Just because I can’t take another pro-A.J. caller on Francesspool…
First, Burnett gave up four hits and walked four batters in 5 2/3 innings. That means he finished the game with a 1.50 walks plus hits per inning pitched last night. His seasonal WHIP? 1.43. So he actually allowed more baserunners per inning than during his regular season, which most would characterize as far from “good”.
Second, Burnett’s K/BB ratio was .75, and out of his 81 pitches, 49 went for strikes (a strike-to-ball ratio of only 1.5). So not only did Burnett provide free passes at an unacceptable rate through 5+ innings, he couldn’t make up for it through strikeouts. If he had been pitching that well, I would have expected a better K/BB ratio and more than three K’s through 5+ innings.
Third, Burnett benefited from a ridiculously low BABIP against last night. The Tigers only batted .190 on balls in play during Burnett’s time on the mound. During the regular seasons, Burnett had a BABIP against on ground balls of .238. Last night? The Tigers went 0-10 on ground balls.
...Add all this together and it’s really hard to say that Burnett, on balance, was “good” last night. The only way you do this is by focusing on the runs against.
And if you are doing that, you can’t really be considered the ‘worldwide leader in sports’.
Repoz
Posted: October 05, 2011 at 06:04 PM |
75 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
tigers,
yankees
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.
1. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 05, 2011 at 06:37 PM (#3952508)Burnett allowed four walks, two singles, a double and a homer in 5 2/3 innings, yet escaped allowing only one run. My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that by basic runs created, that ought to be about 2.5 runs, not one.
On all four of the Tigers' hits off Burnett, the batter just smoked the ball. There wasn't a cheapie among them. Plus there were at least three other very hard-hit balls that could easily have been hits: Don Kelly's fly ball in the first, Ramon Santiago's one-hop scorcher that turned into a 4-6-3 DP, and Cabrera's line shot at Jeter's head. They could very well have had twice as many hits off Burnett.
Like I said, I didn't see the game so maybe AJ was getting a lot of "at 'em" balls. Simply presenting the BABIP data, some poorly interpreted WHIP information and a not especially horrible strike rate does not convince me that he wasn't good.
His MO is generally to be good for a few innings, then lose it very suddenly when his mechanics get out of whack (as they are prone to do with a guy with Burnett's build). I think he may have been about to lose it in the 6th last night, but Girardi got him out of there right away.
http://www.twitvid.com/E7LEX
all sorts of awesome...
I hate it when the scoreboard focuses on runs. Why do they even keep track of that?
It seems like Francesa's job should be some combination of knowledge of sports and ability to communicate. Maybe he just has great tits.
Larry: Can you say more about this? I've not heard this before (at least about guys with Burnett's build). What does it mean?
He was good enough to win, and that's the only ####### thing that matters. Of course he was lucky in the first inning, but that's part of the game.
-----------------------------------------------------
I hate it when the scoreboard focuses on runs. Why do they even keep track of that?
"Just to irritate Ray" would be my guess. What they really should do is to award the win to the "best" team.
Yes, that was hilarious. I know Pujols as Albert Pujols, but if someone decided to call him Al Pujols I think I'd know who they were talking about. "Twitvid" seems an apropos place for videos of this buffoon.
He probably hung up on somebody for talking about pooholes in 2001.
I think when you call that start good it's obvious that part of that means "good for Burnett." If CC or Verlander had a start like that the reaction wouldn't be "good start," it'd be something like "He wasn't sharp tonight but he battled through it and got the job done." Or something like that.
Was it objectively good?
No.
Was it objectively good enough?
Absolutely.
I know everybody's rich on MLB teams nowadays, but Burnett providing a six-pack of Granderson's beverage of choice would be a nice gesture here.
I miss Mark Fidrych.
I don't think AJ pitched a "great" game -- 3 walks and some hard hit balls -- but he did catch some breaks for a change and made it through.
I thought he would do ok because his two main weaknesses are home runs and walks, and aside from Cabrera and maybe Avila (who Leyland stunningly bats 8th), the Tigers aren't very good at those things.
Worth noting that the Granderson catch was, in my view, a severe misread by Granderson that he happened to recover from. (Even if Mike Francesa, unbelievably, thought the catch was so good that he had to say it was worse than the Agee catches. You think?) Yes, the ball was smacked, but the Grandy Man shouldn't have had any trouble with the play.
Girardi... my god can he learn how to manage. Why does he love giving the other team baserunners? Why does he love giving away outs with sac bunting? It's really comical how bad he is at this.
Andy: Do you think we can tell who the best team is from a 7 game playoff series?
