Bucs Dugout

PuncSpeedChunk - February 21, 2012 reply

Has he really shown anything

to convince people he deserves a shot in the rotation? I don’t think how long you have been with an organization determines how much you play/ what kind of role you have.

He wasn't bad last year

FIP and xFIP just over 4.00. Seems like he might deserve a try as a back-of-the-rotation starter, but pushing him to injury-replacement status isn’t a tragedy.

KentuckyPirate - February 21, 2012 reply

I'm actually a pretty big Brad Lincoln fan

I think that he has earned an extended look because all he’s really gotten the past two seasons is spot starts and it’s tough to really establish yourself in that role. He’s proven all that he can in AAA and I think at this point he needs to learn how to pitch to big league hitters. That’s only going to happen if he’s facing big league hitters. I’ve come to accept that he won’t be Kershaw or Lincecum and it sucks that the Pirates didn’t draft one of them instead. However, I still think he can be a decent #4 and that has value.

That’s not a good reason to avoid landing a guy like Burnett that the team desperately needs, though. If Burnett, J-Mac and Karstens all make 30 starts this year and Bedard and Morton make 25 then Lincoln will probably get screwed out of a real shot this year. Does anybody really think that will happen, though? Somebody is going to get hurt (Bedard) or somebody is going to regress (Karstens) and Lincoln will get his chances. When that happens, won’t it be nice knowing that one of the other guys you still have in the rotation is a 200 inning workhorse that throws 93?

If Burnett, J-Mac and Karstens all make 30 starts

In my ideal world, Jeff Karstens does not make 30 starts this year for the Pirates. He was a nice little story last year, but if Brad Lincoln isn’t good enough to push Karstens out of the rotation at some point this season, then it may be time to give up on Lincoln ever panning out.

Bishop1973 - February 21, 2012 reply

This is kinda my thinking

I just don’t see Karstens repeating his 2011 season. He’s not a bad 6th starter but he has always had trouble getting guys out after about 75 pitches and he’s not going to be able to count on 20 of his 22 HRs allowed being solo shots. That just doesn’t happen. If Lincoln is pitching well enough, he should bump Karstens from the rotation because I don’t think Karstens is any better than a 4.50 ERA and 5 IP per start. If that’s really the best the Pirates can muster out of their 5th starter then you had better believe they desperately needed AJ Burnett.

KentuckyPirate - February 21, 2012 reply

Exactly

What the OP doesn’t grasp is that, even though he doesn’t believe that Burnett has much left in the tank, A.J. is still better than every single one of the pitchers that the Pirates had slated for the rotation prior to his acquisition.

Sure, he may not a number 1 or even a number 2 on a good team, but moving everyone down a spot, making Bedard and Morton the 2/3 guys, J-Mac the 4 and either Karstens or Lincoln the 5, while eliminating 25+ starts from Correia, is a significant upgrade for the Bucs.

Bishop1973 - February 21, 2012 reply

exactly

Having too many starters is not a problem.

Brad Lincoln

I agree with Zane Smith and Kentucky Pirate regarding the handling of Brad Lincoln. First off, I believe Correia will be released or traded. I know Zane Smith agrees with me. I highly doubt Charlie Morton is ready in the month of April. Consequently, an opening in the starting rotation for Brad Lincoln. After those 4-5 starts, assess the results of the other four starters. Then decide if he “should I stay or should I go.”

Burnett
Morton
Bedard
Karstens
McDonald

Correia

GeorgeQUAD - February 21, 2012 reply

Band Lincoln

I forgot to axe Charlie Morton from my list of starters.

GeorgeQUAD - February 21, 2012 reply

actually, I think Correia will be the swingman

If Lincoln is pitching well when a starter goes on the DL, then maybe he leapfrogs Correia for the open spot and pushes him off the team when the DLed starter (call him Shmedard) comes back.

No

Let’s call him Schmeric B

release corria

he makes 4 million ,I don’t see the pirates eating 4 million dollars.

wishiewashie - February 22, 2012 reply

They HAVE done it before...

maybe not for $4M…but for considerably more than minimum wage. Ramon Vazquez, Lyle Overbay, Akinori Iwamura to name 3.

Thunder - February 22, 2012 reply

for what its worth...

correia provided more that both overbay and iwamura. just pitch him in away games. problem solved. he can even share jerseys with Lincoln if need be.

They dumped Matt Morris...

…just 5 starts into a season where he was making over $10MM, so there would be another instance of them eating at least $4MM.

WHYG Zane Smith - February 22, 2012 reply

he really makes only $3M

He had a $2M signing bonus and $3M base salary each of the two years. He’s getting smaller checks this year than Karstens, who is making $3.1M.

Not that it matters anyway, since it’s a sunk cost no matter how you slice it. (I’m in the minority in thinking that Correia’s an above-replacement level pitcher and it makes sense to keep him on as a swingman.)

im with ya

i dont think hes awful. his road numbers show that he can pitch on occasion

karreemofwheat - February 24, 2012 reply

Hey wishie

where u been?
I’ve missed your particular brand of craziness.

BlindSquirrel - February 22, 2012 reply

you have been enjoying his craziness,

just under one of his 4 other names.

Ain't nobody blocking nobody

If Lincoln lights up AAA, he’ll get a spot in the rotation. That was the case before the Pirates got AJ; that’s the case after the Pirates got AJ.

DG Lewis - February 21, 2012 reply

Exactly. Rec.

Midnight Moose - February 21, 2012 reply

exactly

it has been 6 years now and he hasn’t shown proof that he’s an asset in the rotation. I for on am glad we aren’t counting on him

theatrain - February 21, 2012 reply

after a weeklong Burnett affair

did we really need two content free rants over Burnett?

Right

pretty much the same thing as the post from a few days ago. Just longer. This tactic may fly on BTSC. Keep it there.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=4&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

This tactic may fly on BTSC. Keep it there.

lol

PixburghArn - February 21, 2012 reply

he's DEFINITELY washed up

he was tied for 22nd in the major league baseball in fastball velocity last year. WHY CAN’T WE HAVE PITCHERS 1-22!!!!
SALE THE TEAM!!!

Mingy - February 21, 2012 reply

Jimenez had a down year last year…

So, what I'm getting from this post is:

1 : Your brother recognizes “name” players and that’s about it, and

b: You are re-hashing just about every comment you’ve made in the other thread you started on the same subject yesterday, with a Tommy Maddox reference thrown in.

…and not much else.

AMIRITE?

McCutchenIsTheTruth - February 21, 2012 reply

heh

If they’re still hanging on at the ends of their careers, trying to latch on with a team like the Buccos just so they can earn a few more pay-checks, I’d say, “sorry, you had your chance. Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.”

I could be wrong here, but I don’t recall Mr. Burnett ever trying to latch on with the Bucs. I’m pretty sure he was traded.

PensFan024 - February 21, 2012 reply

Argh, facts.

more like "YARRRRR, facts!"

Started a long post to argue your points

few as they may be, but its not worth it. All have been addressed in your last rant, and you decided to post another. If intelligent discussion isn’t what you desire, what exactly are you looking for?

Referencing the early 90s Pirates, the Steelers, and the Littlefield era when discussing the current Pirates...

that’s just (W)FANtastic!

King Oskar - February 21, 2012 reply

I just get the feeling a lot of Pirates fans are excited about Burnett because of what he once did, and not what he may do in the future.

Is there anyone on BD who has said this? I haven’t seen a single person express this viewpoint

You’re correct — no one here has, and no one here is dumb enough to do so.

I think Anthony is over-complicating the reason why we like the deal.

heh

he keeps knocking down strawmen because he’s made little enough attempts to understand the things that might help him tackle the good arguments.

Dude, just get over the fact that you’re in the minority in your dislike of this deal. We like it here; we like it because Burnett still has gas in the tank, and we’re able to prove our belief using statistics.

Your constant references to Matt Morris (average fastball velocity of <88MPH when acquired by the Bucs) and Sean Casey (Who still had a 104 OPS+ in his stint with the Bucs, which isn’t terrible but isn’t good) sort of prove to me that your only common known link between Burnett and those players is that they’re old.

REC

JSteelers86 - February 21, 2012 reply

psych!!!

It’s a good thing Recs don’t count as karma like on Reddit — I’d feel gypped that my internet fake points didn’t actually increase.

I know that feeling

Upvote!

Superstar25 - February 23, 2012 reply

What a refreshing topic

First we took the “do I care” angle, and concluded “I don’t care” with such compelling arguments like the refreshing Matt Morris version 2.0. Cause, ya know, they are both old and owed a lot of money. I get it!

Now we get the “my brother knows AJ Burnett/cool Tommy Maddox tshirt” angle again concluding that you don’t like this deal. Only this time the convincing argument used was based around comparing this situation to Derek Bell and Jeromy Burnitz, hmm sounds familiar.

I am on pins and needles waiting for tomorrow’s post. I can only hope that your two brain cells serendipitously bounce off of each other to come up with another veteran acquisition you can compare this situation to.

Drufan11 - February 21, 2012 reply

comparing this situation to Derek Bell and Jeromy Burnitz

in fairness, the latter has 2 shared initials with AJ Burnett, and his last name is aaaalmost the same! No, wait, it’s off by 2 letters— exactly the number of shared initials… KARMA (or something like it)!

This post -

isn’t it a rusty car we saw last week, with rustier wheels?

