Maddux on what it takes to win
Ted
toward a record of consecutive innings without a walk. Again, destroying the
Nieopormyth that W-L doesn't mean much, here is Maddux about what is and isn't
important:
"You want to talk about the streak -- I'm more proud of the fact that I've only
lost, I think, one game since May 30," Maddux said. "I also feel like there's
games I've won because I've walked someone. And it's not fair to the other 24
guys on this team if you're out there trying not to walk someone."
To answer a previous question about why going for strikeouts can be bad --
unless you have a Randy Johnson/Roger Clemens fastball, when you miss your
spot, you become "wild over the plate" and the result is that almost any major
leaguer can take you deep. Sometimes strikeouts are good, sometimes walks are
good. Most often a low ERA is indicative that YOU are good. But an effective
major league pitcher adjusts during a game to do whatever it takes to win,
stats be damned.
Q
David Marc Nieporent
quix...@aol.comnojunk (Ted) wrote:
>While perfectionist Mike Mussina (11-10) was losing, Greg Maddux was heading
>toward a record of consecutive innings without a walk. Again, destroying the
>Nieopormyth that W-L doesn't mean much, here is Maddux about what is and isn't
>important:
What is it about the certified nitwits in this group quoting baseball
players as though that were proof of something? Baseball players are no
more intelligent than anybody else, and no more immune to spouting the
cliches they learned as a youth from hearing baseball announcers. And, in
fact, are more prone to repeat the cliches, because the cliches were
developed for a reason: to make the player look humble and selfless.
Besides, Maddux has said the opposite. Wrt Burkett:
"He could have 12
wins the way he's been throwing. Won-Lost record is overrated anyway
because of what kind of run support you get."
Note the distinction: when he's talking about a teammate, he's free to
praise his stats without fear of being labelled as selfish. You can't
praise your own stats in mediot society, but a teammate's are fair game.
>"You want to talk about the streak -- I'm more proud of the fact that I've only
>lost, I think, one game since May 30," Maddux said. "I also feel like there's
>games I've won because I've walked someone. And it's not fair to the other 24
>guys on this team if you're out there trying not to walk someone."
Do you think he's not "out there trying not to walk someone?" He's a great
control pitcher, but nobody is this good at it by accident; regardless of
what he says, he obviously *is* trying not to walk batters.
>To answer a previous question about why going for strikeouts can be bad --
>unless you have a Randy Johnson/Roger Clemens fastball, when you miss your
>spot, you become "wild over the plate" and the result is that almost any major
>leaguer can take you deep. Sometimes strikeouts are good, sometimes walks are
>good. Most often a low ERA is indicative that YOU are good. But an effective
>major league pitcher adjusts during a game to do whatever it takes to win,
>stats be damned.
No, stats don't be damned. Games are won with stats. It's the team that
allows the fewest runs (a stat) that wins. It's not "most often" that a
low ERA indicates that you are good. It's always. A low ERA (in context,
of course, of ballpark and era) is what a pitcher can do. Nothing more.
(In the NL, he can hit, too, but obviously we're not talking about that.)
Oh, and Johnson's HR-allowed rate is close to Mussina's, and much higher
than Clemens'.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
GLS
>But an effective major league pitcher adjusts during a game to do whatever
> it takes to win, stats be damned.
>
>Q
Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned" since just about every
thing he does, either good or bad, becomes a stat? If he "does
whatever it takes," it becomes a stat (or stats). If he can't "do
whatever it takes," it also becomes a stat or stats. If he adjusts to
a particular hitter during a game, it will be an adjustment based on
the record (stats) of that hitter, records that indicate his strengths
and weaknesses. If the scouts for a team are doing their job, there
will be a "book" on the opposing team's players. It is the record of
the strengths and weaknesses of said players. In other words, stats.
What is this aversion to the word "stats" since EVERYONE uses them.
===================================================================
"Human nature will never part with power. Look for an example of a
voluntary relinquishment of power from one end of the globe to
another -- you will find none."
--Patrick Henry
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
--Benjamin Franklin
Kelly
I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other
morning, "Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never
been one of the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm
starting to wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a
teensy bit more about baseball than I do.
David H
news:3b718004...@news1.alterdial.uu.net...
> David,
>
> I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
> chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
> just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
Or, as I said yesterday, Orel Freaking Hershiser....who pitched
fifty-something straight innings without giving up a run.
Baseball players, especially ones that clearly show they are at the top of
their respective class, should *not* be treated as just "one man's opinion",
when they proclaim certain truths about the game of Baseball.
How Nieporent can simply write off their statements...because they conflict
with his *far-removed from reality* beliefs, is a classic example of
Statland arrogance.
