Jump to content

Marlins @ Royals 8:10 PM


Michael

Recommended Posts

Where the hell did I take shots at a poster? I said data can be flawed, which it often is. Thats not taking shots at someone.

 

SomethingFishy also argued that numbers were wrong and "the eye test" was more important.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that you took a shot at a "poster" but you did say "people are pitching to him more than some would like to admit" which was an underhanded shot against the argument itself. It was a shot against the debate that happened in the Stanton thread.

 

My position in that thread was also supported by several amounts of different data, but I guess it is flawed because it doesn't pass your eye test. Good to know.I stated in the Stanton thread that protection might do more to help him from a comfort standpoint than actual pitches seen. I don't see how that's such a bold statement. forgive me, i didnt know data was the be all end all and thats the only thing that anyone should ever look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forgive me, i didnt know data was the be all end all and thats the only thing that anyone should ever look at.

 

 

It's a good way to backup a particular thought you might have as there's some truth that can found in data. There's truth because it isn't influenced by human emotions. People tend to feel more strongly about things when they're at an emotional high or low. Therefore they remember it more and it influences their memory. Data doesn't do that.

 

You can have a general impression and then support that position with evidence or find out it was wrong/flawed.

 

 

I stated in the Stanton thread that protection might do more to help him from a comfort standpoint than actual pitches seen.

My post was after that statement of yours where I delved into the numbers to support what I believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reverse can be said, data isn't complete without watching. Watching can be flawed without some backup.

 

Hence why I made the point that yes, he is getting more pitche's outside the zone. That isn't an argument, that's a fact. Data is right on the money. But that's not simply, by itself, evidence of being pitched around.

 

He is to a degree, it just not all the time. There have been a few series where it is obvious the team won't pitch to him. And there are even more where they're just effectively pitching in zones where he struggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is to a degree, it just not all the time. There have been a few series where it is obvious the team won't pitch to him. And there are even more where they're just effectively pitching in zones where he struggles.

 

 

I did several posts where I supported my position with various numbers in the Stanton thread. I can't just throw them all out here again, but here's the jist of it.

 

You say it's not pitching around to go after someone's weakness (such as down and away sliders), but his O-swing % (swinging outside of the strikezone) is way down and his BB rate is way up. The guy hasn't suddenly learned Votto discipline, he's not even LoMo. His best O-swing year isn't even as good as LoMo's worse year.

 

The correlation is evident, he's swinging less outside of the zone and his walks are way up. He's obviously getting pitched around (still 2nd in MLB to Sandoval in zone %) and his K % is still lower then 2012.

 

So, he's seeing less outside of the strikezone which is why he's walking more. He's swinging less outside of the strikezone which is why he's walking more and he's striking out less. This is still the case even after his dogshit August performance.

 

If pitching down and away sliders to Stanton is "going for his weakness" then they're more likely to do it this year because they're pitching around him. There's even less to lose because of the shitbag lineup that is around him, that was also proven in the thread by the zone % differences this season. I looked up 2012 zone % and the others were closer to Stanton then they are this season, its not hard to see why.

 

This is all in the thread including some good El Penguino posts where we draw conclusions on why he's performing so bad this season.

 

There are patterns and a story to be found in numbers with the deeper you go. Even though they can be interpreted differently, numbers don't lie.

 

You can argue protection but he didn't get much last year, and people are pitching to him more than some would like to admit.

The "fuss" I decided to make is because I made my case in the Stanton thread about this, I supplied evidence as to what protection means. It is much more tangible then just being a comfort thing, the numbers are there to back it up and he did get more protection last year. It doesn't even compare. This 2013 is a historically bad lineup and I can back that claim up as well.

 

The italic part would seem to be a reference to those that believe the same that I do. We have no hidden motivations, we're not 12 year old girls in love with Stanton posters on our walls who are desperately in love with him and will fight to protect his honor. We're only interested in supporting positions that we believe in based upon the evidence at hand. I supplied evidence, I backed up my case and I stick by it even now. What more can I do? I, and others, aren't reluctant to admit anything because the numbers still speak for themselves.

 

I also don't know why you didn't continue this conversation in the Stanton thread at the time rather then never replying and making gameday thread posts like this one.

 

People always used to ask for people to support their positions on this forum. Some of the more high profile posters may be quiet this season, but I figured the same was still expected. That's what makes this place a lot more interesting than foxsports.com or marlins.com etc. More substance to the posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...