Gallardo is Better Than Bush/Vargas.

[rluzinski]

I don't think the fact that his walk total is less with guys on tells the whole story about his control in that situation.

 

Of course not, which why I said that while ,"the data suggests something is going on", I didn't know what, exactly:

 

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/bushrunnerson.jpg

 

Sometimes pitchers are rightfully criticized for not walking guys enough. With runners on, Bush might choose to throw one down the middle of the plate over trying to hit the corner and conceding the chance of a walk.

 

Should I take the non-stretch situations out of that? Which ones would those be?

[homer]

To me, non stretch is bases loaded or empty. Although, you'd probably have to see for yourself if Bush went to the stretch in a bases juiced situation. I don't think that is universal.

[Ennder]

Quote:

---

but you then say his 500+ IP overrides that?

---

 

I didn't say it overrides it, it proves that he is a skilled enough pitcher to be successful at the major league level. He might have a mechanical issue, he might even have a mental issue, he might just have had bad luck, but given the sample sizes you have to go under the assumption that if something is wrong its something that can be fixed.

 

In Bush's case we know that bad luck has played a part in his ERA this season just from watching the games. Twice now Hall as messed up plays in center that lead to big innings, once Bard had a check swing call blown which kept the inning going and led to a grand slam. The relievers seem to let in most of the runs he leaves on. His last bad game was derailed by a couple little bloop singles and a bunt hit. Whether its bad luck or him having mental issues after goofy plays I dunno.

 

Bill Hall was lost at the plate for over 2 months and just suddenly something clicked and now he is fine, baseball is a funny game like that.

[rluzinski]

The coin doesn't get tired after being flipped 100 times. There's no stress on the coin's elbow. The coin can't be going through a divorce, a steroids investigation, nor can the coin be worried about possibly being outed as gay (unless it's one of those flamboyant ones from South America).

 

What you're describing is the uncertainty in the player's actual talent level at that very moment. That's another layer of uncertainty that is added to the binomial uncertainty (what I'm calling "coin flip" uncertainty. I focus on the binomial uncertainty because it's easily quantified and a huge component of the uncertainty over 200 AB or 50 IP.

 

Anything that has a probability of success, or failure, like flipping heads, rolling snake eyes or even hitting a baseball, can't escape the uncertainty I'm describing. If it didn't apply to baseball, every .300 hitter would get exactly 1 hit in every 3 AB and every 4.5 ERA pitcher would give up 1 earned run every 2 innings. It has to apply.

 

The combination of variance in true talent (what your post is describing) and statistical variance (what I'm describing) combine to form the observed variance in player productions. They work in tandem to create hitting slumps and no hitters. Given a large enough sample, we can diminish the binomial uncertainty component enough so that we can make a very good guess at the actual, average talent of the player.

 

I'm sure someone on the internet has explained this much better than my lame attempt above.

[rluzinski]

To me, non stretch is bases loaded or empty.

 

What would be the benefit of pitching from the stretch with a runner at third or runners at second and third? I guess I haven't paid enough attention to Bush (or any pitcher, really) to know when they do it.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

This is all fine, and we'll have to agree to disagree........but does anyone have Boosh's stats, 2004 - 2006 from the stretch (anything but bases empty and loaded), vs. those same situational metrics from 2007?

 

He seems different, and the numbers suggest he may be doing something wrong this year, which I hope we can fix. ...All I'm sayin'

[Jacob008]

Quote:

---

but does anyone have Boosh's stats, 2004 - 2006 from the stretch

---

Bush's career splits at baseballreference.com show that he clearly is not as effective with men on base. (Note: 2007, so far, shows a slight improvement over career norms.) Eliminating the _23, and 123 base states would be more exact but those samples are small enough, and the difference is clear enough without it, that i wouldn't bother.

 

Yes, pitchers are probably slightly worse pitching with men on base (you aren't pitching as well if they are getting on base, typically the stretch costs an extra MPH or two).

 

But this year the NL hasn't shown as drastic a difference as Bush.

 

I think it's a very insightful observation by Yost. I consider myself a pretty astute observer of the game and I don't think I'd have picked up on it. I wonder if the Brewers figured that out from scouting or numbers. Pretty cool stuff.

 

EDIT: Wanted to add that i suspect Bush out of the stretch is less deceptive which is key for his style. So it would make sense to me that he pitches worse from the stretch. Finesse pitchers need deception and movement on pitches, I'd guess Bush loses both when not in the windup.