Uh, Nieporent....get over it buddy.
>
> Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other
> morning, "Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never
> been one of the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm
> starting to wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a
> teensy bit more about baseball than I do.
"Starting to wonder"?? Well, I guess that's a start.
David H.
BTW, my son Bret played ball with Cal Ripken yesterday.
There are 100 kids attending the camp in Kansas City. There are 20 coaches
(5 kids per coach for all you people from Dundalk) ;^)
Yardbird
--
"Kelly" <jkst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b718004...@news1.alterdial.uu.net...
> David,
>
> I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
> chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
> just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
>
> Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other
> morning, "Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never
> been one of the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm
> starting to wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a
> teensy bit more about baseball than I do.
>
>
Yeah,but it does no good to pitch a no hitter if your team can't get on base
and score a run either. At some point you have to be able to score. It ALL
makes a difference. It does no good to score 15 runs if your pitcher and
team give up 17. That is just like it is no good to pitch a no hitter if no
one one your team can get on base either.
Ted
I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned, like
Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs, or Cal's ironman streak. A team can win it
all without leading in any stat and, needless to say, only on stat matters --
wins.
In response to previous responses:
Nieporent says low ERA is always an indicator of a pitcher's value. There is an
obvious and extremely strong correlation. BUT, a low-ERA pitcher can have a
penchant (Benitez, Towers in his most recent start) for throwing the wrong
pitch in the wrong situation time after time and never learning. You can give
up hard hit balls that are scored errors that lead to UER in exactly the wrong
situation. You can throw fly balls after errors put a guy on third instead of
ground balls etc. You can lose a playoff spot on a Gregg Olson wild pitch
regardless of his ERA.
One might say that Mussina threw 110 pitches yesterday and 80 were strikes.
There is a stat that is totally meaningless for the obvious reason that base
hits are prima facie strikes. You could throw nine straight strikes and be
behind 9-0.
I, like Nieporent, might tend to discount much of what players say about the
game, but not when I start paying attention and hearing the same thing over and
over again from a variety of players, many of them actually smart.
Of course there is the myth of the rising fastball, but that is another story.
What I am trying to say in these threads is that there is a lot more to having
a winning or even championship season than the mere collection of individual
statistics; that the outcome of a single game starts and ends with the quality
of the pitching and that the quality of that pitching has much more to do with
brains than arm.
Q
Yardbird
meaningless. Take Jay Gibbons. Great guy, good power hitter, even leading
AL rookies in HR so far. What does this stat amount to? Apparently 20+
games under .500. I agree, that too much attention is paid to this stat or
that stat. An ugly win is better than a beautiful loss. Winning is the
bottom line.
--
"Ted" <quix...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010808165814...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Dennis Shea
Ted wrote:
> >Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
>
> I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned, like
> Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs, or Cal's ironman streak. A team can win it
> all without leading in any stat and, needless to say, only on stat matters --
> wins.
>
> In response to previous responses:
>
> Nieporent says low ERA is always an indicator of a pitcher's value. There is an
> obvious and extremely strong correlation. BUT, a low-ERA pitcher can have a
> penchant (Benitez, Towers in his most recent start) for throwing the wrong
> pitch in the wrong situation time after time and never learning.
If they do it "time after time" why wouldn't it show up in ERA?
> You can give
> up hard hit balls that are scored errors that lead to UER in exactly the wrong
> situation.
Then use an even better measure of pitcher performance RA
> You can throw fly balls after errors put a guy on third instead of
> ground balls etc.
Which only really matters if the guy scores, so it would show up in RA or ERA.
> You can lose a playoff spot on a Gregg Olson wild pitch
> regardless of his ERA.
>
To attribute a lost playoff spot to any one single event out of innumerable events
in a 162 game season is ridiculous.
> One might say that Mussina threw 110 pitches yesterday and 80 were strikes.
> There is a stat that is totally meaningless for the obvious reason that base
> hits are prima facie strikes. You could throw nine straight strikes and be
> behind 9-0.
>
No one disagrees that some stats are more meaningful than others. But many
individual stats should not be "damned" because they have a huge correlation with
both individual and team performance.
> I, like Nieporent, might tend to discount much of what players say about the
> game, but not when I start paying attention and hearing the same thing over and
> over again from a variety of players, many of them actually smart.
>
And when those player's statements contradict the facts what do you do?
> Of course there is the myth of the rising fastball, but that is another story.
>
Exactly...as there are many myths in baseball and elsewhere. That's why the stats
should not be damned.
