Wednesday Rockpile: Rockies have Big Day, Iannetta Deserves a Bigger Role
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 8:19 AM MDT
in Rockpile
Email
PrintAfter the Rockies walked off with their 89th win of the year last night (and with an Atlanta loss), their magic number stood at 3. As I've been predicting for the last four weeks now, the Rockies will not relinquish the wild card lead to anybody unless it's the Dodgers (and you know what that means). If LA loses their game tonight, the Rockies will control their own destiny for the NL West title. Seriously.
As Troy Renck notes in the above article:
Math, spooking them in recent days, is now the Rockies' friend. Colorado owns a three-game advantage over the Braves for the National League wild card with five remaining. So the Rockies' magic number is three, which means they need to go just 3-2 to clinch a playoff berth. A 2-3 mark would guarantee them at least a tie, resulting in a play-in game in Atlanta.
With their win the Rockies eliminated the Marlins from playoff contention and can do likewise to the Giants tonight with a win (or SF loss).
In playoff odds land, the Rockies' playoff chances increased by 18% according to Sportsclubstats to 90.4%. At BP, the Rockies' odds are now at 92.5%, with at 2.6% chance at the division. It's amazing what one good day can do.
COL ATL SF
0-5 89 wins 3-2 89 wins 5-0 89 wins
1-4 90 wins 4-1 90 wins
2-3 91 wins 5-0 91 wins
3-2 92 wins
4-1 93 wins
5-0 94 wins
Of course, the big story last night was the walk-off home run by Chris Iannetta after Huston Street gave up a three-run jack to the most punchless man in baseball to blow his second save all year. Despite Yorvit Torrealba's hot streak (and yes, I'm still pounding on this), playing Iannetta consistently still gives Colorado the best chance of winning down the stretch.
Small Sample Size Theater (because Tracy has given CDI so few opportunities in September): In 16 September PA, Iannetta is 5-12 with 2 HRs, a double, and a triple. That's a .417 AVG/.533 OBP/1.167 SLG/.660 wOBA line. Think the Rockies couldn't use that in their lineup?
Look, Torrealba has been unnaturally (and very uncharacteristically) good in this last month, but the fact is that he's OPSing .708 this month (Iannetta: 1.700). If Tracy would just give CDI consistent at-bats, Iannetta in my opinion would produce. He seems to have figured something out with all of his down-time in September.
Other Links
He didn't get the win, but on the whole Jason Marquis pitched very well in his bid to secure a spot in the postseason rotation. I know that I'm in the minority, but I certainly wouldn't mind having Marquis in ahead of Cook.
The Rockies believe that Chipper Jones thinks too much when talking about the Braves' psychological advantage on the Rockies gained because they play first. I agree, that's a little ridiculous.
Tracy Ringolsby opines that the Rockies should be rooting for the Cardinals to win because they are the better matchup for Colorado. RMN has been saying that for a while and I agree. Playing Philadelphia would be dangerous because not only are they a much better lineup, they possess several quality lefties. This fact by itself doesn't bother me. It's the fact that Jim Tracy will over-rely on platoon splits and play inferior bats against left-handers that makes me really want to play the Cardinals.
Either way, I hope the other beats the Dodgers, as they are my favorite two non-Rockies teams. Ringolsby also mentions that Clint Hurdle has been mentioned as a candidate as a manager for the Reds.
Thomas Harding writes about the emergence of Ian Stewart.
Torrealba's sac fly last night gave him 16 RBIs in September.
Clint Barmes came clean to Jack Etkin about his miraculous play to end Sunday's game. It tarnishes the play a little bit, but when all is said and done it was a marvelous effort and the Rockies won the game. End of story.
Because I know someone wants to read them, Power Rankings: Fox and CBS
614 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I voted CDI
But, I don’t think it’s necessarily right to demote Yorvy because of one pinch-hit. I wouldn’t want to be the one making that decision in the clubhouse!
I voted for CDI
Mainly because I thinks it better for the team if Ianetta gets some good at bats before the post season begins.
by lizardlad01 on Sep 30, 2009 10:56 AM MDT up reply actions
Re: Barmes
I thought this was interesting
No video replay showed conclusively that Barmes didn’t catch it because the camera normally positioned down the right-field line was gone to prepare for postgame interviews.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 8:26 AM MDT reply actions
After not
seeing “Very Special Boy” for months, it just seems creepy now.
"Don't give up the ship!" - Capt. James Lawrence
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
there was a point to the nickname
that was revealed in the comments. It’s just a reference to a comic, achewood.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 12:15 PM MDT up reply actions
I didn't mind it for your post.
But when people took it and ran with it, I didn’t like it. It’s just far to twee for me.
I never knew it was an Achewood reference, though obviously internally I was "ooh! like Philippe!"
though obviously internally I was “ooh! like Philippe!”
Are you a fan, RMN? I was a massive fan but it seems Onstad has basically decided he’s only doing the free stuff under protest these days. Still, there are hundreds of comics touched with genius in the canon – for anyone who likes weird, unique humour involving alive stuffed animals and household pets, start from the very beginning and keep reading (give it a couple of dozen strips, it takes a while to warm up).
I'm a fan
and slowly working my way through the archives. I wouldn’t say I’m a very devoted fan, but it’s such witty stuff that it’s hard to not enjoy it.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions
I think after it gets going, it's absolute genius 2002-2007 or so
The last year has seemed more forced, less affectionate, and way less prolific. It’s the Garrett Atkins of online comic.
brilliant
EXECUTE: It's the Clutch thing to do
by Andrew Martin on Oct 1, 2009 7:09 AM MDT up reply actions
Also
Rockies have tied 2007 for the most wins in a 162-game regular season
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 8:45 AM MDT reply actions
Which I guess would be clearer
if I said they have clinched tying 2007 for fewest losses in a full season
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 8:46 AM MDT up reply actions
Not quite yet, as we did lose 73 games during 2007
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 10:31 AM MDT up reply actions
Right
We’ve clinched a tie with that at least. Unless we go 0-5, then lose a play-in game. But as far as 162 games, no team will have lost fewer than this team no matter what
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions
And this is why I've been saying 2009 is the greatest Rockies season ever
Playoffs are a crapshoot. We’re 71-41 over four months. We should be damn proud of this team, and this season, no matter how the last five games and the playoffs shake out. I know I am.
