SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Price/Porcello for Cy Young
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 20, 2016 9:28:17 GMT -5
Hmmmmm,,, This is certainly a different discussion than the one at the beginning of the year that had posters calling Porcello names and crucifying the FO for ever having traded for, and then signed the guy. Times have changed.
The awards are nice but there's always this ambiguity surrounding them. I'm just happy the Sox took a gamble on the guy. I've been really happy everytime he walks out to the mound.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 20, 2016 9:29:08 GMT -5
Even if you dismiss FIP-based WAR for these discussions, Porcello trails Sale and Kluber by runs-allowed-based value measures. For the record, I don't dismiss FIP-based metrics ... I just think it's an opinion to use them as the basis of your decision on Cy Young and am pointing that out. Again, it's a worthy opinion, but it's no mathematical certitude. If someone says, "Rick Porcello had the best WHIP and best ERA- in the AL, and, by the way, also won the most games," that's also a very worthy opinion in my book. To be totally honest, though, I barely care who wins the Cy Young, even if it's Porcello. I just think it's an interesting discussion about value and past performance vs predictive analytics in a team context...
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 20, 2016 9:35:35 GMT -5
If you consider that advanced, ok. It's just a different stat, no more or less intrinsically valuable when discussing performance for the past year than FIP-, just measures something a little different. I think you're starting to get pretty arcane in your arguments now, if you're dismissing ERA- as old school nonsense but FIP- as genius-level advancement in human thought ... I think FIP- and certainly SIERA are "better," in the sense that they predict the future better, but they're not some revolutionary advance in number theory compared to ERA-.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 20, 2016 9:48:45 GMT -5
Even if you dismiss FIP-based WAR for these discussions, Porcello trails Sale and Kluber by runs-allowed-based value measures. For the record, I don't dismiss FIP-based metrics ... I just think it's an opinion to use them as the basis of your decision on Cy Young and am pointing that out. Again, it's a worthy opinion, but it's no mathematical certitude. If someone says, "Rick Porcello had the best WHIP and best ERA- in the AL, and, by the way, also won the most games," that's also a very worthy opinion in my book. To be totally honest, though, I barely care who wins the Cy Young, even if it's Porcello. I just think it's an interesting discussion about value and past performance vs predictive analytics in a team context... To be clear, while I disagree, I think it's a reasonable opinion to think that Porcello should win the Cy Young. The mathematical certitude point I'm making is that K-BB% is a better measure of pitcher success than K/BB.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 20, 2016 10:00:50 GMT -5
Clearly MLB should do away with win and loss records. Right now Texas has the best W-L record in the AL but based on run differential they should not even be in contention for the wild card.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 20, 2016 10:16:10 GMT -5
Stop using wins. Seriously. The voters don't care about it, the players know it's a team stat, so stop it. People have made two arguments on this board: that wins are stupid, and that wins don’t move voters. The former argument lacks adequate nuance – obviously wins can be misleading. They can also be clear indicators of excellence. As for the latter argument, well, it doesn’t appear to me to be true. Starting from the oldest example in an above post, 2009, I think the evidence reveals a different story: voters do privilege wins, but when there is no 20-game winner, the voting opens up a bit. In only exceptional cases does a “dominant” but “unlucky” pitcher trump one who has accumulated many more wins with good peripherals. In 2009, Greinke won with a 16-8 record, and Felix finished second at 19-5. That one helps support your case, yes, because Greinke clearly won on his other numbers – though, it doesn’t totally undermine my case, as Felix missed the magic number. But look at the NL that year: Yes, Lincecum won with a 15-7 record, but Adam Wainwright (19-8) actually got more first-place votes. It was a strange year. 2010 features Felix winning the award at 13-12, one of the oddest CY ever (not saying undeserving, but odd – hell Joakim Soria got more votes than Justin Verlander, who was 18-9). The NL was more familiar: top-3 were top-3 in wins in descending order: 21,20,19. 