Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[iortiz]

He handled the pressure very well during the first part of the season. He is not a choker. He has lost his confidence, which is not the same thing.

 

Losing confidence is directly related to handling pressure.

 

Maybe his skill/aptitude/virtue at handling pressure (which requires confidence), was not really a skill/aptitude/virtue but only a fluke. The sample is too short to tell.

 

Matt Barnes was never demanded to close in a regular basis in his career. It's hard to say what we are going to get from him moving forward. Odds say he will regress to his career form at best but maybe in other role. His career numbers are not encouraging to close games.

[Kimmi]

Losing confidence is directly related to handling pressure.

 

Maybe his skill/aptitude/virtue at handling pressure (which requires confidence), was not really a skill/aptitude/virtue but only a fluke. The sample is too short to tell.

 

Matt Barnes was never demanded to close in a regular basis in his career. It's hard to say what we are going to get from him moving forward. Odds say he will regress to his career form at best but maybe in other role. His career numbers are not encouraging to close games.

 

Barnes xERA is 2.50 and his SIERA is 2.28. Except for last year, his peripheral stats are always better than his ERA. Barnes is a better pitcher than what you give him credit for.

 

How can a player be so 'clutch' the first 2/3 of a season, then suddenly become a choker? You want to say that his clutch skills were a fluke, but choking is the real deal?

[moonslav59]

Barnes xERA is 2.50 and his SIERA is 2.28. Except for last year, his peripheral stats are always better than his ERA. Barnes is a better pitcher than what you give him credit for.

 

How can a player be so 'clutch' the first 2/3 of a season, then suddenly become a choker? You want to say that his clutch skills were a fluke, but choking is the real deal?

 

His definition of clutch and choke is based solely on the results, and the only possible reason any pitcher does well or poorly under pressure has to be because it is under pressure. That's the way he sees it.

 

Nevermind, that players go through ot and cold streaks all the time, for various reasons of no reasons at all, but suddenly, just for the playoffs, mind you, there can be ONLY one reason for clutch or choke performances. It has to be the pressure.

 

The proof?

 

"It's common sense."

 

"The sample size is big."

 

"It's under pressure, so that has to be why."

 

[Bellhorn04]

Barnes xERA is 2.50 and his SIERA is 2.28. Except for last year, his peripheral stats are always better than his ERA. Barnes is a better pitcher than what you give him credit for.

 

How can a player be so 'clutch' the first 2/3 of a season, then suddenly become a choker? You want to say that his clutch skills were a fluke, but choking is the real deal?

 

Well, there is a pretty fine line between choking and losing confidence. I don't think it's a stretch to say his confidence might be shot right now.

[iortiz]

Barnes xERA is 2.50 and his SIERA is 2.28. Except for last year, his peripheral stats are always better than his ERA. Barnes is a better pitcher than what you give him credit for.

 

How can a player be so 'clutch' the first 2/3 of a season, then suddenly become a choker? You want to say that his clutch skills were a fluke, but choking is the real deal?

 

First off, his career fWAR before 2021 suggests he is nothing but a mediocre reliever based on fangraphs' rule-of-thumb charts. Normalize the chart for relievers and figure out.

 

Regarding his clutch this year, as I said, the sample is so short to tell. I'm not saying it was fluke neither it is the real deal. We have to wait. This is his first year closing.

[iortiz]

His definition of clutch and choke is based solely on the results, and the only possible reason any pitcher does well or poorly under pressure has to be because it is under pressure. That's the way he sees it.

 

Nevermind, that players go through ot and cold streaks all the time, for various reasons of no reasons at all, but suddenly, just for the playoffs, mind you, there can be ONLY one reason for clutch or choke performances. It has to be the pressure.

 

The proof?

 

"It's common sense."

 

"The sample size is big."

 

"It's under pressure, so that has to be why."

 

 

 

My definition of clutch/choke is based on large samples/fair samples in high leverage situations. As simple as that.

 

In Kershaw's case, his career PO sample is a fair sample to determine whether he is clutch or not.

 

In Barne's case there's no history of him at closing so it's hard to tell whether he has this skill. Time will tell.

[moonslav59]

Of all the many RP'ers in MLB from 2017-2020, Barnes placed 26th in fWAR.

