PDA

View Full Version : Who would of thought....


ChiSox89
05-30-2008, 12:14 AM
That after about 50 games into the season, that Mark Buehrle would have the highest era on the sox starting staff with a 5.27 era which is almost 2 runs over the next highest era on the staff, vazquez, with a 3.52 era.

TDog
05-30-2008, 12:45 AM
That after about 50 games into the season, that Mark Buehrle would have the highest era on the sox starting staff with a 5.27 era which is almost 2 runs over the next highest era on the staff, vazquez, with a 3.52 era.


Of course, ERA doesn't tell you how a pitcher is going to pitch in a given game. It only tells you how a pitcher has pitched on the average over the period the ERA measures.

If you look closely at Buehrle's ERA, you could cut it in half if you took out the two-out runs he has given up. You could shave more than a run off of it if you took away the runs that were scored after he had two outs and no one on base. And his ERA is deceptive because he has given up unearned runs in inning after he has had two out and no one on base. One would hope the team is taking steps to do something about the two-out runs he surrenders. His ERA doesn't reflect what he is capable of doing or limit him in what he can do.

If you are looking at a hard-throwing pitcher who is losing his fast ball and getting hit hard, an ERA is more predictive than Buehrle's. Tuesday night could serve as a microcosm of his season, he gave up five runs in the first and shut the Indians down for four innings before he was scored on again. His ERA is reflective of inconsistency, but he could go out and pitch a gem of a game.

MetroPD
05-30-2008, 01:42 AM
Not surprising really. Mark is a razzle dazzler nor is he overpowering. If he doesnt have his location, he is very very average. Doesn't mean anything though really, he's proven he's quite consistent in the past even after a few bad games.

JermaineDye05
05-30-2008, 02:10 AM
Who would've thought*

It certainly is a good thing to know how good our starters have been.

LoveYourSuit
05-30-2008, 09:37 AM
Of course, ERA doesn't tell you how a pitcher is going to pitch in a given game. It only tells you how a pitcher has pitched on the average over the period the ERA measures.

If you look closely at Buehrle's ERA, you could cut it in half if you took out the two-out runs he has given up. You could shave more than a run off of it if you took away the runs that were scored after he had two outs and no one on base. And his ERA is deceptive because he has given up unearned runs in inning after he has had two out and no one on base. One would hope the team is taking steps to do something about the two-out runs he surrenders. His ERA doesn't reflect what he is capable of doing or limit him in what he can do.

If you are looking at a hard-throwing pitcher who is losing his fast ball and getting hit hard, an ERA is more predictive than Buehrle's. Tuesday night could serve as a microcosm of his season, he gave up five runs in the first and shut the Indians down for four innings before he was scored on again. His ERA is reflective of inconsistency, but he could go out and pitch a gem of a game.

I don't understand why the excuse making. Buehrle himself has admitted more than once that he is bad out there right now.

Buehrle is bad. He is working on long pitch counts and is missing his spots on a very average ML fastball. He fixes those two issues and he will be fine. But until then, he is bad.

PolishPower83
05-30-2008, 09:48 AM
I'm pretty confident Buehrle will turn it around. It's apparent he is the most upset about his struggles and I think he's embarrassed. He is used to being the ace and now he's got four guys who are pitching leaps and bounds better than him.

Just imagine how scary our club will be when he gets on track and our bats heat up (which I think is happening before our eyes).

TDog
05-30-2008, 01:30 PM
I don't understand why the excuse making. Buehrle himself has admitted more than once that he is bad out there right now.

Buehrle is bad. He is working on long pitch counts and is missing his spots on a very average ML fastball. He fixes those two issues and he will be fine. But until then, he is bad.

I'm not making excuses for Buehrle. I even blame him for the unearned runs he gave up in the 2-0 loss in Toronto -- I mean, come on, two hits to score two runs after a two-out-no-one-on error? Bobby Jenks pitched around a leadoff error in Cleveland Wednesday even after walking the next hitter. I am saying that ERA does not predict how he will pitch the rest of the season.

Buehrle has to be fine to be an effective pitcher. He gets people out on balls out of hitters' zones that they believe they can hit. Usually, he gets people out on balls out of the strike zone. Obviously, he hasn't been as fine this year as he has been in the past. Because of that, he is walking more people and pitching behind in counts more often.

Statistics don't make baseball players successes or failures. Winning does. Buehrle isn't suddenly a lousy pitcher. There are reasons Buehrle's ERA is as high as it is. Ozzie Guillen, Don Cooper and Mark Buehrle know what those reasons are. Fans who know there is more to baseball than stats know what those reasons are. I have every reason to expect improvement.

