Mail Bag Magic!
Eric Sillius of Oakville might be a frickin' genius.
At least, I seriously hope he is, and that his question in this week's Star mail bag wasn't borne of total sincerity, because Sillius tossed a huge, perfect meatball right into the wheelhouse, and predictably, ol' Griff screwed himself into the ground with a mighty hack.
"Hi Richard," Eric says, about to lather Dick up with a little hand-job. "I just want to let you know that I love getting your insight about all things Blue Jays in the mailbag."
Ha ha. Sure you do, Eric. Sure you do...
"My question is regarding A.J. Burnett - do you think that his negative reputation based on his .500 record is really justified? Last year Burnett had an ERA of 3.75 and a WHIP of 1.189. Roy Halladay had an ERA of 3.71 and a WHIP of 1.243 and their career numbers are also similar in those areas. Wouldn't you agree that wins are a poor way of evaluating a player since the outcome of the game is completely out of their control (i.e. lack of run support, failure of the bullpen)?"
Amazing! An excruciatingly legitimate question that is damn near impossible to sensibly refute. I wonder what Griff is going to say...
"Don Sutton, when he was approaching 300 career wins, would only sign as a free agent with a team that had a superior bullpen. Even this future Hall-of-Famer knew what you were talking about with regard to factors contributing to victories."
Heeeeey! Makes sense. Maybe Griff is actually going to nail this... (Hint: he's not).
"But the fact is that you don’t go to the post-season on the total WHIP of your pitching staff. You go on the total WINS of your pitching staff. Think about it. Guys with great stuff that are always involved in low scoring games are going to have better Walks and Hits to Innings Pitched ratios because every inning is essential to victory. Guys on teams that score a lot of runs often pitch to the score of the game, like Jack Morris, challenging hitters with fastballs if they’re leading big. Their WHIP will naturally not be as good, while their win total is invariably better."
Um... wow. This is at least as bullshit as my stealing of Fire Joe Morgan's shtick.
Come on, Rich! Everybody knows that teams go to the playoffs based on having the fewest number of players with hurt feelings! Not some stat-head B.S. like "wins" or "losses".
But, if you can wrap your head around all those newfangled numbers, it's kind of exactly like our friend Eric said. A lot of different things factor into whether a pitcher will win or lose a game, but I'll give Griff a break on this, because covering the 2007 Jays for 162 games, you can hardly expect him to have noticed any connection between how many runs a team scores and whether or not their starting pitcher wins.
Interesting take on WHIP, though. And I think he's right: as a way to quantify a pitcher's ability, WHIP may very well have a virtually insignificant flaw or two. Not like wins! WINS! That's what we're playing for here, stupid Shaun Marcum. You can take those six no-decisions where you gave up two runs or fewer last year and stuff them in a fucking sack. What are you doing to help this team get wins? WINS!
"Burnett in ’07 made 25 starts and pitched 165.2 innings. Doc made 31 starts and pitched 225.1 innings. Who would you rather have? WHIP and ERA are projected averages given the same number of innings. Dude, just because I can run the 100 metres in 15 seconds, doesn’t mean I can finish a marathon in under two hours."
"Dude", he didn't fucking ask you if you'd rather have Burnett or Halladay. Of fucking course you'd rather have Halladay. He asked if it was misleading to call Burnett a .500 pitcher and whether you thought win-loss record was a poor way of evaluating a pitcher. Then for some reason you started talking about innings and marathons and... I dont really know what the fuck you're going on about here.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to criticize Burnett, like his inability to pitch a full, healthy season. Yes, there are innumerable reasons to say you prefer Halladay. But none of that even comes close to actually addressing the question our friend Eric was asking! Dude, what the fuck?
Then later in the mail bag, Griffin gives this response to a tounge-in-cheek suggestion about throwing down with Wilner: "Even with his Herbal Essence diet I don’t think I’m in the same weight division."
Now, as a person who reads and speaks English, I sort of read this as a shot at Wilner, but I'm inclined to believe it's a mangled attempt at self-deprecation.
Honestly though, I have no clue, and I have no shame in admitting that because I'm really fucking sure the problem isn't with the receptors on my end. I do know that Griffin is aware of the play on words with Herbal Essence, and will give him credit for that. But... ???
Posts
27 rational and reasonable comments:
Any idea why Rios isn't listed on the pregame lineup card on MLB.com? Trouble is a-fucking-brewing....(you heard it here first folks)
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!
