Cliff Lee

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Just going to ask a question I already know the answer to:

Have you ever checked out his career BAPIP numbers? You would think so considering the above quote.

You really should, you might be surprised.

How do you know the answer to that question? Have you been stalking me? You are an American Psycho, so maybe? lol

Yes, I know his career BABIP numbers. I said I examined his stats. His career BABIP is .283, low, but mostly due to this exceptional season.

My point is that he is having an exceptional, dominant season. I have watched him pitch three times, and each time I was amazed that someone actually got a hit off of him. His stuff looks unhittable right now. The main reason is that he no longer is just a guy who can throw 100 MPH. He's a guy who knows how to pitch and throws 100 MPH.

The history of baseball had many pitchers who have had dominant seasons in which their BABIP is exceptionally low. Pedro, Koufax, Carlton, Perry, just to name a few off the top of my head. None were as low as .229, but many were in the .230-.240 range.

Sure, Jimenez will likely regress to his normal BABIP at some point, but I just don't see it happening much this season.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by jojo

Lee plays in a tougher league and doesn't get to strike out pitchers.

Jimenez piches in freaking Colorado. Park effect 113. That's huge. GABP is 103. Fenway, 108.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Jimenez piches in freaking Colorado. Park effect 113. That's huge. GABP is 103. Fenway, 108.

Interestingly, he's only pitched a third of his innings in his home park...

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

How do you know the answer to that question? Have you been stalking me? You are an American Psycho, so maybe? lol

Yes, I know his career BABIP numbers. I said I examined his stats. His career BABIP is .283, low, but mostly due to this exceptional season.

My point is that he is having an exceptional, dominant season. I have watched him pitch three times, and each time I was amazed that someone actually got a hit off of him. His stuff looks unhittable right now. The main reason is that he no longer is just a guy who can throw 100 MPH. He's a guy who knows how to pitch and throws 100 MPH.

The history of baseball had many pitchers who have had dominant seasons in which their BABIP is exceptionally low. Pedro, Koufax, Carlton, Perry, just to name a few off the top of my head. None were as low as .229, but many were in the .230-.240 range.

Sure, Jimenez will likely regress to his normal BABIP at some point, but I just don't see it happening much this season.

I know because when I look at Pedro's dominant seasons, he wasnt controlling BAPIP at all. They were random, some like .340, some .250 and everywhere in between. He's just a horrible example for the situation.

Ubaldo's BAPIP will regress significantly. He does enough other things well to continue being dominant.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

I know because when I look at Pedro's dominant seasons, he wasnt controlling BAPIP at all. They were random, some like .340, some .250 and everywhere in between. He's just a horrible example for the situation.

Ubaldo's BAPIP will regress significantly. He does enough other things well to continue being dominant.

Just because they varied year to year, does not mean they were random. There are many logical, rational explanations that are just as likely if not more likely than the "random" or "luck" argument to why there is such variance year to year. No offense, this is not aimed you or anyone directly, but I wish that some people who work in Sabermetrics would just take logic 101. It would eliminate so many useless arguments.

Anyway, here's one example... the one I have been giving.

These guys were on fire that season, and were unhittable... for that season.

This happens all the time in real life. People get into a grove and excel at something (selling cars, painting, lecturing, picking up women or men, figuring out math problems, doing their laundry...) for awhile, due to hard work and skill. However they are unable to continue this not because of luck or randomness, but because being great is hard to sustain. Especially in baseball, where there is an opponent trying to beat you, and adjusting to your excellence.

This is just one explanations, there are many others.

Just because a guy has one great year at something, but never again, does not mean that it was because of luck, or that it was random.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Anyway, here's one example... the one I have been giving.

These guys were on fire that season, and were unhittable... for that season.

This happens all the time in real life. People get into a grove and excel at something (selling cars, painting, lecturing, picking up women or men, figuring out math problems, doing their laundry...) for awhile, due to hard work and skill. However they are unable to continue this not because of luck or randomness, but because being great is hard to sustain. Especially in baseball, where there is an opponent trying to beat you, and adjusting to your excellence.

This is just one explanations, there are many others.

Just because a guy has one great year at something, but never again, does not mean that it was because of luck, or that it was random.

This sounds like random variance to me. Being so great is not sustainable because there is a luck component to reaching that high level of performance in anything, thus in any of those example, the reason it could not be sustained, was because your usual performance due to one's skills is not good enough and needs the luck component to "get on fire".

In the case of Pedro, he was continuously and consistently utterly dominant for a long period of time in basically ever statistical measure... except BAPIP. So I ask, what was he really controlling to make him so dominant? It clearly wasnt BAPIP. He wasn't on fire or anything during those seasons, he was just ridiculously good. That became his normal level of performance. Unhittable to me means a guy that misses bats, not a guy who does let you hit, but just not hard, because in practice, that has proven to be controlled to only a very very, almost immaterial amount for anyone.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

This sounds like random variance to me. Being so great is not sustainable because there is a luck component to reaching that high level of performance in anything, thus in any of those example, the reason it could not be sustained, was because your usual performance due to one's skills is not good enough and needs the luck component to "get on fire".

