OT...Cutch strikes again...microcosm of the season
- Thread starter NCLee
- Start date
Again, his nickname is Cutch, not Clutch By the way, how about Josh Bell's eye and plate discipline? Wish a certain MVP candidate had this.
But yeah, he doesn't make all the plays at first.
By the way, it is now 5-1. Season's over. Just Pirate fans and organization needs to come to a realization and look forward.
But yeah, he doesn't make all the plays at first.
By the way, it is now 5-1. Season's over. Just Pirate fans and organization needs to come to a realization and look forward.
Cole should be shut down, IMO. Has had random little nagging injuries since spring training. Let him rest and then get into his normal offseason regimen. Their whole year has been with an eye toward 2017-19 anyway.
Let the young guys play in September, too. The starting lineup is more or less set for the next couple of years, see if a guy like Hanson or Moroff should claim a bench spot over one of the veterans.
Had a chance to get back into it there in the 7th, but Josh Bell has a better eye than the home plate umpire and the Cubs got a nice sliding catch in shallow left with the bases loaded that would have scored two more.
Quit watching weeks ago. Decided to get into it and they lose a bs game bc of no f'ing closer (Watson has been terrible all season imho) on Monday and get shut out Tuesday. On to football. Hope they get a wild card but highly doubtful.
Below is David Schoenfield being a yinzer and saying that Cole and Cutch are the biggest reasons for the Pirates not being in the playoffs. (I personally don't blame Cole much since he's been dealing with nagging injuries -- and I think Liriano going from a 3.6 WAR to -0.3 WAR pitcher is more damaging anyway. Overall they've lost about 11 wins off of last year's pace just between Cole, Cutch, and Liriano)
LINK
11 wins is a lot of value to recoup in free agency. Even if you spot the Pirates Neil Walker over Josh Harrison (~ +2.0 win difference*) and don't account for David Freese's signing to replace Walker (he essentially wipes out the surplus value of Walker over Harrison) you still need to find 9 WAR. And not only do you need to find 9-11 WAR for this year, you need to be sure that the prospects you're blocking over the next several years with those signings won't be more valuable than the guys you're signing to be, essentially, stopgaps. Otherwise, you're leaving future wins on the table solely so you can bank on a season where you've ultimately had injury issues and underperformance all year.
*I generously assumed neutral defense for Walker, so essentially averaged his 2010 season and 2016 season WAR and then rounded up to make him a 3.0 WAR player so the psychos couldn't claim homerism -- his 2010 and 2016 seasons are essentially identical from a playing time and wRC+ perspective but the defense is nearly completely opposite -- so I averaged and then rounded up to give him additional benefit of the doubt, even despite his career numbers suggesting he's a below average defender and not a neutral defender.
Last edited:
WAR is a method of ranking players, it's not an exact measurement of how many wins an actual player is worth.
They say a team of all replacement players would win 48 games. The 2015 Pirates had a total of 43.1 WAR, which should lead them to 91 wins. That may sound pretty close, but in reality that is an entire MVP level (7 WAR) player off of what they won.
So any discussion that is based on a team needing to find so many wins due to WAR is just silly.
Even if you were to say that their WAR totals are just down, that is why they are losing more, take a look at where they are down. Last year, they were pretty evenly split at roughly 21.5 WAR for both fielders and pitching. This year? They currently have about 15.5 WAR for fielders and only 6.8 for pitchers. The fielders are on pace for around 18.5 while the pitchers are on pace for roughly 8.1 WAR. A drop of 13.5 WAR is not due to Cole and Liriano.
That combined projected WAR total equates to about 74 wins if you were to take it literal. Dropping from 91 projected wins to 74 projected wins is not due to Cutch, Cole, and Liriano.
There is a whole host of issues that caused this drop, namely the awful rotation that NH out together that featured Niese, Locke, and Nicasio for four months, Jaso at 1B, and Harrison at 2B.
