Already in midseason form

[sfgdood]

Thanks a lot Kontos

[klaiggeb]

Took the words right out of my mouth, Randy.

His numbers always "look" good to decent, but last night is indicative of what I think about Kontos.

I'm not impressed.

boly

[Rog]

Mark has pointed out to us that George's strikeout numbers have been declining, and that almost never is a good sign. That said, what George did last night doesn't truly have a lot of meaning. If he continues to pitch poorly throughout spring training, that might have meaning.

Here is what I find ironic, Randy. You pooh-pooh what was good analysis from Boly because we are still early in spring training, yet here you are all over George Kontos for his pitching in a near-meaningless game.

As for George's numbers' always looking good to decent, that's because they are. He's been a good pitcher for the Giants. His career ERA is 2.90, which is very good. His career WHIP is even better.

But they don't paint the entire picture. There's also that little matter of stranding inherited runners. George struggled a little with that his first three seasons with the team, but he's gotten more regular opportunities the past two seasons and has stranded 75% of his inherited runners. I think that's about average or better. The Cubs had by far the lowest ERA of any team in the majors last season, and their strand percentage was 73%.

In 2015, George finished eighth among all major league relievers with 41 runners stranded.

Here's one thing about the numbers, regardless of whether they look good or bad. They are facts. The numbers depict George as a pretty good middle reliever, and what he is is ... a pretty good middle reliever. He's been average or better in stranding runners the past two seasons. His ERA's of 2.33 and 2.53 have been very good. His WHIP's of 0.94 and 1.16 have been even better.

Last season the average NL ERA was 4.17, and the average WHIP was 1.33. ERA can vary a lot, especially for a reliever. But WHIP is usually considered to be a pretty good read on a pitcher. It's hard to hide giving up walks and hits.

Let's say George rates only a C grade for stranding inherited runners (even though he did finish eighth in runners stranded in 2015). Clearly he deserved an A for ERA and an A for WHIP the past two seasons. It's just plain hard to get a bad pitcher out of that picture.

We keep trying to point George as a bad pitcher, but the facts don't use those brush strokes. Is George a great reliever? No. Is he pretty good for a middle reliever? You bet.

Incidentally, what were George's numbers last night? A 27.00 ERA and a 3.00 WHIP. Wasn't that pretty indicative of how he pitched? How is it that the numbers are indicative of how a pitcher pitched when they're bad, but they simply "look" good to decent when he pitches well and don't really reflect how he's pitched?

A pitcher can "hide" his ERA. For instance, last night based on giving up two walks and a home run, George could have yielded one run, two runs or three runs. That he gave up three paints the worst possible picture. If he had given up just one, that would have painted the best possible picture. That has an effect on ERA. In a season in which he pitched 50 innings, that two-run difference make a difference of more than a third of a run of ERA. How a pitcher's reliever's pitches can also have a pronounced effect. So can a fielder making a tough play or not making it.

But it's hard to hide WHIP. Regardless of whether George was unlucky to give up three runs or whether he was lucky to give up only one, his WHIP was still 3.00, which gave a very valid indication of how he pitched. That's more than twice league average, and George "earned" it.

I'm baffled at how we can look at a player and ignore the facts.

By the way, I'm not totally enamored of George. I can make a good argument that he's been a bit lucky and indeed hasn't been quite as good as his ERA or even his WHIP show. How? Well, his ERA's as calculated on a fielding-independent basis are higher than his actual ERA (as often is the case). The three shown in Fan Graphs peg him at 3.66, 3.76 and 4.01 over his career. That indicates there is a good probability that he has benefited from good fielding or lucky sequencing.

Along with Mark, I can make a good argument that his success is dangerous looking ahead. This past season George's strikeout rate was the second-worst of his career, as was his walk rate. That's not a positive predictor moving forward. If you were to ask my prediction for George for the 2017 season, it would be clearly worst than his past two seasons. I would even say I think the chances of his having a poor season are clearly higher than I would like.

What I can't do, no matter how hard I try, is paint an honest, objective picture of George that says he has pitched badly over his five-year career. In 2013 he was lousy, as his 4.39 ERA and especially his 1.41 WHIP would attest. But his other four seasons, he has been pretty good.

He's only a middle reliever. As a middle reliever, he's been well above what one would expect. Even if we take his good fortune out of the equation, he's been more than adequate for a middle reliever. Would I make him the Giants' closer? No, he hasn't pitched THAT well. But in his role, he's been good.

I've presented evidence that points strongly in that direction, even though I've also presented evidence that he hasn't pitched quite as well as his numbers indicate. I've pointed out that like Mark, I'm at least concerned about him going forward. What I would like to see if we're going to believe that he truly has been a poor reliever is solid evidence.

Perhaps you're better than I. I myself just can't find that evidence.

You're an excellent baseball man, Boly. But it appears something is simply throwing you off course here. I wish I knew what it is, but I just can't find it.

[Islandboagie]

I'm confused. Randy claims spring training doesn't matter (which I agree with) then Randy rips Kontos for having a bad outing in spring training?

