Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, August 01, 2013

BREITBART SPORTS INTRODUCES VALUE ADD BASEBALL

Breitbart Sports today introduces Value Add Baseball (see the top 100 pitchers here), a much more accurate measure than WAR for evaluating the value of starting pitchers by analyzing every start. A solid starting pitcher has only a 21 percent chance of getting his team a win if he needs an ERA of 1.00 to 1.99 for the game, but if his team gets him just one more run he has a 63 percent chance of winning.

The simple “Runs Support” models simply do not work.

While WAR (Wins Above Replacement), like Value Add Basketball, is an excellent measurement of other players on the field, the pitcher’s position is unique. The starting pitcher is the one player who has responsibility each game for getting his team the win. He is the most important player on the field whenever he pitches, and yet he sits out most of the games.
To win, he needs to stay below an “ERA Needed” in each game, which is the total of: His team’s offensive runs that day MINUS unearned runs allowed by his defense MINUS relief runs allowed, DIVIDED BY his innings pitched TIMES nine.

I tried to follow, but I cannot comprehend things unless they are ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 01, 2013 at 03:44 PM | 104 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: breitbart, stats

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Esoteric Posted: August 01, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4510663)
Alas.
   2. Poster Nutbag Posted: August 01, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4510668)
Saw the headline and thought: Yay! A spam thread! I can finally post my daily fantasy freeroll links here!!!

Then I read the entry and realized "Value Added Baseball" in all caps wasn't a product being shilled to me.

So much for Infomercial Think Factory....
   3. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 01, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4510673)
This makes about as much sense as anything else on Breitbart's site. I'll leave it at that.
   4. Publius Publicola Posted: August 01, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4510676)
The cut and past in the intro is one of the most incomprehensible things I have ever read.

But would you expect anything else from Dimbart? And the little that is comprehensible is fabricated.
   5. JJ1986 Posted: August 01, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4510679)
Wouldn't this give exactly the same results as Record in Games Started?
   6. TerpNats Posted: August 01, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4510696)
I assume players receive bonuses under this system if they bat or throw right. (You knew that line was eventually going to be said.)
   7. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 01, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4510701)
I can't believe it's been an hour and no one has said "May God have mercy on your soul".
   8. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 01, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4510703)
I understand it's stacked against lefties.

ETA: Have a coke, TerpNats; I didn't read closely enough.
   9. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 01, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4510712)
Serious critiques:

1. The article doesn't match the table. "In 239 other games, pitchers had to throw shutout ball to get the team the victory, and they were successful 49 of 239 times, with two pitchers accomplishing it three times." In fact, the table shows that in 239 games, pitchers had to allow 0 or 1 runs (ERA needed 0.01-1.99).

2. Please tell me how this isn't "Pitching to the score", which has been shown time and again to not exist.

3. "(T)hese numbers do not include the poorest pitchers (No. 5 starters, spot starters, or fill-ins)". The "5th starter" for the Reds this year is Mike Leake; he's 10-4, 5th in the NL in ERA (4th in ERA+), and 9th in pitcher Bwar. Tony Cingrani has "filled in" for Cueto - he's 4-1 with a 2.90 ERA (2.69 as a starter) and 1.07 WHIP (.981 as a starter). Why would any stat throw out any data, and why would something claiming to be "much more accurate than WAR" exclude 2 of the best starting pitchers in the league?

4. (OK, not a serious critique) "(S)ince I introduced it in the New York Post more than 20 years ago." More than 20 years, and no one has had the decency to point out how mind-numbingly stupid this is? Have you been walking around with toilet paper on your shoe for 20 years too?
   10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 01, 2013 at 08:43 PM (#4510724)
My first thought upon reading the headline is I find it pretty damn impressive that a dude can send baseball dispatches above ground when he's spending all of eternity sitting on a pile of hot coals.
   11. TJ Posted: August 01, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4510747)
"(T)hese numbers do not include the poorest pitchers (No. 5 starters, spot starters, or fill-ins)".


Since he's listed at #68 on their chart, I guess Detroit Tiger #5 starter Rick Porcello is excited he's not #5 anymore! Somebody had better call Jim Leyland with the news...
   12. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 01, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4510773)
Want to read but don't want to give them a click...
   13. alkeiper Posted: August 01, 2013 at 10:34 PM (#4510814)
To win, he needs to stay below an “ERA Needed” in each game, which is the total of: His team’s offensive runs that day MINUS unearned runs allowed by his defense MINUS relief runs allowed, DIVIDED BY his innings pitched TIMES nine.

So in order to win today Cole Hamels needed to stay below an ERA of... -1.125.
   14. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: August 01, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4510834)
So in order to win today Cole Hamels needed to stay below an ERA of... -1.125.
Jack Morris would've pitched to the score.
   15. shoewizard Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4510858)
Hey, I found justification to give the NL Cy Young to Corbin over Kershaw. I'm all in !
   16. bjhanke Posted: August 02, 2013 at 03:16 AM (#4510906)
When I read the headline, my first, brief thought was that someone had tried to study whether MLB players have unusually high incidences of Attention Deficit Disorder, causing them to be more physically active than everyone else. I mean, surely no writer would write "ADD" when he meant "ADDED." - Brock Hanke
   17. bobm Posted: August 02, 2013 at 03:37 AM (#4510908)
   18. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 04:57 AM (#4510916)
I mean, surely no writer would write "ADD" when he meant "ADDED." - Brock Hanke

The author meant to write ADDED. He got the 'A', the first 'D' and the second 'D'... and then he got sidetracked.
   19. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: August 02, 2013 at 06:26 AM (#4510928)
It's pretty satisfying when you expect something to be unbelievably sh!tty...and it completely delivers. Certainly lives up to the Breitbart name.
   20. Scott Lange Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:27 AM (#4510934)
I can't believe this is real. I also can't wait to hear Ray weigh in.
   21. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:37 AM (#4510939)
Baseball has a liberal bias. Catchers aren't even allowed the right of self defense ahead of an impending assault from a base runner.
   22. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:38 AM (#4510940)
This would have been an OK OT:P lead in article. As an actual baseball article ... no so much.
   23. AndrewJ Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:58 AM (#4510952)
It's pretty satisfying when you expect something to be unbelievably sh!tty...and it completely delivers.

We call this the "Cannonball Run II Effect."
   24. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4510975)
I knew from the first moment of the first trailer that the new Lone Ranger movie would suck. I admit to pleasure when this was confirmed by the critics (and no I was not dumb enough to watch that piece of crap).
   25. TJ Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:49 AM (#4510977)

So in order to win today Cole Hamels needed to stay below an ERA of... -1.125.


Looks like King Felix needed to pitch a negative ERA game last night as well...

