Your Texas Rangers!: Official 2009 Thread

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Are you sure? Have you consulted Bill James on that? What if Bill James has a stat that 90% of pitchers who win 20 games or close in a season also win 100 games over the course of their career? Or, have you already done that research? What is the result?

Wins are a terrible stat...lol...yeah, bad pitchers get them all the time, don't they? What a cheap-ass stat.

You didn't mean to say that, I know. What you meant--which I understand--is something more complex than that. But it most certainly does NOT apply to a guy who can sniff 20 wins in a season.

What is your definition of *sniff*?

Bad pitchers absolutely get wins all the time. All.the.time.

And good pitchers get losses all the time.

20 wins is a pretty damn good achievement and you'll be hard pressed to find too many below average pitchers that have done that. 16...17 wins? Plenty of middle rotation pitchers have lucked into 16 win seasons.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What is your definition of *sniff*?

Bad pitchers absolutely get wins all the time. All.the.time.

And good pitchers get losses all the time.

20 wins is a pretty damn good achievement and you'll be hard pressed to find too many below average pitchers that have done that. 16...17 wins? Plenty of middle rotation pitchers have lucked into 16 win seasons.

As much as you like or don't like wins, it's another metric--and demonstrably meaningful. Does James have something on that? Can he show a strong correlation between wins early in a career and longevity?

If he could, wouldn't you expect that it would show that those who won more games early in their careers were more likely to have success later in their careers?

Answer me that.

And then answer me which metric is more meaningful, K/9 or wins. I will await your answer.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The point is that a mediocre pitcher is never going to win 20 games. Will a great pitcher sometimes not win 20 games? Sure. But a mediocre pitcher never will...and I'd wager that with much more certainty than this 4.5 strikeout rate.

To win 20 games, you have to leave after the fifth with the lead at least 20 times, and usually a lot more. Mediocre pitchers don't do that.

In a given year, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that lucked into 20 games. I'll give you that. There's probably a few out there, but to actually cross the 20 game threshold, you have to have a pretty nice year.

However, it is not THAT rare for a mediocre pitcher to rise up and turn in a career year and cross that line. Esteban Loiza, Jose Lima..there are other within the past ten years that won 20 games in the middle of completely mediocre careers.

Hell Rick Helling did it for us, and he also might be the closest thing I can think of to a pitcher lucking into 20 wins in a given season. His ERA was over 4, for sure. It might have even been close to 5.

I'm saying, to your specific point of 20 wins, that simply *sniffing* 20 wins is not an indicator of future success. And to the broader point of wins in general, they're not the greatest metric for evalutating how a pitcher has performed.

I can't believe we got into this kind of discussion simply because I think Feldman is a 4-5 and Murph thinks he's a 3. Bizarre.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

As much as you like or don't like wins, it's another metric--and demonstrably meaningful. Does James have something on that? Can he show a strong correlation between wins early in a career and longevity?

If he could, wouldn't you expect that it would show that those who won more games early in their careers were more likely to have success later in their careers?

Answer me that.

And then answer me which metric is more meaningful, K/9 or wins. I will await your answer.

You won't find anyone, anywhere, that cares even a little about the statistical side of baseball, that values wins above KRate (and several other factors) as an indicator of future success (or success at any point in time).

Wins are to pitchers what RBI's are to hitters, although I'd say RBI's are an even better metric.

[Murphy3]

I know that wins aren't the best tool in the world to measure success, but it was used earlier when talking about the 4.5 k's per nine..so, I thought I'd make a quick list of some of the guys at 4.8 or less that pitched in the 80's on (yes, some pitched before and on into the 80's-90's and into the 00's). I was going to go with 5.0 k's/9..but, I didn't have all night.

