Josh Johnson out 4-5 weeks with 'strained right forearm'

[NorthOf49]

You always have to have the last word, huh?

[S33n]

Wow, how do people find the time? Anyways, in my opinion Johnson is done. If not because of diminishing skill, than due to his chronic health concerns. I'm glad we aren't counting on him for anything this season. I would be surprised if he surpasses his innings total from last season.

[Nox]

Regardless, most of this "BABIP deviations are luck" garbage will be eradicated and/or refined by studying "quality of contact" beyond the cursory "hit/miss" and "fly ball/line drive/ground ball" categorical inquiries.

 

Measuring and analyzing smash factor and launch angle will be integral in this. It will also likely steer away some (but not all, or even most) emphasis from the importance of the K.

 

Teams have batted ball velo, launch angle etc. from both HitFX and Trackman. It's not like any of that instantly stabilizes either which you seem to think it will. It's just another, albeit, closer proxy to measuring a player's true talent which is really all that a team should care about (from an evaluation standpoint).

 

I'm also not sure why you don't think there are smart people working on this stuff full time. The barrier of entry to the top end analytical teams is incredibly high. You basically need an advanced degree in Math, Physics, Engineering, Operations Research or you can get the f*** out.

[TwistedLogic]

Nothing wrong with some optimism even if it's highly unlikely to occur. This forum is a breeding ground for depression sometimes.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth. It's funny (really, it's just sad) that not only do people relentlessly cling to their depression for this team, if someone else shows even a little bit of optimism, it actually bothers those people and they have a problem with it.

 

Cool. Not really a good reason to go overboard with the delusional homerism, though. You're just setting yourself up for yet more disappointment.

 

Expect the worst, and be pleasantly surprised if we're within 5 games of the second WC spot come September.

 

You'll fit in well here.

[GeorgiaPeach]

K...................................

 

????

[GD]

List-making has to fit on there somewhere. Although I guess it could be merged with #4.

 

That would be #7. Pedantic-ism is #8, King is #9 and your mother is #10.

your mom trolling is the only kind of trolling

[Nox]

And what effect does that have on publicly available information and analysis, which is what we're discussing here?

 

You seem to think that this information becoming public is somehow going to fundamentally alter what we think about DIPS and some of the BABIP based metrics that are currently in use. Despite what your intuition might be telling you, it doesn't. With the information available, turns out they do a pretty damn good job of getting most of the way to where they need to go.

 

Variance does not disappear as we measure things closer to a player's true talent.

 

It's his first real job out of college and he has a Bachelor's in Econ from Temple. I laughed, I cried. Overall, a good read. I recommend.

 

First of all, sweet cherry pick. Contrast that with Alan Nathan, Doug Fearing or Sig Mejdal. Do they meet your standards? Would you say that they might have a speaking part in a conversation regarding the analysis of baseball?

 

Secondly, how do you know the kid they hired is an idiot? There's a non-zero chance that he's legitimately smart and an even bigger chance that they took him on in some sort of scouting capacity. "Analyst" is just a catch all title for the lowest rung of jobs in the industry. They can be anything from a video scout to a SQL code monkey to a guy working on some enhancements to a pitch classification algorithm.

 

Thirdly, didn't you just get over telling us all that you thought WAR was used as a predictive measure? You have plenty of good insight in other areas (CBA, taxes etc.) so I don't know why you think you need to speak so authoritatively here when it's a clearly not something you've spent alot of time trying to understand.

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

20 straight years of playoff futility, "bested" only by the likes of that venerable franchise, the Kansas City Royals, with nary even a year of contention mixed in there ... and an offseason marked with little to no movement to supplement the uber-disappointing club.

 

That'll make pessimism into realism, and optimism into crazy-talk.

 

 

Oh, as an aside, the aforementioned Royals actually posted 12 more wins than the Jays last year, and replaced Lough and various putrid 2nd basemen with Aoki and Infante (and Moustakas has been beast mode in the spring, so if he finally comes around ...). Pitching wise they did lose Santana, but added an innings eater in Vargas and Ventura is looking ready so they might be flat there (unless Ventura truly breaks out).

 

Older fans were spoiled with 1983-1993 when we were one of the more exciting and successful franchises in baseball. The main complaint in that period was how good we were but never winning a world series ( kind of a "choker" label ). So I don't care so much that they haven't won since and don't buy into the theories that they can't win because of our market, our stadium, or simply because we haven't won so long. But I have a daughter who was born slightly after their last world series win, and she holds the outlook that they will never be good because all she's ever heard is that they may be good and they never are legit contenders. So I understand the mentality on here at times, I just don't agree with the certainty that some people have concerning future events.

 

It's actually crazy talk to assume everything will stay bad or good for any team. The pessimism on this site is way overdone, even on the Raptors thread there are people complaining about Demar and the coach, and they are having a great season. Worst case the Jays lose, it's hardly important and I can't see how constantly complaining about them and expecting the worst is useful. Real Jays fans don't do this. If you hate the team, cheer for some one else.

