|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 22:48:02 GMT -5
Runners left on by Pablo this year, or number of hits we have given up to opposing pitchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 4, 2013 7:54:51 GMT -5
When Pagan got his leadoff single, double and triple, I was thinking that he was just what we've been missing all year. Then they don't drive him in even once, and I realized it wouldn't have made a difference. At least Panda's failures came with two outs. Others couldn't get the RISP in with zero and one out, where all we needed was a fly out or groundout to a middle infielder. And typical Giants luck that our best hitter has to leave the game and the two key atbats fall to Hector Sanchez instead of him. Oh well, at least Hembree looked dominant! I was surprised he only hit 92 on the gun. That fastball looked lively.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 4, 2013 9:55:42 GMT -5
Oh well, at least Hembree looked dominant! I was surprised he only hit 92 on the gun. That fastball looked lively.
---boly says---
I was surprised by his lack of velocity, too, Mark.
But what impressed me more were two things;
1-Outstanding command of the fastball
2-Very, very nasty break to that slider.
No question the kid was nervous, and to be honest, I question their gun.
Did you see how tardy ALL of their hitters were on his fastball?
That didn't match with the numbers on the radar gun.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 4, 2013 10:50:34 GMT -5
Enjoyed watching Hembree. They made a big deal about him having #38, referring to Bran Wilson, but no mention of Greg Minton.
His motion reminded me a little of Drysdale, kind of whipping the arm. Also reminded me of another former (and not very successful) Giants reliever: Jeff Juden.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 5, 2013 6:53:53 GMT -5
I read a comment from a fan who watched him pitch in Fresno who said he was hitting 94 mph when he was there, so I'm sure he can go higher. Don't forget it's late in the season and he's pitched a lot.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 5, 2013 16:41:26 GMT -5
Runners left on by Pablo this year, or number of hits we have given up to opposing pitchers.
Dood - keep these coming, Allen...I'd love to see more of these 3 HR, 6 RBI games by the Panda. Btw...did you know that Pablo is just 1 RBI behind Hunter Pence for the team lead? Not bad for a fat, injury prone dude having a bad year right?
As to Hembree...last night confirmed what I always thought...those "mid to high 90s" descriptions of Heath's post-injury fastball were greatly exaggerated. He'll be a pretty good reliever, maybe...nothing exciting.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 6, 2013 11:00:25 GMT -5
Yes. Back to earth last night. Pence draws a leadoff walk in the eighth. Pablo can't wait to swing at a bad pitch and hit into a DP.
Funny you sight RBI, obviously a team stat that has little to do with individual performance, or so I've heard here.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 6, 2013 16:13:27 GMT -5
Funny you sight RBI, obviously a team stat that has little to do with individual performance, or so I've heard here.
Dood - it wasn't cited by me as such. Ask GMs and agents how valuable RBIs are when negotiating contracts, and they will tell you it weighs heavily on individual evaluation.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 6, 2013 18:42:54 GMT -5
Yes. Back to earth last night. Pence draws a leadoff walk in the eighth. Pablo can't wait to swing at a bad pitch and hit into a DP.
Dood - which one Giant was involved in both of the team's runs last night?
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 6, 2013 23:22:38 GMT -5
Allen -- Funny you sight RBI, obviously a team stat that has little to do with individual performance, or so I've heard here. Rog -- No one here has said that an RBI has little to do with individual performance. What has been said it that to achieve an RBI, a player usually has to rely on others. The RBI is in some ways like won-loss record for pitchers. In both cases, the individual has significant control, but that control is far from complete. The Giants showed how important run support is the other night, when Tim Lincecum had a poor outing, yet was an easy winner due to stellar run support. Apparently Tim pitched like a winner in that game, yet has pitched like a loser in the four games he has lost while giving up only two earned runs. Makes sense to me. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1992#ixzz2eB3ATE00 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 6, 2013 23:27:57 GMT -5
Allen, do you feel that the Giants now should re-sign Tim Lincecum, since he has suddenly turned into a winner?
