Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 45 of 76 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 675 of 1134
  1. #661
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,442
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    But we were talking about him on the Rockies in 2016. Would you rather sign someone who had a 3.5 ERA but a 4.5 xFIP? Or a 4.5 ERA who had a 3.5 xFIP?

    Because I know who I'd rather have going forward.
    Moving forward, it's obviously the lower FIP. That's common sense. But for that season, I'd rather have the lower ERA. Also, common sense.

  2. #662
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,442
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    Yeah, I call ********. You used the arguments that he "outpitched his FIP" and that "results matter." That phrasing is clearly representing a stance that it's okay his FIP was bad, because his ERA indicates his "actual performance" was good. As in, "he pitched better than his FIP represented." When the truth is the opposite, that is, he pitched worse than his ERA represented. He was lucky for half a season. So what? Would you sign a guy with a 3.5 ERA/4.5 FIP or a 4.5 ERA/3.5 FIP? What point are you trying to make here? Clearly, if we are in agreement that FIP/xFIP are a better indicator of future/true performance, it's player B.
    OK kid

    Of course I'd rather have the lower FIP moving forward. But I'm not talking about moving forward. I'm referring about the year that already happened. I'd rather have a lower ERA in that case. But you already know this, and are looking for an argument instead of a conversation. But you already know that also.

  3. #663
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,319
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Moving forward, it's obviously the lower FIP. That's common sense. But for that season, I'd rather have the lower ERA. Also, common sense.
    ...great. The problem is you clearly didn't understand the conversation at hand I was having with someone else. Someone said he "pitched fantastic" citing his ERA. Except that doesn't show you pitched fantastic on its' own. When your FIP/xFIP is well below, you got lucky, you didn't pitch fantastic. I pointed that out.

    Then you came barreling into the conversation talking about "results matter". Sure, whatever, we both get it. But you had no idea what the conversation was. Or were highly confused about it. It doesn't really matter. The important thing is that no one was talking about "Results not mattering". Now we're here.

  4. #664
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,442
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    ...great. The problem is you clearly didn't understand the conversation at hand I was having with someone else. Someone said he "pitched fantastic" citing his ERA. Except that doesn't show you pitched fantastic on its' own. When your FIP/xFIP is well below, you got lucky, you didn't pitch fantastic. I pointed that out.

    Then you came barreling into the conversation talking about "results matter". Sure, whatever, we both get it. But you had no idea what the conversation was. Or were highly confused about it. It doesn't really matter. The important thing is that no one was talking about "Results not mattering". Now we're here.
    Got it. Then I misspoke.

  5. #665
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,222
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    OK kid

    Of course I'd rather have the lower FIP moving forward. But I'm not talking about moving forward. I'm referring about the year that already happened. I'd rather have a lower ERA in that case. But you already know this, and are looking for an argument instead of a conversation. But you already know that also.
    That wasn't even the conversation anyone was having. It was pretty clear the discussion was about evaluating Tyler Chatwood's pitching performance. You were the one looking for an argument. You didn't understand what the discussion was even about, and took a contrarian opinion anyway for no real reason just to make an ultimately irrelevant point.

    ERA is better for the team, than FIP, sure. I mean, FIP is a better indicator of how strong the team's pitching is, but whatever. That's not remotely what you said first, and again, not at all what the conversation was even about. You said Chatwood's pitching was better than his FIP and now you're trying to backtrack.

  6. #666
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    What an infuriatingly ignorant reply. FIP = Fielding Independent Pitching. In other words, it's the pitcher's isolated pitching performance (AKA results). I feel like it's back to basics, but the reason FIP is better is that it's not influenced by luck and defense (things outside of a pitcher's control). Having an ERA different from your FIP is not like having performance different than a projection. FIP, much like wOBA and batting average, is just a better measurement of a pitcher's performance than ERA is. And his FIP/xFIP turned out to be much more predictive in the long run, as Chatwood did not sustain those low ERAs in the long run. His ERA went on to look much more like his FIP/xFIP.
    FIP is not a perfect stat by any means. It has its own flaws. It doesn't measure how a guy holds runners on, ground balls vs flyballs (which influence inducing double-plays etc). FIP is a guess, and so is xFIP. ERA isn't perfect either.

