PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus slams Phil Rogers' 30/190 theory...


MarkEdward
01-24-2003, 04:46 PM
http://tinyurl.com/4v54

Interesting...

gogosoxgogo
01-24-2003, 04:51 PM
STUPIDEST theory I've ever heard.

WinningUgly!
01-24-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
http://tinyurl.com/4v54

Interesting...


Looks like Keith Scherer is pissed that he didn't come up with the theory. :D:

Lip Man 1
01-24-2003, 07:53 PM
Maybe Phil owes him some money? (LOL)

Personally I think the author spent to much time growing up locked in his room playing fanatsy baseball instead of being outside.

Lip

Brian26
01-24-2003, 11:32 PM
Obviously Keith did his homework before he wrote that piece, so I give him lots of credit. It was an interesting article, although a bit dry for reading.

He makes a great point, too. The 190/30 men on the Angels in 2001 had nothing to do with how the team performed in 2002. It was a fluke sample.

jeremyb1
01-25-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
http://tinyurl.com/4v54

Interesting...

i think the bp site is down so i can't read it now but i'm really interested to see what it says. i don't see how you could attack the general idea in and of itself. clearly pitchers who pitch that often have a better prognosis for the season health wise. also, if you can stay in the rotation all season long you're most likely a better pitcher than someone who was demoted.

Brian26
01-25-2003, 02:31 PM
Scherer had a couple of points that ripped the theory to shreads.

It doesn't take into account for injuries, talent decline, bad luck, etc. It assumes a static level of play from season to season, which hardly ever happens. The 2001 season should have nothing to do with performance in the 2002 season.

The Angels won last year with pitchers that weren't even on the 2001 roster.

Although the theory worked last year, the theory hasn't worked in previous years. Last year seemed more like a fluke than anything.

jeremyb1
01-25-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Scherer had a couple of points that ripped the theory to shreads.

It doesn't take into account for injuries, talent decline, bad luck, etc. It assumes a static level of play from season to season, which hardly ever happens. The 2001 season should have nothing to do with performance in the 2002 season.

The Angels won last year with pitchers that weren't even on the 2001 roster.

Although the theory worked last year, the theory hasn't worked in previous years. Last year seemed more like a fluke than anything.

hmm. i still can't get it. i fail to see how last year could have no impact on this season. i can't believe that anyone over at bp would disagree that an injured pitcher has a greater risk of future injury (especially if he hasn't had surgery to correct the problem) than a pitcher who has not been injured in the past. i'm sure that can be statistically proven. i'll make a point of reading the article as soon as bp comes back up.

yyz
01-25-2003, 06:12 PM
Sure, it's sort of a stupid theory, but Scherer is a self-important jag-off. Phil Rogers was just doing a newspaper piece pumping the hometown team, not scholarly research.

When Scherer writes that 'even with Colon the Sox are a long shot, but if they had won the division with just those other three[Buehrle, Garland, Wright], it would have been apocalyptic for the rest of us,' he's way off. The Sox pythagorean W/L was essentially the same as the Twins was last year, so to say that even with Colon we're a long shot is about as stupid as saying that we're guaranteed to win the division because of three 190/30 guys.

jeremyb1
01-25-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by yyz
Sure, it's sort of a stupid theory, but Scherer is a self-important jag-off. Phil Rogers was just doing a newspaper piece pumping the hometown team, not scholarly research.

When Scherer writes that 'even with Colon the Sox are a long shot, but if they had won the division with just those other three[Buehrle, Garland, Wright], it would have been apocalyptic for the rest of us,' he's way off. The Sox pythagorean W/L was essentially the same as the Twins was last year, so to say that even with Colon we're a long shot is about as stupid as saying that we're guaranteed to win the division because of three 190/30 guys.

i was finally able to read this and i'm 100% with you here. i thought the article was condescending and self-important to a completely unnecessary degree.

the only thing scherer does in the article is cite several counter examples. so? there aren't any theories i'm aware of that accurately predict anything without exceptions. scherer employs the use of secondary articles such as bb and k rates in the article to suggest wright and garland will struggle this season. however, you can find players such as russ ortiz that had worse ratios than garland and wright last season and yet still had significant success. does that render k and bb rates useless? i don't think so.

scherer also seems to interpret rogers "theory" far too literally. in all of the article he wrote on the subject i understood it to be more of a general guideline than something set in stone. certainly rogers never intended the "theory" to be taken seriously to the extent to suggest that danny wright is a more desirable player to have on your roster next season than schilling because schilling only started 29 games.