> What I am trying to say in these threads is that there is a lot more to having
> a winning or even championship season than the mere collection of individual
> statistics; that the outcome of a single game starts and ends with the quality
> of the pitching and that the quality of that pitching has much more to do with
> brains than arm.
>
But the quality of that pitching shows up in the (right) stats. And the right
individual stats, collected appropriately, correlate very, very closely with team
performance.
David H.
news:W6hc7.1000$%o4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
You're a total moron.
When a pitcher or pitchers give up 17 runs, that ain't "good pitching".
David H.
Pete Foosis
>While perfectionist Mike Mussina (11-10) was losing, Greg Maddux was heading
>toward a record of consecutive innings without a walk. Again, destroying the
>Nieopormyth that W-L doesn't mean much, here is Maddux about what is and isn't
>important:
>
>"You want to talk about the streak -- I'm more proud of the fact that I've only
>lost, I think, one game since May 30," Maddux said. "I also feel like there's
>games I've won because I've walked someone. And it's not fair to the other 24
>guys on this team if you're out there trying not to walk someone."
Seems to me like he's trying to come off as a team player. To the
team, the wins are far more important than his walkless streak.
My question is: how does Maddux's statement shatter anything? All it
is is a statement. It's not like the guy did a study.
And comparing Maddux to Mussina is useless. Maddux is one of the all
time greats. Mussina is merely on the fringe of greatness.
>
>To answer a previous question about why going for strikeouts can be bad --
>unless you have a Randy Johnson/Roger Clemens fastball, when you miss your
>spot, you become "wild over the plate" and the result is that almost any major
>leaguer can take you deep. Sometimes strikeouts are good, sometimes walks are
>good. Most often a low ERA is indicative that YOU are good. But an effective
>major league pitcher adjusts during a game to do whatever it takes to win,
>stats be damned.
But the stats will reflect a pitcher's ability to adjust.
>
>Q
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>David,
>
>I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
>chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
>just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
Just because he's a great player doesn't mean he knows what it takes
to build a winning team. Why is this so hard to fathom?
>
>Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other
>morning, "Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never
>been one of the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm
>starting to wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a
>teensy bit more about baseball than I do.
See how far you get in life with that attitude. "Oh, I guess I must
be wrong, since my boss can't possibly be." "Gee, if the President
says so, I'd better go along with it." "Well, if the Pope says it's
bad, then it must be bad."
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Kelly" <jkst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b718004...@news1.alterdial.uu.net...
>> David,
>>
>> I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
>> chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
>> just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
>
>Or, as I said yesterday, Orel Freaking Hershiser....who pitched
>fifty-something straight innings without giving up a run.
>
>Baseball players, especially ones that clearly show they are at the top of
>their respective class, should *not* be treated as just "one man's opinion",
>when they proclaim certain truths about the game of Baseball.
Just because someone does his job well doesn't mean he's an authority
on his field. And just because something's been said to the point of
becoming cliche doesn't mean there's any truth to it.
>
>How Nieporent can simply write off their statements...because they conflict
>with his *far-removed from reality* beliefs, is a classic example of
>Statland arrogance.
How you can simply write off logic because it conflicts with the
mindless drivel athletes have been spouting for years is a classic
example of a conservative putting blinders on so as not to shatter the
myth that everything he learned growing up is the truth.
Pete Foosis
>>Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
>
>I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned, like
>Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs,
Meaningless? Huh?
>or Cal's ironman streak. A team can win it
>all without leading in any stat and, needless to say, only on stat matters --
>wins.
>
A team can win without leading in any stat, but the odds are that that
team will at least be among the leaders in some stats.
>In response to previous responses:
>
>Nieporent says low ERA is always an indicator of a pitcher's value. There is an
>obvious and extremely strong correlation. BUT, a low-ERA pitcher can have a
>penchant (Benitez, Towers in his most recent start) for throwing the wrong
>pitch in the wrong situation time after time and never learning.
Towers doesn't qualify as anything at this point in his career. We
have very little idea how he'll end up, and to suggest he throws "the
wrong pitch in the wrong situation time after time" without learning
is ridiculous. Yes, Benitez has blown a few big saves in his career,
but he has also earned some equally big saves.
>You can give
>up hard hit balls that are scored errors that lead to UER in exactly the wrong
>situation. You can throw fly balls after errors put a guy on third instead of
>ground balls etc. You can lose a playoff spot on a Gregg Olson wild pitch
>regardless of his ERA.
I thought it was a Jamie Quirk passed ball.
>
>One might say that Mussina threw 110 pitches yesterday and 80 were strikes.
