FTN wrote:mlb really needs to do away with the whole "you lose a draft pick for signing player X" thing. give the team that loses the player 2 compensation round picks. the system is killing the market for a lot of these guys.

Surprised the PA hasn't taken this position (maybe they have and been rebuffed). But you'd think they'd hate suppressing the market like this...

and this (top 10 picks protected) is the brand new agreed upon system right?
i think this year it speaks to the lack of quality FAs who are actually worth giving up a first round pick for.

that coupled with teams putting pretty big focus on the amateur draft now too.

Trent Steele wrote:Indians putting together an interesting lineup

Bourn
Kipnis
Asdrubal
Santana
Swisher
Brantley
Chisenhall
Stubbs
Aviles

Pitching is terrible though.

Don't forget they also have Mark Reynolds. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to flip Stubbs for pitching.

Interesting article on Rick Peterson's bullpen usage and the "magic number" of 39 hitters faced. Long story short, your odds of winning dramatically increase if your three hitter bats for a fifth time

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/ne ... eref=sihp#

Swiggers wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Indians putting together an interesting lineup

Bourn
Kipnis
Asdrubal
Santana
Swisher
Brantley
Chisenhall
Stubbs
Aviles

Pitching is terrible though.

Don't forget they also have Mark Reynolds. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to flip Stubbs for pitching.

That's who I was missing. Couldn't remember who the 1B was.

If there is no trade, I presume Stubbs moves to RF, Swisher to 1B, Reynolds to DH, and Aviles to Figgins-in-Anaheim-type supersub.

Grotewold wrote:Interesting article on Rick Peterson's bullpen usage and the "magic number" of 39 hitters faced. Long story short, your odds of winning dramatically increase if your three hitter bats for a fifth time

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/ne ... eref=sihp#

This is really cool

Grotewold wrote:Interesting article on Rick Peterson's bullpen usage and the "magic number" of 39 hitters faced. Long story short, your odds of winning dramatically increase if your three hitter bats for a fifth time

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/ne ... eref=sihp#

Very interesting data, but I can't express how awful the analysis is. I dont have time to do a FireJoeMorgan post on it, but everything he claims as insight is either backward or arbitrary:

(An important note on methodology: Peterson's original data could not be obtained, so it's been mimicked here as best as possible. Data was studied only for home teams in nine-inning games in order to guarantee that the club got 27 outs, permitting an apples-to-apples comparison of only games in which a pitching staff got the same number of outs.)
...
It is no accident, though, that 39 is the dividing line, as that equates to a fifth plate appearance from an opponent's No. 3 -- and, most often, its best -- hitter.

That's why a club's expected winning percentage dips below 50 once it faces 40 batters in a game because then the opponent's Nos. 3 and 4 hitters are both batting a fifth time. The difference between 38 batters faced and 39 is the difference between the No. 2 hitter making the last out and the No. 3 hitter getting a fifth plate appearance, where typically there is a lineup's biggest gap in performance.

If 39 batters hit, then the 39th batter ended the top of the ninth with an out. By the methodology described below, every 39th batter made an out, so it does not matter AT ALL how good that person was.

That's why a club's expected winning percentage dips below 50 once it faces 40 batters in a game because then the opponent's Nos. 3 and 4 hitters are both batting a fifth time. The difference between 38 batters faced and 39 is the difference between the No. 2 hitter making the last out and the No. 3 hitter getting a fifth plate appearance, where typically there is a lineup's biggest gap in performance.

This is funnier to read when you remember that the 40th hitter made an out 100% of the time to end the 9th inning.

The breakeven point, where a team starts winning 50+%, is completely an artifact of the run-scoring environment and number of innings one analyzes (ie. whether to look at both home and away teams, allow extra inning games, etc). I would guess that in 1968, the breakeven point was around 35, because many fewer runs were scored. That does not mean that the 8th hitter was the best hitter!

Errors and intentional walks in the early innings, even if they don't directly lead to a run, may indirectly incur more damage in the later innings.

No, it's the instances where they lead to runs that directly affects whether a team wins. More baserunners means more runs, on average, meaning more plate appearances, and leading to more wins. Having your cleanup hitter make the last out of the ninth inning does not help you if all those baserunners earlier in the game did not score!