 

Someone wants you to believe this is "mediocre."

 

As for a small sample size on clutch, Barnes has a very large sample size of high pressure data. It just doesn't support his opinion, so it doesn't count.

 

Over his whole career, Barnes has a .694 OPS Against (agai, far from mediocre).

 

His OPS Against Late & Close is .675 in 887 PAs- a bigger sample size than Kershaw's playoff numbers.

 

.538 2 outs and RISP.

 

There is ample evidence, if you look hard enough.

 

[iortiz]

Of all the many RP'ers in MLB from 2017-2020, Barnes placed 26th in fWAR.

 

Someone wants you to believe this is "mediocre."

 

As for a small sample size on clutch, Barnes has a very large sample size of high pressure data. It just doesn't support his opinion, so it doesn't count.

 

Over his whole career, Barnes has a .694 OPS Against (agai, far from mediocre).

 

His OPS Against Late & Close is .675 in 887 PAs- a bigger sample size than Kershaw's playoff numbers.

 

.538 2 outs and RISP.

 

There is ample evidence, if you look hard enough.

 

 

Based on FG's rule-of-thumb WAR charts, Matt Barnes is mediocre. I'm not making up things. 1.3 is a mediocre number and it was his best WAR year before 2021. Hell he is at 1.4 this year and probably won't even make 2.0. We'll se though.

 

As I told you before, your chart does not make sense. You want to put Matt Barnes in the first tier where the cream of the cream are. It's absurd by definition.

 

As for his clutch numbers, he hasn't pitched enough in the 9th, so it's a mystery what we are going to get.

 

His career numbers in other innings is a different story. They are not the ninth in order to be conclusive. You would not compare apples with apples.

[moonslav59]

Based on FG's rule-of-thumb WAR charts, Matt Barnes is mediocre. I'm not making up things. 1.3 is a mediocre number and it was his best WAR year before 2021. Hell he is at 1.4 this year and probably won't even make 2.0. We'll se though.

 

As I told you before, your chart does not make sense. You want to put Matt Barnes in the first tier where the cream of the cream are. It's absurd by definition.

 

As for his clutch numbers, he hasn't pitched enough in the 9th, so it's a mystery what we are going to get.

 

His career numbers in other innings is a different story. They are not the ninth in order to be conclusive. You would not compare apples with apples.

 

You pick and choose your criteria. I use the same for everyone and every time. That's the difference.

 

I noted that Barnes places 26th on the fWAR rankings. I never said that makes him the 2t6th best RP'er. Some RP'ers have smaller sample sizes, so had a lower fWAR. I et that. My data was only meant to show that some areas of evaluation show him to be better that mediocre. Certainly some show is was mediocre, too.

 

If clutch is only the 9th, then why count Kershaw's innings 1-8? Again, you change the criteria based on what you want to believe.

 

BTW, Barnes has more innings pitched in the 9th than the 7th or 1-5th combined.

 

128 IP in 8th .692 OPS Against

99 IP in the 9th .663

82 in the 7th .657

 

Seems he's done better in the ninth when compared to the 8th and his overall numbers, and his sample size is just 29 innings less than the 8th.

 

Many facts show Barnes was better than mediocre from 2017 to 2020 (before 2021). Only a few show him to be mediocre. If you use his whole career numbers, he looks a bit worse, but to me the 2017-2020 sample size is large enough and more indicative of who he was before this strange season he's having now.

 

I just wish you'd stick with the same criteria for every player you judge.

 

It gets confusing and rather comical, at times.

 

 

[moonslav59]

Another way of looking at how Barnes compared to other RP'er since 2017 would be to look year by year. This way, you don't lose pitchers who just started in 2018 or missed a year or two.

 

Out of these amount of pitchers with 40+ IP by season, here is where Barnes ranked in fWAR by RP'ers each year.

 

2017:

57th out of 192 (1.0 fWAR) TOP 3rd Tier

 

2018:

38th out of 191 (1.2 fWAR) Top 4th Tier and nearly top 5th Tier

 

(2017-2018 combined: 32nd out or 201 with 70+ IP) Top 6th Tier!

 

2019

23rd out of 197 (1.3 fWAR) Top 8th Tier!