>There is a stat that is totally meaningless for the obvious reason that base
>hits are prima facie strikes. You could throw nine straight strikes and be
>behind 9-0.
I've never seen anyone say ball-strike ratio was a particularly
meaningful stat.
>
>I, like Nieporent, might tend to discount much of what players say about the
>game, but not when I start paying attention and hearing the same thing over and
>over again from a variety of players, many of them actually smart.
>
>Of course there is the myth of the rising fastball, but that is another story.
>
>What I am trying to say in these threads is that there is a lot more to having
>a winning or even championship season than the mere collection of individual
>statistics; that the outcome of a single game starts and ends with the quality
>of the pitching and that the quality of that pitching has much more to do with
>brains than arm.
I'd take Roger Clemens over Steven Hawking every time.
Again, brains+ability+effort=success, which, in sports, is measured
with statistics.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>Actually, my reply was to the Joe Torre bit. Stats in particular are
>meaningless. Take Jay Gibbons. Great guy, good power hitter, even leading
>AL rookies in HR so far. What does this stat amount to? Apparently 20+
>games under .500. I agree, that too much attention is paid to this stat or
>that stat. An ugly win is better than a beautiful loss. Winning is the
>bottom line.
You can't pin the team's W-L record on one guy, particularly a guy who
was a part-timer for much of the season, not to mention a guy whose
numbers aren't good compared to everyone else in the sport.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
Learn to read, Hageman.
>
>David H.
>
David Marc Nieporent
jkst...@mindspring.com (Kelly) wrote:
>I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
>chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
>just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
Unlike Ted, I wouldn't presume to tell Greg Maddux or Mike Mussina what
pitches to throw and when. I wouldn't tell them how to grip a pitch, or
where their release point should be. *That's* their area of expertise.
The balance between offense and defense, or the usefulness of pitcher wins
vs. ERA as statistics, is not.
>Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other
>morning, "Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never
>been one of the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm
>starting to wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a
>teensy bit more about baseball than I do.
It doesn't matter. Facts matter. The facts are that the better pitching
team doesn't win any more frequently than the better hitting team does.
Joe Torre can't change that. Cal Ripken can't change it. Mike Mussina or
Greg Maddux can't change it. Bill James can't change it.
ala...@junk.min.net
>Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other morning,
>"Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never been one of
>the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm starting to
>wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a teensy bit more
>about baseball than I do.
If Torre knows so much, why was he one of the worst managers on God's
green earth until he was hired to manage a good team?
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Please remove .no.junk from my address to reply via e-mail. ***
Posted by al...@min.net using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David H.
news:e1c3ntcn1cj3gdnu7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:54:54 -0400, "David H" <dhag...@erols.com>
> >Baseball players, especially ones that clearly show they are at the top
of
> >their respective class, should *not* be treated as just "one man's
opinion",
> >when they proclaim certain truths about the game of Baseball.
>
> Just because someone does his job well doesn't mean he's an authority
> on his field. And just because something's been said to the point of
> becoming cliche doesn't mean there's any truth to it.
Pete, you're being ridiculous.
>
> >
> >How Nieporent can simply write off their statements...because they
conflict
> >with his *far-removed from reality* beliefs, is a classic example of
> >Statland arrogance.
>
> How you can simply write off logic because it conflicts with the
> mindless drivel athletes have been spouting for years is a classic
> example of a conservative putting blinders on so as not to shatter the
> myth that everything he learned growing up is the truth.
Uh Pete, the saying goes.....
"If you are younger than thirty, and *NOT* a Liberal you have no heart. If
you are over thirty and *NOT* a Conservative, you have no brain".
That would mean that the Liberals are the ones that find their early life's
beliefs were a lie. ;^)
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e1c3ntcn1cj3gdnu7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:54:54 -0400, "David H" <dhag...@erols.com>
>
>> >Baseball players, especially ones that clearly show they are at the top
>of
>> >their respective class, should *not* be treated as just "one man's
>opinion",
>> >when they proclaim certain truths about the game of Baseball.
>>
>> Just because someone does his job well doesn't mean he's an authority
>> on his field. And just because something's been said to the point of
>> becoming cliche doesn't mean there's any truth to it.
>
>Pete, you're being ridiculous.
Look. Greg Maddux obviously knows a lot about getting hitters out,
but I'd need to see some evidence that he knows what makes a TEAM a
winning one.
>
>>
>> >
>> >How Nieporent can simply write off their statements...because they
>conflict
>> >with his *far-removed from reality* beliefs, is a classic example of
>> >Statland arrogance.
>>
>> How you can simply write off logic because it conflicts with the
>> mindless drivel athletes have been spouting for years is a classic
>> example of a conservative putting blinders on so as not to shatter the
>> myth that everything he learned growing up is the truth.
