OSS: Jake. Arrieta.
Those of us lucky enough to see this may have seen the most soul-crushing victory in modern MLB history. As mentioned by Len or JD during the game, the biggest margin of victory in a no-hitter was a 18-0 win in the 19th century between two teams that no longer exist. Huge props to Len for mentioning the no-hitter as much as possible during the broadcast, otherwise I probably would have shut it off when the Cubs went up 6-0. I'd like to hope that this puts a sock in the people who get on him for mentioning no-hitters at every opportunity. Bonus points for never once referring to it as a no-no.
Jake didn't even have his best stuff tonight, at least early on. He missed his spots on numerous occasions and admitted in the way too long postgame interview (what the hell, guys?) that he had a very sloppy bullpen session before the start, just like his last no-hitter. You have to love when your pitcher isn't sharp but throws a no-hitter anyway (dying laughing). For all the relatively recent debate about whether Kershaw or Syndergaard is the best pitcher in MLB right now, Arrieta has posted a sub-1.0 ERA over his last 24 starts with two no-hitters to show for it.
Bonus kudos go to Kris Bryant, who homered twice including a grand slam to CF, Dexter Fowler, who reached base on all but one of his PAs (albeit two of those were fielder's choice plays), Rizzo and Zobrist, who each homered, Heyward, who reached base four times, and Addison Russell, who took an 0-fer but hit something like 15 line drives right at guys in this game. Arrieta even had a good day at the plate. And of course, to David Ross who probably had one of the best games of his career even aside from finally catching his first no-hitter. Ross picked off a runner, homered, scored due to a hustle-induced Keystone Kops defensive routine by the Reds, and even had an infield single in the first. It's a good thing they saved his legs for the season by getting him a Rascal during spring training.
The poor Reds, this was only the first game of the series. At least they managed not to empty their bullpen before throwing two AAAA guys who just slotted into the rotation an aren't stretched out yet in the next two starts.
Comments
The question is, which OV commenter is that giving Jay the congratulatory noogie?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Wow, a Papa Slam and Domino-no in the same game. I guess you could call letting up 16 runs a Rocky Roccoco outing.
MillertimeQuote Reply
If this isn’t a thing, it’s so awful that it should be.
EDIT: And reality does not disappoint. This goes to show how much I pay attention to marketing.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Fair fucks to MLB for getting two different pizza chains to pay up like that.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
A “Little Caesar” is when @superSZCZ4 gets an inside the park home run.
Pizza Hut is sponsoring the Cubs’ new MILF Cam.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Papa Murphy’s Take & Bake 50 game suspension.
MillertimeQuote Reply
I think we’re getting closer to being able to conclude that Jake’s success is not a fluke.
MillertimeQuote Reply
An ordered list of Cubs with a wRC+ above 100 (most with extremely small samples sizes):
1. Jon Lester (317)
2. Dexter Fowler (226)
3. Matt Szczur (183)
4. Munenori Kawasaki (179)
5. David Ross (his age)
6. Jake Arrieta (137)
7. Kris Bryant (125)
8. Jason Hammel (123)
9. Anthony Rizzo (114)
10. Ben Zobrist (104)
11. Miguel Montero (101)
Only Dexter Bryzzobrist has more than 50 PAs.
Pecota now projects the Cubs to win 97.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Rich Hill with another 10 K performance last night.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Hey guys. I’m not sure, but I think the Cubs are pretty good this year.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
.889 3rd order winning percentage (dying laughing) http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Holy shit. When I checked the ol’ slide rule for the number of season wins that translates to, I had to double and triple-check that I did the arithmetic right.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
The Cubs have somehow played 14 games against teams .500 or better. They’re 10-4.
dmick89Quote Reply
Suburban kid,
Yeah, if they could somehow finish the season with that winning percentage (they won’t), they’d be the Golden State Warriors of MLB.
dmick89Quote Reply
Jake Arrieta and statcast are really making me question the value of FIP and xFIP, especially as the basis of value created.
ceruleanQuote Reply
It’s comforting to know that the Cubs are still unlucky enough to disappoint their expected wins.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
Why statcast? That’s not even used for pitchers, is it? That’s what pitch f/x is for. It would be nice if there was a neat little stat that could be created and used for value from pitch f/x data, but that’s nearly impossible. Arrieta’s FIP is what it is so far mainly because of the home runs he allowed in that one game. I think using any statistic with small samples is potentially dangerous. Yesterday when berselius posted his season preview, it was really the first time I even noticed any of the stats. I saw Kyle Hendricks as the FIP leader and knew that by the end of the season, that would not be the case.