(Though I hope we do NOT sweep a Division Series, as I only have tix for a Game 4….)
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions
That happened to me in 2007
the only playoff game I was able to get tickets for was NLDS Game 4
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions
I was both lucky and unlucky in 2007
WC play in game
NLDS Game 3
NLCS Game 4
World Series…………Game 5
I had a 3rd chance code for NLDS that could have gotten me to Game 3 next week, but since I got my game 4 tix from my boss, I gave my code away to another Rowbot…hope it doesn’t come back to bite me.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:37 AM MDT up reply actions
Remember this, everyone.
Remember this.
"Don't give up the ship!" - Capt. James Lawrence
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
I'm pretty sure Dinger would be as well
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 9:03 AM MDT up reply actions
I'm really getting sick of people saying the Rockies "cheated" or shouldn't have won on Sunday.
Fine, it looks like the ball bounced. But I don’t think any replay could have shown that, and even so, that’s baseball. Sometimes reality doesn’t matter as much as perception, and that is definitely the case in baseball. The umps do their best to interpret reality, but sometimes they make mistakes. In this case, it wasn’t even really a mistake. There is no way they could have seen the ball hit the ground for a fraction of a second. The way the play unfolded, it was extremely unlikely that Barmes could have dropped the ball and still come up with it in his bare hand, and from the umps’ perspectives, they had to make the call that they saw.
Sorry for the rant, but I’ve been spending too much time at other blogs and sites.
Quite frankly,
it could be just considered karma repaid for the winning run from Saturday being scored by a guy that was very clearly out trying to steal.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 9:04 AM MDT up reply actions
Everyone suddenly seems to think that Baseball is Golf
I actually think golf has something going here, but in most sports your job is to get away with things not to fess up.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Exactly!
Why didn’t that get national media attention? Or Dex being called out at first when he was safe by nearly two feet? Thanks for reminding me, I knew there were some other calls that were questionable.
I disagree with your analysis Jab
Despite the fact that Torrealba is only slightly better than Charlie Monfort’s 8-year-old niece (or Dinger, as another commenter pointed out) at throwing out runners, he should remain in the starting lineup for a few reasons:
1. Even though Ianetta has been outstanding coming off the bench in his 15 PAs, Torrealba has a much better batting average, and his numbers with two outs and runners in scoring position are too huge to ignore.
2. The Rox are desperately in need of a right-handed bat to offset the left side dominance of Smith and Giambi. With Spilly looking to get some playing time come (fingers still crossed) the post-season if we end up playing Philly, that’s going to be one less right handed bat coming off the bench. Paul Phillips will likely not make the playoff roster, which means that Ianetta could only be used in late-inning situations like he was last night.
3. What Torrealba lacks defensively, he makes up for in pitch calling and his general repoire with the pitching staff—especially JDLR and Ubaldo. We need both of those guys to be performing at their best to be able to make a run, and I think Torrealba is the best way to get good performances out of both of them.
So even though Ianetta may have earned a spot back in the lineup, I don’t think you can mess with the good thing they’ve had going for the past 3 months with Yorvit. It’s amazing that we can even have this conversation about which of our two clutch-hitting catchers should be starting. Not a bad position to be in if you ask me.
"Yeeeeeeeah Rox! Yeeeeeah! We too hot! Can't stop us!" -- Some kid at Union Station after the play-in game in '07.Those words are as true today as the day they were spoken.
Chris has earned his way onto the lineup,
but not on a regular basis. I think he does better for Cook, Hammel and Marquis when they pitch.
Agree to an extent
One of those three guys will not be in the rotation for the playoffs. My guess is that Hammel will go to the bullpen since he has a lot of experience there. Ianetta will probably catch Cook or Marquis in game 3.
"Yeeeeeeeah Rox! Yeeeeeah! We too hot! Can't stop us!" -- Some kid at Union Station after the play-in game in '07.Those words are as true today as the day they were spoken.
Aaron Cook with Iannetta catching: .792 OPSa
"" with Torrealba: .862
Jason Hammel with Iannetta: .848 OPSa
"" Torrealba: .701 OPSa
Jason Marquis/Iannetta: .729 OPSa
"" Torrealba: .664 OPSa
Ubaldo with Iannetta: .626 OPSa
"" Torrealba: .668
DLR with Iannetta: .677 OPSa
"" Torrealba: .795 OPSa
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:41 AM MDT up reply actions
Thanks for the research.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions
I'm not even trying to ARGUE ARGUE there
I wanted to look it up, because I always figured Yorvit was better with the latin pitchers.
welp
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:00 AM MDT up reply actions
I've heard that ascertation countless times
I really don’t think it matters anymore, if it did to begin with. JDLR and Ubaldo are big boys now.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions
ohhhhh
Iunno, I forgot to check. Iannetta has caught like 5/9, Yorvy 1/3, Phillips 1/9, something like that.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 12:36 PM MDT up reply actions
I disagree with everything that you said...sorry.
Iannetta is flat out better at all aspects of the game than Torrealba (except, as I’ve said before, exuberant celebrations). Yes, that includes calling pitches, controlling the running game, and rapport with the pitching staff. Jimenez and JDLR have done better with Iannetta catching them.
As for AVG, yes, but so what? OBP/SLG/wOBA is king and Iannetta is flat out a better hitter. Clutch is a myth and while Yorvit has ridden a hot streak for quite a while I definitely don’t believe that it will continue. Iannetta is the better bat and glove going forward.
A better right hand bat in the lineup is MUCH more valuable than leaving that big bat on the bench and bringing it in for high leverage situations. Since as you pointed out Phillips won’t be on the playoff roster, it’s unlikely that the backup catcher will get many (if any at all) PAs. If nothing else Iannetta should start against left handers.
Starting Yorvit just decreases the Rockies’ chances of winning the game.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions
As for AVG, yes, but so what? OBP/SLG/wOBA is king and Iannetta is flat out a better hitter.
Really standing on that are you?
