User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6882 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
No, he's saying the best RP are much less talented and valuable than the best SP.
This is obviously true if you look at contracts closers get vs. SP, or trades. No one ever trades an above average SP for a closer.
The top 5:
Kimbrel - 160ip, 269
Al Alburquerque - 56.2ip, 264
Mo - 1219.2ip, 206
Robby Ross - 65ip, 206
and
Mike Crudale - 73ip, 197
I'm fine with someone saying that comparing Rivera's ability to prevent runs to a starting pitcher is basically a pointless exercise, that's a reasonable view. That just leaves us concluding that he's the best reliever ever by a wide margin, but can't be compared to starting to starting pitchers.
I don't know if there's another person alive that buys into Ray's argument that the 140 innings pitched by Rivera in the playoffs is both irrelevant and insufficient to draw any conclusions about true talent level. I guess I could go run the statistics, but I'd bet quite a bit that Rivera's postseason performance is likely to be a statistically significant difference from his regular season performance at about a 0.001 P value.
I think this was an excellent point. I think Pettitte was a better pitcher than Rivera and had a better career. I don't think Pettitte is a Hall-of-Famer. So therefore....
And I am saying there is no data whatsoever supporting the "less talented" part when it comes to preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis. Value no one here is arguing, it's not relevant beyond setting an IP cut off point. You can debate where that point should be, bbref has arbitrarily picked 1k, but if you purposely set out to exclude relievers with the cut off point you are essentially saying they are not pitchers as the should never be included, even when discussing rate basis performance.
No, I'm saying that relievers are not among the very best pitchers. If I ask, "who was the greatest strikeout pitcher in baseball history?" are you really going to answer "Brad Lidge"? (tied with Billy Wagner for top K/9) I guess you can if you want. But most people will say Randy Johnson or Nolan Ryan (or maybe Walter Johnson if you believe in making aggressive era adjustments). At a career level, I'm just not going to consider anyone with less than 2,000 IP in that kind of discussion. And even if you want to discuss peak, you still have to have a separate discussion for relievers. One simple example: John Smoltz was 7.9 K/9 as a starter, but 9.6 K/9 in relief (as an old man!).
Is this really controversial?
That's primarily becuase you only hear what you want to hear. I think Posada's poor postseason record damages his HoF case, which is definitely borderline.
As I said, repeatedly, postseason play is not extra credit, which is the mistake you keep making. It's more information about a player's career.
Now, with pitchers, there's some need to account for the fact that the extra innings do count against their shoulders and elbows. Considering Pettitte's postseason work as part of an overall assessment of his career, I'd tend to just add the innings to his body of work. He wasn't any better in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, but the playoffs give his career a little more heft because those pitches were thrown in anger. They shouldn't simply be ignored because Roy Halladay was on some beach someplace where his right shoulder was safe from harm.
I think this is a little strong. Relievers are purposely excluded by the IP threshold when deciding rate state "leaders" for individual seasons.
However, this does not mean that people claim things like Kimbrel WASN'T better than Tim Hudson on a rate basis in 2012.
So the argument is that he could have succeeded in a much more difficult role (starting) that he had already failed at, and he could have succeeded using a different style -- including actually learning another pitch. I find that wildly absurd to believe.
No, it's pointing out that other pitchers had stretches the same or better than Rivera's entire career -- while pitching in a more difficult role.
But they are lower than him in career ERA+ because they pitched thousands more innings.
Whilhelm 27th
Eckersley 95th
Wagner 107th
Gossage 123rd
Tekulve 135th
Franco 141st
Quiz 155th
Hoffman 163rd
Hiller 165th
Lee Smith 168th
Lyle 174th
Fingers 190th
Sutter 194
Orosco 201st
Right. Cherrypicking. Choosing to look at what someone did when they were at their pinnacle and comparing it to the entirety of a separate sample is either a stupid thing to do a willfully dishonest thing to do.
Not coincidentally, Mo and Hoyt are the only relievers who belong in the Hall.
Why? I'm not seeing it.
"Cherrypicking" is not always bad, so it's bizarre that you think it is. It depends what the exercise is, what the purpose is, and what one is trying to show. Cherrypicking to show that there are samples available for cherrypicking is perfectly valid -- indeed, it's precisely the point of the exercise. The cherrypicking is to show that other pitchers had a 200 ERA+ in the same sample. It is the entire point.
