GDT (2/3): Blue Jays @ Twins (Sanchez vs. Gibson)

[LTR]

Correlation? That's just a leaderboard with a spread fully explained by random variation. The leader this year, Dallas Keuchel, has a career 18.8% Soft%; I don't know how you can say he has the soft contact skill.

 

Not sure if you're purposely being dim here. There is a completely obvious correlation that good pitchers generate more weak contact. Even Keuchel's soft contact rates are correlating with his individual season performance.

Edited June 1, 2015 by LTR

[Olerud363]

Might be the dumbest thing I ever saw posted...Good pitches in good locations, setting up hitters, consistently gets weaker contact...You are saying basically it is all luck? Then what seperates the Halladays from the replacement players? According to you it is luck....total nonsense.

 

?? THIS IS THE DUMBEST THING I EVER SAW POSTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I had to all-cap to emphasize, given you accused someone else of "dumbest thing ever" when ironically you actually posted the dumbest thing ever.

 

Take pitchers such as Halladay....

 

Give them 200 ks, 35 walks

Give them high ground ball rate

 

This will separate them from replacement players. These pitchers deserve 2.50 era (or so)

 

Take pitchers such as Dallas Kuechel

 

Give them 170-60 k-bb or such

 

If they have 1.76 era it is luck... if they have 3.00 era that might be what they deserve.

[Olerud363]

Might be the dumbest thing I ever saw posted...Good pitches in good locations, setting up hitters, consistently gets weaker contact...You are saying basically it is all luck? Then what seperates the Halladays from the replacement players? According to you it is luck....total nonsense.

 

You are dumb. Part of science is realizing that anybody can have luck. Any result you see may be just chance. And you have to then use rigorous science to determine if what you saw was luck, or an actual relationship.

 

If Roy Halladay type is lucky they can have 1.5 era over entire season. If unlucky could be as high as 4.00. Luck effects all. Josh Towers can get lucky for a season.

 

Since you do not understand this you must change your name. You do not have scientific reason. Mods... please, instead of bans I suggest name changes.

 

Scientific Reason - auto change name to UnscientificReason

 

Moogie aliases - change name back to Moogy so we know who we are talking to.

 

I discourage complete bans, but encourage name changes.

[Olerud363]

Not sure if you're purposely being dim here. There is a completely obvious correlation that good pitchers generate more weak contact. Even Keuchel's soft contact rates are correlating with his individual season performance.

 

Holy Crap. This board is dumb. Haven't you ever heard of correlation is not causation?? It is like common logic 101.

 

Weak contact is correlated with low era. But both weak contact and low era could of happened because of luck.

[ScientificReason]

?? THIS IS THE DUMBEST THING I EVER SAW POSTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I had to all-cap to emphasize, given you accused someone else of "dumbest thing ever" when ironically you actually posted the dumbest thing ever.

 

Take pitchers such as Halladay....

 

Give them 200 ks, 35 walks

Give them high ground ball rate

 

This will separate them from replacement players. These pitchers deserve 2.50 era (or so)

 

Take pitchers such as Dallas Kuechel

 

Give them 170-60 k-bb or such

 

If they have 1.76 era it is luck... if they have 3.00 era that might be what they deserve.

 

Total and utter nonsense......Good ground ball rate = Enducing weaker contact.....You just proved my point. Make good pitches consistently = weaker contact and more outs. There are a lot of ground ball pitchers, that were not strikeout pitchers that were garbage, yet halladay was a stud why? because he enduced weaker contact.

 

To say pitchers have no control over enducing weaker contact is incredibly dumb. Making pitches on the corner, and doing it with multiple pitches = more success. It's obvious unless you are a moron. Also good pitchers force more swinging strikes which by definition = less contact....Therefore pitchers are the single biggest factor in the type of contact and success they have.Saying otherwise is like believing in Big foot.

 

 

Yes a pitcher who pitches an entire season and has a 1,8 era is all luck.....lol, yes you have taken back the reward for dumbest post of, not just the day, but maybe the year.

[ScientificReason]

Holy Crap. This board is dumb. Haven't you ever heard of correlation is not causation?? It is like common logic 101.

 

Weak contact is correlated with low era. But both weak contact and low era could of happened because of luck.

 

Over the course of many games that is simply not possible as things would by law of averages even out, another idiotic post.

