Thread: Article: State of the Starting Corps

Twins have plenty of outfielders coming. Cubs have added some pitching and have not fixed their offensive or defense. I expect a couple of more low risk, high reward signings of starters and then see what sticks. (Harden hopefully)

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some groundballs - it's more democratic.

Liriano K/9 9.59 ERA 5.34
Doubront 9.34 4.86
Lincecum 9.19 5.18
Happ 8.76 4.79
Norris 8.82 4.65
Arrieta 8.56 6.20

Richard 4.40 3.99
Diamond 4.68 3.54
Hudson 5.13 3.62
Quintana 5.35 3.76
Colon 5.38 3.43
Harrison 5.61 3.29

Feldman Baker Viilenueva Jackson Upside? Maybe... We will see. You could be right... You maybe right on three or two or one... Maybe none..

I think the Cubs have a plan and everything looks sensible to me so far. I'm not knocking the Cubs... Time will tell.

Crash was wrong; that was '80's baseball, this is a new century. The consistant contenders find 4 starters who can manage a K/9 +7.0, just ask the Tigers, Giants, Rays, Rangers, Yankees, Phillies, Braves, White Sox and Nationals.

It's simple, if the batter doesn't make contact, you take errors, Texas Leaguers, seeing eye singles, sacrafice hits, Steve Bartman, Milton Bradley throwing the ball into the stands with 2 outs, Jose Canseco trying to catch a popup with his head and seagulls taking a crap on the ball out of the equation and prevent a lot of unneccessary runs.

This thread's depressing, can we rename it "State of the Starting Corpse"?

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Crash was wrong; that was '80's baseball, this is a new century. The consistant contenders find 4 starters who can manage a K/9 +7.0, just ask the Tigers, Giants, Rays, Rangers, Yankees, Phillies, Braves, White Sox and Nationals.

It's simple, if the batter doesn't make contact, you take errors, Texas Leaguers, seeing eye singles, sacrafice hits, Steve Bartman, Milton Bradley throwing the ball into the stands with 2 outs, Jose Canseco trying to catch a popup with his head and seagulls taking a crap on the ball out of the equation and prevent a lot of unneccessary runs.

This thread's depressing, can we rename it "State of the Starting Corpse"?

In the end... an out is an out... But I love this post... The use of Bartman... Conseco and Seagulls was well done.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

In the end... an out is an out...

Actually, an out is NOT an out. That's kind of the point.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

In the end... an out is an out... But I love this post... The use of Bartman... Conseco and Seagulls was well done.

1. You can still score a run or advance runners on an out.

2. Any time the ball goes into play, there is a significant chance that the defense will bungle the play, allow an additional baserunner, and/or allow additional runs to score.

If you strike a guy out, there's about a .01% chance that something good for happen for the batting team while the negative is nearly guaranteed (barring the freak occasion where a guy makes it to first after a strikeout).

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

1. You can still score a run or advance runners on an out.

2. Any time the ball goes into play, there is a significant chance that the defense will bungle the play, allow an additional baserunner, and/or allow additional runs to score.

If you strike a guy out, there's about a .01% chance that something good for happen for the batting team while the negative is nearly guaranteed (barring the freak occasion where a guy makes it to first after a strikeout).

LOL... It's stuff like this that makes Twins Daily such a special place. Good Solid Information...

If I understand this correctly... So what you are saying is... There is a benefit to putting the ball in play. Unless it's Ben Revere... With Ben... his ability to put the ball in play doesn't count... I think I understand now. (that was a joke!!!)

Another question... When the Batter Steps into that chalk outline thing... Does he have to wait until the pitch is thrown or can he just run toward the base?

So RB, is an out an out, or not?

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Another question... When the Batter Steps into that chalk outline thing... Does he have to wait until the pitch is thrown or can he just run toward the base?

You seem to have missed the part where that obvious information was necessary because you said something incredibly ignorant.

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

So RB, is an out an out, or not?

OMG... I don't know anymore.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

You seem to have missed the part where that obvious information was necessary because you said something incredibly ignorant.

**** OFF... Scratch that... Merry X-mas...

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

So RB, is an out an out, or not?

It is, except when it's not. Then it isn't. But it might have been.

An out is an out.

To a pitcher, some outs are better than others.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

1. You can still score a run or advance runners on an out.

2. Any time the ball goes into play, there is a significant chance that the defense will bungle the play, allow an additional baserunner, and/or allow additional runs to score.

If you strike a guy out, there's about a .01% chance that something good for happen for the batting team while the negative is nearly guaranteed (barring the freak occasion where a guy makes it to first after a strikeout).

True. But you can record an out with one pitch and a strike out takes a minimum of 3 (usually many more). Also you can record 2 outs when a ball is put in play (i.e. grounder to short) far more often than a strike out/throw out. In a nutshell, it's ok to have a pitcher go 8 innings with 3 or 4 stikeouts vs. say a Liriano racking up K's but throwing 100 pitches in 4 innings.

Originally Posted by Buck Nasty

True. But you can record an out with one pitch and a strike out takes a minimum of 3 (usually many more). Also you can record 2 outs when a ball is put in play (i.e. grounder to short) far more often than a strike out/throw out. In a nutshell, it's ok to have a pitcher go 8 innings with 3 or 4 stikeouts vs. say a Liriano racking up K's but throwing 100 pitches in 4 innings.