They say a team of all replacement players would win 48 games. The 2015 Pirates had a total of 43.1 WAR, which should lead them to 91 wins. That may sound pretty close, but in reality that is an entire MVP level (7 WAR) player off of what they won.
So any discussion that is based on a team needing to find so many wins due to WAR is just silly.
Even if you were to say that their WAR totals are just down, that is why they are losing more, take a look at where they are down. Last year, they were pretty evenly split at roughly 21.5 WAR for both fielders and pitching. This year? They currently have about 15.5 WAR for fielders and only 6.8 for pitchers. The fielders are on pace for around 18.5 while the pitchers are on pace for roughly 8.1 WAR. A drop of 13.5 WAR is not due to Cole and Liriano.
That combined projected WAR total equates to about 74 wins if you were to take it literal. Dropping from 91 projected wins to 74 projected wins is not due to Cutch, Cole, and Liriano.
There is a whole host of issues that caused this drop, namely the awful rotation that NH out together that featured Niese, Locke, and Nicasio for four months, Jaso at 1B, and Harrison at 2B.
What? The players fault???? Nooooo! Not according to our baseball guru mvk112!!! It's NH's fault!!!!!
WAR is a measurement of how many wins players are worth, the difference is due to randomness and cluster luck.
Things like record in one-run games and how you bunch or scatter your hits.
Wins and losses aren't based solely on player performance, it's why they have adjusted standings that go far beyond just looking at run differential.
WAR is just another way to rank players, it has no real correlation to actual wins. At best, you could say it's a guesstimate, but it's not too accurate even in that sense.
It has a correlation of around 0.8-0.85, which is about twice as large as the correlation between payroll and wins in the post-steroid era. That's a pretty decent relationship, given how much randomness and variance there is between actual performance and win/loss record (the Rangers, for instance, have 12 more wins [there's a link in that phrase] than they should given their on-field performance and it's almost entirely due to their historically great record in one-run games). It also tends to be a pretty good predictor of things like contract terms and player decisions, so even if it's imperfect by definition it still tends to align itself with the decisions made by those in MLB.
Here's an article on the correlation between WAR and wins from back in 2014. The most important passage is, IMO, this one:
"These kinds of things will vary slightly from season to season. It isn’t perfect, and factors such as luck and sequencing can impact wins and losses in ways that WAR won’t pick up on. I suspect that the larger the sample, the smaller the error, as was the case between the two studies above. But it seems safe to peg the correlation between WAR and team wins to be somewhere in the mid-to-upper 80’s as of now."
Appropriately, FiveThirtyEight wrote an article today talking about the Rangers' success in one-run games and how it's a product of randomness and not a sustainable/repeatable skill (LINK).
Last edited:
I see mvk112 is still sharing his wisdom, or lacking there of... I'm glad I blocked his nonsense so I can't read his posts any longer... Every time you read one of his posts, your IQ shrinks....LOL!
If you can just explain any statistical difference as randomness, then it's not a particularly accurate statistic to begin with, at least in terms of doing with it what some people want to do with it. It's a decent player ranking statistic, though it weighs defense far too heavily.
I don't understand how WAR is supposed to be able to account for things like record in one-run games or sequencing. That's just silly, and at this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse and simply digging your heels in despite being presented with evidence that refutes your position.
Like, a team that hits 9 singles in a game is going to have a far different outcome in terms of runs if they get those 9 singles in a row rather than getting one single per inning. WAR isn't going to credit a team for hitting those 9 singles in a row, because there is no evidence of players being able to dictate when they do/don't get a hit. That's what people are talking about when randomness comes into play. That's what "cluster luck" is.
"That's just silly, and at this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse and simply digging your heels in despite being presented with evidence that refutes your position."
Bingo! He does want to have an intelligent conversation, he wants to be right even when he's wrong! He gets his self-esteem on a message board... What a nut case!
If teams routinely finish an entire AllStar or better level player away from what their projected WAR win total, then it's not just due to randomness.
As explained a 4-5 WAR player is an All Star, a 5-6 WAR player a superstar, and above 6 MVP level.