2011, though, starts to return to what I’d call normal. Look at the NL: Kershaw beats Halladay, the former at 21-3, the latter at 19-6. But Halladay crushed him in WAR: 8.9-6.5. Clearly voters were looking at the W/L record. Verlander, the only 20-game winner in the AL, gets all but two of the first place votes. 2012, R.A. Dickey wins 20, wins the award (has a lower WAR than the fifth place finisher). In the AL, David Price wins 20, wins award (has lower WAR than second place finisher). 2013, Scherzer wins 21, gets 28 first place votes (has lower WAR than the second and fifth place finishers – the latter Chris Sale who finished 11-14). In the NL, Kershaw wins with 16-9 record over Wainwright, who was 19-9. Latter has higher WAR. Possibly hurts both our arguments, but, again, my case is that short of a 20-game winner, things get weird. Anyway, a 3-win difference is not huge. 2014 –Kluber leads the league in wins (18) and wins the CY. Kershaw leads the league in wins, wins the CY. 2015 – Dallas Keuchel is 20-8, David Price is 18-5. Price’s ERA is .03 lower. Price has more Ks, lower WHIP. Keuchel gets 22 first place votes, Price 8. The bottom line is that in only one clear instance has a pitcher won despite his W/L record – the sole instance of the last 14 in which a 20-game winner lost to a non-20-game-winner. Otherwise, wins tend more often to trump WAR and other factors more often than vice versa.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 20, 2016 10:20:04 GMT -5
The way to answer this question is as follows:
1) Wait until the end of the season. 2) Identify the serious contenders (right now, it's Kluber, Sale, Tanaka, Verlander, Porcello, and Danny Duffy, of all people). 3) Look at just two stats: bWAR and SIERA. 4) Look at them critically. 4a) SIERA is easy: does the pitcher have a career track record of being better than his SIERA, i.e., does he have BABIP and HR/FB skills that SIERA be design ignores? 4b) bWAR is more complex. Each component makes assumptions or simplifications:
1) It uses R instead of ER as the foundation.
a) You can look into all the errors made behind a pitcher and calculate the actual change in Run Expectancy of each. This does not even out.
b) To be fair, you should also look at all the uncounted outs on bases. Half a dozen LDP's can do wonders for a pitcher's RA.
c) Even more importantly, they make no adjustment for inherited runner support, and that can be very large.
A "True RA" is very easy to calculate, and it's a shame that no one does it at present. I used to do this for all of our minor league pitchers.
2) Opponents offense (RA9Opp) is not schedule-adjusted. It's not huge, but it's not negligible; Porcello picks up 0.2 bWAR compared to Kluber.
3) Defensive support (RA9Def) just divides the team DRS among all pitchers, but it should calculate INF and OF DRS separately and then portion them out by ground balls and fly balls given up. A GB pitcher with an average defensive INF and tremendous defensive OF is getting hurt by this adjustment. (Ultimately, since DRS is calculated play-by-play, there's no reason why we can't get the actual defensive support for each pitcher.)
Note that your adjustments 1a/b and 3 may count some things twice, but that's easy to adjust for. UZR provides a breakdown of runs gained or lost from high or low error rates, and we can assume those plays were scored the same for DRS, so we can calculate the expected difference between RA and ERA for every pitcher, and use that to adjust the actual difference we found in 1a.
4) Park factors used are 3-year, but in certain parks (those in cities with highly variable weather) you may want to weight the 1-year factor more heavily. (Ultimately, since we have temperature and wind data for games, park factors should be calculated game-by-game and include those.)