In the case of Pedro, he was continuously and consistently utterly dominant for a long period of time in basically ever statistical measure... except BAPIP. So I ask, what was he really controlling to make him so dominant? It clearly wasnt BAPIP. He wasn't on fire or anything during those seasons, he was just ridiculously good. That became his normal level of performance. Unhittable to me means a guy that misses bats, not a guy who does let you hit, but just not hard, because in practice, that has proven to be controlled to only a very very, almost immaterial amount for anyone.

Simply not true. Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic. I have seen the data, I have read the reports. This is not something that is new to me.

This is what frustrates me the most about Sabermatricians. They draw conclusions from data, that are possible explanations, and assume that they are the only explanation. They take great data, and are lazy with their analysis of it. Happens on an myriad of subjects. Most of the leading Sabermatricians avoid this, but there are enough amateurs talking about it that it's impossible for fans to know what's accurate and what's not.

I don't want to bore this board with analytic philosophy lessons, so I will stop now and just say we disagree.

BTW, your explanation is very credible. It's just not the only one that's credible, in fact there are dozens that are just as credible.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Simply not true. Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic. I have seen the data, I have read the reports. This is not something that is new to me.

This is what frustrates me the most about Sabermatricians. They draw conclusions from data, that are possible explanations, and assume that they are the only explanation. They take great data, and are lazy with their analysis of it. Happens on an myriad of subjects. Most of the leading Sabermatricians avoid this, but there are enough amateurs talking about it that it's impossible for fans to know what's accurate and what's not.

I don't want to bore this board with analytic philosophy lessons, so I will stop now and just say we disagree.

BTW, your explanation is very credible. It's just not the only one that's credible, in fact there are dozens that are just as credible.

But isn't Pedro actually a perfect example for the argument that BABIP isn't something even a dominating pitcher can consistently influence?

1999 was perhaps his most dominating season and his BABIP was .343. The next season it was .253. The season after that it was .322. If BABIP is something a pitcher has a great deal of control over, why was Pedro apparently so miserable at controlling his during his peak years?

An unfounded conclusion from data? The conclusion is that when looking for an ability to control BABIP, only a handful of historical outliers can be found and even then, the affect they seemingly wielded upon their BABIP was rather small (i.e. their ERA was roughly .3 lower than would be predicted). Thus whatever effect an average pitcher has on BABIP isn't large enough to overcome randomness. Can pitchers effect their BABIP? Intuitively, they probably do have some effect-it just isn't a big effect. So language like "Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic." really needs to be backed by some solid logic/data for the narrative to have any traction IMHO.

Season	K/9	BB/9	BABIP	LOB%	ERA	FIP
Career	10.04	2.42	0.291	75.90%	2.93	2.91
1992	9	1.13	0.292	71.40%	2.25	1.16
1993	10.01	4.79	0.28	79.20%	2.61	3.08
1994	8.83	2.8	0.281	72.60%	3.42	3.32
1995	8.04	3.05	0.268	75.90%	3.51	3.9
1996	9.22	2.91	0.304	68.80%	3.7	3.27
1997	11.37	2.5	0.274	79.90%	1.9	2.39
1998	9.67	2.58	0.284	79.90%	2.89	3.4
1999	13.2	1.56	0.343	77.60%	2.07	1.39
2000	11.78	1.33	0.253	86.60%	1.74	2.17
2001	12.57	1.93	0.322	75.90%	2.39	1.61
2002	10.79	1.81	0.288	75.80%	2.26	2.24
2003	9.93	2.27	0.304	78.20%	2.22	2.21
2004	9.41	2.53	0.303	73.20%	3.9	3.58
2005	8.63	1.95	0.257	76.90%	2.82	2.95
2006	9.29	2.65	0.273	65.20%	4.48	4.05
2007	10.29	2.25	0.413	73.80%	2.57	1.92
2008	7.18	3.63	0.329	71.10%	5.61	5.18

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by jojo

But isn't Pedro actually a perfect example for the argument that BABIP isn't something even a dominating pitcher can consistently influence?

1999 was perhaps his most dominating season and his BABIP was .343. The next season it was .253. The season after that it was .322. If BABIP is something a pitcher has a great deal of control over, why was Pedro apparently so miserable at controlling his during his peak years?

An unfounded conclusion from data? The conclusion is that when looking for an ability to control BABIP, only a handful of historical outliers can be found and even then, the affect they seemingly wielded upon their BABIP was rather small (i.e. their ERA was roughly .3 lower than would be predicted). Thus whatever effect an average pitcher has on BABIP isn't large enough to overcome randomness. Can pitchers effect their BABIP? Intuitively, they probably do have some effect-it just isn't a big effect. So language like "Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic." really needs to be backed by some solid logic/data for the narrative to have any traction IMHO.