 

2019-2020 combined:

50th out of 198 with 50+ IP Nearly Top 4th Tier

 

2017-2020 (110+ IP)

26th out of 187

 

When you use the word "mediocre" you imply as compared to others.

 

Using fWAR, not my stat of choice, I can't see how Barnes could be viewed as "mediocre" from 2017-2020. Year by year- NO, every 2 years, NO, all years combined: NO, but fangraphs says 1.1 WAR is "mediocre," so that's the end of discussion.

 

2019-2020 combined

Edited August 25, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

You pick and choose your criteria. I use the same for everyone and every time. That's the difference.

 

I noted that Barnes places 26th on the fWAR rankings. I never said that makes him the 2t6th best RP'er. Some RP'ers have smaller sample sizes, so had a lower fWAR. I et that. My data was only meant to show that some areas of evaluation show him to be better that mediocre. Certainly some show is was mediocre, too.

 

If clutch is only the 9th, then why count Kershaw's innings 1-8? Again, you change the criteria based on what you want to believe.

 

BTW, Barnes has more innings pitched in the 9th than the 7th or 1-5th combined.

 

128 IP in 8th .692 OPS Against

99 IP in the 9th .663

82 in the 7th .657

 

Seems he's done better in the ninth when compared to the 8th and his overall numbers, and his sample size is just 29 innings less than the 8th.

 

Many facts show Barnes was better than mediocre from 2017 to 2020 (before 2021). Only a few show him to be mediocre. If you use his whole career numbers, he looks a bit worse, but to me the 2017-2020 sample size is large enough and more indicative of who he was before this strange season he's having now.

 

I just wish you'd stick with the same criteria for every player you judge.

 

It gets confusing and rather comical, at times.

 

 

 

You pick and choose your criteria. I use the same for everyone and every time. That's the difference.

 

You can split clutch moments as you wish and then compare apples with apples. In Barnes' case does not make sense rate him as a closer because the sample is too short. He has never been a full-time closer until this year to start off.

 

I noted that Barnes places 26th on the fWAR rankings. I never said that makes him the 2t6th best RP'er. Some RP'ers have smaller sample sizes, so had a lower fWAR. I et that. My data was only meant to show that some areas of evaluation show him to be better that mediocre. Certainly some show is was mediocre, too.

 

No one is disputing that you said he is the 26th best reliever. I'm disputing that your chart doesn't make sense because you are putting him in a first tier. it does not make sense. Based on FG's WAR charts he is mediocre at very best.

 

If clutch is only the 9th, then why count Kershaw's innings 1-8? Again, you change the criteria based on what you want to believe.

 

LOL! here's where you compare apples with oranges. Kershaw is not a closer. The analysis in the 9th does not make sense.

 

BTW, Barnes has more innings pitched in the 9th than the 7th or 1-5th combined.

 

128 IP in 8th .692 OPS Against

99 IP in the 9th .663

82 in the 7th .657

 

Seems he's done better in the ninth when compared to the 8th and his overall numbers, and his sample size is just 29 innings less than the 8th.

 

Still the sample is very small.

 

Many facts show Barnes was better than mediocre from 2017 to 2020 (before 2021). Only a few show him to be mediocre. If you use his whole career numbers, he looks a bit worse, but to me the 2017-2020 sample size is large enough and more indicative of who he was before this strange season he's having now.

 

Well, fWAR rates all-in-all value and its source is FIP. He is mediocre

 

I just wish you'd stick with the same criteria for every player you judge.

 

You can't always use the same criteria. Clutch moments have different situations.

 

For example. If you want to evaluate clutch moments for Barnes as a closer, it doesn't make sense because he hasn't been a closer.

 

If you want to evaluate clutch rates in career POs numbers where the sample is fair like in Kershaw's case, you can do it.

 

Again, it is a matter of criteria. It's not a rigid thing.

 

It gets confusing and rather comical, at times.

 

Actually is pretty simple the way I see it.

Edited August 25, 2021 by iortiz

[iortiz]

Another way of looking at how Barnes compared to other RP'er since 2017 would be to look year by year. This way, you don't lose pitchers who just started in 2018 or missed a year or two.

 

Out of these amount of pitchers with 40+ IP by season, here is where Barnes ranked in fWAR by RP'ers each year.