After 25 starts, his ERA was 4.53, and he had won only 6 of 19 decisions. Three starts later, his ERA is 4.50, yet he has won three straight starts.
Apparently Tim has suddenly learned how to win games -- and isn't that it is all about?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 6, 2013 23:32:56 GMT -5
When you two are through being petulant children we can have a serious discussion.
On Pablo, the point is he did what he often does, got impatient, swung at a bad pitch and threw away an important AB.
With Lincecum yes, he got the win, yes he got good run support. But once again, after good outing. ol' run-an-inning returned. He still cannot develop any consistency.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 7, 2013 9:17:43 GMT -5
Was Pablo being impatient or aggressive? I have no problem with Pablo swinging at the first pitch with runners on base late in the game. He's one of our top RBI guys...it's what he does. I mean he was coming off a 3 HR game for cryin out loud! He's now one of just 6 players to ever hit 3 dingers in a regular season game and a postseason game...the other five are Babe Ruth, George Brett, Albert Pujols, Reggie Jackson and Adrian Beltre...3 HOFers and one other sure fire HOFer. Not bad company.
I'd rather see Panda swing the bat than try for a walk in that situation.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 7, 2013 9:47:54 GMT -5
Allen --When you two are through being petulant children we can have a serious discussion. Rog -- By your definition, I guess we won't be having a serious discussion then, since in order to be through being a petulant child, one has to have had to be one to begin with. I'm after truth, justice and the American way here, Allen.  Allen -- On Pablo, the point is he did what he often does, got impatient, swung at a bad pitch and threw away an important AB. Rog -- Any fool knows that Pablo swings at crazy pitches and once in a while somehow manages to hit them well. Any baseball fan knows that if Pablo could improve his selection without harming his aggressiveness at the plate, he would likely be an even better hitter. Anyone knows Pablo would almost certainly be a better player and less susceptible to present and future injury if he were in better shape. Most know that Pablo has generally struggled at the plate after coming back from injury. And most realize that while Pablo's being out of shape has likely contributed to his injuries, they also realize that his two most significant injuries came from broken hands, which are tough to correlate to his being overweight. All this stuff is obvious, and we shouldn't really be wasting our time discussing it. What IS important is that Pablo has lost a ton of weight very quickly and that it first showed in his rangier performances in the field and may finally be contributing to his hitting revival. What is important is that he HAS begun to hit and right now is playing outstanding baseball -- despite our frustration when he swings at pitches we have a hard time imagining a good hitter swinging at. What is important is what the Giants do with Pablo this winter. Do they keep him, hope he stays healthy, and take advantage of what they hope will be a relatively light and highly healthy final pre-free agent eligible season? Some have said to just get rid of the guy. Others have said that by dealing him now, they probably would be selling him low. Some have observed that even when he's playing badly, he doesn't seem to be a clubhouse distraction. Chances are the Giants won't be able to get much for him going into his lame duck season. There are few third basemen out there who could replace him, and it seems unlikely many if any of them would be available. So let's all just agree on Pablo's shortcomings. Every player has some, and Pablo's are -- no pun -- bigger than most. The question is whether the Giants will be better off with him or without him going ahead. Selling a lame duck player low when he seems to be improving and overcoming at least one -- sorry -- big problem would indicate the Giants should hang onto him. The only reason I can see to trade him would be if they are going to give up on 2014 and try to trade him before losing him to free agency. If the Giants are giving up on both Pablo long-term and on and the 2014 season itself, they should trade him before they lose him to free agency and run the risk of getting nothing in return. If both those things aren't true, or if they are simply so down on Pablo that they don't think he will contribute to the 2014 season, they should indeed deal him. His present upward curve both in terms of being in shape and of performing better make it appear it would be foolish to trade him. Probalby cooler heads prevailed here when they suggested trading Pablo would be selling the guy