great thread. only in the nfbc do you get some serious debate about blanton.
3 Sunday comments:
1. Nolasco owners must feel the "most unlucky" to this point. Blanton might have costed a team a pick in rd 23 but Nolasco went at high as the 8th rd at the main. Regression the mean will help Nolasco owners eventually but it would've been nicer for it to start in week 4 instead of week 6.
2. crazy vs gg. We all look at "everything" when evaluating players but it seems like the first of these guys weighs the importance of multiple years of past performance and statistics as a whole more so than the other guy. The "other" guy is aware of all of the statistics but puts more weight into trends or directions of where the stats/numbers are heading. The first guy might respond that just because the numbers trended in that direction for a year or two doesn't guarantee that's the direction they will continue to go this year. The "other" guy may respond "you don't know jack sh**". This keeps the boards worth reading.
3. k davies, please wake up and throw a good game today. if not for yourself, do it for your mom. sigh.
The Blanton Ripoff
The Blanton Ripoff
Richard Kulaski
Fairview, TN
Fairview, TN
The Blanton Ripoff
my $.02 as I find Blanton a VERY, VERY intriguing player to evaluate right now...
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Two of the 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, he has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HR/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should do the same but overall, be higher than it was in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary.
I'm buying if available, but not expecting miracles.
[ May 10, 2009, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Two of the 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, he has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HR/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should do the same but overall, be higher than it was in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary.
I'm buying if available, but not expecting miracles.
[ May 10, 2009, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by ToddZ:
my $.02 as I find Blanton a VERY, VERY intriguing player to evaluate right now...
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Tow of teh 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, we has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HF/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should so the same but overall, be higher than they were in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary. Not as insightful as my last post, but I'll agree with this.
my $.02 as I find Blanton a VERY, VERY intriguing player to evaluate right now...
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Tow of teh 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, we has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HF/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should so the same but overall, be higher than they were in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary. Not as insightful as my last post, but I'll agree with this.
Richard Kulaski
Fairview, TN
Fairview, TN
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
In case you guys haven't figured it out yet, Gek started doing better in this contest when Eric Milton retired. the only 2 years milton's k and bb rate looked close to blantons here were in 1999 and 2000. those years were in the american league (DH instaed of pitcher) and resulted in whips of 1.23 and 1.25 respecively. History is Blanton's friend. Next! [/QUOTE]My point was more that you could have waited ten years for his HR rate to regress.
But that was a joke as I am assuming (hoping) you don't expect all homerun rates to regress and I more or less agree with Todd's post. I'd like to thank him for writing that so I don't have to. I'll add two things. 1) Some pitchers can interact with ballparks in ways we don't necessarily account for with normal park effects. I'm not saying Blanton is one necessarily. I'm just saying. 2) The Phillies have had good defense so far (just not in Blanton's starts) and it should continue to be good so I actually expect that BABIP to come down to better than average. Maybe the Phils traditionally go out and get hammered the nights before Blanton's starts, but otherwise, he's just been unlucky.
[ May 10, 2009, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
In case you guys haven't figured it out yet, Gek started doing better in this contest when Eric Milton retired. the only 2 years milton's k and bb rate looked close to blantons here were in 1999 and 2000. those years were in the american league (DH instaed of pitcher) and resulted in whips of 1.23 and 1.25 respecively. History is Blanton's friend. Next! [/QUOTE]My point was more that you could have waited ten years for his HR rate to regress.
But that was a joke as I am assuming (hoping) you don't expect all homerun rates to regress and I more or less agree with Todd's post. I'd like to thank him for writing that so I don't have to. I'll add two things. 1) Some pitchers can interact with ballparks in ways we don't necessarily account for with normal park effects. I'm not saying Blanton is one necessarily. I'm just saying. 2) The Phillies have had good defense so far (just not in Blanton's starts) and it should continue to be good so I actually expect that BABIP to come down to better than average. Maybe the Phils traditionally go out and get hammered the nights before Blanton's starts, but otherwise, he's just been unlucky.
[ May 10, 2009, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Chance favors the prepared mind.