The problem with this is that usually you won't make it 8 innings with only 3 or 4 Ks. That many balls in play extends innings which means more pitches thrown. There's a healthy balance here, but don't underestimate the value of strike outs... especially when the defense behind the pitcher isn't very good.

Originally Posted by Buck Nasty

True. But you can record an out with one pitch and a strike out takes a minimum of 3 (usually many more). Also you can record 2 outs when a ball is put in play (i.e. grounder to short) far more often than a strike out/throw out. In a nutshell, it's ok to have a pitcher go 8 innings with 3 or 4 stikeouts vs. say a Liriano racking up K's but throwing 100 pitches in 4 innings.

True, except that guys who K 3-4 batters rarely go 8+ innings. Strikeouts don't have to consume a ton of pitches and Liriano's control problems aren't indicative of a typical strikeout pitcher.

Every time the ball is put in play, there is approximately a 30% chance that the batter will reach base safely. Allowing a full 1/3rd of hitters to reach base safely when contact is made outweighs any additional pitches a strikeout pitcher may have to throw (and the chances of runners scoring are drastically higher with men on base regularly). There's a reason why pitchers who strike out guys tend to have better ERAs than pitchers who do not strike out guys (Liriano being a quite notable exception). Not only do they miss bats with their pitches but when contact is made, it's generally weaker (because if you often miss bats, chances are that when a batter finally puts the bat on the ball, it won't be solidly).

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

True, except that guys who K 3-4 batters rarely go 8+ innings. Strikeouts don't have to consume a ton of pitches and Liriano's control problems aren't indicative of a typical strikeout pitcher.

Every time the ball is put in play, there is approximately a 30% chance that the batter will reach base safely. Allowing a full 1/3rd of hitters to reach base safely when contact is made outweighs any additional pitches a strikeout pitcher may have to throw (and the chances of runners scoring are drastically higher with men on base regularly). There's a reason why pitchers who strike out guys tend to have better ERAs than pitchers who do not strike out guys (Liriano being a quite notable exception). Not only do they miss bats with their pitches but when contact is made, it's generally weaker (because if you often miss bats, chances are that when a batter finally puts the bat on the ball, it won't be solidly).

The ERA is often lower for strikeout pitchers, but that's just the bonus. The true benefit is the fewer UNEARNED runs they give up due to the fewer chances they give the defense to screw up. If anything we should find a higher ERA for a strikeout pitcher acceptable seeing as they are preventing unearned runs. Giving up runs loses games earned or not.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

1. You can still score a run or advance runners on an out.

2. Any time the ball goes into play, there is a significant chance that the defense will bungle the play, allow an additional baserunner, and/or allow additional runs to score.

If you strike a guy out, there's about a .01% chance that something good for happen for the batting team while the negative is nearly guaranteed (barring the freak occasion where a guy makes it to first after a strikeout).

from Dr. Mike Marshal retired pitcher


" I determined that the Correlation Coefficient between Earned Run Average (ERA) and Strikeouts per Game (Ks/9) is -0.22. The negative number only means that we listed earned run average (ERA) from low to high and strikeouts (Ks/9) from high to low. That the correlation between earned run average (ERA) and strikeouts per game (Ks/) is -0.22 means that strikeouts do not significantly measure the quality of baseball pitchers."

He did find that low walk ratios do not correlate to low ERA but a high walk ratio does correlate to higher ERA.

The conclusion he came up with was
" In conclusion, I believe that these statistics indicate that, if it means that baseball pitchers challenge themselves to throw tougher pitches in tough situations, such that they give up fewer hits and extra base hits, it is better for baseball pitchers to walk a few more batters."

Originally Posted by old nurse

from Dr. Mike Marshal retired pitcher


" I determined that the Correlation Coefficient between Earned Run Average (ERA) and Strikeouts per Game (Ks/9) is -0.22. The negative number only means that we listed earned run average (ERA) from low to high and strikeouts (Ks/9) from high to low. That the correlation between earned run average (ERA) and strikeouts per game (Ks/) is -0.22 means that strikeouts do not significantly measure the quality of baseball pitchers."

He did find that low walk ratios do not correlate to low ERA but a high walk ratio does correlate to higher ERA.

The conclusion he came up with was
" In conclusion, I believe that these statistics indicate that, if it means that baseball pitchers challenge themselves to throw tougher pitches in tough situations, such that they give up fewer hits and extra base hits, it is better for baseball pitchers to walk a few more batters."

Of course from that quote, it sounds like he measures the quality of a pitcher solely on ERA. I'd be more interested in the correlation between K/9 and a teams winning percentage.

Just by going off last years numbers on fangraphs, I found only one team in the top ten in team K/9 had a losing record and only three in the bottom ten had winning records. Meanwhile five of the top ten teams in groundball percentage had losing records and five of the bottom ten had winning percentages. At the very least, lasts years numbers indicate the Twins approach of seeking groundball pitchers is pointless.

I'm not knocking strikeouts. K's do not have to be defended from the likes of me.

I love K's especially when there is a runner on third and one out.

I know that there is a correlation between Increased K's and lower ERA's... I wouldn't have to look it up to know it... It would stand to reason... because you can just lop the whiffs off the percentages of what happens when contact is made. That isnt hard to grasp. Its an advantage that the low K guys have to overcome.

However... Its a statistical correlation with multiple outliers. I guess I should have just said that to make my point... But it was more fun to quote Crash Davis.

There are different types of outs. Some better than others... But yeah... An out is an out... Get 3 of them and you get to sit down.