If some MSM guys get ahold of the fact there is a stat called "NERC", there will be hell to pay.

As far as Byrd, my guess is the Red Sox are concerned about Buchholz's confidence going forward, and perhaps want to get him used to being an RP for October. I would also guess they saw some stuff in Byrd's data/performance that makes them think he will do OK. I doubt that it is just a knee-kerk "get a veteran" type-move. They may be wrong of course, but I am sure they have actual reasons to back up the decision.

I haven't heard much of NERC, can anyone point me in the right direction of a formula or something? I did a quick google search and didn't find much.

It does look like Bucholz has been a little hit-unlucky this year, his BABIP is .358.

Why would Boston replace one pitcher in the rotation with another who is probably a run worse?

I'm guessing they're doing it because Buchholz hasn't put his team in a very strong position to win since early May (though the Sox did win a game during that stretch in which Clay went 5 and 1/3 and gave up 3 runs- definitely his best effort since early May). I'm certainly not suggesting he's cooked or anything, but I think it's fair that the team doesn't have a ton of confidence in him right now and thinks Byrd might outperform him over the next month+.

NERC is Normalized ERA Component. i.e., Runs Created Allowed or Linear Weights, in ERA form, adjusted for park, opponent, where the average is 4.00. It comes in many names, like Peripheral ERA or Component ERA, or BaseRuns ERA, or FIP ERA, etc.

Buchholz has been getting his ass kicked in every single start since returning from the minors and the Sox are 3-11 in games he's started this season. He's been absolutely dreadful; maybe a little unlucky at times, but dreadful nonetheless. He can't pitch out of the stretch, can't control his fastball, can't avoid hideous meltdowns on the mound, can't seem to make a single inch of progress at all. He has been excruciating to watch out there and he's killing the team in the middle of an extremely tight pennant race.

That's why the Sox are putting Byrd into the rotation. The Sox cannot let Buchholz continue to lose game after game after game while pitching poorly; not in August. If it was April I could see an argument for leaving him in there, but he's been awful and the team can't afford to wait him out at this juncture.

Thanks, Tango, that makes sense.

I think Buchholz will be fine long-term, but he just looks bad out there lately. His has only intermittent command with his fastball, he's practically falling off the mound every other pitch, and he just appears to fall apart at times.

At a certain point I think "pitching well lately" and "pitching like crap lately" are valid arguments for decisions like this, especially late in the season. I agree that if this were April, it would be a totally different story.

EDIT: And, it appears SJH said basically everything I just said. So he clearly knows what he's talking about.

Isn't the projection based on aggregate data? Wouldn't some of the scotuing type analysis memntioned in #5 and #7 be more relevant to how Clay may do from here to the end of the year than a projection?

To take it to the extreme, if Clay had his right arm severed tomorrow, you wouldn't rely on the projection to determine how he'd pitch. Wouldn't other idetified mechanics, confidence, other issues be most relevant here?

Byrd is like a bond. Buchholz is more like a small-cap stock.

How much more predictive is NERC or DIPS or CERA or any other formula used to estimate "true" ERA than ERA itself? It is a large leap of faith for me to assume that Paul Byrd, who with ERA+ of 96 this year, 100, 93, and 113 the prior three years, is a "replacement" level pitcher as MGL describes him.

And that is an awful lot of weight to put on Bucholz's 95 innings of MLB ball. MGL, and the other quality Sabremetricians, hark on sample size. In that little time, I, personally, suspect that scouting would be more accurate for short and mid-term projections than NERC.

The forecast should include all known information, including observation. How you weight it is the 64$ question. While in a general sense you can safely exclude scouting if you have a bucket of random players (see: strength of Marcel v all-comers), for discussions on single players, you need scouting.

Yeah, MGL, I bet Theo has never heard of component ERA and just did this for Byrd's veteran savvy.

I say this as someone who has "The Book" next to him at his desk - I have a lot of respect for MGL, but as smart as he is, he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

#5 is absolutely correct. What Buchholz did last year, or earlier this year, isn't particularly relevant; what matters is that he isn't getting the job done right now, and he's offering no evidence that he will straighten himself out in time for Boston to catch Tampa Bay. Byrd's not costing Boston much (the trade was for cash or a PTBNL) and he's not replacing Buchholz long-term (which I agree would not be particularly smart).