-
Crazy Like a Fox
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:00 pm
- Contact:
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by rkulaski:
great thread. only in the nfbc do you get some serious debate about blanton.
3 Sunday comments:
1. Nolasco owners must feel the "most unlucky" to this point. Blanton might have costed a team a pick in rd 23 but Nolasco went at high as the 8th rd at the main. Regression the mean will help Nolasco owners eventually but it would've been nicer for it to start in week 4 instead of week 6.
2. crazy vs gg. We all look at "everything" when evaluating players but it seems like the first of these guys weighs the importance of multiple years of past performance and statistics as a whole more so than the other guy. The "other" guy is aware of all of the statistics but puts more weight into trends or directions of where the stats/numbers are heading. The first guy might respond that just because the numbers trended in that direction for a year or two doesn't guarantee that's the direction they will continue to go this year. The "other" guy may respond "you don't know jack sh**". This keeps the boards worth reading.
3. k davies, please wake up and throw a good game today. if not for yourself, do it for your mom. sigh. That pretty much sums it up.
great thread. only in the nfbc do you get some serious debate about blanton.
3 Sunday comments:
1. Nolasco owners must feel the "most unlucky" to this point. Blanton might have costed a team a pick in rd 23 but Nolasco went at high as the 8th rd at the main. Regression the mean will help Nolasco owners eventually but it would've been nicer for it to start in week 4 instead of week 6.
2. crazy vs gg. We all look at "everything" when evaluating players but it seems like the first of these guys weighs the importance of multiple years of past performance and statistics as a whole more so than the other guy. The "other" guy is aware of all of the statistics but puts more weight into trends or directions of where the stats/numbers are heading. The first guy might respond that just because the numbers trended in that direction for a year or two doesn't guarantee that's the direction they will continue to go this year. The "other" guy may respond "you don't know jack sh**". This keeps the boards worth reading.
3. k davies, please wake up and throw a good game today. if not for yourself, do it for your mom. sigh. That pretty much sums it up.
"Hit a home run - put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is more - a lot more important than the name on the back."
Ryne Sandberg (my favorite player of all-time)
Ryne Sandberg (my favorite player of all-time)
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
todd usually has some very insightful posts and i'm glad he chimed in on this one.
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by ToddZ:
my $.02 as I find Blanton a VERY, VERY intriguing player to evaluate right now...
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Two of the 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, he has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HR/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should do the same but overall, be higher than it was in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary.
I'm buying if available, but not expecting miracles. Of course the trouble with statistics, is that they summarize many factors, and individual pitchers in different situations don't always follow the probabilities for reasons beyond "just" luck. Completely discount the probabilities? Of course not, but recognize that some things won't be captured by statistical analysis.
Can a pitcher have stats that show good control, yet still have a tendancy to leave too many pitches in spots that lead to more line drives and HRs? yes
Can two pitchers have comparable stats overall in terms of K, BB, Hit Rates, etc, but if one tends to do poorly in the same innings while the other tends to spread hits out should their ERA results look different? yes
Many other possibilities, too many variables, too much noise, too much uniquenes of the human component for stats to accurately distinguish between luck and skill for ALL individual players. You also have to factor in the probability that for THIS particular player, there may be an issue that just isn't captured in summary stats.
Some balance of using the unadjusted relevant stats, peripheral stats and watching games probably works best, any of them can be deceiving or telling at times.
Notwithstanding some good arguments by Zola and others, I expect Blahhhhnton will disappoint the pure statheads.
my $.02 as I find Blanton a VERY, VERY intriguing player to evaluate right now...
History is your best guide. Perhaps the most difficult task right now is to determine if the present trends that are bucking history (good or bad) are real or will regression occur.
BAA has been cited as a metric to help evaluate what is happening. The problem is, BAA has far too much noise as it incorporates HR and K in the calculation. It needs to be deconstructed to get the real picture.