The average variance was 4.8 WAR per team, basically an All Star away. There were 13 teams last year that varied over 5, meaning a superstar level player. 10 of those were an MVP level away (6 WAR or greater).
It's a decent ranking system, flawed a bit by defensive value, but in no way does it accurately describe how many wins a player was actually worth.
A 6-win variance in a 162 game season due to cluster luck or fluky success in one-run games is absolutely miniscule.....
Again, the Rangers currently have a 12-win variance and it's not even that weird or astounding. They just have a great record in one-run games. But, because there's nothing sustainable or skill-based about it, it's not going to be reflected in a tool that measures on-field performance.
You don't need to explain WAR and the different levels of players to me, I'm the one who actually understands it.
If the average difference is a superstar level player, then it doesn't measure wins too well. If you can easily say randomness to try to explain why a stat is so far off, it's not accurate.
Its a decent, if flawed ranking system. It just doesn't correlate to actual wins too well, and that's okay really, unless you are trying to explain why a team is overachieving or underachieving based upon that stat.
How is a correlation of mid-to-high 80's "not correlating too well"? You bitch about payroll and spending, yet its correlation to wins is half of that.
Like, if you can't grasp the concept of randomness and the fact that WAR is only designed to measure performance and not cluster luck and one-run records, then alright. I guess it's futile to continue dialogue.
I kept engaging with you because you seemed obstinate, not incapable of understanding concepts. But since that's not the case, I'm done.
You're right, it measures performance, and like I said it does a decent job at that, even with the flaws of fielding being overstated. Just because it measures performance adequately doesn't mean it translates to wins at an adequate level.
Consider this, when looking at the Schoenfield article... he states the Pirates need to make up 9 wins based on WAR, but that pretty much falls into the randomness spectrum that you are arguing about, so how are you going to claim this player or that player is the cause? Honestly, trying to correlate WAR to wins is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it's just not going to work, even if sometimes it gets close to fitting.
Jesus H Christ you misunderstand the concept and purpose even more than I thought. Just stop. You're going to be confusing people actually willing/able to learn these things otherwise.
"Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." - Proverbs 14:7
In short it means don't waste your time talking to an idiot....
No, I understand the concept quite well. It's a player ranking system that doesn't correlate to wins very well. It does a decent job ranking players. It shouldn't in any way be used to measure actual wins though.
Mvk112:
Keep posting fool. I blocked you and don't know what you're saying, nor do I care! LOL!
Keep fighting the good fight, you ding-a-ling!
Keep posting fool. I blocked you and don't know what you're saying, nor do I care! LOL!
Keep fighting the good fight, you ding-a-ling!
No. You don't. You are completely and totally misinformed on it. This is why you think last year's team was an actual 98 win team in terms of their on-field ability.
You don't understand things like cluster luck and you don't understand what WAR is meant to measure and you don't understand what a team's win/loss record measures.
Read this article (LINK). It does the best job I've seen of breaking down why discrepancies occur between on-field performance and team W/L record, and why those discrepancies are irrelevant for the purposes of measuring players' contributed wins.
I'm literally to the point where I'm responding solely so that you can't keep spreading misinformation.
Like, I'm not going to say WAR is absolutely precise but I will say that just about everything suggests that it comes within a win or two of total accuracy at the team level (which is pretty damn good in a 162 game season) and would be off by decimal points for individual players. I have no idea how you're on the "it doesn't correlate well" argument when I posted an article showing mid-to-high 80's correlation without adjusting for things like cluster luck and record in one-run games.
Last edited:
Pirates embarassed again by the Cubbies. But they remain in the hearts of the kielbasa crowd solid pretenders.... I mean contenders for that last precious boobie prize spot that separates the absolutely dreadful teams from mediocre ones like the Pirates.
This team lacks many things. This team will never be a bona fide contender until their everyday lineup has more bellwether players than role players. I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for most of the bums the Pirates play day in and out.
This team lacks many things. This team will never be a bona fide contender until their everyday lineup has more bellwether players than role players. I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for most of the bums the Pirates play day in and out.