Why? He wasn't as good at pitching. He was not as good over many more innings however and while that is valuable does that really make him "better"? I don't see anyone questioning Pettitte's humanity in awed tones. This seems to be coming down to the old quantity vs quality debate that really has nothing to do with baseball. If there was some magic pitcher that was able to pitch 100 years and was mediocre but he got the playing time to shatter the counting stats records including WAR would he then be the "best" pitcher ever despite never being what anyone would describe as even good(much less god like Rivera) at any particular moment? Or really when it comes down to it we can divorce this debate from baseball altogether. You don't consider the "best" thing you've eaten to be the thing you've eaten the most that you enjoy at least somewhat. That's not how the word is generally used. We've come down to throwing statistics at what is in the end a question of semantics.
Best thing I've ever eaten was probably the Babi Guling (suckling pig) at Ibu Oka in Bali. Worth moving there for that alone.
You didn't get the memo that "greatest" really just means "compiled the most WAR"? It was in the materials packet right next to "playoff games are basically exhibitions".
I have a degree in Electrical Engineering.
Taking a small sample of IP and drawing a conclusion based on it -- "Halladay gave up 7 runs in 5 innings - he sucks" -- is flawed.
However, saying "There are other pitchers who posted a 200 ERA+ over a 1200-IP span - here they are" is not.
I have no idea why you would think there is a problem with the latter. I'm not allowed to point out that there were other pitchers who posted a 200 ERA+ over a 1200-IP span? What the hell?
Remarkably presumptuous. The way you think is impressively geared to finding anything you can throw at the other person without even thinking it through for a second. Why don't you go through the top pitchers of all time in your own estimation and see if their rookie seasons are all over the map in terms of quality. Hell, for many of them you need to give them years before their stats give any indication that they are particularly special or even good.
Feel free to point it out, as long as you realize it's utterly meaningless to select endpoints out of a sample and then compare it to a complete data set for a different pitcher. It's an interesting factoid, but a useless way of comparing two things.
If you're unable to comprehend why cherrypicking isn't a valid analytical technique, I don't think I can help you, and I have to conclude that you're either willfully obtuse or just dishonest. I suppose I could list a ton of analogies, but you seem to be fundamentally not grasping why it's not analytically valid; even if you can't understand why it's not, you should understand that it's a settled matter that cherrypicking is not a good way to reach conclusions. If you submitted any scientific paper or financial analysis that used this technique, it'd be rejected and you'd be scorned for thinking it was good analysis.
edit - Screw it, here's an an illustrative analogy anyway. If I had a two groups of vaccinated patients, and my readout was antibody titers, but the groups were of different sample sizes, I would not be obliged to simply choose the best consecutive sample of titers from the larger group. If I did so, every reader would say, "what the ####, why would anyone do that?".
He simply has a reaction against people caring about the postseason, and everything else flows from that.
What debate? Is there anyone, even the most delusional Yankee fanboy, that wouldn't say Pedro was much, much, much better than Mo?
I'm not really even sure what can be cogently debated about the two. I guess you could argue about aesthetic differences, but there's not really any empirical questions that are interesting to ask about Pedro vs. Rivera.
Coke to snapper. Yeah, there's just not much to say there. Peak Pedro's work is vastly more impressive, more valuable, and higher quality than Rivera's - and I'm a Rivera fanboy.
Sorry, but no. It is quite useful to show that other pitchers put up this ERA+ over a 1200-IP sample.
It doesn't mean that Rivera sucks. It just means that he looks far better using b-r's 1,000 IP cutoff list than he actually was -- and that's without even getting into the difference in closing vs. starting.
Yes, I have more IP from Pedro to choose from. But I am not saying Pedro's ERA+ was as good as Rivera's over Pedro's entire career; I'm just saying he had stretches as good.
Once more: the cherrypicking _is_ the purpose. "Here. I can show you other pitchers who pitched this well over that same IP span."
While this is often/usually true, the difference here is that the size of the sample itself is important. The fact that Mo's entire career fits within those other pitchers' peaks (in terms of innings pitched), makes Mo's performance less impressive. Walt was simply citing some examples to illustrate that point.
