Sanchez Performance To Date

[Boxcar]

WAR is based on predictive stats and not actual results in terms of wins and losses.

 

Please, tell us more

[JaysFan75]

Please, tell us more

 

If a pitcher get's lucky and walks 5 batters, strikes out none, has a lot of hard hit balls against that are mostly hit directly at fielders and caught and allows no runs over 6 innings, he will have a low WAR. If he continues to pitch this way over an entire season he will eventually cost the team in wins and losses. In this game however, he will not have cost his team in wins and losses. An average pitcher would not have a better result.

[JaysFan75]

There are only a finite number of states for 6 games. He is 3-3... he can't be 2.7-3.3, he cost us in a probabilistic sense.

 

If someone better than Sanchez was pitching those games there is a 50% chance we'd still be 3-3 in them, but a 30% chance we'd be 4-2, and maybe a 20% chance we'd be 2-4. I don't know what the numbers are exactly. There not exactly like that, of course... there is also a chance we'd be 0-6, 1-5... so on.

 

Say everything else is the same... a better guy might of won the April 27th Boston game.

 

Who's this better pitcher you are talking about? Yes, if they signed James Shields in the off season, you would play him instead of Sanchez. None of the other options they have available to them would likely have won any more games.

[Deadpool]

If a pitcher get's lucky and walks 5 batters, strikes out none, has a lot of hard hit balls against that are mostly hit directly at fielders and caught and allows no runs over 6 innings, he will have a low WAR. If he continues to pitch this way over an entire season he will eventually cost the team in wins and losses. In this game however, he will not have cost his team in wins and losses. An average pitcher would not have a better result.

 

He will have a low WAR because he pitched poorly. You're not exactly helping your argument with this "he pitched like s*** but luck so he was good and WAR doesn't matter" stance.

[Boxcar]

If a pitcher get's lucky and walks 5 batters, strikes out none, has a lot of hard hit balls against that are mostly hit directly at fielders and caught and allows no runs over 6 innings, he will have a low WAR. If he continues to pitch this way over an entire season he will eventually cost the team in wins and losses. In this game however, he will not have cost his team in wins and losses. An average pitcher would not have a better result.

 

This blows my mind.

[NorthOf49]

If a pitcher get's lucky and walks 5 batters, strikes out none, has a lot of hard hit balls against that are mostly hit directly at fielders and caught and allows no runs over 6 innings, he will have a low WAR. If he continues to pitch this way over an entire season he will eventually cost the team in wins and losses. In this game however, he will not have cost his team in wins and losses. An average pitcher would not have a better result.

You're looking at a pitcher's role wrong. This pitcher can not get lucky here because there is no reason to assign runs allowed to him. He does cost his team in wins and losses if he walks 5 batters and strikes out none. If there are no runs allowed, it is because the defence and various random effects conspired to earn back the value that the pitcher cost his team. The pitcher's role in run prevention is primarily the accumulation of strikeouts and ground balls and limiting of walks.

[theblujay]

This blows my mind.

 

Which part because everything he said is true

[Boxcar]

Which part because everything he said is true

 

After being wrong so often, it amazes me that you write with such confidence.

[JaysFan75]

He will have a low WAR because he pitched poorly. You're not exactly helping your argument with this "he pitched like s*** but luck so he was good and WAR doesn't matter" stance.

 

This blows my mind.

 

My argument was that while he has pitched poorly, he hasn't cost the team in terms of wins and losses. If he continues to pitch like this it will cost them, but it hasn't so far. For guys who seem to subscribe to advanced statistics, you don't really seem to have a very good understanding of them.

[Boxcar]

My argument was that while he has pitched poorly, he hasn't cost the team in terms of wins and losses. If he continues to pitch like this it will cost them, but it hasn't so far. For guys who seem to subscribe to advanced statistics, you don't really seem to have a very good understanding of them.

 

Preach brother.