Starting Yorvit just decreases the Rockies’ chances of winning the game.
Except for all his game winning hits.
GOING FORWARD
and yes, Iannetta has proved that he is a better hitter over his career than Yorvit. I am standing behind that—we can agree to disagree, but you’re not changing my mind on that.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:27 AM MDT up reply actions
for their career
they both kinda suck. One hits a few more homers. One has just more “Hits (of all kinds)”
Right now though Yorvit has been hot. But Iannetta getting some rest I think will help him as the season extends. Catching is hard on the body.
On this we do agree.
I think that now that CDI has had some rest he’ll be reinvigorated for the playoffs while Torrealba will be run down. I just hope that Tracy realizes that.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:40 AM MDT up reply actions
issue is
the season’s almost over. Can you imagine the uproar if Iannetta takes Yorvy’s spot?
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:44 AM MDT up reply actions
I personlly believe
now that we are past the ’roids era, that catchers really should be a full out split. Either by lefty/righty, pitchers favorite receiver, or just every other day.
I don’t think Iannetta is any good at all (at best to me he’s at not completely sucky). BUT, I still think he should split starts, on principle.
Just means Iannetta will have to continue game-winning HR
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:16 AM MDT up reply actions
I have to say Torre's pitch calling and working w/ the Latin pitchers
is way overrated. In fact, I don’t think much of his pitch calling at all. I think it was bad in game 2 against STL, which is the game I went to. Jimenez was pitching that one and he was so heavily relying on his breaking pitches. The guy throws 97-99 for crying out loud, its not easy to hit. Especially when you are talking about LaRue and Wainwright, ditch the slider and blow it past those guys. Instead he brings it down to their bat speed and they were able to make contact. I have seen plenty of instances where I was not impressed w/ his pitch calling.
Rox, please start playing with heart! Let's finish this thing off!
see above
I posted OPSa for pitcher with specific catchers
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 1:25 PM MDT up reply actions
can you post ERA, it may be more indicative of how the catcher handles
a pitcher during tight situations?
May the Rockies bring me to paydirt!
just check it out on baseball-reference.com
go to the player’s page, look at the 2009 splits, scroll to the bottom.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 3:59 PM MDT up reply actions
Iannetta caught up a bit
with his exuberant celebration last night. Of course, that raised his exuberance average to about .430, whereas Torrealba’s still at a scorching .989 ;-)
Never give up, never surrender.
Interesting
You make a lot of good points. Statistically Chris is better, and there’s no question he’s better defensively (although he had a pretty mediocre year throwing guys out) but there’s one thing Torrealba has on him: Iannetta has never played in the post-season.
I don’t think that starting Yorvit decreases the chances of winning the game, as he has proven time and again down this stretch, because despite what you think, clutch is not a myth.
"Yeeeeeeeah Rox! Yeeeeeah! We too hot! Can't stop us!" -- Some kid at Union Station after the play-in game in '07.Those words are as true today as the day they were spoken.
CDI has never played in the postseason because Hurdle was an ass.
I hope that Tracy doesn’t repeat this mistake.
Eschew Obfuscation!
Torrealba caught every game that post season
Are you saying we could have done better than 7-0 before the world series? Was Jeff Francis’s blow-up in game 1 Torrealba’s fault, and if only Iannetta had been there we would be talking about a potential dynasty? I don’t think so.
I couldn’t agree more that Hurdle was an ass, but playoff experience is playoff experience.
"Yeeeeeeeah Rox! Yeeeeeah! We too hot! Can't stop us!" -- Some kid at Union Station after the play-in game in '07.Those words are as true today as the day they were spoken.
Iannetta hardly deserved more than backup time in 2007
sort of. His .360 OBP was solid, but as a rookie, and with Torrealba’s decent numbers, there’s no real reason to usurp him.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 2:13 PM MDT up reply actions
maybe if Ianetta wasn't so much of a good OPS guy and was more of a situational
hitter like Torrealba, he would have got the bat off of his shoulder against the Pads last week with a runner on 3rd and less than two outs and the pitcher on deck. this is where I’d take Torrealba anyday.
May the Rockies bring me to paydirt!
Other than a few sac fly situations I would take Iannetta's bat
Torre is hitting the ball well right now, and in fact better than he ever has in his career, so I don’t mind sticking w/ him. I guess I just agree w/ another poster who said that Iannetta was never given the same consistent AB’s that Torre is now enjoying. Even when Iannetta was named the “starter” he only caught 4 games a week, while Torre is catching pretty much every game. I don’t like it for 2 reasons: first of all Iannetta deserves the 2 starts a week Torre was receiving, and if nothing else we are going to have a very worn down catcher come post season time, since Torre really has never caught this number of games in a month before.
Rox, please start playing with heart! Let's finish this thing off!
by smokinRox on Sep 30, 2009 4:05 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
So what are our thoughts on Marquis?
Even though he was incredibly inconsistent last night, he still allowed only 2 runs through 6 IP and got some clutch DP. What do we do with him?
Make them sWITCH hitters
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 10:34 AM MDT up reply actions
BURN THEM!
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
by Rock Oax on Sep 30, 2009 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sometimes...turds
…oops, I meant to say, SF Giants.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:42 AM MDT up reply actions
Logically...
if she weighs the same as a duck…
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:44 AM MDT up reply actions
The GinGRITCH is a GRINCH!
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:29 AM MDT up reply actions
Sorry, this was a serious question
and I was going to do the funny answer, then the serious one, but got caught with stupid work.
I think Marquis has to prove himself in his next start. What he does there will go a long way to figuring out what to do with him. He could be the Rockies #4 Starter in the playoffs, OR a long guy out of the pen. Personally, I think he’s the #4 Starter, based on being an All-Star. Which of course is a stupid reason….but it’s there. And Hammel goes to the pen.
Now who’s out of the pen? Fogg…yes out…sorry Dragon killer. Does Contreras make it to the pen? Does Herges? Does Biemal? Does Morales?
Fogg out...Morales...
We need a not vedry close game to get another look at Morales. If the decision had to be made right now I say “out”. It makes me sad to say that because he had really been doing well till he got too much responsibility and crumbled.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I think I agree
but….it just doesn’t seem right or fair somehow.