You keep believing that WAR correlates with team wins. It was developed as a player ranking that they shoehorned into a correlation to wins, though it doesn't do it all that well.
Please tell us again how Walker for Niese was a good trade, that will probably provide enough comedy relief to take us straight through to the game Saturday afternoon.
But but but a sabrmetician developed a stat, I must believe it correlates exactly to wins! I'm right and anything else is just randomness!
Welp, we're now in the "I feel inadequate and can't mentally grasp this, so I'll just create strawmen and mock it" portion of the debate.
Pantherlair never fails to disappoint.
Yeah, it's too bad that the home plate umpire basically took the bat outta Bell's hands.
Some day, technology will do away with the need for a home plate umpire, and maybe all umpires.
He almost did it to McCutchen too. The first five pitches to him were all balls, none particularly all that close to being strikes, he didn't swing at any of them, and yet the count was 3-2 instead of 5-0. Then after a foul ball he finally got the fourth ball called that walked in a run. Seven pitches, six of them balls, none of the balls swung at, and finally a walk.
That was the second game in the series that the home plate umpire was absolutely atrocious.
I'm not sure if Cutch is totally healthy. That said, while it wouldn't put them at last year's 98 win pace, if they had gotten what was expected from Liriano, Cole, and Cutch, they'd be comfortably in the first wild card spot. I have no problem with them not bringing in a bunch of guys, when they knew it was time for Bell, and the batch of young pitchers to come up this summer. Trading Melancon is the one move that to me was a mistake. Might cost them a playoff spot. You always want to get in. I've seen too many borderline teams get hot in October to not want to have a shot. Overall, I'm not too upset. They're set to continue contending for another 4-5 years. After the 20 years of hell, I didn't want them to go for broke, fail, and end up back on the bottom in a year or two.
You're spot-on. When the strike zone expands as it did that night, it leaves the batter wondering whether he has to swing at everything. The batter could have a great eye for the strike zone, but it's no longer an advantage.
I think it's hilarious that you so staunchly defend a statistic that uses defensive stats that are so flawed that everyone agrees that you can't look at a single year of them to gauge whether it's accurate or not. Even in the Schoenfield article, he has to regress Walker's defensive value because he doesn't think it's accurate to calculate his WAR for purposes of total wins.
That is why your entire rant is ridiculous. The author of the article you quote doesn't even rely on the actual value of WAR because it is a flawed stat in terms of correlation to actual wins.
Have a good day, I'm sure you will whine and moan and cry some more, and probably defend NH some more today too, and likely try to spin Schoenfield changing up the WAR to fit an agenda, but whatever. Neal Huntington failed this team and this organization this year by making a truly awful trade for Niese, putting together a shit rotation, and holding Taillon and Bell down for so long.
Schoenfield didn't write that, did you read the article?
I said you could probably find a win or two that WAR is off by at the team level after you adjust for sequencing and luck, but ultimately that would translate to decimal point differences on a player-by-player level. I mean, being off by 1 or 2 wins in a 162 season is a tiny margin of error.
Your inability to understand things like cluster luck and one-run records, and why they are completely outside the realm of what WAR is trying to capture, makes this entire exercise pointless.
You are, essentially, mad that WAR doesn't give bonus points to players who play in a game that their team wins by a run. Or to a player who gets a hit immediately after a teammate gets a hit even though a hit is a hit regardless of context and players have no demonstrated ability to control when exactly they get their hits. That would correlate it almost exactly to team win-loss records, sure, but it would also make it utterly useless in evaluating individual player performance.
Like, right now, WAR is off by about 1 when it comes to how many games the Pirates should have won. Extrapolate that over the final 20% of the season, it'll probably be off by 1.2 wins, and it'll probably be due to defense. I'm perfectly happy using that as an approximation of individual player worth if that's the cumulative effect of errors on one team over 162 games. That's damn accurate.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Pittsburgh Sports Now Mike Vukovcan - "Time for Big Changes at Pitt"- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-