donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 3, 2013 13:15:55 GMT -5
dk..you don't know anyones religion so it is just a coincidence that out of the blue you right something belittling an athlete who happens to be in the HOF and Jewish...] Rog -- Well, DUH. After you brought it up, I DID remember that Sandy was Jewish, because I had respected him for not pitching on Jewish holidays. Prior to that, I had completely forgotten his religion -- since who the heck cares anyway? As for belittling him, if the worst thing I said about him was that he was great but probably not quite as great as his Dodger Stadium numbers made him appear, I'm willing to live with "belittling" him. Incidentally, while I have said he was also a great pitcher on the road those years, you have never offered an explanation as to why his Dodger Stadium ERA was so much better than his ERA in other parks. I wish you would offer more substance in your arguments on the various subjects we discuss. You DO come up with some good ideas. dk..there you go dipping back into the past and telling more lies...no one ever said that Dodger Stadium was not a pitcher's park, but no one else, including every other HOF pitcher who pitched there ever matched Sandy's record in that ball park...ergo, Sandy was better...and if you look at the breakdown, Sandy had many physical problems which were handled better in his home area than on the road...Sandy was left in several ball games surrounding his going on the DL where he was battered and boosted his road ERA....and of course there are the human factors that could have influenced him...maybe he had trouble getting a kosher pastrami sandwhich or a good bagel on the road...and back you go demeaning Sandy, whose road ERA matched most of the greats total ERA...you have a short memory of the substance I detailed but you fail to acknowledge..screw you and your pointed cap from the Indiana branch...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 3, 2013 14:17:28 GMT -5
If you believe that Kirk Rueter was a better pitcher than Matt Cain, don't feel bad about under-emphasizing the importance of run support. Instead, feel bad that you underrate Matt and/or overrate Kirk. dk..why do you keep mentioning Kirk to me, he isn't part of the discussion..I never made the lie you just repeated that I said Kirk was a better pitcher. Rog -- I didn't say that you DID. I said "If." If something I post doesn't seem right to you, re-read it and see if you mistook the meaning I intended. Don -- .in fact I said Matt should have been the ace, not Tim.... Rog -- That probably wasn't true until last season, although one could indeed have made an argument for Matt earlier. Don -- and that one year I checked and showed you, Matt won the games he pitches well, and lost the ones he didn't...you seem to forget that little detail.... Rog -- I don't forget too many of the details, and certainly this wasn't among the ones I did. I have addressed this multiple times. Possibly I'm not the one who is forgetting here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=2#12267#ixzz2Y0lhWNP3
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 3, 2013 14:38:03 GMT -5
Don -- let's talk Homer Bailey and how you can twist stats around to make silly points...Homer won 5 games by giving up a totasl of 6 runs while the Reds scored 35....big benefactor of run support oe good pitching???.... Rog -- Both, obviously. I'm not where I can look it up, but I suspect one can find at least three games in 2007 where Matt Cain gave up a total of six runs and yet had three losses. You don't argue logically, Don. In your mind you're right, but you continue to use examples -- sometimes oblique ones -- to demonstrate a general point isn't true. That's not logical. I loved the way you handled the Whitey Ford thing. First you argued that run support wasn't important to Whitey because he usually won by lots of runs anyway. Then when I showed that in one season that hadn't been the case often enough to make that not work for you, you said that a pitcher who won that many close games was pretty good -- which is true, but not on point. Look at it this way: Over the course of a pitcher's career it is RUN DIFFERENTIAL that determines his record. The better he pitches, the fewer runs he needs to keep that differential up. I posted a formula here that predicts a pitcher's wins based on run differential, and we saw that with a pitcher such as Jack Morris -- who supposedly pitched just well enough to win -- his record didn't differ much at all from what the formula predicted. Ignoring the importance of run support is ignoring half the picture in a pitcher's record. Do so at your own peril. Over a short period, you may be right. But the larger the sample, the more likely you are to be wrong. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1863&page=2#ixzz2Y0nGtwoJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 3, 2013 14:40:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 3, 2013 14:49:00 GMT -5