Haha, so you're saying Griff is implying that Wilner's "on the pot"?
But more to the point, how can you give him credit for being so clever with the Herbal Essence thing while simultaneously be dumb enough to not realize that what he said sounds an awful lot like he's calling Wilner fat?
I think he might really BE calling Wilner fat. Maybe.
Anyway, I like to give Griffin credit for stuff just to prove to myself that I can do it. I don't actually believe it.
I clicked on the bobble head doll ad. just to let you know.
Wilner is some sort of idiot, because he is on a SHAMPOO diet.
And Eric asked a fantastic question, in fact he answered it within the question. Wins are indeed a misleading stat. Are the "I love your insight/mailbag blah blah" stuff necessary to get your question answered?
I remember several AJ starts last season when he would give up like a solo homerun and take the loss because the offense gave him shit.
As much as I must respect your opinion, as mature adults (who still thinks its cool to get wasted and swear a lot, even as grown men), I am going to have to disagree with you.
You can say that any stat is misleading. Burnett goes out and gives up 7 runs, and then throws a shutout the next game.. and still have a 4.00 ERA. Let's give him the Cy Young.
Griffin's point is that Burnett has been a failure during his stint in Toronto. Which is true. Wins are what matters, and Burnett has not provided them.
Grow up.
Are you really suggesting that Burnett's career win/loss record is the result of AJ either giving up 7 runs or shutting out the opposition?
Or are you saying that, more likely, there are sets of games where he gives up 6 runs in one game and 1 run in another... Or 5 in one game and 2 in the next?
Wait... now we have a pitcher who's giving up about 4 runs on average and is relying on run support for wins.
Wow - math is fun!
Bottom line: is you're gonna make an asinine comment about why Burnett has a .500 winning percentage and very good stats otherwise, at least back it up with some hard numbers... Or just go back to calling in to the Fan, suggesting how the Jays should trade for Tike Redman.
"You can say that any stat is misleading." Indeed, you can say absolutely anything you want. That doesn't tell us anything about how true thing is.
"Burnett goes out and gives up 7 runs, and then throws a shutout the next game.. and still have a 4.00 ERA. Let's give him the Cy Young." No one gets the Cy Young with a 4.00 ERA.
"Wins are what matters, and Burnett has not provided them." Pitchers don't 'provide' wins. A guy like Burnett will probably, on average, pitch 2/3 of his games. He controls less than 1/2 of what happens during that time (no role in his team's offense, and the defense has a small impact on what happens when he pitches). To be nice, let's say he controls 1/3 of what happens when he starts. The other 2/3 is handled by his teammates. It's a TEAM game, and TEAMS win or lose.
I hate that I can't edit comments. The first paragraph of my last post should be:
"You can say that any stat is misleading." Indeed, you can say absolutely anything you want. That doesn't tell us anything about how true that thing is.
It is unreasonable that you defend AJ Burnett.
ERA and WHIP are good ways of showing how well a pitcher pitched. Wins are a good way of showing how well a team plays. I think most people would agree that Josh Beckett will have far more wins playing for Boston than he would if he were playing for San Francisco, because Boston will score a ton more runs than San Francisco. It doesn't make him a worse pitcher, and his WHIP and ERA will likely be the same (excluding the fact that he would be facing different teams).
"It is unreasonable that you defend AJ Burnett." That's very persuasive, you make many good points.
I don't think AJ is the second coming or anything like that, but neither is he an abject failure. If he were, there'd be no suggestion that he will opt out of the last 2 years of his contract.
More to the point, I was disputing your contention that wins and losses are a good way of assessing a pitcher.
Amen Colin. I'll admit that Griff's point about some guys pitching slightly differently with big leads (or high-scoring teams) has some merit, but not enough to make a large difference in a pitcher's ERA or WHIP.
Anonymous, um... grow up? That was like the most tactful Griffin thing I've ever written.
I completely agree that wins and losses are not a good way to judge pitchers. Burnett and Halladay stack up pretty equally with regards to career ERA and WHIP.
However, will any of you come out and say that Burnett is just about as good as Halladay? If you could only have one of them in your rotation, who would it be? Certainly, any sane person would pick Halladay.
The question then becomes WHY is Halladay perceived as being better than Burnett, even though their stats are similar. Is it because of Burnett's history of injuries (which has forced him to make fewer starts)? Is it because expectations are so high on Burnett?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Using more sophisticated statistics, such as ERA+ (which normalizes ERA according to ballpark, league, opponents, etc... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjusted_ERA%2B) it becomes clear that Burnett is a very very good pitcher (career ERA+ of 111) and Halladay is an amazing pitcher (career ERA+ of 128).