scherer presents no reasonable counterargument to the general idea that players who were not healthy or good enough to start 30 games last season or pitch 190 innings are more likely to encounter the same problems this season than those who met the requirements. he is correct that - again if one takes the "theory" 100% literally - certain injuries are likely to have next to no effect on a players future health. a broken finger that causes a pitcher to miss a few games probably won't have a lingering effect next season. however, scherer seemingly contradicts himself by using a poor example of brad radke. he says that since radke pitched last season and he only had a groin injury he shouldn't have any lingering effects this year. that tends to be true but some in other circles have commented that groin injuries sometimes tend to reappear and that radke may have to deal with the injury again this season. even if his injury risk is low, his risk of injury still has to be considered at least slightly higher than that belonging to garland and wright who had no injury problems whatsoever through 162 games last season.

scherer is correct if you take rogers "theory" in the most literal sense. obviously the white sox should not be considered better than the giants or the a's. however, his assertions that rogers "theory" cannot be applied to the al central lack support. clearly the fact that the white sox have four pitchers that started 30 games and pitched 190 innings while the twins have two pitchers that spent a significant amount of time shut down with injuries last season is important when evaluating the division race in '04.

Huisj
01-25-2003, 08:59 PM
i agree totally, jeremy. i thought he took the theory far to literally. i think rogers was just trying to point out more of a general guideline that in some cases might be basic but just as effective as doing a whole bunch of crazy in depth stat research. Stats are great, but if they were everything and if they could be used to predict everything year to year, what would be the point of the season?? we'd all know the outcome before it started. any statistical theory, complicated or simple, can have counterexamples to it. that's part of what makes sports so exciting. there are always surprises regardless of how you go about predicting everything.

Lip Man 1
01-25-2003, 09:45 PM
Huisj says:

Stats are great, but if they were everything and if they could be used to predict everything year to year, what would be the point of the season??

That is one of the most competent and profound statements I have ever heard! A factual truth if ever there was one. Forget about the numbers, slide rules and quadratic equations...just play the damn game.

Lip

jeremyb1
01-25-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
i agree totally, jeremy. i thought he took the theory far to literally. i think rogers was just trying to point out more of a general guideline that in some cases might be basic but just as effective as doing a whole bunch of crazy in depth stat research. Stats are great, but if they were everything and if they could be used to predict everything year to year, what would be the point of the season?? we'd all know the outcome before it started. any statistical theory, complicated or simple, can have counterexamples to it. that's part of what makes sports so exciting. there are always surprises regardless of how you go about predicting everything.

exactly. he's just holding the theory to too high a standard. that may be partially rogers fault for phrasing certain things the way he did but by reading his articles it was clear to me that his intention wasn't that this was to be given great deal of weight. i viewed it as more of a general guideline. i don't think any type of theory could survive the scrutiny scherer gave this one. what bothered me the most is how angry and upset he acted about the whole thing. why write such a bitter, scatching article?

on additional thing is that scherer uses analytical evidence to "disprove" the theory mostly by mentioning that three teams (the giants, dodgers, and mets) had 3 30/190 pitchers in '01 and didn't make the playoffs. while its true that they didn't make the playoffs those three teams respectively won 89, 87, and 82 games. while it is true those teams didn't make the playoffs, its not as though any of them struggled horribly. i don't believe rogers ever concretely said that every team with 3 30/190 pitchers will make the playoffs, only that that was the case last season. rogers general assertion was merely that the more 30/190 pitchers you have the better you'll do. the fact that all three teams listed finished above .500 and two were approaching 90 wins seems to in no way disprove that.

baggio202
01-25-2003, 10:20 PM
im a big believer in this theory..for what i think is a very logical reason....if you have 5 pitchers on your staff that the previous year pitched 30/190 , then you have 5 pitchers that know what it takes to go deep into games every 5th day for an entire season..you know what you have going into the season...that also helps set up your bullpen..

it means you dont have a guy like gary glover who is a reliever bogarting as a starter..or a guy like jon rauch last year where you havent a clue what to expect from him...as a manager having 5 - 30/190 guys in my rotation would have me sleeping easier at night

soxruleEP
01-27-2003, 01:25 PM
that's the point of all statistical analysis in baseball--what can we reasonably expect and what can we point ot as the actual reason for a team's success or failure.

it makes absolute sense that a team with experienced pitching is going to have agreater chance of success than one with out that experience. This is something we all know intutively--see our pursuit of another horse to go with Buerhle.

I feel much more confident about Garland and Wright given the number of innings they pitched last season. I think we can expect at least 12 wins from each of them if they can avoid the "bad inning" that killed them both.