|
Post by dk on Sept 11, 2013 13:21:22 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? dk..you are funny...when Tim came on the scene, you kept belittling Cain...and I said Tim would lose it when his flexibility would wane with age...and when batters discovered to sit on his fast ball and let the other stuff go by because he very seldom threw strikes ....and I said that Matt Can was on his way to being #1...and you said he would regress to his mean...something that good, younger players rarely do...... they develop and get better until they reach their prime...if they remain 'sound"... and...it has been proven over and over that small sample sizes can be correct if they are random and the analyst knows what he is looking at.....the whole world's parts manufacturing depends on sample inspections.....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 12, 2013 9:22:10 GMT -5
By the way, what is YOUR rationale for why Matt's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA? dk..you are funny...when Tim came on the scene, you kept belittling Cain...and I said Tim would lose it when his flexibility would wane with age...and when batters discovered to sit on his fast ball and let the other stuff go by because he very seldom threw strikes ....and I said that Matt Can was on his way to being #1...and you said he would regress to his mean...something that good, younger players rarely do...... they develop and get better until they reach their prime...if they remain 'sound"... and...it has been proven over and over that small sample sizes can be correct if they are random and the analyst knows what he is looking at Rog -- Of COURSE they CAN be. They can also be very misleading. May I repeat, what is YOUR rationale for why Matt Cain's won-loss record is so out of sync with his ERA? This should be good! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#14870#ixzz2egjRTa60
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 1:15:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 1:21:07 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 -- I wasn't being insulting or making snide remarks. I was merely stating the truth. Perhaps you might want to examine that your statement above was incorrect. You could still change it if you wish to be more accurate. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1992&page=1#ixzz2ewK14bbs
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 1:23:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 1:24:15 GMT -5
Pounds lost by Pablo are closer to pitchers' hits. Pounds left are closer to runners left on base by Pablo.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 1:26:29 GMT -5
Oh, and Don, what IS your rationale for why Matt's Cain's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA?
Oh, and why do you avoid answering the tough questions?
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 15, 2013 13:04:55 GMT -5
Oh, and Don, what IS your rationale for why Matt's Cain's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA? Oh, and why do you avoid answering the tough questions
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 15, 2013 13:22:27 GMT -5
Oh, and Don, what IS your rationale for why Matt's Cain's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA? Oh, and why do you avoid answering the tough questions dk...and why do you keep asking stupid questions and avoid commenting on the answers that show how little you know....I digested one complete season for you and that wasn't enough...Cain won when he had a low ERA and lost when he didn't....2.00's or less when he won, 4.00 or more when he lost.....Maybe in the off season I'll look at his whole career...because of my interest, not to satisfy your asinine prodding...maybe you should ask Sabean, he was the one that gave Cain a large contract with less than a great W-L record....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 17:30:26 GMT -5
dk...and why do you keep asking stupid questions and avoid commenting on the answers that show how little you know....I digested one complete season for you and that wasn't enough...Cain won when he had a low ERA and lost when he didn't....2.00's or less when he won, 4.00 or more when he lost..... Rog -- That statement isn't correct, Don. You could look it up. If you had enough integrity, I think you would do so. When I say "you could look it up," one should probably do so -- or else stop arguing his point without knowing all the facts. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#14980#ixzz2f0FPii7j
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 17:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 17:32:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 15, 2013 19:08:44 GMT -5