Either the baseball gods have a wonderful sense of irony or this metric is "slightly" flawed...
   26. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:13 AM (#4511004)
Baseball has a liberal bias. Catchers aren't even allowed the right of self defense ahead of an impending assault from a base runner.


And baserunners are required to constantly turn to the left if they want to score.
   27. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4511016)
The conspiracy is deeper than I had initially suspected. I'll further note that the league has no issues with Yankees but offers no similar representation for Confederates.
   28. The District Attorney Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4511021)
It's pretty satisfying when you expect something to be unbelievably sh!tty...and it completely delivers.
The Smurfs 2 is 13% at Rotten Tomatoes.
   29. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:30 AM (#4511023)
I'll further note that the league has no issues with Yankees but offers no similar representation for Confederates.

You're burying the lede! They accept reds! Right out in the open!
   30. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4511030)
Egads, he's right! AND they pay players to sit on the bench! They pay players who are too injured to play! They pay these parasites even if they don't perform at an acceptable level!

THANKS OBAMA!
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4511032)

Baseball has a liberal bias. Catchers aren't even allowed the right of self defense ahead of an impending assault from a base runner.


Primey.
   32. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4511067)
Catchers aren't even allowed the right of self defense ahead of an impending assault from a base runner.

They are allowed to stand their ground.
   33. bjhanke Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4511087)
Bitter Mouse (#24) -

I'm in the implementation stages of setting up a blog to review superhero movies, with occasional forays into action/adventure. My opinion of The Lone Ranger was that the big problem was that the director didn't know whether he wanted to do a comedy with Johnny Depp as the lead, like the TV Green Hornet with Bruce Lee was played for laughs and had Kato at the center, or a serious western with Armie Hammer in the lead. Looking at it, I think that most people would agree with that, and that the best choice, by far, would have been to go with Johnny Depp's deadpan Tonto (which I've been told means "stupid" in Spanish) and the Kato-derived comedy. However, I'm at the point where I will take any reality checks. Anyone who reads this and did see the movie, please drop a comment. I'd like to have a decent idea whether I am any good at these reviews. Bitter, does this sound like the bad reviews you read? Thanks in advance! - Brock Hanke
   34. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4511136)
(which I've been told means "stupid" in Spanish)


yes, yes it does, but "tonto" was also apparently the Apache word used to refer to the Comanches and other hostile groups and meant something like barbarian...

so pick your choice


   35. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4511141)
Egads, he's right! AND they pay players to sit on the bench! They pay players who are too injured to play! They pay these parasites even if they don't perform at an acceptable level!

THANKS OBAMA!

AND they openly celebrate stealing!
   36. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4511153)
And give free passes!
   37. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4511158)
It hasn't gone totally off the deep end -- there is no "Verticallychallengedstop" yet
   38. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4511160)
Fittingly, Right Field is supposed to have a strong arm.
   39. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4511163)
Baseball has a liberal bias. Catchers aren't even allowed the right of self defense ahead of an impending assault from a base runner.


And they're about to ban Jesus.
   40. TJ Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4511169)
What can I say- Ayn Rand was right. Just look at the Angles and how their Makers (Mike Trout- 174 OPS+, $510 K salary, Mark Trumbo- 121 OPS+, $540K) have to carry their Takers (Josh Hamilton- 95 OPS+, $17 million)...

   41. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4511171)
And what's with this pitchers and catchers thing? Clearly an attempt to advance the liberal gay agenda.
   42. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 02, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4511188)
From the rankings:
You will be very surprised at the big name pitcher who barely snuck into the initial Value Add Baseball rankings as the 100th most valuable starting pitcher in baseball.
Uh, yea but not in the way you'd think. He's sucked the past 2 seasons.
   43. TJ Posted: August 02, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4511197)
You will be very surprised at the big name pitcher who barely snuck into the initial Value Add Baseball rankings as the 100th most valuable starting pitcher in baseball.


After reading that article again, I would be very surprised if those behind this metric ever watched a baseball game in their lives...
   44. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 02, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4511261)
Hey, I found justification to give the NL Cy Young to Corbin over Kershaw. I'm all in !

More gems:

Bronson Arroyo, #22; Felix Hernandez #26.
C.J. Wilson #31, Yu Darvish #34.
   45. SG Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4511282)
Bronson Arroyo, #22; Felix Hernandez #26.


Well yeah. It's Hernandez's fault his team can't score.
   46. Rickey! something like a pipe-bomb ready to blow Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4511295)
So what obviously happened here is the Breitbart editors got together and asked "what is conservatism in baseball?" They then decided pitchers' wins were properly considered "conservative" in baseball - it likely helped that people who don't respect pitchers' wins tend, in a general way, to respect Nate Silver. But probably it was just "the old white guys in the booth always talk about wins, and the modern kids talk about other things, so we should value wins. Old = conservative!"

They then reverse engineered a method by which to claim "pitching to the score" was real and valuable, in much the same way the right wing swamps reverse engineered a pending GOP victory by unskewing polls.
   47. The District Attorney Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4511315)
So what obviously happened here is the Breitbart editors got together and asked "what is conservatism in baseball?"
Yeah, I expected a system like that KC writer advocates where a bunt is as good as a double, presumably because bunting demonstrates that you are a moral human being.

I'm not sure this is quite that. I mean, Daily Kos owns SB Nation, but it isn't running it for the purpose of providing a liberal take on sports. For all I know, that's what "Breitbart Sports" is. They could just be bad at this. Making up new statistics that feature random weights that "sound right" is very common for people who like baseball stats but don't grok what they should be about. So that's a real possibility, which I don't intend to read the article to further ascertain whether or not it's correct.
   48. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4511323)
Yeah, I expected a system like that KC writer advocates where a bunt is as good as a double, presumably because bunting demonstrates that you are a moral human being the Royals bunt a lot, but don't hit a lot of doubles.

FTFY
   49. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4511327)
I'm not sure this is quite that. I mean, Daily Kos owns SB Nation, but it isn't running it for the purpose of providing a liberal take on sports. For all I know, that's what "Breitbart Sports" is. They could just be bad at this. Making up new statistics that feature random weights that "sound right" is very common for people who like baseball stats but don't grok what they should be about. So that's a real possibility, which I don't intend to read the article to further ascertain whether or not it's correct.


IIRC, the National Review has baseball articles, and they've had a few that touted WAR. Its kinda sad that conservatism has come to equal "anti-intellectualism" in the public sphere but thankfully its not the entire righty crowd.
   50. AROM Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4511329)
So what obviously happened here is the Breitbart editors got together and asked "what is conservatism in baseball?" They then decided pitchers' wins were properly considered "conservative" in baseball - it likely helped that people who don't respect pitchers' wins tend, in a general way, to respect Nate Silver. But probably it was just "the old white guys in the booth always talk about wins, and the modern kids talk about other things, so we should value wins. Old = conservative!"


