Johan Santana

[example1]

Too kind. Thank you and back at you.

 

That said, I'll continue to disagree with some aspects of your position.

 

It would be disappointing if, after an hour of writing my post, you came on and said "I agree, you're right!" So I'm glad you still disagree.

 

Yes, but we've made the case regarding comparable players as viewed from evaluation of their performance (and I'm sure that we'll return to that again). This is another metric, equally valid, perhaps even more valid from the perspective of baseball economists. There's a free market for free agent talent. Whatever value the market assigns to these pitchers is their true value with respect to others playing in MLB at the same time, every factor considered. The contract figures we're discussing for Santana would put him in the top 25 best-paid baseball players for several years to come. That's a distinct set of players whose performance can be evaluated, and that's why I did it.

 

I just don't see how stupid contracts by other teams is a good measure for what the Sox are trying to do here. I'd like to see how players who went through the analysis that Santana's potential likely will tend to do over a 7 year period during those ages--chances are that few teams have been as rigorous with thier acquisitons as the Sox are, and that the sample size of tremendous pitchers being picked up by a sabermetrically driven club are too low for any type of analysis like the one above. The current Red Sox would never have signed a number of guys on these lists to deals that the players ultimately got. If those are deals that so dramatically differ from what the Sox are likely to do, then I don't think we're looking at a valid statistical grouping. The players I listed were players whom the Sox may have gone aggressively after. They were more dominant than some of the others that you listed.

 

I know why you selected that group, and I appreciate the effort to look at the problem in a unique way. Ultimately--as you'll see at the bottom--I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I don't agree that we should use stats from free agents in a market before sabermetric analysis was an important part of running a ballclub. Again, This Red Sox FO would not take a chance on a lot of those guys. Apparently they think they could take a chance on Santana for a different reason. Perhaps it is health, perhaps it is past performance, but I highly doubt that Theo is evaluating Santana's future by looking at players who are comparables--NOT due to talent levels necessarily (though some of the ones I listed were similar talent-wise)--but who are comparable because some stupid team was willing to pay them a boatload of money to do their job. Barry Zito made a boatload of money last year, and might be on your list eventually, but that is not at all an indication that he would make the Red Sox list of top 10 pitchers in baseball, or even top 10 Free Agent eligable pitchers in baseball.

 

It takes several minutes to do each set:

 

Uhhh, yeah. You and I spend much too much time on this board! I know how long it takes to prove your point, but I appreciate the effort. If you wanted to do a set of players who became FAs at the age of 29 and who signed those huge deals I would be interested. I'm just not going to do it myself. The closest I came was providing the WARP for players during their 29-35 seasons... that's all i got in me.

 

I grabbed the top 25 from last year, and then I randomly grabbed two previous years separated from each other far enough that contracts wouldn't recur, even if players did. I didn't try to grab last years of contracts, as you suggested: I grabbed two years far enough back that I didn't know how the numbers would turn out.

 

I assure you that I'd forgotten that Teddy Higuera was ever once one of the 25 best-paid players in MLB; I'd also forgotten that he became a free agent after his 4.7 WARP season in 1990, and that over the next four seasons he'd make just over $13 million--in an era where the very top players made only around $4 million per year--to post a combined 5-10 W-L record. Higuera was being paid for his peak years from ages 26-29 when he signed his free agent contract after age 31, and he never regained his form.

 

Any good baseball fan would ask: who the HELL is Teddy Higuera?

 

I hear ya, you didn't cherry pick. I don't suspect you ever do Jayhawk Bill. I don't either. I look for statistical patterns that I think are there (say, the similar minor league numbers between Pedroia and Ellsbury) and then look to see if they are.

 

I wonder if Santana, in retrospect, will be considered to have flaws, too? After all, PECOTA heavily regresses to the mean, and Santana missed his 2007 PECOTA-projected ERA.

 

Of course he'll have flaws. But he is not a soft-tossing lefty with an injury history. He's a guy who makes a lot of hitters swing and miss (thus reducing his need for defense) and who does not walk many to hurt himself. My guess is that, if health is equal, a pitcher who makes batters swing and miss, and does not give out free bases, is likely to continue that type of useful production over time than a player who has a lower than average BABIP or a pitcher who walks a lot but gets more double plays, or a pitcher who doesn't strike guys out but gets groundballs instead. Pedro and Schilling, for instance, are no longer strikeout artists. They have 'regressed' to just being guys who don't walk many, who throw effective strikes and don't leave too many in bad places. That's a different kind of regression than going from being an effective Tom Glavine to a Tom Glavine who can't make it out of the 4th inning. Perhaps Glavine is a bad example, but you get my drift.