[homer]

Quote:

---

What would be the benefit of pitching from the stretch with a runner at third or runners at second and third?

---

 

Dunno. But guys have stolen home on a windup before. I think convention has the pitcher out of a stretch in those situations. Although, I can't say for a fact that Bush does because I haven't really looked. I'll check his last game on MLB.tv to see for sure.

[rluzinski]

Jacob, I showed the NL average from 04-06 with runners on and empty a few posts back in this thread.

I'll check his last game on MLB.tv to see for sure.

 

Thanks. Then we can be looking at the correct sample at least.

[Jacob008]

Quote:

---

Jacob, I showed the NL average from 04-06 with runners on and empty a few posts back in this thread.

---

Great. Did you total those yourself? Any idea why your numbers for Bush don't match B-R.com?

[rluzinski]

Great. Did you total those yourself?

 

I just took a simple (non-weighted) average from espn for each year.

 

Any idea why your numbers for Bush don't match B-R.com?

 

My sample didn't include this year's data.

[homer]

Quote:

---

Thanks. Then we can be looking at the correct sample at least.

---

 

OK, in Bush's last game against MN, bottom of the fifth innings, MN had guys on 2nd and 3rd with none out and Bush was out of the stretch. If anyone needs proof checkout MLB.tv at the 1 hour 29 minute mark.

 

Also, in the June10th game vs. Texas in the bottom of the 1st innings, the Rangers had the bases loaded with no outs and Bush was in the stretch.

[TheCrew07]

Quote:

---

The combination of variance in true talent (what your post is describing) and statistical variance (what I'm describing) combine to form the observed variance in player productions. They work in tandem to create hitting slumps and no hitters. Given a large enough sample, we can diminish the binomial uncertainty component enough so that we can make a very good guess at the actual, average talent of the player.

---

 

The average talent of a player given his past performance, but Geno is arguing the same point I made last week. All the projection systems in the world just guess at someone's future production. They have nothing to do with how well someone will play today, tomorrow, or in the future. The historical relevance gives weight to the projection, but doesn't make it fact. Bush might very well regress down to his historical mean, this could be the start of his decline, or it just might be the worst year in an otherwise above average career.

 

Geno's point, which was never really rebuttled, is how long does a manager ride an underperforming pony? The truth is there is no one answer for that question, becuase it's different for every player. Look at hitters, a good hitter fails 7 out of 10 times to get on base. Now, because 30% is a very good average a player can be horrible for April - August, yet he can have a really solid month and make his average stats appear better than his play actually was. It's not like taking a percentage from 20% to 80%, we're talking about raising an average 10 percentage points. Pitching is the exact opposite, if a reliever has one bad outing it can take months of appearances to get it back down. I've yet to see anyone quantify why a pitcher has good stuff one day and bad stuff the next.

 

Again, games are won and last in the now, where small sample size matters. It doesn't matter what you did yesterday, last week, last month, last year, it only matters what you're going to do right now. All the manager has to go on is what his gut tells him, and what he sees in the body language of the player. This is why I call the defense from the field in football, because I can look into the young man's eyes before I put him in the game.

 

I don't find the notion that Bush struggles from the stretch that far off, because Villy made similar comments about himself early in the year. He said something to the effect that pitching from the BP has made him a better pitcher because he's now comfortable pitching from the stretch, where as he hadn't been in the past.

 

I'm not for pulling Bush from the rotation, not yet. However, at this point in time would I want him pitching in the playoff rotation? Probably not. I'm pretty indifferent at this point in time. However, if he keeps performing the way he has most of the season, something will need to be done. In the same way that the 3rd base platoon was hurting the offense, the pitching staff should be as strong as possible, both starting pitching and in the bullpen, for the playoff push if it comes.

[Brian the Automator]

[ Geno's point, which was never really rebuttled, is how long does a manager ride an underperforming pony? ]

 

Earl Weaver talks about this in

Weaver on Strategy. To summarize, the more established the player, the more you ride him out... in the case of the bullpen, the hot hand is what matters.

 

You can't manage by stats alone, but I don't think the statheads claim that either.

[rluzinski]

It doesn't matter what you did yesterday, last week, last month, last year, it only matters what you're going to do right now. All the manager has to go on is what his gut tells him, and what he sees in the body language of the player.