That's pretty much what it looks like to me. It took a bit to grok the stupid that is this formula, but it's basically this: Start with wins (credited or if your team wins) and subtract points for the difficulty - winning 1-0 gives you more credit than winning 20-2. (that part isn't horrible) All starts that end in a loss are equal at zero points. No matter if it's John Smoltz pitching against Jack Morris, or Joe Blanton's latest linedrivefest. This part is crap.
   51. Rickey! something like a pipe-bomb ready to blow Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4511334)
IIRC, the National Review has baseball articles, and they've had a few that touted WAR. Its kinda sad that conservatism has come to equal "anti-intellectualism" in the public sphere but thankfully its not the entire righty crowd.


Yeah, Epstein runs a perfectly rational baseball column at NRO. It's not like you have to be stupid to be conservative. I think you have to be stupid to work for Breitbart, though.
   52. AROM Posted: August 02, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4511344)
They might have gotten some decent numbers guy* who is a casual baseball fan, and asked him to come up with a formula here. Then the guy goes about this without the knowledge base of sabermetrics, ignorant of all the attempts to measure pitching value that have been made in the last 30-40 years.

He ends up with something that shares some features with support neutral W-L record, but is definitely inferior to that. There is no accounting for defensive support other than errors, or ballparks, or league context. His product is better than a pitcher's raw win total. That would be the floor. He jumps up as far as his legs can take him, which might be a foot or two. A sabermetrician may not be making any jumps if they just pick something that has been done before, without inventing anything new. But they are getting a much better product than this guy because they use the 30' ladder constructed by those who came before them.

*By numbers guy, someone who's great at minimizing taxes for millionaires, or something like that, but with a very limited exposure to sabermetrics.
   53. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 02, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4511364)
Yeah, Epstein runs a perfectly rational baseball column at NRO. It's not like you have to be stupid to be conservative..
but it helps!
   54. Publius Publicola Posted: August 02, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4511554)
Want to read but don't want to give them a click...


Too bad. The reader comments are awesome.
   55. JE (Jason) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4511619)
Say what you want about Breitbart's ideology or tactics, but his other passion was Dodgers baseball. Andrew was a huge NL fan -- he refused to watch AL games and despised interleague play -- and during the late afternoon he always kept the big-screen TV in the home office tuned to DirecTV Extra Innings, not Fox News.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the kind words.
   56. Publius Publicola Posted: August 02, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4511667)
Say what you want about Breitbart's ideology or tactics, but his other passion was Dodgers baseball. Andrew was a huge NL fan -- he refused to watch AL games and despised interleague play


So what are you saying? Breitboy's refusal to watch American League games signified something positive about him?

Not seeing it.
   57. Baldrick Posted: August 02, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4511677)
Refusing to watch the other league does kind of strike me as being similar to the form of politics that Breitbart practiced. Your thing is right and anyone who does some stuff differently is not just wrong but it The Absolute Worst. The fact that you actually have a lot in common with them only makes it that much more important for you to clearly and aggressively delineate the distinction. They don't deserve understanding; they only deserve scorn.
   58. JE (Jason) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4511696)
Breitboy's refusal to watch American League games signified something positive about him?

I was only pointing out above that he was as much a baseball fan as a political activist. But yes, he was also a friend.
Refusing to watch the other league does kind of strike me as being similar to the form of politics that Breitbart practiced. Your thing is right and anyone who does some stuff differently is not just wrong but it The Absolute Worst. The fact that you actually have a lot in common with them only makes it that much more important for you to clearly and aggressively delineate the distinction. They don't deserve understanding; they only deserve scorn.

Being vehemently anti-DH equals John Birch or Occupy Wall Street? Now that's hilarious.

EDIT: I cannot believe Andrew would have allowed TFA to get published. My brain hurts.
   59. Publius Publicola Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4511697)
Being vehemently anti-DH equals John Birch or Occupy Wall Street?


Just John Birch. Unskewed that for you.
   60. Walt Davis Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:31 PM (#4511703)
he refused to watch AL games

So you're saying anti-WAR and anti-American? Man, US conservatism has changed a lot in the last few years.

I mean, surely no writer would write "ADD" when he meant "ADDED."

Current corporate lingo trend. It's not a firm's "spending on advertising" or even "advertising spending", it's their "ad spend."
   61. Esoteric Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:42 PM (#4511710)
Okay, have we all gotten our ritual hatred in now? Can we close this thread and remand all snarky political chat to the OTP thread where it belongs? This is a stupid way of measuring pitcher quality, we're all agreed. There is literally nothing more to say. This is not a demon we need to band together to slay.

P.S. Nobody who ever actually knew Andrew Breitbart (whether liberal or conservative) would ever speak about him the way some of the people here do. He was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- like the caricatured slurs you people so blithely spew about him. Particularly Baldrick, who comes across as a complete fool.
   62. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: August 02, 2013 at 07:44 PM (#4511713)
It's not like you have to be stupid to be conservative.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
   63. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4511746)
P.S. Nobody who ever actually knew Andrew Breitbart (whether liberal or conservative) would ever speak about him the way some of the people here do. He was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- like the caricatured slurs you people so blithely spew about him. Particularly Baldrick, who comes across as a complete fool.


So in person he was honest, perceptive, and willing to admit that someone who disagreed with him wasn't necessarily stupid or corrupt?
   64. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4511754)
Say what you want about Breitbart's ideology or tactics, but his other passion was Dodgers baseball.

And say what you want about Julius Rosenberg's ideology or tactics, the inevitable first question he directed to his death row visitors was "How did the Dodgers do today?" Joolie just loved Dem Bums.

--------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Nobody who ever actually knew Andrew Breitbart (whether liberal or conservative) would ever speak about him the way some of the people here do. He was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- like the caricatured slurs you people so blithely spew about him.

Sometimes deeds just kind of speak for themselves. Some of creepiest people you'll ever meet can often charm your socks off in person.
   65. Esoteric Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4511759)
Sometimes deeds just kind of speak for themselves. Some of creepiest people you'll ever meet can often charm your socks off in person.
No. With all due respect -- and you know that's not an empty formality coming from me, Andy -- you simply don't know what you're speaking of here. I think Breitbart.com has become an embarrassment since he passed away, but seriously: would it surprise you to find out that Breitbart's closest friends were all California liberals? Or that he was one of the most laid-back, tolerant, happy-go-lucky people you'd ever meet? His energy was boundless, but his real contempt and anger was reserved solely for the liberal mainstream media. THAT was his true focus, that's what he cared about more than anything else. (He was actually shockingly unideological, downright socially liberal in most ways.)

