|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 25, 2013 11:47:07 GMT -5
Allen -- You just reiterated what I've been saying Rog. The "east coast bias" is just the networks going after ratings. Rog -- I'll go along with you on that one, Allen. I think though that the East Coast Bias other posters have been discussing here is that the Giants don't get enough respect when they are evaluated. As for nationally televised game this season, I would expect the Giants to have a lot of them. Nine of their pre-season games will be televised by the MLB Network. That is four more than CSN Bay Area and Channel 3 combined. 10 of the Giants' regular season games are already scheduled to be on national TV, and I suspect the September schedule will be determined in part by the divisional and wild card races. I recently read or heard something that was very surprising to me. 2/3rds of the people in the US live in the East Coast time zone. Is it a bias that cities also in the time zone would get a proportional number of games televised? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9142#ixzz2LvePguBL
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 25, 2013 11:52:57 GMT -5
Allen -- They have no interest in accurately reporting what's happening. Rog -- Now that's one of the stupidest things that has been said here. With TV, we get to see with our own eyes what is happening. Allen- You're retort is surely one of the stupidest I have seen here Rog. Again, we're talking about commentary and analysis, not the games themselves. This ignoranance ploy isn't working Rog, we know you're better than that. Step up your game. Rog -- I have never heard an announcer say a double was a triple. And I have seen accuracy -- or at the very least a strong effort at accuracy -- with the strike zone outline. Instant replays can be rather revealing, as well. A lot of stats have been brought up, and as analytics grows, they are becoming more and more revealing. I agree with you that many if not most announcers could be better prepared, but remember, they cover all 30 teams -- while you and I focus primarily on just one. Let me ask you a question: How is it in the interest of the networks to report games inaccurately? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to report the games as accurately as possible, to build their reputations and subseqeuently viewship? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2Lvk4ceVi
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 25, 2013 12:03:53 GMT -5
Randy -- Dude, you're posting as much or more about the East Coast Bias/lack thereof than any other subject. Why is it THAT important to you? It doesnt even involve stats! Give it a rest already! Rog -- It is you and Boagie who have spoken of something I don't think exists -- or at least not to anywhere near the extent you think. I post in jest a joking reference to the East Coast Bias, and I get jumped on for using one guy's comments to counteract the arguments for the East Coast Bias. Meanwhile, Boagie points to a very large proportion of journalists' picking the Tigers over the Giants as an example that the bias exists. At the same time, the Giants were very large underdogs in Las Vegas. Were the bettors betting based on the East Coast Bias, or to better their pocketbooks? Remember how you decried the loss of closer Brian Wilson, Randy? You spoke of how much it would hurt to lose the closer. I spoke of how I believed the Giants had the relievers to fill the gap. Were you showing your East Coast Bias? When you decried the Giants' proposed use of bullpen by committee, and I commented that I felt the Giants had the bullpen to use it effectively, were you showing your East Coast Bias? I get the opinion here that if negative comments are made about the Giants, it is the East Coast Bias not showing enough respect for them. Yet we see many negative comments about them right here on this board. When posters here were putting down Bruce Bochy's managing, were they showing the East Coast Bias? How about when they put down Brian Sabean? When I criticized the Giants for trading Zack Wheeler from the West Coast to the East Coast in order to bring Carlos Beltran from the East Coast to the West Coast, was I showing my East Coast Bias? When Boly wears his feelings about the Giants on his sleeve and becomes worried, is he showing his East Coast Bias? When Don criticizes Buster Posey, is he showing his East Coast Bias? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LvlVpN1U
|
|
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 Feb 25, 2013 13:01:57 GMT -5
first of all, just because all west coast fans arent blind sycophants like, say, an Obama supporter, it is NOT evidence that East Coast bias in the media does not exist. I'll concede that the Giants winning 2 titles in 3 years has lessened the bias somewhat, but not in the numbers that you might expect.
Why is it, do you think, that these bettors still do not give the Giants the respect they have earned? Because they read and listen to--you guessed it--the media! And if the media coverage is slanted one way or another, that's going to affect the betting line. This is particulalry true of preseason odds of winning championships because there has been no games on tv to give pure evidence that could have been witnessed.
