Fan Perception of Starting Pitcher Talent

[Lil Dummy]

"Bush's ERA is basically the same as last year if you remove the 6 run 1st inning versus the Cubs in his first start."

 

But how does it compare if you take out his worst inning from 2006? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[thablingster]

For many casual fans, if a pitcher scatters 4 runs over 7 innings, that's not as bad as giving up a 4 spot in one inning and pitching 6 scoreless. The more runs given up at once, the worse the pitcher is viewed by many.

[J Brew Crew]

Russ

 

Good topic.

 

1) When you are looking at the perceived perceptions of others, you are looking at least two biases, your perceptions of your fellow fans and your own opinions. I would compare it to politics. "How can the Dems think that about subject X?" Attempting to guess someones view about a subject we both care about by looking through my own bias to figure out yours is foolhardy... but interesting. I could make a bunch of great political analogies here but I won't due to the flamibility of the subject. As a saber guy, Russ, it is interesting that you would bring up a subject that is so lacking in vigor but I think it is probative.

 

2) When it comes to starting pitching I look more at the length of the start than most people do. I am a believer that less work a bullpen has the better their stats. I have no idea if its true or not. I overvalue the quality start even though I do the math and I know 4.5 ERA is not great. But part of me is excited about the fact it is "quality". Perhaps I saw too many Quevadoesque starts. I also think most people have their pet stats ( K/BB, gb/fb etc.) and like pitchers that fall into their pet stat category whether they are actually good or not. The Branyan debates might have been due to those who hate K's versus those who love a player with a high SLG%.

 

3) Their is a casual fan bias on this board, and most boards for that matter, IMO. The average message board guy may or may not know baseball better than a casual fan. I would assume that the poster would skew younger and be more open to sabermetrics. As someone who is older than the mean and the median poster (37), I know many people who are not comfortable posting on message boards. Whether they are more or less knowledgeable and whether the fact they don't come here causes a knowledge gap is open for debate.

 

4) I am a Nugget head. "Whoever the Crew got for latin Cappy is going to be great! He has to be. He's a Melvin nugget." That bias is fairly prevelant here.

 

5) In general I think Brewerfan overvalues minor leaguers. I think it comes from so many years of looking at the junk on the major league roster and thinking whomever was in the minors had to be better. Active passionate fans plus the best resourse for Brewer minor leagues multiplied by many awful "major" leaguers equals a bias towards younger players. Not that its a bad thing but the projections from minor league stats to the bigs is crapshoot. Many times I have seen the attitude that "anyone must be better than this clown" so let's bring up a guy from AAA or AA. Thank the good Lord that many of the players who have come up recently have been as good or better than advertised.

 

Sorry I got a little off topic. But this thread got me thinking a lot.

 

All the best

 

j

[lukevan]

I think it comes from so many years of looking at the junk on the major league roster and thinking whomever was in the minors had to be better.

 

Or it could be due to the fact that Prince Fielder, JJ Hardy, Corey Hart, Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Villanueva, Rickie Weeks and Bill Hall all came out of our system http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

j/k of course.