IST: Cubs @ Cards

[DanTown]

Kyle leads the majors in soft contact rate, so it IS due to his own ability.

I like saber stats but people are going way too far with them.

You mean like when you quote a sabermetric stat like contact rate but then slam saber stats? It sounds like you like them when they're for you, don't want to discuss the ones that are not. I've admitted that the type of pitcher Hendricks is will always be under appreciated in FIP (similar to Jake last year and the early part of this year) because that low BABIP/contract rate is more a purposeful thing than just luck. However, in deciding if he's been THE BEST pitcher in the entire league, it's important to realize that he can pitch to contact the way he does because he has the best defense behind him in ways that other pitchers cannot pitch to contact.

Like BABIP. People assume it "normalizes" and will essentially be the same for all hitters (and pitchers)

That's XFIP, which tries to normalize all pitchers in to one group and I don't agree with that stat for entirely that reason. But again, FIP is just ONE stat I use to measure a pitcher's value and really I use it to compare how the ERA and FIP match up as opposed to just looking at the FIP without any regard to any other stat. Right now Hendricks is in the mid 3.30s. I think he's been better than that but part of that is due to the defense behind him, which isn't really fair in comparing him to a pitcher on another team.

Really? Think Rod Carew doesn't do a better job of directing where he hit a ball than does, say, David Ross?

Think Greg Maddux doesn't have more control over where a ball is hot or how hard than did my old pal Steve Effing Traechsel?

Ain't so!

This is a weird conversation you're having with yourself and not anything I've ever said about a pitcher or a hitter.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

 

[SilenceS]

No Baez against a lefty? Weird.

 

[Omeletpants]

When is the last time Szczur started? Hmmmmmmm??????

 

[TL1961]

It's funny, you mention that I use a stat like FIP over ERA and I get the argument that FIP is a flawed stat. When trying to compare two things that existed in different environments (i.e Scherzer pitching vs Hendricks), I want to normalize as much as possible. For example, this year the Cubs park was one of the best parks for pitchers in the entire league. That's an advantage that Kyle has over Scherzer in trying to figure out ERA when all things are equal.

I get that it's not something people want to do but I do want to try and normalize for park, opponent, etc. To me, Scherzer has been the better pitcher than Kyle due to his ability to induce strikeouts and pitch deep in to games with limited runs.

Scherzer
Times 7+: 19
Times 8+: 6
CG: 1
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 17
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 5
CG, 2 ER or less: 1
Median Game Score: 69.5


Hendricks
Times 7+: 7
Times 8+: 4
CG: 2
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 7
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 4
GG, 2 ER or less: 2
Median Game Score: 62

Kyle has been great this year, he's third on "my" ballot for Cy Young but I just don't believe the Cy Young is for pitchers who predominantly pitch 6 innings a start and do not often go deep in to ball games unless they've been historically good in those innings. With Kyle's case, I think he's been good but the difference in innings (Scherzer is at 30 more innings) is quite staggering when comparing the two.

Essentially you're saying the reason to give some a Cy Young is not because they have a lot of great outings; it's have they avoided the bad one. Kyle has 23 starts of 2 ER or less and Scherzer is at 21; the difference in the two is the four "poor" starts Scherzer has that Kyle doesn't (5 ER in three of them, 7 in a fourth). That to me isn't a good reason to give a Cy Young. I much rather concern myself with how good you're good is than how good your bad is.

Saying Wrigley has been a better park for pitchers, therefore the cub staff benefits ignores the impact the cubs staff has on that very stat. It's a circular argument unless you only compare visiting staffs. (Which of course only then counts the cub offense, so it doesn't work)

For example, All the teams that are undefeated in the NFL right now have only beaten winless teams!

If the cubs pitch great, wrigley becomes a pitchers park, and thus any cub putchers performance gets discounted.

If more cub pitchers would suck, one guy's saber stats would improve.

Kind of like my age old argument against giving the MVP only to a guy on a winning tram. You essentially are saying "If your team surrounds you with better players and you have the same performance next year, we will deem you more valuable."

 

[SilenceS]

Fowler waking up! 1-0

 

[fatbeard]

Here goes the Cubs bad offense, piling on too many runs. Don't they know they need to save some of those for the playoffs?

