"The Rest Of The Central Hard Pressed To keep Up With Cubs..."

[gregmag]

Also, IMHO, you can't just say "psychology is important" and then claim that blanket statement proves your point. I agree that psychology is important, but it's also complicated. Sometimes losing gets you down; other times it fires you up. More often than not, for most people, I suspect those two impulses cancel each other out (assuming we're talking about losing at a time when you have the physical / talent capacity to bounce back).

 

That's why I consider casual discussions of psychology useless in predicting player performance when compared to stats, a.k.a. facts. Reasoning boils down to two things: having information and knowing what to do with it. The stuff Ennder has raised about Capuano is real information; knowing it, we can argue about what it means. But a statement like (I'm paraphrasing) "Maybe Capuano won't bounce back because sometimes losing gets into players heads" isn't even information; it's just a generalization that may sometimes be accurate in some circumstances.

 

It would be different, of course, if we actually knew something about Capuano's psyche. Maybe his state of mind really is more important than his BAA and percentage of bequeathed runners who scored in predicting his performance next year. Unfortunately, that's hard information to come by; we have to go with what we know.

 

Greg.

[davego]

I know there isn't a way to measure this (I think), but I wonder if Cappy's real lack of a plus-type of pitch is what got him into more trouble last year then what the secondary numbers indicate should have been his outcome ? Having an 'out' pitch seemed to hurt him in those "clutch" situations, where Yo and to a certain extent CV (and Ben, when he is able to pitch) just "seem" to get themselves out of jam(s).

[TerraceReserved]

I know there isn't a way to measure this (I think), but I wonder if Cappy's real lack of a plus-type of pitch is what got him into more trouble last year then what the secondary numbers indicate should have been his outcome ? Having an 'out' pitch seemed to hurt him in those "clutch" situations, where Yo and to a certain extent CV (and Ben, when he is able to pitch) just "seem" to get themselves out of jam(s).

 

But Cappy was using the same pitches in 05-06, when he put up ERA's right around 4. In those two years he really didn't have an "out" pitch either, but he still came up with a strong ERA. In 07 he pitched the same in secondary numbers, as Ender pointed out, but just had bad luck and defense.

[davego]

Has the defense degraded that much since '06? I'm sincerely asking. Is there a measurable change with any of the other pitchers that have been on the staff that long? Maybe it does just come down to "luck"?

[logan82]

Has the defense degraded that much since '06? I'm sincerely asking. Is there a measurable change with any of the other pitchers that have been on the staff that long? Maybe it does just come down to "luck"?

With Weeks instead of Graffy and Braun instead of Bell '06-'07 I would say that our defense suffered quite a bit. We probably got better at SS going from Hall to Hardy. So overall I would say that our infield had worse defense in '07 than in '06.

[RyDogg66]

Hall to Hardy at SS is probably a push at SS, Hall in CF probably cost us some runs as well. Estrada was also worse than Miller/Moeller. So we were probably worse at 3b, CF, 2b and C, that is right up the middle of the defense. It makes a huge difference.

[MJLiverock]

I would say Hall vs. Clark in center was a push at worst. Clark really wasn't very good as a CF, playing with his heels on the warning track and still having balls hit over his head couple with a barely above Pierre arm. Weeks barely played in the second half of 2006, only 17 games in July and not at all in August and September. Cappy's struggles began in the second half of 2006.

 

I'll agree that bad luck plays a part but I am not willing to just chalk Cappy's problems up to bad luck and poor defense. I wouldn't say luck is any more concrete than the psychology references used above. The old saying , "You make your own luck," may apply here. If a pitch catches too much of the plate or a change up is a little to hard or fastball too soft and it gets ripped through the infield or lined to center really bad luck? Or is it just a guy who threw a bad pitch?

 

Defensive shortcomings may account for some of the problems but I think it is being overstated as a reason for Cappy. Other Brewer pitchers played with same defense and didn't fall apart. I think Cappy is a better pitcher than his final numbers showed last year but probably not much more than an average pitcher which isn't a bad thing.

 

The difference between a good pitch and a poor pitch is a pretty small change. All the secondary and tertiary numbers may hold up for awhile as a pitcher can still occasionally hit his exact spot or put just the right spin on the ball. But as his instance of not being just perfect with those pitches goes up the hit balls may just start being hit a little harder and a little further. This could have just been the peak of Cappy's ability and he is now on the downslope of that curve. Pitchers who have a few good years come and go all through out baseball history. When a guy doesn't have overpowering stuff to rely on the window of perfection needed to be good can be pretty small.

 

It doesn't mean that Cappy is done or even that he won't bounce back. It is just one possible explanation that doesn't just pin it on luck turning or that the defense plays worse when he is on the mound. I know as a fan I want to believe it is just bad luck but it really wouldn't be shocking that a MLB pitcher declines in ability to be as perfect as needed.

[Ennder]

Luck is really just another term for variance which does exist over a small sample and yes 150 IP is a small sample for ERA. Like I said earlier, swap the bullpen support of Suppan and Capuano and Cappy is sitting at a sub 4.50 ERA and Suppan is up around a 5.00. That has nothing at all to do with Capuano. In Capuano's case I just can't see how the secondary numbers indicate poor pitching. Fewer extra base hits, fewer BB's, more K's, more GB's are all good things and pretty much negate any discussion that his stuff was slipping. More singles against is almost always variance or defense when it is the only thing different with a pitcher. You don't give up more singles and have every single other thing get better when you are 'struggling'.

 

Now to be fair Capuano isn't as good as his 2005 ERA suggests and his 2006 ERA seems to be an outlier caused by a good season of control, his BB's were way down. Thus the basic picture painted by Capuano's previous seasons is misleading. This isn't a guy that I expect a 4.00 ERA or lower from. His 4.39 career ERA pretty much paints a picture of what kind of guy he is and last year wasn't any different than 2005. A SP in a weak division in the NL who is a 4.39 ERA type guy is not some amazing pitcher, he is just a guy at the back end of the rotation. I just hate when people try to judge a pitcher by ERA because it rarely tells the real story over a single season.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think that is pretty close to the truth about our pitchers last season. Capuano, Vargas, Suppan and Bush all pitched about the same just with different degrees of luck.

 

[blue]Ennder, stop talking all this crazy nonsense! Cappy's ERA and W-L record were worse, so that's clearly all there is to it. All your made-up stats just don't change the reality![/blue]