A. BABIP - batting average on balls in play eliminates the HR and K aspect of BAA. MOST pitchers cluster around .290-.310. Lower is lucky, higher is unlucky. The HITS park factor for McAfee and CBP are both about neutral so no adjustment needs to be made. The past 3 years, Blanton's BABIP was .337, .306, .297. Two of the 3 years it was as it was supposed to be, he has actually unfortunate in 2006. Presently, it is .350. That should regress to allow fewer hits going forward. It should be noted his LD% is high, driving the high hit rate. Though is is counter-intuitive, there is no evidence that suggests a pitcher influences LD%. It should normalize.
B. HR/9 - Homers allowed depend upon percentage of fly balls allowed and frequency a fly ball clears the fence, or HR/FB. HR/FB is similar to BABIP in that it is largely out of the pitcher's control and settles around 10-11%. However, it can be influenced by the park. McAfee reduces homers about 15%, making the HR/FB in Oakland about 8.5-9.5%. Blanton's was 6.5 and 6.8 in his last 2 full seasons there. I don't like using absolutes when it comes to park factors, each individual is impacted differently. But his lower HR/FB is plausible considering where he pitched. CBP inflates HR about 22%. So it can be argued the HR/FB in CBP should be about 13% for his home games, overall a little lower since half his games were on the road, and again, I don't like using absolutes, so I will say it is reasonable to expect a HR/FB over 10-11%. It now sits at 18.2%, it should come down. How much? We'll see, but his HR pace will slow considerably. It should be noted his FB% is normal, the extra LD are coming from fewer GB, so the bulk of the HR issue is HR/FB.
C. K/9 - In Oakland, it was a little over 5K/9, not really what we like. Presently, it is 7.34, very acceptable, not dominant, but certainly useful if his BB/9 is in check. Can he sustain the improved K/9? Two things suggest yes. First, moving to the NL means he obviously faces a pitcher and not a DH. Second, McAfee REDUCES strikeouts about 8%. Just a guess, but likely because more foul pops go for outs and not a strike, reducing K opportunities. So that 5K/9 could be adjusted up a little simply moving out of Oakland. Add in the NL factor, and expecting an improved K/9 is justified. All the way to 7.3? That's your call.
4. BB/9 - I won't belabor this one, it is well within career norms this season at 2.6, a very good mark.
So...
-hit rate should normalize and come down
-HR rate should do the same but overall, be higher than it was in Oakland
-strikeouts should be higher than in Oakland
Once things settle, it comes down to exactly were the HR/9 settles and if the improved K/9 is enough to counter a few more homers.
Personally, I see the HR rate coming down to about 12%, a little high, but I also am skeptical he can maintain a 7.3 K/9, your mileage may vary.
I'm buying if available, but not expecting miracles. Of course the trouble with statistics, is that they summarize many factors, and individual pitchers in different situations don't always follow the probabilities for reasons beyond "just" luck. Completely discount the probabilities? Of course not, but recognize that some things won't be captured by statistical analysis.
Can a pitcher have stats that show good control, yet still have a tendancy to leave too many pitches in spots that lead to more line drives and HRs? yes
Can two pitchers have comparable stats overall in terms of K, BB, Hit Rates, etc, but if one tends to do poorly in the same innings while the other tends to spread hits out should their ERA results look different? yes
Many other possibilities, too many variables, too much noise, too much uniquenes of the human component for stats to accurately distinguish between luck and skill for ALL individual players. You also have to factor in the probability that for THIS particular player, there may be an issue that just isn't captured in summary stats.
Some balance of using the unadjusted relevant stats, peripheral stats and watching games probably works best, any of them can be deceiving or telling at times.
Notwithstanding some good arguments by Zola and others, I expect Blahhhhnton will disappoint the pure statheads.
The Blanton Ripoff
Can a pitcher have stats that show good control, yet still have a tendancy to leave too many pitches in spots that lead to more line drives and HRs? yesPerhaps yes. Or perhaps in a small sample, there is a cluster of pitches left in a spot, that will even out over time.
Can two pitchers have comparable stats overall in terms of K, BB, Hit Rates, etc, but if one tends to do poorly in the same innings while the other tends to spread hits out should their ERA results look different? yes Again perhaps yes. And again perhaps this is another sample size effect.