If I had to take my 7 bullpen guys:
Hammel, Contreras, Daily, Biemel, Betancourt, Street With the final choice being between Belisle, Herges, and Morales
Now, Tracy in his playoff year with the Dodgers went with a shorter 6 man bullpen.
I don't think we even have to consider Herges
Belisle would seem to be a must at this point, and I still have Hammel over Marquis in the rotation. But leaving out Morales makes us way RH heavy.
Really, I think this call will depend on who we face, because I think it’s easier to leave out Morales if we’re facing St. Louis.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 10:36 AM MDT up reply actions
Well, if we do put Hammel in the bullpen
Then he and Belisle are effectively our long men, and we can take Morales and not take Contreras. But even if we do take Morales in that situation, he and Beimel would be the only lefties in the pen.
I do think if we play the Phils, we have to take Morales, just for that reason (remember, Howard, Utley, Ibanez and Stairs are LH). If we play the Cards, I think we can safely take Contreras over Morales.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 10:43 AM MDT up reply actions
But Contreras
has been pretty amazing out of the pen this last week (HR as the exception), and he’s got a veteran presence (I hope since he’s 63 years old)
I don't think you can base your choices on such a short period.
In general, I think Morales is a better pitcher than Contreras. Maybe not lately, so you have to consider recent performance as well, but I think Morales could be more valuable to the team. I think you need to get him in some more games and see what happens. If he continues to suck, thank him for his efforts and tell him to show up in February.
Of the final three
I say Belisle, who has been nails lately, and this should be a “what have you done for me lately decision”. We don’t need another long man if we have Hammel and Contreras so Herges value is slight, and Morales… well… I hope he gets another opportunity to pitch and show he can hammer the strike zone.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
How would you feel in game 5
with a 1 run lead in the 8th inning if Morales comes in?
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I wouldn't like it
I would put my 8th inning guy in, Rafael Betancourt
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions
But lefties up
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
His stuff against lefties
is virtually unhittable. I would be nervous as hell, but I would play that matchup. Morales has shown himself good at focusing on that one batter. Closer? No. But I like the matchup.
I don't care who is up
Betancourt is a good pitcher. Tracy needs to not play matchups so heavily. Prince Fielder, sure, bring in Beimel. Generic lefty #7 batter? Betancourt’s fine.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:02 AM MDT up reply actions
I personally want Hammel in the rotation over Marquis
I wasn’t impressed with Marquis. I mean, the final box tells me he only let in 2 runs, but he also walked 4 and only struck out 1. That’s poor.
Gameday showed that while he was all over the place, not locating well, and got pretty lucky in a couple of big jams.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions
If you go with Hammel in the rotation
(which I don’t have a strong opinion on either way) Do you put Marquis in the pen? Or leave him off the playoff roster?
For the 5 game series
I’d leave him off. We have better pen options
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
and I think I agree
BUT only if we keep Contreras. There will be a need for the insurance emergency stater. You never know when someone will trip over their dog before their next start.
Absolutely
At this point Contreras IS ON my playoff roster one way or the other. I think he has been great coming out of the pen and he can go several innings or start. I am way more confident in him than Marquis.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
agreed
but Contreras has also shown the ability to hold down an inning, and his stuff is WAYYYYYYYYYYY better than Marquis’, groundballs or no.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions
I really think he walked 2
the other two were IBBs. But he did get three DPs behind him! 2 w/ bases loaded saved his butt. I was not impressed. Start Hammel (depending on his performance tonight!)
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I am a huge CDI fan, and never thought I'd see Yorvit be useful other than a human backstop, however
get em in there for split time and see what happens. Is Yorvit done? Did CDI get his eye back?
if you're reading this, it means my undying support for your team will result in its failure.
0-fernetta has been sporadicly successful.
Torrealba is a gamer. I used to hate him but he has completely won me over with his intelligent play. He takes the extra base and gets the clutch hit when it is needed. This team is in desperate need of everyday clutch players since we all know that with first and third and one out Barmes is ALWAYS going to swing at 3 balls and strike out. Seriously though, Torrealba is a veteran leader who just seems to get it done late in the season. I am a fan.
Clutch is a myth.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:17 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
The ability to perform
in high leverage situations under stress is not universal. Some have it some don’t. Those who have it are “clutch”. It is not a myth.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
By and large the statistics don't bear that theory out. Anomalies and outliers on both sides obviously exist, yes.
Yorvit (or CDI for that matter) is not one of them.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:29 AM MDT up reply actions
I believe there is truth to "clutch skill"
some players may have more ice in their veins in crunch time, to be able to calm down, center, and throw that bases loaded 3-2 pitch on the corner to Prince Fielder. At least more than others, who may implode.
With that said, that amount of “clutch skill” pales in comparison to pure statistical randomness, making it incredibly impossible to quanity. Didn’t Tom Tango write that we would need 86 years of a players career to begin honing in on whether their clutch hitting was actually skill-related?
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:20 AM MDT up reply actions
Hit F/X and Player F/X are gonna help a lot with this I'd argue
You can see what kind of hits are coming in the biggest situations.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:23 AM MDT up reply actions
This is probably true
Torre’s double of Bell was a shot (though it was a terrible pitch). His other hits seem to have been bleeders. Though I can’t back that up atm.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions
prove a guy is clutch.
if it’s a skill, show how it’s consistently demonstrated as one. One season is not enough of a sample.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:49 AM MDT up reply actions
The problem with trying to prove a guy is clutch is that you really can't use numbers
I understand the high leverage thing but all of those situations are not the same. I would like to define a clutch situation by how nervous we are as fans. (The more nervous we are the more clutch the situation) I don’t think anyone can deny that each at bat carries a different level of nerves. But again the problem is that it really can’t be measured.
With that said I think we can agree that Chris was clutch last night.
Batters who walk to first usually come running home.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Sep 30, 2009 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions
You say tomato i say clutch :)
Batters who walk to first usually come running home.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Sep 30, 2009 1:50 PM MDT up reply actions
I don't DISLIKE Torrealba, in asmuch as the intangibles and extra bases and all that
Iannetta is a better bat.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:47 AM MDT up reply actions
I'm not a frequent reader, so I'm not sure when it happened
but I don’t like the Yahoo!Sports redesign. The Purple Row box is no longer purple…and we have to share a box with old Big League Stew articles.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 9:42 AM MDT reply actions
A few weeks ago.
