I liked Bard tonight.

[jung]

I don't think Bard was worse than mediocre for a first time out but I also do not expect a pitcher as great as Eck was to give Bard any kind of a break or be much impressed. The biggest problems Bard appears to have happen to be in areas where Eck, one of the best pitchers of his era, excelled.

 

Not surprised that Eck is not much impressed.

[Elktonnick]

I don't think Bard was worse than mediocre for a first time out but I also do not expect a pitcher as great as Eck was to give Bard any kind of a break or be much impressed. The biggest problems Bard appears to have happen to be in areas where Eck, one of the best pitchers of his era, excelled.

 

Not surprised that Eck is not much impressed.

 

I don't disagree but one can't say that Bard's performance was "good" in strictly objective terms. I gave him a C.

[jung]

I think that's a fair grade Elk.

[a700hitter]

Iortiz made an excellent point recently about this issue. If we had a health Bailey, the Sox would only be experimenting with the back end of the rotation by converting Bard to a starter. Once Bailey went down, we were put in a position of experimenting with the rotation and the bullpen. If Bard is put back in the pen as the closer, the bullpen experimentation would be over, but we'd have to find a 5th starter. Maybe it is Cook. Maybe it is Padilla, and maybe in August that experiment stops too if Dice K comes back to claim his spot. At least we would only be experimenting with one half of the pitching, not both halfs simultaneously. I really see few options for the Sox where Bard doesn't end up back in the pen very soon. Even if Aceves starts to shoot out the lights as the closer, there is no one else who can step up as reliable 6,7 and 8th inning guys.

[iortiz]

Iortiz made an excellent point recently about this issue. If we had a health Bailey' date=' the Sox would only be experimenting with the back end of the rotation by converting Bard to a starter. Once Bailey went down, we were put in a position of experimenting with the rotation and the bullpen. If Bard is put back in the pen as the closer, the bullpen experimentation would be over, but we'd have to find a 5th starter. Maybe it is Cook. Maybe it is Padilla, and maybe in August that experiment stops too if Dice K comes back to claim his spot. At least we would only be experimenting with one half of the pitching, not both halfs simultaneously. I really see few options for the Sox where Bard doesn't end up back in the pen very soon. Even if Aceves starts to shoot out the lights as the closer, there is no one else who can step up as reliable 6,7 and 8th inning guys.[/quote']

 

Still Bard would be an experiment as closer but IMO he is more likely a closer than everyone else in the pen. As you said, I'm not against this Bard experiment but we lost Bailey and Melancon is not reliable (or seems so thus far). A SP would have been an excellent addition. They decided "bet in big" and I'm concerned that this decision could cost us a lot of games that in the end we could need, We'll see.

[User Name]

Just to be clear on how unlucky Bard was in his first start, here are some stats:

 

1. He had 11 ground balls, 6 of which went for hits.

2. His BABIP was .471. That's an insane number.

3. He only stranded 44% of baserunners.

4. He had 18 (!!!!!) swing and misses in just 5 innings. That's outrageous.

5. Although I'm against using FIP, I will use it here because it would at least normalize these numbers. His ERA right now is 9.00. His FIP is 0.99. His xFIP is 1.82.

He had an excellent start, but he was hosed by terrible luck.

 

By the numbers, his 64.7% ground ball rate should have resulted in an outstanding outing, as ground balls result in the lowest runs (Line drives are death to pitchers, while ground balls are the best for a pitcher. In numerical terms, line drives produce 1.26 runs/out, fly balls produce 0.13 R/O, and ground balls produce only 0.05 R/O).

 

He basically just got about as screwed as a pitcher could get in his first outing.

 

I take issue with this. If you're against using a stat, you can't go ahead and do a 180 regarding it just because it suits your argument. Be consistent.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I take issue with this. If you're against using a stat' date=' you can't go ahead and do a 180 regarding it just because it suits your argument. Be consistent.[/quote']

 

Like I said, I'm against using it, but in order to calculate his numbers for that individual game and take out the BS hits, I was expressing how good of an outing it was.

 

The reason I'm against it is because it considers all contact the same. There is no such thing as weak contact or hard contact when determining BABIP.