dk..there you go dipping back into the past and telling more lies...no one ever said that Dodger Stadium was not a pitcher's park, but no one else, including every other HOF pitcher who pitched there ever matched Sandy's record in that ball park...ergo, Sandy was better... Rog -- No question Sandy was the best pitcher during the five seasons he pitched in Dodger Statium. But on the road he was the best by a small amount compared to the huge margin he had over the other pitchers at home. And of course he had the advantage of pitching over half his games there. Don -- and if you look at the breakdown, Sandy had many physical problems which were handled better in his home area than on the road... Rog -- Now THAT'S a reasonable explanation -- except that the difference coincides directly with the Dodgers' move to Dodger Stadium. Don -- Sandy was left in several ball games surrounding his going on the DL where he was battered and boosted his road ERA.... Rog -- But he wasn't left in games at home that had the same issue? Don -- and of course there are the human factors that could have influenced him...maybe he had trouble getting a kosher pastrami sandwhich or a good bagel on the road... Rog -- You're really reaching here. Don -- and back you go demeaning Sandy, whose road ERA matched most of the greats total ERA... Rog -- If you think I demean Sandy when I call him great, you can imagine how much I would demean you if I didn't withhold my opinion of you. Don -- you have a short memory of the substance I detailed but you fail to acknowledge.. Rog -- I don't forget much; I simply believe the facts are often not in congruence with your arguments. Don -- screw you and your pointed cap from the Indiana branch... Rog -- I'm sorry you feel you have to show us the type of person you are. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1863&page=3#ixzz2Y0t8caHQ
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 3, 2013 17:39:27 GMT -5
dk..Allen, go back to baseball, you know so little about what is going on in the world it is embarrassing..
Allen- Don, that you would post this is an embarassment to you. Almost everything you post is an embarassment to you. You're almost unbelievably ignorant, intolerant, and absolutely clueless on almost any subject you speak on. Your only argument to any point that disagrees with you is to offer up some pathetically feeble name calling, and to personally attack others. It's old, it's tired, it's weak. You are old, tired, and weak. Your arguments are too pathetic to even be taken seriously. All you show with them is your incredible and willful ignorance. You are nothing but a bitter, doddering old fool. Frankly, I'm surprised you can find your way home. I've tried to tolerate your ineptness and ignorance, because I thought maybe you were an old guy with Alzheimer's trying his best, but you've exhausted my patience.
,.,for one thing, the only function of the IRS in Oboma care is to make sure that the Insurance companies follow the law on their profits being a % of their gross.
Allen- Wrong yet again. The IRS has the responsibility of implementing Obamacare and to make sure it's administered fairly. Recent events have shown us their idea of fair. The IRS can't even operate within the law, and the people in charge readily proclaim that they have no idea what's going on under their watch. The IRS should be abolished. Those responsible for what went on during the 2012 election (and beyond) should be jailed. They're neither capable nor ethical enough to adminster the tax code, let alone health care.
....the stock market is booming,
Allen- Yes. The rich are getting richer. The working class is left with little hope and just a few coins worth of change.
he is about to end the second Bush war.
Allen- He's negated everything we accomplished in both cases. His foreign policy is mush. He's in over his head, and won't make a move until he checks on which way the political wind is blowing. Other world leaders don't even take him seriously. After stating that "We don't negotiate with terrorists" he now openly negotiates with the Taliban. In addition to his abject failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, he screwed up massively in Egypt, where the Islamist dictator he tried to install was just overtrown, in Syria, where he fiddled around while tens of thousands were killed, and now is arming Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, in Iran, where they laughed in his face when he tried to slow their development of nuclear arms, in Benghazi where he gladly sacrificed the lives of four Americans to push his "Al Qaeda is dead" narrative in order to win re-election. Then he lied to their families' faces. Yep. He's quite a man.
....the armed services is stronger that the summation of all major countries, the only thing holding the economy hostage is the tea party repugs in house and the fillerbusters in the senate
Allen- Hard to believe a grown man with a functioning brain could possibly believe this. Why would there be filibusters in the Democratically controlled Senate? Our armed services are too depleted, and our economy is too ravaged to support them. It's gotten to the point where they've started cutting hot meals for our fighting men. But hey we still got money for our "frequent flyer" President to tour Africa at the taxpayer's expense.