when he was down, even though his performance at that time was highly discouraging. Now that he is performing better, their patience seems to be getting rewarded. I am one who believes every player on the team should be available if it will help improve the team. So I'm not saying I WOULDN'T trade Pablo. I'm simply saying that common sense dictates now is likely a poor time to trade Pablo. We were saying that when he WASN'T performing well. Why would we change my minds now that he is? Allen -- With Lincecum yes, he got the win, yes he got good run support. But once again, after good outing. ol' run-an-inning returned. He still cannot develop any consistency. Rog -- Whether he can or not is the question, isn't it? Let's say that he hasn't yet developed consistency and try to estimate whether that will continue -- and at what level -- in the future. The point here wasn't whether the Giants should keep Tim or not. The point was that when pitchers -- whether good or bad -- get more run support, they win more games. When they get less run support, they lose more games. Wednesday's start was a microcosm of how a starting pitcher's won-loss record is aided or hurt by his teammates' performance. Tim's chances of a win were hurt when his relief allowed both his bequeathed runners to score. But his run support was so great that he wasn't going to lose. And it was so good that unless his relievers REALLY messed up, he would get the win. The more savvy baseball observers are paying far less attention to a pitcher's won-loss record than they used to when evaluating him. They realize that while a pitcher has control over winning or losing (If he pitches a complete game shutout, he'll win every game.), many factors beyond his control affect the outcome. Some of them are even wise enough to know that almost no starting pitcher has won significantly more games than is predicted by his run differential. And if there were pitchers who were truly "winners" in that they pitched just well enough to win, that would have to be the case. Show us a pitcher's Run Average and his run support, and as the sample gets larger, we can guess with greater and greater accuracy how many games he is above or below .500, depending on his number of decisions. Again, if that pitcher were a "winner" or a "loser," we wouldn't be able to do so. When someone here can disprove the last two paragraphs, we can have an intelligent discussion. Until then, it's pretty obvious a pitcher's run support is about as important to his won-loss record as his own pitching is. And wiser baseball observers are finally beginning to realize that. Hence, a Cy Young winner who was just one game above .500. That wouldn't have happened before the voters got wiser. Not getting wiser on this topic is simply being a wise guy. A smart Alec. A slow learner. If not, the formula for won-loss record would be clearly disproven with the performances of quite a few pitchers. Disprove that, or simply more on down the road. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14730#ixzz2eDSepU7M |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 7, 2013 11:35:25 GMT -5
Was Pablo being impatient or aggressive?
Allen- Impatient.
I have no problem with Pablo swinging at the first pitch with runners on base late in the game. He's one of our top RBI guys...it's what he does.
Allen- And too often, what he doesn't do. Ask any good hitter what's the primary pricnciple of hitting, and most will tell you that it's getting a good pitch to hit. Had Pablo done that, I wouldn't mind him swinging at the first pitch either.
He didn't do that. He swung at a bad pitch, was way out in front, and hit a double play grounder to third.
I'd rather see Panda swing the bat than try for a walk in that situation.
Allen- Nobody said anything about trying for a walk. Just get a good pitch to hit. Don't swing at the first thing you see, either in or out of the strike zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 7, 2013 11:43:46 GMT -5
Some have said to just get rid of the guy.
Allen- I don't recall anyone saying that.
The point here wasn't whether the Giants should keep Tim or not. The point was that when pitchers -- whether good or bad -- get more run support, they win more games. When they get less run support, they lose more games.
Allen- Talk about sonmething being so obvious we shouldn't waste our time discussing it. Rog, why do you continue to act as if you've discovered the cure for cancer here? Everyone knows this.
The more savvy baseball observers are paying far less attention to a pitcher's won-loss record than they used to when evaluating him. They realize that while a pitcher has control over winning or losing (If he pitches a complete game shutout, he'll win every game.), many factors beyond his control affect the outcome.