    In all honesty they need to measure every batted ball and the likelihood it would be caught by an average defense to take away the defense factor.

  7. #667
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,143

    2020 Cubs Spring Training Thread

    Tom Hanks and his wife have the Coronavirus. They both caught it on the Gold Coast in Australia, whilst Tom was filming a movie. There are probably more people than we know with it. I think MLB definitely is in danger of not starting on time.
    Last edited by JHBulls; 03-11-2020 at 10:58 PM.

  8. #668
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by JHBulls View Post
    Tom Hanks and his wife have the Coronavirus. They both caught it on the Gold Coast in Australia, whilst Tom was filming a movie.
    I wonder if this could mean they start delaying film shoots outside the country. I need my movies LOL.

  9. #669
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    I wonder if this could mean they start delaying film shoots outside the country. I need my movies LOL.
    At this stage, probably expect delays to happen across the board with everything. The current TV season that normally runs until May is probably fine as most shows would have wrapped up production or getting there soon.

    NBA is done, for now. The other 3 major sports will probably follow suit as well. Playing in front of empty stadiums is an option of course but players have already been infected, namely Utah Jazz player Rudy Gobert and an Italian football player has it too and their sporting competition has already been suspended. When sporting athletes are already getting it, no amount of empty stadiums will stop the spread.

  10. #670
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by JHBulls View Post
    At this stage, probably expect delays to happen across the board with everything. The current TV season that normally runs until May is probably fine as most shows would have wrapped up production or getting there soon.

    NBA is done, for now. The other 3 major sports will probably follow suit as well. Playing in front of empty stadiums is an option of course but players have already been infected, namely Utah Jazz player Rudy Gobert and an Italian football player has it too and their sporting competition has already been suspended. When sporting athletes are already getting it, no amount of empty stadiums will stop the spread.
    Empty stadiums sounds like an option. 100 people in a stadium is better than 40k. But who knows. A lot more close player contact in NBA than MLB.

  11. #671
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    Gonna be a long year if there's no baseball for any extended period of time.
    Better safe than sorry for players, fans, etc. All it takes is one person testing positive. Sports is Sports. They will start the season when the timing is right. Not like they are going on strike over money like in the past.

  12. #672
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,608
    Quote Originally Posted by WOwolfOL View Post
    For the most part, I think everybody realizes that Ian Miller sucks and from a statistical standpoint he is nothing to get excited about. I'm not fully sure what Ivy's original quote was but it wasn't all that effusive in praise. It was more just saying, look out for this dude, he looks like he could be rostered, he's had a big spring. Then the retort was, we know who Ian Miller is and this performance is meaningless. That seems to be the issue. Regardless of result of statistical performance or not, ST is not meaningless when it comes to the roster taking shape. I think we all agree on that to certain extents. Certainly these fringe players and guys like Chatwood can win or lose their spot depending on how well they perform in ST.
    Yeah this has escalated way further than it should have. Iím not going to look at the history of ST and searching for players who won a roster spot because they had a great ST. Iíll take a ďLĒ on this one before I do that. I donít give a **** what 99% of players do during the spring. (None of this is directed at you Wolf, btw). Find one time I mentioned anybody and their spring numbers other than Ian Miller. We are seriously going on and on about a bench player/last man on the roster. This is crazier than the countless Heyward arguments thatís been had on here. I seriously doubt that Theo said ďIan Miller is a lock to make the Major League roster this year, even if he strikes out in 50% of his ABs and goes 5-60, heís our guy!Ē before ST started. I think he brings a nice element that most other 26th man types donít... Speed and good defense, and heís showed it this spring.