To be honest, I do believe there is something to the individual trumping what the stats say, good or bad. But like clutch hitting, lineup protection, contract year performance, 1st half/2nd half player etc., the point in question might be real for a specific player, but it is not predictable. Which is why I agree with...
Some balance of using the unadjusted relevant stats, peripheral stats and watching games probably works best, any of them can be deceiving or telling at times.
That said, something I think would be telling, I think I have mentioned it on these boards before, maybe not, is that I think it would be very telling to see pitcher's stats from the windup versus the stretch.
Intuitively, it makes sense that they would be different.
What if a pitcher was significantly better from the windup and gave up a fluke hit or a batter reached on an error so now he has to work from the stretch. His numbers could suffer.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
[ May 10, 2009, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
Can two pitchers have comparable stats overall in terms of K, BB, Hit Rates, etc, but if one tends to do poorly in the same innings while the other tends to spread hits out should their ERA results look different? yes Again perhaps yes. And again perhaps this is another sample size effect.
To be honest, I do believe there is something to the individual trumping what the stats say, good or bad. But like clutch hitting, lineup protection, contract year performance, 1st half/2nd half player etc., the point in question might be real for a specific player, but it is not predictable. Which is why I agree with...
Some balance of using the unadjusted relevant stats, peripheral stats and watching games probably works best, any of them can be deceiving or telling at times.
That said, something I think would be telling, I think I have mentioned it on these boards before, maybe not, is that I think it would be very telling to see pitcher's stats from the windup versus the stretch.
Intuitively, it makes sense that they would be different.
What if a pitcher was significantly better from the windup and gave up a fluke hit or a batter reached on an error so now he has to work from the stretch. His numbers could suffer.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
[ May 10, 2009, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
-
Schwartzstops
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
What if a pitcher was significantly better from the windup and gave up a fluke hit or a batter reached on an error so now he has to work from the stretch. His numbers could suffer.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
Blanton's stats with bases empty: .287 opponent average, 3 HR's allowed, 19-3 K-BB ratio, in 91 PA
Blanton's stats with runners on (inclusive of RISP): .351 opponent average, 5 HR's allowed, 9-7 K-BB ratio, in 66 PA
So yes, he performs significantly better with the bases empty. Although, I would venture to guess that most pitchers do, too.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
Blanton's stats with bases empty: .287 opponent average, 3 HR's allowed, 19-3 K-BB ratio, in 91 PA
Blanton's stats with runners on (inclusive of RISP): .351 opponent average, 5 HR's allowed, 9-7 K-BB ratio, in 66 PA
So yes, he performs significantly better with the bases empty. Although, I would venture to guess that most pitchers do, too.
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Schwartzstops:
quote:What if a pitcher was significantly better from the windup and gave up a fluke hit or a batter reached on an error so now he has to work from the stretch. His numbers could suffer.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
Blanton's stats with bases empty: .287 opponent average, 3 HR's allowed, 19-3 K-BB ratio, in 91 PA
Blanton's stats with runners on (inclusive of RISP): .351 opponent average, 5 HR's allowed, 9-7 K-BB ratio, in 66 PA
So yes, he performs significantly better with the bases empty. Although, I would venture to guess that most pitchers do, too. [/QUOTE]Two things --
Using bases empty and with runners on doesn't quite flesh out the instances where a starter goes from the windup with a guy on 3rd, perhaps it is so trivial that for these purposes it can be eliminated.
Some sort of index could be developed. On the average, "X" is "Y%" different from the stretch and windup, then the pitcher's individual numbers can be compared to the norm.
Intuitively, this can be why Javier Vazquez and David Bush historically underperform their peripherals.
Okay, 3 things...
Breaking pitches into stretch versus wind-up breaks the pitches thrown into smaller samples, which introduces the potential of more noise.
quote:What if a pitcher was significantly better from the windup and gave up a fluke hit or a batter reached on an error so now he has to work from the stretch. His numbers could suffer.
I have talked with some people whose vocation is data collecting, maybe one day they will concur and generate this sort of information.