 

A manager needs to consider everything. Prior performance should be #1 on that list but there's obviously many other factors that should go into his decisions. A good manager will use all those factors to form his "gut" feeling.

 

This is why I call the defense from the field in football, because I can look into the young man's eyes before I put him in the game.

 

Comparing major league baseball to high school football is a pretty big stretch, to say the least. Professional baseball is such a controlled environment, relatively speaking, it lends itself very well to statistical analysis. There are years worth of data to look at.

 

High school football is an entirely different beast. The performance of a football player is so intertwined with his teammates, it's very difficult to separate the two. Measuring the strength of the opponent is difficult to quantify. Quantifying individual player performance is also difficult. I high school coach has no choice but to rely heavily on his and his coaching staff's subjective assessment of a player's skills.

 

Geno's point, which was never really rebuttled, is how long does a manager ride an underperforming pony?

 

First, how do you rebut a question? There isn't one answer anyway. I explained in painful detail the limitations to small samples and in the data in general. A manager needs to put all that data and personal observations into a big bucket and make some hard decisions sometimes.

[strawbossisevil]

I'm pretty sure most Major League pitchers pitch from the stretch whenever there are runners on base, including 3rd or 2nd and 3rd or bases loaded situations.

 

The reason being, that the windup is so slow and methodical that it is quite possible for a speedy runner to steal home.

 

The windup also does not allow any pick off attempts, so even if that guy on 3rd or 2nd has a huge lead, once you start your windup you can't keep them close to the bag. Think of it this way, a pitcher is not going to want the guy on base to get any extra jump on a hit (especially with guys on 2nd and 3rd) where a single may or may not score the guy from 2nd.

 

In High School and occasionally in college you'll find pitchers that work out of the windup with the bases loaded, but I believe the higher you go, the less frequent that is.

 

 

Edit: If this is the case, it's interesting to note that Bush is well above average with the bases empty, going from the wind up. And he gives up an OPS of over 100 points higher when he pitches from the stretch making him very below average. Like Geno has suggested, it appears Bush has issues pitching from the stretch (which I find strange since he was a college closer, but whatever.)

[TheCrew07]

Quote:

---

High school football is an entirely different beast. The performance of a football player is so intertwined with his teammates, it's very difficult to separate the two. Measuring the strength of the opponent is difficult to quantify. Quantifying individual player performance is also difficult. I high school coach has no choice but to rely heavily on his and his coaching staff's subjective assessment of a player's skills.

---

 

I never claimed High School football was MLB, in fact I never claimed I was even a good coach, as I think I have many faults. My point was that we have no idea what goes on in the clubhouse, or in the dugout, or behind closed doors. If your opinion is that a player's state of mind doesn't affect his performance, then we really have nothing to discuss. So many times managerial decisions are questioned, and in many cases we don't have all the facts. Remember that Cubs game where people we were near rioting in the in-game thread because Hart didn't pitch hit? Many people including yourself were wrong about that, and to your credit you pointed out the next day that your assumptions were incorrect. Many people instantly look at splits, past production, and the manager is instantly wrong because a certain metric says a certain thing and he does the opposite.

 

Endaround said I had a "blinkered" view of science... that's his opinion which he's entitled to. I think people that use metrics to define players have a "blinkered" view of sports and more to the point at hand, Baseball. Baseball lends itself to mathematical analysists based on the huge samples, but it's no less complex than the other sports. The coin flip analogy is used quite a bit, but how often it comes heads and tails is determined by any number factors; which side started up, position on the thumb, how high it's flipped, how many rotations it makes, the rotation direction, if it's caught or not and so on. If that's translated to baseball and the probability of a hit is vastly more complex. After studying me you could predict how many times the coin would come up heads, but what does it have to do with the outcome of my next flip? What does that have to with a batter's next AB or a pitcher's next outing?

 

In sports confidence and state of mind matter more than anything else, and that's what the metrics can't measure. They can measure the outcome, but to my knowledge no one has found a way to predict which players will make the most out of their ability. If they could, then the drafts would be pretty anticlimatic, you could just measure the talent and that team would win the championship. Rarely will I ever publicly question a manager's decision, over time I've learned that it's nothing something I'm comfortable doing. Any game looks simple when you're watching from your couch, it's not so easy when you're down there and every coach and player share a different opinion on what should be done. Historical performance should be considered, but there are also many other factors to consider.

