Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[moonslav59]

I did the same exercise earlier for 2019 —the best WAR year for Barnes. Go figure. You want to cherry pick 2017-2019, his best WAR years? fine. His average WAR is around 1.1 through these years. i.e. He is at the boundaries where FG calls you Role and Solid player in the re-scaled charts for relievers, and that label certainly does not make you good by any means. I know what average is, see? lol

 

As I said, only few RPs are in-between Solid and MVP levels. Barnes is not in that category if you take his WAR career numbers before 2021. He is nothing but a role player. Below average if you want to feel better lol

 

Again, I know what average is, but it is not explicitly shown at FG's chart, so you have to look where you can locate those RPs who are labeled "average" RPs in the rescaled chart. As I said, the Solid level could be a fair translation.

 

Thing and the root of the problem is, that you don't like how I rescaled the chart which is not rocket science if you take 3.5+ WAR as the new MVP level for relievers which is a fair number in my book. I still not sure why. You still can do it, regardless FG does not have one.

 

Again, if you want to keep rating RPs in the traditional way; i.e. in a 3-level chart (good, average and bad), it will be very primitive and flawed because Mo and few others can't be at the same tier and among of a lot of mediocre and below average (role/scrub) relievers like Matt Barnes.

 

I didn't count 2020 for obvious reasons. Call it cherry-picking 2017-2019, but I also gave the numbers for 2015-2019.

 

I', not locked into 3 categories. You can have 5 or 7. but either way, going by fWAR, Barnes will never fall into any average or below average category, if you make each category equal in numbers of pitchers, which is what comparing RP'ers is all about.

 

I never argued he was anything better than a "role player."

 

You tried to carry that over by assigning him the tag "average or below average" RP'er not player.

 

I clearly explained what you were doing, but you kept claiming he was an average or lower RP'er.

 

That is NOT what the charts show, but you'll never admit that.

 

I'm not sure why you won't.

[iortiz]

I didn't count 2020 for obvious reasons. Call it cherry-picking 2017-2019, but I also gave the numbers for 2015-2019.

 

I', not locked into 3 categories. You can have 5 or 7. but either way, going by fWAR, Barnes will never fall into any average or below average category, if you make each category equal in numbers of pitchers, which is what comparing RP'ers is all about.

 

I never argued he was anything better than a "role player."

 

You tried to carry that over by assigning him the tag "average or below average" RP'er not player.

 

I clearly explained what you were doing, but you kept claiming he was an average or lower RP'er.

 

That is NOT what the charts show, but you'll never admit that.

 

I'm not sure why you won't.

 

I would like to see you 5/7- level chart for relievers and its thresholds. Last time we debated this you showed a primitive 3-level charts. Good to see you are working n a new one lol.

 

What the rescaled chart shows is what I have been presented in almost every split you make. He is at the role player level. It’s not my call it’s FG’s when you rescale the chart.

[moonslav59]

I would like to see you 5/7- level chart for relievers and its thresholds. Last time we debated this you showed a primitive 3-level charts. Good to see you are working n a new one lol.

 

What the rescaled chart shows is what I have been presented in almost every split you make. He is at the role player level. It’s not my call it’s FG’s when you rescale the chart.

 

I wouldn't want to be accused of cherry-picking the sample size, but this is how I normally do comparative studeies.

 

I'd figure most teams have 7-8 RP'ers at a time. Of course, they use many more over a year, and I could count every single RP'er who pitched to just one batter, but that does not seem fair.

 

I would take 8 RP'ers and multiply by 30 teams. That's 240 RP'ers.

 

I then go to fangraphs and move the IP requirement down or up, until I reach a sample size of 240. To me, this is more than fair, since it does not count the hundreds of pitchers not good enough to reach that threshold.

 

I might go year by year for every Barnes season rather than the full sample size of combined years, because some pitchers just started 2-3 years ago or retired 2-3 years ago and would have skewed numbers due to timeline disparities.

 

So, let's take 2018- Barnes' middle fWAR score from 2017-2019. I had to go to 30IP+ to get a sample size near 240 (250, in this case)

 

If I divide this sample into 6 categories, it would be 40 per category.

 

Kimbrel placed 27th and would be in the top tier of 40.

Barnes placed 38th and would be in the top tier out of 6 tiers- VERY far from average (tier 3+4) and extremely far from below average (tier 4).

 

I'll go ahead and do other seasons:

 

2017 (30+ IP creates a sample size of 235)

Kimbrel was #2 and clearly top tier.

Barnes was 57thy, which places him in the 2nd highest of 6 categories. (If I went to 8 categories of 30 pitchers, each, he'd still be in the second highest of 8.)

 

2019: (249 RP'ers with 30+ IP)

Workman was 5th (top tier)

Barnes was 23rd (clearly top tier of 6, 8 or even 10 categories broken down into equal parts, and remember, I'm not counting all the scrubs with 1-29 IP.)

 

Let's go even farther back, when he was not as good:

 

2015: (only 214 RP'ers with 30+ IP)

Uehara 21st (top tier with 7 tiers of 30 pitchers)

Tazawa 37th (second to top tier out of 7.)

