For the Fanboys of the White Sox
SoxIlliniRob wrote:I won't claim small sample size, but I never implied that a pitcher in the NL can't be better than a pitcher in the AL, or that several NL pitchers can't be better. I just made the point, properly, that ERA's when facing pitchers, will need adjusting. Not only did I make it, but Bill James did some analysis on it, and I believe Nate Silver did, too. Can't recall what they came up with for their adjustment, but I believe it was .28 to .30.
It's entirely possible that the ten best pitchers in baseball can be NL pitchers. I'd just add that if those NL pitchers were facing pitchers this year, I'd suggest their era's would probably be another .3 lower than they currently are.
blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:I won't claim small sample size, but I never implied that a pitcher in the NL can't be better than a pitcher in the AL, or that several NL pitchers can't be better. I just made the point, properly, that ERA's when facing pitchers, will need adjusting. Not only did I make it, but Bill James did some analysis on it, and I believe Nate Silver did, too. Can't recall what they came up with for their adjustment, but I believe it was .28 to .30.
It's entirely possible that the ten best pitchers in baseball can be NL pitchers. I'd just add that if those NL pitchers were facing pitchers this year, I'd suggest their era's would probably be another .3 lower than they currently are.
I gotta say, that has not been the case for Yu Darvish, nor Trevor Bauer, two of the top 3 ERAs in baseball, both of whom have pitched in the AL.
SoxIlliniRob wrote:blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:I won't claim small sample size, but I never implied that a pitcher in the NL can't be better than a pitcher in the AL, or that several NL pitchers can't be better. I just made the point, properly, that ERA's when facing pitchers, will need adjusting. Not only did I make it, but Bill James did some analysis on it, and I believe Nate Silver did, too. Can't recall what they came up with for their adjustment, but I believe it was .28 to .30.
It's entirely possible that the ten best pitchers in baseball can be NL pitchers. I'd just add that if those NL pitchers were facing pitchers this year, I'd suggest their era's would probably be another .3 lower than they currently are.
I gotta say, that has not been the case for Yu Darvish, nor Trevor Bauer, two of the top 3 ERAs in baseball, both of whom have pitched in the AL.
Each year is a different year so it's hard to compare a pitcher from one league to the other. I've seen oddball examples of plenty of guys who got better or worse when going from one league to the other. The only argument I'm making is that pitching against pitchers, instead of a DH (facing a pitcher rather than facing Jose Abreu or James McCann) is going to lead to a slightly lower ERA at any given moment.
I mean, are you honestly trying to make the case that it's no different to face a pitcher two times per game versus facing a DH twice? No difference in run production? I'm not even sure if you're being serious. I'd think hypothetically that if you have your best stuff versus an NL lineup with a pitcher batting, or an AL lineup with an Abreu batting, you're going to have a differing results over the long haul. That's just math. That's not in any way me trying to pick on the NL. I'd say the same thing if the AL had the pitcher batting and the NL had a DH.
All I'm really saying here is that if the top 5 ERA's are NL pitchers right now, then I think they'd even have better ERA's if they weren't facing a DH 4 times per game.
sharpy wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:I won't claim small sample size, but I never implied that a pitcher in the NL can't be better than a pitcher in the AL, or that several NL pitchers can't be better. I just made the point, properly, that ERA's when facing pitchers, will need adjusting. Not only did I make it, but Bill James did some analysis on it, and I believe Nate Silver did, too. Can't recall what they came up with for their adjustment, but I believe it was .28 to .30.
It's entirely possible that the ten best pitchers in baseball can be NL pitchers. I'd just add that if those NL pitchers were facing pitchers this year, I'd suggest their era's would probably be another .3 lower than they currently are.
I gotta say, that has not been the case for Yu Darvish, nor Trevor Bauer, two of the top 3 ERAs in baseball, both of whom have pitched in the AL.
Each year is a different year so it's hard to compare a pitcher from one league to the other. I've seen oddball examples of plenty of guys who got better or worse when going from one league to the other. The only argument I'm making is that pitching against pitchers, instead of a DH (facing a pitcher rather than facing Jose Abreu or James McCann) is going to lead to a slightly lower ERA at any given moment.
I mean, are you honestly trying to make the case that it's no different to face a pitcher two times per game versus facing a DH twice? No difference in run production? I'm not even sure if you're being serious. I'd think hypothetically that if you have your best stuff versus an NL lineup with a pitcher batting, or an AL lineup with an Abreu batting, you're going to have a differing results over the long haul. That's just math. That's not in any way me trying to pick on the NL. I'd say the same thing if the AL had the pitcher batting and the NL had a DH.
All I'm really saying here is that if the top 5 ERA's are NL pitchers right now, then I think they'd even have better ERA's if they weren't facing a DH 4 times per game.
Interesting tho that of the top pitching teams in baseball, 4 of 5 are in the AL . .and in hitting , 4 of the top 5 are in the NL ..
sharpy wrote:The other thing to bear in mind is that we only have a 1/3 of a regular season for a sample size so maybe it'd change if they played another 100 games...you know, the old reverting to the baseball card theory.
Not only that, but the teams are essentially playing the same competition over and over ... playing only about 1/3 of the teams they would be playing .
SoxIlliniRob wrote:sharpy wrote:The other thing to bear in mind is that we only have a 1/3 of a regular season for a sample size so maybe it'd change if they played another 100 games...you know, the old reverting to the baseball card theory.
Not only that, but the teams are essentially playing the same competition over and over ... playing only about 1/3 of the teams they would be playing .
Yeah, good point. Ignoring 2/3 of all of MLB to continuously play 1/3.
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:sharpy wrote:The other thing to bear in mind is that we only have a 1/3 of a regular season for a sample size so maybe it'd change if they played another 100 games...you know, the old reverting to the baseball card theory.
Not only that, but the teams are essentially playing the same competition over and over ... playing only about 1/3 of the teams they would be playing .
Yeah, good point. Ignoring 2/3 of all of MLB to continuously play 1/3.
The playoffs, for what they are, could be interesting. Never having seen the team you are playing could help someone like Robert who is struggling because teams have made adjustments. He will be seeing teams he hasn't played yet. Sure, tape, but the game is played on the field.
|
|
|
Home