But Purple Row stories should still be on the top if you click into their “Rockies blogs” section. Or, at least the last time I checked.
"Don't give up the ship!" - Capt. James Lawrence
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
oh and BTW
EY jr gets no more pinch running opportunities on first base. Put him in for a runner at second, that’s fine, but this kid is a deer in the headlights and should NOT make the playoff roster. You think getting picked off by the Brewers being 2 1/2 games up in the wildcard is bad, how about getting picked off in the 7th inning of a NLDS game. I’ll pass on EY jr this year.
I can't really argue your point
though Ryan Howard got picked off in NLDS07, remember.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 9:49 AM MDT up reply actions
true.
and I know EY has a defensive/leadoff upside but I just can’t see him being helpful to the team in the playoffs – I don’t think defensive replacements are as important. Especially if we face the Phillies and their numerous lefties, the pickoff opportunities will be numerous and too much of a risk IMO.
by cocainelips99 on Sep 30, 2009 9:58 AM MDT up reply actions
Well EY2's strong poing
is really NOT his defense. I think he’s improved to sightly below average, but Barmes is way ahead of that.
He had 2nd stolen, then Helton fouls off that pitch. Then EY2 did go “rookie” and you could tell he had NO read on the pitcher. If the Rockies run him, they need to give him the red light.
And Matt Holliday got picked off in the WS
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 10:37 AM MDT up reply actions
He also pinch runs for Helton and others at second base
Just sayin
Patrick Saunders: I think Kruk is lazy.
I think they both deserve to play
Iannetta certainly should get a few more starts than e’s been getting…
What I would really like is (if we clinch before Sunday) for them to clear a 40 man spot and give Sal Fasano one night behind the plate. Could be great for PR and seems like its the right thing to do.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
by Rock Oax on Sep 30, 2009 9:45 AM MDT reply actions 2 recs
I like it in a sentimental sense
but he’s not on the 40 man, and that would require exposing someone we want to keep.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:50 AM MDT up reply actions
Eh, there must be someone we could 60 day
freak injury on the way to the managers office
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
You mean, other than the
injury that Omar Quintanilla will get when Todd Helton takes him on a hunting trip, so that Giambi can get on the postseason roster?
Never give up, never surrender.
Giambi is eligible already
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
...showing how little I've been paying attention.
I still maintain that Todd needs to take Q on a hunting trip, stat.
Never give up, never surrender.
I'm all for it if they use the roster spot for Sal
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I never thought I'd be a Yorvit defender,
but I’ve been really impressed with him this september. He has the ability to make contact, which is all too rare in our lineup. sure they are almost all singles, but with a man on third and less than two outs, right now he would be one of my top choices to be at the plate. That said, Iannetta should still get PT, because he is still superior at D and hitting in general
I want post season
yeah, the contact is refreshing
Iannetta has a long, busy winter ahead of him.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:50 AM MDT up reply actions
Chris Iannetta singlehandedly eliminated the Marlins and Cubs
from playoff contention with that home run last night
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 10:06 AM MDT reply actions
Yeah, I forgot about the Cubs...cuz they suck.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:13 AM MDT up reply actions
crap, I hope the Marlins don't lay down as a result
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions
they've got no shot against Vasquez tonight
He’s been unhittable
Patrick Saunders: I think Kruk is lazy.
I can't believe this is even debatable.
Torrealba easily starts over Iannetta. One AB doesn’t mean anyone has turned the corner/page on whatever issues he had for the majority of the season at the plate.
Play the hot hand – and that hot hand has been Yorvit for the past month or so. Iannetta’s arm doesn’t trump Torrealba’s bat.
by JaySantos on Sep 30, 2009 10:12 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
I repeat: Iannetta's "slumping" has been better than Torrealba's "hot streak" by and large (RISP luck notwithstanding--and yes, it is luck)
CDI is a better player with the glove and the bat. Period.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:15 AM MDT up reply actions
Since you played "small sample size theatre"....
…how about “large sample size theatre”, as in Iannetta’s month of August:
57 ABs, 11 hits, 17 Ks, .193 BA, That is a horrible month. And we’re supposed to take it on faith that 12 scattered ABs during September has erased all that?
As for RISP being luck? You’re kidding, right? Hitting in pressure situations and producing is lucky? Come on — that’s a joke.
Yes. It is luck, and Torrealba has had an unsustainable good luck streak in that area.
Yes, Iannetta did have a poor August, leading to a logical decrease in playing time. No, this shouldn’t relegate one of the better hitters on the team to Omar Quintanilla type playing time.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:38 AM MDT up reply actions
Based on WAR, ISO and wOBA, the stats that I trust.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions
You do realize
that H/PA would be a horribly flawed stat because it penalizes you for taking walks, right? What you’re basically saying is that you’d rather have Ichiro than Albert Pujols.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 10:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Here's what I trust the most....
My judgment as a 40+ year fan of baseball. Oh yeah, Jim Tracy’s judgment, too.
You can twist numbers to say whatever you want, but I know a guy having a lousy season when I see it. And I also know a guy delivering time and time again the clutch when I see it.
by BroJB on Sep 30, 2009 10:50 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
As RMN said...
prove it and then I’ll agree with you.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Sep 30, 2009 10:52 AM MDT up reply actions
so why aren't you working for a baseball team then
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 10:52 AM MDT up reply actions
I also know that today is a nice day outside....
and yet I don’t work for the weather service.
Imagine that.
are YOU?
are you saying only those working with a baseball team get the right to voice an opinion on this blog, because, if that’s the case I think you need to shut this thing down.
What?
Are there sentences hiding between those that I wrote? I simply stated that I trust my judgment as a long time fan and the judgment of a successful major league manager over selective number crunching. That’s somehow controversial to you?
Wow.
Moving on…..