It's lazy talk to just say "oh his deeds speak for themselves." There are all sorts of unstated assumptions and value judgments packed into a dismissive statement like that, and even if I granted each and every one of them -- I don't, not by a long shot -- it would STILL be false.

People just want a demon to hate, I guess. Either way, this discussion belongs in OTP (where I will never go anyway), but it sure as #### has absolutely no place in a normal Primer thread.
   66. AROM Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4511764)
"P.S. Nobody who ever actually knew Andrew Breitbart (whether liberal or conservative) would ever speak about him the way some of the people here do. He was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- like the caricatured slurs you people so blithely spew about him. Particularly Baldrick, who comes across as a complete fool."

I've got nothing against Andrew, may he rest in piece. I reserve my contempt for this failed attempt at a pitching metric. Which I doubt he had anything to do with, unless he's communicating from the grave or somebody found his saber notebook a year or so after his death.
   67. Esoteric Posted: August 02, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4511766)
I reserve my contempt for this failed attempt at a pitching metric. Which I doubt he had anything to do with, unless he's communicating from the grave or somebody found his saber notebook a year or so after his death.
Yeah, we can definitely agree on this. Dear lord is it embarrassing. Hence my concise #1.
   68. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4511778)
Breitbart.com has become an embarrassment since he passed away
LOL
   69. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4511783)
Sometimes deeds just kind of speak for themselves. Some of creepiest people you'll ever meet can often charm your socks off in person.

No. With all due respect -- and you know that's not an empty formality coming from me, Andy -- you simply don't know what you're speaking of here. I think Breitbart.com has become an embarrassment since he passed away, but seriously: would it surprise you to find out that Breitbart's closest friends were all California liberals? Or that he was one of the most laid-back, tolerant, happy-go-lucky people you'd ever meet? His energy was boundless, but his real contempt and anger was reserved solely for the liberal mainstream media. THAT was his true focus, that's what he cared about more than anything else. (He was actually shockingly unideological, downright socially liberal in most ways.)


I've heard many people testify to his charm, and I've read about all those California liberals who attended his funeral. And I have no problem in accepting your testimony about his social liberalism. People can be complicated.

But sorry, that ACORN stunt, the Obama video, and most of all, the Shirley Sherrod slander put him beyond the pale in my book. For all his personal likability, he did as much to poison the political atmosphere in the last years of his life as anyone in America. It's not the concept of the "gotcha" video per se that was so poisonous, it's that they were based on such complete distortions of reality that they went beyond parody and into something much darker than that.

And if you'd like a third party to provide the tiebreaker vote, you might ask Shirley Sherrod what she thinks of the late Mr. Breitbart's boyish charm. I doubt that you'd be speaking that highly of him if you'd been in her shoes. In fact, you might even compare what happened to her as a result of Breitbart to what many people here said happened to George Zimmerman when one of the networks edited his statement to make him appear as a racist. What makes Breitbart's actions towards her any different than that?
   70. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4511786)
33. bjhanke


Sorry I just saw this. Yes it does sound like the reviews I read. A mess in all ways.
   71. Esoteric Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4511789)
Andy -- as much as I could continue this argument on every single particular of your #69, I've already broken my personal no-politics promise enough as it is and I quite simply do not want to break it any further. I adopted that policy for a reason. Please forgive me, as I can't shake the feeling that it's bad form to bail out in the middle of an argument, but my own personal happiness at Primer more or less demands it. Anyway, let us just agree that we're going to disagree on this topic and move on.

I still think that threads like this really have no place here now that we've adopted the OTP policy. Primer has become a much more pleasant place to be around now that all that stuff is confined to one godforsaken place.
   72. JE (Jason) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:35 PM (#4511819)
No. With all due respect -- and you know that's not an empty formality coming from me, Andy -- you simply don't know what you're speaking of here. I think Breitbart.com has become an embarrassment since he passed away, but seriously: would it surprise you to find out that Breitbart's closest friends were all California liberals? Or that he was one of the most laid-back, tolerant, happy-go-lucky people you'd ever meet? His energy was boundless, but his real contempt and anger was reserved solely for the liberal mainstream media. THAT was his true focus, that's what he cared about more than anything else. (He was actually shockingly unideological, downright socially liberal in most ways.)

Agreed, Eso. Bill Maher and Arianna Huffington were among his close friends.

Moreover, he did more to advance gay rights within the GOP than anyone else I know, by far.

Mr. Breitbart was a ubiquitous presence on and off the Web, though not one who ever managed to have significant business success there. His star rose along with the Tea Party, of which he was an early and frequent defender.

But he cut an odd figure for a conservative, holding forth with lectures on political theory that name-dropped Michel Foucault and other leftist thinkers. He could also be mordantly funny. (His Twitter avatar was an echo of the apocryphal Jesus imprint on a piece of toast.) Matt Labash, senior editor at The Weekly Standard, described him as “half right wing Yippie, half Andy Kaufman,” in his column after Mr. Breitbart died.

In 2011, while various religious groups boycotted the Conservative Political Action Conference because of the inclusion of gay Republican groups, he helped hold a party for the gay groups.

He was conversant in pop culture — the Cure and New Order were particular musical favorites — and thought nothing of wearing in-line skates, his longish hair trailing behind him, as he confronted protesters at a rally outside a conservative event hosted by David and Charles Koch in Palm Springs, Calif., in 2011. Once he was done berating the protesters, he took some of them to dinner at Applebee’s.


Also, I enjoyed re-reading this Hollywood Reporter piece, Andrew Breitbart Talked Politics in L.A. Bar an Hour Before Dying (Exclusive), as it was typical Andrew behavior.
   73. Publius Publicola Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4511832)
Moreover, he did more to advance gay rights within the GOP than anyone else I know, by far.


LOL. Doing nothing at all would qualify as doing more than anyone else in the GOP.


IF Breitbart had charm, all that did was make him more dangerous. Andy did a pretty good job of exposing his professional and ethical failings so I'll leave it at that.
   74. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4511833)
Anyone who disliked interleague play can't be all wrong.
   75. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4511834)
Andy -- as much as I could continue this argument on every single particular of your #69, I've already broken my personal no-politics promise enough as it is and I quite simply do not want to break it any further. I adopted that policy for a reason. Please forgive me, as I can't shake the feeling that it's bad form to bail out in the middle of an argument, but my own personal happiness at Primer more or less demands it. Anyway, let us just agree that we're going to disagree on this topic and move on.

No problem, Eso. I think we've both pretty much said what needs to be said on both sides of this sub-topic. Feel free to contact me via e-mail if you want to take it any further.

I still think that threads like this really have no place here now that we've adopted the OTP policy. Primer has become a much more pleasant place to be around now that all that stuff is confined to one godforsaken place.