>
>Uh Pete, the saying goes.....
>
>"If you are younger than thirty, and *NOT* a Liberal you have no heart. If
>you are over thirty and *NOT* a Conservative, you have no brain".
>
>That would mean that the Liberals are the ones that find their early life's
>beliefs were a lie. ;^)
Yes, if that statement were true. Just because it's "a saying"
doesn't mean it's in any way accurate (it's not exactly a common
saying, anyway). Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of sayings that
"prove" conservatives over thirty are stupid.
There's a saying that goes, "Find a penny, pick it up, and all the day
you'll have good luck." Time has shown me that there is no truth to
this.
Steve Mack
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You can't pin the team's W-L record on one guy,
So you finally understand.
--
Smack
"All eternity is a mere moment, just long enough for a joke."
-from Hermann Hesse's 'Steppenwolf'
. . . take out the 'spam' for e-mail (duh!)
Ron Johnson
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:11:10 GMT, jkst...@mindspring.com (Kelly)
> wrote:
>
> >David,
> >
> >I think it's pretty arrogant of any of us armchair (or is that desk
> >chair) managers to presume that we know more about baseball than - not
> >just "some" baseball player - but Greg Freaking Maddux.
>
> Just because he's a great player doesn't mean he knows what it takes
> to build a winning team. Why is this so hard to fathom?
>
does not neccessarily mean a player can judge talent in others.
Take for instance Roger Clemens freaking out when the Blue Jays
moved Ed Sprague.
Another F'rinstance. You know who Babe Ruth picked as the best
first baseman of all time? Hal Chase. I'm not talking best defensive
firstbaseman -- Chase would be a non-insane choice if he didn't have
money down against his team. Not Gehrig. Not Foxx. Not Sisler but
a corrupt .291/.319/.391 hitter.
Ruth also picked Ray Schalk as his catcher and Herb Pennock as one
of his pitchers.
Ty Cobb picked Buck Weaver as his all-time thirdbaseman.
Ted Williams identified Rey Quinones as a future great.
And we've got Ken Griffey whining about the Reds possibly trading
Pokey Reese.
Ron Johnson
> On 08 Aug 2001 20:58:14 GMT, quix...@aol.comnojunk (Ted) wrote:
>
> >>Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
> >
> >I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned, like
> >Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs,
>
> Meaningless? Huh?
In fact Tom Ruane did a study of Henderson's stolen bases and showed
that Henderson did in fact have a pretty fair number of meaningless
steals. And more value from SBs than anybody even after adjusting for
this.
Tom looked at every stolen base in context and found that while you'd
have expected Henderson to add 135 runs from base stealing between
1980 and 1998, in fact he "only" added 111.
In the same time period, Tim Raines would have been expected to add
98 runs through base stealing and in fact added 99.
In case anybody cares about the methodology, Tom calculated the
extrapolated runs for SB/CS and then ran each stolen base attempt
through the base/out table for that year. He also included pickoffs.
Henderson obviously has run a lot in situations where the SB doesn't
add much value.
He also added more value than any player in this period in stuff
not covered by regular stats. About 41 runs in baserunning and reached
on errors and what have you.
David H.
news:bc4407a.01080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> There are any number of statements that show that talent at baseball
> does not neccessarily mean a player can judge talent in others.
_Who_ ever said they had an inside track?
The argument is that you're all to damned ignorant and arrogant to dismiss
Hershiser's and Maddux', or Torre, or Winfield....when they talk about their
craft, as nothing but another opinion at the watercooler.
Shame on all of your asses.
>
> Take for instance Roger Clemens freaking out when the Blue Jays
> moved Ed Sprague.
>
> Another F'rinstance. You know who Babe Ruth picked as the best
> first baseman of all time? Hal Chase. I'm not talking best defensive
> firstbaseman -- Chase would be a non-insane choice if he didn't have
> money down against his team. Not Gehrig. Not Foxx. Not Sisler but
> a corrupt .291/.319/.391 hitter.
>
> Ruth also picked Ray Schalk as his catcher and Herb Pennock as one
> of his pitchers.
>
> Ty Cobb picked Buck Weaver as his all-time thirdbaseman.
>
> Ted Williams identified Rey Quinones as a future great.
>
> And we've got Ken Griffey whining about the Reds possibly trading
> Pokey Reese.
Yeah, and when I said Brady Anderson was crap last year, you and your
Statland associates kept ranting about how great his OBP was as a leadoff
hitter.