....talk baseball and don't us how stupid you are about politics
Allen- I would say right back at you, but you really don't know much about baseball either. All you do is accuse Rog of being a "sick, twisted little man" or an Anti-Semite, or some slight variation of same. As in politics your points on baseball have no foundation in fact, no real substance, and in fact really aren't arguments at all. Just name calling and personal attacks. I've put up with your nonsensical BS for a long time Don, like most of us here have. But it's enough. As I said, you've exhausted my patience.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 3, 2013 23:12:36 GMT -5
If you believe that Kirk Rueter was a better pitcher than Matt Cain, don't feel bad about under-emphasizing the importance of run support. Instead, feel bad that you underrate Matt and/or overrate Kirk. dk..why do you keep mentioning Kirk to me, he isn't part of the discussion..I never made the lie you just repeated that I said Kirk was a better pitcher. Rog -- I didn't say that you DID. I said "If." If something I post doesn't seem right to you, re-read it and see if you mistook the meaning I intended. Don -- .in fact I said Matt should have been the ace, not Tim.... Rog -- That probably wasn't true until last season, although one could indeed have made an argument for Matt earlier. Don -- and that one year I checked and showed you, Matt won the games he pitches well, and lost the ones he didn't...you seem to forget that little detail.... Rog -- I don't forget too many of the details, and certainly this wasn't among the ones I did. I have addressed this multiple times. Possibly I'm not the one who is forgetting here. dk...how many times have you tried to diss me for the statement I made about Matt..." when he pitched good enough, he won" in putting down your cry about him not getting run spport... ]
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 3, 2013 23:32:07 GMT -5
Don -- let's talk Homer Bailey and how you can twist stats around to make silly points...Homer won 5 games by giving up a totasl of 6 runs while the Reds scored 35....big benefactor of run support oe good pitching???.... Rog -- Both, obviously. I'm not where I can look it up, but I suspect one can find at least three games in 2007 where Matt Cain gave up a total of six runs and yet had three losses. You don't argue logically, Don. In your mind you're right, but you continue to use examples -- sometimes oblique ones -- to demonstrate a general point isn't true. That's not logical. dk what the f.. are you talking about, I gave yo the stats...sure the Reds scored a lot of runs, but they didn't mean a thing because Homer didn't need them....this to me is un-needed run support....surely, Shirley, the pitchers that lost to Homer can't blame it on lack of run support, they just gave up too many runs.... I loved the way you handled the Whitey Ford thing. First you argued that run support wasn't important to Whitey because he usually won by lots of runs anyway. Then when I showed that in one season that hadn't been the case often enough to make that not work for you, you said that a pitcher who won that many close games was pretty good -- which is true, but not on point. dk...and I showed you in the games he won he pitched below his very low ERA and he didn't need most of the runs that scored....again we quibble over definition....my definition when you use run support is to demean the effort of the winning pitcher...I say that run support makes a winning pitcher out of a mediocre pitcher who's team scores runs that the 4 or 5 runs the pitcher gives up.....and Ford won games 9-0, 8-0, 11-1..and you would credit run support for the wins, and I said Ford wins them without most of the runs scoring....and then you would turn around and throw all those runs into season or even career totals and say, the guy only won because he had great run support...spoken like a true stats nerd who doesn't really understand the game... Look at it this way: Over the course of a pitcher's career it is RUN DIFFERENTIAL that determines his record. The better he pitches, the fewer runs he needs to keep that differential up. I posted a formula here that predicts a pitcher's wins based on run differential, and we saw that with a pitcher such as Jack Morris -- who supposedly pitched just well enough to win -- his record didn't differ much at all from what the formula predicted. Ignoring the importance of run support is ignoring half the picture in a pitcher's record. Do so at your own peril. Over a short period, you may be right. But the larger the sample, the more likely you are to be wrong. dk...and what a bunch of crap, he could be lucky enough to win a few games with big run differential and lose a lot by 1-0 or 2-1.... his run differential would say he should have won more games....