Scott Erickson 142 4.77
Dave Dravecky 64 4.72 (giving him the loss of an arm exception )
Zane Smith 100 4.74
John Denny 123 4.8
Richard Dotson 111 4.71
Tom Browning123 4.68
Jerry Reuess 220 4.67
John Garland 112 4.67
LaMarr Hoyt 98 4.67 Cy Young Winner
Moose Haas 100 4.63
Terry Mullholland 124 4.63
Dan Petry 125 4.59
Bob Walk 105 4.58
Mike Morgan 141 4.55
Bud Black 121 4.55
Bill Gullickson 162 4.49
Roger McDowell 70 wins 159 saves 4.49
Ken Forsch 114 4.42
Joe Niekro 221 4.37
Ray Burris 108 4.38
Charlie Leibrandt 140 4.37
Rick Honeycutt 109 4.32
Bill Swift 94 4.31
Joaquin Andujar 127 4.31
Tommy John 288 4.28
Dennis Lamp 92 4.20
Walt Terrell 111 4.2
Mike LaCross 98 4.05
Bob Tewksbury 110 4.04
Jim Slaton151 3.99
Kirk Rueter 130 3.83
Scott McGregor 138 3.8
Aaron Cook 62 (currently pitching) 3.73
Bob Forsch 168 3.64
Geoff Zahn 111 3.43

Please excuse the lack of rounding on some of the guys.. Zahn might have been 3.435..but, I just went with 3.43 because I didn't have enough time to look much closer. It's 1:00 in the morning.

I know that the argument wasn't exactly k/9 over a career..but you can see that you can be very successful with a Scooter Feldman type k/9 rate. And yes, obviously, Bill James was cherry picking.

I'll try to come up with a more comprehensive list tomorrow of guys under 5...

[Kirobaito]

Helling had a 109 ERA+ when he won 20 games, which is good but far from outstanding. Feldman has a 115 ERA+ this year, for comparison, and I'd consider his job this year "pretty good," but not great. He doesn't work far enough into games for my liking, for one; of course, that's because his inability to change speeds well keeps him from putting guys away.

I think there's a decent chance that Scoots wins 16 or 17 games this year. He's pitched darn well; the bullpen has only blown one lead for him, I think, though several times he's left in a tie and the Rangers have gone on to lose, and he's left twice in a scoreless tie (home against LA with the blackout, and home against...LAA when O'Day got the save). Is 17 wins sniffing 20 wins? I wouldn't say so. Millwood was as average as average comes in 2006 and won 16 games.

Heck, I would even tend to side with Murph that I think he's ultimately a 3. But that's because I expect his K-rate to get better as he learns to change speeds.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You won't find anyone, anywhere, that cares even a little about the statistical side of baseball, that values wins above KRate (and several other factors) as an indicator of future success (or success at any point in time).

Wins are to pitchers what RBI's are to hitters, although I'd say RBI's are an even better metric.

I get where you are coming from, from a statistical perspective. It's all about what you can control. You can't control for run support. (There is no sense controlling for strength of opponent, because presumably it would have a similar effect on both K's and W's.)

But what we are discussing is the importance of K/9 as the ultimate stat for pitchers. And what James is doing is an after-the-fact correlation. He is looking at successful pitchers in history and asking what their K rate was. He is finding some correlation there (as you might expect). But how strong is the correlation?

What if he looked at wins instead of K/9? Would the correlation be stronger, not as strong, or exactly the same? Do you know? Can you even guess?

Point is, when a statistician makes a study likes this, and narrows it down to one specific variable, the wise thing to do is to be skeptical. Correlation does not necessarily causation, and such.

Let James show a study of K/9 side by side a study of wins/season, and let's see how it looks.

What statisticians are desperately trying to do is to find the "magic bullet." Often they are not right.

[mavspwnage]

soooooo........the Rangers won a game tonight, FYI.

[jthig32]

Again no one is saying Feldman can't have success if he stays at a low strikeout rate. I'm certainly not, at least. I'm simply saying it makes it less likely. And I'm still more optimistic than the stats I "copy/pasted", mainly due to the "special circumstances" that I'm supposedly not considering.

The idea that he's cherry picking is rather ridiculous though. As if Chum and Murph have taken thirty minutes and derailed the findings of an essay written years ago and is debated about and used as a source by thousands of pundits.

[Kirobaito]

Sorry, I have to mention this.

Sportscenter just showed a list titled "AL Aces." The announcer (forget his name) says "Three AL aces pitching for their contending teams on Tuesday, Josh Beckett for the Red Sox, Felix Hernandez for the Mariners, and Scott Feldman for the Rangers, who's 12-4 on the season."

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Sorry, I have to mention this.

Sportscenter just showed a list titled "AL Aces." The announcer (forget his name) says "Three AL aces pitching for their contending teams on Tuesday, Josh Beckett for the Red Sox, Felix Hernandez for the Mariners, and Scott Feldman for the Rangers, who's 12-4 on the season."