[LTR]

Holy Crap. This board is dumb. Haven't you ever heard of correlation is not causation?? It is like common logic 101.

 

Weak contact is correlated with low era. But both weak contact and low era could of happened because of luck.

 

You realize the phrase 'correlation is not causation' is not actually an argument in itself unless you are backing it up with facts, right? I never mentioned ERA at any point. What I did was point out that good pitchers generate weak contact at a higher rate. How anyone can argue this is completely beyond me. And Dallas Keuchel is a good pitcher dispite his ERA.

 

I'm actually flabbergasted by the stupidity on this board. Not just stupidity but the total willingness to accept a dumb statement by more popular posters.

[L54]

?? THIS IS THE DUMBEST THING I EVER SAW POSTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I had to all-cap to emphasize, given you accused someone else of "dumbest thing ever" when ironically you actually posted the dumbest thing ever.

 

Take pitchers such as Halladay....

 

Give them 200 ks, 35 walks

Give them high ground ball rate

 

This will separate them from replacement players. These pitchers deserve 2.50 era (or so)

 

Take pitchers such as Dallas Kuechel

 

Give them 170-60 k-bb or such

 

If they have 1.76 era it is luck... if they have 3.00 era that might be what they deserve.

 

I'm a big fan of your back of napkin math at all times. Really adds credibility to your posts.

[Olerud363]

I'm a big fan of your back of napkin math at all times. Really adds credibility to your posts.

 

Holy crap. Just when you think things couldn't get any dumber.

 

I didn't do math?? Do you even know what Math is??

 

I said pitchers such as Halladay with a 200-35 k/bb ratio deserve a 2.50 era (or so). I didn't use a napkin or math. I am just guessing that a pitcher with a 200-35 k/bb ratio deserves a 2.50 era based on years of watching baseball and reading stats.

 

I said pitchers with a 170-60 k/bb ratio deserve a 3.00 era, based on same.

 

Math would give you a better answer.

[LTR]

ITT:

 

Apparently a pitcher with a good stuff can't generate more weak contact than a pitcher with a crappy stuff because "it isn't a skill that conventional pitchers like Loup can have".

 

^Arguably the biggest derp in the history of this board.

[Olerud363]

Swing and miss on a number of counts, Dumb Quixote. First, ScientificReason is definitely not Moogy, nor Copperweld. No matter how crazy I wanted to appear, I'd never resort to using an avatar, let alone one as uninteresting as two guys making weird faces. Second, what you stated doesn't refute what ScientificReason stated. He never said luck doesn't exist. And, regardless, your attempts to explain variation reads like a 12-year old who just heard the word the other day but doesn't really grasp what he's talking about. THIS is why you can't hold down a job, not because of your integrity.

 

I agree ScientifReason is not moogie. I never said he was. I was just requesting a name change for any 'moogie' aliases.

 

I said 'If Roy Halladay type is lucky they can have a 1.5 era over entire season'

 

You disagree?? I wasn't trying to explain variation. Just making a statement.

 

'If Roy Halladay type is unlucky their era could be 4.00'

 

You disagree?? Then please tell us what the variation is

 

Dwight Gooden 85 vs. 90?? 1.59 era vs. 3.83?? What was the difference?? Looking at fangraphs I would say mostly luck...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1004852&position=P

[Governator]

lol @ this thread. Bunch of 10 year olds fighting over the last slice of pizza.

[Olerud363]

So, then, you're using math. Just like he said.

 

 

 

 

You used math. You just used estimations, sparky. "Back of napkin" type of stuff. Like the poster said.

 

You must be drunk off your ass.

 

In this thread, you've shown you don't know math, and you don't know science. And I don't mean you don't know advanced topics ... just that you don't understand what they are. Can you tell us more about how you're an engineer in biomed who can't hold a job because you're just too truthful?

 

 

lol... please. If I can't hold a job it is for one reason... because I spend to much time posting crap on message boards like this. Any fool could see that.

 

I am not using math. I am using guess work based on past experience.

 

I remember seeing pitchers with a 200-30 k/bb ratio. I remember what their eras have been. There is no math involved here. Not even back of the napkin.

[FFantasy]

So much hostility, I imagine all because your favorite team sucks?

[King]

So much hostility, I imagine all because your favorite team sucks?