Maddux and Koufax have the same ERA+. Are they equally great pitchers? Of course not. To illustrate that, isn't it legitimate for me to point out that Maddux's best 12-season peak (equal to Koufax's whole career) exceeded Koufax's career? Yes, I'm comparing peak to career, but in this case the peak is as long as the career.
No, Walt was disputing that "Rivera has been the best pitcher of all time at preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis vs average" and that was certainly not an appropriate use of cherry-picking.
It was a good set of examples (except Clemens) to illustrate the point being made. You're really badly tangled up with this "cherry-picking" thing here. You're making Ray look good, which can't be a good thing. :)
The examples were good at illustrating the point that other guys could fit Rivera's career (in innings and excellence) within their peak. It was also interesting that it seemed like the only ones who did that were the utmost elite SPs.
But the examples were useless at trying to disprove the claim "Rivera has been the best pitcher of all time at preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis vs average," which is explicitly what Walt's post #174 was about.
209, No Ray, I am not making that argument. I AM making the argument that Mariano pre-cutter is a different animal than Mariano post-cutter. Would he have been an elite starter? Who knows. But the fact of the matter is that the post-Cutter Mariano never got a chance to start, so we simply don't know what the results would have been.
We DO know that he pitched for 15+ years at an elite level after learning the cutter, and even the most anti-Mariano types would agree that Mariano's learning the cutter was crucial for his (Mariano's) career.
No, it's not.
Rivera got to pitch in the most favorable circumstances. Most often one IP at a time, and only 60-70 IP per season.
That's like saying someone who ran a 9 sec 100M dash on flat ground is faster than a guy who ran a 12 sec 100M up a 30 degree slope.
It is a fact that the runner on flat ground ran faster.
As I have pointed out repeatedly reliever advantage is not some unfathomable mystery. You are surely aware of the studies, why are you simply ignoring their conclusions to make statements like the above that directly contradict them? You believe they are flawed in some way? Not based on enough data perhaps?
As I have pointed out repeatedly reliever advantage is not some unfathomable mystery. You are surely aware of the studies, why are you simply ignoring their conclusions to make statements like the above that directly contradict them? You believe they are flawed in some way? Not based on enough data perhaps?
They're flawed b/c there have been almost no conversions of elite SP to closer. Smoltz is the only one I can think of.
My point is any elite SP would be an excellent closer. The role is easy in its very nature.
Sure, it's a good set of examples to illustrate something that's kind of cute and interesting, which is that Rivera's career is basically of equal quality and size to the absolute top pitching peaks that the best pitchers ever have performed at. That's a fun thing to know, and puts both Rivera and the great starters into perspective. In terms of analyzing their abilities over the course of their careers? Essentially useless.
I disagree that someone standing by their use of a formal logical fallacy to make a point looks good.
Why? Care to respond to my points about Pedro's usage pattern in post 200?
Ok, how do you know Pedro couldn't have handled being a closer? That's pure speculation.
Can you name a really good starting pitcher who failed as a closer?
Maddux thru age 30: 139 ERA+, 2365 IP
Koufax thru age 30 (or age 70): 131 ERA+, 2324 IP
Maddux was a better pitcher for a period as long as Koufax's entire career. But in your view they were equally effective at preventing runs, because Maddux's ability to pitch for another 11 seasons reduced his career rate to match Koufax? Seriously?
It's using selective endpoints that are selected specifically for peak that I object to. Using end points that make sense isn't a problem.
What do you mean by "standard" advantage? The general estimate is that a reliever's ERA would rise by about 1 run as a starter. That would make Rivera's ERA+ 142 -- still excellent but below Pedro. But that's an estimate for all relievers. My guess is that Rivera's ERA would have been much more than +1.00. But who knows? All you can really do is rate Rivera against other relievers, and replacement level at his "position."
OK, good so far. But can I also point out that from age 25-36, another 12-season stretch, Maddux put up an ERA+ of around 170? That is, would it be OK to mention in a discussion of these pitchers that for a period as long as Koufax's entire career, Maddux was MUCH better? Or must I then be shunned as methodologically impure?
I was not really intending to go into that specific example as it does not match what I said well I guess but I do stand by the response in general, for cases where it does. If your peak was on a performance level equal to another person's entire career including pre-prime and decline then they performed better than you, in general, on average.