 

 

Pardon, but you're not looking at this right. I suspect that you're picking the most dominant pitchers from my lists because you consider Santana to be so dominant. As they say in investments, past performance does not determine future earnings. You can't pick the players most dominant in their 30's: you've got to pick lists of pitchers comparably dominant in their 20's.

 

Did I pick guys who were only dominant in their 30s? Pedro, Maddux, RJ, Smoltz etc., were all very good in their 20s. In general I agree that "past performance does not determine future earnings" but I have to wonder how valid that is in this case. It seems like you're saying that "all 29 year old pitchers have the same chance of success in future years regardless of past success".

 

I'm not a betting man, but I'm more willing to put my non-existant money on a guy who has HOF comparables and 2 Cy Youngs to his name and is healthy than a 29 year old Sidney Ponson, who has a history of sucking. The past success part--if measured correctly--can be more a measure of STUFF than of luck. Santana's success in the past was due to good stuff, and stuff--if he is healthy--has a shelf-life that is somewhat predictable. Even you acknowledge that when you talk about decending WARPs over the next few years. How can you say, on one hand, that we can't use the past to evaluate (or at least guess at) what the future may look like, but then talk about decending WARPs based on a fairly well-established trend of probabilities that a pitcher's stuff and health will slowly deteriorate over time?

 

Pedro Martinez doesn't show up on Johan Santana's PECOTA player list or his BR similar players list as a comparable. FWIW, Santana doesn't show up on Pedro's list at the same age, either. Pedro's BR list through age 28 has five HOF pitchers, Roger Clemens, Smokey Joe Wood, and three guys whose careers were ruined. Santana's list has ZERO HOF pitchers and just one HOF contender (Mike Mussina).

 

Evaluated just on his past three seasons before 2007, though, as PECOTA does, Santana certainly did have some HOF comparables--but he had others, too.

 

HOF:

 

1 Sandy Koufax 1964

2 Tom Seaver 1973

3 Steve Carlton 1973

7 Don Sutton 1973

9 Fergie Jenkins 1971

10 Juan Marichal 1966

12 Hal Newhouser 1949

17 Jim Bunning 1960

 

He also had one guy considered an excellent HOF candidate just three weeks ago:

 

6 Roger Clemens 1990

 

But he also had these comparable players, all of whom had trouble, mostly in their early 30's, that precluded or will preclude their reaching the HOF:

 

4 Mario Soto 1984

5 Camilo Pascual 1962

8 Kevin Appier 1996

11 Jose Rijo 1993

13 Luis Tiant 1969

14 Carl Erskine 1955

15 Billy Pierce 1955

16 Floyd Bannister 1983

18 David Cone 1991

19 Sam McDowell 1971

20 Javier Vazquez 2004

 

But let's remember that Santana missed his 2007 projection for ERA: he's possibly performing more like the bottom half of these pitchers than like the top half.

 

That's definiltely a risk that any team who signs him will have to run.

 

I'd be in complete amazement. Through what should have been his peak years, Santana broke 10 WARP twice and 9 WARP twice more. Expecting him to do that five out of six years through the decline of his skills in his 30's is very optimistic.

 

For the next four years, here are Santana's 2007 PECOTA-projected WARP scores:

 

[table] Year | WARP

2008 | 7.1

2009 | 6.2

2010 | 5.0

2011 | 5.0[/table]

 

 

I don't see how that judgment is made. If he comes out next year and has a 9 WARP then all of those other numbers are adjusted. The numbers deteriorate because pitchers tend to get injured as they get older. The Red Sox have been very careful to not overwork their pitchers, and the Twins have been careful with Santana. This is a completely new variable that needs to be taken into account.

 

The 2008 projections should be out next month--let's see how those figures change, given Santana's dip in performance in 2007. But expecting even three of those four to be 9.0 or higher seems excessive, let alone five of the next six.