That means that when it comes to judging talent, *YOU'RE* as smart as Babe
Freaking Ruth!
But, not as smart as me. ;^)
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:56:49 GMT, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You can't pin the team's W-L record on one guy,
>
>So you finally understand.
What? Unless I've been posting in my sleep or something, I'm pretty
sure I've never said otherwise.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
>news:bc4407a.01080...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> There are any number of statements that show that talent at baseball
>> does not neccessarily mean a player can judge talent in others.
>
>_Who_ ever said they had an inside track?
>
>The argument is that you're all to damned ignorant and arrogant to dismiss
>Hershiser's and Maddux', or Torre, or Winfield....when they talk about their
>craft, as nothing but another opinion at the watercooler.
The quotations you use don't involve these players talking about
"their craft"; they're talking about what it takes to win ball games,
and their opinions are just that: opinions. I would happily take
Maddux's word on how to throw a curveball or Winfield's on how to hit
a slider the opposite way or Torre's on how to motivate a team for the
postseason. But even then it's possible that they'd say some things
I'd disagree with.
>
>Shame on all of your asses.
>
>>
>> Take for instance Roger Clemens freaking out when the Blue Jays
>> moved Ed Sprague.
>>
>> Another F'rinstance. You know who Babe Ruth picked as the best
>> first baseman of all time? Hal Chase. I'm not talking best defensive
>> firstbaseman -- Chase would be a non-insane choice if he didn't have
>> money down against his team. Not Gehrig. Not Foxx. Not Sisler but
>> a corrupt .291/.319/.391 hitter.
>>
>> Ruth also picked Ray Schalk as his catcher and Herb Pennock as one
>> of his pitchers.
>>
>> Ty Cobb picked Buck Weaver as his all-time thirdbaseman.
>>
>> Ted Williams identified Rey Quinones as a future great.
>>
>> And we've got Ken Griffey whining about the Reds possibly trading
>> Pokey Reese.
>
>Yeah, and when I said Brady Anderson was crap last year, you and your
>Statland associates kept ranting about how great his OBP was as a leadoff
>hitter.
Brady had a much better year last year than this one. I doubt there's
anyone here who would claim he's getting the job done now.
>
>That means that when it comes to judging talent, *YOU'RE* as smart as Babe
>Freaking Ruth!
>
>But, not as smart as me. ;^)
...as I.
>
>David H.
>
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0gc3ntokrj47lfcps...@4ax.com>...
>> On 08 Aug 2001 20:58:14 GMT, quix...@aol.comnojunk (Ted) wrote:
>>
>> >>Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
>> >
>> >I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned, like
>> >Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs,
>>
>> Meaningless? Huh?
>
>In fact Tom Ruane did a study of Henderson's stolen bases and showed
>that Henderson did in fact have a pretty fair number of meaningless
>steals.
Meaningless in that his team didn't take advantage? I realize, either
way, that SBs are not all that valuable. I just took objection to
Ted's comment, which would surely not apply to a player whose ethical
values he respects.
David H
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:56:19 -0400, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com>
> >That means that when it comes to judging talent, *YOU'RE* as smart as
Babe
> >Freaking Ruth!
> >
> >But, not as smart as me. ;^)
>
> ...as I.
>
DAMN! ;^)
David H.
David Marc Nieporent
Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) wrote:
>>Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
>>> >I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned,
>>> >like Rickey Henderson's meaningless SBs,
>>> Meaningless? Huh?
>>In fact Tom Ruane did a study of Henderson's stolen bases and showed
>>that Henderson did in fact have a pretty fair number of meaningless
>>steals.
>Meaningless in that his team didn't take advantage? I realize, either
>way, that SBs are not all that valuable. I just took objection to
>Ted's comment, which would surely not apply to a player whose ethical
>values he respects.
I hardly think we'll ever find one of those. Remember, one mistake makes a
player not just stupid, but evil, to Ted the frustrated ex-sportswriter.
sli...@slidge.com
> obvious and extremely strong correlation.
See, you're already wrong. ERA is a *good* indicator of a pitcher's
ability, it's not the only indicator.
Since you can't even get the premise right, we'll just ignore the rest of
this rant.
Ron Johnson
> On 8 Aug 2001 21:53:24 -0700, joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson)
> wrote:
>
> >In fact Tom Ruane did a study of Henderson's stolen bases and showed
> >that Henderson did in fact have a pretty fair number of meaningless
> >steals.
>
> Meaningless in that his team didn't take advantage? I realize, either
> way, that SBs are not all that valuable. I just took objection to
> Ted's comment, which would surely not apply to a player whose ethical
> values he respects.