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 0:43:30 GMT -5
dk..there you go dipping back into the past and telling more lies...no one ever said that Dodger Stadium was not a pitcher's park, but no one else, including every other HOF pitcher who pitched there ever matched Sandy's record in that ball park...ergo, Sandy was better... Rog -- No question Sandy was the best pitcher during the five seasons he pitched in Dodger Statium. But on the road he was the best by a small amount compared to the huge margin he had over the other pitchers at home. And of course he had the advantage of pitching over half his games there. dk..so what is your point...his W-L record was almost the same either at home or on the road....other pitchers had the same advantage of pitching in that stadium and none put up the numbers that Koufax did...of course he had to pitch well because his team could hit in any ball park... Don -- and if you look at the breakdown, Sandy had many physical problems which were handled better in his home area than on the road... Rog -- Now THAT'S a reasonable explanation -- except that the difference coincides directly with the Dodgers' move to Dodger Stadium. dk..and what does that mean...a sinister plot or what ...gosh, Sandy should have delayed his arm problems because Rog smells something fishy... Don -- Sandy was left in several ball games surrounding his going on the DL where he was battered and boosted his road ERA.... Rog -- But he wasn't left in games at home that had the same issue? dk..his arm problem started when he was on the road...I showed you when he went on the DL and his last game before and his first game after...why is that so hard to understand??? Don -- and of course there are the human factors that could have influenced him...maybe he had trouble getting a kosher pastrami sandwhich or a good bagel on the road... Rog -- You're really reaching here. dk...not if he really dotes on good pastrami!! Don -- and back you go demeaning Sandy, whose road ERA matched most of the greats total ERA... Rog -- If you think I demean Sandy when I call him great, you can imagine how much I would demean you if I didn't withhold my opinion of you. dk..I don't remember you holding back on your demeaning statements especially when I rub something about Tim or Posey in your face....you would have loved tonights game from Cinn with their reporters...I didn't get theor names, but the ex major leaguer they called cowboy..don't know if that was Jeff Brantly...on the second wild pitch Posey missed. Cow Boy said Posey just stabbed at the first wild pitch..this one he jumped in the air and missed the ball in the dirt (sound familar)...Cow Boy went on to say, major league catchers don't do that.....this same guy was full of praise for Posey early in the ga,e... Don -- you have a short memory of the substance I detailed but you fail to acknowledge.. Rog -- I don't forget much; I simply believe the facts are often not in congruence with your arguments. dk..whay you really mean is they don't agree with your biased argument... Don -- screw you and your pointed cap from the Indiana branch... Rog -- I'm sorry you feel you have to show us the type of person you are. dk..and what is that, someone who gets frustrated with the lies and twisting of things by someone like you.....
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 1:02:03 GMT -5
note to allen....glad to hear you have lost patience with me..my name is on everything I post, don't read it....you are one wise guy know nothing who refuses to research anything the tea party puts out and you worry me that this country has this many nuts rolling around who react to lies and rumors and don't have the brains to look at the facts before repeating the trash coming out of an obese druggie.....do you really want a country run by the sick Bush crowd to get us into more wars and deeper recessions...wow, what a future...IRS does not administrate Obama care, just checks if you have insurance....Egypt elected its head man...Obama had nothing to do with it..and now the guy is out.....how stupid can you be about the Senate fillibusters...where over 100 bills have failed to be voted on because they need 66 votes to pass the repugs fillibuster...do you live in a vacuum??? the country is being run by a minority, but that is ok with you.....with all the junk you and your buddies put out, there has never been any proof to what you say...and after the lies filter out to the masses, they skip to a new set of lies without proving anything or taking any "corrective" action because there was nothing to correct...and how many of your smoking customers died today?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 4, 2013 2:11:29 GMT -5
This is what I'm talking about Don. No facts, just personal attacks and name calling. The tea party doesn't "put out" anything. It's not like they have a news channel or even an editorial platform. Then we go with the "nuts" comment and the Limbaugh reference. As predictable as the sunrise. If you can't be intelligent, can't you at least change the song once in awhile. We alrady have a government who is getting us in a deeper recession, and piling debt on top of debt on top of more debt. They have no respect for the constitution and think nothing of perjuring themself before Congress. They will use their power to destroy those that disagree with them. Just like the Nazis and the Communists. They take your tax dollars and party with them, give them to our enemies, and finance lavish vacations and lifestyles for themselves. Give me the Bush people over that all day and all night. Read up on Obamacare and the IRS's role in it. You may also note that all the pillars of funding for it are disappearing. The uninsured don't want it, the working class can't afford it, and people are getting laid off or having their hours cut because of it. Why do you think they postponed part of it until after the midterms? Again why would filibusters affect the senate? They're all Dems. Everything that Obama submits to the Senate gets a rubber stamp. They don't even bother to read it. That's