Barnes was 194th (bottom tier)

 

2016 (223 sample size)

Kimbrel was 31st (top tier with 6 tiers of 35 each)

Barnes 107th which places him in the 3rd tier out of 6: 2 higher- 3 lower, but just barely a smidge above average.

 

Now, I'll do what I said can be misleading. I'll go from 2015-2020, where a sample size of 130IP+ is needed to reach 245 pitchers.

 

Barnes places 51st out of 245.

That puts him in category 2 out of 6. Category 2 out of 8 and category 3 out of 10.

 

If you want to hold 2015 and 2016 against him, or 2020, fine.

 

The guy has been above average when you compare him to all RP'ers of his time. That's how everybody I know views "average" or better or worse: 3 categories, 5, 6, 8, 10, whatever.

 

He's been better than the vast majority of other RP'ers, but thyat does not mean he's better than most everyday players or SP'ers.

[mvp 78]

catch phrase? lol

 

I don't know what it means. Enlighten me.

 

A catch phrase is something that a particular person says so much that they are known for saying it. Like Bart Simpson "don't have a cow" or whatever. Like harmony saying "or not."

 

Mine is clearly "they should have traded Pedroia."

[iortiz]

I wouldn't want to be accused of cherry-picking the sample size, but this is how I normally do comparative studeies.

 

I'd figure most teams have 7-8 RP'ers at a time. Of course, they use many more over a year, and I could count every single RP'er who pitched to just one batter, but that does not seem fair.

 

I would take 8 RP'ers and multiply by 30 teams. That's 240 RP'ers.

 

I then go to fangraphs and move the IP requirement down or up, until I reach a sample size of 240. To me, this is more than fair, since it does not count the hundreds of pitchers not good enough to reach that threshold.

 

I might go year by year for every Barnes season rather than the full sample size of combined years, because some pitchers just started 2-3 years ago or retired 2-3 years ago and would have skewed numbers due to timeline disparities.

 

So, let's take 2018- Barnes' middle fWAR score from 2017-2019. I had to go to 30IP+ to get a sample size near 240 (250, in this case)

 

If I divide this sample into 6 categories, it would be 40 per category.

 

Kimbrel placed 27th and would be in the top tier of 40.

Barnes placed 38th and would be in the top tier out of 6 tiers- VERY far from average (tier 3+4) and extremely far from below average (tier 4).

 

I'll go ahead and do other seasons:

 

2017 (30+ IP creates a sample size of 235)

Kimbrel was #2 and clearly top tier.

Barnes was 57thy, which places him in the 2nd highest of 6 categories. (If I went to 8 categories of 30 pitchers, each, he'd still be in the second highest of 8.)

 

2019: (249 RP'ers with 30+ IP)

Workman was 5th (top tier)

Barnes was 23rd (clearly top tier of 6, 8 or even 10 categories broken down into equal parts, and remember, I'm not counting all the scrubs with 1-29 IP.)

 

Let's go even farther back, when he was not as good:

 

2015: (only 214 RP'ers with 30+ IP)

Uehara 21st (top tier with 7 tiers of 30 pitchers)

Tazawa 37th (second to top tier out of 7.)

Barnes was 194th (bottom tier)

 

2016 (223 sample size)

Kimbrel was 31st (top tier with 6 tiers of 35 each)

Barnes 107th which places him in the 3rd tier out of 6: 2 higher- 3 lower, but just barely a smidge above average.

 

Now, I'll do what I said can be misleading. I'll go from 2015-2020, where a sample size of 130IP+ is needed to reach 245 pitchers.

 

Barnes places 51st out of 245.

That puts him in category 2 out of 6. Category 2 out of 8 and category 3 out of 10.

 

If you want to hold 2015 and 2016 against him, or 2020, fine.

 

The guy has been above average when you compare him to all RP'ers of his time. That's how everybody I know views "average" or better or worse: 3 categories, 5, 6, 8, 10, whatever.

 

He's been better than the vast majority of other RP'ers, but thyat does not mean he's better than most everyday players or SP'ers.

How would you rate all-time relievers? Same method?

 

What still doesn’t make sense to me is seeing Barnes in a top tier level. A career 0.8 WAR reliever can’t be in a top tier level in my book. why? Let me put it in context. People who are in the same tier have very similar pedigrees. it’s like you are a GM trying to land a top tier RP and you have to choose between Mo, Papelbon Gagne, along etc, and Matt Barnes because he is in that top tier due your chart says so. Barnes to start off, wouldn’t be even an option if I were the GM. That’s kind of the point moon, and this is why FG charts make more sense mostly if you rescale it for relievers.

 

I think you have to reorder your thresholds or change your methodology in order to rate RPs.

[iortiz]

A catch phrase is something that a particular person says so much that they are known for saying it. Like Bart Simpson "don't have a cow" or whatever. Like harmony saying "or not."

 

Mine is clearly "they should have traded Pedroia."

 

Oh oks. Didn’t realize that I use a lot this phrase here lol

 

Sure it is in my sign because I love this Godfather’s quote that mi compadre used long way ago.