This is also seen with the difference between each pitcher's career ERA relative to the lgERA. If you compare the two's ERA relative to the average league ERA of pitchers that pitched in the same ballparks, you'd notice that Halladay has a career ERA that's a little more than a run below his career lgERA (3.62 vs. 4.65. Burnett, by contrast is "only" about 0.41 of a run below his lgERA (3.82 vs. 4.23).
This is important since it incorporates the fact that Halladay has spent his entire career pitching in a much tougher division (the AL East) compared with Burnett, who has pitched the majority of his career in the relatively weaker and pitcher-park-heavy NL East. Along the same lines, even if one were to assume that the NL East is as competitive as the AL East (which is unreasonable, in my opinion) the fact that Burnett faced pitchers, who obviously don't bat in the AL but do in the NL, for about 70% of his pro career, also makes the comparison between the two simply by looking at ERA and WHIP unfair (again, this is why ERA+ is much more useful).
There's no question that the two are very different pitchers. And there's no question that both are very good. But saying that Burnett's career ERA of 3.82 is "close enough" to Halladay's 3.62 is a very narrow comparison.
alright, let me rip into you;
Burnet has pitched from 1999-2005 in the NL. Which every analyst will agree is a far weaker league than the AL. They play small ball, pitchers have an easier time going through the batting order, etc...
His career whip and ERA are 3.82 and 1.28.
He has pitched 2 seasons in the AL East in his prime years, not going through any growing pains (thus more troubles with accustamizing to the MLB game) over here like in the NL.
Halladay, pitched his entire career in the big bad AL East, growing pains and all, Has from 1999-now a whip, era of 1.23, 3.62 respectively.
While WHIP is close, ERA is further off. Throw in his entire career facing AL opponents. that's more impressive than Burnett. Anony. look past the numbers and see what plays into those numbers.
Griff is many times wrong in what he writes; he is correct sometimes as well. But he's off in this piece we're discussing. Has one interesting point about pitching with the lead etc...
Wins are not all, or would you like Chacin pitching for us...he got wins and i'm sure he smells great with that cologne so you and him can hold hands and discuss who gets to rusty trombone who.
P.S. nothing against Gus Chachin.
well shit, someone beat me to the punch. Touche mike, nice sources too
"Eric Sillius of Oakville might be a frickin' genius." That's me! I don't know about frickin' genius but I was starting to get fed up with Griffin's way of evaluating players so I wanted to see if he would agree with me.
I meant what I said about looking forward to his insight because I actually enjoy reading his stuff for pure entertainment value...he can interpret what I said however he wants I guess.
Dear Mike,
Great explanation, fully backed up with stats, as opposed to Thom who used only the claims of "analysts" to argue that the NL is a weaker league than the AL.
Dear Thom,
If you re-read my previous post, you will see that I DON'T think that won-loss record is a useful stat to evaluate pitchers. Therefore, I feel that your suggestion about discussing anallingus and masturbation with Gustavo Chacin is completely uncalled for.
Also, just for future reference, I believe the word that you were looking for was "acclimatizing", since I can assure you that the word "accustamizing" does not exist.
Interesting stats to back up Thom and Mike:
Halladay's ERA from 2002 to 2007 (after his "acclimatizing" years): 3.27
Burnett's ERA from 2006 to 2007: 3.87
Halladay's WHIP between 2002 and 2007: 1.15
Burnett's WHIP between 2006 and 2007: 1.24
So, when you put Burnett and Halladay in the same environment (AL East), they both prove to be good pictures, but Halladay is a bit better.
I'm slow. Someone explain the Herbal Essence thing to me.
Anony, I am in exams right now and don't have the time to get proof for something that is a accepted around baseball. If I had the time I'd support mine well like mike's.
Yes and thanks for correcting my english on a blog...
I was just about to post and say I know that guy (Eric), but I guess he already posted anyways. Geez, way to steal my thunder Sillius.
Wins, losses mean nothing in terms of a pitcher's value. ERA doesn't either. It's all about the delicious cool WHIP.
Also, I clicked on Joanna's profile because whenever I see a woman's name on a baseball forum I feel a rumbling in the loins. My apologies to Joanna for mentioning her name and my loins in the same sentence. Unless she was into it.
Post a Comment