Also, isn’t Arrieta’s strikeout rate down this year? Seems like it is anyway, but it’s only been four starts.
dmick89Quote Reply
cerulean,
I love that they’re one of the unluckiest teams in baseball and still have the best record in baseball. It’s awesome.
dmick89Quote Reply
Best single season win/loss: 1906 Chicago Cubs NL 116 36 .763 Lost 1906 World Series
2016 cubs can top that. They have like 30 extra games.
joshQuote Reply
If you were running a team and had the opportunity today to lock up any player in the league for 7 years at $30M per, who would it be?
A shortlist:
Kershaw
Arrieta
Syndegaard
Scherzer
Fernandez
Harvey
Greinke
ceruleanQuote Reply
Kerhaw
dmick89Quote Reply
Arrieta would be next choice
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Exit velocity against on balls put in play. That explains the low BABIP and HR:FB. Pitching to contact suppresses Ks (while also suppressing walks, so maybe this is a wash).
ceruleanQuote Reply
Actually, considering age, Syndergaard would be my top choice.
dmick89Quote Reply
And they lost to a team that was only 35 games over called the White Sox. That raises another interesting question:
Would anyone take 117 wins and a World Series appearance this year knowing that they would face the White Sox and lose 4–2?
ceruleanQuote Reply
I’m scared his arm is going to blow. I know he’s a freak, but humans aren’t supposed to throw 100+ mph. Especially over the course of 100+ pitches. Who knows? Maybe he’s Nolan Ryan.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
But he has yet to prove that he is durable. Kershaw I think is the safest bet. Syndegaard is the most volatile (which also makes him the most exciting). But Arrieta is basically a telekenetic freak. He controls the game with his force of will. It’s pretty astounding.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I’m not sure we have enough information, but it certainly makes sense that lower exit velocities will lead to a lower BABIP. I’m not sure on HR/FB. It’s early in the season, but Jake’s HR/FB is 10%. Everybody said Carlos Marmol induced weak contact and all this other stuff that kept his BABIP low and HR/FB rate low. I never bought it and sure enough, it went back up. Marmol is only one example of fans thinking they found an outlier. I expect the same will happen with Arrieta.
One thing we really need to remember is that we’re really talking about 25 or so starts and those don’t include his playoff starts, which were more ordinary. It’s not even a full season of data.
I think Arrieta is a great pitcher and I honestly have no idea what his true talent level is anymore. Every time I’ve thought I’ve found it, he proves it wrong.
I’d also bet that if we figured out some cool way to use the statcast data to create a metric for value that it would closely resemble the leaderboard using FIP. It would probably have at least 15 of the same players in the top 20.
dmick89Quote Reply
JonKneeV,
That could be, but we could just as easily say that the mileage on Kershaw and Arrieta’s arms make them a higher risk than someone Syndergaard’s age. Among players who soon qualify or have already qualified as free agents, I’d definitely go with Kershaw over Arrieta, but it’s a lot closer than I thought it was 9-10 months ago.
dmick89Quote Reply
It is. Even without his best stuff, he completely dominated an MLB lineup. Yeah, it was the Reds, but they have some bats that can do some damage.
dmick89Quote Reply
mlb should pass a rule that requires teams that lose by 15 runs or more to automatically forfeit the next game (dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
My main concern is that we’d just end up with SIERA 2.0
berseliusQuote Reply
I think we probably would. The beauty of FIP is that it’s so simple and for most players with a large enough sample, it’s going to be representative of how well they pitched. I have no doubt that if Jake continues to pitch well, and there’s no indication he won’t, that by the end of the year his FIP will be near what it’s been the last two years.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
It has always bugged me that FIP discounts pitchers like Greg Maddux who actually pitch. Granted, the outliers when it comes to fWAR vs rWAR are outliers in other respects that will show up in approximately the same rank relative to other pitchers, but like so many reactions to convention, it has gone too far the other direction. I feel like FIP and xFIP measure a particular kind of dominance to the exclusion of effectiveness, and maybe it’s the monkey in me, but I have come to regard it as the SLG to ERA’s AVG—it is informative in a different way but is still missing a crucial measure of value.
ceruleanQuote Reply
really wish we still had steve clevenger and scott feldman
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
cerulean,
Why do people here keep leaving Sale off these lists?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
Clevenger homered yesterday, so I guess the Mariners won the Arrieta trade.
berseliusQuote Reply
cerulean,
I don’t think FIP discounts Maddux much. He did very well at the three true outcomes. Glavine is a different story, though.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Maddux had a career ERA of 3.16, and career FIP of 3.26.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Because we are all dumbasses, obvs.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I’m usually pretty skeptical of the “Knows how to pitch” arguments.
