TheYanks04 wrote:This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.
I thought James was a Royals' fan?
As much as anyone can be a Royals fan these days?
HEY!
I'll be grateful if we don't loss 100 games this year. And to think I was an Expos fan before this...
hmm...The Chiefs, The Canadiens, The Bulls, The Royals...man my team sucks
Are you interested in joining a 28 teams dynasty league? If so, PM me.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:If pitching is 75% or more of the game and always beats good hitting, why don't teams spend 75% or more of their payroll on pitching?
Because you only need 5 starters, and 8-9 position players... and bullpen guys are much cheaper.
Not closers...and did you see what set-up men were signing for this winter?
You have 8-9 position players and 5 starters a closer and at least 1 or 2 decent set-up men. You generally have 13-14 position players and 11-12 pitchers. The typical 40 man roster is usually right around 50/50.
Even accounting for number of players, you'd expect that if pitching is 75% of more of the game, teams would be spending no less than 67% of their budget on pitching.
TheYanks04 wrote:This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.
You cannot think that anyone took your initial post:
but what about the oppposite? Namely what happens when BAD pitching meets BAD hitting?
A scientific study needs to be done with a staff of:
Milton J. Wright Russ Ortiz Scott Elarton Chan Ho Park
vs
Womack Guzman Ausmus Kaz Matsui D. Bell Mienkawitz C. Patterson Catalanato N. Perez
Dan Charette wrote:This argument really has 2 different parts. 1 is good pitching vs, good hitting from a team point of view. 2 is the abstract of the batter against the pitcher without looking at team results. These are 2 whole different arguments. If you look at it from the team's results then a multitude of factors become involved.
In the abstract of the pitcher against the batter without looking at the end result . Just 1 on 1 if the pitcher makes his pitches, he'll get the batters out most of the time. Very few balls will be hit hard. The pitcher can dominate even the great hitters when he's making his pitches. And with the '69 Mets , their pitching carried them. They had guys like Kranepool, Al Weiss, Bud Harrelson, Ron Svoboda, Tommy Agee. This was one of the weakest hitting teams in baseball. They won because their pitching dominated. Seaver, Koosman, and a young Nolen Ryan. But a team with bad pitching will never win.
Dan the Bluesman
First of all, the Mets were not "the weakest hitting team in baseball." The average NL team that year scored 4.05 runs per game. The Mets scored 3.90 runs per game. It's a total and complete myth that they were a bad hitting team. They were a team that had great pitching (allowing 3.34 runs per game) and mediocre hitting, just a hair below average.
And that combination in reverse happens a few times, too. The 1976 Reds and Red Sox, for example, were a little below average in pitching and the leading scoring team. The 1987 Twins were a little below average in pitching.
And, other than argument by tautology, the rest of your comment makes no sense.
Have you never heard a pitcher say "I made my pitch, but he just beat me."?
TheYanks04 wrote:This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.
Nice try, this thread started out as nothing more than another of your reminders about the players you don't like. Nobody has forgotten and nobody really cares, we just see it as a challenge to make an actual discussion out of your crap.
TheYanks04 wrote:This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.
Nice try, this thread started out as nothing more than another of your reminders about the players you don't like. Nobody has forgotten and nobody really cares, we just see it as a challenge to make an actual discussion out of your crap.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:If pitching is 75% or more of the game and always beats good hitting, why don't teams spend 75% or more of their payroll on pitching?
The 2005 BP had a chart in the Phillies section that showed the fraction of opening day payroll spent on pitching for all teams in 2004 w/ the Rangers leading at 61.9%, Dodgers at 55.9%, Braves at 52.7% and Phillies at 49.2%. These 'big spenders' were countered by the Royals at 26.5%, Padres at 25.2, Tigers at 22.9% and Rockies at 13.1%. The Phillies were labelled as 'one of the worst offenders' at overspending on pitching. World series contenders Boston and St. Louis were at 45.1% and 43.6%, respectively. And, the teams that made it to the series the following year, Houston and Chicago AL, were at 35.4% and 39.1% as they began positioning themselves for it perhaps?
Right next to the first table is a graph showing season over season runs scored per game and season over season runs allowed per game since 1946, which shows that runs scored are more closely spaced from which they are able to infer that pitching is less consistent and would thus from an investment perspective be less valuable given the volitility of the returns on those investments.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by PlayingWithFire » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:23 pm 