 

2017:

57th out of 192 (1.0 fWAR) TOP 3rd Tier

 

2018:

38th out of 191 (1.2 fWAR) Top 4th Tier and nearly top 5th Tier

 

(2017-2018 combined: 32nd out or 201 with 70+ IP) Top 6th Tier!

 

2019

23rd out of 197 (1.3 fWAR) Top 8th Tier!

 

2019-2020 combined:

50th out of 198 with 50+ IP Nearly Top 4th Tier

 

2017-2020 (110+ IP)

26th out of 187

 

When you use the word "mediocre" you imply as compared to others.

 

Using fWAR, not my stat of choice, I can't see how Barnes could be viewed as "mediocre" from 2017-2020. Year by year- NO, every 2 years, NO, all years combined: NO, but fangraphs says 1.1 WAR is "mediocre," so that's the end of discussion.

 

2019-2020 combined

You have to normalize the FG's rule-of-thumb fWAR chart to relievers and you will figure out. He is mediocre. Have to check it twice but in a Up-bottom look, He is at the 5th level out of 7th, so the term mediocre is probably even a gift.

 

I normalized the chart for relievers in the other thread. Again, go figure.

[moonslav59]

You pick and choose your criteria. I use the same for everyone and every time. That's the difference.

 

You can split clutch moments as you wish and then compare apples with apples. In Barnes' case does not make sense rate him as a closer because the sample is too short. He has never been a full-time closer until this year to start off.

 

You said 9th inning and Barnes has a huge 9th inning sample size.

 

I noted that Barnes places 26th on the fWAR rankings. I never said that makes him the 2t6th best RP'er. Some RP'ers have smaller sample sizes, so had a lower fWAR. I et that. My data was only meant to show that some areas of evaluation show him to be better that mediocre. Certainly some show is was mediocre, too.

 

No one is disputing that you said he is the 26th best reliever. I'm disputing that your chart doesn't make sense because you are putting him in a first tier. it does not make sense. Based on FG's WAR charts he is mediocre at very best.

 

Fangraph's chart put him 26th not me.

 

What does "mediocre mean, except compared to others.

 

If clutch is only the 9th, then why count Kershaw's innings 1-8? Again, you change the criteria based on what you want to believe.

 

LOL! here's where you compare apples with oranges. Kershaw is not a closer. The analysis in the 9th does not make sense.

 

NO, It is you that changed the criteriaa for what are clutch moments based on who is pitching and who you want to prove is clutch or not.

 

BTW, Barnes has more innings pitched in the 9th than the 7th or 1-5th combined.

 

128 IP in 8th .692 OPS Against

99 IP in the 9th .663

82 in the 7th .657

 

Seems he's done better in the ninth when compared to the 8th and his overall numbers, and his sample size is just 29 innings less than the 8th.

 

Still the sample is very small.

 

[B]It's nearly as big as his 8th inning and is his second highest IP total. If it's too small, then trying to say he's mediocre over small sample sizes is pointless, too.[/b]

 

Many facts show Barnes was better than mediocre from 2017 to 2020 (before 2021). Only a few show him to be mediocre. If you use his whole career numbers, he looks a bit worse, but to me the 2017-2020 sample size is large enough and more indicative of who he was before this strange season he's having now.

 

Well, fWAR rates all-in-all value and its source is FIP. He is mediocre

 

So, now it's FIP. Another cherry-picked stat.

 

I just wish you'd stick with the same criteria for every player you judge.

 

You can't always use the same criteria. Clutch moments have different situations.

 

For example. If you want to evaluate clutch moments for Barnes as a closer, it doesn't make sense because he hasn't been a closer.

 

If you want to evaluate clutch rates in career POs numbers where the sample is fair like in Kershaw's case, you can do it.

 

Again, it is a matter of criteria. It's not a rigid thing.

 

Funny, but you said I was "Cherry-picking," when I use the exact same stats every time I value players of like positions.

 

Just today, you have used SV%, Blown saves, FIP, fWAR- but only using fangraphs value charts.

 

It gets confusing and rather comical, at times.

 

Actually is pretty simple the way I see it.