    Iím just now getting a chance to read through everything and obviously I canít respond to everybody, nor would I even know where to begin. All you have to do is watch baseball (not just the Cubs) and read Twitter (not fans, but people who cover teams) and you will see countless mentions of guys fighting for a roster spot. Even in the broadcast just tonight of the Padres vs Cubs game, JD said Cal Quantrill was battling Joey Lucchesi for the 5th starter spot in their rotation. So yes, for a select few players, what they do in spring matters. It doesnít mean that certain players will be as good or as bad as their spring numbers suggest, it simply means they won a roster spot. I donít see the outrage in this. Itís not some hot take that if you canít back it up with facts, then youíre wrong. Every player, every team, every situation, and every decision maker is different. Even if I could dig up some fringe minor leaguer that had a good spring for the Rangers 2 years ago that supported my argument, that would be a meaningless and inequivalent argument on my part anyways. This is my last post on this situation because itís really stupid. Thatís all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #673
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,051
    Quote Originally Posted by WhyCantWeWin View Post
    They should delay the season by a month or two
    Im not sure that helps. This is expected to go on for 3-6 months, I believe.

  14. #674
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Empty stadiums sounds like an option. 100 people in a stadium is better than 40k. But who knows. A lot more close player contact in NBA than MLB.
    Well, that is certainly true. A fan at a Cricket game at the MCG (86,000+ at that game) in Australia a few days ago has tested positive to the Coronavirus. Better to be safe than sorry and just play games behind closed doors from now. Itís not worth the risk of one fan spreading the virus to a lot of people.

  15. #675
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,319
    Quote Originally Posted by ivyboys View Post
    Yeah this has escalated way further than it should have. Iím not going to look at the history of ST and searching for players who won a roster spot because they had a great ST. Iíll take a ďLĒ on this one before I do that. I donít give a **** what 99% of players do during the spring. (None of this is directed at you Wolf, btw). Find one time I mentioned anybody and their spring numbers other than Ian Miller. We are seriously going on and on about a bench player/last man on the roster. This is crazier than the countless Heyward arguments thatís been had on here. I seriously doubt that Theo said ďIan Miller is a lock to make the Major League roster this year, even if he strikes out in 50% of his ABs and goes 5-60, heís our guy!Ē before ST started. I think he brings a nice element that most other 26th man types donít... Speed and good defense, and heís showed it this spring.

    Iím just now getting a chance to read through everything and obviously I canít respond to everybody, nor would I even know where to begin. All you have to do is watch baseball (not just the Cubs) and read Twitter (not fans, but people who cover teams) and you will see countless mentions of guys fighting for a roster spot. Even in the broadcast just tonight of the Padres vs Cubs game, JD said Cal Quantrill was battling Joey Lucchesi for the 5th starter spot in their rotation. So yes, for a select few players, what they do in spring matters. It doesnít mean that certain players will be as good or as bad as their spring numbers suggest, it simply means they won a roster spot. I donít see the outrage in this. Itís not some hot take that if you canít back it up with facts, then youíre wrong. Every player, every team, every situation, and every decision maker is different. Even if I could dig up some fringe minor leaguer that had a good spring for the Rangers 2 years ago that supported my argument, that would be a meaningless and inequivalent argument on my part anyways. This is my last post on this situation because itís really stupid. Thatís all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I know you said it was your last post, but much like Wolf, you're categorizing the argument incorrectly. And I'm going to try to set that correct.

    I haven't seen people argue that teams don't let players compete for spots. More so, that teams really shouldn't. That's been the point. With SSS extreme, and questionable competition, a team should generally know if Joey Luccesi is their 5th best SP entering ST or not. And that 12-15 IP in Arizona shouldn't tilt the see-saw.

    ST shouldn't be used for that in most cases. And honestly, I don't think most teams do any longer. I would hope the Padres have a good enough grasp on their players to know who they think is the better pitcher already. And not be swayed.

    As you said, you don't want to look through all of those ST numbers but I think that highlights the reason why teams shouldn't do it. If it were so easy to find a player who's ST numbers mattered, it'd be a valid reason to use to determine spots. It's difficult to find because...well...they don't. And maybe teams shouldn't be using this reasoning behind choosing players if it's hard to find ST success stories that then translated into MLB success. If they don't correlate, if they don't cause each other...then is it a good process?
    .

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Page 45 of 76 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •