|
Post by garygeigercounter on Aug 10, 2018 13:09:39 GMT -5
Most of these nicknames are pretty bad except Moreland, Devers, Velazquez, and Kelly. Is there a more insulting one than Dan Butlers? It’s like “nah, not even worth it” "Lurch"(the Addams Family butler) might work. Or even a simple "Did It"
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Aug 10, 2018 13:36:54 GMT -5
Ok, so this is literally the problem. A culture that can separate those two things is a culture that is deeply toxic, destructive, and broken. This is beyond the scope of what I was trying to talk about. He was talking about the comraderie/chemisty between teammates. Not all 25 plus guys were Aroldis Chapman. I doubt the 2004 Red Sox were all saints. Hello Manny Ramirez. Didn't he have an incident or two or three? But that team was able to get on the same page and handle the game the same way. They bonded. I remember reading about the role Cabrera had in reigning in Manny and Schilling (hardly the most admired man in the world by all) thinking, "OK. This is going to work. Here we go." The team bonded. They were crazy, but united. Unlike the 2011 team Eric referenced.If you want to talk about a toxic, destructive, broken culture, welcome to the sad reality that is 2018 America, but this is not the forum to talk about such things. I'd much rather talk about the Red Sox (complaints and all) because baseball and particularly the Red Sox are uplifting unlike the world I see around me that I'd like to get my mind off of by talking baseball and the Sox. The toxin on the 2011 Red Sox was Carl Crawford. Not surprisingly the Stat forecasters both here and elsewhere lauded the decision to sign the guy. Signing Carl was a pure "by the numbers" decision. For my part I was vehemently against this. The result was not only a monumental collapse in September but the loss of Francona which lead to Valentine. I view 2018 America as a breath of fresh air. After a career working inside the Beltway, I was having serious doubts about the Republic. Now I have hope. Unexpected hope but real sustainable grass roots hope. Just as I do for the 2018 Red Sox. If Eovaldi is for real, I am downright bullish for this team.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 10, 2018 14:05:17 GMT -5
This is beyond the scope of what I was trying to talk about. He was talking about the comraderie/chemisty between teammates. Not all 25 plus guys were Aroldis Chapman. I doubt the 2004 Red Sox were all saints. Hello Manny Ramirez. Didn't he have an incident or two or three? But that team was able to get on the same page and handle the game the same way. They bonded. I remember reading about the role Cabrera had in reigning in Manny and Schilling (hardly the most admired man in the world by all) thinking, "OK. This is going to work. Here we go." The team bonded. They were crazy, but united. Unlike the 2011 team Eric referenced.If you want to talk about a toxic, destructive, broken culture, welcome to the sad reality that is 2018 America, but this is not the forum to talk about such things. I'd much rather talk about the Red Sox (complaints and all) because baseball and particularly the Red Sox are uplifting unlike the world I see around me that I'd like to get my mind off of by talking baseball and the Sox. The toxin on the 2011 Red Sox was Carl Crawford. Not surprisingly the Stat forecasters both here and elsewhere lauded the decision to sign the guy. Signing Carl was a pure "by the numbers" decision. For my part I was vehemently against this. The result was not only a monumental collapse in September but the loss of Francona which lead to Valentine. I view 2018 America as a breath of fresh air. After a career working inside the Beltway, I was having serious doubts about the Republic. Now I have hope. Unexpected hope but real sustainable grass roots hope. Just as I do for the 2018 Red Sox. If Eovaldi is for real, I am downright bullish for this team. Signing Crawford was clearly not a purely by the numbers decision. I remember specifically the articles about how much behind the scenes investigating that Theo did. At the time, it was pretty much unheard of. I also doubt if many scouts disagreed.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,484
|
Post by radiohix on Aug 10, 2018 16:59:13 GMT -5