[The_DH]

Those were fun and exciting years.

[GD]

You're a switch hitter. You might need that versatility in the future.

 

Assuming King is a man. Spanky's not so sure.

 

King has no penis................Pillar Lite!

[GD]

Yes they do, but what he's saying is that for a pitcher, they are still luck based and don't change our assumptions. Just because we have more data that can show why BABIP is what it is, it still doesn't mean it's predictive. Just because hitters hit him hard, does NOT mean that was his fault or because of him pitching poorly.

 

I feel like people are going to miss the point entirely and blast the living hell out of you.

 

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

[leaffie]

Not missing the point, but why does there have to be a fight?

 

Why is it that the sabre guys think that is the ONLY thing that should ever be used. Those computer numbers that are generated by a machine, HAVE to know more than a person.

 

Even old time fans, would admit that most of the numbers are very useful. The problem is that some think they are the ONLY thing to be considered.

 

When these numbers are being generated, why do they not take into consideration the fact, that JJ has declined each year, that he has been injured numerous years, with serious injuries. Some of which were never fixed properly. Why is it, that when a fan watches a game, and sees JJ being smashed all over the park, and then the next game he comes out, and puts his team down before they even take the field, or that he looks totally lost out there, why is that not worthy of consideration.

 

Why is it, that it is not his fault. When is it the responsibility of the pitcher, for producing a dreadful result? Or is it never his responsibility. Why when he pitches a lousy game, is it the result of bad luck, or bad fielding, or any other such excuse? How bad does a pitcher have to be, before numbers actually support him being lousy?

[GeorgiaPeach]

Not missing the point, but why does there have to be a fight?

 

Why is it that the sabre guys think that is the ONLY thing that should ever be used. Those computer numbers that are generated by a machine, HAVE to know more than a person.

 

Even old time fans, would admit that most of the numbers are very useful. The problem is that some think they are the ONLY thing to be considered.

 

When these numbers are being generated, why do they not take into consideration the fact, that JJ has declined each year, that he has been injured numerous years, with serious injuries. Some of which were never fixed properly. Why is it, that when a fan watches a game, and sees JJ being smashed all over the park, and then the next game he comes out, and puts his team down before they even take the field, or that he looks totally lost out there, why is that not worthy of consideration.

 

Why is it, that it is not his fault. When is it the responsibility of the pitcher, for producing a dreadful result? Or is it never his responsibility. Why when he pitches a lousy game, is it the result of bad luck, or bad fielding, or any other such excuse? How bad does a pitcher have to be, before numbers actually support him being lousy?

 

There's no such thing as a good or bad pitcher. Every result is a combination of luck, the batter, the catcher and the fielders behind the pitcher.

 

It just so happens that hitters are less lucky against pitchers who have better skills than pitchers with worse skills.

[leaffie]

It's his responsibility for not striking out batters and walking too many. He did neither.

 

So these numbers are based only on striking out batters and walks? So if he can only manage to get a velocity of say 88mph, and can't manage to throw the ball anywhere except over the middle of the plate, where it is promptly fired over the fence, that is not his responsibility?

 

I find it hard to believe that any pitcher would be judged on just those two things.

[GD]

So these numbers are based only on striking out batters and walks? So if he can only manage to get a velocity of say 88mph, and can't manage to throw the ball anywhere except over the middle of the plate, where it is promptly fired over the fence, that is not his responsibility?

 

I find it hard to believe that any pitcher would be judged on just those two things.

 

And also home runs relative to the number of fly balls given up. However, that doesn't really correlate year to year. Home runs are a lot of randomness on the pitcher's part, actually. Hugely based on variance and environment.

[leaffie]

There's no such thing as a good or bad pitcher. Every result is a combination of luck, the batter, the catcher and the fielders behind the pitcher.

 

It just so happens that hitters are less lucky against pitchers who have better skills than pitchers with worse skills.

 

Well then I guess everyone that is complaining about the Jays terrible rotation, shouldn't be concerned.

[GD]

I feel like the word "luck" casts the wrong shadow over JFaS' point.

[leaffie]

I feel like the word "luck" casts the wrong shadow over JFaS' point.

 

 

 

No kidding.

[GD]

You sit down, Sparky. I had to explain the difference between r and r-squared to you. Luck is a perfectly fine reflection of "stuff we just can't explain yet, but much of which we will in the future, so we just lump all sss deviations in with as yet unexplained phenomena."

 

K........................................... .

[Nox]

I'll be the judge of that

 

I have a feeling you'll talk about it but you certainly won't be the judge of it.

 

Launch velo and launch angle, together, play a crucial role in determining the likelihood of a hit.

