moonslav59

Oakland is losing, again. This time 8-0. If they lose, it’s a 3-way tied for the two WC slots with us down one in the loss column to both and .001 behind in win%.

Actually, it’s GB that matters not winning %, so we’d have a play in game with NYY.

Just 5 games of 7 innings of shutout ball and his 4.19 ERA goes to 3.54, and you’ll find some other guy to call a choke. This is just one example that shows just how fickle even a 189 IP sample size is. Now, he ain’t gonna do that, but the point still stands. 5 nice games more and nobody mentions Kershaw and choke ever again. 5 games is all.now, imagine 7 or 8...

Well, today was about as bad as could be. We were out pitched, hit and defended. I still think the schedule will help us beat out the A’s, but we can’t let losing these games go into another free fall. It could all start with a win tomorrow, but today still sucked, badly,

This game thread crap is for the birds. I’m out of these for a while. Maybe a long long while. Talk among yourselves. Lol

This walking the ninth hitter is killing me.

If someone would just get a hit with RISP we could call ourselves clutch,

What’s our issue with 9th in the batting order hitters. Did someone not get the memo?.

In all seriousness, now, what happens if Kershaw pitches 5 gems this October?

Now that’s a tiny hill to be crucified on.

Maybe I need to rethink my choice. Lol

So, you’d choose Dick?

The guy who let his 5 year old granddaughter make a lineup one time? Or was that someone else.

Lol. I feel great and omnipotent. lol

Actually, Kike should have taken ball 4, twice.

Cora and Tito stand high above all other Sox managers in the past 5 decades. A better discussion might be who is third. I say Dick Williams, but I may be alone on that one.

Huh?

I used CERA and OPS against in dozens of sample sizes chosen only by having large enough samples from multiple catchers. I did it for Posada and VTek, too, over many many years. Several sample sizes had 150 to over 200 IP by both catchers. I also did sample sizes of RPers with much smaller sample sizes, and while those results and conclusions were more mixed, even those favored guys like VTek and Leon and disfavored Posada and Vaz and Salty and Swihart. Kinda the guys you’d expect, except for some people on Vaz..

I guess it’s just coincidence the random samples mirror reality almost exactly. What I wanna know is what happens if a clutch hitter suddenly faces 25 clutch pitchers in a row and has crappy numbers. Is he no longer clutch? Talk among yourselves.

Of course it could be. I wouldn’t sat lineup slot comfort is not real. I just think it’s way overblown.

Not only did that cheap hit drop right between Kike & Hunter, it would have been a double play if caught. Judge was running full out on the crack of the bat. Time to turn the luck around.

Cora can’t win with some fans no matter what he chooses. It’s not just Cora, either.

They jettisoned Price, Buch and Wright, too. Someday Vaz will go, too. Looking at Leon’s offense, one could ask how and why he lasted so long, and why Sale wanted him as his binky.

The variances are too great to be chalked up to other factors. The fact that just about every pitcher with significant innings and even those with unbalanced and smaller sample sizes did better and way better without Vaz has meaning. One could say lefty righty splits have too many other factors involved to have any significant value, but they are still discussed. Why do some pitchers almost always pitch to just one catcher. Even if the answer is just comfort and not some skill every one not named Vaz has, its still real and meaningful. When pitchers are asked about throwing to certain catchers, of course they go out of their way to not throw ex teammates under a bus, but they all lavish great praise on catchers they had the most success with. It matters to them.

The data entered is not random. If you entered the actual data of every PA in the playoffs or every final game line every player ever generated over MLB history and had a computer program randomly create the amount of sample sizes that actually occurred in real life, the results the computer would come up with would be almost identical to what actually happened. It just would not give names like Kershaw and Schilling to those sample sizes that were on the extreme ends of the total amount of samples. Also, if you took every game line Kershaw has ever produced over his career and then randomly selected samples from here and there until you reached 189 innings (his actual playoff IP) you’d end up getting a wide variety of samples with the vast majority close to his norm, but surely you’d get some near 4.19- his actual p,ayoff ERA and some where he did much better than his career norm in the regular season. If the playoffs were totally random, we’d expect some samples to look out of whack from those player’s norms. Most would be near the norm, but some not. I don’t get what’s so hard to understand about this point. I’m fine if people don’t agree, but to even be able to see how the randomness point can relate to this debate is beyond me. The fact that people have actually done what I’m saying and the randomly generated sample sizes created came out to mirror the actual outcomes in reality- same number of samples really better than the norm and worse than the norms and by the exact same margins has to at least hint at the idea that maybe it could just be all random within the parameters entered into the sample generator. Of course, a guy like Papi’s numbers entered would create more great samples than Spike Owens. The data is not like flipping a coin on every player.