Woof Bronzer

Thanks for the numbers! I have to say, though, the response is part of what frustrates me about analytics. let me be clear that I don't mean this personally, more of just a general comment on analytics. Here 2 numbers were presented and the the one that better supported your thesis was chosen, in lieu of the (more accurate) one that goes against your priors. The bigger issue though is the idea that FIP is more meaningful than ERA when looking at last year. This is fundamentally misunderstanding statistics. FIP is a predicitve analytic. It MAY predict NEXT YEAR's ERA better than this current year's ERA, but FIP measures what may have happened if baseball was played in a vacuum while ERA measures what actually happened. FIP cannot predict last year's ERA better than ERA because we actually have last year's ERA - no predictions necessary. So the numbers presented absolutely point to the Twins replacing a better pitcher (Gray) with worse ones, on average (the bullpen). Maybe this doesn't conform to the analytics bible, but analytics is supposed to be about digging deeper to find the cold truth, and not being slavish to conventional wisdom. That said, I am most interested in what happened specifically in the games that Gray pitched, and even more specifically with the pichetrs that replaced him. One thing I've noticed is the stats crowd always focuses on when to pull the starter, and almost never on who they plan to replace him with. Yes, third time through the order may result in a higher ERA for the starter, but it still might be better than the guy they are bringing in, and it is almost certainly better than the guy they are bringing it + the domino effect of wearing out your bullpen earlier. And this is magnified when you have a starter who is dealing. You KNOW how that guy is pitching, you don't need numbers to predict if he's pitching well. But when you yank him you are taking a risk that the next guy maybe just doesn't have it today, or the next guy, or the next guy. It just seems counterproductive to me. But, again, maybe I'm happy to be proven wrong with the data. I'll see if I can gather any numbers on this.

But aren't all last years ptichers back except for 2? So he'd be insulting this year's pitchers too. Plus as Yawn said Bundy had the longest 2 starts last year and Archer was pulled several times when he was cruising with low pitch counts. I read Gray's comments as a shot at the manager. Based on Baldelli's response I'd say rocco agrees with my interpretation :)

Maybe, but you can't say the Twins managed Gray's innings pretty well without a corresponding analysis of the pitchers who the Twins brought in to replace Gray when he got pulled. If those cumulitive numbers are worse than Gray's I don't think you can say the innings were managed properly. I'm not smart enough to do this, but I'd be very interested to see the results. I have a gut feeling, but I'm always open to being wrong :)

Yeah you're right, few FOs are going to be critical, but I do get a "smartest guys in the room" vibe from this one. 2 straight years of sub-80 wins and the only change is the trainer? That doesn't sound like a lot of honest self-reflection to me but that's just me and also, the important thing would be to learn from failures and their roster construction this year indicates that they actually do acknowledge some of their mistakes from the last 2 years, just not publicly. Hey I wouldn't want to talk about my mistakes either! Sorry I know this isn't the place to be critical, I'm really not trying to upset you, I promise. Thanks for the conversation and I'll try to be more uncritical in the future :)

Great to be here, thanks! Yeah I'm not saying Bundy and Archer were good, yeesh. I don't think it's accurate to say he was terrible when they let him, as the OP showed they didn't let him go longer in several starts where he was cruising. It's possible that both things can be true - Bundy and Archer aren't good pitchers, and the Twins FO & manager implemented a failed strategy on managing the pitching staff last year. The funny thing is, even the FO is acknowledging both points - not explicity, of course, this FO isn't one for self-criticism - but not going into a 3rd straight season with Bundy, Archer, Shoemaker, Happ types in the rotation says all you need to know! Yet some folks just need to defend the indefensible I guess. Oh well. Go Twins!

You should read the OP's comment. Plenty of data and stats cited. Sorry if they don't fit your narrative.

This is absolutely brilliant and shocking to me becasue it runs counter to all the spin I hear. So I predict this will just be ignored by all the stat guys and true believers here because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative, But facts matter! Thanks for not accepting the conventional wisdom and daring to actually do research and come to your own conclusions.