B-ref Park factors also include a very crude strength of schedule adjustment, which should be a separate one, but can be confounded by the randomness of which pitchers start in which ballparks on the road. There's a much more thorough way of doing them (and yeah, I once talked to Sean Foreman about sending him my methodology and have never followed it up).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 20, 2016 10:35:30 GMT -5
3) Defensive support (RA9Def) just divides the team DRS among all pitchers, but it should calculate INF and OF DRS separately and then portion them out by ground balls and fly balls given up. A GB pitcher with an average defensive INF and tremendous defensive OF is getting hurt by this adjustment. You can actually go much deeper, if you (by which I mean me!) are willing to do the work. According to FG's Splits Tool, Porcello has given up a .225 Flyball Pull to LHB and .315 FlyBall Opp to RHB. That's not a lot of balls hit to Mookie, who has 30 of the team's 41 DRS. Balls hit to each fielder can be counted from FG's Play Logs, just like the errors and uncounted outs on bases can. I need to set up a spreadsheet where I can paste in the Play Log and have it spit out all of the data I need to run these numbers.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Sept 20, 2016 10:46:02 GMT -5
Since his last start in June Porcello is 13-2 with an era of 2.51 and a whip of about .91. If he ends up with 4 more wins than Kluber then he will get the votes to win. The stats are all pretty close and I know I am a fish out of water compared to all of you guys with the saber stats but history shows us that wins matter. Being the pitcher that pitches that well in a pennant race that the Sox will win also matters. If he continues his current level of domination his numbers may just improve a little as they have over the past week.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 20, 2016 10:51:42 GMT -5
Clearly MLB should do away with win and loss records. Right now Texas has the best W-L record in the AL but based on run differential they should not even be in contention for the wild card. Let's just go in the total other direction. The Indians have a .590 W% when Francisco Lindor starts. The Red Sox are only at .582 when Mookie Betts starts. Lindor is MVP. Mike Timlin won four World Titles, Ted Williams, Ernie Banks, and Barry Bonds have zero combined. We should only rate individual players by team records and accomplishments. Here are all of the starters in Major League Baseball, ranked by Run Support: www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2016-starter-pitching.shtml#players_starter_pitching::29If the Red Sox are scoring more runs for Rick Porcello than any pitcher in baseball is getting to his team because Porcello has that magical power, he should win Cy Young, MVP, and maybe be hired as hitting coach. Using winning percentage to talk about Porcello's season overlooks his actual, substantial accomplishments. ------ As far as comparing Porcello to his past seasons to gauge whether him outdoing his SIERA/FIP is for real: I guess the issue with how you look at Porcello is the huge step forward he's made pitching with runners on base. Before this season, he always underperformed his peripherals because he was so bad from the stretch. This year he's been excellent. I'm pretty certain a percentage of the difference is a real adjustment, but what percentage is luck and what is skill? ----- EDIT: And another issue is that every starter in contention probably will get two more starts. Suppose Porcello no-hits the Blue Jays? Maybe Kluber gets roughed up by the Tigers or White Sox? Right now Kluber is ahead in my book, but it's close enough that it could change.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 20, 2016 11:27:20 GMT -5
If you want an extreme example of why K-BB% is better than K/BB, consider this. Pitcher A strikes out 27 per 9 innings and gives up 3 walks per 9. His K/BB rate is 9. Let's say his K-BB% is 90%. Pitcher B strikes out 3 per 9 and walks 0.2 per 9. His K/BB rate is 15 and say his K-BB% is 10%. Which pitcher is better? That's why you don't use one stat. Because Steve Dalkowski wasn't a great pitcher either. I'll take a guy who's 22n%-2% over 40-15. The extremes aren't real-world, and both measures can be made to look absurd. I think the whole "this one is better than the other" argument is silly...like most individual statistical quantities, they don't have particular value alone. They're meant to complement and inform eachother.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 20, 2016 11:38:00 GMT -5
If you want an extreme example of why K-BB% is better than K/BB, consider this. Pitcher A strikes out 27 per 9 innings and gives up 3 walks per 9. His K/BB rate is 9. Let's say his K-BB% is 90%. Pitcher B strikes out 3 per 9 and walks 0.2 per 9. His K/BB rate is 15 and say his K-BB% is 10%. Which pitcher is better? That's why you don't use one stat. Because Steve Dalkowski wasn't a great pitcher either. I'll take a guy who's 22n%-2% over 40-15. The extremes aren't real-world, and both measures can be made to look absurd. I think the whole "this one is better than the other" argument is silly...like most individual statistical quantities, they don't have particular value alone. They're meant to complement and inform eachother. Based on linear weights, and assuming that the quality of contact given up by both pitchers is equal and somewhere around league average, you would be wrong. The second pitcher would be objectively better than the first.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,154
|
Post by radiohix on Sept 20, 2016 11:46:03 GMT -5
Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Sept 20, 2016 11:51:08 GMT -5
That's why you don't use one stat. Because Steve Dalkowski wasn't a great pitcher either. I'll take a guy who's 22n%-2% over 40-15. The extremes aren't real-world, and both measures can be made to look absurd. I think the whole "this one is better than the other" argument is silly...like most individual statistical quantities, they don't have particular value alone. They're meant to complement and inform eachother. Based on linear weights, and assuming that the quality of contact given up by both pitchers is equal and somewhere around league average, you would be wrong. The second pitcher would be objectively better than the first. If you would like to discuss quality of contact, Rick Porcello has an 18.4 LD%, third in the league, Kluber has 19.7%, 16th in the AL, Chris Sale has 21.1%, 29th in the AL.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 20, 2016 11:53:36 GMT -5
A few responses re: Porcello: - He's legitimately been one of the five best pitchers in the AL this year. If you want to say that means that "he's in the conversation" for Cy Young, fine, but I don't think he's all that close to number one (that's Sale or Kluber).