Hey, I'll take it. All Sportscenter mentions are good.

Man I wish we'd signed Purke.

I'm going to bed.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The idea that he's cherry picking is rather ridiculous though. As if Chum and Murph have taken thirty minutes and derailed the findings of an essay written years ago and is debated about and used as a source by thousands of pundits.

I give a crap about thousands of pundits. Thousands of pundits are often wrong.

For that matter, why are we even talking K/9? For the sexy value? That stat is FAR less meaningful than it would be if we added walks to the equation. Why aren't walks in the equation...you know, with "thousands of pundits" being so smart. When it's 3-2, does the guy have the guts to put one over?

Baseball is an intricate and complex game. Strikeouts are terrific, when you can get them. More often than not, though, you don't have to get them to win the game.

Oh...sorry for mentioning wins again. I know how you don't like that.

[Murphy3]

I'm curious as to what Bill James' take on Feldman is now that his rate is up to 4.9. Could one of you two guys check it out and get back to us?

[Murphy3]

As you can see, there has been several guys with similar K rates to feldman that have had long careers as solid starters.. some spent time as the #1 guy.. some the #2 guy and on down the line. It's just a shame that people read what Bill James has to say and take it as gospel.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Hey, I'll take it. All Sportscenter mentions are good.

Man I wish we'd signed Purke.

I'm going to bed.

If Purke turned down four million dollars as a signing bonus, several times more than I'll make in a lifetime of work, because he wanted a slot on the 40-man roster, screw him. I don't want him. I'll take my pick 14A next year and take my chances with someone who actually wants to play for this organization. Matt frickin' Purke obviously didn't.

[jthig32]

One last thing: I love how this has played out exactly like the typical new school vs old school baseball debate all over the internet. The old school crowd gets incredibly grumpy and bitter towards anyone trying to bring any new form of assessment to the table.

I mean 5-0 AGREED with Murph, but because he defended the statistical analysis, he's dumb and doesn't watch games.

Just classic.

Oh and one last thing: Feldy is absolutely one of my favorite Rangers. I relish every time he runs out there and proves he belongs in the bigs. Just fwiw.

[Murphy3]

After reading the Sturm article.. I must say that it is really very poorly written. Sturm is by no stretch of the imagination a baseball guy. He is adequate when it comes to talking the game, but he is nothing more.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

As you can see, there has been several guys with similar K rates to feldman that have had long careers as solid starters.. some spent time as the #1 guy.. some the #2 guy and on down the line. It's just a shame that people read what Bill James has to say and take it as gospel.

Except I didn't? Is this a bit tonight?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

One last thing: I love how this has played out exactly like the typical new school vs old school baseball debate all over the internet. The old school crowd gets incredibly grumpy and bitter towards anyone trying to bring any new form of assessment to the table.

I mean 5-0 AGREED with Murph, but because he defended the statistical analysis, he's dumb and doesn't watch games.

Just classic.

Oh and one last thing: Feldy is absolutely one of my favorite Rangers. I relish every time he runs out there and proves he belongs in the bigs. Just fwiw.

There is NOTHING "new school" about claiming that 4.5 K/9 is a magic number. Or...if there is, it sure speaks poorly of the new school. It's bad inferential statistics, and that's all it is.

[Murphy3]

Your bit is getting old thiggy. Go to bed.

And how did this turn into an old school versus new school? Personally, I don't that the magic number of 4.5 is any more relevent to a pitcher than if he were to strike out 4.6. But hey, Bill James had to find a number to fit an argument.. that's the problem. So, he cherry picked a number and then built an argument around it.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

If Purke turned down four million dollars as a signing bonus, several times more than I'll make in a lifetime of work, because he wanted a slot on the 40-man roster, screw him. I don't want him. I'll take my pick 14A next year and take my chances with someone who actually wants to play for this organization. Matt frickin' Purke obviously didn't.

It's just bizarre. Right after the draft all we heard was how genuinely excited he was to possibly play for his childhood team, to work for his childhood hero (Nolan).

I mean...the odds that he pitches two years at TCU and then gets a better deal than 4 mil, with a team in a better position than the Rangers are right now...well they're not good.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Your bit is getting old thiggy. Go to bed.