But even prior to the World Series, everyone was saying how "dominant" the Tigers' pitching was--ignoring the regular season evidence to the contrary. Since it was the NEW YORK Yankees that the Tigers swept, everyone went ooooo and ahhhh and figured these guys MUST be dominant if they shut down the vaunted Yankees. They forgot that Baltimore's much less heralded pitching staff had done nearly the same thing to that Yankee offense. If it hadnt been for Raul Ibanez, the Yankees never would have advanced to the ALCS.
It's true the Tigers offense was good enough to MAYBE have them favored but only slightly. The absolute SHOCK on the faces of the media when the Giants began to take Detroit apart very surgically was both comical and predictable. Call it what you will. East coast bias or just pure coincidentally moronic disrespect. I can see the argument either way because even west coast blowhards like Walrus Ray Ratto was idiot enough to diss the Giants last year.
But whatever you want to call it, the Giants and other west coast sports teams seem to get overlooked a LOT more than the NY and Boston teams. Do you think there would have been any such thing as "Lin-Sanity" if Jeremy Lin performed the same feats as a member of the Warriors or the Kings? I don't think so.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2013 0:10:42 GMT -5
Randy -- It's true the Tigers offense was good enough to MAYBE have them favored but only slightly. Rog -- Bettors are less affected by bias than most. The reason? If they're wrong, they lose their hard-earned money. Perhas as bad, they LOSE. Those who bet on the Tigers to win the World Series had to bet $175 to win $100. Clearly the bettors felt the Tigers were considerably better than the Giants. And I'm not so sure it had all that much to with hitting. After all, the Giants were outscored by the Tigers by only 8 runs on the season. Given the use of the DH by the Tigers, I'd call that pretty equal -- possibly even a slight advantage to the Giants. In the season's second half, the Giants outscored the Tigers by 41 runs. That's more than half a run per game. Rather I believe the difference was Justin Verlander. The thinking was that he might pitch as many as three games of the series if necessary. And it's not as if Verlander was going to face the Giants' ace. No, he was going to face Barry Zito. Barry Zito. In fact, because the Giants had to scramble through both the first two rounds of the playoffs in order to stay alive, Matt Cain wouldn't pitch until the 4th game of the series. Let's see how the pitching matchups went: Game 1 -- Verlander (2.64) vs. Barry Zito (4.15) Game 2 -- Doug Fister (3.45) vs. Madison Bumgarner (3.37) Game 3 -- Anibal Sanchez (3.86) vs. Ryan Vogelsong (3.37) Game 4 -- Daniel Scherzer (3.74) vs. Matt Cain (2.79) The only mismatches going in were Verlander vs. Zito, and Cain vs. Scherzer. Since Verlander had an 0.56 and a 1.08 ERA in the first two rounds of the playoffs and might pitch as often as thrice, the pitching advantage appeared to be Detroit's. If the Tigers hadn't had Verlander ready to pitch as many as three games in the series, I suspect the Giants would have been very slight underdogs or, more likely, the favorites. Remember too that going into the series, the Giants had twice been required to win three straight games in order to stay alive. To say the Giants weren't given enough respect due to the East Coast Bias may itself be a biased viewpoint. Either way, one can see how the Tigers were the favorites. I know I personally was rather concerned about the Verlander factor. I do think the Giants were a good bet at the odds that stood when the series began. But I can certainly see why the Tigers were the favorites. Distilled down to two words, the reason was: Justin Verlander. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#9162#ixzz2LyWAthtd
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2013 0:25:46 GMT -5
Randy -- But even prior to the World Series, everyone was saying how "dominant" the Tigers' pitching was--ignoring the regular season evidence to the contrary. Rog -- Rather than be deceived by what "everyone" was saying, let's look at the facts: The Tigers' season's ERA was 3.77; the Giants, 3.68. Just as the DH differential may have shown the Giants' hitting to be slightly better than the Tigers' bats, the DH differential may have shown the Tigers' pitching to be even better than the Giants'. Add to that the Verlander factor -- with Justin pitching every third or fourth game compared to every fifth game during the regular season -- and one could have quite objectively said that the Tigers' pitching as it was configured for the World Series was better than that of the Giants. Verlander would certainly pitch twice, and maybe even three times. Cain would pitch once, and perhaps twice if necessary. It was possible, even likely, that Verlander would get one more start in the series than Cain. There were plenty of reasons for the Tigers to be favored over the Giants. That they were favored so much would seem to me to be an overreaction to the Giants' struggles in the first two round and the Tigers' sweeping the Yankees in the second. But for the Tigers to be favored -- with Verlander pitching the first game and Cain not pitching until the fourth -- seems logical to me. Even after the Giants swept the Tigers, had another series been constructed between the two teams with the same parameters (especially the Verlander/Cain juxtaposition), I think it would have been possible to be objective in making the Tigers the favorites again -- even after the Giants' sweep of them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#ixzz2Lyl7vV3m