I read RMN reply
as the old “You can’t criticize or have opinion because YOU have never none X”
Which is a straw man arguement that I just HATE
It is actuall more "ad hominem"
than “straw man”… but I digress
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I never said that
but when our opinion is being eschewed because of 40+ years of watching baseball, well, why don’t we just shut this thing down, because we’re clearly invalid opinions as well.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:03 AM MDT up reply actions
OK
now I can properly respond to you. :)
I’ll twist your argument around to say this: Should I subjugate 40+ years of watching baseball to some selectively chosen statistics? Look, I don’t claim to be Tony Larussa, but watching 40 years of anything gives you some insight.
Am I discounting your opinion because I’ve (most likely) watched more basbeall than you? Heck no. I’m discounting your opinion (about this — and only this — topic) because I think my opinion (Torrealba is the guy to stick with at the moment) is the right one. That’s typically the way debates play out.
by BroJB on Sep 30, 2009 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I guess the difference is the backing evidence
If you don’t find validity in the numbers, we can’t present them as our evidence, so this just becomes a battle of opinions, which nobody ever wins.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:16 AM MDT up reply actions
"so this just becomes a battle of opinions, which nobody ever wins."
Welcome to the Internet, pal. ;)
yeesh, ain't that the truth
SOMEBODY ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!!!!!
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions
As a 40+ year fan of baseball,
you should also know when a guy is getting lucky or unlucky.
CDI BABIP: .256
Yorvy BABIP: .353
Which means that Yorvy is apparently working some kind of voodoo, and Chris has gotten the shaft. You simply can’t count on that continuing to happen.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 10:54 AM MDT up reply actions
no FA, as a 40+ year fan of baseball you should know when to
ride a hot streak which is what Tracy is doing and which BroJB and I know, not some silly statistics you rely on. you can throw your OPS out the door when there’s a runner on 3rd and less than two outs and you’re down by one run. Most intelligent baseball people would take a hot situational hitter like Torrealba over a strikeout prone Ianetta.
May the Rockies bring me to paydirt!
Deep Breaths, Jabberwocky, Deep Breaths
I disagree, but I won’t convince you.
I would work on your accusatory tone though.
Eschew Obfuscation!
Why should I throw my OPS out the door when there's a runner at 3rd with less than two outs?
It applies just as well then as when there’s runners at first and second with two outs. The whole point of OPS (which is actually inferior to wOBA, but I digress) is that it is context-neutral, which is why it SHOULD be relied upon.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions
it's only barely inferior to OPS
OPS does the trick well enough if you don’t have fangraphs on hand.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 5:16 PM MDT up reply actions
The burden of proof falls on those who make outrageous claims....
such as “clutch hitting is a product of luck” .
This is tiring, so I’ll simply say this: In this age of sabermetrics, too many people view this game as something bloodless, as if it were played by machines who can replicate performance based on statistical input. If you’ve ever played the game, you know that’s the farthest thing from the truth.
Yes, luck plays a factor. But so do nerves, and concentration, and emotion. Performing in pressure situations, whether it’s closing out a game, making a big play in the field or yes, hitting in the clutch, involve all those things. And here statistics fail to tell the whole picture. Either you’re clutch or you’re not.
To his credit, Iannetta was very clutch last night. And I’m damn happy for him — and I won’t write his performance off to luck. He delivered.
And Torrealba has delivered. Again and again and again. It’s not luck — it’s the product of a major league ballplayer harnessing his skills and his emotions to provide a massive boost for a team that truly needed it.
As such, it would be criminal to sit him right now.
You can have the last word — my points have been made.
by BroJB on Sep 30, 2009 11:01 AM MDT up reply actions 8 recs
Instinctively I'm on RMN's side in this argument
But think of it this way. We all know that players press, or get angry or tense. This is fact, right? So what we DON’T want is players coming to the plate in this state. I would propose that “clutch”, for want of a better explanation, is the ability to avoid negative performance, for whatever reason, rather than some indefinable or superhuman ability to actually raise the game.
OK, that's fine.
The argument is that clutch hitters are in a better mental frame of mind that non-clutch hitters is something I agree with entirely.
Clutch hitting IS a product of look.
I would recommend reading Tom Tango’s The Book, but I’ll just give a quick example here.
Go to FanGraphs, and look up Derek Jeter’s “clutch” number over the course of his career. Over the course of his career, he has had nine negative clutch seasons (season when he performed worse in the clutch than compared to all situations), including each of the last three years, and six positive clutch seasons. His clutch number ranges from -0.83 in ’96 to an outlier of 2.33 in ’06.
Jeter is widely regarded as being one of the best clutch hitters in the game, and yet his performance in the clutch is wildly inconsistent. And he’s not unusual—every player with a sufficiently long career looks like that.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions
You do realize that
there are people that don’t believe in the “Numbers” and sabermetrics as the end all, and be all, Alpha and Omega of baseball right?
to say, “go read my bible, and you will be converted” really works for you, but some don’t believe in it. (bible being Tago’s book)
tango's book is SO BORING
but he really crunches the numbers and does a lot of legwork.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions
Indeed.
All that “evidence” is just so pesky.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions
Even RMN
has conceited that there are 2 ways to look at baseball. If you do not, then you will have a tough time.
I have…but I’m on the opposite side of the fence. You can crunch all the numbers you want, throw out all the new made up stats you want…….but I’m a traditionalist, and always will be.
Why are there only two ways to look at baseball?
What is wrong with using stats and memory together? There has to be a balance there.
Because from my stand point
the Sabermetics people believe baseball is math. They spend there time making ups stats and formulas. It’s no more a game that humans play than a cross word puzzle.
I personally have come to the conclusion that there is some stuff to be found in the number crunching. But the Sabermatics folks think the game IS the number crunching, and all of baseball is in the Number crunching alone. and it’s not.
Numbers are huge part of the game, there is no denying that.
But sometimes, a manager just has to make the call, numbers be damned.
Gibson vs. Eckersley, for example. No way the stats back up that decision. Turned out okay, though.
This
If baseball were truly sabermetric results-based only, then why hasn’t Moneyball actually resulted in WS championships?