Andy: Do you think we can tell who the best team is from a 7 game playoff series?
Of course not, but the question itself is 100% inconsequential. Do you doubt for a second that anyone associated in any way with the 2001 Mariners would gladly switch those 116 regular season wins for that Diamondbacks' World Series trophy?
So you concede my point, and then try to change the subject. The question itself is 100% consequential to me. I enjoy the playoffs but I don't take any special meaning from them. The fact that the playoffs do not determine the best team is the reason why.
Of course not, but the question itself is 100% inconsequential. Do you doubt for a second that anyone associated in any way with the 2001 Mariners would gladly switch those 116 regular season wins for that Diamondbacks' World Series trophy?
So you concede my point, and then try to change the subject.
"Concede" it? I was never arguing against it in the first place.
The question itself is 100% consequential to me. I enjoy the playoffs but I don't take any special meaning from them. The fact that the playoffs do not determine the best team is the reason why.
More power to you in your 30 year War Against The Windmills, and all hail the Pythagorean God of Truly Meaningful Metrics.
The only point is that nobody but you cares who the "best" team is, as opposed to caring who wins the World Series. YMMV and all that.
You can't possibly know that, but regardless, what do _you_ take from a World Series championship, if not that the team that won was necessarily better? Do you think the players who won had special character? I'm asking seriously. To me, the World Series is fun because it's fun to see two teams competing at a high level for one prize. But I'm not sure what special significance you want me to take from the outcome. What special significance do _you_ take from the outcome? Are we really not on the same page here?
The regular season doesn't determine the best team either, for a number of reasons. Do you not take any special meaning from the regular season either?
I care about both. The 1995 Indians and 2001 Mariners are notable teams in the scheme of things, only slightly less because they didn't win.
Do men buy their fiance a diamond ring because it looks nice and sparkly and makes her feel special, or because it rates a 10 on the Moh's hardness scale? Do people enjoy looking at a painting by one of the old masters because it is beautiful and captivating or because it took 3,478,534 brush strokes and used 784 optically discernible paint colours? Jesus Christ.
The regular season is longer, and so a division title, while still not being determinative of the best team, is (*) more meaningful than winning a tournament.
(*) Or used to be, anyway. The wildcard has queered this, to the point where teams don't care if they win the division as long as they're in the postseason anyway. The entire game now (the teams, the players, the fanbases, the media) are overly obsessed with winning a meaningless postseason tournament. I get that I'm in the minority on this, but I don't see why that matters.
That's a different argument.
The real problem is that we start off the conversation without having an agreed upon definition of "best." To say "the best team is the one with the most wins over 162 games because a 162-game season is the most accurate measure of team quality" is somewhat circular, don't you think?
Team A wins 95 regular-season games, and Team B wins 90. Team A didn't have any major injuries all season, and Team B lost three starters for at least a month each, but they're all back at full strength now. Team B also traded at the deadline for the best player in the league, replacing one of their weakest positions, while Team A didn't make any trades. Would you really argue that Team A is the better team?
Over a full season, a difference of 5-10 games is not in itself a great measure of team quality. Obviously a 100-win team is better than an 80-win team, of course, but an 88-win team may well be better than a 98-win team for a number of reasons (league quality, unbalanced schedule, or even just having a few series against another team or two at the wrong time).
You can't possibly know that, but regardless, what do _you_ take from a World Series championship, if not that the team that won was necessarily better?
I take from it that they're now the World Champions. That's more than enough either to satisfy me or disgust me.
Do you think the players who won had special character? I'm asking seriously. \
Depends. If they're wearing uniforms like this, then of course---it's a given. But other than that, nah.
To me, the World Series is fun because it's fun to see two teams competing at a high level for one prize. But I'm not sure what special significance you want me to take from the outcome. What special significance do _you_ take from the outcome?
The fact that the Yankees either won or lost or weren't in it. Or as a backup, at least the AL team won. Beyond that, there's no significance other than vicarious bragging rights and a touch or two of schadenfreude in special occasions---but then, what else DO you need?
Are we really not on the same page here?
Not if (somehow) determining the "best" team matters more to you than determining the World's Champion.
-----------------------------------------
Do men buy their fiance a diamond ring because it looks nice and sparkly and makes her feel special, or because it rates a 10 on the Moh's hardness scale?
Depends on the man, and even more, it depends on the woman.
It's sports. There is nothing significant to take from any outcome, besides satisfaction that your team won a game, series, division, etc.