And how did this turn into an old school versus new school? Personally, I don't that the magic number of 4.5 is any more relevent to a pitcher than if he were to strike out 4.6. But hey, Bill James had to find a number to fit an argument.. that's the problem. So, he cherry picked a number and then built an argument around it.

You can I both know that 4.5 was not pushed as a magic number. It was simply an example of the argument the he feels is significant.

If you don't think K/9 is significant, fine. But deep down I bet you'd feel better about Feldman's potential future if his K/9 was closer to Hollands.

Certainly I've never said 4.49, dude sucks, 4.51, dude's legit. Obviously nothing is even remotely that cut and dried. But it was an awesome straw man that you tore to pieces.

[Murphy3]

It's nice that you play the straw man role so well.
And sure, I'd love for the guy to strike out more batters. However, I can also smart enough to evaluate what he does as a pitcher and see how it can lead some that are hung up on certain peripherals to become easily confused.

[chumdawg]

You opened your Bob Sturm bible, where he quoted this:

James writes: “If a pitcher’s strikeout rate is less than 4.5 per 9 innings, you can pretty much write him off as somebody who is going to have a real career.”

And you parroted that.

You are backtracking from it now, which is quite understandable. But the question still remains as to what Feldman has to do with it, if he is at 4.9K/9.

[jthig32]

Well...again..I'm not sure how we're confused. 5-0 agreed with your assessment on Feldman, and I have said all along that I think he'll be a fine 4-5 for years. You think he's a 3.

So we're all pretty close on our assessments, but you're the genius and we're confused, clueless, copy/pasting numbers, and in over our heads.

When I step back and think about it I suppose I've just been caught up in a light night JOS. Otherwise I'm not sure where the hostility and general douchiness is coming from in a debate over such subtle differences of opinion.

Ah well.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You opened your Bob Sturm bible, where he quoted this:

And you parroted that.

You are backtracking from it now, which is quite understandable. But the question still remains as to what Feldman has to do with it, if he is at 4.9K/9.

The only "parroting" I did in relation to the 4.5 number was mentioning that it's James' baseline. I never once pushed or even remotely supported such an arbitrary distinction. All I've said all along is that I agree with the idea that KRate is a pretty solid indicator of future success.

And Bob Sturm bible? Really? Sturm has written some of the worst baseball articles I've ever read over the past few years. I've responded to him in email and comments ridiculing his stances. His "Fern" article last year is one of the worst things I've ever had the misfortune to read.

I linked this because it was a layman (like me, not a sabre head by any stretch) reading James' essay and putting it up against a local comparison. I thought it had some merit. So please don't reduce me to blindly spreading the "Sturm gospel".

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The only "parroting" I did in relation to the 4.5 number was mentioning that it's James' baseline. I never once pushed or even remotely supported such an arbitrary distinction. All I've said all along is that I agree with the idea that KRate is a pretty solid indicator of future success.

The impression I got was that you believed Feldman would never be more than a 4-5 guy, and lucky to carve out a career as that.

And that you arrived at that decision based on some sort of essay from some number of years ago that some thousands of pundits say must be true.

And as such, that you were unassailably right.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The impression I got was that you believed Feldman would never be more than a 4-5 guy, and lucky to carve out a career as that.

And that you arrived at that decision based on some sort of essay from some number of years ago that some thousands of pundits say must be true.

And as such, that you were unassailably right.

I don't think I ever used the word lucky. I'm pretty sure I've consistently said that I think he'll be a 4-5, and that would be a great achievement considering where he's come from. I don't mean that as a slight. (And btw, when I say 4-5, I mean a fourth or fifth pitcher. That's not a reference to his KRate. Maybe this is part of the confusion?)

I obviously never gave any sort of impression that I felt I was the authority on Feldman's future success. I used the word "think" a lot, and only even went into my thought process when you pushed me. So why you would feel like I was presenting my argument as fact I have no idea. Murph is the one belittling and throwing insults in this disagreement. I have simply stated my thought process and it's primary basis.

The pundits comment was not intended to validate the conclusion so much as the data. If James had cherry picked the number to the extent that you and Murph seem to think he did, his theory on this would have been debunked long ago. And it's also not like James is the only talent appraiser that holds KRate as an important indicator. Not the only indicator, certainly. K/BB (as you've mentioned) is used quite a bit. Strike out rate is simply a stat I believe is useful. That's really been my only point through all of this.