Trogluddite - February 21, 2012 reply

I have class I don't drive a hooptie

This is what I drive:

Is is a 4-cylinder? That's what I drive. Only way to go with gas prices being what they are.

i hope that at least its made in the usa?

cause i would rather walk than drive an import.

Well...

Scion is based in the USA (California) but is produced by Toyota (which is based in Japan).

Hmmmm a buy American citizen? I dying breed i’ll say.

i asked tony because of his STEELer loyalty

yea i’m old and ugly but i still throw a mean fastsballz

I see Kareem

But it’s cool to see someone in this country that’s actually loyal to the American brand. I know I can’t say that.

its the pittsburgh in me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

we were born to rebel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

It is a 4 cylinder

And it gets to about 30-35 miles to the gallon. I can get from my house (North Huntingdon) to Trenton, New Jersey on a full tank of gas before I have to stop and refuel.

I agree with gas prices the way they are, it’s the only way to go.

After three days of back and forth, someone finally agrees with me on something.

fuel is about $1.33 per L in Perth at the cheapest part of the cycle.
rough conversion…
$6.40 per gallon (size & currency converted).

BlindSquirrel - February 22, 2012 reply

still drive a V6 though.

BlindSquirrel - February 22, 2012 reply

Let me point you to a somewhat similar acquisition..

Scott Rolen from the Blue Jays to the Reds in 2009. He was 34 at the time.

Many didn’t know wtf the Reds were thinking wanting an aging Rolen on a young, up and coming team.

He locked down the position moving into 2010 and re-gained power he’d seem to have lost since 2006. Now, this comparison isn’t perfect. Obviously, Burnett = pitcher, Rolen = position player, and Rolen was better at the time than Burnett appears to be right now.

However, you can’t simply say “This guy is old, therefore he’s no good.” Careers change, things happen. I’m not going to belabor the point that a thousand guys have made here. This is a low-risk move with potentially big rewards if AJ can recapture some magic, or even just benefit by moving to an incredibly easier division to play.

Your other big point is not wanting an older guy to block a younger guy. On the surface, this is logical. A growing team wants its potential core to pitch as much as possible.

It’s not like we have the Rays rotation and we go and pick up Burnett to block Matt Moore though. First, Brad Lincoln will be 27 come May. 27. This isn’t a top prospect. Still, if he pitches well enoughto movie into the rotation, Burnett or no Burnett, there will be a spot for him. Karstens, Correia, Bedard, and Morton aren’t the most durable, dominating pitchers. Chances are at least one will be shelved and/or just have a downright bad season. If I’m wrong on this, the Pirates are in all likelihood playing good baseball and none of us will have reason to complain.

jlk9697 - February 21, 2012 reply

The whole idea of pl;ocking other players

when talking about pitchers is a bit disingenuous. Most teams have at least 6 guys get 15+ starts. Add that to the fact that we have Eric Bedard (who has a good chance of missing time), KC (who also has a good chance of missing time), Mc Donald (coming off a career high in innings), and Morton (coming off of major surgery). If ANY of these guys miss time, we will probably see Lincoln or Locke. Its not like the 5 man rotation we have now will be the same the entire season, it just doesn’t work like that.

Magglio to Detroit

another example

A Tommy Gun T-Shirt?

Excellent. Alas, I couldn’t find it on Sports Deli’s feeble web site and live too far away to drive to the store. Dammit.

lambert58 - February 21, 2012 reply

How does a small market team aquire good players?

It seems to me there are only a few routes to go when you would like to field a team with good players, but you can’t afford to pay a premium for them:

1. You grow your own.
2. You pick up the pieces of former highly regarded prospects and hope that things work out better for you than they did for the last team.
or…
3. You sign older guys who may be past their prime but still may have the ability to reach their former levels of success, even if just for a short period of time. This goes for the injury plagued guys (like Bedard) as well.

I think that most of the people here would agree that if the Pirates are going to be an actual contender again most of the players who will be responsible for that will be coming from category 1, but in the meantime if we want to fill in the gaps that are left from our lack of players that fit into category 1 then the only way that will happen is from players in the other two categories. Even a team like Tampa Bay which has done that first category so well will supplement with players like a Johnny Damon (which worked out ok) or Manny Ramirez (which really really didn’t).

dswoager - February 21, 2012 reply

you can also trade a good chunk of your farm system for good players

as in the Greinke and Latos trades. But that’s definitely not a good idea for the Pirates right now.

Very true, and also knew that I would leave something out. The point kind of remains though. It’s not really any use to complain about bringing in past their prime players when you don’t have many other options. The best chance of be competitive sooner rather than later is still to gamble that some of these guys still have something left in the tank, or partially in the case of Burnett that this will just be a much better situation for him.

dswoager - February 21, 2012 reply

Yes, the point definitely remains.

I actually thought this was the same post

But that the headline had been changed for some reason. I had to read the comments to discern otherwise.

To actually try and address this thread somewhat serious. I posted this as a fanshot a few weeks back. It’s a post from Dave Cameron discussing the Mariners off season and the value of contending. There are some ideas worth considering in there as much of what he has to say regarding the Mariners 2012 and their future is fairly analogous to Pittsburgh

‘somewhat seriously’ that is (nothing like typos to suggest seriousness0

(nothing like typos to suggest seriousness0

Deliberate or just not your day?

some bone dry typo humor. no i was writing it quickly, on the way out the door to a meeting.

although i immediately noticed it. but decided that i might end up going down a rabbit hole in which i was infinitely creating new typos in my attempt to clarify previous ones. so i figured i’d just cut my losses and live with it.

The money line

“Wins produce present value, which creates compounding future value.” This pretty much explains the front office statement of awhile back that the payroll would increase after additional wins put more fans in the seats.

As I recall, it was pretty controversial at the time, but it’s just economic reality.

Lino Donoso - February 22, 2012 reply

In fairness...

this was pretty well written. As in, it flowed, it had some nice imagery, etc.

Too bad it’s substantively somewhere between vacuous and wrong.

Well written???

I think it reads like teenage poetry. There are a lot of wasted words that do nothing to support the authors argument. If this came into my queue I wouldn’t even offer a revise and resubmit, this is a straight up reject.

Drufan11 - February 21, 2012 reply

Totally agree re: supporting the argument.

But it’s still well laid out, with a punchy little opening, an amusing reference to the Tommy Gun thing. Don’t get me wrong: the argument isn’t backed up by relevant data, the obvious counter-arguments are not addressed, etc. He doesn’t even begin to make his case. But yeah, I still think it was well-written as far as blog posts go. It’s form > it’s content.

All

fluff with no substance is not a good post..

JSteelers86 - February 21, 2012 reply

unless

the post is about fairy floss (cotton candy)

Not what I said.

I said it was well-written. To use your terminology: It was pretty fluff. But fluff, all the same.

Bradley James McEachern - February 21, 2012 reply

Yeah this thread really was not necessary

Since you basically are driving the same point as the last thread you made about Burnett.

was this not a last ditch effort to upgrade the rotation

they made bids on e jax. oswalt said don’t bother. who knows what else happened that we are not privy to. the deal was not his first choice, he played the hand that was dealt. i think nh needs to be applauded for creativity.

karreemofwheat - February 21, 2012 reply

This is a very poor post.

Kosstic518 - February 21, 2012 reply

You guys are all right. My post was way too long. I should have left out the stories and my opinions and just posted: 21-26 with a 5.something era.

I suppose I could have pointed out that he gave up 31 homers last year and was one of the leaders (if not the league leader) in wild pitches. Of course, had I done that, you all would have just whipped and warred and fiffed me to death with your obscure stats.

If you guys want to keep on settling for mediocrity, you go right ahead. That might work for the Pirates, but it doesn’t fly with the Pittsburgh Steelers.

i m now leaning towards the opinion that he's trolling here

You hear that guys? FIP and WAR are obscure. They’re only used by every baseball publication worth it’s salt.

"That might work for the Pirates, but it doesn’t fly with the Pittsburgh Steelers."

Even if it were true (and I’m not saying it is), what difference does that make? What has one to do with the other?

Apples and oranges.

That was just my retort to the whole btsc remark. I presume that was said out of spite, or whatever.

"That might work for the Pirates, but it doesn’t fly with the Pittsburgh Steelers."

Give me a break. The Pittsburgh Steelers although competitive have had period where they were average or mediocre. First off they went 26 years without winning the Super Bowl, had some disastous preformances including going 5-11 in 1988, 6-10 in 2003 and blew alot of late games in 2009. They also never found a franchise QB to replace Terry Bradshaw until Big Ben came around and chose to pass up drafting Dan Marino because they wanted to draft around their defense despite fact that the 80’s was the start of the NFL’s shift to more offense.

The Steelers are a good organization with good FO staff but give me a break pal, there not perfect, they’ve made mistakes just any other sports organization. You’ll probally discredit my post because i’m not that much of a Steelers fan (i’m a Pens and Manchester United supporter before anything), but I stick by what I said.

I thought

you’d made your point in your last fanpost…

I did, but I wanted to make my point even stronger by using examples from my personal life and from past transactions from the Pirates

And, I’m not trolling. Anytime someone’s opinion goes against the norm doesn’t mean they’re a troll.

And in two days, not one person has really said anything substantial that would convince me that this trade is going to work. If you ask me, it’s the people on this board who are going with their gut in hoping that this trade will work out, because if you really looked at what he’s done the last two years, I’d say things are leaning towards this not being a good trade.

And, I’m not trolling. Anytime someone’s opinion goes against the norm doesn’t mean they’re a troll.

It has nothing to do with your opinion based on crappy reasoning. A troll is: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response” (from wikipedia)

It sure seems that your line “If you guys want to keep on settling for mediocrity, you go right ahead. That might work for the Pirates, but it doesn’t fly with the Pittsburgh Steelers.” was meant to do just that.

And in two days, not one person has really said anything substantial that would convince me that this trade is going to work.

No? I wonder what made you turn up and post without looking at the prior discussions but I suspect you’ll find plenty if you looked at posts from the last week. In spite of the fact that your opinions are ill-informed with poor comparisons, and that you’ve made no effort to understand advanced stats that aim to predict future performance (HINT: ERA and W-L record are poor indicators of future performance), I posted this in the previous thread in response to your arbitrary argument about using the money for Cutch:

[ 1 ] What makes you think Cutch wants to sign? Esp on a team that loses year in year out?

[ 2 ] If $13M over 2 years which is market value based on the lower end of expectations for AJ Burnett is going to affect a Cutch extension especially given those will be years in which the Pirates dont pay Burnett, then we might as well field 25 0-3 year players and have a payroll of 10M so we can use the additional 30M or so for Cutch— why keep the Hanrahans around?

[ 3 ] And, uh, W-L percentage… you’ve been around here long enough to know just how bad a statistic that is.

[ 4 ] "If he was a .500 pitcher with the Yankees and their killer offense, imagine how he’s going to perform in Pittsburgh." I am… it strikes me that Burnett’s numbers often depend on the opposing offense too, and the ones in the NL Central are distinctly friendlier than the ones in the AL East. Even for someone who doesn’t follow the numbers much, this should be easy to grasp (esp now without Pujols and Fielder in the division).

Others posted about his current velocity in response to your incredibly uninformed comparison to Matt Morris as well as about other aspects

Frankly, it’s fine that you have a gut feeling or even that you think it’s not going to work out. You just have no reasonable arguments (so far) that someone who understands the futility of W-L and ERA would consider worthwhile. If you think things are leaning towards it not being a good trade, fine— go comment on appropriate threads because really, all that you had to say that was worth reading was:

You guys are all right. My post was way too long. I should have left out the stories and my opinions and just posted: 21-26 with a 5.something era.

That should be a comment, and not 2 fanposts, imo.

PuncSpeedChunk - February 21, 2012 reply

+1

the guy hasn't had an era below 4 since 2007. What better way to interrpret a pitcher's performance than era?

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

FIP, xFIP and WAR

also tRA and SIERA, if you’d like.

Seriously, what evidence is there that any of those are better indicators of performance that ERA? I think the Burnett trade is a really good one, but is anything as tedious and irrelevant than religious screeds about FIP?

ol Pete - February 21, 2012 reply

There’s this, which illustrates that FIP (and to a lesser extent xFIP) is a better predictor of future ERA than ERA, albeit it’s still not even close to perfect.

Make of it what you will; I’m not an expert or anything and can’t comment on their methodology, but it seemed at least somewhat legitimate to me.

I linked you to FIP and xFIP in the other thread

Here’s an old article in which the author looks at predictions made at the beginning of the season. He compared the previous years ERA and FIP and determined, based on FIP, whether the ERA would rise or fall. He was right most of the time. xFIP and WAR give you a better idea of how a pitcher has played. I’m not familiar with tRA and SIERA personally, I’m pretty sure they’re more useful than ERA.

Sorry if you feel “whipped and warred and fiffed me to death with…obscure stats,” but just because you’re unfamiliar with a stat doesn’t make it obscure and it definitely doesn’t make it useless. You should read up on them before dismissing them out of hand.

Fair enough

And in two days, not one person has really said anything substantial that would convince me that this trade is going to work.

In 1986, a 35-year old pitcher for the Minnesota Twins gave up 50 homeruns, with an ERA of 4.01 that year. He struck out 215 in 276.1 innings (a figure that led the AL that year) and posted an ERA+ of 107.

In 1987, that same pitcher, now 36-years old and still pitching in Minnesota, gave up 46 homeruns, with an ERA of 4.01 yet again. He struck out 196 in 267 innings and posted an ERA+ of 115.

This pitcher had a down year in 1988, as his ERA rose to 5.43 and he only struck out 145 in 207 innings, although he only gave up 21 homers. He had an ERA+ of only 75. Many thought he was done, certainly in Minnesota but also in MLB.

That offseason, the California Angels surprised everyone by signing this pitcher to a FA contract. He rewarded them with a 2.73 ERA and 131 K (with only 14 HR allowed) in 241 innings. His W-L, which is a meaningless stat, was 17-5, and his ERA+, a non-meaningless stat, was 140 (4th in the AL) and his WAR, another non-meaningless stat, was 5.5 (3rd among AL pitchers that season). He also threw 8 complete games and finished 4th in the Cy Young voting.

So, there is my “anything substantial” not to write off this trade and a guy at the age of 35 just because he had a couple of down years. Maybe a change of scenery is all that Burnett needs, as future Hall of Famer Bert Blyleven did 20+ years ago.

Cheers.

Bishop1973 - February 21, 2012 reply

So, you're using an example from the past to prove your point, and I did the same thing with people like Matt Morris, and I get scolded for it. I guess because it doesn't match the general opinion.

"I guess because it doesn't match the general opinion. "

No, because they’re two different kinds of pitchers.

And you know it, too. You’re not dumb by any stretch of the imagination, but you are stretching and bending things to try to prove a point.

A point that’s been refuted many times over the last 2 days.

I don't see where having an opinion is dumb. It's not dumb in the least. It's just an opinion.

All I’ve read about my comments the past two days are words like “dumb” and “ignorant” and ‘troll." And why? Because I don’t see things your way?

Again, it’s just an opinion.

I Am not calling you dumb.

In fact, quite the opposite.

Let me repeat it:

You’re not dumb by any stretch of the imagination, …

But I guess this is another case of you seeing what you want to see.

Well, you're infering that I'm dumb, or that it's, in fact, dumb to have a negative opinion about the Burnett deal.

No, I'm not. FFS.

Where am I inferring it?

I even went so far as to pointedly remark on your other post that you were not a troll.

You are so blinded now that you can’t even read what’s in front of you – you automatically either gainsay it, or warp it into an attack on you.

I give up.

Well, then what do you mean by "you're not dumb by any stretch?" and thank you, by the way.

You’re basically saying, “Come on, Tony. You’re not dumb. Why are you against the Burnett trade?”

NO. That is NOT what i'm "basically" saying.

How much more LITERAL can I be?

You are not dumb.

You are stretching things to make a point.

THAT IS ALL.

I cannot believe this is the third time I’m having to explain this. Quit trying to “read into” what I said.

Fine.

I cannot believe this is the third time I’m having to explain this. Quit trying to "read into" what I said.

Just put it in a FanPost and get it over with.

if its not clear

make another with examples from your own life

Ha!

Rec.

I don't know.

Maybe if I would have used my “this is like Elvis playing in the Vegas Casinos when he was near the end” analogy, perhaps, you all would have seen things differently.

Instead, I went with the Tommy Gun reference, and it just didn’t work. I threw into triple-coverage, just like Tommy used to do.

What makes Morris and Burnett similar aside from being over 30 and being pitchers?

They’re entirely different pitchers. Burnett is a strike out pitcher, coming through a hitters park, to face inferior competition in the NL Central. Morris was not a strike out pitcher come from a pitchers park in SF. He may not succeed, but the odds that he succeeds are clearly much greater.

Yeah, this has been pointed out before and being unable to draw a parallel between Burnett and Morris other than “old” is really hurting your argument.

Anything?

Right. :) For example, it’s my opinion that Mike Wallace is too slow to be an effective wide receiver in the NFL going forward. It’s just an opinion!

Mike Wallace’s production did drop off greatly in the second half.

He averaged 5.3 catches/100 yards per game in the first eight games versus 3.6 catches/49 yards per game in the last eight games. ;)

Kev S - February 22, 2012 reply

And, refuted how? A.J. Burnett hasn't pitched a single inning for the Pirates.

Until he does, only then can my opinions be refuted. And you know what? When he’s pitching, I’ll be there with the rest of you cheering him on, because I want to see the Pirates do well. I’m just not optimistic that he’ll be that much of an upgrade over what’s been going on in recent years.

Is it wrong to feel that way? Are you guys so incredibly intolerent that you can’t let a person have an opinion and have to try and bend his thinking until it matches yours?

no

Are you guys so incredibly intolerent that you can’t let a person have an opinion and have to try and bend his thinking until it matches yours?

We are incredibly intolerant of people forcing themselves to stay ignorant. Like with any probabilistic outcome, there’s certainly a possibility Burnett won’t do well in Pittsburgh, and his age adds to that. But there are also many reasons this is a no-brainer trade for a team in the Pirates position, and your refusal to make an effort to understand or acknowledge those is the issue.

If you posted over and over again that the phonograph is better and more relevant than an iPhone, that doesn’t count as trolling? It’s the same thing as using pitcher W’s and ERA; they are outdated and limited in their usefulness.

