in 4.1 innnigs last year, he put up a 3.86 ERA in 201.2 innings last season. Doesn't seem all that unlikely. And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value? I know WAR doesn't work that way, hence why I said "in a sense," although it's probably less than a sense, though, yeah.Average is still pretty poor performance for his salary, but it's obviously not the worst thing.Anibal also had a couple of bad games, I'm sure. I'm trying to figure out if taking those out, and thus lowering his overall ERA, is relevant since we're doing that for Nolasco, but I'm not sure.Good stat on the diminishing returns thing.
April 2, 201214 yr He had an LD% of ~24 last year. And, along with that, a career high GB% and FB%. Can't just take one number out of context. How did I take one number out of context? I was simply saying he allowed a lot of line drives. I never said anything about GB's or FB's. Yes, but line drives occur in a context. If he is getting hit hard for line drives, then a resulting drop in flyballs allowed would at least temper the number of extra-base hits allowed, which has long been his problem.
April 2, 201214 yr By the way, Qbanj, I think I was snarkier than I intended. Haven't read all these posts yet, but my bad if I seemed (especially) like a douche there. Don't worry about it, I don't know what I'm talking about half the time.
April 2, 201214 yr I think we would've been better off trading Gaby to TB for Wade Davis, an idea that was floating during the time we were going hard after Pujols, and then we would've moved LoMo to 1st and pin Cogz or whomever as the everyday LF... Wade Davis sucks. Don't see how he sucks. Wouldn't do that trade, though.
April 2, 201214 yr And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value? I absolutely think it's much worse. Arguably 5 runs sort of keeps the team in the game and I wouldn't classify that as an automatic loss. I think at 9 runs, you can forget it. I think that by the time you hit 9 or 10, it doesn't really matter anymore. In major league history, a starting pitcher has given up 5 or more runs in less than 2 innings 5,982 times, and his team has won 655 times. That is a 10.9 winning percentage. In major league history, a starting pitcher has given up 9 or more runs in less than 2 innings 95 times, and his team has won 1 times. That is a 1.1 winning percentage. 5 runs doesn't really keep the team in the game either. It keeps you more in the game, but your chances of winning are pretty significantly reduced. My point is that, while it's significant, the difference between the 1st run and the 5th run is far greater than the 5th and the 9th, so at some point each additional run is worth less. If that's what your point was, then I agree, but that's not what sounded like at first. Those statistics are close to what I would have gussed. 9 runs is statistically an automatic loss; 5 runs severely hurts your chances, but it's not an automatic loss. I don't think you reach the statistical tipping point until the 1-2% range, so I would say that the 9 run outing is discernably worse.
April 2, 201214 yr No. He is what he is; an inconsistent pitcher who might regress considering his declining K rate/Swstr%. On the flipside, given his career-best GB rate last year, he could be consciously changing his approach to pitching. We're dealing with one-year sample sizes, so it's too early to say. I'll say he's a pitcher who pitches better than his final numbers may indicate. He generally has a few games where he blows up irreparably (20 runs in 4.1 innings in two starts last year) that raise his ERA by about .9 runs total on the year. Now, I'm not saying those two games don't matter. They obviously do. They are guaranteed losses, which is an issue. When they account for essentially 20% of the earned runs he gave up in a season, it's probably fair to say that their impact is overblown. I wonder about this, though.Let's say he has 3 blowups per year. Coming into the game, the Marlins are ~50% chance to win, so their expected wins = 1.5. When Ricky blows up, let's just say for simplicity's sake that their odds of winning those games goes down to 0%, so their expected wins = 1.5.So in a sense, Ricky seems to be working from a -1.5 WAR. That makes it awfully hard to be even an average pitcher, it would seem. While there are issues with your methods (WAR doesn't really work that way), I'll take it at face value and say he would need to put up 3.5 WAR over the remaining starts to be average. Last season, Anibal put up a 3.8 WAR in 196.1 innings with a 3.67 ERA. He put up 4.4 WAR in 195 innings in 2010 with a 3.55 ERA. Taking out Nolasco's two starts where he gave up 20 ER in 4.1 innnigs last year, he put up a 3.86 ERA in 201.2 innings last season. Doesn't seem all that unlikely. And then there is the question of whether giving up 9 runs in 1 inning is really all that much worse than giving up 5 runs in 1 innings. Do you reach a point of diminishing value? I know WAR doesn't work that way, hence why I said "in a sense," although it's probably less than a sense, though, yeah.Average is still pretty poor performance for his salary, but it's obviously not the worst thing.Anibal also had a couple of bad games, I'm sure. I'm trying to figure out if taking those out, and thus lowering his overall ERA, is relevant since we're doing that for Nolasco, but I'm not sure.Good stat on the diminishing returns thing. I knew what you were trying to do; it's kind of hard to pin down stastically in terms of value.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.