Can anyone make sense of this logic?

[sfgdood]

My point is, whether it be ST or regular season, Kontos looks the same...bad

[Rog]

My point is, whether it be ST or regular season, Kontos looks the same...bad


Rog -- Then my point would be that I guess you don't understand the game very well -- whether it's in-season or pre-season. I hate to be so harsh, but one can go only so far against the facts.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3757/midseason-form#ixzz4aE8rbRnS

[sfgdood]

I welcome disagreeing with you stats geeks...that's when I know I'm in the right

[klaiggeb]

I've long been on record as not being a Kontos supporter.

What I saw is what Randy saw, and what I saw in Matt Cain; same as we saw last year.

For Kontos there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

Seems he's either very on, or very off.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Randy- My point is, whether it be ST or regular season, Kontos looks the same...bad

Boagie- With all due respect, Randy, comments like this do not bode well for your argument that stat geeks don't understand the game as much as you do.

I wouldn't rely on Kontos as the closer anytime soon, but he's done a very good job as a middle reliever in a Giants uniform.

I think we've been spoiled by having Lopez, Casilla, Affeldt, and Romo throughout the last 7 years. Which has led you and Boly to believe that any of our relievers not being historically good are in turn, "bad."

Kontos in fact, as a middle relief pitcher could probably touch a little of that history himself with his last three seasons. The last three seasons Kontos has eras of .273, .233 and .253. I'm sure the list of middle relief pitchers than have been that solid in a three year span is slim.

[Rog]

I welcome disagreeing with you stats geeks...that's when I know I'm in the right


Rog -- You realize this is a false statement, don't you Randy? In order for it to be true, the "stats geeks" would have to be wrong 100% of the time.

If you're going to make a point, at the very minimum make it logically, and what you should truly do is back it up with facts, logic and analysis.

I just realized that you're more or less trying to put your responses in sound bites when the world just isn't that simple. Couple that with rudeness of trying to be crass, and you're insulting us while explaining little.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3757/midseason-form#ixzz4aIEBzHdG

[Rog]

For Kontos there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

Seems he's either very on, or very off.



Rog -- That's actually an argument FOR him. Let me explain.

George's career 2.90 ERA shows he doesn't allow a lot of runs. His 1.12 WHIP shows he doesn't allow a lot of base runners. His strand figures aren't as good (maybe in part because of the inconsistency you noted), but they are good enough that he finished 8th in the majors in 2015 in number of runners stranded.

Being really bad kills the ERA especially, and the WHIP and strand percentage to a slightly lesser degree. For George to have posted the number he has means that he's been really good a lot and really bad only a little.

So George should be a simply pitcher to manage. Wouldn't we agree that the contrast between being really good and really bad is stark? On Sunday George pitched a perfect inning. On Wednesday he gave up three quick runs. If a pitcher is going to be really bad rather than really good, that should be apparent after the first or second batter -- if not in the bullpen. If George is, great, since that's how he'll pitch (really good). If not, get him out of there (or simply don't bring him in) before he can do more damage.

Consistency is valued in a pitcher, but it shouldn't be. Good pitching should CLEARLY be valued, but one a pitcher has established his level, let he be really good or really bad. Not only can the manager get the guy out of there before he does more than limited damage, let's suppose a pitcher pitches 54 innings and has a 3.00 ERA. (Kontos wasn't too far off that last season, pitching 53 innings and posting a 2.53 ERA.)

The pitcher gives up 18 earned runs in those 54 frames. This is an extreme example, but let him give up all 18 runs in one game and none in his other 56 (in George's case). His team will get KILLED in that one game, but he'll be an impossible superstar in the other 56 games and suddenly be known as one of the best pitchers in the game. In George's case, he held the opposition scoreless in 47 of his 57 outings. That's not as good as 56 out of 47, but it's pretty good.

Want a very simply example of how George is pretty good? He has lost only nine games and blown only six holds/saves. Not only has he held a lot of leads (nine last season alone), he's blown no more games than he's won. Now THAT'S good pitching. How many relievers do we know who have pitched as much as George yet have won as many games as they have lost or blown a save in?

George pitches in only blowouts, you say? Well, he's a middle reliever, so of course that's true to an extent. But last season over half the batters George faced came with the Giants either ahead or tied.

So Wednesday's outing was just more of the same? Not really. In his 57 games last season, George didn't give up three runs even once. Over the past three seasons, he's done so just three times in 154 appearances.

Can I make an argument that George should be closing games? No, I can't. Because he shouldn't. Can I make an argument he's been a bad pitcher? Can't make that one either, because he hasn't been.

What George has been is an above-average reliever and a clearly above-average middle reliever. I can support George as a good middle reliever with facts. I can't support him as a bad reliever with the facts. The facts say George isn't a bad reliever. I think we've seen a ton more facts here which support his being a good middle reliever than we've seen facts that make him out to be a bad middle reliever.

