2013 MLB Regular Season running thread

[outofplace]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I don't find the playoff argument to be a bad one at all. If there is a point to the season, and that point is to make it to the postseason, then to me that is a fair component of determining who the most valuable player of the season was. I guess it's the "if you ain't first, you're last" argument. I don't that it means that his actual performance was any better, or that he performed better in pressure situations, etc., etc. Just that I think it recognizes that there's an end game to those 162 games - making the postseason.

That's equivalent to saying the end game for a pitcher is to win games. Sure, that's what he'd like to do. But baseball is a lot more team-dependent than, say, football or basketball. It's not a team award, it's an individual honor.

Baseball is more team-dependent than football? You really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oy.

 

[NDJournalist]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I don't find the playoff argument to be a bad one at all. If there is a point to the season, and that point is to make it to the postseason, then to me that is a fair component of determining who the most valuable player of the season was. I guess it's the "if you ain't first, you're last" argument. I don't that it means that his actual performance was any better, or that he performed better in pressure situations, etc., etc. Just that I think it recognizes that there's an end game to those 162 games - making the postseason.

That's equivalent to saying the end game for a pitcher is to win games. Sure, that's what he'd like to do. But baseball is a lot more team-dependent than, say, football or basketball. It's not a team award, it's an individual honor.

Baseball is more team-dependent than football? You really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oy.

Absolutely. You give Peyton Manning a horrible supporting cast and he still wins 10 games. You put Miguel Cabrera on these Marlins and they still stink.

 

[outofplace]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I don't find the playoff argument to be a bad one at all. If there is a point to the season, and that point is to make it to the postseason, then to me that is a fair component of determining who the most valuable player of the season was. I guess it's the "if you ain't first, you're last" argument. I don't that it means that his actual performance was any better, or that he performed better in pressure situations, etc., etc. Just that I think it recognizes that there's an end game to those 162 games - making the postseason.

That's equivalent to saying the end game for a pitcher is to win games. Sure, that's what he'd like to do. But baseball is a lot more team-dependent than, say, football or basketball. It's not a team award, it's an individual honor.

Baseball is more team-dependent than football? You really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oy.

Absolutely. You give Peyton Manning a horrible supporting cast and he still wins 10 games. You put Miguel Cabrera on these Marlins and they still stink.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about no matter what the subject. I find your consistency to be a true comfort.

 

[NDJournalist]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I don't find the playoff argument to be a bad one at all. If there is a point to the season, and that point is to make it to the postseason, then to me that is a fair component of determining who the most valuable player of the season was. I guess it's the "if you ain't first, you're last" argument. I don't that it means that his actual performance was any better, or that he performed better in pressure situations, etc., etc. Just that I think it recognizes that there's an end game to those 162 games - making the postseason.

That's equivalent to saying the end game for a pitcher is to win games. Sure, that's what he'd like to do. But baseball is a lot more team-dependent than, say, football or basketball. It's not a team award, it's an individual honor.

Baseball is more team-dependent than football? You really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oy.

Absolutely. You give Peyton Manning a horrible supporting cast and he still wins 10 games. You put Miguel Cabrera on these Marlins and they still stink.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about no matter what the subject. I find your consistency to be a true comfort.

Really? How so? He took some pretty bad Colts supporting casts to the playoffs year after year.

 

[outofplace]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I don't find the playoff argument to be a bad one at all. If there is a point to the season, and that point is to make it to the postseason, then to me that is a fair component of determining who the most valuable player of the season was. I guess it's the "if you ain't first, you're last" argument. I don't that it means that his actual performance was any better, or that he performed better in pressure situations, etc., etc. Just that I think it recognizes that there's an end game to those 162 games - making the postseason.

That's equivalent to saying the end game for a pitcher is to win games. Sure, that's what he'd like to do. But baseball is a lot more team-dependent than, say, football or basketball. It's not a team award, it's an individual honor.

Baseball is more team-dependent than football? You really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oy.

Absolutely. You give Peyton Manning a horrible supporting cast and he still wins 10 games. You put Miguel Cabrera on these Marlins and they still stink.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about no matter what the subject. I find your consistency to be a true comfort.

Really? How so? He took some pretty bad Colts supporting casts to the playoffs year after year.

I think Moddy has the right attitude. Maybe this conversation would be worthwhile with somebody else, but not you.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Josh Johnson scratched from his start with triceps tightness:

https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/327772095079661568

And so it begins ...

 

[Football_Bat]

Total aside here, but just curious ... when doing ERAs for high school pitchers, do you multiply by 7 instead of 9?

Correct.

For colleges which play a mix of 7-inning and 9-inning games, how do you compute those ERAs? Just go with 8 on average, or figure them using a formula based on how many innings of each type they pitched?

 

[deskslave]

Are minor league ERAs adjusted at all for seven-inning doubleheaders?

 

[Moderator1]

I think - emphasis on THINK - they still use nine and list the ERA as "per nine."
I would be way off base there. The formula in that case could look something like the ridiculousness posted earlier.

You need that kind of formula for a forking baseball stay? Jesus.

JC mentioned earlier that "advanced stats" may be coming to hockey soon. Someone let me know when it does so I can jump off a bridge. Another game I enjoy ruined by people who want to sound smart and enlightened.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Also, as has been noted here many times, Moddy, something like BABIP would (should) never be used in a discussion about whether one player has been better than another. At the same time, it can often help in predicting what a player's performance might look like in the future. Why is that a bad thing?

It is not a bad thing. It is a fine thing. I can just enjoy and understand the game quite well without it. It is a tool, of many, I don't choose to use.

Another game I enjoy ruined by people who want to sound smart and enlightened.

So I'm perplexed.

Are advanced statistics a "fine thing" that you choose not to care about?

Or have they "ruined" baseball?

 

[Football_Bat]

Advanced stats have not ruined the game for me one whit. They're a curiosity to be delved into — and ignored — at one's leisure.

I do agree BABIP is a little overrated. It favors pitchers with good backing defenses.

 

[Dick Whitman]

One problem, I think, is that a lot of information is being grouped under "advanced statistics," and summarily dismissed by people like Moddy and others (including, before him, the late, great spnited.)

It seems like each statistic, "advanced" or not, should be evaluated on its own merits, no? A lot of people here don't like WAR, for various reasons. Some don't trust it to evaluate defense, and felt redeemed last year by the Brett Lawrie glitch. Others think that it's too many steps removed from an actual batch of data, too derived, to be of much use to them.

But some of these "advanced statistics" are clearly useful, and actually not that "advanced," to be quite honest. When Roy Halladay struggles out of the gate, Pitch/fx data is used to show that his velocity is down. For other pitchers, it lets us know if a guy is relying on his fastball, his breaking ball, or something in between, and how that compares to when he was at his best. Objective evidence, at one point, indicated that on-base percentage was undervalued by teams. The A's took advantage of that, famously.

Admittedly, a lot of of what "advanced statistics" bear out just confirm our intuitions. Little League coaches are apt to yell out, "A walk's as good as a hit!" when the bases are empty. Not so much when there are guys on second and third. Hence, we've always kind of understood that walks are slightly less valuable as singles. But now there are statistics that not only back that up, but pinpoint that comparative value.

I can understand feeling that you only care to know the general notion that walks and singles - and this is just an example - are comparable, but not equal. But I don't get why people feel the need to take the next step and dismiss this information as not being useful. It's useful.