how we got the disaster of Obamacare. That and Obama buying people off.The reason nothing gets voted on is because Harry Reid is virtually brain dead. Morsi was indeed elected, but Obama sponsored and supported him. At least Egypt was smart enough to know he was s*** and cut their losses. Too bad we're not smart enough to do likewise. The proof is in the truth Don. The IRS admitted to what they did. Are you saying the four people in Benghazi aren't dead, and that Obama didn't try to push some idiotic video that no one even saw as a reason? Are you saying Holder didn't perjure himself? That Fast and Furious never happened? That Clapper didn't perjure himself? That Susan Rice didn't lie to the American people? Who's living in a vacuum? And our President who is "outraged" and "will hold those responsible accountable". What a joke. He's done nothing on Benghazi, nothing on the IRS. Eric Holder and James Clapper still have jobs when they should be serving prison sentences. He will do nothing but unleash more corruption destroying our country and its people. And people like you are too ignorant and uninformed to do anything but lap up his crap.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 4, 2013 9:24:58 GMT -5
Allen, why do you bother? Don is a knee-jerk liberal, he's going to listen to anything his party feeds him. Luckily the facts are starting to pile up and the rest of the American people are starting to realize their mistake. People like Don will continue to blame everything on Bush and praise Obama, even though the unemployment rate, gas prices and national debt have all been higher under Obama. I think this administration has also set a record for the amount of scandals that they've had to try to cover up. In their defense they've done a good job at ditching any of the blame. Honestly I don't know if this administration gave the orders or not, in the IRS scandal it doesn't matter to me, Obama and his lackies set the tone for these types of things to take place.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 11:38:18 GMT -5
dk...and I showed you in the games he won he pitched below his very low ERA and he didn't need most of the runs that scored.... Rog -- In 1961, Whitey had his best won-loss record of 25-4. He received 221 runs of support. If we take 71 of those 221 runs away (a third of his run support), his record would have amazingly fallen to just 7-25. Do you get that, Don? If he had lost just a third of his run support, he could have fallen from 21 games over .500 to 18 games under. That's a difference of 39 games above or below .500 -- or more than a game per two runs of support. You are actually helping to PROVE the importance of run support, Don. Just step back and look at the situation objectively. Men far less intelligent than you have figured it out. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=3#12286#ixzz2Y5rXDISs
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 11:41:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 11:45:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 4, 2013 11:47:53 GMT -5
Allen, why do you bother? Don is a knee-jerk liberal, he's going to listen to anything his party feeds him. Luckily the facts are starting to pile up and the rest of the American people are starting to realize their mistake. People like Don will continue to blame everything on Bush and praise Obama, even though the unemployment rate, gas prices and national debt have all been higher under Obama. I think this administration has also set a record for the amount of scandals that they've had to try to cover up. In their defense they've done a good job at ditching any of the blame. Honestly I don't know if this administration gave the orders or not, in the IRS scandal it doesn't matter to me, Obama and his lackies set the tone for these types of things to take place. Allen- I bet if they're able to dig deep enough, they'll find Obama's campaign people at the bottom of the IRS thing. People like David Axelrod and Stephanie Cutter, or some of their minions Obviously the order came from inside the administration.. The idea was to keep the opponents from being able to fund their organizations so they couldn't campaign for Romney, and both of these people are known to be lacking in anything resembling scruples. They've been able to cover everything up because they have most of the media in their pocket. It simply doesn't get covered. Watergate was small potatoes next to the crap Obama has pulled, and Nixon was forced to resign over it. As for Don, I know there's no helping the willfully ignorant, and Don is the original "See no evil, hear no evil". He doesn't know and he doesn't want to know. There's something in me that wants to educate the ignorant, and there's just no way Don can be that stupid, can there?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 11:49:18 GMT -5
Rog -- I posted a formula here that predicts a pitcher's wins based on run differential, and we saw that with a pitcher such as Jack Morris -- who supposedly pitched just well enough to win -- his record didn't differ much at all from what the formula predicted. Ignoring the importance of run support is ignoring half the picture in a pitcher's record. Do so at your own peril. Over a short period, you may be right. But the larger the sample, the more likely you are to be wrong. dk...and what a bunch of crap, he could be lucky enough to win a few games with big run differential and lose a lot by 1-0 or 2-1.... his run differential would say he should have won more games... Rog -- What we find with almost every pitcher who has a large sample is that he won about as often as his run differential predicts he would have won. In other words, there are very few if any pitchers who "pitch just well enough to win," or "well enough to lose." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=3#ixzz2Y61iUv14
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 12:00:53 GMT -5
One could look at Whitey Ford's 25-4 record in 1961 with a 3.21 ERA and say run support didn't matter that much compared to Matt Cain's 7-16 in 2007 with a 3.65 ERA.