Winning the World Series is about being the "Champion." I don't care about my team being the best, I want them to win the championship. That is the goal of any athletic endeavor. I sincerely doubt that any player in baseball would rather win a division/pennant than win the World Series and I bet that would be true for the last 108 years. To call the World Series a "meaningless postseason tournament" is just a complete lack of recognition of the goal of every player in baseball.
Not sure it was intentional but I like that you used a picture of that team from 2004.
I call ########. Players are worried about their careers and their contracts first. They want to perform well individually. Secondary to that is winning the World Series.
Yeah, but it was taken after game 2. They had to burn the uniforms after game 7.
Maybe before establishing themselves and/or after winning several.
But for the vast majority of the league, you think they're running and leaping on each other when they hit their 40th hr of the year (unless it's number 763)?
No. They want to win.
What makes it 2004? The patch?
If everyone is obsessed with it, it is therefore not meaningless.
Similarly, until all you guys stop obessing over the writers' awards, I can't claim that the MVP is meaningless.
The link itself. I'm assuming it's 2004;
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/photo/photogallery/springtraining_2004/0329j/01.jpg
Wasn't that the year the Yanks opened in Japan? I think that patch would be from that series.
Never mind me, I'll be in the corner with my dunce hat on.
People (players, fans, media) think it means something that it doesn't. That's the problem.
Instead of enjoying something for what it is, they bizarrely think it is something that it isn't.
The purpose of just about every competitor in every sporting competition is to win. Convincing yourself and others that you have the best team is not satisfying at all if you don't win. I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball right now, and will continue to think so even if they lose in the postseason. The Phillies themselves may very well think that way, too. I doubt that will be of very much comfort to them if they lose to the Cardinals tomorrow.
No one wants to win the championship so that people will declare them "the best team." People try to assemble the best team so that they can win the championship.
exactly
Maybe my SF-Giants-fan friends are just unusually rational people - though given that they're my friends, maybe not - but last year to a one they all seemed pretty clear on the difference between "best team in baseball" and "World Series champion." The Giants weren't the best team in baseball... but they won the World Series! And they all seemed pretty happy about that.
Well put.
#51 and #52 merely describe reality.
everyone's so stupid that they don't understand that an otherwise inferior team can get hot and win a tournament? That is incorrect and arrogant. It seems like you, and not everyone else, is having trouble picking up the subleties of postseason/playoffs/championships.
People think that WS winners have better character than the other teams. People think players choke in the playoffs. That's why they ascribe a heightened meaning to it. People don't understand what they're seeing.
A few things that people don't understand in Rayworld:
---Championships don't matter
---Global warming is a hoax
---"It's over. It's always been over" only means "unless it's not"
---Progressive taxation is akin to stealing
---Choking is a myth
---Everyone who doesn't buy into Ray's premises is either "illogical" or "dishonest", and that there are no allowable starting points of a discussion other than Ray's
I don't think anyone here is arguing any of those things. I think Andy made a comment but I'm pretty sure it was tongue-in-cheek and that's about the only one.
I think he's talking about everyone in the general public, not here.
Which kind of explains why he usually seems like he's mostly talking to himself. Hell, on this thread, even Nieporent isn't covering his back, which has got to be one of the rarer non-barking dog phenomena of all time when it comes to BTF.
People in the general public, and people here who ascribe a heightened meaning to the playoffs beyond what it deserves because they don't understand what they are watching.
Human beings, in general, don't do well with cognitive dissonance. We expect the team with the trophy to be the best team; otherwise, it rubs against our concept of fairness. Even when we root for the scrappy underdog, the underlying belief is that they'll prove that they actually are the best team, and it's only not obvious because of circumstance. If Team A looks better than Team B on paper but loses, then we'll naturally look for reasons other than raw talent to explain the result.
It also is true that some teams actually do have better character, and some players actually do choke in high-pressure situations. It makes more than no sense at all to at least speculate that there is some relationship. We've seen closers that are remarkably less capable when they don't open an inning, or hitters that struggle when they aren't fielding a position. Clearly, the players aren't robots, and there's more than just their natural ability.
It is one thing to say that good chemistry isn't consistently correlated with winning or that we can't predict who will be a choker, but yet another to say that these things don't have any effect on performance. That said, I don't think very many sports fans legitimately believe that the best team wins every time, but just the team that was the best on that particular day.
that's the arrogant part
I agree.
I make no comment on whether my view is arrogant, because I find that inquiry utterly irrelevant. I'm merely saying that the state of affairs I've described is reality.
Almost as irrelevant as the question of whether the World Series winner is therefore the "best" team.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main