Don -- Maybe in the off season I'll look at his whole career. Rog -- I already have, Don. Clearly you arguing from a position of less knowledge. dk.. what is my knowledge have to do with this you snobby s tats nerd??? Does anyone know what caused Cain to lose the games he did...since your concept of run support is so sick as a reason..per your pea brain, any pitcher loses a game only because of lack of run support.....just think, Tim's run support jumped up because the Giants scored many more runs than they needed......if he was able to pitch a complete game you would have a hard time explaining his loses with the average run support he received....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 16, 2013 13:08:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 16, 2013 13:45:54 GMT -5
Let's not forget we all root for the same team...let's at least attempt at trying to keep it somewhat civil.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 16, 2013 13:51:06 GMT -5
Don -- per your pea brain, any pitcher loses a game only because of lack of run support..... Rog -- Apparently my pea brain is just smart enough never to have said or even thought this. Argue with me all and as feebly as you want, but don't put words in my mouth. When you put words in my mouth, I sound truly stupid. Don -- just think, Tim's run support jumped up because the Giants scored many more runs than they needed...... Rog -- And I'm sure it is coincidental that in his first 25 starts Tim's won-loss record was just 6-13 with a 4.53 ERA with 57 runs of support (2.3 runs per start) and that in his last five starts, despite dropping his ERA only 13 points to 4.40, he has gone 4-0 with 31 runs of support (6.2 runs per start). You have made incorrect statements about Matt Cain (and not bothered to correct them), and it appears you just don't get the concept. Using AVERAGE run support isn't perfect (as I have pointed out before, even though you haven't acknowledged my comment), but it's pretty darn good as sample size builds. Back when Tim was 6-13, his run support was somewhere in the mid-to-low three's and his ERA was 4.53. That won-loss record is pretty much what we'd expect from a guy whose ERA was over a run higher than his run support. Now Tim's record is 10-13 with an ERA of 4.40 and 4.12 runs of support. Once again, that's about the record we'd expect. We look at Madison Bumgarner and wonder, shouldn't his won-loss record be at least a LITTLE better than 12-9 given his 2.83 ERA? Then we look and see that his run support is only 3.42. Yeah, it makes sense now. You have yet to explain why Matt Cain's career record is just 93-87 despite a fine career ERA of 3.37. But if you looked at his run support (3.20, 3.12, 4.26, 4.08, 3.40, 4.68 and 3.49 from 2007 through this season), you might well say, yeah, that explains it. Or perhaps you could come up with a reasonable explanation of your own. But thus far you have been remiss in doing so. By the way, did you notice that the only season in which Matt got truly good run support (4.68 in 2012) he put up easily his best won-loss record at 16-5? Did you notice that when he received his next-best run support (4.24 in 2009), he put up his 2nd-best won-loss record at 14-8? Maybe you noticed that the only other season in which he received four or more runs of support (4.08 in 2010), he finished with his 3rd-best won loss record at 13-11 despite having his ERA rise above 3.00 for the only time from 2009 through 2012. Possibly you noticed that the two years in which Matt received his worst run support (3.20 in 2007 and 3.12 in 2008), he went only a combined 15-30 despite posting better-than-average ERA's of 3.65 and 3.76. But, no, probably not, since as you put it, "what is my knowledge have to do with this you snobby s tats nerd?" Don, you're NEVER too old to learn. I think you know that, but I wish you would practice it more here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2f53DNNdS
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 16, 2013 13:56:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 16, 2013 16:54:25 GMT -5
once more Rog wins the award for the best twisting of statements...and so, by the lore of the stats nerd, when Tim put up some terrible (for him) ERA numbers, the only reason he had a poor won-lost records was because he had poor run support...er, I think you expect your ace to pitch "good enough to win" not depending on run support to overcome poor pitching....and again I repeat..and you will simply say it is not true...Cain had a season where he pitched games giving 2 or less runs and won or had no decision...and he had games that he gave up 4 or more runs that he mostly lost....but when you use average figures it fails to show the whole story... and you can stop looking down your nose at my knowledge as I certainly have a better knowledge of stats than you stumble over....and I have a heck of a lot more experience playing the game....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 18, 2013 9:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 18, 2013 9:27:33 GMT -5