*telegraph

WHYG Zane Smith - February 22, 2012 reply

I was gonna say

I would rather listen to music on my phonographs than one of of them newfangled iPhones any day.

i hook up my droid to my car's system and it sounds amazing

especially my French disco-funk station. winning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH3aQJj119Y

French Disco always sounds amazing

Mr. E - February 23, 2012 reply

Meanwhile

There are people out there who will swear by their Thorens or Technics turntables. And who still purchase LPs. Sound quality, you know.

So, just like the turntable hasn’t gone dinosaur completely, there is still a place in the game for ERA.

I can, in a matter of seconds, tell you who the 2011 MLB ERA leader was. (Clayton Kershaw.) Can you look up the 2011 FIP leader, that easily?

Whether ERA is “antiquated” in your mind or not, it is still widely used. And as such, shouldn’t be dismissed so cavalierly.

I can, in a matter of seconds, tell you who the 2011 MLB ERA leader was. (Clayton Kershaw.) Can you look up the 2011 FIP leader, that easily?

yes, i m sure i can…

Well?

Roy Halladay

Followed by Kershaw, Lee, Bumgarner, and Brandon McCarthy

Here. Took about two seconds and one google search to find.

didnt take me a google search

straight to the fangraphs player page…

Typing "FIP" into google was faster than typing "fangraphs" into the address bar

I’m lazy

lazy means practical in my dictionary

Give the laziest man the hardest job, he’ll find the easiest way of getting it done – Anton Martin Sorenson

PensFan024 - February 23, 2012 reply

You know, i wasn't aware that Fangraphs listed the FIP leaders, in an easy-to-follow order, like that.

So, thanks for that.

I think that just goes to show how “obscure” FIP actually is not.

roy halladay

2.20

zack greinke for xfip

followed by Lee, Halladay, Kershaw and Hamels.

But if there was a guy swearing by his turntable who had never even heard a tape, CD, or mp3, he’d be ignorant, no?

Theoretically, I suppose.

Although, that’s a pretty extreme example. We’d be hard-pressed to find someone who owned a Technics SL1200 turntable, who never listened to any other form of music playing.

Just because Anthony Defeo has chosen to reject FIP, or any other SABRmetric measurement, most definitely doesn’t mean he’s not heard of them. Unless he writes a helluva lot better than he reads.

So, he’s not ignorant. Just stubborn.

he has no clue what those are

As is apparent from his post here. It’s not just that, either; he was made aware of the same in his previous fanpost, and the current one is just a rehash of the same arguments without having made any effort to make himself aware of those stats, so that he may then reject them.

He’s also posted multiple times about similarities with Matt Morris without bothering to check on what Burnett’s average FB velocity was. He continued to ignore it after being made aware of it. Apparently, all you need to be to be another Morris is have an age in the mid-30s and not be what you once were.

No, he is not just stubborn, he’s ignorant, and has made every effort to remain ignorant.

Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t know what the advanced stats are

And that's of his own choice.

The information was presented to him. And it doesn’t take a master’s degree in advanced mathematics to understand it.

So, he’s NOT ignorant. And, as BK said, if he’s “made every effort to remain ignorant”, then his being stubborn.

*he's

it isn't hard but it needs at least some effort

This subthread is an example of not making that minimal effort, imo. Anyway, this always pisses me off more than it should, so i’ll stop here.

fwiw, there’s an argument against things like FIP and xFIP in favor of ERA. Some continually outperform those predictions (e.g. Cain) and even though *FIPs have been shown to be better on average, it’s certainly plausible that they don’t do a good job in certain cases. And if over reasonable periods of time (and I think 2 years counts as reasonable—> Burnett’s 2 bad years), the FIP, xFIP and ERA do not converge, then we need to consider the possibility that there may be something about that specific data point that makes those stats less reliable. None of those, however, are his arguments.

.

Anyway, this always pisses me off more than it should

Yeah, I can see this.

And, burgher, you haven't made one attempt to see my side of the argument, either. I guess that means we disagree.

But you’re enlightened and I’m ignorant. Like I said, smug.

i did see all of your side

Nothing useful in it. It’s one completely bogus comparison to Matt Morris, and some arbitrary reasoning about you not liking sloppy seconds, no substance whatsoever.

I already admitted to being smug in my responses to you, so there’s nothing new there, either.

Again, that's your opinion. Your opinion isn't the authority.

Wow

Don't say that, you're going to out me as someone who may have had a relevant argument. As long as the ERA is dismissed on this board, I won't have a leg to stand on, and my arugment will continue to be viewed as baseless.

We don’t dismiss ERA at all — we aren’t going to say a pitcher had a good year if his ERA was poor, because that means he gave up a lot of runs.

However, ERA is also one of the most uncorrelated statistics on a year-to-year basis. It’s a terrible predictive stat.

That’s all were saying. Burnett wasn’t good on the Yankees, but that was due to bad results — not necessarily bad pitching.

Well Anthony

I have read through your latest screed and all of the responses. My conclusion? You appear to have brought a knife to a gunfight

Pagliaroni - February 21, 2012 reply

What you guys don't get is there is no right or wrong answer in this case. You guys are saying it's a good trade in theory, and I'm saying it's a bad trade in theory.

Neither party can prove otherwise until we see how it works out. And as far as me geing a troll. I didn’t realize that posting something negative about Burnett would be deemed inflammatory. The worst thing I said was that the Pirates are mediocre compared to the Steelers. And that’s a fact. Is that being a troll? What about attacking my writing style? I read numerous posts like that. What’s more personal? Attacking someone’s writing or calling a baseball team mediocre?

The fact is, this is a fan site, and I’m a fan. I happen to disagree with a trade, and think it’s bad for the Pirates. If you guys disagree with me, that’s fine. But I don’t need any parental direction regarding what I write about. I’m as free to voice my opinion as anyone else. I haven’t broken any of the sb rules regarding behavior. I haven’t swore, I haven’t attacked anyone personally. I haven’t threatened anyone.

The only thing I’ve done is voiced my displeasure with the A.J. Burnett trade. Call the police .

I think what you're missing...

is that most of the regular posters here use tools that are demonstrably better than ERA and W-L record to evaluate a player’s performance and predict his performance going forward.

Aside from one mocking comment, you’ve barely addressed the people who’ve brought up his FIP or xFIP. Don’t take this the wrong way, but it kind of seems like you probably don’t have a good idea what those numbers are or why they are better evaluators of likely talent/future performance. You probably aren’t familiar with basic DIPs theory. That’s OK, but to act like it doesn’t exist and like his ERA is the end of the story isn’t going to get your very far on a board where most people do use this kind of stuff.

I liked your writing, as I stated above, but at the same time thought you utterly failed to prove your case.

Is Burnett 35? Yes. Is he on the downside of his career? Yes.Would it have been better to have him five years ago? Yes. I think that's the point of my entire post.

I’m not a scout, and I don’t subscribe to sabermetrics weekly. How are the other acromnyms a better indicator than an era? Earned runs per innnings pitched, right?

If it’s the defenses fault, it’s an unearned run.

If the tools that the regulars use are better than ERA and W-L, why are Burnett’s results so underwhelming?

You can use whatever tool you want to use, it just seems to me like so many people are dressing a pig up and trying to say it’s a beauty queen.

PuncSpeedChunk - February 21, 2012 reply

ERA can be a result of bad luck

It can be a result of poor defense. it can be a result of one extremely bad outing (a la Charlie Morton v. Cubs, 2009). I’ve read your posts before and always enjoyed them but this one seems totally opposite to what you usually put. It comes off as you trying to be that one person who, if Burnett flops, can jump for joy saying “I told you so and no one believed me!” if it happens. The fact of the matter is, tons of people, even outside of us on BD, seem to agree that Burnett is much more suited for the NL Central. Will he be Doug Drabek, probably not. Is he going to help the Pirates this year? Probably.

I'm not trying to be any guy.

Because I don’t see the point of bringing in an older player to pitch for a team that’s more than likely going to be lucky to win 70 games. If Burnett goes 10-8 with a 3.99 ERA and the Pirates finish at 71-91 and there are still tons of questions involving the rest of the starting rotation, what’s the point?

FIP

isn’t pure either. FIP ignores most of a pitcher’s performance.

ol Pete - February 21, 2012 reply

I’m not a scout, and I don’t subscribe to sabermetrics weekly. How are the other acromnyms a better indicator than an era? Earned runs per innnings pitched, right?

Well jeez, Anthony. If I were in your position and I didn’t subscribe to sabermetrics weekly, I might consider subscribing and at least trying to understand the merit of your opponents’ position before saying they haven’t said “anything substantial” in response. It seems like you don’t actually understand what others are saying, which can be a completely different thing.

no no no

You used all those things to say he won’t be good/an upgrade for us. Just because he’s worse than he used to be doesn’t mean he is bad and it doesn’t mean he isn’t better than what we had.

And Burnett’s results aren’t underwhelming at all if you look at the other stats. He’s a cheap, mid-rotation workhorse, something we currently lacked.

I'm more worried that this will block the likes of Jeff Karstens. There was a point last year when he was one of the best pitchers in the National League.

I know he doesn’t throw 94, but I’d like to see him get another year in the rotation.

he aint blocking jeff karstens

he’s replacing charlie morton while he gets healthy and then he will be replacing kevin correia. Look i get your point, he’s not a stud bona fide ace in his mid 20’s who still has upside. but he IS (whether you want to believe it or not) an upgrade to the rotation.