Yes and no. No and yes. Sometimes. Just call me Broderman. (smile)
   76. JJ1986 Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:50 PM (#4511836)
Bill Maher ... (was) among his close friends


I think this should go in the negative column.
   77. JE (Jason) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4511841)
Andy, Andrew was adamant that he did not edit the Sherrod video. IIRC, the video he released included her comments about hleping the white farmer. Heck, if anyone deserves contempt, it's the political appointees at the the Department of Agriculture, including Secretary Vilsack, for the initial decision to punish her.

As for ACORN, I fail to see what you think was so outrageous. If that had been a hidden camera at a gun show, would there have been the same outrage? It was certainly no worse than the clandestine recording that resulted in Romney's "47%" gaffe.

How does Andrew deserve scorn for the "Obama video" since he had already passed when it was being pedalled? Blame Joel Pollak and/or Ben Shapiro if you object to their methods.
   78. JE (Jason) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4511850)
LOL. Doing nothing at all would qualify as doing more than anyone else in the GOP.

Knee-jerk, left-wing partisan yet again acts in a knee-jerk, left-wing partisan manner. Film at 11.
   79. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4511857)


I've heard many people testify to his charm, and I've read about all those California liberals who attended his funeral. And I have no problem in accepting your testimony about his social liberalism. People can be complicated.

But sorry, that ACORN stunt, the Obama video, and most of all, the Shirley Sherrod slander put him beyond the pale in my book. For all his personal likability, he did as much to poison the political atmosphere in the last years of his life as anyone in America. It's not the concept of the "gotcha" video per se that was so poisonous, it's that they were based on such complete distortions of reality that they went beyond parody and into something much darker than that.


Reminds me of the recent documentary I saw of Lee Atwater. By all accounts he was a very funny, personable guy who could even charm the leftist of Democrats and the only reason he was really a Republican because he was a contrarian who grew up in the deep south when he was surrounded by old school Dems.

But talk about nasty, win-at-all costs politics. Hard to separate the man from the deeds.
   80. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 02, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4511866)
As for ACORN, I fail to see what you think was so outrageous.


The part where it was heavily edited to make it appear that they said things they didn't say and act as though the mood was different than it was.

Andy, Andrew was adamant that he did not edit the Sherrod video. IIRC, the video he released included her comments about hleping the white farmer.


If he watched it, he had to know it was edited. And if he wasn't curious as to what the original video contained, he was far, far worse than the "liberal media" he hated.
   81. Publius Publicola Posted: August 02, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4511903)
Knee-jerk, left-wing partisan yet again acts in a knee-jerk, left-wing partisan manner. Film at 11.


Why don't you just call me a fag and threaten to smash me in my ####### face so I'll stay plastered?
   82. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 11:11 AM (#4992328)
Wow, I had not seen this love fest :-) from when I wrote the post on Value Add Baseball two years ago. The New Republic was quick to attack and I responded within a couple of hours at the time:

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2013/08/03/value-add-strikes-out-new-republic/

I would have been happy to likewise respond to the BBTF comments above at the time if I'd seen them, but hey, decided perhaps Pat Corbin's response last night was a good excuse to check back in here:

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/07/05/pat-corbins-2-year-nightmare-ends-with-independence-day-start-for-diamondbacks/

And believe me, I WELCOME hits, In fact have spent most of my life getting the GOP establishment and liberals to tell me I'm crazy. Luckily unlike in baseball, in elections you get to prove yourself right or wrong on election day in politics, and a few months after the comments above I was getting the same level of vitriol from the GOP Establishment after I reached the equally absurd calculation that we could beat Majority Leader Eric Cantor with virtually no money:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367690/eric-cantors-challenger-right-betsy-woodruff

The nice thing is that in elections you are able to prove your numbers right or wrong:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3619821064001/how-moneyball-style-politics-helped-dave-brat-win-in-va/?#sp=show-clips

So back to the Value Add Baseball intro piece that day that showed that while Pat Corbin was obviously not nearly the pitcher Clayton Kershaw was, that he had been as valuable to that point. When Corbin finally took the mound last night for the first time since Tommy John surgery, I figured that was a good time to reference his past rating. BTW, whatever you think of the kid, congrats on a pretty good performance. I realize he isn''t going to dominate throwing his 91-93 mph fastball most of the time like he did last night. But 56 strikes on 76 pitches and slider still looking like a dominant out out pitch the few times he used it for a strikeout or double play grounder hopefully means he can make a living for a while.

As for the comments above, the general direction is the same as the New Republic piece I responded to on the same day.

Certainly if you want to take it from a perspective that any new concept introduced should only build on subsequent research, then you will be frustrated by the only defensive reference in a game-by-game analysis being unearned runs, etc., but my suggestion is there are a couple of concepts I introduced that should have either received CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or if something had been done to measure them then a reference. Among them:

1. Run support must be measured in a game-by-game context. I don't see any answer above to my note that a pitcher who gets 5 runs in four games in a row has a good chance to go 3-1 or at least 2-2. A pitcher who gets 0 runs of support (yes, needs a negative ERA to win if his team also gave up relief runs or unearned runs since that concept seemed hard to grab above) and then 20 runs of support in the other game, cannot win more than 1 game. If there have been other efforts to look at run support on a game-by-game basis then please reference it, but if not this seems a key concept.

2. I understand the development is to basically determine how good a chance the pitcher gives the team to win, but I do believe now and then we have to step back from the forest to see the trees. A legit point to make is that if you want to determine how valuable a pitcher HAS BEEN then the attempt should be made to look at it from the reverse perspective - "Did he win the game?" You can't say you helped a team win a game if they did not win. So when you look at tough but not impossible wins (1 to 3 runs of support since you cannot win with 0 runs) and see that Corbin went 6-5 in those games while Kershaw went 4-10 in similar games, I do not see the counter argument for the fact that he brought tremendous value to the team.

On that note I will stop. I would say the only truly silly comment I saw above was the person who would not read my piece because he didn't want to add a click to Breitbart. Dude, the world does not center around you and your one click. BBTF gets millions of clicks each month, how silly would I sound if I said someone told me BBTF had criticized me and I thought I would "punish" them by not clicking. Likewise Breitbart gets 9 million unique clicks a month - I am sure the editors there did not lose any sleep because you didn't click :-)

   83. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2015 at 12:04 PM (#4992347)
I can't look at the original article(link doesn't work anymore)


Run support must be measured in a game-by-game context. I don't see any answer above to my note that a pitcher who gets 5 runs in four games in a row has a good chance to go 3-1 or at least 2-2. A pitcher who gets 0 runs of support (yes, needs a negative ERA to win if his team also gave up relief runs or unearned runs since that concept seemed hard to grab above) and then 20 runs of support in the other game, cannot win more than 1 game. If there have been other efforts to look at run support on a game-by-game basis then please reference it, but if not this seems a key concept.