A pitcher who is giving up an in-play BA of .358 isn't hit-unlucky; he's being hammered.

-- MWE

I have to agree with SJH, ellsbury, and ME. Buchholz has been terrible lately, component ERA be damned. He is struggling to find consistency within each game, prone to blow up at any time.

MGL is back to saying dumb & smug things as per usual, except this time his dumbness and smugness is carrying over to his statistical analysis.

I'm really, really getting sick of hearing his voice in the sabermetric community. As good as The Book was, if the price we had to pay for it was his continued prominence as an analyst, then I'm not sure it was worth it.

I have to agree with #8. I suspect the Sox are doing this because they have legitimate concerns about the physical well-being of Buchholz and/or others on the staff, or concerns about the mechanics of Buchholz or others. The Sox did not make this move to chase 'veteran presence' or 'the hot hand' or to demote Buchholz, but to add useful depth.

Stats matter a great deal in making projections, but things other than stats matter too. I mean, I'm sorry if this is tasteless or heartless, but after Darryl Kile died he was not going to make his projections.

Isn't the projection based on aggregate data? Wouldn't some of the scotuing type analysis memntioned in #5 and #7 be more relevant to how Clay may do from here to the end of the year than a projection?

Yes, but that would be hard. What he did was easy. He compared some numbers from a spreadsheet.

From the next entry (this time it's Tango):

Someone asked me why OBP over BA as the scale for wOBA. To me, it’s always been natural, since the denominator of OBP is PA instead of AB (which is a subset of PA). I also reasoned that logic will trump the tradition of ignoramuses, since the ignoramuses will eventually die off.

I know that it depends on park and era, but what are the rule of thumb benchmarks for OBA? In my head, I know that .250-.270 BA is around average, .300 is good, .220 is bad. (adjust upwards for the current era.) This year, OBP is roughly .330, but is the spread similar to BA? Can I just add .070 points to the benchmarks in my mind?

I'm guessing that you might tell me that my question is irrelevant, but I just want a rule of thumb for when I see a game in a bar and they falsh a guy's OBP on the screen.

There's also something to be said for replacing 40 bad innings by a prospect that you are counting on long term, and who has already thrown close to his career high in IP, with 40 bad innings by someone with no future, whose arm you don't particularly care about, and who is nowhere near his career high in IP. Also, the two pitchers, in their last 40 innings or so, each, have been terrible and very good, respectively.

I love the fact that MGL says what he believes instead of what he's supposed to believe.

I love the fact that MGL says what he believes instead of what he's supposed to believe.

Just like Carl Everett.

Buchholz is bad as you can be K-ing 9 per 9, and Byrd as good as you can be K-ing 3.8 per 9. K's and innings since the ASB:

Buchholz 22 in 25, ERA of 7.46.
Byrd, 12 in 25, ERA of 1.24

The one question I always ask, which nobody really has an answer to (paging Voros), is, if pitchers have little control on BABIP from year to year, then how can BABIP vary significantly (i.e. many of the "extra" hits that Clay gives up are indeed his fault) from start to start? Do the good starts by a typical pitcher (hitting all his spots, changing speeds, inducing "bad" contact) end up more or less canceled by the bad starts (hanging curves galore, crap location, etc.)? And when they don't cancel each other in one year (ridiculously low or high BABIP), is it a mere statistical correction when it regresses in the other direction, or was the pitcher sufficiently "on" all year that he got bad contact more than you might expect? If Clay gets his BABIP down to .300 next year, do we merely chalk up his struggles this year to luck, or did he (will he) indeed improve enough, figure something out, that his BABIP went down because he made the right adjustments?

Greg Maddux in his first (mostly) full year (1987) had a very high BABIP, but the very next year it dropped below league average, and by his 1994-95 heyday it was wayyyy below average. I remember him in 1987 and he was going through a lot of the stuff that Clay is this year. No guarantee that Buchholz will turn into an ace like Maddux did, but the potential is there. The Sox however may not have the patience to let him find it in the middle of a playoff race. I guess if he was like Lester was the last two years, able to strand a lot of the guys he put on, they might stick with him.

For me, I just can't see how this was a "dumb" move. It's $2 million. For the Red Sox. That's not going to stop them from making another move down the road. And really, the stats seem to indicate Byrd is more league average than replacement level.