No. Tom's analysis didn't look at the number of runs actually added,
but rather the number of runs that it rated to add.
Are you familiar with Pete Palmer (and others) base/out tables?
The concept is that there's an expected number of runs scored for every
combination of baserunner situations and outs. A steal of third with
two outs adds almost nothing. And comes with a fairly big cost if you're
caught.
A steal of second with two out doesn't add much but also doesn't risk much.
Tom looked at the change in the team's run expectations, not whether the
team actually took advantage of it.
Ted
>>Ted's comment, which would surely not apply to a player whose ethical
>>values he respects.
Your objection is circular. I don't respect the values of people who do things
contrary to my own values. I mean we can disagree as to the values themselves
but if you are suggesting that I have a double standard here, you're wrong.>
>I hardly think we'll ever find one of those. Remember, one mistake makes a
>player not just stupid, but evil, to Ted the frustrated ex-sportswriter.
I have already listed some of the players I have liked, and I have never said
anything about one mistake condemning a player to the scrapheap of evil.
Surhoff made one mistake on the number of outs a couple of years ago but I
don't recall any others. Anderson yesterday did the same thing, but it is
starting to be (maybe continuing to be) a pattern of appearing to not be fully
engaged. Thus, to me, Anderson is useless and probably had always had his
lapses overlooked in favor of his speed and power.
Henderson stole bases when it seemed only for personal glory, taunted other
players and the fans and generally acted, in my opinion, as a jerk. His career
performance is Hall of Fame, but I don't have to respect him and I think,
judging from I read, a lot of fans, a lot of management and a lot of
ballplayers don't either.
What is it with your thing against the media, anyway, David? I may be
frustrated by some things -- namely trying to understand how God and you can
exist simultaneously -- but not being a pro athlete or a career sportswriter
are not among them.
Q
Steve Mack
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:47:53 -0400, Steve Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:56:49 GMT, Pete Foosis
>><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You can't pin the team's W-L record on one guy,
>>
>>So you finally understand.
>
>What? Unless I've been posting in my sleep or something, I'm pretty
>sure I've never said otherwise.
Hehe. . . my bad. I misread the quoting and somehow thought Ted wrote
that. I thought he had suddenly gained some sense. Please disregard.
Pete Foosis
>>I just took objection to
>>>Ted's comment, which would surely not apply to a player whose ethical
>>>values he respects.
>
>Your objection is circular. I don't respect the values of people who do things
>contrary to my own values. I mean we can disagree as to the values themselves
>but if you are suggesting that I have a double standard here, you're wrong.>
>
[...]
>
>Henderson stole bases when it seemed only for personal glory, taunted other
>players and the fans and generally acted, in my opinion, as a jerk. His career
>performance is Hall of Fame, but I don't have to respect him and I think,
>judging from I read, a lot of fans, a lot of management and a lot of
>ballplayers don't either.
I stand by my statement. No matter what you claim, it seems that you
put behavior ahead of performance when evaluating talent, and thus
would likely not consider a more likeable player's stolen bases to be
as meaningless as Ricky Henderson's.
Lance Freezeland
>In <3b718004...@news1.alterdial.uu.net>, on 08/08/01
> at 06:11 PM, jkst...@mindspring.com (Kelly) said:
>>Or Joe Torre, for that matter, who said on ESPN Radio the other morning,
>>"Good pitching will usually beat good hitting." I've never been one of
>>the "Pitching is more than 50% of the game school" but I'm starting to
>>wonder. I'm just guessing that Joe Torre might know a teensy bit more
>>about baseball than I do.
>If Torre knows so much, why was he one of the worst managers on God's
>green earth until he was hired to manage a good team?
Joe wasn't nearly as smart when he was in St. Louis managing Todd
Zeile, Geronimo Pena, Bryn Smith and Rheal Cormier.
--
Lance lb...@altamont.net
"Gunga, gunga galunga." Carl Spackler, quoting the Dali Lama,
a big hitter but somewhat stingy tipper.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
C. Supha
"Dennis Shea" <dgs...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B71AED6...@home.com...
>
>
> Ted wrote:
>
> > >Just exactly what do you mean "stats be damned
> >
> > I should have been clearer. My point was "individual" stats be damned,
like
win it
> > all without leading in any stat and, needless to say, only on stat
matters --
> > wins.
> >
> >
There is an
have a
> > penchant (Benitez, Towers in his most recent start) for throwing the
wrong
> > pitch in the wrong situation time after time and never learning.
>
>
I know if you breakdown Benitez's ERA in save situations it's something
extremely low like 0.90. In non-save situations its much much worse
probably a BJ Ryanesque 5.00....this is all off the top of my head and from
watching some Mets games, so I could be wrong.
