Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,660

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Brock Beauchamp
    I'd rather have Jackson but will be quite happy if they sign Marcum. A rotation of Marcum/Worley/Diamond/Correia/Hendriks to start the season is such a vast improvement over 2012 that the Twins would still probably be a pretty bad team but they might come close to .500. Add in Gibson mid-season and that rotation actually looks pretty good going into 2014 (since I think Hendriks/Gibson will force Correia out of the rotation at some point).
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    There has been an intermittent problem with comments not generating properly on the article pages. Several of you have complained about this and after speaking to the developers about it, I cannot get the issue to replicate this morning. Are you still having these issues? If you are, let me know your operating system, your browser, and which article is not showing the entire list of comments. Thanks. Trying to get this resolved but since it's only under certain environments and circumstances, it's hard to track down.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    By the way, I'm still working on this, everyone. I've in the midst of a back-and-forth with the developers about it. I don't think they've seen it before.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    Or you could make use of WPA, which would completely blow the usage of the QS out of the water. Something like this. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/good_starts_bad_starts_wpa_style/ True. That is another way to go and not entirely dissimilar to what I was saying about Game Scores.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    Wins are also a useless stat, in my opinion. While I understand the desire to break down game logs, Quality Start is not a good way to do it. A much better (but still imperfect) solution is to pick a number in Game Score and award Quality Starts via that methodology. At least Game Score scales properly and isn't broken. Game Score takes into account far more variables and gives you a better idea of a pitcher's worth. An even better solution is to break down starts into Horrific, Acceptable, Quality, and Outstanding using Game Score.
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    The key difference being that Game Score only starts with 50 to be more visually pleasing to the audience. It prevents most scores from going into the negative and has no real effect on the statistic itself. They could start with 100, they could start with zero. It all ends up at the same place because it's a comparative statistic. Whereas Quality Start chooses an arbitrary number and then bases its boolean award (1 or 0) on that arbitrary number. HUGE difference.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate. It's all about quantity of data, Brian. On top of being a flawed stat based on flawed stats using arbitrary cutoff levels, Quality Start also uses a very small data size (broken into 27-33 pieces for a full season). Most other stats use hundreds of data points to reach their full season total. The smaller the quantity of data, the more each failure in recording impacts the statistic. One missed call by Quality Start impacts the player by 3-4%. One missed Earned Run impacts the player by .75-1.25%. Each missed Strikeout impacts the player by .33-1.0%. Etc, etc.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    The thing is, that stat does exist. Game score - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time. The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6. lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol. Margin of error is a different argument entirely. Quality Start uses a minimum threshold (6 IP, 3 ER), which is fine. I may not agree with it but for the sake of this argument, I'll ignore it. Where the stat goes horribly wrong is that it uses only half of the same implementation for its maximum threshold. IP continues to scale but ER does not. A guy can pitch a six inning game, give up 20 hits, but manage to keep the damage to three runs so he gets the quality start. Another guy can pitch a nine inning game, give up two hits, a walk, and a homer, get the win, and not be awarded a quality start. That's a bad stat.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time. The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    But, again, what does that mean? And why isn't 8 IP, 4 ER counted? The entire stat is based off a flawed stat (ERA) and an arbitrary number as a cutoff (IP). It makes no attempt whatsoever to factor in anything past earned runs with a random inning threshold thrown in for good measure. To boot, it unnecessarily constrains sample size by judging only an entire start as one entity instead of breaking it into small pieces, which makes it more prone to fluctuation. It's bad math any way you look at it and if you presented a similar metric to any statistics professor, he/she would laugh you out of the room.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    But just because all stats are flawed doesn't mean we shouldn't note which stats are more flawed than others. Quality Starts has so many glaring flaws that it just can't be compared to a stat like ERA+. While ERA+ doesn't factor in defense, it does factor in ballpark and opposing offense. Quality Starts takes one semi-useful stat (ERA) and combines it with a much less useful stat (IP). On top of that, it arbitrarily draws a line in the sand in which some "good" starts qualify and other higher quality starts do not. It doesn't factor in opposing offense, ballpark, defense, or any of the multitude of other variables that effect a game's outcome.
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    Well, I try to avoid cherry-picking. For every pitcher, I look at the same things. ERA (to an extent), ERA+ (much better), xFIP/FIP (good for predicting an outcome), K/9, BB/9, occasionally hit/9 and IP if we're talking about full seasons. Those can be applied to every pitcher and you get an idea of how well a guy pitches. What if the pitcher plays in Yankee Stadium half his games and is right-handed? The place plays like a bandbox for lefty hitters and he gets to face the AL East in half his games and maybe the Yankees defense is awful. What if the guy pitches half his games in Dodger Stadium and then gets to face the often weak NL West hitters and what if the Dodgers are the best defensive team in baseball? What does QS really tell you about those pitchers? What about a guy who pitched in the late 90s versus a guy who pitches today when run scoring has dropped around a run per game? Continue ad nauseum. By using a small sample size (~30 starts) and by using a stat that is nearly 100% arbitrary (again, what is a "Quality Start"?), you are hindering your analysis for no good reason. You can take offense to that statement but you shouldn't... it's just the truth. Yes, guys will fluctuate from start to start but if you draw from a large enough sample size (say, ERA+, K/BB per 9, and IP), you'll get a much better idea of what kind of pitcher you're looking at. There's just no reason to look at the Quality Start stat. There are much better options out there.