 

I am against using it when you're trying to compare two different players because it assumes that the pitchers are the exact same, get the same type of contact, etc.

[User Name]

Like I said, I'm against using it, but in order to calculate his numbers for that individual game and take out the BS hits, I was expressing how good of an outing it was.

 

The reason I'm against it is because it considers all contact the same. There is no such thing as weak contact or hard contact when determining BABIP.

 

I am against using it when you're trying to compare two different players because it assumes that the pitchers are the exact same, get the same type of contact, etc.

 

No it doesn't.

 

The only factors FIP takes into context are BB's, K's and Hr's.

 

That's why it's called Fielding Independent Pitching, because it only takes into consideration the factors a pitcher can control.

 

This is the formula for FIP:

 

(13*HR + 3*BB - 2*K)/IP + C

[SoxFanForsyth]

No it doesn't.

 

The only factors FIP takes into context are BB's, K's and Hr's.

 

That's why it's called Fielding Independent Pitching, because it only takes into consideration the factors a pitcher can control.

 

This is the formula for FIP:

 

(13*HR + 3*BB - 2*K)/IP + C

 

So FIP only takes into consideration HR, walks, and K's? It must have some kind of direct correlation with BABIP because players with higher BABIP's have lower FIPs, and vice versa.

 

But the fact that it's Fielder Independent Pitching makes it seem as thought it would utilize BABIP and LOB% rather than not using it, because a pitcher can't control the defense behind him (i.e. low range, bad arms, etc).

[User Name]

So FIP only takes into consideration HR, walks, and K's? It must have some kind of direct correlation with BABIP because players with higher BABIP's have lower FIPs, and vice versa.

 

But the fact that it's Fielder Independent Pitching makes it seem as thought it would utilize BABIP and LOB% rather than not using it, because a pitcher can't control the defense behind him (i.e. low range, bad arms, etc).

 

I don't think you can quite prove an actual correlation between FIP and BABIP.

 

Also, if it's Fielder Independent, why would it use BABIP (which is fielder dependent) and LOB%, (which can also be affected by fielding)?

 

Put another way, FIP only calculates factors which can be considered to be directly under a pitcher's control, aka not affected by fielders.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I don't think you can quite prove an actual correlation between FIP and BABIP.

 

Also, if it's Fielder Independent, why would it use BABIP (which is fielder dependent) and LOB%, (which can also be affected by fielding)?

 

Put another way, FIP only calculates factors which can be considered to be directly under a pitcher's control, aka not affected by fielders.

 

Well, what I mean by calculating it based on BABIP is that it would normalize a pitchers BABIP to .300, meaning it takes the fielders out of it and determines a pitchers FIP based on a constant of .300. Same thing for LOB% - Standardize it to around 72%. That's why I thought those numbers were included.

 

But if not, my opinion on FIP may change.

 

By the way - Bard's WAR after what Eck referred to as a "worse than mediocre" performance is 0.3. Last year, in 70 IP, his WAR was 1.8. So, if he has 6 starts of equal value, he will have been as valuable to this team as he was during the entire year last year based on WAR.

[TutGadol]

Iortiz made an excellent point recently about this issue. If we had a health Bailey' date=' the Sox would only be experimenting with the back end of the rotation by converting Bard to a starter. Once Bailey went down, we were put in a position of experimenting with the rotation and the bullpen. If Bard is put back in the pen as the closer, the bullpen experimentation would be over, but we'd have to find a 5th starter. Maybe it is Cook. Maybe it is Padilla, and maybe in August that experiment stops too if Dice K comes back to claim his spot. At least we would only be experimenting with one half of the pitching, not both halfs simultaneously. I really see few options for the Sox where Bard doesn't end up back in the pen very soon. Even if Aceves starts to shoot out the lights as the closer, there is no one else who can step up as reliable 6,7 and 8th inning guys.[/quote']

 

That's just up changing the experiment. I don't see any reason Bard is less of an experiment as a closer then he is as a starter.

[BornToRun]

Depends what you mean by looking good. As Eckersley said he was "worse than mediocre".

 

It's his fault that Toronto was lord of the lucky bitch single in that game? He didn't walk people and most if the hits on him had eyes. Eckersley is off the mark on this one.