 

[Diehardfan]

Matheny is really spooked.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Reyes is a much better pitcher than Garcia right now. Hammel needs to be sharp,

 

[A.C. Milan]

Home Run Hammel strikes again, God damn what a shit pitcher he is

 

[Diehardfan]

Home Run Hammel strikes again, God damn what a shit pitcher he is

You're forgetting who he is...he is now the the Cubs 5th starter and at 14-8 with a 3.50, there's no better 5th in the league....maybe all of baseball.

 

[chibears55]

Haven't been able to take advantage of 7 walk through 4 innings..

1 fer 8 RISP
8 LOB

LetsGo

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[A.C. Milan]

An inning too much, should have PH for Hammel as he was the leadoff man the last inning

 

[DanTown]

Saying Wrigley has been a better park for pitchers, therefore the cub staff benefits ignores the impact the cubs staff has on that very stat. It's a circular argument unless you only compare visiting staffs. (Which of course only then counts the cub offense, so it doesn't work)

For example, All the teams that are undefeated in the NFL right now have only beaten winless teams!

If the cubs pitch great, wrigley becomes a pitchers park, and thus any cub putchers performance gets discounted.

If more cub pitchers would suck, one guy's saber stats would improve.

Kind of like my age old argument against giving the MVP only to a guy on a winning tram. You essentially are saying "If your team surrounds you with better players and you have the same performance next year, we will deem you more valuable."

That's not what park adjustments means. Park adjustment measures how many runs you score in your home ballpark versus how many you score on the road (aka it has literally zero to do with the Cubs pitching staff).

Literal definition: Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road. A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher. Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.

It's better to use a multiple year sample over one year due to potential fluke nature of the stat. Last three years

2016 - 25th (much lower HR rate due to potential wind changes)
2015 - T14
2014 - 23

 

[chibears55]

Cubs offense wasting opportunities
Hammel gives up 2. 2out. 2 run homers

Looks like a home celebration

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[Diehardfan]

They Cardinals have scored 5 runs in this series....all on HR's. They are nothing without the long ball....and they won't have he Cubs #5 to kick around come playoff time. The other side of the coin is the Cubs leaving tons of men OB....lacking the killer instinct a bit right now.

 

[A.C. Milan]

At least the Nationals lost

 

[Ari Bear]

Soler shouldn't be hitting 4th. To much of a easy out.

Sent from my Samsung S6 Edge

 

[Ari Bear]

It's funny, you mention that I use a stat like FIP over ERA and I get the argument that FIP is a flawed stat. When trying to compare two things that existed in different environments (i.e Scherzer pitching vs Hendricks), I want to normalize as much as possible. For example, this year the Cubs park was one of the best parks for pitchers in the entire league. That's an advantage that Kyle has over Scherzer in trying to figure out ERA when all things are equal.

I get that it's not something people want to do but I do want to try and normalize for park, opponent, etc. To me, Scherzer has been the better pitcher than Kyle due to his ability to induce strikeouts and pitch deep in to games with limited runs.

Scherzer
Times 7+: 19
Times 8+: 6
CG: 1
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 17
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 5
CG, 2 ER or less: 1
Median Game Score: 69.5


Hendricks
Times 7+: 7
Times 8+: 4
CG: 2
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 7
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 4
GG, 2 ER or less: 2
Median Game Score: 62

Kyle has been great this year, he's third on "my" ballot for Cy Young but I just don't believe the Cy Young is for pitchers who predominantly pitch 6 innings a start and do not often go deep in to ball games unless they've been historically good in those innings. With Kyle's case, I think he's been good but the difference in innings (Scherzer is at 30 more innings) is quite staggering when comparing the two.

Essentially you're saying the reason to give some a Cy Young is not because they have a lot of great outings; it's have they avoided the bad one. Kyle has 23 starts of 2 ER or less and Scherzer is at 21; the difference in the two is the four "poor" starts Scherzer has that Kyle doesn't (5 ER in three of them, 7 in a fourth). That to me isn't a good reason to give a Cy Young. I much rather concern myself with how good you're good is than how good your bad is.

Scherzer also has given up a ridiculous 26 homers. Not only is it much more than Hendricks. It one of the league's worst.

Sent from my Samsung S6 Edge

 

[TL1961]

Up 17 or whatever and I hate losing to these pukes