Of course, that would ignore that Whitey had more than twice as many runs of support and had 8 games in which he yielded 5 earned runs or more and yet went 3-0. In contrast, Matt pitched 6 games in which he yielded one earned run or fewer and yet went 0-4.
Whitey outpitched Matt by a clear amount (3.21 vs. 3.65), but it was run support that put Whitey 21 games over .500 and Matt 9 games under.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 12:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 12:20:00 GMT -5
dk...and I showed you in the games he won he pitched below his very low ERA and he didn't need most of the runs that scored.... Rog -- In 1961, Whitey had his best won-loss record of 25-4. He received 221 runs of support. If we take 71 of those 221 runs away (a third of his run support), his record would have amazingly fallen to just 7-25. Do you get that, Don? If he had lost just a third of his run support, he could have fallen from 21 games over .500 to 18 games under. That's a difference of 39 games above or below .500 -- or more than a game per two runs of support. You are actually helping to PROVE the importance of run support, Don. Just step back and look at the situation objectively. Men far less intelligent than you have figured it out. dk..Rog, not you are talking like a true stats nerd without any understanding about the game of baseball...why would you take runs away from a pitcher that is giving up less than his ERA to prove your point...of course you can take runs away from one run wins and make them losses...do you call that run support when the pitcher gives up 3 or less runs and his team scores 4 or less...I call that normal support...but you have a different definition...you think a pitcher who wins 1-0, wins because of his run support, I don't...my definition of a pitcher getting run support when he gives up more than his ERA and the team scores more than its average of runs per game....your argument is way off base, in my eyes...in the example I gave you, you could take 69 runs away from Ford and he would have won 25 one-run games....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 13:17:29 GMT -5
Rog -- Do you get that, Don? If he had lost just a third of his run support, he could have fallen from 21 games over .500 to 18 games under. That's a difference of 39 games above or below .500 -- or more than a game per two runs of support. You are actually helping to PROVE the importance of run support, Don. Just step back and look at the situation objectively. Men far less intelligent than you have figured it out. dk..Rog, not you are talking like a true stats nerd without any understanding about the game of baseball... Rog -- You realize what you typo made this sentence say, don't you Don? It made a false statement into a true one. Don -- why would you take runs away from a pitcher that is giving up less than his ERA to prove your point... Rog -- Why not? We're talking about the relative importance of run support, and isn't one of the ways to demonstrate that to add or subtract run support? Don -- course you can take runs away from one run wins and make them losses... Rog -- Which was much of the difference between Whitey Ford's 25-4, 3.21 and Matt Cain's 7-16, 3.65. Don -- do you call that run support when the pitcher gives up 3 or less runs and his team scores 4 or less... Rog -- Yes, I call whatever runs a team scores "run support." Do you have another definition? If so, it is incorrect. Don -- I call that normal support... Rog -- I would call it low to normal support, depending on whether it's no runs, 1 run, 2 runs, 3 runs or 4 runs. Don -- but you have a different definition... Rog -- Yeah. I would call 3, 4 or 5 runs of support over a nine-inning game normal support. Using that as a definition, Whitey had normal or better run support all but 6 times in his 39 starts. Don -- you think a pitcher who wins 1-0, wins because of his run support, I don't... Rog -- And I'm right. I think a pitcher wins 1-0 both because of his pitching and because he received at least one run of support. Six times in 2007 Matt Cain gave up one run or fewer and received either a loss (4 times) or a no decision (twice). Don -- my definition of a pitcher getting run support when he gives up more than his ERA and the team scores more than its average of runs per game.... Rog -- Your definition isn't a complete sentence, which by "definition" makes it incorrect. Don -- your argument is way off base, in my eyes... Rog -- WHich in my eyes makes it more likely to be correct. Don -- in the example I gave you, you could take 69 runs away from Ford and he would have won 25 one-run games.. Rog -- It is coincidental that in the example I give to illustrate that winning or losing is half runs scored and half runs allowed, I used almost precisely the same number of runs as you use in your example? In other words, we use the runs half and half -- just like in actual games? In this sexample, a pitcher could lose a number of runs of support and win all his games by one run. Or he could lose virtually that same number of runs and have his record flipped on its head. That sounds pretty close to a 50-50 proposition, doesn't it? I have a question for you: Would a pitcher who gives up three runs per game and receives four runs of support per game win a higher percentage of games -- or a pitcher who gives up four runs per game and received five and a half? How about a pitcher who allows three and a half runs per game and receives three and a half , or a pitcher who gives up four runs per game and received four and a half? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=3#12312#ixzz2Y6HOT5KA
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 13:34:45 GMT -5
again, you use numbers that have no meaning...you can only judge on a game per game basis....but there is no answer because you nit pick my writing and refuse to really define what you say when you say Cain's poor won-lost record was due to poor run support...shoot, they way to talk every game is won because the winning pitcher got better run support...that is a truism..no contest....but when you blame a pitcher's loss on lack of run support..even if he loses 15-14...then that is an entirely different use for the phrase....most people use the term "run support" to mean that a pitcher pitched well, but his team didn't score the number of runs that was average for them......but that isn't good enough for you......the one year I used on Cain, he won the games he gave up few runs, he lost the games he game up more than an average number of runs...the same went for Homer Bailey this year...he only lost one game where he pitched well and his team was shut out....do you really think he lost his 6 games due to lack of run support when he had a 7.83 ERA in those games? ?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 14:22:40 GMT -5
Don -- but when you blame a pitcher's loss on lack of run support..even if he loses 15-14...then that is an entirely different use for the phrase.... Rog -- Which is why I wouldn't make such an assinnine statement. To get an idea of how important run support it, when Matt Cain didn't lose in 2007 (7-16 overall), his ERA was 2.44; in Whitey Ford's 25-4 1961 season, Whitey's ERA when not losing was 3.27. When neither pitcher won, Matt was quite a bit better than Whitey. Matt was also better when he didn't win -- 4.14 to 4.91. Whitey's pitching was a little better than Matt's, but the primary difference in their huge disparity in won-loss record was run support. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=3#12318#ixzz2Y6ZQNw70
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 14:24:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 4, 2013 14:26:54 GMT -5
Don -- do you really think he lost his 6 games due to lack of run support when he had a 7.83 ERA in those games? ? Rog -- Of course not. I think he is only 5-6 despite good pitching due to a lack of run support. Good pitchers with great run support win or have no decisions in a lot of games in which they pitch poorly; good pitchers with poor run support lose or have no decisions in a lot of games in which they pitch well. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=3#ixzz2Y6fLtBFE
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 5, 2013 11:35:02 GMT -5
Allen- I bet if they're able to dig deep enough, they'll find Obama's campaign people at the bottom of the IRS thing. People like David Axelrod and Stephanie Cutter, or some of their minions Obviously the order came from inside the administration.. The idea was to keep the opponents from being able to fund their organizations so they couldn't campaign for Romney, and both of these people are known to be lacking in anything resembling scruples.
Boagie- I'm as skeptical as the next guy, Allen. But the fact is we don't know this as a fact. The big message coming from the Tea Party was to do away with the IRS. Its very possible that the big wigs acted alone to protect their own future. I don't give the Obama administration as much credit as you. I don't think they ever had that much control or insight for pulling off such a plan. However, the lack of leadership and the constant bashing of the Tea Party by prominent Democrats enabled the higher ups at the IRS to feel comfortable pulling the trigger on this plan. So either way it should reflect poorly on the Obama administration. When people like Don try to reject any blame toward their party it just shows you how brain dead the voters have become.
We as Americans act so aghast at the idea of suicide bombers, when in reality it seems like more and more people would blindly follow political leaders to nearly the same extent of idiocy and self destruction.