Allen- You consider them more savvy (savvier?) because they agree with you. I'd consider Harold Reynolds pretty savvy, he thinks w/l is a big factor.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 7, 2013 16:59:09 GMT -5
I have no problem with Pablo swinging at the first pitch with runners on base late in the game. He's one of our top RBI guys...it's what he does.
Allen- And too often, what he doesn't do. Ask any good hitter what's the primary pricnciple of hitting, and most will tell you that it's getting a good pitch to hit. Had Pablo done that, I wouldn't mind him swinging at the first pitch either.
He didn't do that. He swung at a bad pitch, was way out in front, and hit a double play grounder to third.
Dood - we've seen Buster Posey do it a lot too. Maybe not on a first pitch but it happens. I'm saying it would be bad to take Pablo's aggressiveness away from him. When he's going good as he has been, quite often those pitches get hit by him. He's a bad ball hitter in the Vlad Guerrero mold.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 7, 2013 18:05:41 GMT -5
Sorry Randy, but when I read this, the first thing I thought of was liberals saying bad things about Bush when Obama was criticized. What's Posey got to do with it?
If you want to bring Buster into it, I'd say he does this alot less than Pablo does. His pitch selection is usually pretty good. You might have had a better argument if you'd said Pence instead of Posey.
I wouldn't say he's as proficient a bad ball hitter as Vlad, or if you want to go back farther Manny Sanguillen, or even farther Yogi Berra. But you may be right. What are Pablo's averages on pitches out of the zone vs. in?
Another factor is that pitchers know Pablo will chase, so he may not see as many good pitches to hit as a more selective hitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 8, 2013 0:47:41 GMT -5
Rog -- The point here wasn't whether the Giants should keep Tim or not. The point was that when pitchers -- whether good or bad -- get more run support, they win more games. When they get less run support, they lose more games. Allen- Talk about sonmething being so obvious we shouldn't waste our time discussing it. Rog, why do you continue to act as if you've discovered the cure for cancer here? Everyone knows this. Rog -- Pretty much everyone in the world except for you and Don. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14741#ixzz2eHG67i00 |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 8, 2013 9:31:19 GMT -5
I wasn't saying Buster swings at more pitches out of the zone than Pablo...far from it...and he shouldnt because he isnt as good as Pablo at hitting them. I'm saying Buster hits into more than his share of ground ball DPs
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 8, 2013 11:25:23 GMT -5
I'll go with that. I don't know if the stats bear it ou. but it seems to me that Posey hits more grounders to short than anyone I can remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 8, 2013 13:08:33 GMT -5
Rog -- The point here wasn't whether the Giants should keep Tim or not. The point was that when pitchers -- whether good or bad -- get more run support, they win more games. When they get less run support, they lose more games. Allen- Talk about sonmething being so obvious we shouldn't waste our time discussing it. Rog, why do you continue to act as if you've discovered the cure for cancer here? Everyone knows this. Rog -- Pretty much everyone in the world except for you and Don. dk..what I don't get is why you are too thick to realize that you can't use "Average run support" when you analyze a pitcher's record.....you have to go game by game... winning games 10-2 doesn't mean he won because of run support...just as when he wins 1-0....when you win m6-5...or any score where a pitcher gives up more runs than his ERA, you can discuss run support....go game by game and see if he wins by pitching below or above his ERA and whether his team scores over their average number of runs....but we have been up that path before.... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 8, 2013 21:45:58 GMT -5
