First, it's kind of terrifying how similar the first half starter numbers are to last year's disastrous stats.
2012 86gm 498ip 6.05k9 3.54bb9 .273babip 4.62era 2.2war
2013 71gm 387ip 6.35k9 3.07bb9 .298babip 4.84ear 2.2war
Obviously there's time to get some extra war, but the improved k9 and bb9 is more than counter-acted by the babip.
However, if you split 2013 into two groups pre and post June, things look either much better or potentially much worse:
April/May 55gm 290ip 6.49k9 3.29bb9 .304babip 5.49era 0.8war
June 16gm 97ip 5.92k9 2.40bb9 .281babip 2.87era 1.4war
So my question is, what's real? Where will it go from here?
I don't see how June is sustainable nor do I see how April/May should've even been possible, but the fact it all adds up to a close replica of last year's first half kinda freaks me out. All I know is if there's still a glimmer of hope to get back into this, they're all going to have stay far closer to June than that dog's breakfast before it.
Some Scary - Or hopefully Optimistic - Pitching Numbers
Moderator: JaysRule15
Some Scary - Or hopefully Optimistic - Pitching Numbers
- satyr9
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,892
- And1: 563
- Joined: Aug 09, 2006
-
Re: Some Scary - Or hopefully Optimistic - Pitching Numbers
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,237
- And1: 66
- Joined: Oct 27, 2009
Re: Some Scary - Or hopefully Optimistic - Pitching Numbers
To me, reading into this year on that much of a scale is a SSS.
I think it's interesting but I wouldn't call anything "real" yet. I would wait until we know what we have.
Also worth noting most stats don't allow for a player making a mechanical change. Players like Lind, Esmil Rogers, Arencibia, Rasmus are still being weighed down despite significant changes to their respective swings. Pitchers can learn a new pitch (Rogers), improve a LOT on an old one (Henderson Alvarez) and so on and so forth.
A different batch of pitches at a higher strength or a different swing almost makes players into different hitters, voiding too much statistical analysis.
I would read into things like batted ball and babip to see if players are getting unlucky (so they don't need to change) or if they are getting lucky (where improvement may be required in approach, strength, mechanics)
As Jays fans we all know pure athleticism (Gose, Thames) doesn't necessarily make good baseball players, we all know good approaches don't necessarily make good baseball players (Cooper, Negrich, Pillar) and we all know good mechanics don't necessarily make good baseball players (Lind, Bautista* [nobody would ever teach those mechanics])
* an example of a bad skill but other areas make them a good baseball player.
I think it's interesting but I wouldn't call anything "real" yet. I would wait until we know what we have.
Also worth noting most stats don't allow for a player making a mechanical change. Players like Lind, Esmil Rogers, Arencibia, Rasmus are still being weighed down despite significant changes to their respective swings. Pitchers can learn a new pitch (Rogers), improve a LOT on an old one (Henderson Alvarez) and so on and so forth.
A different batch of pitches at a higher strength or a different swing almost makes players into different hitters, voiding too much statistical analysis.
I would read into things like batted ball and babip to see if players are getting unlucky (so they don't need to change) or if they are getting lucky (where improvement may be required in approach, strength, mechanics)
As Jays fans we all know pure athleticism (Gose, Thames) doesn't necessarily make good baseball players, we all know good approaches don't necessarily make good baseball players (Cooper, Negrich, Pillar) and we all know good mechanics don't necessarily make good baseball players (Lind, Bautista* [nobody would ever teach those mechanics])
* an example of a bad skill but other areas make them a good baseball player.
Avp115 wrote:Bautista>>Mike Trout and Kendrick