So, I haven't been watching baseball for a few years. What happened with Vladdo? If a guy's super athletic at 25, doesn't that mean he's usually still pretty athletic at 35? Injuries and getting fat, I understand, but what explains the klutzoidness?

my dog was just on the ABC 11 o'clock news



****'s gonna be more famous than Ashkon

redbeans "oops" are like the best thing ever

makes me wanna reread the bonds thread

It's not what I am focusing on either. His response was to Thayer. And I'm not trying to "prove him wrong" as I said I don't disagree that the best approach to hitting Lee might be swinging early and often. What I'm mostly arguing is that Lee was really off the other night. (in addition to the Giants hitting well and/or having a good approach).

In general, yes he has provided data (I'm not verifying it but I don't doubt it) that shows a tendency to fall in line with swinging early and often being a better approach. Again I never really disputed that.

However his data does have holes. The sample size isn't great. ERA is a pretty bad stat to use, especially considering it's a mean average that can be really damaged by 1 or 2 horrendous outings (that can have more do to with being really off) instead of looking at his typical outings. His definition of "selective" is flimsy at best, since all it is is "walks". Cliff Lee's pitch count in at-bats that end in walk has to be pretty high. Maybe like over 6 pitches? I dunno. But that means there are hitters seeing 5 and 4 pitches in an at-bat that aren't being considered "selective". Which, against Lee, I'm assuming RedBean is positing that they should be putting the ball in play earlier than the 5th pitch. He's just never really defined the break-even point beyond something nebulous. Again generally, sure, walks is obviously correlated to being selective but I'm just not sure how far it goes to prove his point here.

Additionally, his data shows that the expectation of Lee against free-swinging teams is what... a 3.34 ERA? That's really good. His ERA vs. the Giants in game 1? 11.57. Why such a large disparity? Lee performed significantly worse in Game 1 than he should be expected to against RedBean's data.

Against Cliff Lee when he's got his good stuff?
I don't know. "a handful"? How many do you think?

Cliff Lee does love "challenging" the hitter. Do you know why? Because he has a very strong assortment of pitches that move a lot and that he commands very well. It's not really as dangerous for him to do this as some meathead trying to do nothing but blow 96mph fastballs by a hitter because he "doesn't back down". It's not a character flaw of Lee that he is always around the plate. It's a good thing, because typically he's really awesome and hitters often hit "pitchers' pitches".


Wait are you suggesting that going up with some guesstimate as to what the pitcher may start you with, or what kind of pitch you might look for (in your zone) then reacting is somehow worse than going up without putting thought into it and just reacting? If that's true then MLB hitters are insanely more talented than I thought.

Of course, but here's the other rub, Cliff Lee's elite versions of his curve ball, changeup and cutter/slider are much different pitches and much harder to hit than his mediocre versions. Or do you expect another 11-ish ERA from Cliff next game?

You are preaching to the choir. For the 90th time, I have not once disagreed with this position. I don't know why you keep trying to sell me on this. You seem to be forgetting that the crux of this debate is that you aren't giving enough credit to Lee being off and I'm trying to convince you that he was. Yes you said he had a bad game. But then you post like 20 paragraphs about how good the Giants' approach was. No matter how many times you say that it doesn't change the fact that I don't think you realize how different elite Lee is compared to mediocre or crappy Lee.



Yes. Yes. Yes. Never did I say otherwise.


No, I'm most certain it's easy to slug an 87mph cutter that starts 6" off the plate and grabs the corner. That's why you see it happen so much. Or a righty do anything better than pop up an 0-2 changeup on the outer corner. The hitter's talent will automatically overpower the pitcher's talent. Luck is a non-factor.

Mark McGwire hit a ball in the old Kingdome 585 million feet off Johnson. Because Johnson throws 100mph and it's really straight. What a bad analogy to say you are better at hitting than me. I don't know who you are or how high you played but it sounds like you at least had a cup of coffee in the bigs. You're a better hitter than me ainec.