I’m not trying to suggest that a certain amount of clutch isn’t luck (I agree that most of what we consider “clutch” is just “luck”), but sabermetrics do not account at all for a player’s ability to keep himself emotionally centered, for instance.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Because the playoffs are an exercise in SSS.
Random variation gets magnified in the playoffs because it is impossible to play more than 19 games, which really isn’t that many.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions
Except that the A's miss the playoffs entirely
…as often as they make it.
So attributing lack of WS since Beane’s arrival can’t be attributed more than a small amount to SSS. Not when they haven’t made the playoffs since…what…2006?
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:28 AM MDT up reply actions
Okay, they haven't made the playoffs since 2006.
Three whole years (talk about SSS). When the odds of making the playoffs in any one year are roughly (in the American League) 4/14 = 28.57%. Not that unlikely, really, even for a good team.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:30 AM MDT up reply actions
There's nothing SSS about 486 games
Seriously, I don’t even know how you can make the argument that THREE YEARS is a small sample size.
Not when the teams that are generally acknowledged as really good teams in the AL (Yanks, Red Sox, Angels) have actually made the playoffs during those years.
Are you arguing that the A’s are really as good as those three franchises, but are victims of SSS?
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:32 AM MDT up reply actions
No.
Over the last three years, the A’s have not been as good as the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, and probably several other AL teams over the last three years. Three years of performance by one team is not enough to support or refute a theory.
When I referred to SSS, I meant about the playoffs. You chose three years to evaluate, thus your sample size is three. You found zero out of three successes. THAT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. Now, if we were asking whether the A’s had made the playoffs in 486 years, and the answer was no, THEN you’d be on to something.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:36 AM MDT up reply actions
Additionally,
part of the reason that Oakland’s edge over other teams in being consistently good has waned since the early part of the decade is because other teams are catching onto his strategy.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:31 AM MDT up reply actions
BS
it’s because Oakland’s payroll is dismally small, and they can’t get or keep quality players….based on any rating system you wish to create.
well that's just the thing
They were able to get good players who weren’t recognized as good because they didn’t have ribbies or whatever, and they got them for a fraction of their value.
Once the SAHHHX and YANKS picked up on the stats, they just priced Oakland out again.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions
this isn't a good argument against SABR or Beane
Beane’s competitive edge came because while most of baseball was all about batting average and ribbies, he was looking at OPS and such, and getting awesome players for dirt cheap because they only batted like .250 or whatever.
Now that everyone else is on board the SABR revolution, at least in part, Oakland lost that edge, because the Yankees can just put more money into statistical evaluation.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:31 AM MDT up reply actions
and that's my point
because the Yankees can just put more money into statistical evaluation.
You think the the edge is they put more money into the MATH. the Sabre people think the game is the MATH
The Yankees put more money in the PLAYERS!
I don't think the Yankees put more money into math
If anything, they put less, just lazily grabbing the higher priced player because he’s probably better, rather than identifying an underrated player with math :)
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Sep 30, 2009 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions
most GMs are on board with most of the SABR stuff
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:37 AM MDT up reply actions
only as one tool
it’s not like they went out and fired all the scouts sitting in the stands.
Where they rank that tool…is a matter of debate and conjecture.
And that's the whole point
…bringing us back to full circle.
SABR numbers are very important, but they are not the be-all-and-end-all of player evaluation, roster construction, and in-game bench decisionmaking, nor should it be.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
As Marc Gustafson said
The Rockies attempt to strike a healthy balance.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 12:16 PM MDT up reply actions
I have no idea
what you are saying.
I think it’s pretty clear, the Yankees have spent more money than the A’s
The odds have always been against the A's
But they are more successful in reaching the playoffs/being competitive than most clubs with their budget limitations. I call them a success in that regard.
Money=more likely to reach playoffs
I call this the "Met's fallacy"
Money=more likely to reach playoffs
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
well you have to have some sort of competence as well
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions
Yeah, I should have mentioned that.
But PF listed the teams that have made the playoffs multiple times this decade. All big budget teams.
well there's the thing
Sabrmetric people want the GM to look at their numbers. That’s what Marc Gustafson told me, that they have a crew who work on the sabrmetrics, but they keep the coaches completely uninvolved there. They get to be all gut feelings and hustle and stuff.
I say “this number is bad” and break it down to what might be causing it, and then have a non-statistical (well not SABR anyhow) discussion with the coach, on what I would like to see, and they work with the player, not me.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions
I believe in wOBA more than anything else
not because I believe that baseball is math, but because I believe it’s most representative of a player’s skill, and because it confirms my gut feelings about how good a guy is. If I have a good feeling when player x goes up to bat, chances are their wOBA will reflect that. If I get a doomy feeling when player x goes up to bat, chances are wOBA reflects that as well.
Never give up, never surrender.
yeah, this is a huge thing
I don’t care if you don’t buy into WAR or VORP or whatever, just get behind some better rate stats, more inclusive ones!
^5 coolo
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 11:28 AM MDT up reply actions
Why, though?
I honestly don’t understand why people discount sabermetrics. There is absolutely nothing at all objective about being a “traditionalist.” Going with your gut, riding a streak, doing what “feels right”—that doesn’t make you right, it makes you Clint Hurdle.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:19 AM MDT up reply actions
so...you want someone to do what you won't do?
as you just completely discounted and dismissed “traditionalists” in one sentence.
I apologize.
I didn’t mean it to sound like that. What I mean is that if you ride the streak, play the hot hand, etc., etc., etc., you’ll probably end up looking like a genius a fair amount of the time. The trouble is that the “stat geeks” aren’t trying to be right all the time. They’re trying to be right 2% more often than everybody else, and that isn’t enough to satisfy most people.
To come up with a (deeply flawed) analogy, it’s like saying, “I see the sun moving across the sky every day; therefore, the sun is moving and the Earth remains still.” That meshes perfectly with observation (at least, the kind of observation that prevailed until Copernicus came along). It is also wrong.
I’m a scientist by trade, so I try to look at statistics, empirical evidence, etc., etc., and try to filter out the noise. I feel that traditionalists focus too much on the noise.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions
If baseball existed only in ones and zeros....
