Grant77

I'm on the fence about a qualifying offer and not in favour of a long term deal, but to say that a 4.5 ERA is the most likely seems awfully cynical to me. Using steamer as a crutch is a lazy way to evaluate players. The historically low BABIP is a both a warning sign and an indicator that he can control it to an extent (evidenced by his .261 career mark). Numbers like that don't happen without a combination of the two, so it was certainly not all luck, which is the assumption of projection systems. I think that an ERA closer to 4 is more reasonable and logical.

I hope Dickey's option isn't declined. As frustrating as he is, we really need those innings. I think we need a reliable pitcher in addition to him to be honest. Then you have Stroman, pitcher X, Dickey, Hutchison, and Sanchez/Osuna. I have a lot of faith in Sanchez, but you could always get a reclamation project for that 5 hole as well.

200 innings of a 4.5 FIP is about 1.5 WAR, so I'd pay whatever that comes out to on a 2-3 year deal, but no more.

I think understand what you're saying, meaning that the pitcher still has the same chance to win the game because his team will also score more. That's true for a portion of the differential (.19 ERA the last 3 years, but it changes a bit). The rest of the difference comes from the fact that American League hitters are just better. Unless National league pitcher X has a track record in the American League that shows otherwise, I think it's fair to assume that the averages will hold true and he won't be an exception to the rule. I think GM's know that and use it in their evaluations, but I accept your point of view on the subject as well.

I don't have the time in the summer months, sorry. I had to pass my only team off to Spanky last year for the same reasons, but he led it to first place at least.

Narcissism is the first word I'd use to describe you. I'm generally easy going and self deprecating.

I got paid to take it, don't really give a f*** what it is.

You're twisting my words an awful lot. That's really frustrating and difficult to respond to, so please try to observe the golden rule. I try my best to be fair with you. What I have been saying is that there is a disparity that goes above and beyond the designated hitter rule. It's a disparity in talent that is most obvious in interleague play, but is also found in the study I just conducted. I still think that AL GM's do care about that disparity because you're walking a fine line with a pitcher like Mike Leake. He's already pushing a projected 4.5 ERA in Toronto and with even a small loss in stuff, he becomes a huge albatross. With guys that you mentioned like Hamels, there's some wiggle room. He's not going to become a 5th starter because his ERA goes up a bit (and it did).

My personality type was an off the charts INTP when I had to take it at work if that helps with your research. "INTPs are known for their brilliant theories and unrelenting logic – in fact, they are considered the most logically precise of all the personality types. They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements could almost be described as a hobby, making it a bad idea to lie to an INTP."

If only he hadn't changed his beliefs after the fact. Pretending that every stupid statement is sarcasm is one way to never be wrong, I'll give him that.

After questioning Leake's effectiveness in the AL. Lol, dumbass doesn't even know what he typed.

I didn't even mention the phrase 'WAR' in the entire thread. The entire thing was about Mike Leake and how I expected his ERA to end up in the 4.5 range if he pitched here, which you more or less agreed with, but everyone else took exception to. I made note of pitchers with similar backgrounds that had struggled and still got arguments, so I made this thread and (re)proved the point statistically. Only 7% of communication is verbal/written, so people will see what they want to see, but my statement that Mike Leake would see a significantly increased ERA here is what kicked it all off and got a lot of people's panties in a knot.

You were the only one who showed any knowledge of that fact in the other thread. Boxcar, for example, insisted that there was no difference.

I'd agree that he's a top 3 hitter all-time and that no Blue Jays are even in the top 50 (Frank Thomas notwithstanding).

I (and others, if you are correct) have proven that pitchers moving from the NL to the AL experience an ERA jump that is disproportionate to the amount that would be expected from the designated hitter rule.

There is no inherent bias towards any type of park or defense in the sample of pitchers. That kind of thing averages out with dozens of pitchers.

Don't feel bad for me, lol. Being correct lets me sleep at night. Insults on the internet don't mean anything, we have been at it for many years.

There's nothing to argue other than semantics unless they want to question the data itself. Pitchers that transition from the NL to the AL experience a higher than expected rise in ERA that is not fully explained by the designated hitter rule. I consider that when deciding whether we should sign a pitcher like Mike Leake and I fully believe that AA does too. The last thing we need is a Ricky Nolasco situation on our hands. That being said, I'll leave the usual clowns to ignore the facts and make what jokes they will. I find it vaguely entertaining.

Took me an hour, but I don't like to be called wrong and I'll prove it when needed.

0.31, actually.

I was arguing that style of play is different and pitchers with certain skillsets are selected for in each league in order to succeed. Please take time to note that the ERA differential is a significantly larger than would be expected if there were no difference. Only a small portion of the gap is accounted for by the DH. As per usual, I lay the facts in front of you and instead of acknowledging it, you dance around the point and try to be funny.

That is accounted for in the data. There's still a statistically significant gap.

Obviously the former, going by the last 20 years.

Statistical proof that I am correct in another thread. It's more substance than you have contributed in 10,000 posts.

I've been getting a lot of flak for pointing out something exceedingly obvious. Pitchers that transition from the NL to the AL often struggle. Here are the numbers I found while investigating that assertion. I included any pitchers who threw 100 innings in one league and did the same while starting in other league in the following season. The data was pulled from a sample of 394 pitchers between 2013 and 2015. Pitchers transitioning from the NL to the AL: Avg innings in NL: 191.58 Avg innings in Al: 177.83 Avg ERA in NL: 3.62 Avg ERA in AL: 4.12 _____________________________________ Pitchers transitioning from the AL to the NL: Avg innings in AL: 194.76 Avg innings in NL: 182.2 Avg ERA in AL: 3.67 Avg ERA in NL: 3.56 ____________________________________ Total AL ERA over sample: 4.07 Total NL ERA over sample: 3.88 ____________________________________ The innings drop in the NL is to be expected in some ways, due to the pinch hitting. I'm unsure what the actual drop is, but I just included the numbers because I needed to compile them to get the ERA. The important data is that the ERA when transitioning from the NL to the AL was roughly .31 points higher than would be expected. There's little doubt that this number would be even higher for pitchers who didn't have previous experience in the AL (unlike Ervin Santana types), but I have neither the time nor the interest to pursue this any further. I simply wanted to find out if my logical assumption was correct or incorrect and this proves that it was correct. This doesn't prove whether or not guys like Mike Leake would succeed in the AL, but it's real data that is certainly worth considering.