I still like your writing, but you can’t compare the situation the Pirates are in to the one the Steelers are in.

theatrain - February 21, 2012 reply

But but but

look at all those HRs Karstens gave up!

There is a certain skillset

(reflected by Karsten’s ERA) that Karsten has that gives him the ability to give up mostly one run HRs. This is why ERA is superior, Advanced stats use normalized HR rates, and assume an average number of baerunners when a HR is hit, but Karstens, he has that special skill. He has IT. Fancy stats don’t tell that story. ERA does. Period. End of argument.

I don't know that it's a special skill.

prior to the 2011 season, Karstens had given up 50 HR, 29 with the bases empty and 21 with runners on. In 2011, he gave up 20 with the bases empty and 2 with runners on. I doubt that kind of split is repeatable.

Thunder - February 22, 2012 reply

i think he was kidding

Yeah, was kidding

sorry for the confusion.

Wizard of Woz - February 23, 2012 reply

Oh, Thunder, Thunder, Thunder...

.

“Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a “replacement level”, or minor league/bench player at that position. While WAR values are scaled equally for pitchers and hitters, the result is calculated differently for pitchers versus position players: position players are evaluated using statistics for fielding and hitting, while pitchers are evaluated using statistics related to the opposing batters’ hits, walks and strikeouts.

There is no clearly established formula for WAR. Sites that provide the statistic, such as Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, and Baseball Reference, all calculate it differently; however, all of these sites calculate the value of WAR using these principles, and each site publicly acknowledges their methods for calculating their individual WAR values."

OK, now I know what WAR is. Well, what’s Burnett’s WAR?

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=512&position=P

1.5.

So, basically, it's a stat based on projections. What's the point of that?

I don't think that's true...

It’s a record of what the pitcher did translated into wins provided. The only “projection” involved is that it’s wins provided compared to a theoretical replacement level player.

yeah WAR is generally calculated after the fact

it’s not a projection of future performance. I’ll stand aside and allow the experts to correct me

theatrain - February 21, 2012 reply

you're correct, of course!

I spoke out against the acquisitions of Mcclouth, Barmes and Barajas and I got shouted down, then, too.

I guess this isn’t the place to disagree with a Pirates acquisition. I’ve warmed up to Barmes, but I’m still not crazy about the other deals.

Yeah, we've never been mad about a Pirates acquisition here.

Vlad especially was thrilled with Lyle Overbay and I know more than a few people bought Matt Pagnozzi jerseys for their entire families.

Right. If you look at the frontpage posts on these topics, most people actively disliked the McLouth signing and were rather cool to the Barmes signing as well. Most of the comments towards Anthony’s fanpost on the subject were very polite (he was hardly “shouted down”), and focused not on those signings but on Erik Bedard, who Anthony also thought was a bad signing. It appears the problem here is not that it’s not okay to disagree with a Pirates acquisition, but that not everyone will agree with you if you say, in fanpost after fanpost, that all of them are bad.

I'm just impressed that you remember that post.

I didn’t. I looked it up to see what you were talking about.

Research

Why would someone do something like that to make a sound, logical, well thought out argument?

pskell02 - February 21, 2012 reply

21-26 and a 5 something era. I listened to the talk shows. I read the newspaper. What more do you want me to do to form the basis of my argument? Have a sitdown with Huntington.

It’s all there in black and white.

Stop using bullshit antiquated stats that have been proven to be false indicators of ability. At least do some digging to realize why 99% of the people here disagree with you. You have been given tons of examples why he is better than his numbers and why (presumably) a move to the NL Central will benefit those numbers even more.

pskell02 - February 21, 2012 reply

It's just pure speculation until we see the results.

Speculation yes. But speculation using better grounds than ERA and W/L. I will take FIP/xFIP or WAR any day over either that you are playing off as being important.

pskell02 - February 21, 2012 reply

the bullshit antiquated stats was somewhat over the top, dontcha think?

once WAR and xFIP is on the back of baseball cards, then us old skoolers will take them more seriously. until then, you have to accept the old if we have to accept the new.

good day

21-26 and a 5 something era. I listened to the talk shows. I read the newspaper. What more do you want me to do to form the basis of my argument?

Yes, we get it. Your current status is incredibly ignorant, and you wish to stay there. Do us all a favor and don’t inflict yourself on us.

(Talk shows and newspaper, indeed. Like you’ve not been told at least 3 times about better stats and ways to inform yourself. /old_lady_rant_which_is_still_apt)

I appreciate that your a fan of the Pirates and most likely an all around good guy but frankly the bulk of papers and talk shows are full of folks who are making lazy and often contradictory arguments that lack substance, so quite honestly would rethink using them as your primary source of information.

Not everything can be quantified but I think if you look into stats like FIP, etc you’ll find they provide are some useful tools to predict future performance. That’s why every front office in baseball uses them to various degrees at this point, in concert with scouting.

Well, not really.

GMs employ stats gurus to make up their own formulas. And while a few of those formulas might mirror xFIP, there are differences.

There’s not a GM in the game who goes, “Hmmm…pitcher X loks like an interesting target. Let me pull up Fangraphs, and look at his xFIP”.

Thank you for clarifying that Neal Huntington isn’t waiting for Fangraphs to load before he signs off on a trade decision. My point was that they use advanced statistics because they can give you greater insight into future performance.

they can give you an idea, but its certainly a guess and not a guarantee

right, i don’t think anyone would claim it’s a guarantee it’s just additional information used to surmise how a player might perform going forward

rj.reynolds - February 25, 2012 reply

"frankly the bulk of papers and talk shows are full of folks who are making lazy and often contradictory arguments that lack substance"

How dare you accuse Mark Madden and Bob Smizik of being lazy and lacking substance. Madden is the super genius and Smizik is really old. That means something!!!!!

17-11 and a 5.00+ ERA

That is what Randy Johnson put up with the Yankees in 2006, because even though he wasn’t very good at keeping runs off the board, the Yankees were better at scoring runs of their own.

If Pitcher A throws nine innings of no-hit ball, only to have a run score as the result of a walk (his fault) and a three-base error (his CF’s fault), and his own team fails to score a run, he takes the loss. Across the country, Pitcher B gives up nine earned runs in the first five innings, but since he plays for an offensive juggernaut that scores 10 runs, in those same five innings, his bullpen holds the game and he gets the win.

Do you see now see why most, if not all, of us here hate W-L as an indicator of a pitcher’s ability? Pitcher A threw the clearly superior game, yet he was the “loser” due to an action (the error) outside of his control, while Pitcher B was the “winner” due to the fact that his offense bailed his useless ass out.

I get the win/loss thing, but when you try to dismiss era, that just comes off as trying to rationalize.

yeah, so u want a tutorial on the advanced stats

but are too lazy to do it yourself, or even google it yourself…

No, I just don't see that they're all that necessary. To me, era is good enough.

It’s not good enough for you, and I guess that’s where we differ.

PuncSpeedChunk - February 22, 2012 reply

for just about anyone to be considered credible

ERA and W/L is not good enough. If you rely on just those two factors, you are little more than a sports talk radio show Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not looking for any cred. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

If you’re right then I guess we’ll both enjoy a great summer rooting for the Pirates.

ERA is flawed...

…because the quality of the team’s defense behind the pitcher is a huge factor in that equation.

If the Pirates were to get Adam Dunn to play LF for them, there would be a ton of balls hit to LF at PNC Park that would fall in for hits, because he has all of the mobility of a quadraplegic sloth. Since he wouldn’t be able to get his leaden ass to the balls to get his leaden glove on them, those would not count as errors and thus, the runs would count against the pitcher, even though it was not his fault his LF sucked.

Or, for a groundball pitcher like Burnett, pitching in front of Derek Jeter and his lack of defensive range would have much the same result. If the defense cannot get to the ball, it isn’t an error, even though it probably should have been caught by a competent defender.

then the Yanks should have gotten rid of Jeter and kept Burnett

No, Jeter's WAR isn't good enough.

He put up 2.3 fWAR last year and 0.7 according to bbref

For which the Yankees payed $15M, so…no, it isn’t good enough.

Wow, I must be an expert.

HEY! I resent that!

.

And the Amish

believe that a fire and a candle are good enough. Doesn’t justify their position, and doesn’t make it well informed, or sane.

sweetleb disagrees

burn notice!

Mingy - February 22, 2012 reply

McLouth?

I’m reasonably happy with the Barmes and Barajas signings, but I don’t particularly remember anyone saying much nice about bringing McLouth back.

Well, then, here's one.

I like the McLouth signing. He can play all 3 OF positions, and his batting style matches PNC Park very well. For only $1.75M, getting McLouth as a 4th outfielder was a solid move.

I just wish Huntington would have given McLouth a 2-year deal.

I guess this isn’t the place to disagree with a Pirates acquisition

No, this isn’t the place to make dumb arguments and not expect to get called out on them. And given the laziness your arguments convey, I’m not surprised you got shouted down…. I think I pointed you to the Smizik blog before already, so next time you want to make another set of lazy arguments, that’s probably the direction to go…

dude, I hardly see where my arguments are lazy. Burnett isn't the pitcher that he once was, and that's the core of my argument.

The lazy part was comparing him to Matt Morris, which was moronic.