 

[B]Simply Biased.[/b]

[moonslav59]

You have to normalize the FG's rule-of-thumb fWAR chart to relievers and you will figure out. He is mediocre. Have to check it twice but in a Up-bottom look, He is at the 5th level out of 7th, so the term mediocre is probably even a gift.

 

I normalized the chart for relievers in the other thread. Again, go figure.

 

My chart only includes RP'ers in the years and time frames chosen.

 

What are you talking about "normalizing?"

 

You chose fWAR, not me. It's not my stat of choice.

 

The stats I use actually shows Barnes worse than fWAR. I'm not trying to claim he's top 20% or even 25%. I'm just showing your stat of choice, this time, shows he was better than his peers, which means better than mediocre by definition. (I go by Webster not fangraphs normalization charts or whatever you claim when determining what mediocre means).

 

IMO, he was above average by enough to place him out of the mediocre tier from 2017-2020. It's not by a lot, but he's not mediocre, and your stat, fWAR, shows he was not mediocre. Now, you're trying to claim he's in the 5th lowest tier out of 7?

 

The goalposts never stop moving.

[iortiz]

[B]Simply Biased.[/b]

 

lol nope, it's called common sense most of the times.

[moonslav59]

lol nope, it's called common sense most of the times.

 

So, you imply those who disagree don't share your good common sense.

 

BTW, how do you define the term mediocre?

[iortiz]

My chart only includes RP'ers in the years and time frames chosen.

 

What are you talking about "normalizing?"

 

You chose fWAR, not me. It's not my stat of choice.

 

The stats I use actually shows Barnes worse than fWAR. I'm not trying to claim he's top 20% or even 25%. I'm just showing your stat of choice, this time, shows he was better than his peers, which means better than mediocre by definition. (I go by Webster not fangraphs normalization charts or whatever you claim when determining what mediocre means).

 

IMO, he was above average by enough to place him out of the mediocre tier from 2017-2020. It's not by a lot, but he's not mediocre, and your stat, fWAR, shows he was not mediocre. Now, you're trying to claim he's in the 5th lowest tier out of 7?

 

The goalposts never stop moving.

My chart only includes RP'ers in the years and time frames chosen.

 

Your original chart has only 3 levels in order to differentiate pedigrees. FG's? seven. There's where the root of your flaw analysis begins

 

What are you talking about "normalizing?"

 

FG's player charts are not the same for Relievers in their scale so you have to normalize them.

 

You chose fWAR, not me. It's not my stat of choice.

 

Most of the times fWAR is a good metric in order to rate value. It's the choice, not mine.

 

The stats I use actually shows Barnes worse than fWAR. I'm not trying to claim he's top 20% or even 25%. I'm just showing your stat of choice, this time, shows he was better than his peers, which means better than mediocre by definition. (I go by Webster not fangraphs normalization charts or whatever you claim when determining what mediocre means).

 

Again, he is not. Look at FG's WAR chart. Not your bizarre chart

 

IMO, he was above average by enough to place him out of the mediocre tier from 2017-2020. It's not by a lot, but he's not mediocre, and your stat, fWAR, shows he was not mediocre. Now, you're trying to claim he's in the 5th lowest tier out of 7?

 

Based on FG's WAR chart (not my opinion) he was below average regardless how you want to slice it.

The goalposts never stop moving.

 

Not sure what does this mean lol

[iortiz]

So, you imply those who disagree don't share your good common sense.

 

BTW, how do you define the term mediocre?

So, you imply those who disagree don't share your good common sense.

 

In some aspects, unfortunately yes. For example if you want to compare a starter with a closer as you did, it does not make sense at all.

 

BTW, how do you define the term mediocre?

 

Mediocre in my book is kind of average tending to bad. Something between average and below average.

[moonslav59]

So, you imply those who disagree don't share your good common sense.

 

In some aspects, unfortunately yes. For example if you want to compare a starter with a closer as you did, it does not make sense at all.

 

BTW, how do you define the term mediocre?

 

Mediocre in my book is kind of average tending to bad. Something between average and below average.

 

Average, meaning the league average or maybe the median?

 

Every team has about 7 RPers. That’s about 210 total, which was the sample sizes I provided for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2017 to 2018, 2019 to 2020 and 2017 tp 2020. I used your stat of choice: fWAR, and Barnes placed way above average in every sample size.