Season	K/9	BB/9	BABIP	LOB%	ERA	FIP
Career	10.04	2.42	0.291	75.90%	2.93	2.91
1992	9	1.13	0.292	71.40%	2.25	1.16
1993	10.01	4.79	0.28	79.20%	2.61	3.08
1994	8.83	2.8	0.281	72.60%	3.42	3.32
1995	8.04	3.05	0.268	75.90%	3.51	3.9
1996	9.22	2.91	0.304	68.80%	3.7	3.27
1997	11.37	2.5	0.274	79.90%	1.9	2.39
1998	9.67	2.58	0.284	79.90%	2.89	3.4
1999	13.2	1.56	0.343	77.60%	2.07	1.39
2000	11.78	1.33	0.253	86.60%	1.74	2.17
2001	12.57	1.93	0.322	75.90%	2.39	1.61
2002	10.79	1.81	0.288	75.80%	2.26	2.24
2003	9.93	2.27	0.304	78.20%	2.22	2.21
2004	9.41	2.53	0.303	73.20%	3.9	3.58
2005	8.63	1.95	0.257	76.90%	2.82	2.95
2006	9.29	2.65	0.273	65.20%	4.48	4.05
2007	10.29	2.25	0.413	73.80%	2.57	1.92
2008	7.18	3.63	0.329	71.10%	5.61	5.18

As I said, I am done with this. The only way to discuss this further is to go deep into analytic philosophy and advanced logic. No one wants that. I know I don't.

So again, just let me say that what you have done is provide one logical explanation for the data. But it is invalid for anyone to conclude that this is the only or even the best, or even one of the best explanations for the data.

[SirFelixCat]

Just thought I'd interject that I'm very excited that, as a B-Day present, the wife is taking me to the Rockies/Blue Jays game tomorrow. Jimenez vs Romero.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

As I said, I am done with this. The only way to discuss this further is to go deep into analytic philosophy and advanced logic. No one wants that. I know I don't.

So again, just let me say that what you have done is provide one logical explanation for the data. But it is invalid for anyone to conclude that this is the only or even the best, or even one of the best explanations for the data.

Give a more credible explanation (than the sabermetric conclusion).... that's kind of the way to discuss this issue further. I don't think it requires a PhD.

Really the question is pretty straightforward. If the average pitcher can exert significant influence over BABIP, why can it (BABIP) fluctuate so wildly from year to year and why do dramatic departures from .300 over short stretches always regress back toward .300 as a sample grows? This is especially important to address given peripherals we know a pitcher can control such as K/9 and BB/9 are pretty repeatable absent injury and dramatic departures from the major league average can be consistently maintained (i.e. again just look at Pedro for instance).

[jojo]

Originally Posted by SirFelixCat

Just thought I'd interject that I'm very excited that, as a B-Day present, the wife is taking me to the Rockies/Blue Jays game tomorrow. Jimenez vs Romero.

Say hi to EE for us...

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by jojo

Say hi to EE for us...

And if you are sitting behind 1B, try to catch an EE throw for us...

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by jojo

Give a more credible explanation (than the sabermetric conclusion).... that's kind of the way to discuss this issue further. I don't think it requires a PhD.

Really the question is pretty straightforward. If the average pitcher can exert significant influence over BABIP, why can it (BABIP) fluctuate so wildly from year to year and why do dramatic departures from .300 over short stretches always regress back toward .300 as a sample grows? This is especially important to address given peripherals we know a pitcher can control such as K/9 and BB/9 are pretty repeatable absent injury and dramatic departures from the major league average can be consistently maintained (i.e. again just look at Pedro for instance).

It's not that it's difficult to understand, it's that it's long and tedious. If you had ever done any work with flow charts, you have some understanding of it, and flow charts are the easiest ways to work it out.

If you wanted, I could provide a detailed analysis of each season of Pedro's career, and provide logical, fact based explanations for the variance in BABIP, that don't involve luck or randomness. I really don't want to, so if I am not convincing, I'm fine with that.

[Benihana]

From MLBTR:

Mystery Team After Cliff Lee
By Tim Dierkes [June 28 at 2:22pm CST]

A mystery team is pursuing Cliff Lee, tweets Ed Price of AOL FanHouse. According to Price, the Cardinals "may be it." Price believes that top prospect Shelby Miller is a possible chip.

Six years of Miller would be an impressive return for two-plus months of Lee, but the Cardinals would have to be intrigued by the possibility of having three aces in the rotation. Drafted out of high school, Miller is a few years away from the Majors but is said to have number one starter stuff. Since the Cardinals signed the first-round pick on August 17th of last year, he could only be traded as a player to be named later (named after a year has passed from the time of his signing).

Last time it was a "mystery team" pursuing a top lefty, it was the Reds after Chapman. Is it possible for history to repeat itself? If not, could the Reds stay in contention if the Cards get Lee? Shelby Miller is a hefty price to pay, but I'm sure the Reds could match if they are willing to deal Travis Wood. Wood's upside isn't as great but he's obviously a lot closer to the majors. I'd have to imagine 2 of Wood, Mesoraco, and Alonso would get it done for the Reds.

Maybe while we're at it we could rope in Brandon League as well. He would certainly bolster the bullpen.