Touche. Fine. Whatever. I just think had they swung and hit those pitches effectively it would be even more apparent that Lee didn't have his curve that night. Instead it's like "oh wow he 7th-leveled Pat Burrell by throwing it right over the plate!" I doubt that was the psychological level Lee was operating on but effectively, it worked as I'm not sure what else those guys were sitting on to let those pitches go by with 2 strikes.


See my response to PwnMaster about your data. It's pretty flimsy data and it says we should expect a 3.34 ERA from Lee when in fact he posted an abysmal 11.57. Chalk the disparity up to variance, shall we? That's the most convenient option.

Sorry about that.

We're going to play a little game called Now and Then.

Here's how it works:

1. Now is now.
2. Then is two days ago in this same thread.


EZ game. Let's get started.

Here is what you are saying now:
Here is what you said then:
Sweet.

But wait, there's more....

Here is what you are saying now:
Here is what you said then:
Yahtzee!

Ok, enough of that, now moving onto the rest of this post....

I didn't pick it. The other fella said 3 years, that's what I went with.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Lemme know.

I didn't pick it. The other fella did.

What stat you recommend?

Please to be naming one.

I didn't define it. The other fella did.

What measure would you prefer we use?

Don't be greedy. Share your suggestion.

So wait, is using walks as a quick gauge of selectivity either "flimsy at best" or is it "obviously correlated"?

That was like a now and then within three sentences...lol

And if your not sure how far it goes to prove my point....well how far has anything anyone else posted gone to disprove my point?

"Hey RedBeans, I know you posted a bunch of facts and stats and nubers and stuff....but we made a bunch of baseless mocking statements and posted some inaccurate numbers so I'm not sure which proves more."

I mean, seriously.

Eeeerbody was quick to mock and go all "lol redbean illogical ridiculous", but the only "data" posted to disprove it has been inaccurate and far and few between.

I mean, from where I sit, facts and numbers and stuff >>>> foolish mockery and fake stats.

Maybe it's just me, I dunno.

And yet it's worse than his performance against more-selective teams over the same time period.

Here, lemme sum it all up-

- I said Lee performed worse against less-selective teams than he did against more-selective teams.
- You (then) joined the angry mob in mocking this as illogical and ridiculous.
- I posted facts and numbers and stuff supporting my position rather convincingly.
- You (now) say you that you never disagreed with my initial position, even though you did (then).


Since I asserted a position, supported it, proved it conclusively, and you concur (now).....then I guess we can pretty much put a bow on this one and call it done.

Unless, ya know, you want to really jump in the br'er patch and define some different metrics to try.

Bueller?

Its pretty obvious that Lee was off, don't think that was really the crux of what RedBean has been presenting. Don't think he was arguing that at all other than to say even if he was off, the Giants still had to beat him, something other teams might not have done. If that is all you are saying then it seems like that is alot of words to make a pretty simple point that no one really disagrees with. Obviously the numbers he is presenting has alot of holes and aren't conclusive, not taking it as gospel by any means, but it does lean in the direction he was saying, which is pretty surprising.

lollllll, this is amazing

I found a follow up report from Mr. Scruggs: BAM

Except when they hit them well, then he's not "on", and then they aren't "pitcher's pitches", their bad pitches the he threw because he's off, and the other team got lucky.

What are you using to determine what versions he had going?

Is it that he got hit, ergo, they couldn't have been his elite versions?

This question brought to you by the guy who just 15 minutes ago said that my use of Lee's ERA over his last 600+IP and 3 years was a "small sample size".

I guess this is the part where I should post "In before Lee allows less than 6 runs in 4 innings and PHB declares victory."

Not now....

Oh, but then...ah yes....but then.

Funny how that works, huh?

That's the crux of the debate? Really.

I could of swore it was started when I said clear as day "Lee had a bad game", and then I added in one sentence that he traditionally does worse against lineups that are less-selective at the plate.

Dude, it was 1 sentence. You count paragraphs like PwnMaster counts batters faced.

Lemme guess....'bout 6 runs?

Not now....but then.....

Freddie Sanchez says hi.

92MPH. 7.2inches horizontal movement. Pretty good location. Slugged for a double.