 

You don't say. Alan Nathan, the guy whose existence you learned of an hour ago, showed teams how to do this 5 years ago with their HitFX data. Of course the harder a ball is hit, the more likely it is to fall for a hit. Having this information at your disposal doesn't make it a slam dunk to figure out who actually has the ability to do this consistently though. It's not a magic bullet like you seem to think.

 

It's the first name I actually gathered info on, by chance.

 

Oh, so n=1 then. Much better.

 

He's listed on their site. The only analyst. They don't have extensive teams of these guys.

 

I'd say about 30% of people working in analytics are actually listed on teams' sites. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. There's no incentive to publicly advertise what you're researching.

 

Fearing has been working for Tampa for the last ~4 years. He was put on their site a month ago. Tango has never been listed on a team's site despite consulting almost full time for various teams throughout the last decade.

 

I'd love to hear more about how statistical analysis is not applicable to risk profiles and pricing of credit default swaps

 

Sure. For all intents and purposes, a CDS is an insurance policy on an underlying asset. Traditional statistics work fantastically when the underlying asset is something that's governed by mild randomness (gaussian, semi gaussian environments). That's why things like life insurance, car insurance etc are essentially licenses to print money for those companies. Their models are tight and they'll never lose over the long term. The frequency of almost all events in this domain are quite predictable.

 

Things change at a fundamental level when the underlying when the underlying asset is something like gov't debt from s***** Country X or a pool of supposedly uncorrelated mortgages. The randomness that runs the show in those domains is of infinite variance and thus can't really be modeled (model error and convexity effects crushes everything here from an analysis standpoint) at least in terms of predicting the frequency of events. Trying to do so leads to monstrosities that do their best to blow up the world. Like this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VaR (Quote I just read that I liked: "an airbag that works all the time, except when you have a car accident.")

 

or this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_copula#Gaussian_copula

 

(note the inventor of the latter is as disgusted at it's misapplication in finance as anybody).

 

So, if you don't really know what the frequency distribution of the underlying asset looks like and can't actually predict frequencies of outcomes, doesn't it seem pretty silly to try to insure said asset?

[GeorgiaPeach]

My thoughts on this conversation are:

 

In rudimentary terms:

 

Josh Johnson had been a very good pitcher prior to joining the Jays. Johnson was pitching injured in 2013 and his stuff has been declining since peaking in late 2010. The variance between his CH & FB has been gradually shrinking the past few years as well leading to the CH looking more and more similar to the FB. So with hitters sitting on a pedestrian FB and being more hittable, and the CH being less of a weapon, mistakes are more likely to be hit harder.

 

In 2013 Josh Johnson was horrible, but not as bad as he would've been, if he wasn't injured. If Johnson gets healthy after this strain I expect him to pitch better than he did for us in 2013, but gradually worse going forward with the odd blip up or down, here or there. I attribute most of the downfall in 2013 to the injury and to a lesser extent the loss of stuff. Going forward and JJ being "healthy" I expect #3 type numbers from him, but the health concerns push him to a questionable SP the rest of his career.

[G-Snarls]

Worst thread > 10 pages in a while

 

This is just painful stuff guys. F'n painful.

[GD]

This guy understands analytics.

 

Gem of a thread.

[pobguy]

Trackman, as currently constructed, tracks the ball but not the bat.

[GeorgiaPeach]

Then why was his SwStr% and O-Swing% on both his FB and CH better in 2013 than 2012?

 

Coming back from not pitching for 8-9 months?

 

I'd say its initially more difficult coming back from not pitching for 8-9 months than it is pitching through a nagging injury without a break in pitching.

[pobguy]

Alan Nathan, the guy whose existence you learned of an hour ago, showed teams how to do this 5 years ago with their HitFX data. Of course the harder a ball is hit, the more likely it is to fall for a hit. Having this information at your disposal doesn't make it a slam dunk to figure out who actually has the ability to do this consistently though. It's not a magic bullet like you seem to think.

While I did present this type of analysis at the 2009 PITCHf/x summit, the most definitive publicly available work on the subject was done by Mike Fast in a pair of articles published in BPro, just before he was stolen away by the Astros:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15532

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15562

Also, as noted somewhere upthread, I gave a talk on this subject at the 2013 Saberseminar:

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/Saberseminar2013-v2.pptx.

[GeorgiaPeach]

Then why was he hit harder in 2013?

 

Because JP doesn't know how to call a game.

 

When the difference between the CH & The FB keeps getting smaller and smaller, the "mistakes" become less frequent and the change is no longer a change and starts getting battered. His SL which was traditionally a bread & butter pitch was a lot more hittable last year and for some reason he increased the use of his Two-Seamer which has never really been a successful pitch of his.

Edited March 25, 2014 by GeorgiaPeach

[GD]

Because JP doesn't know how to call a game.

 

Ughhh I want to quantify this so bad.

[bzapple]

Worst thread > 10 pages in a while

 

This is just painful stuff guys. F'n painful.

 

Are you kidding? I love a good throwdown between the old and new school posters.

[wilko]

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/03/8290860.jpg