 

I don't think it is excessive. If I were saying he'll get 12 WARP that would be excessive. To say that I think he could average a 5 WARP over the life of his 7 year contract, starting with higher numbers and moving toward lower ones is not at all out of the question IMO. As you would say, YMMV.

 

True. It is also possible that Santana will suffer a serious arm injury in any year. I previously quoted Nate Silver's 15% estimate per year for successful MLB starting pitchers. As another metric, 2007 BP PECOTA assigned Johan Santana a Collapse Rate of 23%.

 

And all of this understood, I'd still pay Santana $17-$20 million for 5-7 years. It's just that, if one takes a long-term perspective, giving up too much talent for the chance to pay him so much may be counterproductive.

 

It's funny how we'll disagree passionately for a few pages, only to ultimately arrive at the same conclusion. For me, the biggest loss in this deal is probably the package that they will need to give up for him to get the OPPORTUNITY to overpay him. I would shoot for 17m a year for 5 years, with an automatic kicker for a 6th and 7th year based on production toward the end of that 5 years. Pitching, overall, is too risky.

 

I have no trouble envisioning Santana being a very effective pitcher throughout the rest of his career, I just have trouble seeing it as being markedly better than, say, Josh Beckett or Daisuke Matsuzaka, who are both similar ages and who both cost a whole lot less (combined they equal about what we're talking about for Santana).

[Paradisecity]

do you even bother factoring in the fact that he was recovering from cancer up through spring training?

 

 

No, I most certainly don't factor it in.

 

They said he was fully recovered and back to 100% of his pitching self. To me that means "he's fully recovered and back to 100% of his pitching self"

 

As far as the walks....

 

He let 5 homers every 6 games. You better hope the walks come down. And those walks were to the Orioles and D Rays. What he going to look like against a team with patience and stixx.

 

 

Look, I dont hate the kid, I just am not drinking the local kool aid on him and i'm not factoring in the "feel good movie of the year" story on him. I think his stock is high, and my personal opinion is he's not going to pan out to be a "very good" pitcher. I think he'd never rise higher than a 5 in our rotation unless our rotation gets worse, which is not what we're looking for.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I mean' date=' I don't know if you can complain if Johan comes here and performs like Cone or Tiant. Those are pretty impressive names to have on the not-so-impressive half of your comps. To quote manny, thats when you know you are a bad man.[/quote']

 

You do realize that Luis Tiant had a 0.8 WARP season at age 29 and a 3.2 WARP season at age 30, right? That's roughly two years of Julian Tavarez, 2006 and 2007...how do you think that Fenway fans would respond if Johan Santana came to Boston for $20 million a year, costing the team Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson, and then he pitched roughly as well as Julian Tavarez?

 

Among the BP comps, I'd be more worried about Sam McDowell (5.5 WARP career total after age 28) or Carl Erskine (5.2 WARP after age 28). Two of the twenty best comps to Santana self-destructed in the very next season.

 

***

 

I decided to do a quick check on another aspect of comparability. We've looked at player performance over career to a given age (Baseball Reference comparables) and over the past three years (PECOTA). We've glanced at top pitchers by salary. But everybody keeps mentioning Cy Young Awards--what about that?

 

Johan Santana is tenth in all-time Cy Young Award shares at 2.38. I looked at every pitcher who had earned 1.38 or more Cy Young Award shares in his career. I threw out five as not comparable:

 

- Mike Marshall and Dan Quisenberry were relief pitchers.

- Pedro Martinez had earned over a full Award Share more than Johan Santana by age 28--he was demonstrably better, not comparable.

- Roger Clemens enhanced his performance in his 30's.

- Randy Johnson is only comparable to other 6' 10" Jurassic chickens.