Eddo144
05-30-2008, 01:37 PM
Statistics don't make baseball players successes or failures. Winning does. Buehrle isn't suddenly a lousy pitcher. There are reasons Buehrle's ERA is as high as it is. Ozzie Guillen, Don Cooper and Mark Buehrle know what those reasons are. Fans who know there is more to baseball than stats know what those reasons are. I have every reason to expect improvement.
First off, I agree 100% with your assessment of Buehrle. He has to be at his best to be effective; he's not a strikeout pitcher like Javy, so he has more trouble getting out of jams. For this reason, he's susceptible to have a bunch of really great outings (when he's "on") mixed in with some shellings (when he's not locating his stuff well).

However, while statistics themselves don't "make baseball players successes or failures," they do provide evidence that a player has been a success or failure. The fact that Buerhle has a high ERA on May 30 will not in itself cause him to pitch poorly later in the year; however, it does show that he has not been a very good pitcher to-date, and not-very-good pitchers tend to not pitch well in the future, all things being equal.

Now, like you say, there very well might be something wrong that is easily correctable in-season. In that case, he very well could shave two runs off his ERA by season's end.

(Please note: I'm not calling Mark a "not-very-good pitcher" on the whole, just saying he's been one this season so far.)

jabrch
05-30-2008, 01:46 PM
Mark has had 6 great starts in his 11 this year. He has had a loss with 0 ER in 8 IP, a ND with 1 ER in 7, a loss with 2 ER in 6 IP, an ND with 3 ER in 7 IP.

If Mark pitches like this all season, he will win a lot of games. Sure - he has stunk a few times. Opening Day was awful. So were half his may starts. But all in all, he has shown a great deal of promise. No - promise doesn't pay the rent - but Mark is not as bad as his season numbers indicate.

soxfan13
05-30-2008, 01:51 PM
Of course, ERA doesn't tell you how a pitcher is going to pitch in a given game. It only tells you how a pitcher has pitched on the average over the period the ERA measures.

If you look closely at Buehrle's ERA, you could cut it in half if you took out the two-out runs he has given up. You could shave more than a run off of it if you took away the runs that were scored after he had two outs and no one on base. And his ERA is deceptive because he has given up unearned runs in inning after he has had two out and no one on base. One would hope the team is taking steps to do something about the two-out runs he surrenders. His ERA doesn't reflect what he is capable of doing or limit him in what he can do.

If you are looking at a hard-throwing pitcher who is losing his fast ball and getting hit hard, an ERA is more predictive than Buehrle's. Tuesday night could serve as a microcosm of his season, he gave up five runs in the first and shut the Indians down for four innings before he was scored on again. His ERA is reflective of inconsistency, but he could go out and pitch a gem of a game.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The era is what it is.

FedEx227
05-30-2008, 02:06 PM
If my aunt had balls shed be my uncle. The era is what it is.

Bravo. You can't cut giant chunks of games to justify his performance. Buehrle has struggled this year, his command is WAY down.

Right now he has a career high WHIP (1.50) and a career-high ERA (5.27), obviously I don't believe his ERA will stay that high but it's still alarming, especially those WHIP totals.

His HR totals are no quite as high as they usually are, 6 thus far, on pace for around 18, so that's not what's getting him.

He is, though, on pace to shatter his career-high in walks, right now he's at 21, on pace for 63.

ondafarm
05-30-2008, 02:10 PM
Maybe Buehrle should sabotage the dugout to pressbox phone to keep those errors on Orlando as errors and keep those runs unearned.

TDog
05-30-2008, 02:46 PM
If my aunt had balls shed be my uncle. The era is what it is.

Yes, it is. And it doesn't mean much.

Every time the Sox get shut down by a pitcher with an ERA over 4, people around here express distress with the offense. Pitchers with ERAs over 4 and 5 shut down the Tigers and Indians too. When Danks beat the A's on his 26th birthday, he came into the game with an ERA of 8. The A's announcers were frustrated with their team's offense because he had an ERA of 8 so why can't the A's hit him? For weeks they made a big deal about the A's not being able to hit southpaws on their birthdays.