 

Yes

[Olerud363]

So much hostility, I imagine all because your favorite team sucks?

 

There is a camp that thinks that if the Jays were 'clutch' and did the little things like getting soft contact, that they would be awesome and be 11-4 in one run games.

 

There is a camp that thinks that Aaron Sanchez is the next Roy Halladay and that Ryan Goins is the kind the hard nosed defensive whiz that the Jays need.

 

There is a camp that thinks in the long run advanced analytics will save the day.

 

There is a camp that thinks just a little common sense would save the day.

 

There is a guy called Moogie (copperweld) that likes to cause trouble.

 

And so everybody fights.

[LTR]

So much hostility, I imagine all because your favorite team sucks?

 

FYSMC!

 

 

cf

[NorthOf49]

ITT:

 

Apparently a pitcher with a good stuff can't generate more weak contact than a pitcher with a crappy stuff because "it isn't a skill that conventional pitchers like Loup can have".

 

^Arguably the biggest derp in the history of this board.

You have yet to prove that conventional pitchers control quality of contact at any meaningful level.

 

BABIP takes eight seasons to stabilize to an R of .50 R for a starting pitcher.

[Olerud363]

Holy shiznit, you're an idjit. Of course you're using math. You're equating and approximating numbers, based on their (perceived or real) relationships with one another. That's math. It's even f***ing algebra, and not just utilizing basic functions. I'm guessing basic functions are something you struggle with, inside and outside of math.

 

You're fired from the message board. Because of your integrity, of course.

 

Moogie my friend, you are correct... I am using Math...

 

When JFAS says "Mother f***er -- I spent all night calculating formulas for deserved ERA, I used the napkin, then I used a spreadsheet, then 'cause spread sheets aren't cool I finished it off in R."

 

When Nox says - "I am a mysterious mother f***er that knows some hard core s***, I always regularize my mutli-parameter estimations with the smoothest kernels, cause Nox doesn't overfit."

 

then I will say --

 

"I know math too. Moogie can vouch for me. He said I was doing math. I didn't even use a napkin. I just made some reasonable guesses. Guess, Guess, Guess. That's all there is to Math. I am a math guy too!. Nox, JFAS, and me. The math guys!"

 

Math is easy. Bow before Moogie!

[ScientificReason]

You have yet to prove that conventional pitchers control quality of contact at any meaningful level.

 

BABIP takes eight seasons to stabilize to an R of .50 R for a starting pitcher.

 

It doesn't need to be proven it is common sense, something you clearly lack. It's what makes good pitchers good. It's like saying "You still have not proven the earth is round".

[ScientificReason]

ITT:

 

Apparently a pitcher with a good stuff can't generate more weak contact than a pitcher with a crappy stuff because "it isn't a skill that conventional pitchers like Loup can have".

 

^Arguably the biggest derp in the history of this board.

 

It's pretty moronic. These guys pretend to know baseball by throwing out Advanced stats and trying to spin things....yet they clearly lack basic understanding of baseball concepts.

[ScientificReason]

I agree ScientifReason is not moogie. I never said he was. I was just requesting a name change for any 'moogie' aliases.

 

I said 'If Roy Halladay type is lucky they can have a 1.5 era over entire season'

 

You disagree?? I wasn't trying to explain variation. Just making a statement.

 

'If Roy Halladay type is unlucky their era could be 4.00'

 

You disagree?? Then please tell us what the variation is

 

Dwight Gooden 85 vs. 90?? 1.59 era vs. 3.83?? What was the difference?? Looking at fangraphs I would say mostly luck...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1004852&position=P

 

 

he pitched worse LMAO, not Luck.

[Olerud363]

he pitched worse LMAO, not Luck.

 

This is obviously going to be a futile argument.

 

Luck has a large effect on outcomes. That's a fact. In retrospect you can give it any explanation you want. But it is luck.

 

Look at Felix Hernandex 2009-2014 - 2.22 era in 2010 3.5ish the next. Bounces around a bit. Back to 2.15. Everything otherwise is the same.

 

So in 2011 you would say he "pitched" worse

 

but ...

 

his "worse" pitching did not effect his homerun rate

his "worse" pitching did not effect his k rate

his "worse" pitching did not effect his bb rate

 

his "worse" pitching did not continue. His era went down again.