The toxin on the 2011 Red Sox was Carl Crawford. Not surprisingly the Stat forecasters both here and elsewhere lauded the decision to sign the guy. Signing Carl was a pure "by the numbers" decision. For my part I was vehemently against this. The result was not only a monumental collapse in September but the loss of Francona which lead to Valentine. I view 2018 America as a breath of fresh air. After a career working inside the Beltway, I was having serious doubts about the Republic. Now I have hope. Unexpected hope but real sustainable grass roots hope. Just as I do for the 2018 Red Sox. If Eovaldi is for real, I am downright bullish for this team. Signing Crawford was clearly not a purely by the numbers decision. I remember specifically the articles about how much behind the scenes investigating that Theo did. At the time, it was pretty much unheard of. I also doubt if many scouts disagreed. Yep. I think they assigned a scout to just follow him all year long. I hope that guy got fired heh
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 11, 2018 10:38:15 GMT -5
With all due respect that is not what the numbers say. The bottom two groups hitting .199 .261 .298 and .238 .300 .376 have not killed him at all. Then you are trying to say he dominates good hitters by allowing a .266 .338 .459 line. Then you say he's excellent against average hitters with a .255 .326 .408 line, but you include guys 9% below average and 9% above average. We have no clue if 80% of those guys are below average or what exactly the average is for the group. You can't call that group average without knowing that, if could easily be below average as a group. You know numbers, so you know what you did was create something that has a huge margin of error. Using the groups average wRC+ would have been a lot better and would tell us a lot more. Monthly splits April .260 average .286 obs 1.200 whip, May .295 .373 1.727, June .030 .200 .750, and July .279 .340 1.548 He was good in April, totally dominate in June and crappy in May and July. That June was backed by a BAbip of .000. That June is an outlier and is scewing his numbers. He won't come close to doing that again the rest of his career. That's right up there with Brady Anderson hitting 50 HRs in a season. It's not a sign of things to come, but just a massive outlier. The guy gives up hit and gives up a good amount of walks. His current .230 .307 1.326 line is not a sign of a new better pitcher from years past, just a crazy lucky June. He is what he is, a decent back of the bullpen arm, that you likely don't want pitching in the postseason. The Yankees are full of good and great hitters that even with that june have hit .266 .338 .459 and .281 .369 .516 against him. You're not reading the data right. Go back and reread the post again. The first set of numbers is the league average of each group (so, in fact, I know precisely what each group has done, and by design they were balanced across their midpoints) and the second set is Hembree's difference, where negative is better. In the text that follows I give you what he actually allowed so you don't have to do the subtraction.
I began by dividing all the hitters into groups in a way that seemed most rational, the goal being to get 5 groups of roughly equal size. I didn't expect a single year's worth of data to show splits big enough to be significant, but they did, and they were significant in a way that made excellent sense if you'd been watching him.
In plain English: there's a group of hitters, all 29 guys he has faced with wRC+ between 110 and 126 (mean 118, median 118) who have combined to hit .266 / .338 / .459 against everybody. But those numbers include 45 PA, from every month of the calendar, where they hit .143 / .289 / .229 off of Heath Hembree.
So going by those numbers the worst hitters hit .214 .244 .333 and the best hitters hit .530 .619 .706 against him. Yet you think the below average hitters are killing him because they hit .216 .237 .595. The average and on base % are both below average, only the slugging is really high. You just broke down a small amount of innings into 5 groups. Thats litterally a few doubles and a few HRs. The low average and obp limits huge innings, its SSS noise. Just like your next two groups hitting .214 .306 .214 and .143 .289 .229. Its SSS noise from that crazy good June he had. That one month is making things look different than they really are. If you want to predict how someone will pitch going forward that month means nothing. His other 3 months and his career numbers are a much better indicator. So far 3 of the last 4 months he's been giving up a ton of hits and walks. If you really think this limited sample size proves he's dominate against good hitters and really good against average hitters I don't know what to tell you. He won't be some weapon against those guys in the playoffs. He'll get killed! Luckily I don't think we'll find out because the Red Sox are smarter than that!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 11, 2018 11:02:36 GMT -5
If you want to continue the Hembree discussion, please do so on a new thread. This one will be archived soon.
|
|