In general, it remains advantageous to shy away from extending the opponent's lineup with intentional walks and shortening one's own with sacrifice bunts. Furthermore, errors hurt one's club for how it rotates the opposing lineup even if a run doesn't score in that inning. And, just as Peterson discovered, proactive bullpen use should be encouraged, not only to squelch rallies but also to prevent unnecessary lineup turnover.

The only thing we can learn from this is that more outs, and fewer baserunners, lead to more wins. If we layered on baserunners stranded to this data, then this would be obvious. Baserunners help you win games because they lead to runs. When they don't score, it doesnt help.

The two commenters on the article also intuitively realize that the analysis is flawed.

well said. I remember BP doing a comparison of pitchers' average performance based on how many times they'd gone through the lineup. so the "magic number" thing is probably bogus, but because of fatigue and other factors (like hitters seeing more of what a pitcher's doing), it's advantageous for teams to get baserunners even if they don't score.

Isn't this just the hitters equivalent of if said starter goes 7 inning plus the team has an awesome record?

Swiggers wrote:If there is no trade, I presume Stubbs moves to RF, Swisher to 1B, Reynolds to DH, and Aviles to Figgins-in-Anaheim-type supersub.

That's the plan I'd guess. It makes the most sense anyway.

Wheels Tupay wrote:Isn't this just the hitters equivalent of if said starter goes 7 inning plus the team has an awesome record?

Or the Verducci Effect.

Fake studies are a funny game.

Scott Rolen retired or didn't retire

Wheels Tupay wrote:Isn't this just the hitters equivalent of if said starter goes 7 inning plus the team has an awesome record?

Yup.

The more carries your team's running backs have, the more likely you are to win, while more pass attempts is not correlated with more wins. The author's solution: run the ball every down!

Barry Jive wrote:well said. I remember BP doing a comparison of pitchers' average performance based on how many times they'd gone through the lineup. so the "magic number" thing is probably bogus, but because of fatigue and other factors (like hitters seeing more of what a pitcher's doing), it's advantageous for teams to get baserunners even if they don't score.

Maybe, maybe not. If it means a team goes to a flamethrower in the bullpen, it wouldn't help. My guess is that this effect is negligible or even reversed, based on:

2012 Starting pitching ERA: 4.22
2012 Relief pitching ERA: 3.66

Forcing a team to go to the bullpen early, without scoring runs in the process, probably doesn't help you win.

well, maybe, but those ERA stats don't sell your point really. middle relievers pitch less often than ace relievers because they're not as good. relievers are more likely to be removed if they're in danger of giving up runs than a starter would be, which also deflates their ERAs. they also inherit more runners than starters, and don't get charged if those players score. if you get a pitcher out of a game earlier, you're likely facing an inferior pitcher.

Barry Jive wrote:well, maybe, but those ERA stats don't sell your point really. middle relievers pitch less often than ace relievers because they're not as good. relievers are more likely to be removed if they're in danger of giving up runs than a starter would be, which also deflates their ERAs. they also inherit more runners than starters, and don't get charged if those players score. if you get a pitcher out of a game earlier, you're likely facing an inferior pitcher.

When a relief pitcher is removed from the game, they are replaced with another reliever. Your point on inherited runners is good, as a starter's ERA may not perfectly align with performance, but doesnt refute the claim.

When it comes to preventing baserunners, relief pitchers had a 1.30 whip, while starters had a 1.32 whip. Take out intentional walks (which happen more in late innings), and relievers have a 1.25 and starters 1.30. All signs point to relief pitchers being stingier.

1 wrote:Scott Rolen retired or didn't retire

This is why I come to BSG

Werthless wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:well, maybe, but those ERA stats don't sell your point really. middle relievers pitch less often than ace relievers because they're not as good. relievers are more likely to be removed if they're in danger of giving up runs than a starter would be, which also deflates their ERAs. they also inherit more runners than starters, and don't get charged if those players score. if you get a pitcher out of a game earlier, you're likely facing an inferior pitcher.

When a relief pitcher is removed from the game, they are replaced with another reliever. Your point on inherited runners is good, as a starter's ERA may not perfectly align with performance, but doesnt refute the claim.

When it comes to preventing baserunners, relief pitchers had a 1.30 whip, while starters had a 1.32 whip. Take out intentional walks (which happen more in late innings), and relievers have a 1.25 and starters 1.30. All signs point to relief pitchers being stingier.

That still doesn't remove the emphasis of ace relievers over middle relievers. There's way too much noise for this argument to be legitimate. I'll try to find that BP study when I get the chance so I'm not just talking out my ass here.