 

Other people can give you the advanced stats... Moogie will claim I am giving you "math" but I am not. Just an anecdote.

 

Felix Hernandez... at age 25 the man, the legend took a turn for the worse... he ate some bad clams... or maybe got addicted to play-station.. but he could no longer control where the bloopers went...

[Olerud363]

You have yet to prove that conventional pitchers control quality of contact at any meaningful level.

 

BABIP takes eight seasons to stabilize to an R of .50 R for a starting pitcher.

 

Serious question. What does that mean??

 

OK. I googled this quickly and it seems you split the sample size in 2 and run a correlation between the two partitions.

 

So if you take 8 years of data, randomly divide it into 2 partitions the R will be 0.5. If you take 2 years data do the same the R is much lower??

 

Just for comparison how long does it take strikeouts to stabilize??

[LTR]

BABIP takes eight seasons to stabilize to an R of .50 R for a starting pitcher.

 

What are you even talking about? I never mentioned BABIP, plus soft% has no relationship to BABIP as it relates to both hits and non-hits.

 

You have yet to prove that conventional pitchers control quality of contact at any meaningful level.

 

That's funny I thought I already did when I showed that the best pitchers in the game are inducing weak contact? I guess you need a pretty chart with colors in it to help you understand.

[Olerud363]

What are you even talking about? I never mentioned BABIP, plus soft% has no relationship to BABIP as it relates to both hits and non-hits.

 

 

 

That's funny I thought I already did when I showed that the best pitchers in the game are inducing weak contact? I guess you need a pretty chart with colors in it to help you understand.

 

This is very simple. Come up with an example... two pitchers. 5 or more years of data. Very close k/bb/hr rates. BIG era difference (after park factor adjustment). I'll let you decide what big is.

 

I mean can you come up with 1 run era difference between two becasue one induced soft contact. Who are these mythical guys??

[LTR]

This is very simple. Come up with an example... two pitchers. 5 or more years of data. Very close k/bb/hr rates. BIG era difference (after park factor adjustment). I'll let you decide what big is.

 

I mean can you come up with 1 run era difference between two becasue one induced soft contact. Who are these mythical guys??

 

Why on earth would I waste my time doing this? Also I would never use ERA if I did.

[Olerud363]

Because if your mythical creature exists you should be able to show it to us...

 

People DON'T use ERA because they do not believe that "soft contact" skills exist... thus ERA is influenced greatly by luck.

 

but if soft contact exists pitchers should exist that have higher and lower eras then their simple peripherals (k/bb/hr) would predict.

 

You would go through the excercise to prove you know what your talking about. Not answering is the same as admitting you are wrong.

 

in our culure when we are wrong we do not reply. So if you do not answer my question.. well you have answered it,.

[NorthOf49]

Serious question. What does that mean??

 

OK. I googled this quickly and it seems you split the sample size in 2 and run a correlation between the two partitions.

 

So if you take 8 years of data, randomly divide it into 2 partitions the R will be 0.5. If you take 2 years data do the same the R is much lower??

 

Just for comparison how long does it take strikeouts to stabilize??

Yep. You can look at stabilization rates here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14293

 

What are you even talking about? I never mentioned BABIP, plus soft% has no relationship to BABIP as it relates to both hits and non-hits.

 

 

That's funny I thought I already did when I showed that the best pitchers in the game are inducing weak contact? I guess you need a pretty chart with colors in it to help you understand.

No you didn't. You posted a leaderboard that showed that some pitchers who are having great 2015s are generating good soft%'s. This is where Olerud's correlation-causation thing comes in. Pitchers are having good years because they are generating soft contact. That they are great is not the driver of both soft% and overall production.

 

Of course BABIP and soft% are related. Pitchers have almost no control over BABIP because they can't control their quality of contact.

[LTR]

Because if your mythical creature exists you should be able to show it to us...

 

People DON'T use ERA because they do not believe that "soft contact" skills exist... thus ERA is influenced greatly by luck.

 

but if soft contact exists pitchers should exist that have higher and lower eras then their simple peripherals (k/bb/hr) would predict.

 

You would go through the excercise to prove you know what your talking about. Not answering is the same as admitting you are wrong.

 

in our culure when we are wrong we do not reply. So if you do not answer my question.. well you have answered it,.

 

It's not my fault you can't analyse a basic table of data and see there's an obvious correlation