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2013 0:31:27 GMT -5
Randy -- But whatever you want to call it, the Giants and other west coast sports teams seem to get overlooked a LOT more than the NY and Boston teams. Do you think there would have been any such thing as "Lin-Sanity" if Jeremy Lin performed the same feats as a member of the Warriors or the Kings? I don't think so. Rog -- I agree with you on pretty much all of this. Of course the irony, which isn't lost at all on you, since you follow the NBA too, is that whatever form "Linsanity" took, it could easily have -- and quite possibly should have -- taken place with the Warriors. But let's be honest here; did any of us think when he was a Warrior that Lin would become a star? Lin hasn't proven to be as good this season -- but he still is much better than I ever dreamed he would become. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#ixzz2LyowKU5e
|
|
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 Feb 26, 2013 12:06:59 GMT -5
I admit that watching Lin play for the Warriors I thought he could be a good player and was sad to see him go. Of course nobody predicted--not even the Knicks--what eventually happened last season. But without the media coverage, he never would have cashed in like he eventually did. He was made into a cult icon...and the wise Knicks brass let him go in favor of paying him top dollar. It wasn't a popular decision at the time but now the Knicks are doing great and the Rockets, not so much--partly because they had to let some good players go to get Lin and to save up for a run at Dwight Howard, which they still plan to make. Time will tell if that pays off but it's not looking too great right now.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 27, 2013 11:38:32 GMT -5
Why in the world would anyone want Dwight Howard?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 10:05:36 GMT -5
Randy -- Dude, you're posting as much or more about the East Coast Bias/lack thereof than any other subject. Why is it THAT important to you? It doesnt even involve stats! Rog -- No one said that is did involve stats. And no discerning individual would say I don't care about anything but stats. One thing I care about is fact, and stats are that. What differentiates us is the stats that we have examined and how we interpret the stats. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1570#ixzz2MIhmroha
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 1, 2013 13:05:37 GMT -5
Interesting. Actually, your reaction to fact is much like the Obama administration's and the liberal press. If it's a fact that favors your position, you're all for it. If it's a fact that goes against what you believe, or puts someone you like in an unfavorable light, you'd just as soon ignore it, and will disparage anyone who brings it up. A "kill the messenger" mentality, if you will. The plight of one JSanchez would be a prime example.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 13:11:12 GMT -5
Allen -- Actually, your reaction to fact is much like the Obama administration's and the liberal press. If it's a fact that favors your position, you're all for it. If it's a fact that goes against what you believe, or puts someone you like in an unfavorable light, you'd just as soon ignore it, and will disparage anyone who brings it up. A "kill the messenger" mentality, if you will. Rog -- I can't speak for President Obama, but you're WAY off base as for my own thinking. Perhaps you can give an example. Allen -- The plight of one JSanchez would be a prime example. Rog -- I take it this would be an example in your mind? I asked in another post if you saw that something seems to have happened to Jonathan around the end of May of 2011. I suspect you will. Come on, Allen. Disagree with me if you will, but don't say I ignore the facts. It is a fact that I don't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#9223#ixzz2MJS732jR
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 1, 2013 13:20:31 GMT -5
Boy, that didn't take long! You do tend to like to ignore facts if they don't agree with your position or disparage a player you like. You also disparage anyone who brings them up. Sanchez is an example. I said long ago that Jonathan would never amount to much because he's a headcase and the Giants would be wise to get rid of him. Such has been the case, and he has degenerated to the point where I'd be surprised if he pitches in the majors this year. If I bring this up, you disparage me. Regarding Sanchez, if there's something physically wrong with him, why does he continue to pitch?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2013 10:23:39 GMT -5
