Kimmi

So much to say about WAR, so little time. Who am I kidding? I have all night. 1. Just because a stat is flawed, that doesn't mean that it's no good or worthless. The fact of the matter is that WAR works. It correlates very well with actual team wins. Like it or not, IT WORKS. All stats are flawed one way or another. That doesn't mean that they're all worthless. 2. Every offensive statistic is subjective as well. Ks, hits, OPS, you name it, it's subjective. Offensive stats may not be as subjective as defensive stats are, but they are subjective nonetheless. The stat geeks go through painstaking measures to eliminate as much bias and subjectivity as possible, and they do a pretty good job of it. A much better job than an official (biased) scorekeeper or even an umpire calling balls and strikes do. 3. I have often heard people state that WAR overvalues defense too much. IMO, I think WAR has it right, and most people undervalue defense too much. 4. One of the best things about WAR is that it gives us the ability to compare players who play different positions, including comparing pitchers with position players.

Thank you for this post and the previous one. You state things so much better than I do.

Ks for hitters are overrated. Ks for pitchers are not. K% has a fairly strong negative correlation with ERA.

Boy, the Mets blew that game. You're 0-2 today.

Another solid Flapjack post.

I don't believe you're making excuses for Price. But in the same vein, you accuse me of making excuses for players all the time when I say things like this about other players. Be consistent.

Price does have to be commended for his attitude, his work ethic, and his leadership. He owns it every time.

Nope, that is not going to happen.

I would like for us to get some starting pitching depth. We don't need a front liner necessarily, but we need depth.

At first I thought it was a bad idea, but I then changed my mind on him. It depends on the cost, of course, but since getting any type of pitching help is going to cost a fortune, upgrading the offense (Lucroy is good defensively as well) makes sense, even if offense is not our weakness. Leon looks good right now, but he and his .469 BABIP will come crashing down to earth.

This loss really hurt. It will likely keep me awake most of the night.

In fairness to Ziegler, he was let down by his defense. Trout should have never reached base to start off the inning. That changes the entire complexion of the inning. He did give up two solid hits to load the bases, but he probably would have gotten out of the bases loaded jam if Hanley makes a good throw home.

Price did indeed pitch like an ace tonight. He did exactly what the team needed him to do. Unfortunately, it was all for naught.

I agree. It's difficult to manage the BP when your starter doesn't make it through 6 innings. The pen needs to be spared whenever possible. I think Farrell said that Barnes and Buchholz were not available. Farrell has to try to get the starter as deep as possible, within reason. If this were the postseason, that's a completely different story. In the regular season, his hands are somewhat tied by the starters not doing their job.

Thank you. It's okay, I don't mind repeating myself, as you well know.

You may not believe it, but the fact of the matter is that line up changes are just not as significant as most people think they are. I am all for moving a struggling hitter down in the line up, but that is more for taking the pressure off of the hitter than anything else. The net effect of changing the batting order is likely to be a negative one if you are taking batters out of their comfort zones.

Solid post Eddy.

I'm not Moon, but this question is right up my alley. Here is a great site for that information: http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/type/expanded

As I just stated, there are going to be exceptions. In general, however, it is true that pitchers with higher K rates have lower BABIPs and lower HR/FB ratios. It's not just that they have fewer balls in play. It's also that the balls in play result in hits less often.

I'm going by what Fangraphs and THT have said regarding this. They do not make claims like this without having the extensive research to back it up. Sorry, but listing some counterexamples is just that. Listing counterexamples. It does not disprove the hypothesis. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. From Fangraphs: Looking at all 3,328 pitcher-seasons (with at least 40 innings pitched) between 2002 and 2010, I sorted players into four groups by strikeout rate. The higher the strikeout rate, the lower the BABIP and HR/FB at each level of strikeout rate. STRIKEOUT GROUP/BABIP/HR/FB HIGH / .286 / 9.1% MEDIUM-HIGH / .295 / 10.2% MEDIUM-LOW / .298 / 10.7% LOW / .301 / 10.7% Pitchers do have some control over their BABIPs, but there’s too much noise in their actual numbers to infer their true skill levels. Weaver has had BABIPs as low as .238 and as high as .316 during his career. Still, small sample sizes of peripherals say more about BABIP skill level in a way that BABIP alone cannot.

Our last 5 losses have been by 1 or 2 runs. Some of those have been high scoring and some have been low scoring. It's very frustrating because they were all winnable games. As frustrating as those losses are, however, it is a much better sign for the team to lose close games like that than to be blown out. The outcome of close games is largely due to luck or randomness. The larger the difference in the score, the more the outcome is determined by skill. The Sox are 11-11 in one run games but are 18-8 in blowouts. That is a good sign, believe it or not.

Besides this, the impact of switching the #1 and 2 hitters is so little that it would likely do more harm than good.

Win! Please! Let's go!

The Yankees are the luckiest team in baseball. OK, the Rangers might be a little luckier right now, but still.

I have no use for Buck.