It's low impact, low cost. He'll get, what, 5 starts? Maybe? I just shrugged when I heard this.

As an aside, I'm convinced Dunn is signing with Boston in the off season and becomes and Manny-esque figure there.

I love the fact that MGL says what he believes instead of what he's supposed to believe.

Just like Carl Everett.

Carl Everett doesn't believe in MGL because he's never seen him

As an aside, I'm convinced Dunn is signing with Boston in the off season and becomes and Manny-esque figure there

I'm quite comfortable with an OF of Bay/Ellsbury/Drew. I'd much rather see them go after Tex hard, although the competition will obviously be much stiffer. You'd have Tex/Youk/Lowell/Ortiz for 1B/3B/DH. Lowell and Ortiz will probably need plenty rest, and there should be enough DL time in there as well to make it worthwhile.

It probably mostly stems from me having no confidence left in Lowell though. He could be close to done, and not having a decent reserve in place sh*ts me...

if pitchers have little control on BABIP from year to year

This assumption is incorrect.

-- MWE

GGC: if walk rates are directly related to BA, then you would keep OBP and BA proportional (meaning add about 25% to BA to get an OBP scale). If walk rates are random relative to BA, then you would keep the OBP and BA differential the same (meaning add about 70 points to BA to get the OBP scale).

So, a .300 BA would be either .370 or .375 on the OBP scale, more or less.

Can I just add .070 points to the benchmarks in my mind?

Yes. 60-70.

Pitchers walk about 40. Good players 100.

I'm guessing they're doing it because Buchholz hasn't put his team in a very strong position to win since early May (though the Sox did win a game during that stretch in which Clay went 5 and 1/3 and gave up 3 runs- definitely his best effort since early May).

No, they have a case of the stupids. MGL said so, and clearly he would consider all possibilities before rendering judgment. Why are we even discussing it?

Even supposedly smart people can write dumb things.

I want to see the Red Sox get Dunn so Shank, Dale Arnold, and the WEEI mouthbreathers will have a collective heart attack and shut up.

Yes. 60-70.

Pitchers walk about 40. Good players 100.

And Dunn about 140.

Wow, I was really in a bad mood when I wrote #15. I wish I could significantly dial down the force of my rhetoric (eep!), but my basic point concerning MGL's intolerable insufferableness stands.

I like the use of the word "supposedly" in the title.

This assumption is incorrect.

Care to elaborate?

I like the use of the word "supposedly" in the title.

Shooty you ignorant slut, MGL would have won four World Series over the last five years had he been GM. Since Epstein obviously can't say the same, the "supposedly" is clearly justified.

Shooty you ignorant slut, MGL would have won four World Series over the last five years had he been GM. Since Epstein obviously can't say the same, the "supposedly" is clearly justified.

I'm glad Family Guy has ripped off that old bit. They do a good job with it.

Wow, I was really in a bad mood when I wrote #15.

That's because you had just finished reading an MGL post.

MGL can talk about NERC, but after examining Byrd's POOP, I would say he's been eating a lot of raspberries. And you know what that means.

I'm glad Family Guy has ripped off that old bit. They do a good job with it.

Do they also say, "What's up, Doc?" That's a time-tested bit as well.

Wow, I was really in a bad mood when I wrote #15. I wish I could significantly dial down the force of my rhetoric (eep!), but my basic point concerning MGL's intolerable insufferableness stands.

We're told he's not like that in person. He apparently needs an editor.

Do they also say, "What's up, Doc?" That's a time-tested bit as well.

I do recall a Bugs Bunny joke. Yes. That show is basically a condensed version of the last 100 years of comedy. It saves a hell of a lot of time.

Anyway. I should comment about Byrd. I see what the Sawx are doing here. It's one thing not to trust Buchholz, and it's also a hedge against another injury occuring after the postseason roster deadline which could be, potentially, disastrous.

Anyway. I should comment about Byrd. I see what the Sawx are doing here. It's one thing not to trust Buchholz, and it's also a hedge against another injury occuring after the postseason roster deadline which could be, potentially, disastrous.

And this is what's most disappointing about MGL's invective. MGL determines the WHY for himself (to replace Buchholz), then criticizes the decision. Who's to say he has the WHY correct?

Care to elaborate?

Look up the other DIPS threads on this site.

-- MWE

I think the problem with Voros's original study is similar to the survivor bias in studies of mutual funds.