dk..what I don't get is why you are too thick to realize that you can't use "Average run support" when you analyze a pitcher's record.....you have to go game by game. Don -- Have you seen a recent picture of me to realize I'm too thick? You are right that the very best analysis of a pitcher's record is game-by-game. But most of the time that isn't necessary. Since things tend to average out as sample sizes grow, we can usually be pretty accurate in our assessment merely by using average run support. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14796#ixzz2eMMNItq1 |
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 9, 2013 12:13:15 GMT -5
dk..what I don't get is why you are too thick to realize that you can't use "Average run support" when you analyze a pitcher's record.....you have to go game by game. Don -- Have you seen a recent picture of me to realize I'm too thick? You are right that the very best analysis of a pitcher's record is game-by-game. But most of the time that isn't necessary. Since things tend to average out as sample sizes grow, we can usually be pretty accurate in our assessment merely by using average run support. You could look it up. dk..I gave you enough examples in the past. I digested one whole year of Cain's games which you claimed were bad because he didn't get run support. I showed you that every game he gave up 2 runs or less, he won..when he gave up 4 runs or more he lost...he never gave up 3 runs..odd... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 9, 2013 17:32:45 GMT -5
You are right that the very best analysis of a pitcher's record is game-by-game. But most of the time that isn't necessary. Since things tend to average out as sample sizes grow, we can usually be pretty accurate in our assessment merely by using average run support. You could look it up. dk..I gave you enough examples in the past. I digested one whole year of Cain's games which you claimed were bad because he didn't get run support. I showed you that every game he gave up 2 runs or less, he won..when he gave up 4 runs or more he lost...he never gave up 3 runs..odd... Rog -- Your statement here is false. You could look it up. Matt Cain is only six games over .500 despite a 3.38 ERA that is lower than many Hall of Famers. What is your explanation? (By the way, have I noticed that you like to use small samples because larger samples don't support your position, or is that merely coincidence?) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14801#ixzz2eRANx06L |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 10, 2013 9:47:36 GMT -5
Speaking of small samples, Madison Bumgarner has won 11 games this season. He he won every game in which he gave up two earned runs or fewer, he would have won 20. If he had won every start in which he yielded three or fewer earned runs, he would have won 24.
What is just over a .500 pitcher (11-9) could have been 20-7 or even 24-4.
With 3.40 runs of support this season, Bumgarner is this year's Matt Cain.
You know what would be fun. Let's see how the Giants starters who have received the least run support each of the past 7 seasons (the unlucky 7) have fared:
2007 Matt Cain 3.65 ERA, 7-16 W-L
2008 Matt Cain 3.76 ERA, 8-14 W-L
2009 Jonathan Sanchez 4.24 ERA, 8-12 W-L
2010 Barry Zito 4.15 ERA, 9-14 W-L
2011 Tim Lincecum 2.74 ERA, 13-14 W-L
2012 Tim Lincecum 5.18 ERA, 10-15 W-L
2013 Madison Bumgarner 2.82 ERA, 11-9 W-L
Let's call this composite pitcher Unlucky Luciiano. Over his seven season career, he's been a pretty good pitcher, fashioning an unweighted 3.79 ERA. He's really had only one bad season, when he fell apart with a 5.18 ERA.
Yet his won-loss record is only 56-79. A better-than-average ERA formed over one very bad season, two average years, two good ones and two excellent years.
Yet he's 23 games under .500.
Most of his life he was known as Lucky Luciano. You can see why they call him Unlucky now. He's probably developing the 7-year itch.
