Turn Off Ads?
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213
Results 181 to 189 of 189

Thread: Why All The Negativity?

  1. #181
    Member Crumbley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Toledo
    Posts
    698

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Josh Hancock more like Josh Hansuck am I right

  2. Likes:

    Tom Servo (08-30-2013)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #182
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Since 1970, only 9 teams not in Colorado, have had an ERA vs. the league of more then -.4 (Milton's was -.43 last year) while still having a winning record. And the most wins of all of those teams was 85.

    Code:
    ERA <= -.4 vs. the league average
    WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
    WINNING PERCENTAGE >= .500
    
    ERA                           YEAR     ERA      ERA       W       PCT    
    1    Redsox                   1972     3.50     -.43       85     .548   
    2    Phillies                 1981     4.05     -.56       59     .551   
    3    Phillies                 1979     4.16     -.42       84     .519   
    4    Giants                   1970     4.50     -.44       86     .531   
    5    Tigers                   1991     4.52     -.42       84     .519   
    6    A's                      1991     4.57     -.47       84     .519   
    7    Indians                  1986     4.63     -.44       84     .519   
    8    Rockies                  1995     4.97     -.78       77     .535   
    9    Royals                   2003     5.07     -.54       83     .512
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  5. #183
    Member Ryan the Reds Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    808

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MWM
    Ryan, last year Milton was 14-6. That's a .700 winning percentage. According to your logic, a staff full of Eric Milton's would win 113 games.
    I don't see anywhere that I've said that MWM.

  6. #184
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,133

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    You know, the more I think about it, the weirder the whole concept of pitcher's wins is.

    Think about it. How does a team win a ballgame?

    It scores more runs than the opposition.

    What are the main components to doing that?

    Scoring runs and preventing runs.

    How do runs get prevented?

    Pitching and defense.

    So pitching has nothing to do with half of what gets a team a win and it's not even the whole ball of wax on the run prevention side. Bill James figures it to be roughly 35% of how wins happen.

    And these days starting pitchers only average roughly 6 IP a start. So a starting pitcher, on average, only holds about 25% of the responsibility for any game he wins. Plus, if the starting pitcher doesn't get the win, it then gets awarded to a reliever based on when the team scored the go-ahead run. What does that have to do with pitching?

    When you think back to the birth of the wins statistic, the pitcher was one guy. He went out to the mound and threw a complete game. Relief appearances were an extreme rarity. For instance, the 1891 Reds had 13 relief appearance over 138 games and in no game was more than one reliever used. You could claim the pitcher earned the win because he was THE pitcher. Ten years earlier clubs only carried two or three pitchers for the entire season. Your best pitcher in those days was your star player, the main difference between winning and losing. Old Hoss Radbourn could go out and win a title pretty much single-handedly.

    You've got to wonder if the game 130 years ago was played like the modern game if the pitcher's win would have been considered a meaningful measure of something. My guess is common sense would have dictated that wins were a team statistic and that no single pitcher does enough to earn credit for those wins. Yet now we've got the statistic built into the vocabulary of the game.

    It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated.
    Last edited by M2; 12-30-2004 at 02:09 AM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  7. #185
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Great post, M2. I think you have the makings of a great article there. Have you thought about taking that idea and making it a little more robust and submitting it to BP?
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  8. #186
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,133

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MWM
    Great post, M2. I think you have the makings of a great article there. Have you thought about taking that idea and making it a little more robust and submitting it to BP?
    Thanks. It just popped into my head tonight. Had to exorcise the demon otherwise I wouldn't be able to sleep.
    Last edited by M2; 12-30-2004 at 10:19 AM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  9. #187
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,386

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Negativity is very underated.

  10. #188
    Member Ryan the Reds Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    808

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    You know, the more I think about it, the weirder the whole concept of pitcher's wins is.

    Think about it. How does a team win a ballgame?

    It scores more runs than the opposition.

    What are the main components to doing that?

    Scoring runs and preventing runs.

    How do runs get prevented?

    Pitching and defense.

    So pitching has nothing to do with half of what gets a team a win and it's not even the whole ball of wax on the run prevention side. Bill James figures it to be roughly 35% of how wins happen.

    And these days starting pitchers only average roughly 6 IP a start. So a starting pitcher, on average, only holds about 25% of the responsibility for any game he wins. Plus, if the starting pitcher doesn't get the win, it then gets awarded to a reliever based on when the team scored the go-ahead run. What does that have to do with pitching?

    When you think back to the birth of the wins statistic, the pitcher was one guy. He went out to the mound and threw a complete game. Relief appearances were an extreme rarity. For instance, the 1891 Reds had 13 relief appearance over 138 games and in no game was more than one reliever used. You could claim the pitcher earned the win because he was THE pitcher. Ten years earlier clubs only carried two or three pitchers for the entire season. Your best pitcher in those days was your star player, the main difference between winning and losing. Old Hoss Radbourn could go out and win a title pretty much single-handedly.

    You've got to wonder if the game 130 years ago was played like the modern game if the pitcher's win would have been considered a meaningful measure of something. My guess is common sense would have dictated that wins were a team statistic and that no single pitcher does enough to earn credit for those wins. Yet now we've got the statistic built into the vocabulary of the game.

    It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated.
    Very interesting M2, and very well written. Thanks for the insight. I have to say, it holds some water and makes a lot of sense. :gac:

  11. #189
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,211

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated
    Batting average says hi.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25