Why? A pitcher going into a game does not know what runs he is going to get from his team, the manager doesn't know what runs the team is going to get etc. You cannot measure value by backwards looking at results and then applying value. That is about the stupidest concept ever imagined. In your world, a hitter who hits three doubles in a 1-0 loss is less valuable than a guy who goes 0-5 with a gidp that results in a run in a 1-0 win. That makes no sense. If this was an individual sport then your concept might work, but it's not. (this is the same idiocy you see in football, where one quarterback puts up great numbers and scores a lot of points but his defense sucks so his team might lose a game, while another quarterback who sucks ass but has 1985 Bears style defense is considered to be the better quarterback)

A pitchers job is to keep his team in the game. A pitcher who pitches a complete game and allows 3 runs, for an offensive team that on average scores 5 runs a game and playing an opposing pitcher who allows 4 runs a game, has done his job, even if the team fails to score the 4 runs for the win, it's not his responsibility to provide for the other 50% of the game.


Run support is not under the pitchers control, so I'm not getting why it needs to be included in a stat measuring a pitchers value in any way.

If you wanted to do an era needed, you would need to figure out the expected runs your team should score against the opposing team/pitcher and base it upon that, regardless of what the team actually does. Any system that says a 10 run 5 inning performance has ANY chance of being better than an 8 inning 1 run performance is severely wrong, not flawed, wrong.
   84. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 05, 2015 at 12:08 PM (#4992350)
Breitbart trying to get into baseball reminds me of how the Communist Party used to try to enter campus politics during the Popular Front era of the 1930's. This was how the Young Communist League at the University of Wisconsin tried to explain it:

Some people have the idea that a YCLer is politically minded, that nothing outside of politics means anything. Gosh no. They have a few simple problems. There is the problem of getting good men on the baseball team this spring, of opposition from ping-pong teams, of dating girls etc. We go to shows, parties, dances and all that. In short, the YCL and its members are no different from other people except that we believe in dialectical materialism as a solution to all problems.



   85. BDC Posted: July 05, 2015 at 12:24 PM (#4992361)
A legit point to make is that if you want to determine how valuable a pitcher HAS BEEN then the attempt should be made to look at it from the reverse perspective - "Did he win the game?" You can't say you helped a team win a game if they did not win

Respectfully (and apolitically :) this is a miniature version of another fallacy: that if you don't win the pennant you can't have been the most valuable player.

In the long run, if a pitcher prevents more runs than another, he's more valuable; and whether more wins accrue in the short run involves a lot of chance. In the 2013 example, Corbin had allowed 2 fewer runs in 2 fewer starts (and 24 fewer innings) through the end of July. Basically they'd both been very good. Corbin's team had scored more runs, and therefore had done much better.

Run support must be measured in a game-by-game context indeed explains discrepancies between pitching performance and W/L record, but it says nothing about how well the guy pitched, for reasons noted by the fanboy above and others two years ago.
   86. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 02:52 PM (#4992463)
But fanboy, you are really stretching when you write, "A pitcher going into a game does not know what runs he is going to get from his team..." (emphasis added). We are not talking about how a pitcher performs before a game (going into a game), obviously any system measures how well someone performs while he is playing - when your statement would become inaccurate. A pitcher and manager do know how many runs are being scored as the game unfolds.

Now before you call back on worlds like "idiocy" and "makes no sense" or pick up on Jolly Old St. Nick's analogy to me being a communist, try to just address the argument.

When you say, "If this was an individual sport then your concept might work, but it's not." your statement is true as opposed to tennis. But I challenge you to find one other team sport where one player is as dominant on one side of the offensive/defensive divide than the pitcher in baseball. Even quarterbacks are dependent on where defenses and special teams give them the ball, if their line can give them time to throw and receivers can separate from corners, etc..

The pitcher is in almost complete control of half the game while on the mound. Of course he has a defense behind him, but how many plays do they impact? If a pitcher throws a complete game and pitches to 35 batters how many of those outs are truly changed by who is behind him? Certainly there can be a couple - and they can be key - but the vast majority of results are due to what he pitcher does. Strikeouts, walks, clean hits, routine grounders, flyballs and popups that anyone can catch. Sure there has been a lot of advances to pin down those couple of key players a defender might make in a game, but keep in mind that even Trout only records an out on 7% of all at bats and only a small percentage of them require his extraordinary abilities - most would have been recorded by most outfielders.

So assuming you acknowledge how dominant a pitcher is to the team's defense while he is on the mound, you really are a lot closer to an "individual" concept.

Where I think you and most have thrown out the baby with the bathwater over recent decades is limiting all analysis making "A pitchers job is to keep his team in the game." an absolute statement. Obviously the traditional reliance on the Win-Loss record was very deceptive - in fact one of my motivations was back in the dark ages when Nolan Ryan was 4th in Cy Young voting with a 1.69 ERA - though obviously had quite a park to work with.

We judge teams based on if they win or lose in all sports BUT we also measure the wins and losses AGAINST THEIR STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE. We acknowledge how hard it is to win given what you are up against, but we don't go where you are going and simply say winning is irrelevant. It is the only thing that is relevant.

The second thing you are not addressing is the diminishing impact of runs in a given game. To get past your resistance at viewing a pitcher any differently than you do a second baseman, try to at least take that part in absent of ERA Needed. Let's reverse it with an extreme case.

Pitcher A and Pitcher B have a four game stretch in which everything they do is exactly the same - the number of strikeouts, grounders, hit batters, walks, earned runs allowed etc. In these four games each pitcher gives up 16 earned runs in 24 innings for an ERA of 6.00. Would the matrix you prefer rate them as equal? (I really am asking as it may not). Pitcher A went 1-3 during those games and Pitcher B went 3-1 - but I believe wins and losses are irrelevant to your preferred matrix (again I will stand corrected).

Now, here is the rub:

Pitcher A gave up exactly 4 earned runs in 6 innings in all four outings, and the team managed to bail him out once to give him a 1-3 mark in the stretch.

Pitcher B pitches 8 shutout innings in his first three outings, winning all three with only the help of a closer throwing the final inning once and a mop up pitcher in two other wins by wider margins. Unfortunately, in his 4th and final start he gave up 16 earned runs without recording an out, and obviously lost the game.