 

That left this extraordinary group of pitchers, in descending order of Cy Young Award shares, Cy Young wins noted:

 

Greg Maddux (4 wins)

Steve Carlton* (4 wins)

Tom Seaver* (3 wins)

Jim Palmer* (3 wins)

Tom Glavine (2 wins)

Sandy Koufax* (3 wins)

Bret Saberhagen (2 wins)

Bob Gibson* (2 wins)

Catfish Hunter* (1 win)

Gaylord Perry* (2 wins)

Ron Guidry (1 win)

Curt Schilling

Warren Spahn* (1 win)

Fergie Jenkins* (1 win)

Dwight Gooden (1 win)

Rick Sutcliffe (1 win)

Fernando Valenzuela (1 win)

Nolan Ryan*

Randy Jones (1 win)

Mike Scott (1 win)

Denny McLain (2 wins)

David Cone (1 win)

 

* HOF

 

Here's how they did, ages 29-35:

 

[table]Age | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35

Median | 7.1 | 9.0 | 6.6 | 6.3 | 4.4 | 5.9 | 5.2

Mean | 6.3 | 7.1 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 5.2

Std Dev | 3.8 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.8[/table]

 

Check out that median line: one more year of 9.0 WARP or better is the best expectation.

 

Anything within a single standard deviation of the mean isn't too much of a stretch, so here's a best case scenario:

 

[table]Age | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35

Best Case | 10.1 | 11.2 | 9.8 | 10.5 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 9.0[/table]

 

But just to put this into perspective, here's how this "Best Case" stacks up against these extraordinary pitchers over the same years:

 

[table]Name | WARP

Greg Maddux (4 wins) | 75.5

Gaylord Perry* (2 wins) | 67.6

Bob Gibson* (2 wins) | 67.3

Warren Spahn* (1 win) | 65.6

Tom Glavine (2 wins) | 58.5

Steve Carlton* (4 wins) | 54.8

Jim Palmer* (3 wins) | 52.5

Fergie Jenkins* (1 win) | 51.2

Curt Schilling | 49.3

Tom Seaver* (3 wins) | 48.7

David Cone (1 win) | 46.7

Nolan Ryan* | 44.9

Ron Guidry (1 win) | 42.3

Mike Scott (1 win) | 36.5

Rick Sutcliffe (1 win) | 28.5

Bret Saberhagen (2 wins) | 26.5

Sandy Koufax* (3 wins) | 22.6

Catfish Hunter* (1 win) | 20.6

Dwight Gooden (1 win) | 14.9

Fernando Valenzuela (1 win) | 13.5

Randy Jones (1 win) | 4.8

Denny McLain (2 wins) | 0.0

Best Case | 68.1[/table]

 

Looked at differently, Santana's average season over the past four years has been a 10.35 WARP season. Of these 22 pitchers, just one--Greg Maddux--achieved better than a 10.35 WARP average performance over the next seven years.

 

I'm expecting that "Median" line, more or less. YMMV. :dunno:

[example1]

I wouldn't call Lester a hard throwing lefty.

 

I'd say a lefty who can put it up to 93-94 mph and who sits between 90-95 is a hard throwing lefty. He's not Scott Kazmir or Randy Johnson, but he's not throwing cream puffs either. He is definitely able to generate swings-and-misses with his FB.

[redsoxrules]

I'd say a lefty who can put it up to 93-94 mph and who sits between 90-95 is a hard throwing lefty. He's not Scott Kazmir or Randy Johnson' date=' but he's not throwing cream puffs either. He is definitely able to generate swings-and-misses with his FB.[/quote']

 

he sits in the 91-92 range , verry rarely he'll hit 95, and if he does his control is way off

[example1]

he sits in the 91-92 range ' date=' verry rarely he'll hit 95[/quote']

 

Here's what I see:

 

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/Jon_Lester.html

 

I see that his average fastball velocity, upon release, was 93.14 (compare with 92.75 for Johan Santana). According to their numbers, he threw OVER 95 a number of times. We could parse words, or people could just agree that he's a guy who is capable of throwing 95. He throws about as hard as Daisuke Matsuzaka (93.95mph, same site). Dontrelle Willis was in between the two, and I consider him to throw hard for a lefty.

 

Make an argument against it if you want, it wasn't a huge point for me. However, I'd be curious to see how many lefties there are in the league who regularly hit 93-94. I bet Lester is in the top 20% of lefties in that regard.

[redsoxrules]

yes he can throw 95, the problem is , the harder he throws the wilder he gets , when he throws 91-92 he has much better control

[example1]

yes he can throw 95' date=' the problem is , the harder he throws the wilder he gets , when he throws 91-92 he has much better control[/quote']

 

A guy who "only" throws 91-92 most of the time throws hard, IMO. Furthermore, I'm not sure I see wildness at 95 as an incorrectable problem, and I'm not even sure I believe your claim. If true, it seems like the kind of thing that, if figured out, could quickly vault him into the "great pitcher" category.