[JaysFan75]

You're looking at a pitcher's role wrong. This pitcher can not get lucky here because there is no reason to assign runs allowed to him. He does cost his team in wins and losses if he walks 5 batters and strikes out none. If there are no runs allowed, it is because the defence and various random effects conspired to earn back the value that the pitcher cost his team. The pitcher's role in run prevention is primarily the accumulation of strikeouts and ground balls and limiting of walks.

 

I think you are reading my posts wrong. I'm not saying he's pitched well. I am saying that he has pitched poorly on the whole, but it hasn't cost the team in wins and losses.

[Boxcar]

I think you are reading my posts wrong. I'm not saying he's pitched well. I am saying that he has pitched poorly on the whole, but it hasn't cost the team in wins and losses.

 

I don't really even see the point of this stance.

[Olerud363]

If a pitcher get's lucky and walks 5 batters, strikes out none, has a lot of hard hit balls against that are mostly hit directly at fielders and caught and allows no runs over 6 innings, he will have a low WAR. If he continues to pitch this way over an entire season he will eventually cost the team in wins and losses. In this game however, he will not have cost his team in wins and losses. An average pitcher would not have a better result.

 

If the Jays scored 100 runs in Sanchez 6 starts... atleast 10 runs in every game... you would be sort of correct. It doesn't matter who pitched those games.

 

But that is not the case. Jays went 3-3 in Sanchez' starts. If Greg Maddux 95-version pitched those games Jays would probably be better than 3-3.

 

If Jay Happ pitched those 6 games they most likely would of been 3-3. However they would had a better chance of getting four or more wins.

 

Sanchez over Happ cost the Jays 1/3 of a win... or something... it is hard to see with only 6 games... 1/3 of a win is abstract so we can only say "Jays might of had an extra win if Happ was here"

 

By the end of the season if things remain the same we can say "Jays would of had an extra win or 2 with Happ"

 

Not that I hate the Happ trade... at the moment it just doesn't look like it is working and Happ is the kind of guy we could have instead of Sanchez in order to grab an extra win. Didn't know Stroman and Saunders would get injured when the trade was made.

[JaysFan75]

Preach brother.

 

Advanced Statistics, in small sample sizes, do not reflect results as far as wins and losses, especially for pitchers. A pitcher can pitch poorly and still allow a low amount of runs in a game. In the long run, continued poor performance will most likely cost the team wins, but it doesn't mean they have in the sample in question.

[Olerud363]

I think you are reading my posts wrong. I'm not saying he's pitched well. I am saying that he has pitched poorly on the whole, but it hasn't cost the team in wins and losses.

 

If we just cherry pick the games we could say someone else would of won the 3 games Sanchez won... and some other scrub could of held on to the 5-2 lead we had in Boston. All the sucker would of had to do that day is go 6, give up 3. Would of gotten the bullpen into a better situation.

 

If Randy Wolf pitched those games we would be 4-2... NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.... well not really, but we might of been 4-2 with Randy Wolf.

[JaysFan75]

Sanchez has cost the team in terms of wins and losses. Random effects and the Blue Jays defense simply won the team back the wins and losses that he cost.

 

Wow... You cannot lose a game that you win!!!

[theblujay]

Wow... You cannot lose a game that you win!!!

 

In advanced stats you don't win or lose, the outcome doesn't matter apparently.

[NorthOf49]

Wow... You cannot lose a game that you win!!!

You can break a game down into partial wins and losses. Assigning whole wins and losses to individual players based on the team's performance is silly. By that logic, I haven't cost the Blue Jays in terms of wins and losses either. Does that mean I've pitched okay?

 

In advanced stats you don't win or lose, the outcome doesn't matter apparently.

Players should not be assigned outcomes they had little control over.

[Olerud363]

Advanced Statistics, in small sample sizes, do not reflect results as far as wins and losses, especially for pitchers. A pitcher can pitch poorly and still allow a low amount of runs in a game. In the long run, continued poor performance will most likely cost the team wins, but it doesn't mean they have in the sample in question.

 

No they do reflect wins and losses. Back to J.A. Happ. He is 1 WAR ahead of Sanchez. Let's just say he pitches here like he is in Seattle (that is not valid really because if he was here he might trip over the sprinkler, or a bat or some stupid thing... it is the Jays after all)...