Did both pitchers pitch just as well? Did both give their teams the same chance to win the same number of games because all of their numbers match up? Clearly not, but be constructive and point out to me which other systems you believe are the best at measuring each pitcher. Is it the cumulation of their Game Scores?
   87. JJ1986 Posted: July 05, 2015 at 02:57 PM (#4992465)
That sounds a lot like Support-Neutral Win-Loss Record which has been around since the late 90s.
   88. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:00 PM (#4992466)
Well yeah. It's Hernandez's fault his team can't score.


Absolutely. He has to take personal responsibility for his won-loss record and stop blaming others. He should just become good enough at hitting that the M's ditch the DH, and then drive in enough runs to make sure they win each of his starts.

Or borrow $10,000 from his parents and start his own business.
   89. ReggieThomasLives Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:05 PM (#4992468)
Pitchers don't win games, teams do. So your entire stat starts with a fallacy.
   90. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:12 PM (#4992476)
But fanboy, you are really stretching when you write, "A pitcher going into a game does not know what runs he is going to get from his team..." (emphasis added). We are not talking about how a pitcher performs before a game (going into a game), obviously any system measures how well someone performs while he is playing - when your statement would become inaccurate. A pitcher and manager do know how many runs are being scored as the game unfolds.

Now before you call back on worlds like "idiocy" and "makes no sense" or pick up on Jolly Old St. Nick's analogy to me being a communist, try to just address the argument.

When you say, "If this was an individual sport then your concept might work, but it's not." your statement is true as opposed to tennis. But I challenge you to find one other team sport where one player is as dominant on one side of the offensive/defensive divide than the pitcher in baseball. Even quarterbacks are dependent on where defenses and special teams give them the ball, if their line gives them time to pass, if their receivers can get open etc.

No team player is as close to an individual unit as a pitcher - assuming just routine players are made. Of course he has a defense behind him, but how many plays do they impact? If a pitcher throws a complete game and pitches to 35 batters how many of those outs are truly changed by who is behind him? Certainly there can be a couple - and they can be key - but the vast majority of results are do to what he pitcher does. Strikeouts, walks, clean hits, routine grounders, flyballs and popups that anyone can catch. Sure there has been a lot of advances to pin down those couple of key players a defender might make in a game, but keep in mind that even Trout only records an out on 7% of all at bats and only a small percentage of them require his extraordinary abilities - most would have been recorded by most outfielders.

So assuming you acknowledge how dominant a pitcher is to the team's defense while he is on the mound, you really are a lot closer to an "individual" concept.

Where I think you and most have thrown out the baby with the bathwater over recent decades is limiting all analysis making "A pitchers job is to keep his team in the game." an absolute statement. Obviously the traditional reliance on the Win-Loss record was very deceptive - in fact one of my motivations was back in the dark ages when Nolan Ryan was 4th in Cy Young voting with a 1.69 ERA - though obviously had quite a park to work with.

We just teams based on if they win or lose in all sports BUT we also measure the wins and losses AGAINST THEIR STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE. We acknowledge how hard it is to win given what you are up against, but we don't go where you are going and simply say winning is irrelevant. It is the only thing that is relevant.

The second thing you are not addressing is the diminishing impact of runs in a given game. To get past your resistance at viewing a pitcher any differently than you do a second baseman, try to at least take that part in absent of ERA Needed. Let's reverse it with an extreme case.

Pitcher A and Pitcher B have a four game stretch in which everything they do is exactly the same - the number of strikeouts, grounders, hit batters, walks, earned runs allowed etc. In these four games each pitcher gives up 16 earned runs in 24 innings for an ERA of 6.00. Would the matrix you prefer rate them as equal? (I really am asking as it may not). Pitcher A went 1-3 during those games and Pitcher B went 3-1 - but I believe wins and losses are irrelevant to your preferred matrix (again I will stand corrected).

Now, here is the rub:

Pitcher A gave up exactly 4 earned runs in 6 innings in all four outings, and the team managed to bail him out once to give him a 1-3 mark in the stretch.

Pitcher B pitches 8 shutout innings in his first three outings, winning all three with only the help of a closer throwing the final inning once and a mop up pitcher in two other wins by wider margins. Unfortunately, in his 4th and final start he gave up 16 earned runs without recording an out, and obviously lost the game.

Did both pitchers pitch just as well? Did both give their teams the same chance to win the same number of games because all of their numbers match up? Clearly not, but be constructive and point out to me which other systems you believe are the best at measuring each pitcher. Is it the cumulation of their Game Scores?

BTW, when I first put out Basketball (links to all are at www.valueaddsports.com) I had great critiques from several NBA teams, who in turn picked up some key players I recommended based on their projected ability at the next level. Also, on the subjective front feel free to vote for the best college baseball players in your state in my state-by-state rankings at www.bestreturningplayers.com.
   91. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:14 PM (#4992479)
Just a reminder, I haven't read your methodology because the link on this thread doesn't work for it, so I'm only going by the way it is described in the excerpt and by the rest of the people talking on this thread.



Not sure how to respond to that theoretical. Since that theoretical doesn't really approach your methodology, I'm not seeing why you are presenting it. That theoretical has been answered by SNWL. Support Neutral Won Loss record. SNWL basically looks at individual game performance and assigns league average offense and relief pitching to the time when the pitcher isn't pitching.



Link for support neutral wins
Post 52 mentions that.

Did both pitchers pitch just as well? Did both give their teams the same chance to win the same number of games because all of their numbers match up? Clearly not, but be constructive and point out to me which other systems you believe are the best at measuring each pitcher. Is it the cumulation of their Game Scores?


Nobody really has a problem with you attempting to evaluate pitchers on a per game basis. It's the basing the ratings based upon how many runs the team actually scores. The pitcher has no control over how many runs his team scores, so any system based upon that is inherently ridiculous.

I'm a huge fan of the stat quality start and quality start percentage, in the example you gave, pitcher A would have recorded 0 quality starts and pitcher B would have recorded 3 (with a qs% of 75%)


WPA is a crappy ass stat, but it still gives positive credit for positive actions, your system negates all positive performances in a loss, if the pitcher allows more runs to score than his team scores.
   92. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:25 PM (#4992481)
I still think that threads like this really have no place here now that we've adopted the OTP policy. Primer has become a much more pleasant place to be around now that all that stuff is confined to one godforsaken place.

This has been pointed out to RoyalsRetro many times now, but it's a waste of time; he has made up his mind that he's going to continue to be an obnoxious jerk and ignore the etiquette.
   93. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:26 PM (#4992482)

This has been pointed out to RoyalsRetro many times now, but it's a waste of time; he has made up his mind that he's going to continue to be an obnoxious jerk and ignore the etiquette.


You know this is a two year old thread don't you? This might have been the first time it was pointed out to him.
   94. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:32 PM (#4992484)
87. JJ1986 posted 15 minutes ago #
That sounds a lot like Support-Neutral Win-Loss Record which has been around since the late 90s.