Buster Posey says a single is better than a pop-up. Albeit this changeup was on 0-1, not 0-2.




Oops...

Dallas columnist makes fun of SF at beginning of series

But he starts to like him some AT&T Park

And finally has to admit that he's fallen in love with the awesomeness of San Francisco

I must say, it's refreshing to see someone who was actively engaged on the other side acknowledge as much.

And as for the numbers having some holes, keep in mind I was constraining them to the metrics defined by the other fella I was replying too.

If anyone here knows from the Bonds threads of yore, I usually give just enough rope needed to hang yourself, and if you come back over the top, then I'll bring the hammer out. I mean, I didn't invite PHB to re-define the metrics, nor invite the other fella to start a new thread to discuss it it in excruciatingly further detail unless there was a strong possibility of even more RedBean goodness.

I debunked the other fella using his own metrics, I didn't even have to roll out my presentation of my data with my metrics. I mean if you really think about it, I'm already scooping the pot, and you still haven't even seen my cards.

yeah i think that learning how the game works is the only way to actually understand how the game works. i'm weird like that.

thinking that you have somehow intuitively figured out how the game works (which some of the best baseball players of all time couldn't do) because you play in some crappy adult league is lol and evidence that you are either crazy or really, really ****ing dumb.

the fact that you don't understand baseball is apparent in, oh, just about every single post you make on the subject. you spout tired sportscenter cliches and stupid **** your idiot managers have taught you over the years and think this somehow equates to understanding the game.

the funny part is that you are correct about me not possessing any special knowledge. anybody could read the stuff i've read and know what i know. in fact there are other posters on this very board that have done that and some that have even learned more than me. but instead of educating yourself you have instead declared yourself a baseball savant that doesn't need none of that there book learnin cause goddammit you play the game and are just sooo goddamn smart every idea that pops into your head about baseball must be correct.

Moving on...now that that's out of the way....

PHB, I'm curious to know your process for determining whether or not Lee is "on".

I mean, I certainly hope it isn't "when he gives up some runs".

You previously alluded to his curveball, but Phildo made a good point about it essentially being his 4th pitch, one that he only throws 5% of the time.

BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with his curveball either, but I wanted to hear your process for determing that Lee was not "on".

I mean, we're not talking about Big Unit's slider here, which he threw nearly 40% of the time, or Maddogs circle that he threw about 25% of the time, or a Clemens splitter that he sent out 20% of the time, or Hoffmans change that he threw 30% of the time, etc, etc.

Heck, we're not even talking about Timmay's change that he throws 20% of the time.

When those guys are off with those core pitches, it spells big trouble.

We're talking about a curve Lee throws about 5% of the time. He relies on it less that Timmay does his slider (8%), and I'd be willing to bet Timmay could manage most of the time through a game if you took that pitch out and left him to the fastballs, the curve, and the change.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Lee was on, but I think its a lot more than just "pfft...his curve just wasn't breaking right man...wat u gonna do...oh well"

Walk me through your process of determining Lee's "on"-nishness....I want to try to nail something down aside from results-orientated retroactive box score analysis ("omg, he allowed the runs....he must not have been on").

The first at-bat is the one in which Sanchez "slugged" this double. Roll that beautiful bean footage:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?co...71226&c_id=mlb

Oops.....



Am I doing it right? Sorry couldn't help myself. Please don't attack my ability to count at bats again in retaliation.

Not exactly related to this, but somewhat I guess, on book-learning vs "what the pros who played say", I would have to say that that the best hitting analysis/teaching points I've ever seen were in my PM box on this site from kyleb. He actually opened my eyes to several things, and had me wishing I had that info available prior to hanging the cleats up.

And I'm talking better than the good part of a decades worth of numerous professional hitting coaches and fellow players.

And I'm not talking about performance analysis, or predictive analysis, or wars and whips and all that jazz. I'm talking about the type of analysis that explains to you how to hit a baseball properly.

I don't know if he got it from a physics book, a physiology class, or a sabr metrics seminar or whatever, but one way or the other he got it.