I don't think it's very useful. It's interesting, but I'm skeptical of what the point is. If we're talking about value or some handwavey "greatness", it's worth looking at various peak stretches. This is basically just taking the absolute worst peak of any length (which happens to be his best 12 year peak) for Koufax and comparing it to Maddux's best 12-year peak; it's fine as far as it goes, but it's probably not really a great argument for many purposes.
The point is that comparing one player's entire career to another player's peak is just not really that sensible, unless we believe a 12-year peak is a good measurement to judge things by.
I feel like this is getting a bit esoteric though. Traditionally, players are typically compared by either total career numbers or shorter defined peaks. Why not stick to that?
I looked at James and Tango on the subject. Tango came up with .60, James much less, but I forget specifically. What are you looking at?
Right. But what is replacement level for a closer?
The bullpen is tricky b/c of leverage, and the ability of the manager to allocate the best pitchers to the high leverage IP.
Snapper: I agree it's tricky. A replacement reliever is probably about league-average ERA, give-or-take. For the closer you need to use chaining to set an even higher replacement level, but then he gets credit for the leverage of his innings.
Because we're discussing starters vs. relievers, and so when people drool over Rivera's 200 ERA+ in 1200 IP, a performance everyone agrees is great, it absolutely must be analyzed just _how_ great that performance is, and whether the performance was so unique and off the charts that other pitchers weren't able to accomplish it. Clearly others were, and that is absolutely relevant, even if you don't understand the concept of cherrypicking and when that is flawed - and when it is not.
But Rivera's career cannot be viewed the same as Pedro's. He has been able to stay as good as he is because he only pitches 70 innings a year. If Pedro went balls out for eight games and never coasted his ERA+ would be a lot higher. If Rivera is used like a starting pitcher he would have a similar slow start and tail end to his career.
Mariano Rivera, 10
Joe Nathan, 5
Billy Wagner, 4
Robb Nen, 3
John Wetteland, 3
five tied with 2
53 tied with 1
It's a fair point that there are currently 3 or 4 seasons like that every year, and it's been like that since the late '90s. But for quite a stretch, that meant Rivera every year plus 2-3 other guys, and for a few years, Rivera + Nathan + 1 or 2 other guys.
Hey. I'm a skeptic on the value of closers and their roles, myself. And it's also fair to point out that Rivera (like Nathan, Nen, and many others) was a washout as a starter, and likely wouldn't have had a good career as a starter. It's fair to point out that a lot of starters could be good relief pitchers, and that starters are generally much more valuable. It's fair to point out that earlier-model relievers like Face, Wilhelm, Abernathy, Lyle, Marshall, Gossage, and company had different roles and were darn good at them, too.
It's also fairly clear that Rivera as a closer has been a uniquely optimal match of ability to role.
That his entire career works as someone else's peak... Yeah, I'm going to say I think the opposite. If your whole career including pre-prime and decline is at the same performance level as someone else's "peak" then you were a "better" pitcher.
Not if your whole career also equals the same *quantity* as someone else's peak.
Ray is right about the quantity and situational issues that are inherent in evaluating any reliever, not just Rivera. He's wrong about other things, like the postseason, of course.
Since when do relievers have no decline phase?
Why? That was specifically what I meant. You played less but you were better on average. That is my whole point.
Replacement level for Rivera and other 9th inning "closers" is the next best reliever.
The tOPS+ of the American League in 2012 improved by 3 from the 8th inning to the 9th -- 86 to 83. Not much.
Put the 30 designated "closers" in a spaceship on April 1 and blast the spaceship to Jupiter for the season. Managers have to pick a "closer" and use him the same way. The impact is then the true value over replacement the closers generate. How many additional saves do we think would be blown? One per team is 30. I'll take the under.
Do you mean blown by the closer, or the blown save stat which can be accumulated by guys in the 7th and 8th innings?
Because if it's only blown saves by the new anointed closer, then for "aces" you would have to compare them to the new "ace" that would be bumped up from #2 in a similar spaceship scenario involving the 30 opening day starters, and not to starting pitchers in general.
Why hasn't any other reliever been able to do it then?