Expected Win-Loss addresses the second issue I raise in my response to fanboy. To some degree, it was the flip side to the ratings I was running in the New York Post a few years before it was invented as a starting point. I do not believe it addresses my first point raised to fan boy - that I believe pitchers are unique as a dominant position that should still be responsible for how often they are able to win.
   95. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:32 PM (#4992486)
87. JJ1986 posted 15 minutes ago #
That sounds a lot like Support-Neutral Win-Loss Record which has been around since the late 90s.


Expected Win-Loss addresses the second issue I raise in my response to fanboy. To some degree, it was the flip side to the ratings I was running in the New York Post a few years before it was invented as a starting point. I do not believe it addresses my first point raised to fan boy - that I believe pitchers are unique as a dominant position that should still be responsible for how often they are able to win.
   96. BDC Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:40 PM (#4992496)
Pitcher A and Pitcher B have a four game stretch

Well, that's what I was saying about the short run. That's a pretty short run.
   97. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:41 PM (#4992497)
Just a reminder, I haven't read your methodology because the link on this thread doesn't work for it, so I'm only going by the way it is described in the excerpt and by the rest of the people talking on this thread.


Fair enough. I don't work for Breitbart, just voluntarily contribute when I want, but they did cut over the system and some of the old links were lost. Probably no need to belabor the point and dig up and post the original. Glad I found BBTF even if it was through some of you going after me :-), but will look forward to checking in an adding an occasional PLEASANT :-) comment when I have questions.

I was known to all my friends for years as the guy who loved baseball more than life, and unfortunately running political campaigns literally made me miss even watching several World Series on TV as Labor Day to election day we went 24x7. I was practically forced to shift to basketball because their season started right after elections. Re-engaging because I ran my last campaign last year and will get back up to speed on what I missed. I don't mind at all throwing a concept out there - even if not fully formed - and using criticism to see what reading and studies I need to review to get back up to speed on all relevant criticisms.

Thanks!
   98. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2015 at 03:43 PM (#4992500)
No team player is as close to an individual unit as a pitcher - assuming just routine players are made. Of course he has a defense behind him, but how many plays do they impact? If a pitcher throws a complete game and pitches to 35 batters how many of those outs are truly changed by who is behind him? Certainly there can be a couple - and they can be key - but the vast majority of results are do to what he pitcher does. Strikeouts, walks, clean hits, routine grounders, flyballs and popups that anyone can catch. Sure there has been a lot of advances to pin down those couple of key players a defender might make in a game, but keep in mind that even Trout only records an out on 7% of all at bats and only a small percentage of them require his extraordinary abilities - most would have been recorded by most outfielders.

So assuming you acknowledge how dominant a pitcher is to the team's defense while he is on the mound, you really are a lot closer to an "individual" concept.


Pitchers are responsible for roughly 35-40% of the results on the field in a complete game....less than that in fewer innings obviously. It's a large percentage no doubt about it, but it's still less than half of the game. Again, nobody has a problem with you trying to evaluate individual performances. The issues arises completely because you will not credit the pitcher for a positive result in any game in which his TEAM loses if he allows more runs that his offense scores for him.

Pitchers are probably behind goalies in responsibility. At least until pitchers routinely start throwing 20+ strikeout games. A goalie relies on nobody but himself to keep the shutout, sure crappy defense makes his job tougher, but ultimately every goal comes directly against him.

Mind you I don't really get why it matters if a guy has the largest share of responsibility, if he's still less than 50% responsible for the result, then it's a team sport and it's a team result.
   99. Jpudner Posted: July 05, 2015 at 04:03 PM (#4992519)
Sure, and I've just always viewed a difference between "Most Valuable" and "Best," and the pitcher is unique not only because he is responsible for so much in his starts but also because of the unique aspect of not playing any role in the other games.

So certainly it would have been laughable to argue Corbin was anywhere near the best pitcher, or a Cy Young candidate, I do believe you could argue he was the most valuable. For me 6-5 in games with 1-3 runs means his performances won games that very likely would have been lost with him (even Kershaw was 4-10 in those games), and the Diamondbacks being 21-4 with him starting and 44-55 without him points to a guy who may have been the most valuable to that point.

I get it that you view all those numbers as just the lucky fluctuation of numbers in the other half of the frames and don't agree - so I will move on and promise this is my last comment on this strand so everyone can focus on different topics or offer one last critique.
   100. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 05, 2015 at 04:58 PM (#4992578)
I've just always viewed a difference between "Most Valuable" and "Best,"


The MVP ballot instructions explicitly define value as "strength of offense and defense", so if you've always viewed it as something other than that, you're doing it wrong.

but also because of the unique aspect of not playing any role in the other games


That's not unique - all players play no role in games in which they do not appear.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJake Arrieta throws no-hitter against Dodgers | MLB.com
(10 - 9:13am, Aug 31)
Last: Moses Taylor world tour 2015: Tel Aviv

NewsblogOT: Soccer August 2015
(583 - 9:12am, Aug 31)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogOTP - August 2015: Meet the … Baseball Owner Funding the 2016 Campaign ...
(4662 - 9:10am, Aug 31)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogFan dies in fall from upper deck at Turner Field | www.ajc.com
(58 - 9:08am, Aug 31)
Last: Scott Lange

NewsblogThe Indians want a new minority owner — but the price isn’t right | New York Post
(4 - 9:07am, Aug 31)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogBlue Jays to name Mark Shapiro club president, replacing Beeston - CBSSports.com
(1 - 8:55am, Aug 31)
Last: Moses Taylor world tour 2015: Tel Aviv

NewsblogEncarnacion’s home run hat trick
(2 - 8:49am, Aug 31)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-30-15
(112 - 8:37am, Aug 31)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-31-2015
(1 - 8:26am, Aug 31)
Last: Put a Milo Candini on him. (Dan Lee)

NewsblogTom Werner: Don Orsillo ousted to 're-energize' Boston Red Sox broadca - Boston Red Sox Blog - ESPN
(9 - 6:39am, Aug 31)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2015
(150 - 3:09am, Aug 31)
Last: Moses Taylor world tour 2015: Tel Aviv

NewsblogMadden: It's panic in the owner's box season in baseball - NY Daily News
(15 - 1:03am, Aug 31)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogThe Pyramid Rating System: JAWS on a Career Scale – The Hardball Times
(102 - 12:41am, Aug 31)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogNew York Mets to acquire right-handed reliever Addison Reed from Arizona Diamondbacks
(4 - 12:13am, Aug 31)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogLuis Severino the starter the Yankees can trust the most | New York Post
(17 - 11:39pm, Aug 30)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

Page rendered in 0.9471 seconds
44 querie(s) executed