 

My guess is that the Sox feel the same way. Again, it comes down to the talent your working with. All things being equal, 23 year old lefty who CAN hit 95 is better than one who cannot--not counting all the other positives that Lester brings to the table for this team.

 

You say he very rarely hit 95 and when he did they were balls. Are you just writing from memory or is that documented someplace? It's not that I don't believe you, its just that I would like to get your source so I can look at it myself.

[redsoxrules]

 

You say he very rarely hit 95 and when he did they were balls. Are you just writing from memory or is that documented someplace? It's not that I don't believe you, its just that I would like to get your source so I can look at it myself.

 

 

I actually read that on his scouting report from a year ago ,lets see if I can find the article again

[jacksonianmarch]

Lester is by no means a hard throwing lefty. He is a lefty who was sitting 89-91 last yr, and living in Mass, I saw every one of his starts. He apparently threw high 90s in the minors, but that wasnt even close to what he truly threw in Fenway.

 

He reminds me a lot of Ted Lilly without the success at this point. Inconsistent FB command, a very nice curve that is inconsistently located, a cutter that is average at best and a show me changeup. If he truly does throw mid 90s and the chemo was the main detractor, then we should see this yr. But he wasnt throwing that hard before he started the chemo either and he still had the same problem. He doesnt command the zone well, and for a guy who doesnt have power stuff, that will be problematic.

[jacksonianmarch]

and by sitting, I mean the majority of his pitches. Sure I saw a couple 93's and 94's pop up on the screen, but they were few and far between.

[TheKilo]

A guy who "only" throws 91-92 most of the time throws hard' date=' IMO. [/quote']

 

So like 95% of pitchers in the MLB are "hard throwers"?

[example1]

and by sitting' date=' I mean the majority of his pitches. Sure I saw a couple 93's and 94's pop up on the screen, but they were few and far between.[/quote']

 

So how does that compare to the fact that, according to the data I cited, he throws his fastball harder on average than Johan Santana? Just curious. I watched his starts too. The data I cited said he sat around 93. That's not high 80s. Perhaps my data is wrong, or perhaps your perception is wrong. :dunno:

[redsoxrules]

So how does that compare to the fact that' date=' according to the data I cited, he throws his fastball harder on average than Johan Santana? Just curious. I watched his starts too. The data I cited said he sat around 93. That's not high 80s. Perhaps my data is wrong, or perhaps your perception is wrong. :dunno:[/quote']

 

speaking of that data ...that only shows STRIKES thrown .. what about the BALLS? i knew something wasent right about it.... or maybe not ...john lester threw over 1000 pitches, how come only 652 is showing :dunno:

 

that Data is far from acurate IMO

[example1]

So like 95% of pitchers in the MLB are "hard throwers"?

 

Name some "hard throwing lefties" instead of just challenging my claim TheKilo. I provided you with my source, and if you lost it, here it is again:

 

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/players.html

 

Here are left handed pitchers who led in strikeouts last year, with their K-Rank in parentheses:

 

CC Sabathia: 94.26 (4)

Oliver Perez: 92.97 (7)

Scott Kazmir: 92.9 (1)

Johan Santana: 92.75 (2)

Eric Bedard: 92.37 (3)

Cole Hamels: 91.86 (6)

Rich Hill: 91.14 (5)

Ted Lilly: 89.54 (7)

 

Remember: Lester: 93.14

 

So, instead of me wasting any more of my time to point out that not many left handed starters can average more than 93.14 at release point (only Sabathia, that I saw out of the top strike out pitchers) why don't you actually do some research yourself?

 

I provided you the site I'm using. There's a list there. You're obviously bright enough to figure out which pitchers are left handed. Go through your list, see which of those pitchers threw harder than 93.14 on average with thier FB and then come back to me with your comment about "hard throwers". Until you do that, I'm just answering questions that you could answer yourself.

 

OR, you could find another site that has a different velocity listed for Lester and go from there. Frankly, I don't care and would appreciate the added resources to use.

 

Until then, though, I'm going with what I found. Namely, that there is only one left handed starter in the top 10 in K's (which I'm using as a marker for 'good') who throws harder consistently than Lester does.