The minimum quality start (a stat I don't think is important at all) will get you an ERA of 4. None of the Sox pitchers have quality starts every time out. Few pitchers pitch nine innings at all anymore, and an ERA is based on nine innings, making the number fairly arbitrary anyway. The ERA used to indicate how many earned runs a pitcher was expected to give up in a typical game, making relievers' ERAs deceptive. Now a starter who pitches four scoreless innings and gives up three runs in the fifth before coming out of the game with his team ahead is in line for a win has an ERA of 5.4. Especially if the Sox win and it's Danks, and even more so if he gave up a two-out three run homer after a bloop and an infield hit, people would say he pitched well. Bad outings skew an ERA higher than good outings, especially when pitchers aren't pitching complete games. Giving up runs in five, six or seven innings, quality start or not, isn't going to do much to lower an ERA over 4 or 5. In truth, there is a story to every ERA. It's the story you need to look at.

If you're relying on ERA to tell you how a pitcher will pitch on a given night, or even how well he has pitched in a given season, you should get out more, maybe catch a ballgame to see what baseball is all about.

FedEx227
05-30-2008, 02:53 PM
If you're relying on ERA to tell you how a pitcher will pitch on a given night, or even how well he has pitched in a given season, you should get out more, maybe catch a ballgame to see what baseball is all about.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: What are your wonderful eyes telling you about Buehrle this year? Is he spitting more than ever and really, really wants to win every time out so much so that he's willing to give it 110% and putting in a total team effort?

Hate ERA all you want for whatever weird ass reason... but all and all it tells the same story any scout will tell you, Buehrle is walking way too many batters and hasn't had the same control as he's had years past, you don't need to be a gruffy scout to see that.

Eddo144
05-30-2008, 03:07 PM
Bad outings skew an ERA higher than good outings, especially when pitchers aren't pitching complete games. Giving up runs in five, six or seven innings, quality start or not, isn't going to do much to lower an ERA over 4 or 5. In truth, there is a story to every ERA. It's the story you need to look at.

If you're relying on ERA to tell you how a pitcher will pitch on a given night, or even how well he has pitched in a given season, you should get out more, maybe catch a ballgame to see what baseball is all about.
Yep. ERA is too heavily-influenced by some bad outings to be a very good way to truly measure a pitcher. That's why WHIP and K/BB (for example) are better ways that are still easy to understand.

And you're point about "maybe catch a ballgame to see what baseball is all about": why does that have to be mutually exclusive to looking at stats to judge a player. I watch the Sox every game I'm able, and I also look at the boxscores and whatnot to judge player performance. In no way does following stats prevent you from enjoying the game when you watch it.

TDog
05-30-2008, 05:50 PM
...

And you're point about "maybe catch a ballgame to see what baseball is all about": why does that have to be mutually exclusive to looking at stats to judge a player. I watch the Sox every game I'm able, and I also look at the boxscores and whatnot to judge player performance. In no way does following stats prevent you from enjoying the game when you watch it.

If you watch the games, you don't need to see Buehrle's ERA to know that he has been inconsistent. You also know what he need to do to improve. An ERA doesn't do that. (For those of who who say, "It tells him to stop sucking," please, I hope I never have to sit next to you at a baseball game.) And looking at Buehrle's ERA doesn't tell you how he is going to pitch his next time out. A bigger problem is when you use the opposing pitcher's ERA to rank him as, say, an easy pitcher to hit. You haven't seen him pitch all season. It's the garbage about a guy with maybe a 4.62 ERA who goes through the first three innings without giving up a run being evidence of why the Sox should fire their hitting coach that bothers me.

Scouts don't look at ERAs much. They will look at them as a starting point, but an ERA doesn't tell you what a pitcher's weaknesses or strengths are. Even WHIP can be deceptive. If all scouts were doing was looking at stats, they wouldn't be very good scouts. Not only do stats alone not tell you much, but scouts wouldn't have jobs because beancounters working in the front office would be doing it for them. Baseball is too complicated and winning too fragile to reduce it to the numbers that its order is able to produce.

I have nothing against ERA. When I was a kid, I used to figure out earned run averages of Sox pitchers in my head at the end of each inning. ERAs and batting averages can be a fun part of the game. Wilbur Wood posted an ERA of 1.91 while pitching 376 innings as a 22-game winner in 1972, and I really wanted to see him beat out Vida Blue who finished with an ERA of 1.82 AND pitched in the World Series that year.

But Buehrle can clearly a better pitcher than his ERA says he is. If he hadn't proven that, this thread with the grammatical error in the title wouldn't exist. Some days Buehrle has pitched worse than his ERA says because he has failed to pitch over errors and allowed unearned runs.

The ERA isn't the problem. The ERA, however, is inflated by the problem.

Eddo144
05-30-2008, 07:49 PM
If you watch the games, you don't need to see Buehrle's ERA to know that he has been inconsistent.
Well, no. But if you don't have the privilege of seeing the games, you need something to go off of. And nobody can logistically watch every major league game every day unless it's their job, so things like ERA (no matter how flawed it is) are necessary to make some kind of judgment.