Blanton's stats with bases empty: .287 opponent average, 3 HR's allowed, 19-3 K-BB ratio, in 91 PA
Blanton's stats with runners on (inclusive of RISP): .351 opponent average, 5 HR's allowed, 9-7 K-BB ratio, in 66 PA
So yes, he performs significantly better with the bases empty. Although, I would venture to guess that most pitchers do, too. [/QUOTE]Two things --
Using bases empty and with runners on doesn't quite flesh out the instances where a starter goes from the windup with a guy on 3rd, perhaps it is so trivial that for these purposes it can be eliminated.
Some sort of index could be developed. On the average, "X" is "Y%" different from the stretch and windup, then the pitcher's individual numbers can be compared to the norm.
Intuitively, this can be why Javier Vazquez and David Bush historically underperform their peripherals.
Okay, 3 things...
Breaking pitches into stretch versus wind-up breaks the pitches thrown into smaller samples, which introduces the potential of more noise.
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
-
Schwartzstops
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
Todd, all fair points... this is simply what I had on-hand, so I used "runners on" as a proxy for pitching from the stretch vs. the wind-up. But certainly data is available that would allow one to get as granular as necessary to tell the true story.
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Schwartzstops:
But certainly data is available that would allow one to get as granular as necessary to tell the true story. Really? We'll talk off-line
I've asked and haven't been able to find what I needed.
But certainly data is available that would allow one to get as granular as necessary to tell the true story. Really? We'll talk off-line
I've asked and haven't been able to find what I needed.
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
-
TOXIC ASSETS
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
I think some of you guys are digging into this thing too deeply. Blaton's ERA is so far off the career average it isn't funny. Let's see what the numbers look like at the all star break. I saw some of the Phils game the other day and his final line didn't represent how he actually threw the ball. That being said, he continues to disappoint his owners...including me.
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:
hr/9 is a secondary stat bill. trust me on that one. on top of that, blanton has NEVER been a HR pitcher in the majors. NEVER. he's no more a hr pitcher than johan santana.
i'm thinking blanton is getting very unlucky. sprinkle in history and "regression to the mean" and i am hopeful blanton's surface #'s turn around If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team?
It is amazing that there are 3 pages devoted to a pitcher who is very average at his best.
hr/9 is a secondary stat bill. trust me on that one. on top of that, blanton has NEVER been a HR pitcher in the majors. NEVER. he's no more a hr pitcher than johan santana.
i'm thinking blanton is getting very unlucky. sprinkle in history and "regression to the mean" and i am hopeful blanton's surface #'s turn around If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team?
It is amazing that there are 3 pages devoted to a pitcher who is very average at his best.
"I don't remmeber what I don't remember.”- Jerry Garcia
The Blanton Ripoff
If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team? His best year he had a 3.53 ERA in over 200 innings. Now, I'm not sure who your #6 is, but I'm going to go with a big yes.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
The Blanton Ripoff
John Lester is a perfect example of how he has pitched great compared to his numbers. He will begin to bring the numbers down and the end result will be great stats. In baseball stats tend to have a way to always work out in the end.
A hot dog at the ballgame beats roast beef at the Ritz. ~Humphrey Bogart
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team? His best year he had a 3.53 ERA in over 200 innings. Now, I'm not sure who your #6 is, but I'm going to go with a big yes. [/QUOTE]here is my staff in my one 15 team league that is filled with top NFBC guys
Johan, Kazmir, Harden, Bedard, Cueto, DeLa Rosa and Wellemeyer. I have Oliver Perez and John Niese on the bench. Closers are Gonzalez and Wilson with Calero on the bench.
I wouldn't bid for Blanton if he were dropped.
quote: If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team? His best year he had a 3.53 ERA in over 200 innings. Now, I'm not sure who your #6 is, but I'm going to go with a big yes. [/QUOTE]here is my staff in my one 15 team league that is filled with top NFBC guys
Johan, Kazmir, Harden, Bedard, Cueto, DeLa Rosa and Wellemeyer. I have Oliver Perez and John Niese on the bench. Closers are Gonzalez and Wilson with Calero on the bench.
I wouldn't bid for Blanton if he were dropped.
