Time To Dump the Save Statistic Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.
Sounds like that's your problem.

Maybe BL can explain to you why ERA is a poor way to evaluate relief pitchers.

???

ERA isn't perfect but it works just fine for the purpose of dahs' point. He's saying, "no need to disrupt the comfort of your best reliever if your second best is basically just as good."

Nothing earth shattering about that point. I'd still lean toward, "use your best when the game is on the line," but this isn't a hill worth dying for.
Your hero disagrees about ERA.
1/21/2016 7:35 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.
Sounds like that's your problem.

Maybe BL can explain to you why ERA is a poor way to evaluate relief pitchers.

???

ERA isn't perfect but it works just fine for the purpose of dahs' point. He's saying, "no need to disrupt the comfort of your best reliever if your second best is basically just as good."

Nothing earth shattering about that point. I'd still lean toward, "use your best when the game is on the line," but this isn't a hill worth dying for.
Your hero disagrees about ERA.
Yeah, you've posted that before in support of your argument that ERA isn't a great way to measure relief pitchers.

Here: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=1&TopicID=482508&ThreadID=10621191#l_10621191 

Which is something to consider when comparing starters to relievers. But dahs isn't doing that. He's comparing two relief pitchers. So they both get that advantage and we don't need to worry about it.
1/21/2016 7:51 PM
d_rock97
Posts: 4009 (0)
Hall of Famer
624
Prospect
The teams that have set roles, are the teams with the best bullpens, and that's why they succeed. 2014-2015 Royals, 1991 Reds, they have set roles but they also have 3 top 10 RPs. You couldn't do the same with say the Tigers with Bruce Rondon, Al Albuerquerque, Joakim Soria 7-8-9. I guess now they can with their new Bullpen in Wilson - Lowe - K-Rod. But I'd still want my best reliever whether he's a closer or not against their best hitters, especially in a close, high-leverage game
1/21/2016 8:13 PM
d_rock97
Posts: 4009 (0)
Hall of Famer
624
Prospect
In the 8th inning of a 1 run game, the Tigers have Cabrera JD and Upton come up.
In the 9th, assuming it's a 1-2-3 inning, they have V-Mart Castellanos and McCann come up.
Why have say for the White Sox, Dan Ortero come in to face the 3-4-5 and maybe 6 and 7 in the 8th inning of a 1 run game, with David Robertson available only to pitch against 8-9-1 if small chance that the Tigers don't score with those guys up happens
1/21/2016 8:20 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
1) With a Major League reliever, it's not a "small chance the Tigers don't score."  It's smaller than you'd prefer, but it's still more likely than not that they'll be held scoreless.

2) I did mention the White Sox as a team that I might like to see manage the bullpen more fluidly.
1/21/2016 8:24 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.
Sounds like that's your problem.

Maybe BL can explain to you why ERA is a poor way to evaluate relief pitchers.

???

ERA isn't perfect but it works just fine for the purpose of dahs' point. He's saying, "no need to disrupt the comfort of your best reliever if your second best is basically just as good."

Nothing earth shattering about that point. I'd still lean toward, "use your best when the game is on the line," but this isn't a hill worth dying for.
Your hero disagrees about ERA.
Yeah, you've posted that before in support of your argument that ERA isn't a great way to measure relief pitchers.

Here: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=1&TopicID=482508&ThreadID=10621191#l_10621191 

Which is something to consider when comparing starters to relievers. But dahs isn't doing that. He's comparing two relief pitchers. So they both get that advantage and we don't need to worry about it.
Surely even you can understand that there's a difference between the value of ERAs between the ninth inning closer (who typically is pitching whole innings) and the 7th/8th inning setup guys, who may be coming in to games in the middle of innings and/or in L/R matchup situations.

Or maybe you don't, since you seem to struggle with understanding baseball.

1/21/2016 8:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Prolly not.
1/21/2016 8:56 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Prolly not.
He dum.
1/21/2016 9:01 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2016 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.
Sounds like that's your problem.

Maybe BL can explain to you why ERA is a poor way to evaluate relief pitchers.

???

ERA isn't perfect but it works just fine for the purpose of dahs' point. He's saying, "no need to disrupt the comfort of your best reliever if your second best is basically just as good."

Nothing earth shattering about that point. I'd still lean toward, "use your best when the game is on the line," but this isn't a hill worth dying for.
Your hero disagrees about ERA.
Yeah, you've posted that before in support of your argument that ERA isn't a great way to measure relief pitchers.

Here: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=1&TopicID=482508&ThreadID=10621191#l_10621191 

Which is something to consider when comparing starters to relievers. But dahs isn't doing that. He's comparing two relief pitchers. So they both get that advantage and we don't need to worry about it.
Surely even you can understand that there's a difference between the value of ERAs between the ninth inning closer (who typically is pitching whole innings) and the 7th/8th inning setup guys, who may be coming in to games in the middle of innings and/or in L/R matchup situations.

Or maybe you don't, since you seem to struggle with understanding baseball.

a) you're missing the forest for the trees. I don't want to speak for dahs, but I'm pretty sure that he was just using ERA to reference the negligible difference between the best set up guys and closers.

b) I'd be willing to bet that the RA9-ERA difference between the best set up guys and the best closers is essentially the same. Actually, I know it is, because I pulled the numbers. The average difference between the RA9 and ERA for the 25 best set up guys in 2015 was 0.29. The average difference for the 25 best closers in 2015 was 0.27.

In terms of actual runs, the best set up guys allow 2.1 more runs than earned runs over the course of the season. That number is 1.8 for the best closers.
1/21/2016 10:16 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
So, yeah, using ERA is perfectly fine for this conversation.
1/21/2016 10:18 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
LOL @ Mr. "I'm the smartest person in the room because I KNOW HOW TO USE STATISTICS" for falling on his face when he tries to use statistics.

Do you understand baseball?

1/22/2016 6:31 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Well, I'm not wrong here, so I'm not sure what your point is.
1/22/2016 11:34 AM
toddcommish
Posts: 4875 (0)
Hall of Famer
478 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Well, I'm not wrong here, so I'm not sure what your point is.
I'd be interested to hear if you think there has been any time on these forums that you WERE wrong?!
1/22/2016 11:36 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Well, I'm not wrong here, so I'm not sure what your point is.
I'll just add that to the list of things you're unsure about.
1/22/2016 11:48 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 1/22/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Well, I'm not wrong here, so I'm not sure what your point is.
I'd be interested to hear if you think there has been any time on these forums that you WERE wrong?!
I've been wrong about things before. Have you?
1/22/2016 11:49 AM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9...13 Next ▸
Time To Dump the Save Statistic Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.