 

So, what does "Hard throwing lefty" mean to you TheKilo? If not "in the top 3 in all of baseball among left handed starters in pitch velocity" what does it mean?

[example1]

speaking of that data ...that only shows STRIKES thrown .. what about the BALLS? i knew something wasent right about it.... or maybe not ...john lester threw over 1000 pitches, how come only 652 is showing :dunno:

 

that Data is far from acurate IMO

 

So he's averaging 93.14 with just strikes? So, for a lefty, he throws his strikes harder than just about everyone else. It was your argument that his hardest pitches were balls, which would raise that average even more, no?

[redsoxrules]

that 93.14 IS OFF..... the numbers dont match up .lester threw 1083 pitches this year , it only shows 652 on that link ,,does lester have another pitch he throws Im not aware off?

[redsoxrules]

So he's averaging 93.14 with just strikes? ?

 

i tought so at first .. but im not sure anymore but i do know for sure theres 400+ pitches that he threw thats not accounted for on that list

[TheKilo]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=lestejo01&t=p&year=2007

 

rsr has a point. There's more pitches that Lester threw that are not within the sample you provided, E1. Can't really look at that data seriously, can we?

[example1]

i tought so at first .. but im not sure anymore but i do know for sure theres 400+ pitches that he threw thats not accounted for on that list

 

Unless those 400 pitches are all horribly slow I would think the 600+ pitches would be an adquate sample size. Don't you think you're grasping here? The point is that, for a left handed pitcher, Lester throws hard. I listed a few that I could think of who may throw harder, and according to that site, they do not. Even if they DID throw harder, we're talking about only the top 10-15 left handed pitchers in the league in terms of velocity. If being firmly within the top 7% of hard throwers doesn't make you belong to that class then I think your standards are too high.

 

Find another site. I'm sure there is one that has pitch speeds. Presntly I don't have the time for that search, but would like to see the results.

[TheKilo]

You're saying leaving 40+% out of a sample makes it less significant??

[redsoxrules]

OK I found the problem

 

these stats are just when the Pitch f/x was ON , so yeah we cant go by that graph

[example1]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=lestejo01&t=p&year=2007

 

rsr has a point. There's more pitches that Lester threw that are not within the sample you provided, E1. Can't really look at that data seriously, can we?

 

Yet another typical one-liner from a guy who critiques but can't come up with his own materal lately. I think you're a great poster here, but this is pretty weak showing about something that is objectively varifiable. So far, I've provided stats that seem to be backed up by about 60% of his pitches last year. You have shown stats that back up zero percent of his pitches.

 

Again TheKilo, FIND YOUR OWN DAMN DATA TO BACK UP YOUR POINT IF YOU DON'T LIKE MINE!!! It really isn't that hard man. Geez. I'm not getting my data from a pro-Jon Lester site. it seems pretty objective. Perhaps the 40% of other fastballs he threw were really slow. That could totally be the case. But you haven't responded to the fact that, of the SIX HUNDRED pitches were talking about here, he threw harder than a lot of other guys. Even if it regresses to ONLY what Eric Bedard or Johan Santana throw, we're talking about a 'hard throwing lefty' unless you believe HTLs don't exist beyond one or two guys.

 

If judging 60% of his pitches isn't a big enough sample size then do better. I don't really care that much, as you were the one trying to call me on saying he throws hard for a lefty. You don't believe it but you poke holes in my argument--about things over which I have no control--instead of doing any work yourself.

[example1]

You're saying leaving 40+% out of a sample makes it less significant??

 

Nope, I'm telling you to do better or be quiet.

[example1]

OK I found the problem

 

these stats are just when the Pitch f/x was ON , so yeah we cant go by that graph

 

You think Lester knew when Pitch f/x was on, and threw EXTRA hard when that was the case? Otherwise, we're approaching a pretty random sample by my estimation.

[redsoxrules]

You think Lester knew when Pitch f/x was on' date=' and threw EXTRA hard when that was the case? Otherwise, we're approaching a pretty random sample by my estimation. [/quote']

 

or better yet you dont think its possible that lester's best game was when the Pitch f/x happened to be on ?

 

you know its possible

[example1]

or better yet you dont think its possible that lester's best game was when the Pitch f/x happened to be on ?