- Even if you used ERA-based value statistics like bWAR or Fangraphs' RA9-WAR, Porcello comes behind Sale (and Kluber is only slightly behind in RA9-WAR while being way ahead in bWAR). Porcello has given up more unearned runs than expected, and he's pitched in front of a very good defense. Those things matter.
- WHIP overrates Porcello-- he gives up very few walks, which means he doesn't allow many baserunners, but when he does give up hits, he generally gives up harder contact than his Cy Young competitors.
- Similarly, he ranks well in K/BB because of a low denominator, but by K-BB% (which is a more accurate indicator of pitcher quality), he comes in ninth (behind both Sale and Kluber, among others).
The only real argument for Porcello is based off pitcher wins. As alluded to, that's not in the least convincing to me. Really, really good season. But not the best pitcher in the AL. As I have said before I am not very good at finding all the data that's gets thrown around on these threads, and many times do not understand how some of the data fits the argument. But I truly believe that there is ALOT of value to the data. So, I would humbly ask for some assistance here. I think there is some key facts that are buried in the data. How many times has each started after a team loss and had a quality start to give their team a chance to win? Pickup the team after a tough loss. How well have they pitched against the potential playoff teams and verlander type pitchers? Tough teams/pitchers in higher leverage situations. How well have they pitched on the road? You can be lights out at home and poor on the road. Some teams play better for certain pitchers and not others. Sox seemed to perkup when rick pitches. Do not get that impression with the white sox with sales. Emotion says rick for cy this year. Sales has a higher ceiling he could be in the discussion for the next 5 years. Tough comparison with power pitcher vs groundball pitcher. How do ballparks fit into the equations? Fenway seems to be a harder park to pitch in than Chicago. Thanks for all your help and direction. Was not looking for someone to do it for me, looking for help with where and how in general to attack my statements with data.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 20, 2016 11:58:25 GMT -5
It's a fair point, let me clarify. In terms of actual voting, he will be that close, because a large chunk of the electorate still cares about pitcher wins. But in my mind, he's a tier below Sale and Kluber. Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you, I don't think he should win over these two. At the same time, it wouldn't be downright criminal if he somehow won like other examples we had in the past, these 3 are really not that far apart from each other IMO which is a real compliment to the kind of season Porcello is having.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 20, 2016 11:59:12 GMT -5
I love saber debates...I really do....it's funny that the debates are empirical data that is used to aggregate data sets relating to season performance for MVP. It doesn't matter at all that a performance like Porcello's last 2 starts against their most competitive rival...where he gave up 3 runs (2 on solo shots - in an of itself a luck driven outcome) in 17 innings, should be considered in the vote. Yet, the other guys get to compete in games that have no meaning, but it counts the same.