Don --Cain had a season where he pitched games giving 2 or less runs and won or had no decision...and he had games that he gave up 4 or more runs that he mostly lost. Rog -- You have softened your statement from what you originally wrote, and it is now correct, since it is far less restrictive. Originally you wrote: "I digested one complete season for you and that wasn't enough...Cain won when he had a low ERA and lost when he didn't....2.00's or less when he won, 4.00 or more when he lost" That statement was incorrect, since Matt won on April 21st with a 3.00 ERA. He won on June 9th with an ERA of nearly 6.00 (defeating BOTH sides of your statement). On October 3rd he lost with an ERA of 3.60. His NINE no-decisions when he allowed ERA's in the 2.00's or less, or 4.00 or more also contradict your statement. In all, there were a dozen contradictions to your original statement. As I gave you credit for, though, you softened your statement -- getting rid of the absolutes and instead stating generalities -- and now it is correct. Of course, now it doesn't prove nearly as much -- and it is still a small sample of Matt's career. So I ask again -- and until you are able to answer this question, what you say has no backup -- why is it that Matt's won-loss record is so far out of sync with his ERA? Time to answer the question and stop beating around the bush. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2fFmTzV1VRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2fFlMyHTA
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 18, 2013 9:47:04 GMT -5
A baseball stats based website called High Heat decided last year to do a study to find out which pitcher was the unluckiest pitcher in baseball based on lack of run support and also based on how well the pitcher performed. Guess who was determined to be the unluckiest pitcher in baseball today? Yep, Matt Cain! They then decided to expand the study and see who was the unluckiest pitcher in the history of baseball. The "winner?" Yep, Matt Cain! You have to give credit here though. Give credit to Matt Cain for not saying to his agent "get me the hell out of here," and signing a multi year deal to stay, and give credit to the organization for recognizing how well he has pitched, and that W-L record is not indicative of the fact that he's one of the best pitchers in baseball,
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 19, 2013 9:49:26 GMT -5
Mark -- A baseball stats based website called High Heat decided last year to do a study to find out which pitcher was the unluckiest pitcher in baseball based on lack of run support and also based on how well the pitcher performed. Guess who was determined to be the unluckiest pitcher in baseball today? Yep, Matt Cain! They then decided to expand the study and see who was the unluckiest pitcher in the history of baseball. The "winner?" Yep, Matt Cain! You have to give credit here though. Give credit to Matt Cain for not saying to his agent "get me the hell out of here," and signing a multi year deal to stay, and give credit to the organization for recognizing how well he has pitched, and that W-L record is not indicative of the fact that he's one of the best pitchers in baseball, Rog -- First of all, thanks for mentioning High Heat. I wasn't aware of it, and I certainly want to check it out. Secondly, amazing, isn't it, how Matt has been so unlucky? Last night they showed the stat that in his three starts since coming off the DL, Matt has a 1.29 ERA -- and an 0-1 record. Last night it wasn't so much the run support as the bullpen. It isn't true 100% of the time, particularly in small samples. And Don DOES make a good point that looking at something game-by-game instead of in summary gives a better picture. But I have been amazed at how often a won-loss record that is out of sync with an ERA corresponds with a run support that is far above or below average. I have mentioned it here before, but there is a formula (Run Support squared divided by the sum of Run Support squared and Runs Allowed squared IIRC) that very accurately predicts a pitcher's winning percentage. It implies, for instance, that Jack Morris DIDN'T pitch just well enough to win (in which case his winning percentage would easily have exceeded that predicted by the formula), but that his Hall of Fame candidacy might eventually be thrown over the threshhold by one postseason game. A GREAT game. But just one game. I'm still waiting for Don to tell us why Matt Cains' won-loss record is so out of whack with his ERA. I'm extremely disappointed that a guy who has argued so long and hard against the total run support concept hasn't even bothered to answer the question. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2fLkL7goN
|
|
|
Post by dk on Sept 19, 2013 15:05:50 GMT -5
[ mI'm still waiting for Don to tell us why Matt Cains' won-loss record is so out of whack with his ERA. I'm extremely disappointed that a guy who has argued so long and hard against the total run support concept hasn't even bothered to answer the question.