The ERA isn't the problem. The ERA, however, is inflated by the problem.
Bingo. The ERA indicates that he has a problem. ERA by itself is only a record of what has happened. It does not cause problems.

soxfan13
05-30-2008, 09:12 PM
If you watch the games, you don't need to see Buehrle's ERA to know that he has been inconsistent. You also know what he need to do to improve. An ERA doesn't do that. (For those of who who say, "It tells him to stop sucking," please, I hope I never have to sit next to you at a baseball game.) And looking at Buehrle's ERA doesn't tell you how he is going to pitch his next time out. A bigger problem is when you use the opposing pitcher's ERA to rank him as, say, an easy pitcher to hit. You haven't seen him pitch all season. It's the garbage about a guy with maybe a 4.62 ERA who goes through the first three innings without giving up a run being evidence of why the Sox should fire their hitting coach that bothers me.

Scouts don't look at ERAs much. They will look at them as a starting point, but an ERA doesn't tell you what a pitcher's weaknesses or strengths are. Even WHIP can be deceptive. If all scouts were doing was looking at stats, they wouldn't be very good scouts. Not only do stats alone not tell you much, but scouts wouldn't have jobs because beancounters working in the front office would be doing it for them. Baseball is too complicated and winning too fragile to reduce it to the numbers that its order is able to produce.

I have nothing against ERA. When I was a kid, I used to figure out earned run averages of Sox pitchers in my head at the end of each inning. ERAs and batting averages can be a fun part of the game. Wilbur Wood posted an ERA of 1.91 while pitching 376 innings as a 22-game winner in 1972, and I really wanted to see him beat out Vida Blue who finished with an ERA of 1.82 AND pitched in the World Series that year.

But Buehrle can clearly a better pitcher than his ERA says he is. If he hadn't proven that, this thread with the grammatical error in the title wouldn't exist. Some days Buehrle has pitched worse than his ERA says because he has failed to pitch over errors and allowed unearned runs.

The ERA isn't the problem. The ERA, however, is inflated by the problem.

Hey thanks Rainman!!! For you to say I dont know baseball or wouldnt want to sit next to me because I argued your point of trying to skew the actual facts for your arguement is bull****. Yes I understand stats and that ERA isnt the most important stat around. Take off the coke goggle glasses and look at the actual facts. MB hasnt been performing this year thats all you need to see. Sorry I wont go thru a game and subtract the bad innings to show that he is a good pitcher. He is sucking right now and he has said it himself. So quit playing with your stratomatic baseball game and actually watch a game he pitches!!!!

TDog
05-30-2008, 10:38 PM
Hey thanks Rainman!!! For you to say I dont know baseball or wouldnt want to sit next to me because I argued your point of trying to skew the actual facts for your arguement is bull****. Yes I understand stats and that ERA isnt the most important stat around. Take off the coke goggle glasses and look at the actual facts. MB hasnt been performing this year thats all you need to see. Sorry I wont go thru a game and subtract the bad innings to show that he is a good pitcher. He is sucking right now and he has said it himself. So quit playing with your stratomatic baseball game and actually watch a game he pitches!!!!

If you would look at Buehrle's ERA and say it means he should "stop sucking" in order to improve, then you are who I suggested I wouldn't want sitting next to me at a baseball game (The drunks are bad enough). I didn't suggest that is what you would say because someone who would say such a thing doesn't know much about baseball. And when I went to school, we learned to multiply and divide. I'm sorry if simple arithmetic seems foreign to you. I have actually played baseball, although I've never played it on a computer.

Buehrle's problem is not hie ERA, and his ERA doesn't predict how he will pitch in his next game. he has had problems that have led to his ERA being so high, but he could have quality starts for the remainder of the season, winning every game and still have an ERA in excess of 4. If that happened, his ERA wouldn't be a problem.

Buehrle's specific problems -- around a few well-pitched games -- have been covered extensively in the Clubhouse since opening day. His tendency to give up runs with two outs this season has been a specific focus of discussion. In his case, you don't have to go by his high ERA to just assume he's been a bad pitcher.

If you want to whine about how incompetent the Sox offense is because they can't score against a reliever with an ERA of 4.5 and instead "make him look like Cy Young," consider this: If he has an ERA of 4.5, he gives up an average of one run for every two innings. If he gave up a three-run homer in one outing, he would have to pitch five scoreless innings for that to work out to a 4.5 ERA.

Real life baseball isn't a video game.