 

Again, people do not need to defend Sabermetric principles to me, in most cases the theory is sound, and I find many of the metrics useful. In fact, I use similar principles for rating my defensive lineman play by play. They help tell a story, but they are not the entire story.

 

Bush may or may not regress to his averages, but until the end of the season, do we really know for sure? Again, my problem is that people use a metric a say he should regress to the mean. Just because the law of averages says he should, doesn't mean he will. The same people said the same things about TBow last year, and just kept getting worse. I have confidence in Bush, I like his attitude on the mound, I like how he pitches, but if he doesn't start getting some sustained success, I have no problem with Yost making a change.

 

Again I have no problem with sabemetrics, just the presentation, they are probable outcomes based on 162 games, not facts about the current game.

[endaround]

The biggest problem you have is acknowledging the law of large numbers has a pull over much of the universe. Yes all those things matter, but in general they are noise and as such are not useful in predicting the future. Its like taking in account my mass when determining how hard gravity pulls me down. Sure technically I'm pulling the earth towards me but in practice it can be safely ignored.

[TheCrew07]

Thanks for pointing out my biggest flaw. That "noise" you speak of is exactly what wins games in the small sample that is a single game.

[rluzinski]

The coin flip analogy is used quite a bit, but how often it comes heads and tails is determined by any number factors;

 

It's not an analogy so much of an example I use to try and illustrate how binomial variance(coin flip stuff) adds a layer of uncertainty to all the stats we look at in baseball (which is directly dependent on the sample size). People sometimes take that to mean I think baseball can be reduced to a coin flip, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I only begin with that uncertainty, since it's easily quantified and very large, when the sample size is small. There are many other uncertainties, many of which, the manager and coaching staff are in a prime position to try and gauge.

 

Dave Bush has had prior success in the majors and because we expect a certain level of skill persistence, the default assumption is that he should continue to have success. There are factors that can throw a monkey wrench into that assumption of course. Injuries, change in mechanics, change in mental approach and age, to name a few. But if Yost and his staff aren't aware of any of those currently being a factor, why shouldn't they assume the most obvious and likely scenario? Bush might have simply flipped 9 heads, when 5 were expected and considering the underlying data, that sure looks to be the over riding cause of his misfortunes.

 

If the sub-par innings mount, Yost and Melvin will have to re-evaluate the situation, since it will become less and less likely that bad luck is the cause. Furthermore, if a better option presents itself that trumps the uncertainty of recent bad performance, that could justify a move as well. Since they have to consider many different factors, there is no magic number, no definitive situation.

[homer]

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure most Major League pitchers pitch from the stretch whenever there are runners on base, including 3rd or 2nd and 3rd or bases loaded situations.

---

 

I thought so too but Lincecum was pitching out of the windup with the bases juiced tonight. I wonder if there's a variable other than pitcher preference in that case. I'm sure there is. Might be a good email for Bill, although he probably doesn't know. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[endaround]

Quote:

---

Thanks for pointing out my biggest flaw. That "noise" you speak of is exactly what wins games in the small sample that is a single game.

---

 

Well if you think the outcome of a single game is random welcome to sabermetrics.

[TheCrew07]

I never said it was random. The outcome of a game is decided on a precise sequence of events. Take last night, either Coco gets the 3-2 pitch over and someone makes a play, or he doesn't and the Crew has to rally to win.

 

If sabermetrics had anything to do with the outcome of a single at bat or single game then you'd always be able to accurately predict the final score based upon the opposing offenses vs the pitching.

 

You could maybe be less condescending but you'd have to come down from that lofty statistical perch to reality, you know, where the players on the field decide the outcome by actually playing the game. Maybe you should call up Ned and tell him it doesn't matter who pitches and what stuff they have that day, the crew is going to win or lose a set percentage of games so they don't have to try hard that day...

 

I really don't care what you have to say on the subject, you obviously are not reading what I'm posting, nor are you open to an alternative point of view. I don't care that you disagree, but at least be accurate when you're pointing out my flaws.

[endaround]

My high horse? You're the one who comes in and declares who fields of science not science by your definition. Then you say that if a model can't take into account all variables its worthless or if it doesn't predict things with certainty it has no purpose.

[pogokat]

this is a great discussion...lets keep it that way fellas...