PDA

View Full Version : Two Things...


MarkEdward
07-22-2003, 06:16 PM
1. The Sox are featured in today's Prospectus Triple Play:

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2119

2. A new, interesting study of DiPS (haven't read all of it yet):

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm

Gumshoe
07-23-2003, 10:23 AM
Good stuff. Being a big Foulke fan, I of course loved this, even though I never had hoped that Koch would be bad just to make the trade look stupid. The trade was inherently stupid, and I don't know how many more Sox fans I have to say that to that argue with me.

Billy Koch's walk rate and heavy usage last season made him a risky proposition; PECOTA figured about a one-in-four chance that his ERA would wind up at 5.00 or higher. Combine that with the loss of a couple of miles per hour on his fastball, and an inability to keep the ball on the ground--he's giving up more flyballs and home runs than at any point in his career--and you've got one highly combustible pitcher. It might behoove the Sox to limit Koch's innings from here on out, get him to shave that awful goatee thing, and try again next season. Then again, this wasn't a great pitcher to begin with.

Gumshoe

Dadawg_77
07-23-2003, 12:28 PM
I am not sure about the second article, he seems to be putting to much weight on knuckle ballers to draw his conclusion. Knuckle ballers are said to be the exception to McCracken's theory. So basising conclusions on them about McCracken's theory seems faulty logic.

Gumshoe
07-23-2003, 12:57 PM
The most outstanding points were for Jaime Moyer and similar guys --- they consistently beat the opponent on low averages. The Knuckleballer is going to give up a lot more homers in general too (and BB) but most of the time players hit the ball it's an out --- that's the tradeoff. So I think that the DIPS are bad for knuckleballers but their IPavg. makes them or breaks them.

Gum

kempsted
07-23-2003, 02:09 PM
I was just looking at the printed Baseball Prospectus for this year and read the section on Foulke. It was interesting, they pointed out Foulke and Smoltz got off to similar bad starts last year and in fact Smoltz start was worse. Yet Smoltz got 55 saves. They sited the biggest difference to be Manuel's poor management. The said that Foulke was jurked around too much etc.

Remember Baseball perspectus comes out in Febuary and they said Foulke great, Koch not great.

With that said check out the stats on baseball persctus web site. Take a look at

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/rrereport03.html

This ranks relief pitchers by Adjusted Runs prevented. In this the 16th best reliever is Flash Gordon. Foulke is number 17. So we are fine without Koch.

hold2dibber
07-23-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
I was just looking at the printed Baseball Prospectus for this year and read the section on Foulke. It was interesting, they pointed out Foulke and Smoltz got off to similar bad starts last year and in fact Smoltz start was worse. Yet Smoltz got 55 saves. They sited the biggest difference to be Manuel's poor management. The said that Foulke was jurked around too much etc.

Remember Baseball perspectus comes out in Febuary and they said Foulke great, Koch not great.

With that said check out the stats on baseball persctus web site. Take a look at

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/rrereport03.html

This ranks relief pitchers by Adjusted Runs prevented. In this the 16th best reliever is Flash Gordon. Foulke is number 17. So we are fine without Koch.

But wouldn't you rather have Gordon and Foulke instead of Gordon and Koch? (Of course, then we wouldn't have Cotts, but for all we know, he's the next Scott Ruffcorn.)

kempsted
07-23-2003, 03:55 PM
100% I would rather have Foulke, Gordon rather than Gordon and Koch. I just thought it was nice to see Gordon rated higher despite earlier people saying - we let go the best pitcher in the majors.

For what it is worth Koch wasn't on the worst list :bkoch:

Gumshoe
07-23-2003, 04:01 PM
I never said Koch was terrible but I said the deal was a BAD deal from the beginning. If you look at Foulke vs. Gordon over the last 3 years, though, you've gotta be kidding me if you think Gordon can even be considered to go up against Foulke.

The people who are proponents of Foulke just base their argument that he was virtually unhittable for 3 years (save for that first month he got so much flack for, and we know he was mismanaged). Honestly, it's not a stretch to compare Foulke to Rivera from 99-2001. I'm just happy he got his due, was an All Star and shoved it up KW's a$$ here at home. They didn't like him --- and wanted him out even though he was our best reliever in years.

Gumshoe

gosox41
07-23-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe

The people who are proponents of Foulke just base their argument that he was virtually unhittable for 3 years (save for that first month he got so much flack for, and we know he was mismanaged). Honestly, it's not a stretch to compare Foulke to Rivera from 99-2001. I'm just happy he got his due, was an All Star and shoved it up KW's a$$ here at home. They didn't like him --- and wanted him out even though he was our best reliever in years.

Gumshoe

Funny how the Sox are managed by who they like/don't like while the A's are managed by the numbers. Wonder why one team is more effective then the other.

Bob