MillertimeQuote Reply
3rd-order win percentages don’t play the game. You have been warned.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
For your reading pleasure:
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/curt-schilling-fired/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://www.fangraphs.com/community/revisiting-the-stuff-metric/
This was an interesting attempt.
GWQuote Reply
Yeah, FIP did a pretty good job with Maddux. I’m sure there are some pitchers who it doesn’t do the best job with, but I think FIP does a really good job overall.
dmick89Quote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Millertime,
Fair points—it’s what I get for trusting my monkey mind. In the long run, these things tend to average out. I still think we are missing something crucial, and I hope that the spin rates, exit velocities, and defensive positioning/route efficiency will help tease that apart.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
My main criticism of FIP is what SIERA tried (and more or less failed) to fix, namely that it undervalues ground ball pitchers. Maybe to a lesser extent weak contact guys too, who get more pop flies. But for the most part I’m cool with it. Between SIERA and plenty of non-baseball sciencey stuff like weather and stuff that I do it’s easy to get lost in comprehensive models when simple stuff generally does as good of a job.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
I figure FIP works the majority of the time, and if there are differences, it’s not hard to investigate those differences to see why a pitcher might over or under produce their FIP.
I’ve heard some people say that ERA overvalues GB pitchers, because a GB pitcher is more likely to have an error behind them and have more of their runs be unearned runs.
MillertimeQuote Reply
I wouldn’t want to enter a bathroom with such a strange cat as himself in it.
Actually, I don’t care.
Here’s an idea: all bathrooms are unisex, but there is a tidy bathroom and an untidy bathroom. All urinals are in the untidy bathroom because they are horrible designs, meant to spray urine back at the pisser and all over the walls and floor. (The troughs, turns out, don’t have this problem, but they are bad designs for privacy reasons.) The tidy bathrooms would have air purifiers and those valets to give you hot towels and make sure sinks and toilets are clean and the toilet paper is two-ply with perferations and the lids would close if you weren’t sitting on them. Problem solved.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Millertime,
The argument against Jason Marquis, in other words.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
You know, in college, all our dorm restrooms and showers were unisex. I don’t recall ever having a problem but I guess I’m chill.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I went to college in the Bible Belt, so we were lucky we didn’t have a dress code, let alone have females within walking distance.
joshQuote Reply
FIP isn’t really meant to be a comprehensive measurement of pitching ability. So I don’t think its failure to account for the ability of some pitchers to limit hard contract is a weakness per se; it’s just not what it’s designed to measure. It’s like how OBP doesn’t account for power hitting.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
The reason it works is that skills in those particular aspects have a tight spread in the target population and are noisy. xFIP works better than fip as a projection for the same reason (it removes home runs).
GWQuote Reply
http://www.hardballtimes.com/dexter-fowler-casey-close-collusion-and-the-value-of-information/
berseliusQuote Reply
holy shit, seriously? i have never heard of this. that seems kind of crazy.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
brett’s EBS for last night is great
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/04/21/enhanced-box-score-cubs-16-reds-0-april-21-2016/
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Agreed. And that’s kind of the point. It’s missing vital information for the sake of simplicity and compression, such that it is systematically misvaluing performance in a different way than ERA misvalues it. That is valuable, but it hasn’t captured the value enough.
ceruleanQuote Reply
To-day’s base ball squadron
Fowler
Heyward
Bryant (LF)
Rizzo
Zobrist
Baez (3B)
Russell
Ross
Lester
berseliusQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
I went to Berkeley so it was like “whatever” for us.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s not that uncommon. Where I went to school there were both mixed and single-sex dorm floors, and bathrooms. The shenanigans were pretty much the same no matter which floor you were on.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Details please.
MuckerQuote Reply
I used to live on a mixed-sex dorm floor, but the restrooms/showers were segregated and the girls’ room was locked.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
I went to a community college so we didn’t have dorms. (dying laughing)
MuckerQuote Reply
A curiosity on Maddux: FIP understated his dominance relative to ERA in his best (middle) years and overstated it in his worst (very early and later) years such that they evened out. And after thinking about it, it makes sense. ERA is more volatile than FIP, so it follows that FIP makes better pitching look not as great and worse pitching look not as terrible, which makes me wonder whether its prediction value in aggregate stems mostly from the fact that it is already regressed to the mean. If I remember correctly, cutting out outliers will always make a regression line fit better.