I think there comes a point where all your doing is confining the argument to fit your doctrine. I like to think that awards aren't participation trophies, but have meaning beyond numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Sept 20, 2016 12:00:07 GMT -5
The way to answer this question is as follows: 1) Wait until the end of the season. 2) Identify the serious contenders (right now, it's Kluber, Sale, Tanaka, Verlander, Porcello, and Danny Duffy, of all people). 3) Look at just two stats: bWAR and SIERA. 4) Look at them critically. 4a) SIERA is easy: does the pitcher have a career track record of being better than his SIERA, i.e., does he have BABIP and HR/FB skills that SIERA be design ignores? 4b) bWAR is more complex. Each component makes assumptions or simplifications: 1) It uses R instead of ER as the foundation. a) You can look into all the errors made behind a pitcher and calculate the actual change in Run Expectancy of each. This does not even out. b) To be fair, you should also look at all the uncounted outs on bases. Half a dozen LDP's can do wonders for a pitcher's RA. c) Even more importantly, they make no adjustment for inherited runner support, and that can be very large. A "True RA" is very easy to calculate, and it's a shame that no one does it at present. I used to do this for all of our minor league pitchers.2) Opponents offense (RA9Opp) is not schedule-adjusted. It's not huge, but it's not negligible; Porcello picks up 0.2 bWAR compared to Kluber. 3) Defensive support (RA9Def) just divides the team DRS among all pitchers, but it should calculate INF and OF DRS separately and then portion them out by ground balls and fly balls given up. A GB pitcher with an average defensive INF and tremendous defensive OF is getting hurt by this adjustment. (Ultimately, since DRS is calculated play-by-play, there's no reason why we can't get the actual defensive support for each pitcher.) Note that your adjustments 1a/b and 3 may count some things twice, but that's easy to adjust for. UZR provides a breakdown of runs gained or lost from high or low error rates, and we can assume those plays were scored the same for DRS, so we can calculate the expected difference between RA and ERA for every pitcher, and use that to adjust the actual difference we found in 1a. 4) Park factors used are 3-year, but in certain parks (those in cities with highly variable weather) you may want to weight the 1-year factor more heavily. (Ultimately, since we have temperature and wind data for games, park factors should be calculated game-by-game and include those.) B-ref Park factors also include a very crude strength of schedule adjustment, which should be a separate one, but can be confounded by the randomness of which pitchers start in which ballparks on the road. There's a much more thorough way of doing them (and yeah, I once talked to Sean Foreman about sending him my methodology and have never followed it up). www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/17537421/insiders-roundtable-which-awards-stats-matter-trout-mvp-cubs-cy-young-splitI don't always agree with Law, but he makes an excellent point here. You cannot focus too much on any one or two stats. Even bWAR. You can only make the best decision possible based on all available information.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 20, 2016 12:03:27 GMT -5
Not downplaying the start Porcello had last night at all, but judging by the media narrative that usually surrounds these awards, there's absolutely no way in hell he wouldn't have won CY if he threw a shutout last night. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 20, 2016 13:54:15 GMT -5
For those who really care about pitcher wins and are trying to credit Porcello for having the most, do you actually blame him for losing his last start 1-0? Because that's what it means to me.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 20, 2016 14:08:34 GMT -5
The way to answer this question is as follows: 1) Wait until the end of the season. 2) Identify the serious contenders (right now, it's Kluber, Sale, Tanaka, Verlander, Porcello, and Danny Duffy, of all people). 3) Look at just two stats: bWAR and SIERA. 4) Look at them critically. 4a) SIERA is easy: does the pitcher have a career track record of being better than his SIERA, i.e., does he have BABIP and HR/FB skills that SIERA be design ignores? 4b) bWAR is more complex. Each component makes assumptions or simplifications: 1) It uses R instead of ER as the foundation. a) You can look into all the errors made behind a pitcher and calculate the actual change in Run Expectancy of each. This does not even out. b) To be fair, you should also look at all the uncounted outs on bases. Half a dozen LDP's can do wonders for a pitcher's RA. c) Even more importantly, they make no adjustment for inherited runner support, and that can be very large. A "True RA" is very easy to calculate, and it's a shame that no one does it at present. I used to do this for all of our minor league pitchers.2) Opponents offense (RA9Opp) is not schedule-adjusted. It's not huge, but it's not negligible; Porcello picks up 0.2 bWAR compared to Kluber. 