Allen -- You do tend to like to ignore facts if they don't agree with your position or disparage a player you like. Rog -- Please name a few facts I have ignored. Allen -- You also disparage anyone who brings them up. Sanchez is an example. I said long ago that Jonathan would never amount to much because he's a headcase and the Giants would be wise to get rid of him. Such has been the case, and he has degenerated to the point where I'd be surprised if he pitches in the majors this year. Rog -- My main point was that Jonathan was a pretty decent pitcher for a while. I gave many facts that helped to demonstrate that. I felt you ignored many of the facts (very high strikeout rate, extremely low hit rate, good ERA, etc.). I'm not quite sure which facts I ignored. If I did so, I didn't do so intentionally. Long-term, unless Jonathan bounces back, you will turn out to be somewhat right in the long term. My point though hasn't been so much how well Jonathan's career would turn out as that he had a lot of potential (virtually any pitcher who is excellent at limiting hits and at striking batters out does) and pitched better through the end of May, 20ll than you have given him credit for. Allen -- If I bring this up, you disparage me. Rog -- Since I don't know the facts I am ignoring, it's tough to know how I disparaged you for them. Allen -- Regarding Sanchez, if there's something physically wrong with him, why does he continue to pitch? Rog -- I didn't say there IS anything physically wrong with him. I really have no way of knowing. What I did say is that SOMETHING went wrong around the end of May, 20ll, and whatever it is has cut a wonderful strikeout rate back to an average one and increased a walk rate that was already very high into one that isn't even close to being acceptable. It's as if his light bulb went off almost overnight. It is a fact that since then he HAS been on the DL more than he's been off it -- primarily arm injuries, but also an unfortunate ankle issue. Perhaps you can give your own explanation and the facts you have to back them up. The one thing I WILL disparage you for here is not giving Sanchez enough credit for being a very strong strikeout pitcher and being extremely hard to hit. During the time we were discussing, he ranked among the best of all pitchers. His ERA from the beginning of 2009 (and especially beginning with his no-hitter) was better than average through his implosion that began with his first start of June, 20ll. Those are facts. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#9226#ixzz2MOZ2QY4FRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#9226#ixzz2MOYgaRDk
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 2, 2013 10:33:17 GMT -5
Should I really be the first one to say this is only spring training? How long has the conversation gone on without that fact being introduced?
I think Jonathan's main problem is he doesn't have Bochy and Righetti looking over him. Bochy knows when to pull a pitcher, and Righetti was always very involved with Jonathan's mechanics.
But again, this is only the begining of spring training...I think Allen was saying Zito was done about this time last year too.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 12:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 3, 2013 12:06:51 GMT -5
I think there are better options out there.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 9:52:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 4, 2013 10:03:50 GMT -5
Allen- I think there are better options out there.
Boagie- I like having Ramon Ramirez back, which I agree would be a better option than Jonathan Sanchez. But, at the time I suggested we invite Sanchez to camp, our best options were guys that never had much if any success at the major league level. With our lack of starting depth.. I figured it would be worth at least having a look at Sanchez.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 4, 2013 11:21:56 GMT -5
Ok. Me? I've seen all of him I ever want to see. I like giving Ramirez a shot. He pitched pretty well when he was here. Not much with the Mets though. What happened with Hensley? Did they let him go. I thought he was ok as a long man if a starter didn't last. Good mopup guy.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 4, 2013 12:55:06 GMT -5
Allen- Ok. Me? I've seen all of him I ever want to see.
Boagie- I understand your dislike of Jonathan's lack of success in recent years, and it would appear that Bochy and Righetti are probably more inclined to agree with your take on this, rather than mine. I was just merely throwing it out there as a suggestion. If nothing else mentioning Jonathan Sanchez on this board will get a response, even if it's mainly a bad one. That being said, I think you've likely been a little hard on Jonathan throughout his career, at the same time Jonathan hasn't done much to prove you wrong, and at this point I really can't justify defending him.
Allen- I like giving Ramirez a shot. He pitched pretty well when he was here. Not much with the Mets though.
Boagie- All true. But, Ramirez is only 31 and has had more success in the majors than Procter, Gaudin or anyone else we're looking at for the 12th spot in the bullpen. Many here are assuming that Ramirez is fighting for a job along with the others, I think with his track record he's got the spot unless he totally bombs in his outings toward the end of spring while someone else is almost flawless. I see either one being unlikely, and both very unlikely.
Allen- What happened with Hensley? Did they let him go. I thought he was ok as a long man if a starter didn't last. Good mopup guy.