"I don't remmeber what I don't remember.”- Jerry Garcia
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Dirt Dogs:
John Lester is a perfect example of how he has pitched great compared to his numbers. He will begin to bring the numbers down and the end result will be great stats. In baseball stats tend to have a way to always work out in the end. All you need to do is watch to know that Blanton is NOT Lester IMHO.
John Lester is a perfect example of how he has pitched great compared to his numbers. He will begin to bring the numbers down and the end result will be great stats. In baseball stats tend to have a way to always work out in the end. All you need to do is watch to know that Blanton is NOT Lester IMHO.
"I don't remmeber what I don't remember.”- Jerry Garcia
The Blanton Ripoff
It is amazing that there are 3 pages devoted to a pitcher who is very average at his best. I think a lot of the discussion can be looked at as more of a way to look at pitching in general than an analysis of Blanton in particular.
I think a lot of the discussion can be looked at as more of a way to look at pitching in general than an analysis of Blanton in particular.2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
-
NorCalAtlFan
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Dub:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team? His best year he had a 3.53 ERA in over 200 innings. Now, I'm not sure who your #6 is, but I'm going to go with a big yes. [/QUOTE]here is my staff in my one 15 team league that is filled with top NFBC guys
Johan, Kazmir, Harden, Bedard, Cueto, DeLa Rosa and Wellemeyer. I have Oliver Perez and John Niese on the bench. Closers are Gonzalez and Wilson with Calero on the bench.
I wouldn't bid for Blanton if he were dropped. [/QUOTE]I don't know. I don't think much of Blanton but he would have some value. Definitely someone you can spot start. But avoiding him altogether might be the best option too.
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
quote: If Blanton does everything you think he is capable of, would he be better than the 6th best starter on most team? His best year he had a 3.53 ERA in over 200 innings. Now, I'm not sure who your #6 is, but I'm going to go with a big yes. [/QUOTE]here is my staff in my one 15 team league that is filled with top NFBC guys
Johan, Kazmir, Harden, Bedard, Cueto, DeLa Rosa and Wellemeyer. I have Oliver Perez and John Niese on the bench. Closers are Gonzalez and Wilson with Calero on the bench.
I wouldn't bid for Blanton if he were dropped. [/QUOTE]I don't know. I don't think much of Blanton but he would have some value. Definitely someone you can spot start. But avoiding him altogether might be the best option too.
The Blanton Ripoff
Sorry, I don't get it (nor did I "get" Blanton on any of my teams).
I realize the value of the K/BB and the K/IP statistics. Of course, these aren't stats that count in the NFBC, so when it is all over, the only stats that ultimately count are the ten categories used to rank the teams.
Blanton's start in Washington tonight (5 innings, 5 hits, 6 walks (5 UNintentional), 5 Ks, and 4 earned runs) just solidifies my feeling that Blanton just is neither as good, nor has the potential, as some might believe.
Blanton reminds me of another formerly overrated pitcher, so I checked out that pitcher's numbers.
The Phantom pitcher was born in 1976, and the three-year period I used was from 2002-2004. Blanton was born in 1980, and I used his last three years (2006-2008), discounting the disaster that is 2009.
The results:
Phantom pitcher: 3.64 ERA
Blanton: 4.46 ERA
Phantom pitcher: 1.25 WHIP
Blanton: 1.38 WHIP
Phantom pitcher: 2.8 K/BB
Blanton: 2.2 K/BB
Phantom pitcher: 5.8 K/9 ip
Blanton: 5.2 K/9 ip
Phantom pitcher: 484 innings
Blanton: 621 innings
OK, Phantom (at about the same age), was far superior to Blanton in every category. Looking at his K/BB and K/9 IP, one might have expected a stellar career.
Think again.
Phantom's name: Carl Pavano.
I realize the value of the K/BB and the K/IP statistics. Of course, these aren't stats that count in the NFBC, so when it is all over, the only stats that ultimately count are the ten categories used to rank the teams.
Blanton's start in Washington tonight (5 innings, 5 hits, 6 walks (5 UNintentional), 5 Ks, and 4 earned runs) just solidifies my feeling that Blanton just is neither as good, nor has the potential, as some might believe.