3) Defensive support (RA9Def) just divides the team DRS among all pitchers, but it should calculate INF and OF DRS separately and then portion them out by ground balls and fly balls given up. A GB pitcher with an average defensive INF and tremendous defensive OF is getting hurt by this adjustment. (Ultimately, since DRS is calculated play-by-play, there's no reason why we can't get the actual defensive support for each pitcher.) Note that your adjustments 1a/b and 3 may count some things twice, but that's easy to adjust for. UZR provides a breakdown of runs gained or lost from high or low error rates, and we can assume those plays were scored the same for DRS, so we can calculate the expected difference between RA and ERA for every pitcher, and use that to adjust the actual difference we found in 1a. 4) Park factors used are 3-year, but in certain parks (those in cities with highly variable weather) you may want to weight the 1-year factor more heavily. (Ultimately, since we have temperature and wind data for games, park factors should be calculated game-by-game and include those.) B-ref Park factors also include a very crude strength of schedule adjustment, which should be a separate one, but can be confounded by the randomness of which pitchers start in which ballparks on the road. There's a much more thorough way of doing them (and yeah, I once talked to Sean Foreman about sending him my methodology and have never followed it up). Where is the gritty-guttiness big market bright lights metric, which I believe counts for 50% of their final grade with some voters? (COUGHcarfardoCOUGHabrahamCOUGHshaunghnessy)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 20, 2016 15:09:42 GMT -5
It's a fair point, let me clarify. In terms of actual voting, he will be that close, because a large chunk of the electorate still cares about pitcher wins. But in my mind, he's a tier below Sale and Kluber. Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you, I don't think he should win over these two. At the same time, it wouldn't be downright criminal if he somehow won like other examples we had in the past, these 3 are really not that far apart from each other IMO which is a real compliment to the kind of season Porcello is having. I simply don't see what makes Kluber a "tier" above Porcello this year. Discount W/L record, fine, but there must be something to a pitcher who has an .840 win% on a team with a .573 win% vs. a pitcher with a .654 win% on a team with a .577 win%. People can throw all the speculative stats out they want, but the game is played on the field: call it magic, call it luck, but Porcello demonstrably makes his team better. If it is fielding or hitting or whatever, what happens to the rest of their respective staffs? Beside strikesouts, what stat does Kluber have that is a "tier" above Porcello? And again -- to another post's point -- sure, looking forward -- the strikeout pitcher is preferable, as he is likely in theory to risk fewer seeing eye hits, hard contact etc. But in retrospect, the statistic is only as important as the outcome of the game. If I am trading for a pitcher, I want the guy who gets his outs by K. If I am picking a Cy Young, I want the guy who got the most outs -- however he did so -- at the least cost of hits, walks, and runs. That is Porcello this year. However much Kluber might be a more "dominat" pitcher than Porcello, he only gives up .6 fewer hits per 9 innings (while walking double Porcello's number). Again, how is that a "tier" above? To me, Porcello is the clear Cy Young at this point unless something dramatic happens in the last few games. Neither Kluber nor Sale have done anything so dominant that they can make the case they have pitched in a way that they deserve "better" than their records.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 20, 2016 15:23:32 GMT -5
Porcello is a tier above Kluber in run support with 2 full runs more, which has absolutely nothing to do with how good of a pitcher is. Unless you want to argue that the team hits better because of who their pitcher is. The main difference in Porcello this year and last year is: Stat | 2015
| 2016
| BABIP | .332
| .260
| LOB%
| 67.5%
| 74.4%
| HR/FB%
| 14.5%
| 9.7%
|
Some of that can be attributed to his improved ability to pitch with runners on base and improved team defense, but not all of it. Pitchers without more elite strikeout rates will rely on these stats and obviously on defense for their performance a lot more. A lot of things are completely out of their control when the ball is put in play.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 20, 2016 15:33:19 GMT -5
Kluber has similar runs allowed numbers in a similar number of innings as Porcello (78 runs in 204.2 IP (30 GS) for Kluber, 79 runs in 210.2 IP (31 GS) for Porcello). However, Kluber has allowed 20 fewer total bases (266 for Kluber, 286 for Porcello) while striking out more hitters (which means he has had to lean less on his defense) and pitching in front of an inferior defense.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 20, 2016 15:54:37 GMT -5
Kluber has 5 games giving up 5 R (not just ER) or more, taking the L on all, and 4 games giving up 4 R, taking a W on 1 and L on 3 Porcello has 3 games giving up 5 R (but no games of more than 5), W one, ND one and L one and 4 games giving 4 R, W on 2, ND on 2. so true that Porcello has had luck on the lesser games, but on a good team, having fewer bad games is preferable. Still, how come we didn't trade some WAR1-2 player to SD for Kluber?
|
|
|