If all the Giants performed their roles as well as Brandon Belt and George Kontos, the Giants would likely make the postseason every year. How does a team make the postseason? With good players. Belt and Kontos have been good at their roles.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3757/midseason-form?page=1#ixzz4aIGQwXJN

[Rog]

The last three seasons Kontos has eras of .273, .233 and .253. I'm sure the list of middle relief pitchers than have been that solid in a three year span is slim.


Rog -- You tell 'em, Boagie. You've got the facts on your side!




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3757/midseason-form?page=1#ixzz4aIW3fT28

[klaiggeb]

Okay. Then I'll say it plainly and simply.\

I'm not a Kontos fan.

I don't like Kontos on our team.

boly

[Rog]

I appreciate your opinion here, Boly. I would surely like to see it backed up more than George's having a bad outing in spring training and have that represent how he normally pitches though.

Here's a simply way to look at the situation. George pitched pretty well in 47 of his 57 outings last season (well enough not to be scored upon). Similarly, Mark Melancon gave up no runs in 64 of his 75 outings. Does that put George in the same class with Mark? Of course not. But it appears that their ratio of good to bad performances is far closer than one would expect from one of the best closers in the game compared to a bad middle reliever.

It's not that I'm unwilling to be convinced here, Boly, but I need to see good evidence in order to do so. I have been convinced to change my mind before. Neither you nor Randy has presented the evidence here though, have you? Or did I miss something?

[klaiggeb]

I don't like Kontos, Rog.

It's that simple.

No numbers or facts will change my opinion of him.

If I'm picking my 12 pitchers, 12 NOT that idiotic 13 that Bochy seems to love, Kontos is not on my roster.

boly

[Islandboagie]

I get it, Boly, you don't like him. But this isn't a battle of stats vs. on the field performance, it's a battle of reality vs. your own bias.

2016 wasn't the best season for Kontos, but it was still solid. His .253 era would indicate that it certainly wasn't bad. When you consider that his runners stranded % you'll see that he was better than Strickland, Romo, and Gearrin.

In 2015 however, your argument against Kontos loses all credibility. Kontos had a .233 era and was ranked #8 in ALL of baseball in stranded runners.

But hey, this is a free country, you're allowed to have an opinion, no matter how bat shit crazy that opinion is. But Boly, I am a little disappointed that you wouldn't be more open to looking at all the evidence again and then restating your opinion.

Kontos is not a blow 'em away type reliever, which is why I believe there's not much excitement from fans when they hear his name, but if we look at the basic stats involving relievers, Kontos over the last 3 seasons has been pretty darned good.

[sfgdood]

I can't speak for Boly but my personal beef with Kontos is that it takes him a while to get warmed up. He's vulnerable in his first 10-20 pitches. After he's let inherited runners score, he settles in...too late. And that keeps his own ERA low.

[donk33]

I'm not a big fan of Kontos but one thing bothered me all last year was the number of times Bochy would get him up in the pen early in a game and than not use him until the late innings....not the best way to get performance from a relief pitcher....in my opinion...

[klaiggeb]

Boagie, I agree; it's personal bias.

I even posted that, albeit in different words.

boly

[Rog]

I can't speak for Boly but my personal beef with Kontos is that it takes him a while to get warmed up. He's vulnerable in his first 10-20 pitches. After he's let inherited runners score, he settles in...too late. And that keeps his own ERA low.


Rog -- Some good points here, Randy. I too have been thinking throughout our exercise here that relief pitchers often get an advantage when it comes to ERA. Sometimes they enter the game with one out or two, which makes it easier for them not to give up a run. Sometimes too they have a runner on first base, setting up a double play possibility that can further reduce their "inning."

As for Kontos' not being able to warm up quickly and taking 10 to 20 pitches to settle in, there may be some of that -- but not a lot. I don't have anything available for George's first 10 or 20 pitches, but over his first 25, he has yielded only a .639 OPS, not that much higher than his .601 OPS on pitches 26-50. Both are very good figures.

Remember too that in 2015 George finished 8th in the majors in runners stranded. The point isn't that George is a great pitcher. Middle relievers aren't expected to be. The point is that for a middle reliever, he's been darn good.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3757/midseason-form#ixzz4aPvAsRtx

[Rog]

If it's bias, Boly, I guess I'll simply have to become resigned to it. I'm a little disappointed though. That's not in character with the way I view you.

[Rog]

Here'e something with regard to George Kontos' pitching this spring just like always. This post focused on one of George's three outings this season. In it, he walked two batters, then yielded a home run. As we mentioned, had he reversed the order -- home run followed by two walks -- he would have yielded only one run.

In his two other outings George has thrown a perfect inning in each. No hits or walks.

So which is it that he always pitches like -- two walks and a home run in an inning, or two perfect ones?

Boly made the point that Kontos is really good or really bad. That's not necessarily true, but it has been so far this spring. (actually, it's still winter).

[klaiggeb]

I'm human, Rog.

I don't dislike George as a person, I just thing we have better... much better choices.

boly

[Rog]

As a person, George is said to now be the Giants' resident philosopher now that Javier Lopez is gone.