Diamondbacks Bullpen

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: Why we're not in the playoffs

1. chad Tracy's bad defense killed this team all year, in situations, that always led to something decsive.
2. Gonz not being able to get a runner home, in situations, that could of led to something decisive.
3. Gonz in the tank during big homestands.
4. the relief staff against the Nationals.

Those are my keys to the season.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:12 am Post subject:

It's a little deeper than that.

Early in the season, other than Webb, no starters were going more than 5 innings, and frequently less. The accumulative effect of that killed the bullpen, and led to the frequent collapses we saw from June onwards.

Also, the team was really pretty lucky with all the comebacks in April and May. They were playing from behind ALOT, and sooner or later you knew that would catch up with them. The team BA. W/RISP was the highest in the league by the end of May, but ranks much further down now. It wasn't only Gonzo.

Bottom line, is this team was always more than a couple of players away from a playoff spot. They still improved tremendously from last year, even if the Won/Loss column does not show it.

Last year they were outscored by 160 runs, and based on Pythagorean Won-Loss should have won about 66 games. Winning 77 was fluke.

This year they have only been outscored by 9 runs, and should be a few games closer to a .500 record than they are. Much better, but still not a playoff quality team.

Sure, we can look at isolated things and say this or that about why they should be there, but they would have had to outperform their Pythag by 10 games again to make the playoffs this year. You can't count on that kind of "luck" year in year out, especially with a manager like Melvin.

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

Last year they were outscored by 160 runs, and based on Pythagorean Won-Loss should have won about 66 games. Winning 77 was fluke

Honestly, that theorem at, any point in time, is only good on paper, it leaves a lot out.

In the forest of things. Yes, things were a little deeper, but in whole season of things, I'll stick by those 4 key things, on why we're not in it right now, or at least battling at this point.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:32 am Post subject:

I agree the theorem is not exact. However, like most sabermetric stats, it is instructive at the EXTREMES. The extremes expose the pretenders. When you are outscored by 160 runs and still come close to a .500 record, you are just plain lucky

When you score the same amount of runs as you allow, and you are 10 games UNDER .500, you are probably unlucky.

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:40 am Post subject:

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

Of course it leaves a lot out, it's taking a snapshot of the season from the highest point possible: W-L record compared to RS and RA.

That tues game in COL in the middle of July that we lost because Brandon Medders threw a wild pitch that allowed the winning run to advance to 2B isn't in the scope of what it's trying to measure. (Actual event may not have happened)

All it does is tell you the amount of RS and RA a team has, and more important, the difference between the two, very very strongly influences the result of the teams W-L record. How it happened is irrelevant.

Shoe's saying it would take around a 64 run swing (more RS, less RA, or a combo) to make us a playoff team and he doesn't think your 4 points cover that margin. I happen to agree with him, do you?

Polar Bear Fan · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:03 am Post subject:

If you combine the Pythagorean calculation and the WPA differential you can predict almost every team's record to within 1 game.

DesertKnight · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:18 am Post subject:

The real argument in this thread isn't how the losses are measured, it's why they happened. As Shoe (welcome back, BTW) said, the starters weren't going more than 5 innings, and we got lucky with a lot of comebacks early. I'm not convinced that the early workload is entirely responsible for our atrocious and disheartening bullpen, though. I think we just have a bunch of mediocre and sub-par relievers. I don't doubt that overwork or misuse has, at times, contributed to a bullpen collapse, but I don't think that explains the larger problem. I'm willing to be convinced, though.

I also don't think Tracy is as bad as some on this board seem to believe, especially if he's been battling a bad knee all year. I certainly wouldn't move him to LF, not when we have Byrnes/Hairston. And you can't just single out Gonzo for not getting the big hit w/RISP--the whole team sucked at that this year.

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:23 am Post subject:

Pythag doesn't do anything for me. That's all. I'd go into why, but suffice to say, no, because it doesn't go into losing Estes/Lyons, or the mets/reds series last year. Now also pythag could be a little tighter, if it was more exponential. Lot more to it, but everytime I start, it takes to long to go into, and i end up all over the place.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

Why not go into it? Seems like a much better topic than if there is too much Gonzo bashing or not on the board.

moviegeekjn · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:34 am Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:37 am Post subject:

xjwheelr · AA Prospect Joined: 11 Sep 2006 Posts: 47

EvilJuan · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject:

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

The point is that, like OPS to RS, you can get 95% of the way there with a simple calculation. You can have a formula that is more accurate, but would take 3 times as long to figure.

I guarantee Byrnes and Co. are using some sort of Pythag philosophy in building this team. Every time they mention allowing less runs or scoring more runs it's in their thoughts.

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject:

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

Ok, firstly, then what is pythag theory?

Secondly, all GMs trying to do the same thing: yes and no. I think there are a lot of GMs and FOs who get too caught up in the ideas of baseball than of the results. I bet there are a handful of GMs who don't think about net RS and RA when evaluating how to add wins to their team.

It's the team equivalent of going after a Russ Ortiz. Had a lot of wins, but wasn't very good at preventing RA.

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:

You can use, any pythag theory you want. Any stat theory you want. You show me team of Marvin Haglers, I'll show a team that wins. Gonzo may be a great guy, but as long as he's the pivot guy on the team, we ain't winning. billy Beane gets those guys year in, year out, or tries too. so does LaRussa. Gonzo's a great guy, some guy's say he's the greatest teammate ever, I love Gonzo, but he doesn't have the Jeter thing. That's my number 1 problem with Pythag, if you really want to know. The Pads got rid of Nevin at the right time, last year. The BoSox on their trek same thing, with Nomar. that's all I'll say about it. Now, with that taking into account, you still need Hagglers punching power, he was a very talented fighter, but no way did he have the physical tools of Sugar Ray.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

I hate to be an ass, but your answer in no way made sense nor did it apply to my quesiton I asked you.

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:

moviegeekjn · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject:

two different styles of approaching things. that's all. I don't dispute pythag outcomes, they are spooky. Now there are lots of variances, and anomalys within them as well.That's fact. I'll also tell you, Beanes also always tinkering with his theories. One thing he doesn't tinker with is heart of a player. He knows which guys are winners and which ones are statistical anomalys. That's all, and builds his team around not chemistry, but synergy. Want to know why the Blue Jays sank? Want to know why the Astro's are back in it? Take Jeter off the Yankees, and they're the Blue Jays.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject:

Synergy?

Hey, it's 3BE !!

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:

"intangibles" and synergy.

They have to be able to hit like Hagler too. Intangibles will get you to be a back up catcher. There's a reason, Kendall is Beanes catcher of choice, though and why he's paying him the money he is. He could of vorped out Kendall according to stat theory with Estrada. Right?
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it