The only person I think knows more about how to hit a baseball might be the Big Guy himself...and I'm not exaggarating. The only difference of course being that kyleb doesn't have the tools himself to take advantage of that knowledge and put himself in a position where people will put him in a clubhouse and let him instruct their players.

But you can bet your sweet ass that if I could take a time machine back to the day after the draft when it all first started and told me I could only take three things, it be kyleb, a book on money management, and a note that says "don't introduce rickey to your wife".

In that order.

Hey man, nothing ventured nothing gained. He took his hack, and he wound up on the second bag.

If you prefer he takes that pitch like Jeter, gets deep in the count, and then ends the night with a new hat trick to show his friends...so much so....

This demonstrates back to my original point, it wasn't his ideal pitch...but he went after it rather than leaving the bat on his shoulders and getting worked deep, and as a result, he got two bags.

But who knows with you guys anyway....when they hit a good Lee pitch, people say they got lucky. When they hit a bad Lee pitch, they blame it on Lee being off. It can never possibly be a result of the hitter doing something right.

But little Freddie will take his hacks and take that 4-for-5 any game of the week and a doubleheader on sunday.

Ya, I guess if you think so. I mean he brought up no one being able to slug an 87mph cutter with 6" movement on the corner, so I showed a near exact match from the very last game in which I only had 24 (or 28...lol) at-bats to choose from. It's not like I went back 27 games to find a near exact match...it came from the very game we were talking about Lee not being "on" and if he were, the Giants approach would be useless. That it was 92MPH and had 7" movement, and was in near perfect location doesn't seem to matter as much as he didn't "slug" it, in your eyes.

I dunno where you grew up, but that's a professional baseball hit right thurr on that pitch, I don't care who you are....and it's a pretty good microcosm of what we've been discussing throughout this thread.

That same pitch 9 days prior and Jeter is taking and then battling Lee down 0-1 in an unfavorable count on his way to the bad kind of 3-ring circus, yet here little Freddie is dusting of his pants and standing in scoring position.

looooool

Awesome, love it. Wasn't trying to come at you or rehash the argument, just getting a cheap jab in, kinda like you bringing up my counting skills again.

hollllle **** is it Saturday night yet so we can move on to another topic?

yeah this thread was so awesome before

lol, these are awesome. Almost feel bad for the guy having to go back to texass.

i wonder if phb ever considers why he's listed a bunch in the worst posters thread and i'm not even though i'm both a high volume poster and a pretty big dick that goes out of my way to troll and antagonize people.

the problem must be with everybody else

Ooops

Good work Redbean.

I would like to point out some flaws though you have used in arguing Yankees vs. Giants.

You pointed out yourself that the Yankees facing Cliff Lee drew 41 balls and 20 strikes before swinging at the 1st pitch. That's a good thing. 2-1 counts = good. That is the opposite of 1-2.

Also you've somewhat attacked Jeter's and the Yankees approach against Lee, which seems a little unfair considering Jeter is 15-36 lifetime against Lee with 5 walks and nearly an 1100 OPS. In fact many Yankees have done very well against Lee, A-Rod, Teixeira and Swisher all have OPS's over .950.

Thank you for showing your work though! How did you find and compile all of that stuff so easily? I had to just roughly look at team standings on B-Ref and obviously accidentally found the 1st 2nd and 4th worst walking teams.

I've roughly looked at Lee's career vs batters and it seems like the more patient guys have had better success against him. Among the guys he has faced the most, Jeter, Maggs, Konerko, Teahen and Inge have been very successful, and they all have higher than a .60 ISO-D. Ichiro, DeJesus, Granderson and Polanco all have been pretty bad against him and their ISO-D's besides Grandy are not that great. Obviously this method is a bit flawed considering the 1st group has 4 righties and 1 lefty and the 2nd group has 3 lefties and 1 righty, but I don't really know of a way to look into that further in depth though, I'm just roughly looking at this stuff and could obviously be wrong.


Anyways, I appreciate the time and effort you have put forth and hope you don't lump me in with phb

here is a pic of renteria as hes waiting on deck before he hit that homerun: