moonslav59

Trying the reverse Heaney mojo, again, tonight?

A player have 189 IP samples with wildly different results- good years, bad years, good parts of years, bad parts of years. Sometimes there are reasons like injuries, family distractions, poor defense behind them one year vs another or several reasons, some of which are unknown. Can the only reason for good and bad results in the playoffs, even over a big sample size like 189 IP, be caused by anything else other than pressure? I'm fine, if people believe pressure played a role, but you treat it like it's a fact and offer no evidence to support the position that his poor results were because of pressure and ONLY pressure..

Mariners up 3-1 on the A's in the 4th! Go M's!

With Arroyo back, Kike will not need to play 2B as much, so the OF is squeezed. No Duran No JD Limited Schwarber

Dalbec is Schwarbers defensive replacement... LMAO! Then, Shaw is Dalbec's.

I wasn't hinting at easing Richards into a more high leverage role.

So, even though all year long, players get hot and cold for all kinds of reasons or no reasons at all, but during the playoffs all these reasons disappear, and the only reason for doing well or badly HAS TO BE because a player reacts well or poorly to pressure. This actually makes sense to you? There can be no other factors involved, except pressure?

In your mind, this is irrefutable.

Nobody doubts his playoff numbers are radically different from his regular season numbers. You keep acting like that is what is being debated. What is being debated is why they are much worse. I'm just asking for one shred of evidence or just a plain old reason why you think it is beyond any doubt because he reacts poorly to pressure. Just because pressure is present for many of the PAs in the playoffs, does not mean that has to be the reason he has done poorly in that 189 IP sample size. Give me something other than , "Because that's the way it is, " or "the stats show he is a choke." Something. Anything.

I was always pretty good in Math in high school. I prided myself on never needing to take my math book home from school. All this new math is killing me!

It will never happen, but yes. If you want to try a new role, you don't just throw someone into it, unless you have to do it.

If you fed Kershaw's numbers into a random generator and set the parameters to create 1,000 sample sizes of 189 IP (his actual amount), you'd get a range of results that would include some sample numbers that match nearly identically, what Kershaw actually produced. Of course, many more would show better and much better results- some even better than his regular season results, but you would find some samples like the one he actually had. Now, of course, there are not 1,000 Kershaw-type pitchers that have 189+ IP in the playoffs, so you cannot prove the actual results match evenly with computer generated results, but studies have shown when you enter all the regular season data and generate a random sampling of expected results, it matches up with reality. The actual amount of pitchers who far exceed their regular season numbers in reality match up with the same amount in the randomly generated sample size, and same with barely better, the same, barely worse and much worse. The random samples mirror the reality samples. Did I explain it well enough?

Does that mean they were all AAAA players, or is my math wrong again?

Not a "fact."

If you're going to try it, do it when up by 8.

I knew what you meant, and of course both teams could keep playing like the last 2-3 weeks, like the first 100+ games, or somewhere in between.

I remember that, now that you mentioned it, but does this means there was no way he could be back before August 13th, because Bloom said this? He did start working out shortly after the trade, then stopped after the groin injury. It looks like the new/groin injury may have hastened his return. WOW! (Just kidding) BTW, once he did return, he only played in 3 of the next 7 days. Was none of that was because of the groin? He also has yet to play 1B, again, because of the groin or hammy? (or both?)

Our starters average 5.1 IP per start (not 5 1/3 but 5 and 1/10th), not 4 IP. BTW, the league average is 5.1, as well. 6.2 Eovaldi 5.3 Pivetta 5.0 ERod, Richards, Sale 4.5 Perez 4.4 Houck FYI Pitches per start 92 Eovaldi, Pivetta 86 Richards, ERod (84 League average) 80 Sale 75 Houck 74 Perez QS% 40 Eovaldi 33 Pivetta 25 ERod 18 Richards, Perez 0 Houck, Sale Team Record (RS per GS) 2-0 Sale (12.4) 15-9 Pivetta (5.5) & ERod (5.1) 12-10 Perez (4.4) 13-12 Eovaldi (5.7) 11-11 Richards (5.2) 3-4 Houck (3.1)

Again, saying it's "not coincidence" is not adding anything to your point. There is no evidence that proves or even implies it can't be a coincidence. On top of that, your point is also dead wrong. Kershaw has shown he does very well under pressure over a much greater sample size than his playoff one: His career OPS against is an astounding .582. A number that is not easy to obtain and maintain, yet look at these sample sizes and numbers under pressure: .502 2 outs RISP (853 PA sample size) .547 Late & Close (712 PAs) There very definition of Clutch Pitching .577 in September (1517 PAs) .581 within 1 run (60115 PAs) .582 RISP (1890 PAs) .582 Tie game (3378 PAs) .585 Men on Base (3482 PAs) .599 High Leverage (1604 PAs) His playoff sample size is under 750 PAs, yet you choose that much smaller sample size to "prove" it's all about him wilting under pressure, and not only that, it can't possibly be for any other reason, except he's not clutch. Show me some proof that is the reason. Just showing he did poorly in the playoffs does not prove the reason- just the event. You'd think some proof might be he also sucks under pressure during teh year, but in fact, the opposite is true. You'd a think some proof might be that it can't be random, because randomly generated numbers would show his results are statistically impossible, yet the facts actually prove that not only is it possible, but it's right in line with what to expect. Show me something other than he sucked under pressure, but only playoff pressure, so that proves he is not clutch.

Not really. Sale never played in 2021, until after the deadline. Houck missed a lot of time before the deadline. He's back FT, now. Schwarber is a major get. The delay of him joining the team made some forget or minimize the addition.

As far as I remember, nobody said 10 days minimum.

I never heard a definitive date for his return- just vague timelines. I do know, he started to workout, then had to stop. He may have only been set back 3-5 days, but I think it mostly affected his ability to play 1B, and maybe not getting a few more days off after his game one with us than what might have happened with no groin injury- a new injury. Not being able to play 1B hurt, too. If force Dalbec into the line-up and JD into the OF.

You still have yet to answer why it has to be the pressure and the impossibility there could be any other reason, including just random bad luck. I won't wait, because I've asked dozens of times with no on point response.

I get that, but we might have brought in Ottavino after Barnes started to implode, and we'd still have Whitlock for today. (Maybe Ottavino loses the game.)

Yes. I keep telling you that. He was on the IL for a hammy and pulled a groin in rehab- maybe learning 1B.