The annoying part is the fact that you’re being a bit of a stubborn jackass and refusing to see our position.

I can say the same thing about you guys, right? And how is the Matt Morris statement moronic?

He’s a high-priced veteran who isn’t what he once was. Am I not saying it right?

you are saying it just how you said it before

and it’s as moronic as it always was.

I mean, AJ isn’t the #2 pitcher he may have been once, but that’s about where the similarities end. It’s like saying “Hey, let’s have Pedro Alvarez pitch instead of Stetson Allie because neither has much idea of where the ball will go”. When Morris came to the Pirates, he was throwing 87.4, probably in the bottom 1% in the league. After all the loss of velocity, AJ threw 92.7 in 2011, matching McDonald for best on the Pirates. But wait, you knew this, it’s been pointed out to you before.

I repeat, Smizikistan is waiting for you…

Making go to Smizik's blog would only prove that you're pure evil.

*me

based on your arguments

I honestly do not see why you’d disagree with Smizik on baseball-related matters.

All they talk about over there is how evil Nutting is, and how he's the only reason they've been bad for years.

I’m not in that camp. I don’t blame the owners solely for the state of the Pirates. They do. And for like a year, two of them kept trying to get the other person to have a face to face debate about the Pirates. Gee, if only modern technology could come up with a way for them to have a baseball debate some other way……Anyway, I have no use for that site. And I generally have a positive view about the Pirates. I’m just not a big fan of signing veterans until a team is ready to contend. And until they are ready to contend, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that any veteran acquisition serves much of a purpose. Maybe I need to seek counseling.

And until they are ready to contend, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that any veteran acquisition serves much of a purpose.

How about if Pedro hits the way we expected when he was drafted, and Morton and McDonald take a couple of big steps forward, we can compete this year?

Or how about if Burnett pitches to a sub-4 ERA, he has trade value that could bring in a useful piece for the future.

Well, I guess we'll find out. Hopefully, that all happens.

Talk to Kosstic

he’s consoled by the idea that if Burnett bounces back we can trade him at the deadline, netting better prospects than we gave up to acquire AJ in the first place.

Have you read any of this thread or the last one?

There are a million reasons why the situations aren’t even close to analogous that have been pointed out to you over and over.

what ryebr3ad said

plus that even though Burnett isn’t the pitcher he once was, he still is likely better than at least 3 Pirates starters, and with the upside to turn in one incredible year.

I’m not even sure why I’m responding to your tiresome comments.

And I hardly see where making an argument against signing guys in their 30's is really that good for a team still trying to build a foundation.

These are the types of players you bring in for a team that’s close, not a team that’s still a few years away.

There’s no hard and fast rule. It’s a case by case basis. If you Burnett were blocking Cole, Taillon, or even a Kyle McPherson who was ready to pitch to pitch in the majors that would be one thing. But that’s not the case. His acquisition comes at a good value and doesn’t negatively impact what they’re trying to build.

ThisYearsModel - February 21, 2012 reply

He was aw-struck at the thought of the Pirates getting Gibson even though they were already one of the most talented teams in baseball

I am “aw”-struck by this FanPost.

I'm glad you enjoy my work.

A sarcasm tennis match

Awesome!

PixburghArn - February 21, 2012 reply

It's funny, over at btsc, I'm treated like a good guy, and over here, I'm treated like a heel (even though, I'm not intentionally looking for that heat).

This must have been what Bret Hart felt like in the late 90’s when he was cheered in Canada and booed in the US .

wild guess

i suspect you know a lot more about football. Which shouldn’t be hard, coz you hardly understand anything about baseball, and are too stubborn to listen when pointed in the right direction.

I know more about baseball than you think.

Last I checked, it still comes down to hitting, pitching and defense. I think if you understand that, you have about 85% of it licked.

Anna Benson called...

not even close

Well, if you are looking for 85%

Then A ball would be about right. Its the extra 15% (or Extra 2%) that make the difference. That’s why no-one cares about advanced stats for High school players.

Also, do you also hate Football Outsiders? Just curious if you are adverse to all advanced statistical analysis, or just with baseball. Honest questions.

No, I'm not really much of a stats guy beyond the most tangible numbers.

As an analogy

Do you find it disturbing/misleading that a QBgets credit for an 80 yard TD pass whether it is a post pattern he throws after a great pump fake, that the WR catches, in stride, 45 yeard down field or a screen pass completed for less than a yard, from the QB, and behind the LOS, and the RB does all the work, making 7 guys miss tackles onteh way to the endzone?

These types of situations are why people like advanced stats. It doesn’t seem right that the QB get the same credit for both plays, because one had almost nothing to do with the QB. Same with DIPS theory, in baseball things often happen that are out of the pitcher’s control and many of us enjoying the attempt to discern what is the pitcher’s fault, and what is not. We believe that gives us a better picture of the true talent, by stripping out as much of the luck and noise as possible from the stats.

I find it disturbing/misleading...

…assigning W-L records to quarterbacks.

Case in point. The NY Giants’ Eli Manning took a loss this past season in a game in which he went 23-40 for 347 yards with 3 TD passes to 1 interception and in which the offense he led scored a total of 35 points, all because his team’s defense gave up 38 points to the Green Bay Packers, including a last-second field goal that came after the Giants scored a touchdown to tie the game with 58 seconds left.

Just as with starting pitchers, W-L is a team effort, not an individual effort.

...and how come

Kickers get credit for a FG from where they kick it, but Punters only get yardage from the line of scrimmage?

And punting yardage is so misleading too

Because often times you’re not trying to kick it far at all, but rather pin them inside the 20.

that being said, punters sure have been getting stronger lately, with two guys averaging 50 yrds a kick

when i was a kid, 40 yrd average was considered pro-bowlish achievement

lol

I wouldn’t take it personally. Though I don’t understand the personal attack (bald remarks). I think they were looking for more than just a surface look at the parallels you presented. The baseball scene is very much stat driven. The nature of the game makes it a more calculated sport. That’s the reason many can’t watch baseball. They don’t have the attention span and patience to really learn the game. Baseball is mechanics and timing. It is a thinking man’s game. The science of baseball is what hooks it’s fans. Football and basketball brings in people from all crowds, from the thinkers, “strategizers” if that’s a word, to the one that knows nothing about the game but loves the faster moving pace.

All that said to say…..You can’t paint pretty pictures to entertain baseball fans. Baseball fans want substance. That’s the best way to put it. I don’t post much here for the same reason I don’t post x’s and o’s on BTSC. If I started I wouldn’t have time to do anything else because I’m a sports addict. I coach baseball, football and basketball. I played all of them, but never played college basketball.

That’s what I saw in a nutshell

PixburghArn - February 22, 2012 reply

Though I don’t understand the personal attack (bald remarks)

Anthony claimed he had some kind of bet in the last thread where he’d shave his head if he lost.

Oooooh I C

PixburghArn - February 22, 2012 reply

Nah, Arn, if I took stuff personally, I would never blog. I enjoy disagreements.

But you’re right, baseball fans are a little different. My guess is there aren’t too many Ken Burns enthusiasts here.

My guess is there aren’t too many Ken Burns enthusiasts here.

Speak for yourself, i’m a huge Burns fan. I actually have the boxset of the documentary he made about baseball.

Who says I’m taking it personally? I just, in fact, said I did not take it personally. Here, let me go do some research….Yep, I believe I said Idid not take things personally, and that I enjoy disagreements. Perhaps, it is you who is making a strawman argument, which would be appropriate right now since it’s way too warm to make snowman arguments.

Your taking it personally

Because here you are getting bent out of shape when the people here are trying to tell you rather kindly that your argument is invalid and here’s why.

No your the one making the strawman argument. Your the one going on here saying Burnett is a bad deal because he’s old, he’s old he’s Matt Morris and Kirk Gibson rolled into one and his bad ERA. People here then try to tell you that just because a player is over 30 dosen’t make him bad, ERA is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher’s preformance but advanced stats are, him playing in a weak NL Central will improve his preformance and him being on the team is a improvement over what we already have. You then rebuffed all those arguments.

Sounds like your taking this a bit personally if you ask me.

Then maybe you should stick to writing about football if you don't like what people here are saying to you

This is Bucs Dugout, here we back up our opinions with facts and knowledge, not strawman arguments.

You can’t take the criticism, stick to BTSC then.

It's this kind of attitude that I don't get. "stick to btsc." Like I live there, or something.

I happen to be a Pirates fan, too, ya know? There’s bit of smugness about this site that I don’t experience in other places, and ironically enough, it’s the same kind of smugness that I see from Pirates fans on Smizik’s blog—a community you all overtly detest. Something to think about.

We detest Smizikians...

…because they deal neither in facts nor reality. They do not support their arguments with anything resembling rational thought or data, instead filling their posts with tin-hat conspiracy theories or insane ramblings.

Of all the "new" stats used to determine a player's value, the one that seems to make the most sense to me is on-base percentage.

I don’t know how new it is, but from listening to guys like Rocco Demaro over the years, it seems to have increased in value when it comes to evaluating a hitter.

On-base percentage...

…is certainly an improvement over batting average, to be sure.