 

you know its possible

 

Your argument is that the harder he throws the wilder he gets.

 

Ergo, his BEST game would likely be when he DOESN'T throw hard, right?

 

I think that in a 6 game period, with close to 100 pitches each, one can have a pretty good idea how hard he throws. I don't think he had a game where he was lights out and threw 600 pitches. If he did that would certainly skew the data. Otherwise, I think we're looking at a fairly broad snapshot of his year. If someone measured your performance by looking at 1040 of your 2080 work hours this year, they would have a pretty good idea of the type of employee you are, right? There is a CHANCE that they would just randomly stumble upon every one of your bad days, but that isn't very likely. Chances are it will be a pretty accurate representation of the type of worker you are. ESPECIALLY if the system does its best to randomize (i.e., not measuring specifically just from Fenway, or just against lefty hitters, or just against power hitters or just in the first inning... I see no indication that there was any such specificity). That indicates to me that the 600 pitches, though an incomplete representation, were not hand picked to present Lester in a better light--likewise, the numbers for Bedard or Sabathia were not hand picked to make them look bad.

 

If we were talking about 100 pitches it would be different. This sample size is large enough to draw conclusions from. Furthermore, I don't hear ANYONE arguing about the other players velocities, even though those are missing a large number of pitches as well. It seems like a weak argument unless you can do better with a more thorough sample.

[TheKilo]

Yet another typical one-liner from a guy who critiques but can't come up with his own materal lately. I think you're a great poster here, but this is pretty weak showing about something that is objectively varifiable. So far, I've provided stats that seem to be backed up by about 60% of his pitches last year. You have shown stats that back up zero percent of his pitches.

 

Again TheKilo, FIND YOUR OWN DAMN DATA TO BACK UP YOUR POINT IF YOU DON'T LIKE MINE!!! It really isn't that hard man. Geez. I'm not getting my data from a pro-Jon Lester site. it seems pretty objective. Perhaps the 40% of other fastballs he threw were really slow. That could totally be the case. But you haven't responded to the fact that, of the SIX HUNDRED pitches were talking about here, he threw harder than a lot of other guys. Even if it regresses to ONLY what Eric Bedard or Johan Santana throw, we're talking about a 'hard throwing lefty' unless you believe HTLs don't exist beyond one or two guys.

 

If judging 60% of his pitches isn't a big enough sample size then do better. I don't really care that much, as you were the one trying to call me on saying he throws hard for a lefty. You don't believe it but you poke holes in my argument--about things over which I have no control--instead of doing any work yourself.

 

Why, all of a sudden, has the burden of proof shifted to me once the validity of the data you have used comes into question? It's disappointing you try to convince people of things and do not back them up with relevant data in this instance.

 

You say that 431 pitches, or 39.7% of the sample, does not skew the data at all. I guess there's nothing I can say to that which will convince you otherwise that the data is not reliable.

 

I'm sorry, I cannot classify anyone who sits at 91 a hard thrower, lefty or righty.

[example1]

Why, all of a sudden, has the burden of proof shifted to me once the validity of the data you have used comes into question? It's disappointing you try to convince people of things and do not back them up with relevant data in this instance.

 

You say that 431 pitches, or 39.7% of the sample, does not skew the data at all. I guess there's nothing I can say to that which will convince you otherwise that the data is not reliable.

 

I'm sorry, I cannot classify anyone who sits at 91 a hard thrower, lefty or righty.

 

Prove to me he sits at 91.

 

What is disappointing is how little knowledge people here have of the idea of "random sampling", a tool that is used everywhere with consistency to guide policy making and decision making throughout the world.

[TheKilo]

Prove to me he sits at 91.

 

Did you watch the damn games last season?

 

This argument is foolish. It's about semantics. I don't consider 91, 92 to be a hard thrower just as much as you don't believe leaving 40% of the sample size out of data makes it any less relevant.

 

I'd say a lefty who can put it up to 93-94 mph and who sits between 90-95 is a hard throwing lefty. He's not Scott Kazmir or Randy Johnson' date=' but he's not throwing cream puffs either. He is definitely able to generate swings-and-misses with his FB.[/quote']

 

 

"Put it up" to 93, 94. Doesn't seem like that means he's "sitting" there.