I must be misunderstanding something here. Koufax's numbers look so great precisely because he had no decline phase. He got hurt in his prime and then never pitched another game again. In order for the comparison to be fair to Maddux, it's only fair to cut off Maddux's post-age 30 seasons. Of course, it doesn't really matter as Maddux mops the floor with Koufax regardless. Maddux had a better ERA+ (132) than Koufax (131) although the former threw almost 2700 additional innings. If you just mirrored Koufax's career where his age-31 season looked like his age-30 season, his age-32 like his age-29, and so on so that his age-42 season mirrored his age-19 season, you would still have a pitcher that was inferior to Maddux on a rate basis (albeit only just) and still 350 innings behind Maddux. The difference would be someone with a career like Brian Wilson's (320 IP @ 129 ERA+).
People know this, intuitively, even if they don't know that they know it. When making a list of the greatest pitchers ever people talk about WJohnson and Clemens and Maddux and Pedro, etc. Rivera's name never comes up.
Then replacement level for "clean-up hitters" is the next best hitter in the lineup, and for "aces" is all of the #2 guys in rotations.
First off why would you write all that in response to the sentence after I admit Maddux/Koufax is not an example that fits what I was getting at? Second, Koufax got hurt years before he retired, which he did at the end of a season, not all of a sudden and then he never pitched again.
Right, I should have worded that part better. I'm aware that Koufax was injured previously and battled arthritis during his last few years in the big leagues. My point was that Koufax abruptly quit due to an injury rather than take time off and attempt a comeback. I should have made it clear that I meant his retirement was abrupt and final in his prime. Koufax obviously faced a series of lingering injuries that made continued pitching impossible or dangerous. Regardless, he still retired before his decline phase, which was my point.
He did, but one of the interesting things to ponder about Koufax is to what degree the chronic pain and ghastly swelling he endured through his last few seasons inhibited his performance. Obviously it's unknowable, but it would be ludicrous to imagine that his physical agony was helping his performance, and, ya know, he went 97-27 with an ERA+ of 170-something from 1963-66. A healthy Koufax is kind of scary to contemplate.
That really should satisfy the pro-Rivera contingent in this thread.
Anything beyond that, which includes starting pitchers, and I absolutely want to stop and examine just what the claim being made is.
I don't disagree with any of that.
Edit: though I'm pretty sure I'd say Wilhelm was the greatest RP.
You are right that I was looking at an outdated number from him but here is the latest I can find on the subject from tango;
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/rule_of_17/
17% rather than the .6 runs just makes my case stronger.
Do you really believe Rivera's RA/9 would only have increased by 17% if he started?
Because, if that's true, the Yankees made the worst player personnel decision since the Babe Ruth trade with him .
Best pitcher ever on a rate basis or bust yo. It simply is what all the math says, or our current understanding of maths at least, if you will.
I do not believe I nor you could ever know that so I'm sticking with actual statistical analysis of the subject. If you want to go off the reservation on this one feel free but recognize it is what you are doing.
That would be the guy who faced one batter in his career and struck him out, which is probably Wade Boggs or someone.
I think I'm the one firmly on the reservation. The statistical analysis is biased b/c only RP who teams think have a good shot at being good get to start. The fact that the Yankees never considered it should be taking as evidence.
If Rivera could have put up a 2.50 ERA as a SP in his era, he would have been the best SP ever. Even Pedro gave up a 2.93 ERA. How likely is that?
Absolutely true, and if we raise the innings threshold a little, it is Kimbrel, and if we raise it further it is Rivera, and if we raise it higher it becomes Pedro, and then Lefty Grove, and then Walter Johnson, and then Cy Young.
No, 17% makes it larger (.17 * 4.6 R/G = .8 runs). Read the thread at your link: Tango still has replacement level for relievers at 1.0 run better (lower) than for starters.
And if you believe Rivera could have posted a 2.60 ERA as a starter, well, I don't even know what to say.....
No, best reliever ever on a rate basis (and perhaps career basis). We can all agree on that I hope.
Which only proves my point. There's no reason to set the threshold at exactly the point where Rivera is the beneficiary.
Sean could have gone with 1300 innings rather than 1000, which would have left Rivera out in the cold. No, wait, Rivera has 140 postseason innings - surely Sean includes those? Alas, no. Sean does not include innings pitched in exhibition games. So Rivera would still be out in the cold.