Blanton reminds me of another formerly overrated pitcher, so I checked out that pitcher's numbers.
The Phantom pitcher was born in 1976, and the three-year period I used was from 2002-2004. Blanton was born in 1980, and I used his last three years (2006-2008), discounting the disaster that is 2009.
The results:
Phantom pitcher: 3.64 ERA
Blanton: 4.46 ERA
Phantom pitcher: 1.25 WHIP
Blanton: 1.38 WHIP
Phantom pitcher: 2.8 K/BB
Blanton: 2.2 K/BB
Phantom pitcher: 5.8 K/9 ip
Blanton: 5.2 K/9 ip
Phantom pitcher: 484 innings
Blanton: 621 innings
OK, Phantom (at about the same age), was far superior to Blanton in every category. Looking at his K/BB and K/9 IP, one might have expected a stellar career.
Think again.
Phantom's name: Carl Pavano.
The Blanton Ripoff
Pavano was better then, and still is if he can stay healthy.
-
TOXIC ASSETS
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
Blanton is killing my fantasy team and he's killing the Phillies. EOM
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm
The Blanton Ripoff
Originally posted by Buster:
Sorry, I don't get it (nor did I "get" Blanton on any of my teams).
I realize the value of the K/BB and the K/IP statistics. Of course, these aren't stats that count in the NFBC, so when it is all over, the only stats that ultimately count are the ten categories used to rank the teams.
Blanton's start in Washington tonight (5 innings, 5 hits, 6 walks (5 UNintentional), 5 Ks, and 4 earned runs) just solidifies my feeling that Blanton just is neither as good, nor has the potential, as some might believe.
Blanton reminds me of another formerly overrated pitcher, so I checked out that pitcher's numbers.
The Phantom pitcher was born in 1976, and the three-year period I used was from 2002-2004. Blanton was born in 1980, and I used his last three years (2006-2008), discounting the disaster that is 2009.
The results:
Phantom pitcher: 3.64 ERA
Blanton: 4.46 ERA
Phantom pitcher: 1.25 WHIP
Blanton: 1.38 WHIP
Phantom pitcher: 2.8 K/BB
Blanton: 2.2 K/BB
Phantom pitcher: 5.8 K/9 ip
Blanton: 5.2 K/9 ip
Phantom pitcher: 484 innings
Blanton: 621 innings
OK, Phantom (at about the same age), was far superior to Blanton in every category. Looking at his K/BB and K/9 IP, one might have expected a stellar career.
Think again.
Phantom's name: Carl Pavano. i don't like seeing the BB/9 rate he had last night. k rate was good.
btw, your analysis is complete rubbish.
Sorry, I don't get it (nor did I "get" Blanton on any of my teams).
I realize the value of the K/BB and the K/IP statistics. Of course, these aren't stats that count in the NFBC, so when it is all over, the only stats that ultimately count are the ten categories used to rank the teams.
Blanton's start in Washington tonight (5 innings, 5 hits, 6 walks (5 UNintentional), 5 Ks, and 4 earned runs) just solidifies my feeling that Blanton just is neither as good, nor has the potential, as some might believe.
Blanton reminds me of another formerly overrated pitcher, so I checked out that pitcher's numbers.
The Phantom pitcher was born in 1976, and the three-year period I used was from 2002-2004. Blanton was born in 1980, and I used his last three years (2006-2008), discounting the disaster that is 2009.
The results:
Phantom pitcher: 3.64 ERA
Blanton: 4.46 ERA
Phantom pitcher: 1.25 WHIP
Blanton: 1.38 WHIP
Phantom pitcher: 2.8 K/BB
Blanton: 2.2 K/BB
Phantom pitcher: 5.8 K/9 ip
Blanton: 5.2 K/9 ip
Phantom pitcher: 484 innings
Blanton: 621 innings
OK, Phantom (at about the same age), was far superior to Blanton in every category. Looking at his K/BB and K/9 IP, one might have expected a stellar career.
Think again.
Phantom's name: Carl Pavano. i don't like seeing the BB/9 rate he had last night. k rate was good.
btw, your analysis is complete rubbish.