 

I guess I do.

[moonslav59]

How would you rate all-time relievers? Same method?

 

What still doesn’t make sense to me is seeing Barnes in a top tier level. A career 0.8 WAR reliever can’t be in a top tier level in my book. why? Let me put it in context. People who are in the same tier have very similar pedigrees. it’s like you are a GM trying to land a top tier RP and you have to choose between Mo, Papelbon Gagne, along etc, and Matt Barnes because he is in that top tier due your chart says so. Barnes to start off, wouldn’t be even an option if I were the GM. That’s kind of the point moon, and this is why FG charts make more sense mostly if you rescale it for relievers.

 

I think you have to reorder your thresholds or change your methodology in order to rate RPs.

 

My only concern in this discussion was determine whether Barnes was average, above or below. I’m fine with 3, 5, 6, 7 or however many categories to split them into. No doubt, he has been above average among RPers of his time.

 

When you get into all time, it gets trickier. Do you go by quantity, quality, both.

 

How short of quantity is allowed for a great stretch.

 

Take Uehara: his numbers for a 3, 4 or 5 year stretch were better than Mo’s, but I wouldn’t place him above Mo, overall. If you asked me who was the best for any 4-5 consecutive years, I might say Komi.

 

No way would Barnes even be in the discussion for top 50 of all time, but he’s in any above average category that brings the sample size down to his size.

 

Out of 354 relief pitchers with 350+ IP since 1991, Barnes places 157 in fWAR, but it might be interesting to see where he places in WAR per 60 IP. He places 84th in FIP.

[moonslav59]

How would you rate all-time relievers? Same method?

 

What still doesn’t make sense to me is seeing Barnes in a top tier level. A career 0.8 WAR reliever can’t be in a top tier level in my book. why? Let me put it in context. People who are in the same tier have very similar pedigrees. it’s like you are a GM trying to land a top tier RP and you have to choose between Mo, Papelbon Gagne, along etc, and Matt Barnes because he is in that top tier due your chart says so. Barnes to start off, wouldn’t be even an option if I were the GM. That’s kind of the point moon, and this is why FG charts make more sense mostly if you rescale it for relievers.

 

I think you have to reorder your thresholds or change your methodology in order to rate RPs.

 

Calling Barnes a role player and occasional solid player by the FG charts is fine with me, but he’s not below average as a RPer.

[iortiz]

The difference between your view and my view is that you take all the relievers and order them in 3 categories or whatever levels in symmetrical thresholds —business as usual.

 

I don't. I use a normalized FG's chart for relievers and most of them go to the Role/Scrub level which makes sense to me because most of them are that —role/scrub player. Matt Barnes' career numbers locate him in that bunch. Most of relievers are pitchers who couldn't success as starters for whatever so most of them become role players but still, out there are pedigrees (not the way you see it though). Most of them have bad pedigrees as I have presented. Only a few (as expected) are solid through their careers and much more less Good or above. Mo and few others are in the later category. Matt does not in my book.

 

Call me selective if you want. FG is as well, reason why I rescaled its player chart for relievers.

[moonslav59]

The difference between your view and my view is that you take all the relievers and order them in 3 categories or whatever levels in symmetrical thresholds —business as usual.

 

I don't. I use a normalized FG's chart for relievers and most of them go to the Role/Scrub level which makes sense to me because most of them are that —role/scrub player. Matt Barnes' career numbers locate him in that bunch. Most of relievers are pitchers who couldn't success as starters for whatever so most of them become role players but still, out there are pedigrees (not the way you see it though). Most of them have bad pedigrees as I have presented. Only a few (as expected) are solid through their careers and much more less Good or above. Mo and few others are in the later category. Matt does not in my book.

 

Call me selective if you want. FG is as well, reason why I rescaled its player chart for relievers.

 

I have very little issue with the FG charts or their labels.

 

Just don’t say Barnes is an average RPer, because that’s not what the charts say, nor the data.

 

Say he’s an average or below average player- not average or below average RPer. No complaints from me.

[iortiz]

I have very little issue with the FG charts or their labels.

 

Just don’t say Barnes is an average RPer, because that’s not what the charts say, nor the data.

 

Say he’s an average or below average player- not average or below average RPer. No complaints from me.

This is why I rescaled their player chart for relievers while using the same criteria.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I have posted that Barnes has lost his confidence. I think confidence is a big factor in performance. (I have no proof of that.) I don't think losing confidence is the same as choking.

[Bellhorn04]

I have posted that Barnes has lost his confidence. I think confidence is a big factor in performance. (I have no proof of that.) I don't think losing confidence is the same as choking.

 

Lack of confidence is in the same ballpark as choking IMHO. Maybe choking is just a bad word.

[Bellhorn04]

Anyway, it does look like Joey Gallo is a choker!

[dgalehouse]

The word " choke" is probably thrown around too loosely. And often unfairly. But it is real and can sometimes happen to the best of them. Sometimes the pressure gets to you . You have to realize that and find ways to overcome it. Don't let it become habitual.

[moonslav59]

If there is such a thing as "choke," we saw it yesterday.