But I think he's basically automatic in save situations, and a bad relief
pitcher in any other situation.
C.
Dennis Shea
"C. Supha" wrote:
Even if your statistics are correct and even if they are meaningful (exactly
how many innings has Benitez pitched in non-save situations? He's only pitched
52 innings total!), they would serve to argue against Ted's point, since they
indicate Benitex pitches better in key situations than in other situations.
>
> C.
David H.
>
> Even if your statistics are correct and even if they are meaningful
(exactly
> how many innings has Benitez pitched in non-save situations? He's only
pitched
> 52 innings total!), they would serve to argue against Ted's point, since
they
> indicate Benitex pitches better in key situations than in other
situations.
>
Who the hell says you have to have a specific sample size?
Who the hell says it's necessary?
Benitez is nothing but a strike-out freak. He is consumed with the radar
gun, because, well....he's big enough to beat most men most of time.
He is *not* trying to induce a ground ball. It's a "K" or nuthin.
His strikes are erratic. IOW, half the time, he never hits *his* spot.
As I said, his size allows him to survive to the tune of a great ERA.
But, it doesn't cleanse him of the 1st Degree Murder charge of losing too
many *BIG* games both during and post-season, on just his 1 pitch.
As I said, he gets all the credit. But, when nobody else touches the ball,
a HR...especially game-winning ones..the Rosetta Stone belongs squarely on
his back. ;^)
It is much of a blemish on his resume. I would still want him on my roster.
But, I would *NOT* put him in as a closer in the 5th or 7th game of a
Championship game of sorts. And if you have Rivera on the bench, you
wouldn't either.
Okay, I'd do it, but hold my nose doing it. ;^)
David H.
David H.
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message news:9l4at6$m36
> It is *NOT* much of a blemish on his resume. I would still want him on my
Dennis Shea
"David H." wrote:
> "Dennis Shea" <dgs...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B756B99...@home.com...
> >
> > Even if your statistics are correct and even if they are meaningful
> (exactly
> > how many innings has Benitez pitched in non-save situations? He's only
> pitched
> > 52 innings total!), they would serve to argue against Ted's point, since
> they
> > indicate Benitex pitches better in key situations than in other
> situations.
> >
>
> Who the hell says you have to have a specific sample size?
Every legitimate, reputable statistician in the business
> Who the hell says it's necessary?
>
Every legitimate, reputable statistician in the business
>
> Benitez is nothing but a strike-out freak. He is consumed with the radar
> gun, because, well....he's big enough to beat most men most of time.
>
27 out of 29 in saves this year
127 for 149 lifetime
How's the Oriole bullpen doing again?
Who gives a damn what he's "consumed with". Admit the facts. He gets the job
done.
> He is *not* trying to induce a ground ball. It's a "K" or nuthin.
>
That's funny. About 1,200 batters have done something other than K against him.
Close to 750 made an out by some means other than a K. Once again, I guess
you're wrong.
> His strikes are erratic. IOW, half the time, he never hits *his* spot.
> As I said, his size allows him to survive to the tune of a great ERA.
>
Yeah, right. Everything Benitez has achieved is luck.
Admit the facts. He gets the job done.
> But, it doesn't cleanse him of the 1st Degree Murder charge of losing too
> many *BIG* games both during and post-season, on just his 1 pitch.
>
Nope, he's had some spectacular failures. But that also doesn't mean that you
ignore the facts.
He gets the job done.
> As I said, he gets all the credit. But, when nobody else touches the ball,
> a HR...especially game-winning ones..the Rosetta Stone belongs squarely on
> his back. ;^)
> It is much of a blemish on his resume. I would still want him on my roster.
> But, I would *NOT* put him in as a closer in the 5th or 7th game of a
> Championship game of sorts. And if you have Rivera on the bench, you
> wouldn't either.
>
Maybe not Rivera, but there are few other closers in the league that I would
rather have on the mound in any game than Armando.
ald
wrote:
:)Who the hell says you have to have a specific sample size?
:)Who the hell says it's necessary?
:)David H.
Sorry, but that's a rule of statistics, not people saying anything.
The larger the sample size, the more accurate the sample. Talking pure
statistics here, not just baseball stats, you *do* realize that with a
sample size of 2 (lowest possible sample, since you can't divide by
zero), no matter *what* the numbers are, both of them will fall within
one standard deviation of the mean, right?
D*mnit, David, now you've got me talking like a Stathead! ;-)
ald
an Orioles fan for more years than I care to admit to
reply via email to a717 at erols dot com