 

Doesn’t common sense show he is better than mediocre by your own methodology?

 

There is no way a 1.1 WAR is average for a RPer.

 

Now, if you want to talk OPS against, WHIP or ERA-, the stats I use, then Barnes looks closer to average than fWAR, but you chose the tool, not me.

 

On clutch, isn’t it common sense to think that since players go hot and cold for many reasons or no reasons at all during the regular season, those could be the same reasons for going hot or cold in the playoffs? Since the pitcher you chose to prove beyond any doubt has had sample sizes as large as his playoffs size with very similar numbers and he has shown he performs better than his norm in high pressure situations in a huge sample size in the regular season, how does “common sense” lead anyone to conclude the reason has to be and can only be the extra pressure.

 

Of course, it could be, but no way does common sense show it’s a sure thing.

 

That’s not how common sense works. It’s uncommon.

[iortiz]

Average, meaning the league average or maybe the median?

 

Every team has about 7 RPers. That’s about 210 total, which was the sample sizes I provided for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2017 to 2018, 2019 to 2020 and 2017 tp 2020. I used your stat of choice: fWAR, and Barnes placed way above average in every sample size.

 

Doesn’t common sense show he is better than mediocre by your own methodology?

 

There is no way a 1.1 WAR is average for a RPer.

 

Now, if you want to talk OPS against, WHIP or ERA-, the stats I use, then Barnes looks closer to average than fWAR, but you chose the tool, not me.

 

On clutch, isn’t it common sense to think that since players go hot and cold for many reasons or no reasons at all during the regular season, those could be the same reasons for going hot or cold in the playoffs? Since the pitcher you chose to prove beyond any doubt has had sample sizes as large as his playoffs size with very similar numbers and he has shown he performs better than his norm in high pressure situations in a huge sample size in the regular season, how does “common sense” lead anyone to conclude the reason has to be and can only be the extra pressure.

 

Of course, it could be, but no way does common sense show it’s a sure thing.

 

That’s not how common sense works. It’s uncommon.

 

1.3, his best fWAR year is mediocre based on FG's WAR chart.

 

Moon, you keep using your own flawed chart and methodology in order to rate Barnes and give him a pedigree as a RP.

 

For the Nth time, look at FG's WAR chart and normalize it for relievers. His pedigree is at the 5th level out of 7th. That's mediocre in may book. Again, It's not my rate. It's FG's.

 

On clutch, when you look at fair career clutch sample situations like POs, it is not random.

 

OTOH, sure, you can make a case based on high leverage situations in regular season through his career but that's another completely different clutch situation for the discussion.

 

Those situations are not the same (High Leverage Situation in Regular Season vs POs). Apples with Oranges. PO is a completely different instance. You face the cream of the cream in a very special environment. It's a live or die situation. While high leverage situations in regular season imply high pressure, it is not the same animal. It is not a live or die situation to start off. Once again, it is common sense.

 

If you can't see that, then you don't feel baseball moon and your common sense here is uncommon lol. Sorry.

Edited August 25, 2021 by iortiz

[moonslav59]

1.3, his best fWAR year is mediocre based on FG's WAR chart.

 

Moon, you keep using your own flawed chart and methodology in order to rate Barnes and give him a pedigree as a RP.

 

For the Nth time, look at FG's WAR chart and normalize it for relievers. His pedigree is at the 5th level out of 7th. That's mediocre in may book. Again, It's not my rate. It's FG's.

 

On clutch, when you look at fair career clutch sample situations like POs, it is not random.

 

OTOH, sure, you can make a case based on high leverage situations in regular season through his career but that's another completely different clutch situation for the discussion.

 

Those situations are not the same (High Leverage Situation in Regular Season vs POs). Apples with Oranges. PO is a completely different instance. You face the cream of the cream in a very special environment. It's a live or die situation. While high leverage situations in regular season imply high pressure, it is not the same animal. It is not a live or die situation to start off. Once again, it is common sense.

 

If you can't see that, then you don't feel baseball moon and your common sense here is uncommon lol. Sorry.

 

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means.

 

A 1.0 WAR might be average for a MLB player but not for a RPer. That’s where your reasoning takes a wrong turn.