It’s how one can argue that Adam Dunn, he of the three outcomes (HR, K, BB), is actually valuable because, while he strikes out a ton and doesn’t have a high batting average, he walks a lot, so he is not making outs. Look at the career numbers of the four players below:

Adam Dunn – .243 BA, .374 OBP
Ichiro – .326 BA, .370 OBP
Albert Pujols – .328 BA, .420 OBP
Derek Jeter – .313 BA, .383 OBP

Two of those players will definitely be in the Hall of Fame, and three are likely to. However, Adam Dunn (the one who won’t) is actually better than Ichiro at not making outs and is almost as good as Derek Jeter. Likewise, even though Ichiro and Albert have nearly identical career BA, Albert makes outs in 5% fewer of his plate appearances than Ichiro does.

There is only one thing in baseball that is finite, and that is the number of outs a team gets in a nine-inning game. Each team is only given 27 of them, so having players that are good at not using up your precious resource is valuable, whether they are getting a hit, getting hit or taking a walk.

but one could say that its Ichiro's job to get on base.

and that its Dunn’s job to knock him in, meaning more than likely Dunn is not doing what hes paid to do.

yes, Dunn’s OBP is very impressive, but hes paid to drive runs across the plate…

this is not a slam against Dunn or against power guys with OBP, its just how I see middle of the lineup hitters. Pujols is more likely to knock some runs home simply because hes a much much better hitter than Dunn. Even though they are different, i also believe Jeter to be a much better overall hitter as well.

This is why OBP isn’t the end of the story and (shudder) modern stats like wOBA or wRC+ are nice: wOBA likes singles more than walks (precisely because they knock people up two bases and some become singles plus an error on the play, etc.), valuing everything appropriately. Given that Dunn has a bunch of power, he has (or had until 2011) nice wOBAs that reflect his ability to knock in multiple guys (himself included) in one go, even granting that Ichiro is more likely to knock in a single runner on 2nd or 3rd base.

but what if

Dunn took a 12 pitch walk while someone like Freddy Sanchez had a first pitch leadoff single. Which is more valuable now?

Mr. E - February 23, 2012 reply

funny you mention that

i vaguely remember Freddy Sanchez having a 17-18 pitch AB while with the Bucs that ended in an out… Could have walked about 3 times in that AB, i think… still, i couldn’t help wondering if this was a better outcome!

BurgherKing - February 23, 2012 reply

THIS.

There’s bit of smugness about this site that I don’t experience in other places, and ironically enough

There’s nothing smug about this place. Were all rational level headed people that are highly opinioned about our team and back up our statements with facts and figures.

Sure WTM and Thunder and act like crusty old men at times when there talking about this team, but overall there good peoples.

well

there might be a bit of truth to the smugness comments, and I m as guilty as anybody else, but I think we are all open to good counter-arguments, and even enjoy them (and usually learn from them). Anthony’s arguments here, of course, are about as bad as you could possibly be.

ThisYearsModel - February 22, 2012 reply

You're right

Lazy post on my part. If I want better content, I should at least add some of my own in the comments.

It's all good

PixburghArn - February 22, 2012 reply

He will most likely improve

facing 8 batter lineups and going away from the tough-as-hell AL East. For what the Pirates gave up and am paying him, I would be happy keeping him in the back end to eat up 180 innings. I can seriously see him throwing 180 frames of 3.60 ERA ball.

dasox313 - February 21, 2012 reply

I can't believe there isn't one other person who comments here that is against the Burnett deal. That's amazing.

Good for you guys. That’s what I call solidarity.

I’m sure there are more than a few folks who have reservations about the deal. I think the issue is more with the manner in which you constructed the argument than the conclusion you reached.

I think in addition a fair amount of the reaction is a result of the fact that you added another fan shot essentially repeating the same argument rather than continuing the conversation in the previous thread.

I’d also add while I disagree with that conclusion, you’ve been fairly civil in making that point and I do feel like some folks on this thread could perhaps be a little more civil in making their point despite my agreement with them. I doubt the way to encourage Anthony to give FIP, etc a look is to make him feel like an idiot for being unfamiliar with them.

Thanks, and nice handle, by the way. Good role player back in the day.

Anyway, as an average fan, I don’t go searching for stats such as war and fip, because, quite frankly, I don’t feel as if it’s all that necessary. When they announce that a pitcher has been voted to the All star game, they don’t quote his WAR, they usually quote his win/loss record and era. And I get that W/L isn’t the best indicator of a pitcher’s ability—I mean, how can a pitcher actually win a game unless he drives in all the runs himself—but I personally feel that you don’t have to look very far past tangle evidence such as era, home runs, walks and wild pitches to judge a pitcher’s abilities.

It seems to me when you use stats other than the ones that are obvious, you’re really trying hard to peel the onion to try and find something good to like about a trade. My contention is, if you’re going to bring in a pitcher to plug into the top of your rotation, you better not have to look very hard to find reasons why he should be there.

As far as me posting two threads about essentially the same thing, the first one was just a throw-away that I didn’t think anyone would even pay any attention to. The second one was my way of trying to explain why I didn’t like the trade since the first thread got so much attention. The trade seems like the same old deal—they’re bringing in a guy on the downside of his career—and I wanted to make a personal analogy to prove my point.

At the end of the day, is it that big of a deal that I posted two similar threads?

Its not a big deal, but at the same time its not really necessary.

It’s kind of frustrating for everyone else when you post the exact same thing without addressing any counterarguments or strengthening your argument (beyond saying that other people are using stats that are “too obscure”).

Well, I wouldn't get too frustrated by it. It's only baseball. Not the end of the world.

John Kruk gets paid to offer those kinds of arguments. I don't. I'm just a fan voicing his opinion.

Were not talking about John Kruk, were talking about you and your opinions.

fyi

FIP (Fielder Independent Pitching) is just a mixture of hits, walks, home runs and strikeouts, not a bunch of made up stats.

In my defense and in defense of my perception of the motives of others...

I don’t think anybody is using xFIP to “peel the onion to try and find something good to like.”

These statistics are just WHAT PEOPLE USE HERE.

All the time. Every day. Not just in this case.

SABR-inclined baseball people simply DO NOT use single-season ERA to evaluate a pitcher’s performance or likely talent.

(I’m more inclined to SIERA these days, because I find the way the exponents model chaining sexy, but xFIP and SIERA come pretty close to each other in general.)

If you care to learn a little, basically, here’s the deal:

A guy named Voros McCracken figured out that, over a longish term, once you remove strikeouts, home runs, etc. from a pitcher’s Batting Average Against, there really isn’t much difference from one starter to the next, among guys who are basically decent enough to last multiple seasons. In fact, pitchers’ opponents’ Batting Averages on ONLY those “balls in play” (BABIP) vary wildly from season to season, reflecting differing defense and different luck on the specific vector gappers and groundballs take, bloops dropping in disproportionately, etc.

Here’s what was so fascinating to people: REALLY REALLY good, dominant, all-star/HOF starters, striking out more than a hitter an inning, sometimes have opponent BABIPs of .330 for a year.

Conversely, really mediocre guys who can’t strike anybody out and don’t have particularly amazing control and don’t get a ton of ground balls (which pitchers can control) sometimes have a season BABIP of .260.

And guess what? The first guy’s ERA for that season is probably only “pretty good” and maybe only “meh”, while the second guy’s is probably at least “pretty good.” That’s the difference between hitting .330 and .260 when you put the ball in play, in the park.

But those BABIP number are NOT predictive (well, they are slightly, but it’s only slight and it’s complicated and it’s easiest for now to just say they’re not). What is predictive is the strikeout rate (which lowers oppenent BA, but not BABIP), the walk rate and the flyball rate (which lead to home runs, which over time happen on about 10% of flyballs).

So the first guy’s ERA next year is LIKELY to be lots better in the following year and the second guys is likely to be a lot worse than his lucky-BABIP year. How much? That’s what FIP does. It plugs in strikeout rates, walk rates and home runs and says: here’s what this guy’s ERA should be with an average BABIP, which everybody eventually ends up close to.

xFIP takes it one step further: since pitchers of basic MLB quality are only minimally able to affect the rate of home runs per fly ball allowed (which, note, is different than home run rate per ball in play or per hitter or per inning) it normalizes that rate, assigning a number of home runs based on the number of fly balls a guy allowed. [I know this isn’t intuitive or easy to accept, but the numbers bear it out: HR/FB rate simply doesn’t predict itself, season to season, once you throw out true scrubs].

Last year Burnett had a bizarrely high HR/FB rate. The overwhelming evidence from baseball history is that nobody can, on the one hand, be effective enough to post decent K/BB rates like Burnett did, while on the other hand consistently posting a HR/FB rate that far from normal.

So we say: Burnett is actually better than his ERA indicates, because he did the things evidence suggests pitchers actually control pretty damn well last year, and this year he’ll be facing lesser competition in a more favorable environment. It is LIKELY that he will post HR/FB rates and a BABIP near league average (it’s possible they could be better or worse than average, since they are not significantly under his control, assuming he hasn’t lost it completely), and if he does that, he’ll be pretty good for the Pirates.

rec'd for patience and effort

the fact that we use those kinds of numbers everyday has been pointed out to him about 3,141 times already, though

BurgherKing - February 23, 2012 reply

That's quite the write up. Very thorough. An awful lot to digest.

Anthony Defeo - February 23, 2012 reply

I'm glad you took the time to read it. Hopefully it was coherent.

It was, although I'd probably have to see it in action in-order to fully grasp it.