Boagie- Hensley was good for the first few months of the season, after that he struggled.
It's interesting that you saw Hensley as having a positive season, while you saw Ramirez as having a poor season. Hensley's ERA in 2012 - 4.62, Ramirez - 4.24.
Chad Gaudin's ERA last season was 4.54 while his career mark is 4.63.
Scott Proctor hasn't had an ERA under 5.00 since 2007.
We know at his best Ramirez easily beats out these other guys, but It's starting to appear like Ramon Ramirez at his worst is still better than what we could assume to get from Hensley, Gaudin or Proctor.
I think the ONLY guy who would have a chance at stealing that spot from Ramirez is Hembree. And Hembree would have to be lights out to not find himself in Fresno at the begining of the season.
|
|
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 Mar 4, 2013 13:05:00 GMT -5
ERA is less of a good barometer of a reliever's effectiveness than the same stat is for starters because one lousy outing can throw the number way out of control for a long while, even if most of the time the guy is pretty consistent. I would say WHIP, % of runners stranded and Opp BA against are the best clues as to the season a reliever has...and of course save % for closers.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 17:15:19 GMT -5
Allen- I think there are better options out there. Boagie- I like having Ramon Ramirez back, which I agree would be a better option than Jonathan Sanchez. But, at the time I suggested we invite Sanchez to camp, our best options were guys that never had much if any success at the major league level. With our lack of starting depth.. I figured it would be worth at least having a look at Sanchez. Rog -- The two aren't mutually exclusive. Ramon is a candidate for the last spot in the bullpen, while Jonathan would be a backup for either the rotation or the pen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#9332#ixzz2MbzqHNlg
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 17:21:47 GMT -5
Randy -- ERA is less of a good barometer of a reliever's effectiveness than the same stat is for starters because one lousy outing can throw the number way out of control for a long while, even if most of the time the guy is pretty consistent. I would say WHIP, % of runners stranded and Opp BA against are the best clues as to the season a reliever has...and of course save % for closers. Rog -- All very good points. Strand percentage is a key, as is knowing HOW those strands came about. If one enters the game with say runners on second and third with no outs, stranding the two runners is a lot tougher than stranding a runner at first with two outs. Strands are also easier for LOOGY's and ROOGY's, since they often have to pitch just one or even no outs in order to strand the runner by their account. I like OPS against as a measure for relievers. As for closers, save percentage is a good measure, but a breakdown of how difficult the saves are is also quite helpful. It's a lot easier to save a three run lead when starting the 9th inning (a pitcher should darn near be able to do so in his sleep) than coming into a one-run game with the bases loaded and no outs. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=2#ixzz2Mc0Qv4ki
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 17:25:00 GMT -5
Hensley was good early in a variety of roles. But he hurt his arm and wasn't nearly as effective late. The Giants didn't offer him a contract IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 17:39:21 GMT -5
Rog -- This is frpm SI.com
Basically there are two schools of thought on the Pittsburgh Pirates signing the polarizing Jonathan Sanchez. Sanchez is a massive project for the men who will be coaching the Pittsburgh Pirates pitching staff in 2013.
The second is that last year, Jonathan Sanchez set some of the worst records imaginable for a starting pitcher–why are the Pirates wasting their time again?
Yep. This is one of those low risk, high upside moves we have seen a few times under the Neal Huntington regime.
But still, it’s hard for me to imagine someone saying that about a pitcher with the fourth highest strikeout rate from 2008 to 2011. We say, why not roll the dice on a player like Sanchez?
In a lot of ways during that four-year run, Sanchez was Bad-Ass.
Bad because his 24.1 percent strikeout rate only trailed Tim Lincecum, Clayton Kershaw and Yovani Gallardo.
Ass because of his tendency to be all over the strikezone leading to the highest walk rate in the game over that time period. The closest pitcher to Sanchez’s staggering walk rate was fellow lefty Gio Gonzalez. Heh! Gonzalez turned it all around, while Sanchez put up his worst season ever– pitching like total ass–no bad involved. [Well except if you mean bad in a literal sense. Not like how we mean bad, like baaaadddd.]
So what the hell happened?
Sanchez has seen his fastball drop in velocity while his change-up has increased in velocity each year since 2010. That’s not a good combination.
|
|