…as it does on Xbox, statistics would be all the evidence you need. But it doesn’t. It’s played by humans with flesh, blood and emotions. It’s impacted by mistakes, poor decisions, bad umpiring, lucky hops, bad weather and a million other factors that no one keeps numbers on.
Using your outlook, why not just play computer simulations and save everyone the trouble?
Because that would be stupid and no fun at all.
Yes, mistakes, bad decisions, umpires, the bounce of a ground ball, and everything else have an impact. And over the long run, on average, THOSE THINGS EVEN OUT. On average, they do not have an effect.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:18 AM MDT up reply actions
What about
Confidence, momentum, and chemistry
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Unquantifiable.
And, again, eventually they’d even out.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions
Just because it is unquantifiable does not mean it will average out
That is absurd. Confidence and chemistry do not just automatically “even out”. This is the problem with economists and SABRs they want to pretend that all non-quantifiable aspects are not really issues at least not in the long run.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Well, I suppose that's fair.
But if you believe such things DO have an effect, the onus is on YOU to prove it. Generate a hypothesis, test it, and see what happens. I could claim that the psychic vibrations of Braves fans are turning Huston Street into a giant pile of suck, but until I prove it, nobody is compelled to believe it. You’re in the same boat.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
The problem is that you now want
quantifiable evidence. Listen confidence matters it just does. To give you stats I would have to actually get data from inside players heads. SOmetimes a player will feel great about going up to bat, sometimes they feel nervous or worried. If you are confident you will do better. THere is a whole field of “science” dedicated to this… sports psyc.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
"Confidence matters, it just does."
Wow, I’m convinced. By the way, I have a bridge to sell you. YOU NEED IT. YOU JUST DO.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:46 AM MDT up reply actions
I figured you would go with a flippant reply
Psychology to you, I assume is not a real “science” as it can’t be turned into math.
there is a world beyond your numbers.
And this is why the internet whizzez don't win
….all the major live poker titles.
Because psychology DOES matter. You can argue about how much weight to assign the non-math, but it is important.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 11:49 AM MDT up reply actions
You know what they say about assuming things...
Psychology absolutely is a real science. Know why? Because psychologists collect hard data and then analyze to test it hypotheses. They make the nigh-unquantifiable quantifiable. And that’s the way it should be.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:51 AM MDT up reply actions
Speaking as the spouse of a Ph.D.
…there is both qualitative and quantitative analyses, and both are equally valid for their specific purposes.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Sep 30, 2009 12:15 PM MDT up reply actions
In fact they are fairly useless
in isolation. You NEED both!
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Have you ever seen a professional athlete without confidence?
no, because none of them could ever shake it in college ball/A+ ball.
EXECUTE
by Andrew Martin on Sep 30, 2009 12:20 PM MDT up reply actions
whatever
I think you are being intentionally dense. Read some psychology.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I have, thanks.
Mike Gazzaniga is one of the reasons I became a scientist. Know why? He performs experiments and collects hard data, then analyzes it. That’s what scientists do. If you want to prove that something affects something else, that’s what you need to do.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:49 AM MDT up reply actions
What do you consider "hard"
The hardness of data is an interesting concept. are numbers the only hard data in your opinion?
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Most things can be turned into numbers somehow.
Even things that are difficult to quantify. I guess the difficulty for me comes in figuring out who is confident and who isn’t, and then removing any confounding variables to confirm whether or not confidence has an effect on performance. Seems unlikely to me.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:54 AM MDT up reply actions
But it isn't that simple
Some people are confident some of the time. It isn’t like there are confident people and not confident people. THere is a continuum. Not everything can be quantified, in fact it is fairly sophomoric to think that everything can. Almost all social sciences have recognized this (exception being economics).
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Sigh.
Knew I shouldn’t have decided to become an economist. :P
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 11:57 AM MDT up reply actions
Yeah CLEARLY they
have everything figured out!
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
If the politicans ever listened to the economists...
but I digress.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions
You're kidding right?
To make quantities out of qualities you have to make assumptions which are subject to error.
The economists that saw this coming were the ones who were the least quantitative! The “quants” used to be kings of wall st. they all just got schooled by reality!
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Really?
I find that difficult to believe. First of all, how do you define which economists were the “least quantitative,” and then how do you prove that they were more accurate?
Dammit, I just started the whole argument over again. :)
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:07 PM MDT up reply actions
Give me an example of an economist
that saw the housing bubble for what it was. I could give you a handful, all very non quantitative macros, problem is most macros are now quants… this is changing at most depts.
The so called “quants” were the reason we got into the derivative mess based heavily on the mortgage market.
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Ed Leamer, UCLA.
In June 2002, he saw that the ratio of home prices to rent was rising rapidly (very quant-y) and forecast a huge “bubble burst.” Looking for the link now.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions
That was a bad prediction
Because the bubble was just forming then… Didn’t burst till 6 years later. That is BAD economics! 6 years is terrible this is not geology
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
You're bagging on the guy
for having foresight?
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions
Um, no
I am bagging on him for being wrong. 2002 was a great year to invest in real estate. 2007 was a bad year. In economics 5-6 years is HUGE. You need the right advice NOW, not what to do in 6 years. Good that he saw it coming, but his timing was terrible
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Most things can, in fact, be quantified.
I daresay most people would say “You can’t measure love.” But yes, I can. When I look at somebody I love, I can use a PET scan to observe the activity of my brain—which lobes are active, which neurotransmitters are acting. Some people will say “But there’s more to it than that!” Then what is it? Find it. Prove it.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:01 PM MDT up reply actions
Your whole "find it prove it"
argument forces us to adopt your epistemological assumptions and then go through science backwards attempting to prove rather than disprove. You should disprove it!
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
Okay, then.
If I were a creationist (and I’m not), I’d ask you to disprove that God created all of the creatures of the field in six days, exactly in their present form. But that’s not how science works. The onus is on the creationists to prove that that IS how it happened.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:08 PM MDT up reply actions
Read Karl Popper
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - W. Churchill
¡Vamos Rocosos!
I have.
I thought that his epistemology was ridiculous. Good work with the whole liberal democracy/open society stuff, though.
by Foxhole Atheist on Sep 30, 2009 12:11 PM MDT up reply actions