On a side note...Perhaps if Obama got more run support he would have been a better president.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 5, 2013 11:46:41 GMT -5
I didn't say it was a fact, I said that if they're able to dig deep enough, I'd bet that's what they'd find. When I first heard about this (in late 2011 and early 2012) the campaign people were the first thing that came to mind. People like Axelrod and Cutter were doing anything and everything necessary to get Obama re-elected, and neither have any discernable morals. Most people are merely apathetic. They just don't care enough to follow what happens. If it's not on twitter or facebook, they won't even come in contact with it. People like Don work hard to maintain their ignorance. If the truth is brought to their doorstep, they simply refuse delivery. Americans (at least in the senate) aren't too concerned about terrorists and suicide bombers. They just signed off on a bill that will allow them to keep crossing the Mexican border in droves, along with the usual assortment of welfare theives, murderers and drug dealers.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 5, 2013 13:31:01 GMT -5
Don -- do you really think he lost his 6 games due to lack of run support when he had a 7.83 ERA in those games? ? Rog -- Of course not. I think he is only 5-6 despite good pitching due to a lack of run support. Good pitchers with great run support win or have no decisions in a lot of games in which they pitch poorly; good pitchers with poor run support lose or have no decisions in a lot of games in which they pitch well. You could look it up. dk..and so you think his 7.83 ERA in the games he lost was good pitching and he should have won those games...wow!!!! I wonder why you don't think Rueter shouldn't have a winning record, how many games did he lose when he gave up 7.83 runs?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 5, 2013 13:46:08 GMT -5
Allen, why do you bother? Don is a knee-jerk liberal, he's going to listen to anything his party feeds him. Luckily the facts are starting to pile up and the rest of the American people are starting to realize their mistake. People like Don will continue to blame everything on Bush and praise Obama, even though the unemployment rate, gas prices and national debt have all been higher under Obama. I think this administration has also set a record for the amount of scandals that they've had to try to cover up. In their defense they've done a good job at ditching any of the blame. Honestly I don't know if this administration gave the orders or not, in the IRS scandal it doesn't matter to me, Obama and his lackies set the tone for these types of things to take place. Allen- I bet if they're able to dig deep enough, they'll find Obama's campaign people at the bottom of the IRS thing. People like David Axelrod and Stephanie Cutter, or some of their minions Obviously the order came from inside the administration.. The idea was to keep the opponents from being able to fund their organizations so they couldn't campaign for Romney, and both of these people are known to be lacking in anything resembling scruples. dk..if you had a brain as big as a flea you would know that the IRS did not stop the tea party to do any of the campaign of lies...these organizations did not need to qualify as a non-profit NONE political organization to do their thing...the only question would be if they had to pay tax on any profits or if they were a political organization, where did their money come from...none of these tea party or liberal organizations were denied qualifying.....so as usual, Allen, you really don't know what you are talking about...and while you are twitching, tell me how many Nixon men went to prison and match it with Obama's people.... They've been able to cover everything up because they have most of the media in their pocket. It simply doesn't get covered. Watergate was small potatoes next to the crap Obama has pulled, and Nixon was forced to resign over it. dk..most of the media in this country is under the right wingers..but why not twist it around.. As for Don, I know there's no helping the willfully ignorant, and Don is the original "See no evil, hear no evil". He doesn't know and he doesn't want to know. There's something in me that wants to educate the ignorant, and there's just no way Don can be that stupid, can there? dk...yeh, that is why I research every lie you echo and you never show me anything to show my facts are off....keep repeating the lies the obese druggie puts out over the right wing nut net work and I'll keep giving the facts that show you are a liar...
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 5, 2013 13:54:37 GMT -5
Don -- my definition when you use run support is to demean the effort of the winning pitcher. Rog -- Run support is a fact; it neither demeans nor improves the pitcher's performance. The pitcher's performance was the same whether he received one run of support or 10. Run support affects won-loss record, not performance. dk..once more you show your complete lack of understanding of the game of baseball.....many smart pitchers pitch a lot different when they get a big lead....they go even more to the pitch to contact type of pitching...throw fast balls and challenge the hitter... get into trouble and go back to using all your pitches.....and a few managers will take out his starter early if he has a big lead and some of his pen needs work......
|
|