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    The Twins had a league worst 5.9 K/9 rate last year. The next lowest was the Indians, nearly a full K more per game at 6.78. Looks like the Twins are trying to lower that number by a fair margin. Probably a good idea. It will give the terrible infield plenty of practive at improving their defensive issues. Still, if the other option is "nothing", I'll take Saunders. We all know that shouldn't be the case but even crappy ol' Joe is better than nothing.
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    Not in my lifetime. And if the going rate for one is what Kansas City just paid, I hope that continues to be the case. Kansas City was a 90 loss team in 2012. I have the feeling they're going to seriously regret pulling the trigger on competing prematurely. There was just no reason for it. Detroit is stronger this season but should begin to fade quickly as Fielder/Miggy get older, Verlander & Co. log more innings, Hunter falls into obscurity, V-Mart leaves, etc. There was simply no reason to go all-in right now. 2014 looks like a much better window to compete. I think Moore just made a huge mistake.
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    As much as I hate the idea of Joe Saunders, at this point I'll take him. I won't like it, but I'll take him.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    That's just it. One loss of a "Quality Start" by the bullpen changes the outcome of a season's percentage by 3-4%. Any time you're dealing with small numbers, any variance in the stat has a huge impact. Add in another "Quality Start" lost by giving up 4 ER in 8 IP and now you're looking at a 6-8% swing. Add in a third and the stat is completely useless, as you're over a 10% change through no fault of the starter whatsoever. If pitchers started 100 times a season, the Quality Start might have some meaning (though its arbitrary nature still makes it mostly useless... Who devised 6 IP, 3 ER as "Quality" but not 8 IP, 4 ER? It's pure nonsense). No stat is perfect but I can come up with at least a dozen that show more correlation to a pitcher's true performance than Quality Start. So, at that point, you have to ask yourself: if there are better stats to show how well a pitcher pitched, why are you intentionally using an inferior statistic unless you want to cherry-pick stats to make one player look good and another look bad? Use the best tools you have to draw a conclusion... No need to intentionally hinder an analysis with flawed methodology.
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    Unlikely, to say the least.
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    Booo you are just like my developer at work. He never tests with IE and when it has problems he says "who the hell still uses IE?" My answer...OUR CUSTOMERS IE is a piece of ****. It's awful. I'd test it but on my current machine, I don't have Windows installed. Formatted a few months back and didn't reinstall VirtualBox with Windows. I'll get around to it someday. Next revision of TD is going to drop support for IE8. I've been writing around that piece of **** for a half decade now. I've had enough of it. Microsoft browsers are truly the worst. There's no excuse for using them unless you're forced to do it by an incompetent IT department at work. When I write a website, a good 20% of my time is spend re-writing pieces of it to work in IE. Virtually 0% of that time is spent doing the same for Chrome. Maybe 1-2% is spent doing the same for Firefox. One-freakin-fifth of my time. For ONE browser. Don't use IE, folks. It's terrible. It's really the absolute biggest piece of junk on the market. Even IE9. While it's much better than its predecessors, it's still at least 18 months behind Chrome and Firefox.
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    Actually, 6 IP/ER would earn a Quality Start. I actually kind of like the stat as long as it's not taken too seriously. Grah, my phone sabotaged me. 9 IP, 4 ER is not a quality start. 6 IP, 3 ER is a quality start. Which is the better start? QS is way too abstract and scattershot to ever be of much use. The creator of the stat just picked an arbitrary number and used that as the basis of... what, I don't even know. Just the fact that pitchers can go deeper into games with a better ERA and not get awarded the stat shows just how useless it is. Or that the bullpen can blow the "Quality Start" for the pitcher by letting a runner from first score and the stat is taken away from the starter. Or a half dozen other ways that it arbitrarily awards the stat and not others. It's like the save stat, except even dumber.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    Time to dust off the ol' debugging accounts and start testing situations. I can't get get the error to replicate unless I'm logged out and I'm using Safari, FF, Chrome, and Opera.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    Lining 'em up, knocking 'em down. 71 Orioles, watch out. The 2013 Twins are comin' for you.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    No, it's definitely not only you. I've heard other complaints about it but I can't get it to replicate unless I log out of the site. Is that what's happening to you? Are you logged out when you don't see the comments? I don't think it's an acceptable problem either way, just trying to narrow down the issue here.
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    The Marquis comparison isn't a bad one. Correia and Marquis are basically the same guy. Right-handed, soft-tossers with marginal control, don't miss bats, keep just over 50% of balls on the ground. With that said, Correia will probably not be as bad as Marquis in Minnesota. Marquis will also not be as good as he was in San Diego. The Marquis signing was "meh" at the time for me. I didn't like him as a pitcher but given the money left to JR at that point, I didn't fault him for trying. Marquis obviously had issues while in Minnesota because he completely imploded... but even if he had pitched similar to his 2011 line, he wasn't going to be very good and probably would have been a below average pitcher. I expect Correia to be that pitcher in 2013. Below average, declining, but not a complete implosion a la Marquis. And that still makes this two year (!) deal a mistake.
×
×
  • Create New...