dk..listen clearly, Nerd, I told you once that I will look at Cain's record during the off season....for your info, that means after the season is over..and when there are no football, basketball or hockey games to interest me.....any way, what difference does it make to you, you will only twist things around 2 years later and try to make what I said is wrong...it was pretty low of you to complain about something I said many months after I did a study on one of Cain's years..and I don't even remember what year it was.....I was right then and you offered no comments on what I said...you are really a low life......and yesterday, he had run support, but he couldn't finish what he started, so the blame goes to the pen.....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 20, 2013 4:28:03 GMT -5
Rog -- I'm still waiting for Don to tell us why Matt Cains' won-loss record is so out of whack with his ERA. I'm extremely disappointed that a guy who has argued so long and hard against the total run support concept hasn't even bothered to answer the question. dk..listen clearly, Nerd, I told you once that I will look at Cain's record during the off season....for your info, that means after the season is over..and when there are no football, basketball or hockey games to interest me... Rog -- That sounds about right, since football, hockey or basketball games are going on all year with the exception of about two months from the middle of June through the middle of August. That time won't be around for another nine months. Not sure why you didn't do it from June through August this season, but I guess that's a different story. But here is the point, Don. Why argue something for at LEAST four years without have anything near complete knowledge -- and then have the nerve to call the person you are discussing the situation with names? The only thing I can think of is that you're so frustrated about not having a well-researched argument that all you can do is name-call. Put your "money" where your mouth is, or simply close it. Instead, you alibi that after four years you still haven't had time to research something you act like an expert on and then are reduced to name-calling. I don't NEED to call you names, Don. I let the truth speak for itself. I LIKE that you sometimes see the opposite side of things. What I don't like is that you seem to become so committed to it that the facts no longer matter. If you don't have an explanation for the incongruity of Matt's won-loss record with his ERA, then why have you been arguing so heavily against run support for four or more years? You argue like crazy AGAINST something when you don't have a better explanation. How does THAT makes sense? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#15118#ixzz2fQI2UbuS
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 20, 2013 4:43:40 GMT -5
Don -- I think you expect your ace to pitch "good enough to win" not depending on run support to overcome poor pitching Rog -- I think what one should hope for from an ace is that he pitch well enough to win a goodly percentage of his games -- and then (unlike Matt Cain) gets enough run, fielding and bullpen support to do so. If we look at Matt, his record would be OUTSTANDING if he had won just one more game out of 10. You don't think run support is important enough to make a difference approaching one game out of 10 -- when Mark has told us research has shown us that no pitcher EVER has been more unlucky as Matt? Perhaps you can simply tell us how Matt has a 1.29 ERA in his last three starts and yet is winless with one loss over that time. I don't have to wait for the end of the football, basketball and hockey seasons to figure this one out. On September 7th, Matt got very poor run support and lost, 2-1. Yielding just two runs in 6.1 innings, he pitched well enough to win -- but didn't get the run support to do so and instead actually was a loser. On September 12th he gave up only one earned run and yet was lucky to avoid the loss (the Giants DID lose). He once again got only one run of support, and he yielded an unearned run. In his start this week, once again he yielded just one (unearned) run. This time he actually got FOUR runs of support. But his bullpen blew it. Over the three games, Matt's ERA was 1.29. His run average was 2.09. His run support was 2.57. And that's how a pitcher goes 0-1 despite three strong starts. The primary culprit was run support -- with a cup of fielding errors and a dash of a lack of bullpen support. This season Matt hasn't been a a slightly below average pitcher. But he's below .500 primarily because his run support (3.51 runs) has once again been highly anemic. I don't know exactly what Matt's run support has been over his career, but I can tell you it has been a good run and a half below that of Kirk Rueter. And that is why Matt has pitched so much better than Kirk did and yet barely has a winning record, while Kirk was an average pitcher and yet had a sterling won-loss record. And then to have you tell me that run support isn't the answer to Matt's incongruous won-loss record, that you have no better answer, but that you'll research it in nine months? Doesn't sound right, does it? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2fQKFcCCa
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 20, 2013 4:48:19 GMT -5
Don -- once more Rog wins the award for the best twisting of statements...and so, by the lore of the stats nerd, when Tim put up some terrible (for him) ERA numbers, the only reason he had a poor won-lost records was because he had poor run support... Rog -- Who is it who's doing the word twisting here, Don? Just when was it that I said that the only reason Tim has had poor won-loss records is because he had poor run support? In reality, when Tim was winning a very high percentage of his games early in his career, I pointed out that he had pitched very well but that he wouldn't have posted such a good won-loss record without the fine run support he had received. I don't really have to twist anything, since the facts are on my side. So you sit on your hands without a better answer than mine, strongly say that I am wrong, and say you'll get around to it. Well guess what, Don? Here's a round tuit for you. Have at it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1992&page=2#ixzz2fQOKuOOo
|
|