Although, again, I think Feldman is going to buck that particular peripheral for most of his career.

[tcat075]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

If Purke turned down four million dollars as a signing bonus, several times more than I'll make in a lifetime of work, because he wanted a slot on the 40-man roster, screw him. I don't want him. I'll take my pick 14A next year and take my chances with someone who actually wants to play for this organization. Matt frickin' Purke obviously didn't.

No, the slot on the 40 man wasn't the sticking point, from what I heard. Purke just wanted even more money than the 4 mill he was offered.

[alexamenos]

What a freakin' idiot...this kid is a moron and so is his momma and his daddy.

oops...a little elbow tendonitis....there's a 5.0 era and $4 million you'll never see all because you hoped to get $5.0 million instead of $4 million.

he's far more likely to come out way worse on this than better. pitching doesn't take a lot of brains but if he can't get something this easy than he's probably too stupid anyway.

[Murphy3]

The problem was that you were using a stat used by James that was obviously cherry picked. Considering the overwhelming number of players in the <4.8 k/9 inning range, obviously the number 4.5 has no real significance considering the difference between 4.5 and 4.8 k's per nine innings is minimally significant at the most. Your main contention as to why Feldman would be what you predicted was a stat by Bill James and an article by Bob Sturm... Feldman was no longer even in the <4.5 range, but you were so hung up on the stat that you didn't even notice.

[Murphy3]

Here's the funny thing... The difference between averaging 4.4k/9 innings and 4.6k/9 innings is 2 strikeouts over 160 innings pitched. No self respecting stat guy should build an argument based when the numbers are so statistically insignificant.

If your whip is 1.30 over those 160 innings, that's striking out just 2 more batters out of 256.. and that's not even taking into account errors. What if your team commits 100 errors on the season? If the pitcher throwing 160 innings throws around 12% of the innings for the team in that particular season, then that's around 12 more errors committed.. So, that would be striking out just 2 more batters out of 268. So that's obviously striking out much less than one more batter out of every 100. Actually, that's probably less than striking out 0.75 batters per 100... Let me see, actually, it's striking out just 0.746 more batters per 100.

Wow, talk about statistically insignificant.

[Kirobaito]

It's worth pointing out that Jeff Wilson is reporting that Pudge is returning to Arlington. Details obviously to come later, but yay. I don't even care that he's not particularly good anymore. I want him to finish his career here.

What number does Murph now change to? I assume Pudge gets his #7 back.

[alexamenos]

here's hoping....

[u2sarajevo]

Why Pudge? Really?

[Murphy3]

The Rangers needed a catcher with Salty going down. Teagarden has been a bit disappointing this year both with his glove and bat in limited duty. The Rangers needed a guy that might be called on to be the starter on this team as it heads into the playoffs.

[92bDad]

PUDGE is BACK!!!

Nice little move, with ties to the 90's playoff Rangers this will be a nice little addition to help now that Salty is down with injury.

Best of luck to Richardson, thanks for helping out and getting your one game in the majors...hope you get to stay up or link up with a team where you can enjoy living the dream!!!

Next possible player to go after in order to make a final September/October push, is Left Hander Billy Wagner...who could be dealt under similar circumstances as Pudge.

Billy could take up the slot being used by Eddie Guardardo. I like Steady Eddie as much as the next guy, but 2009 has been a serious drop in his results...thus the need for a left handed thrower...Wagner could be a nice spot addition for a 2-3 month run.

All that being said, this Ranger season is every bit as fun if not moreso than the 2006 NBA Season for the Mavs!!!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

The problem was that you were using a stat used by James that was obviously cherry picked. Considering the overwhelming number of players in the <4.8 k/9 inning range, obviously the number 4.5 has no real significance considering the difference between 4.5 and 4.8 k's per nine innings is minimally significant at the most. Your main contention as to why Feldman would be what you predicted was a stat by Bill James and an article by Bob Sturm... Feldman was no longer even in the <4.5 range, but you were so hung up on the stat that you didn't even notice.

This post is so ridiculously inaccurate that it's staggering.




Yay for Pudge being back. The little kid inside of me is doing a happy dance.

[mavspwnage]

welcome back, Pudge! Most beloved Ranger in team history, period.

[Jon Avalon]

^ YAY pudge is back!!!!!! woot!!!! good move.