 

If J.A. Happ is here he loses game 1 and 2, and then the Jays win the next 4. So they are 4-2 in his starts... they were only 3-3 with Sanchez. Happ wins the April 27th game.

 

It doesn't really work like that... it's all probabilistic... but even so you can see how throwing Happ in there with his distribution of performances would give the Jays an extra win.

[Boxcar]

You can break down a game into partial wins and losses. Assigning whole wins and losses to individual players based on the team's performance is silly. By that logic, I haven't lost the Blue Jays in terms of wins and losses either. Does that mean I've pitched okay?

 

Don't bother North. You're just another Advanced Stats Fan...whatever that is. A Fangraphs.com guy, if you will.

[JaysFan75]

If we just cherry pick the games we could say someone else would of won the 3 games Sanchez won... and some other scrub could of held on to the 5-2 lead we had in Boston. All the sucker would of had to do that day is go 6, give up 3. Would of gotten the bullpen into a better situation.

 

If Randy Wolf pitched those games we would be 4-2... NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.... well not really, but we might of been 4-2 with Randy Wolf.

 

And we might have been 2-4.

[JaysFan75]

Don't bother North. You're just another Advanced Stats Fan...whatever that is. A Fangraphs.com guy, if you will.

 

I'm an Advanced Stats Fan as well. I look at Fangraphs.com every day. The difference between myself and North, it would seem, is that he has no idea how they work.

[JaysFan75]

No they do reflect wins and losses. Back to J.A. Happ. He is 1 WAR ahead of Sanchez. Let's just say he pitches here like he is in Seattle (that is not valid really because if he was here he might trip over the sprinkler, or a bat or some stupid thing... it is the Jays after all)...

 

If J.A. Happ is here he loses game 1 and 2, and then the Jays win the next 4. So they are 4-2 in his starts... they were only 3-3 with Sanchez. Happ wins the April 27th game.

 

It doesn't really work like that... it's all probabilistic... but even so you can see how throwing Happ in there with his distribution of performances would give the Jays an extra win.

 

J.A. Happ is not a member of the Blue Jays. If he was, and Sanchez was pitching in his place, yes Sanchez would be costing the team wins. Happ has not been an option, so Sanchez hasn't cost the team wins.

[King]

I'm an Advanced Stats Fan as well. I look at Fangraphs.com every day. The difference between myself and North, it would seem, is that he has no idea how they work.

 

Lol

[havok24]

I'm an Advanced Stats Fan as well. I look at Fangraphs.com every day. The difference between myself and North, it would seem, is that he has no idea how they work.

 

lol

[jays4life19]

I'm an Advanced Stats Fan as well. I look at Fangraphs.com every day. The difference between myself and North, it would seem, is that he has no idea how they work.

 

lol.

[JaysFan75]

You can break a game down into partial wins and losses. Assigning whole wins and losses to individual players based on the team's performance is silly. By that logic, I haven't cost the Blue Jays in terms of wins and losses either. Does that mean I've pitched okay?

 

 

Players should not be assigned outcomes they had little control over.

 

I never said he pitched OK, I said he pitched poorly. What I said is that it hasn't cost the team in terms of wins and losses.

[theblujay]

Sanchez has cost the team in terms of wins and losses. Random effects and the Blue Jays defense simply won the team back the wins and losses that he cost.

 

You can't get two wins in a game. If Sanchez had pitched well (no walks) and he still had the great D and great luck it's still the same outcome: one win for the team.

 

That's what we mean when we say he hasn't cost the team.

[JaysFan75]

I'm an Advanced Stats Fan as well. I look at Fangraphs.com every day. The difference between myself and North, it would seem, is that he has no idea how they work.

 

Sorry, that was over the line. But I definitely think that there is a miss-understanding here between a pitchers performance and the impact it has on an individual game. A pitcher can pitch poorly, while not costing his team in terms of wins and losses.

[JaysFan75]

The team is 3-3 when he pitches, though.

 

I don't see how you can realistically say that a replacement player would have had a better win-loss record.