 

Sorry, but that’s just common sense.

 

Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one.

Edited August 25, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means.

 

Sorry, but that’s just common sense.

 

Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one.

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means.

 

Sorry, but that’s just common sense.

 

It could sound like common sense but it is not when you look at FG's chart —because it is not like it works moon. You refuse to look at the chart lol

 

Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one.

Sure and no one is disputing the later paragraph.

[moonslav59]

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means.

 

Sorry, but that’s just common sense.

 

It could sound like common sense but it is not when you look at FG's chart —because it is not like it works moon. You refuse to look at the chart lol

Sure and no one is disputing the later paragraph.

 

I’ve looked at the fangraphs charts.

 

Provide the link to the one you are talking about

[moonslav59]

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means.

 

Sorry, but that’s just common sense.

 

Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one.

Sure and no one is disputing the later paragraph.

 

So what is the reason for the other poor samples? What does common sense tell you?

 

Couldn’t that reason also be the same for the other poor playoff sample or some reason we don’t even know?

 

Can’t common sense also mean that maybe there is not one reason or even an over riding one?

 

Maybe there is no reason at all, other than just plain bad random luck?

 

Common sense says there is no way to know for certain.

 

Opinion means you can choose believe there is a reason or over riding reason.

[iortiz]

So what is the reason for the other poor samples? What does common sense tell you?

 

Couldn’t that reason also be the same for the other poor playoff sample or some reason we don’t even know?

 

Can’t common sense also mean that maybe there is not one reason or even an over riding one?

 

Maybe there is no reason at all, other than just plain bad random luck?

 

Common sense says there is no way to know for certain.

 

Opinion means you can choose believe there is a reason or over riding reason.

 

What other poor samples you are talking about?

[iortiz]

I’ve looked at the fangraphs charts.

 

Provide the link to the one you are talking about

You have to normalize them. 3.5+ WAR for relievers is a fair number for the MVP level.

 

The chart for relievers would be like this:

 

3.5 or higher WAR MVP

3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars

3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star

2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player

1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player

1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player

Below 0.5 WAR Scrub

 

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

[moonslav59]

What other poor samples you are talking about?

 

You just said nobody disputes my last paragraph, then you dispute it.

 

Can you see why it’s hard to follow your train of thought?

 

Here are but a few sample sizes as big as the playoff one that also show a 1.50 ERA differential:

 

3 seasons have ERAs 1.50 or more apart.

 

There are several opposing teams Kershaw has faced that he has an ERA 1.50 apart.

 

There are likely others if I look hard enough.

[iortiz]

You just said nobody disputes my last paragraph, then you dispute it.

 

Can you see why it’s hard to follow your train of thought?

 

Here are but a few sample sizes as big as the playoff one that also show a 1.50 ERA differential:

 

3 seasons have ERAs 1.50 or more apart.

 

There are several opposing teams Kershaw has faced that he has an ERA 1.50 apart.

 

There are likely others if I look hard enough.

I'm not disputing this "Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one"

 

Once again, PO is a different situation.

[moonslav59]

You have to normalize them. 3.5+ WAR for relievers is a fair number for the MVP level.

 

The chart for relievers would be like this:

 

3.5 or higher WAR MVP

3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars

3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star

2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player

1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player

1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player

Below 0.5 WAR Scrub

 

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

 

I saw those charts the first time you talked about them.

 

I don’t see anything that says a 1.0 WAR by a RPer is below average or any mention of the word mediocre.

 

It talks about “role players” and “scrubs” but not what the average RPer looks like.

 

Besides, what makes these charts the “facts” you say backs up your opinion?

 

They are not comparing one player to the rest in their charts or terminology.

[moonslav59]

I'm not disputing this "Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one"

 

Once again, PO is a different situation.

 

Nobody is disputing it’s a different situation. The point is, if you can see the same variations in other different situations, how can anyone know the reason for one has to be the pressure and not some other reason similar to the other wide disparity examples.

 

Players can put up wildly different numbers in some rather large sample sizes, and the reasons can be multiple or unknown. That’s plain common sense.

 

Just because the playoffs are unique, does not prove the uniqueness is or has to be the reason for a wide disparity in results.

 

That’s the common sense conclusion.