Anthony Defeo - February 23, 2012 reply

Not totally sure what you mean, but how's this?

Look here at the 2010 ERA leaders. Next to ERA are the pitchers’ FIP and xFIP.

Notice two things: first, the ERAs at the extremes tend to be better than the corresponding FIPs and xFIPs. This is because to have a great ERA, you are probably getting some batted ball luck (low BABIP, low HR/FB). ERA will reflect that. FIP and xFIP won’t.

Second, look at the guys with the biggest discrepancies between their ERAs and their FIPs and xFIPs. Two are, not coincidentally for the reason just explained, way up there at the top of the ERA board (due to great BABIP or HR/FB luck): King Felix and Jaime Garcia.

Now, were Felix and Garcia’s 2011 ERAs more like their 2010 ERAs or more like their 2010 DIPs (FIP and xFIP) numbers? (It’s the latter.)

(It’s worth noting that Garcia was actually significantly better at doing one of the things he controls – not issuing walks – in 2011 than he was in 2010, but his HR/FB rate went up [remember, this is essentially not under MLB pitchers’ control] and he had bad left-on-base % luck. [This is another number that pitchers exhibit minimal year-to-year control over, in part due to variable bullpen performance behind them when they’re pulled mid-inning.] Felix was basically the exact same pitcher “behind” the ERA, he just had a .043 jump in opponent batting average on balls in play [BABIP], posting a number slightly above average rather than well below average. He struck out as many, walked as few and tended sharply towards groundballs.)

For an example of a guy way over his head, look at Trevor Cahill. Click on him. His BB rate, K rate and GB rate barely changed from 2010 (ERA of 2.97) to 2011 (ERA of 4.16 in a better pitcher’s enviroment). What happened?

His BABIP jumped almost 70 points (to an average-ish .302 from a excellent-but-simply-lucky-and-unsustainable .236), triggering a near 50 point jump in opponent’s batting average and a bunch more runs allowed. In his case, his fairly ordinary K/BB/GB rates – which studies show are more or less under the pitcher’s control and relatively stable year to year – simply produced the ERA FIP and xFIP said he “should” have had in 2011. Which is the opposite of what people are saying re: Burnett.

The opposite happened at the other end of the ERA board for Jamie Shields. His awful 2010 was fueled by an atrocious .341 BABIP despite his his K, BB and GB rates being excellent. He missed bats, it’s just that when contact was made the ball found holes. In addition, he double-dipped the bad luck and got tagged for an ugly 13.8% HR per fly ball rate. (Not as bad as AJ’s last year, btw.)

DIPs theory says that a guy like him, striking people out, not walking people, getting his share of groundballs will not continue to allow a .341 BABIP nor a 13.8% HR/FB rate over the long term. It’s not gonna tend to “balance out” due to “good luck” (that’s the “gambler’s fallacy”), but it’s gonna tend to be around average, just like everybody given enough “reps”.

And what happened in 2011? His rates were comparable (well, he improved at inducing groundballs) but he happened to get GOOD luck on balls in play (.258) and decent (for the AL East) luck on HR/FB @ 11.1%. The result was a “dominant” 2.82 ERA.

Note, however, that whereas xFIP “knew” he wasn’t nearly as bad as his 2010 “traditional” numbers, it also says he was a bit lucky last year. His true talent for the two years was probably similar: somewhere around 3.35 or so.

I would point out that it’s not that pitchers are “really always the same”, year after year, and that xFIP perfectly predicts this. But a change in performance is taken by SABR types to be meaningful (“real”) when ithe K rate, BB rate and/or GB rate change from year to year, since those numbers normally exhibit reasonably close year-to-year correlations. Swings in ERA aren’t going to phase people if the underlying performance seems relatively consistent.

A final application regarding the Pirates. Look at Karstens. xFIP “understands” that giving up all your home runs with nobody on base (like he did in 2011) is NOT a repeatable skill, and values all fly balls as equally “bad”. Similarly, FIP values all home runs as equally damaging. Accordingly, they see the parts of the 2010 performance that were most significantly under his control as significantly less valuable than ERA does (4.29 FIP and 4.00 xFIP vs. 3.38 ERA).

Hope this helps.

I appreciate the effort, brother. It kind of makes me understand it a little better.

Anthony Defeo - February 26, 2012 reply

I was against it when it included Jones, if that helps. I also wish it had been closer to $10m but it’s easily the proper gamble for our team.

What the heck is up with my triple posts this morning?

The good board gods are subtly telling you…“Make a third Burnett fan shot, and do it now!”

Just kidding.

Charlie Wilmoth - February 22, 2012 reply

SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE BOARD COMMUNITY:

I’m guessing that this post won’t be popular, but it seems to me that the questions below should be raised to a conscious level for those other than the original poster (who has been challenged frequently and appropriately already in these two threads).

1. To site administrators: Isn’t there something inappropriate about the same poster making essentially the same post twice, to start essentially the same thread twice? ….. and only 2 days apart? Even if there’s no applicable rule, isn’t there something you can and should do about that situation?

2. To the board community at large: Why are people even reading this thread in detail, let alone taking the time to post dozens of replies to repeat the same arguments? The two threads in question are now the most “popular” on the board (in terms of the number of replies) over the past 2+ weeks. Seems to me like a terrific waste of energy and board space.

magnumo - February 22, 2012 reply

1. To site administrators: Isn’t there something inappropriate about the same poster making essentially the same post twice, to start essentially the same thread twice? ….. and only 2 days apart? Even if there’s no applicable rule, isn’t there something you can and should do about that situation?

Often, I just delete the second thread. In this case, there was already a bunch of discussion before I saw it.

OK, Charlie.....

I understand that. Thanks for responding.

magnumo - February 22, 2012 reply

Why are people even reading this thread in detail, let alone taking the time to post dozens of replies to repeat the same arguments?

Part of the reason certainly is that (in this case) the responses give the “responded-to” an opportunity to figure out the advanced stats. Although I do think, when his only response is “because I say so” and “I have all I need”, then it’s time to cut bait and walk away.

The other part, I guess, is that it’s easy to get a rise out of people, by posting something unpopular and sticking to it to have people respond. Consider sites which up their “relevance” by SEO, and having a large set of “relevant” keywords as meta-tags, etc. If Anthony were to be evaluated or made money off of comments on a post, he’d be very successful here (for a bit, this kind of thing gets old pretty fast, of course, but if you have new people coming in and seeing an outrageous post and hadn’t seen his old ones, they might be tempted to add their arguments and the whole cycle continues. Of course, I m guessing Anthony doesn’t make money off of the number of comments here, but you can see where that might be a viable way of evaluating writers on sites, in general.)

I think you're reading too much into my intentions.

If people are having a disagreement, it’s very rare for one side to come around to the other side’s way of thinking. This is all about me having an opinion and people wondering why I haven’t changed my mind based on the stats provided. It’s almost as if you’re puzzled that I won’t change my mind, like this board is the authority on everything that has to do with baseball, and if I don’t use advanced stats (like it’s a law or something), I have no grounds for my argument, when I clearly do.

If you disagree, that’s fine. But don’t call me ignorant because I do not agree with you.

no, my issue is not that you won't agree or give in to advanced stats

there’s quite a few people here who don’t and use other methods whose views I greatly respect (white angus, e.g.). You are welcome to reject advanced stats, as long as you can make a cogent, coherent argument on why it is that you don’t believe them. It means you’ve looked at it, understood it and disagree with it, and that’s fine.

I’m not puzzled you won’t change your mind. I’m puzzled that you’ve not made any effort to figure what the advanced stats are and why people might believe them. Your stance, otoh, is “hey, i’ve listened to the talk shows, i know what ERA is and I can’t be bothered to do more.”

I wikipedia'd war. I still don't see where that's a better stat than ERA.

And as for the other stats, one person used Adam Dunn as an example. Since he’s too slow to get to some balls as compared to other outfielders, that would hurt a pitcher’s era. Ok, I get that. However, how do you explain 31 homers and all the wild pitches?

how about you start off with FIP?

then go to xFIP and then to WAR. Like I said, I’ve been more disposed to this in the past than I’m now, but that sequence of reading should answer the questions you’ve posed here.

How do you explain Jeff Karstens

22 HR, but only 3.38 ERA?

more precisely, how do you explain Jeff Karstens?

White Angus

I had to give you a rec for that one. I LMAO every time I scroll past your post. Bravo my man!

Pagliaroni - February 24, 2012 reply

Like I said, it just seems that people are peeling way too many layers of the onion to justify the trade.

no one is peeling anythign here that they wouldn't normally

you refuse to peel them because you are too lazy to.

Dude, people here use these metrics all the damn time, not just for Burnett.

You’re 100% wrong on this.

Last Justification for the Trade

The Pirates gave up 2 middling Class A prospects, neither of whom were going to help them in any way, shape or form in 2012 or 2013 (or ever, most likely) for a legitimate MLB starting pitcher who will be an upgrade over whoever was going to be slotted in the number 5 slot in the rotation, all while getting the Yankees to pick up 60% of his remaining contract and only being on the hook for an average of $6.5MM per season.

There is nothing bad about this trade. It’s low risk, potential high reward. Accept it.

It's a good thing Vlad hasn't found these posts yet

he might miss work for a week trying to explain/correct everything

vlad is the smartest one of all

for staying out of it.

ha! i would argue that it would be whiteAngus