And honestly, I can't believe that even Mariano fans would have said (before this discussion) their minimum IP to be considered in a "greatest pitcher" category is just 1200 IP. I would say something like 2,000. And that's even before worrying about the reliever advantage (which is a huge additional complication).
I didn't bring him into the discussion for this reason, but Koufax (50) and Mo (53) are actually about the same in career rWAR. That sounds about right. 1200 IP @ 206 = 2300 IP @ 131. I think rWAR uses the same replacement level for starters and relievers -- is that right? -- in which case I'd bring Mo down to maybe 46 WAR. But they are in the same ballpark.
You clearly didn't take the Yankees paying big money for Soriano as proof of the worth of a closer and are often roundly critical of their choices(usually correctly) but all of a sudden management's decisions with regard to Rivera is proof of something? Sorry but hypocritical is the word here.
Again, I really really really do not particularly care if Rivera would have made a good starter. He was and is a pitcher. Anyone summarily dismissing a whole class of pitchers from the start when asking the question who was/is the best pitcher is... simply answering a different question. Innings add value surely and it would be idiotic to ignore that when figuring out who was the most valuable pitcher. In the end what I'm saying is most valuable and best are really not interchangeable. To reverse my previous example if a rookie next year hit a home run in every at bat then retired, best hitter ever or not? This is what the debate has turned into as I pointed out earlier, semantics, not statistics and I do believe I'm on the correct side from either angle. There is no math indicating Rivera's performance advantage should be dismissed because he was a reliever unless you simply throw out all relievers and I'm even more certain my interpretation of "best" is a much more common usage. Again we can divorce those from baseball. Band with 3 amazing albums vs one with 7 that while very good are notably inferior. I'll say the one that amazes me is better every time.
"Exactly the point"? Rivera is number one from 160 innings to 1200 innings - that might be the largest spread of any of the names I listed. But yes, it is an arbitrary threshold, and the leader's accomplishment becomes more impressive at each higher level.
He doesn't want to taint the inferior regular season numbers! ha!
And what number is he from 1400 innings to 5000 innings?
same place Pedro is for 3000 to 5000, or Lefty Grove is 4000 to 5000, or Walter Johnson is 6000 to 7000.
Just reread it, dunno what you are referring to. He says;
This becomes very useful for when we do research into comparing year-to-year changes in performance, and we see that pitchers move between roles. So, to be able to put everyone on the same scale, you can take a reliever’s RA9 and divide it by 0.83 (that is, 1 minus 17%), and that puts it onto the starter’s scale.
Seems pretty straightforward.
The problem with your argument is that that is a damned good reason.
It's not quantity over quality but a mix of the two and not just that but the fact that relieving is so very obviously a hell of a lot easier.
Hell, even compared to other relievers Rivera has it easy: he starts a fresh inning with the bases empty the vast majority of the time. And mostly pitches in 1 inning bursts. And typically gets to work with a lead and thus margin for error. It's bizarre the trouble people have seeing this.
Starter RL = 1.3 * 4.5 = 5.85
Reliever RL = 1.08 * 4.5 = 4.86
5.85 - 4.86 = .99 runs. I hope my rounding that off to "1" is acceptable.
You can't subtract points of ERA+ that way. Mariano's ERA is 48.5% of league average; Pedro's is 64.9%. The distance from Mo to Pedro is less than half the distance from Pedro to average. (Not that it isn't still impressive.)
WRT postseason stats giving some players more opportunities than others - you could correct for this pretty easily if you want to. Give players credit for only their regular season playing time, but include their postseason numbers when calculating their rate stats. Doesn't make a huge difference for most people - for instance, Pedro pitched about 3% of his career innings in the postseason. But for Rivera, who's pitched over 10% of his innings in the postseason (at an unbelievable level), it drops his ERA by 7%.
The point of Tango's formula is not to predict what Rivera, or any other specific pitcher, would do if he changed roles. And you certainly can't use the 17% rule, derived from players who could perform in both roles, to project the starter performance of guys who were only relievers. Our assumption has to be that such relievers (Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman)were selected precisely because they were much better suited to relieving, and would likely have a much larger reliever/starter spread if forced to start. And honestly I doubt that the reliever advantage is proportional to runs allowed, which would suggest that lousy starters would reap huge dividends while good starters benefit far less (and also that great relievers would pay a very small price for starting). Maybe Tango has research to support that, but I doubt it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main