We're told he's not like that in person.

MGL is a perfectly reasonable human being in person.

We're told he's not like that in person.

MGL is a perfectly reasonable human being in person.

I don't doubt this. You have to be careful judging people by their writing. I didn't mean to pile on above, but the "supposedly" cracked me up. I don't think the Red Sox FO has to "prove" they are smart anymore.

And this is what's most disappointing about MGL's invective. MGL determines the WHY for himself (to replace Buchholz), then criticizes the decision. Who's to say he has the WHY correct?

In fact he most likely has the why totally wrong. Byrd will be taking Buchholz's start on Friday, but it looks like Buchholz will slide into Wakefield's rotation slot. Then the real decision will come when Wakefield comes off the DL in a few weeks.

This talk of Byrd and players coming off the disabled list raised a question in my head.

Players eligible for the postseason are those on the 25-man roster plus those on the DL lists as of August 31, except that players on the DL can be replaced by any player in the organization as of August 31. Is this correct? Is there some limit on who can replace whom?

Is there some limit on who can replace whom?

I believe there's a rule that a pitcher can only replace a pitcher, and a position player can only replace a position player.

That rule in #47 was repealed last year, IIRC.

I know there actually is pretty significant variation in BABIP among pitchers. I guess the question is what the limits are (either way)-knowing that trying to pin down those limits is like trying to define the precise parameters of a sneeze. Can a pitcher allow .360 (or .240) purely on his own merits, or must part of that be luck (or defense)?

They would rather have Buchholz in the rotation than Zink? What about the poor journalists?!?

Carl Everett doesn't believe in MGL because he's never seen him

What? Was Everett not at SABR?

Can a pitcher allow .360 (or .240) purely on his own merits, or must part of that be luck (or defense)?

There's probably a wall in the .330-.340 range - that's about where the collective pitching of position players tends to be (not including guys like Ruth, obviously).

On the 4th of July, the Twins beat Byrd by getting 5 R off of him in under 6 IP. There was a story in the Star Tribune a day or two later describing how Bert Blyleven found Byrd after the game to tell him he had been tipping his curveball, and they had a long conversation. Since that start, Byrd is 4-0 with a 1.8 ERA, 17K, 8BB and 0 HR in 35 IP over 5 starts. Could one pitch make that much of an immediate difference?

There's probably a wall in the .330-.340 range - that's about where the collective pitching of position players tends to be

In other words, this guy

I don't think the Red Sox FO has to "prove" they are smart anymore.

Isn't what you are saying just a variation on "count the ringsssssssss"?

The Red Sox FO makes good decisions and bad decisions, just like everyone else. You can probably point to five brilliant things that they've done in the past five years. I can point to five stupid things that they've done in the past five years.

MGL has always been a douchenozzle. People just notice it now because he's ripping on the Red Sox?

Although it is irrelevant to how good a player is, I think "COUNT THE RINGZZ" is a lot more convincing when you're talking about how good a front office is.

Could one pitch make that much of an immediate difference?

Possibly. Back in 2003, on July 27, the Jays pitching coach offered Livan Hernandez some advice with respect to his arm slot on (I think) his curveball. Livan then went off on the best stretch of his career, with second half numbers of a 2.67 ERA, and 91 K in 104 IP.

For pitchers, it really doesn't take much of a change for them to become much better (or worse, depending on the change) - an extra mile or two on the fastball, or a little more break on the curve or slider, or even an ability to hide the ball for a little longer can make a huge difference.

Although it is irrelevant to how good a player is, I think "COUNT THE RINGZZ" is a lot more convincing when you're talking about how good a front office is.

As someone who supports the Jays, I think "COUNT THE RINGZZ" is an excellent argument.

I can point to five stupid things that they've done in the past five years.

And, believe us, he'd be happy to show you.

In other words, this guy

The Rusch Limit: The BABIP within which a pitcher's propensity for giving up hits will lead to his disintegration due to a tidal wave of home runs and big innings. Glendon Rusch is the only known pitcher to straddle this line precisely enough to have a 10-year major league career.

I wish I did only one stupid thing a year.

I'd be happy if I could get it down to one stupid thing a day.

People just notice it now because he's ripping on the Red Sox?

This is the first time anyone's noticed it ... yeah right.

(with a tip of the cap to Tui)