|
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 10, 2013 11:17:33 GMT -5
You are right that the very best analysis of a pitcher's record is game-by-game. But most of the time that isn't necessary. Since things tend to average out as sample sizes grow, we can usually be pretty accurate in our assessment merely by using average run support. You could look it up. dk..I gave you enough examples in the past. I digested one whole year of Cain's games which you claimed were bad because he didn't get run support. I showed you that every game he gave up 2 runs or less, he won..when he gave up 4 runs or more he lost...he never gave up 3 runs..odd... Rog -- Your statement here is false. You could look it up. Matt Cain is only six games over .500 despite a 3.38 ERA that is lower than many Hall of Famers. What is your explanation? (By the way, have I noticed that you like to use small samples because larger samples don't support your position, or is that merely coincidence?) dk..once more you resort to your insults and snide remarks....I was talking about the one year you picked out and I showed you just how wrong you were...I didn't narrow the sample, you expanded yours...I tell you when I use small samples because I think more of my family than devoting all my time to scanning stats.... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 11, 2013 0:23:27 GMT -5
dk..I gave you enough examples in the past. I digested one whole year of Cain's games which you claimed were bad because he didn't get run support. I showed you that every game he gave up 2 runs or less, he won..when he gave up 4 runs or more he lost...he never gave up 3 runs..odd... Rog -- Your statement here is false. You could look it up. Matt Cain is only six games over .500 despite a 3.38 ERA that is lower than many Hall of Famers. What is your explanation? (By the way, have I noticed that you like to use small samples because larger samples don't support your position, or is that merely coincidence?) dk..once more you resort to your insults and snide remarks.... Rog -- Didn't mean to be snide or insulting. Sorry if it came across that way. I have to question your continued use of small samples though. Small samples aren't meaningless. They just don't have as much accuracy as larger ones. Don --I was talking about the one year you picked out and I showed you just how wrong you were... Rog -- Your statement above wasn't accurate. Perhaps you might wish to adjust it so it is. Otherwise, there's not much point in our paying attention to it, is there? Don -- I didn't narrow the sample, you expanded yours... Rog -- I didn't say you narrowed your sample. It's just that it's a smaller sample, and smaller samples have less accuracy and can in fact be misleading. Don -- I tell you when I use small samples because I think more of my family than devoting all my time to scanning stats.... Rog -- Not a problem, Don. Just realize that smaller samples are rarely as accurate as larger ones, and almost never more accurate. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14824#ixzz2eYggctXb |
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 11, 2013 1:31:29 GMT -5
dk..I gave you enough examples in the past. I digested one whole year of Cain's games which you claimed were bad because he didn't get run support. I showed you that every game he gave up 2 runs or less, he won..when he gave up 4 runs or more he lost...he never gave up 3 runs..odd... Rog -- Your statement here is false. You could look it up. Matt Cain is only six games over .500 despite a 3.38 ERA that is lower than many Hall of Famers. What is your explanation? (By the way, have I noticed that you like to use small samples because larger samples don't support your position, or is that merely coincidence?) dk..once more you resort to your insults and snide remarks.... Rog -- Didn't mean to be snide or insulting. Sorry if it came across that way. I have to question your continued use of small samples though. Small samples aren't meaningless. They just don't have as much accuracy as larger ones. Don --I was talking about the one year you picked out and I showed you just how wrong you were... Rog -- Your statement above wasn't accurate. Perhaps you might wish to adjust it so it is. Otherwise, there's not much point in our paying attention to it, is there? Don -- I didn't narrow the sample, you expanded yours... Rog -- I didn't say you narrowed your sample. It's just that it's a smaller sample, and smaller samples have less accuracy and can in fact be misleading. Don -- I tell you when I use small samples because I think more of my family than devoting all my time to scanning stats.... Rog -- Not a problem, Don. Just realize that smaller samples are rarely as accurate as larger ones, and almost never more accurate. dk...it is funny because the data I gave you was for one whole year for Matt Cain....it wasn't a sample. it was the WHOLE YEAR...then you expanded to talk about his career and not the year we were talking about...and you didn't object to my data for that year...now you expand to talk about his career and call my data wrong....another twist and turn for old reliable Rog who always looks to cloud the issue.........it has been a long time since I used statistics but it is possible to use small samples to predict the makeup of the whole population or in manufacturing, small samples can tell the quality of a lot (large quantity).... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 11, 2013 1:39:58 GMT -5
Rog -- Not a problem, Don. Just realize that smaller samples are rarely as accurate as larger ones, and almost never more accurate. dk...it is funny because the data I gave you was for one whole year for Matt Cain....it wasn't a sample. Rog -- I am beginning to see the problem here. The one year you cited (incorrectly, as I've pointed out) IS a sample of Matt's career. By the way, what is YOUR rationale for why Matt's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=1#14849#ixzz2eZ0Zyzbu |
|