I dig it, though the presentation is not great—having the numbers look like ERA or FIP but inverted such that higher is better is not a great design. I would lose the decimal to make it more like ERA+.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Mucker,
Er, I’ll just say that 19-year-olds found a way to do what 19-year-olds do on every floor of that building, and sometimes in the showers. It’s not so much that the mixed arrangement encouraged anything, but more that the segregation did nothing to stop it.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Cubs got another pitcher fired
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/04/reds-designate-tim-melville.html?fv-home=true
Rice in limboQuote Reply
It’s like nude beaches. OMG quickly turns to whatever. Yep, we live in sacks of flesh. Yep, we all have microbes that digest most of our food that we have to evacuate. I think all else being equal, transparency is healthier—this is what it is to be human.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
Don’t get me started. One of my biggest pet peeves is when stats are adjusted and scaled so that they look like something they are not.
GWQuote Reply
cerulean,
That’s why I like being a lizard person ER NOTHING
joshQuote Reply
GW,
I like to modify Batting Average to look like a crane that can flap it’s wings when you wiggle it’s head.
joshQuote Reply
GW,
I don’t have a problem with it when they are meant to convey the same kind of information like wOBA or are normalized to 100 as in the case of relative stats like OPS+—but the almost but not quite kind of metric that comes out of that equation is quite awful.
Speaking of that stuff metric, as I look deeper, I see it as an indicator of potential, but much of the “stuff” doesn’t seem to show up in the execution. And that is what I am really interested in. Arrieta’s “stuff” was the best last season, but Chris Bassitt and Nathan Eovaldi? These guys might be really good like it was thought Arrieta might be really good in 2013, but they haven’t shown it yet. Arrieta crossed the chasm from potential to actual performance. Will they?
Maybe this metric will point to breakout candidates. Maybe this metric will allow us to identify areas that it or other metrics do not capture and find ways to measure it. But it’s still not what I am looking for—a better basis for the actual (first-order) value contributed by the player. Then maybe we can try to get a better handle on what the knock-on effects are (bullpen use, managerial decisions, coaching impact, number of threats in a lineup, etc). Maybe one day.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Color me baffled. Like, with a crayon.
ceruleanQuote Reply
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jake-arrieta-king-of-weak-contact/
MillertimeQuote Reply
cerulean,
Same with the childish attitudes about breast feeding. Why can’t grown people not be immature and think the world is about them? It’s not just that it’s the most natural and healthy thing that can possibly happen, it’s also that so what if you see an engorged nipple with toddler slobber all over it. Look away if it grosses you out you fucking babyman.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Millertime,
Also: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-defensive-metrics-mightve-saved-jake-arrietas-no-hitter/
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
If that truly has been Dexter’s problem on defense all these years, it’s amazing no one told him until this year. Do teams really say to their outfielders, “Hey, just play wherever you feel comfortable. Who are we to tell you otherwise?”
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Baez sure gets hurt a lot. He seems to be ok, though.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
wOBA has nothing to do with OBA.
GWQuote Reply
Yep, that’s the idea. A model-based, metric that is independent of results.
GWQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
I guess he was instructed to play that way? It seems kind of crazy, but I can imagine that it could have seemed like it was better when batting average was all that mattered and fewer player walked so playing up helped keep more off the bases. I can also imagine certain parks where playing the carom would seem to be more advantageous—like in a vast place like Coors field. But in this environment with the data to back it up, it is just not an advantage, if it ever was.
Maybe Dexter will be a plus center fielder with his glove alone. (dying laughing)
ceruleanQuote Reply
Rizzo!
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I think the defensive metrics have been wrong about Fowler. Rather, I think he’s a better defender than they’ve credited him for being. That’s based on my useless eye test.
Rizzo!!!
dmick89Quote Reply
GW,
I guess I am a lumper and you are a splitter.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
wOBA is “runs” per plate appearance relative to an out (where runs is a linear weights-based estimate of runs). The rest is just marketing.
GWQuote Reply
GW,
I’d say that not taking advantage of marketing would be a DominoNo®™
ceruleanQuote Reply
Ross continues to drive in runs.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Also, the second throwing error by a Reds pitcher in as many days.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
RBI by Lester!
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I didn’t have an issue when they were trying to sell books. I had an issue when they didn’t take out the scaling factor before putting it on fangraphs. It takes a simple concept and completely obscures it to something meaningless. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard/read over the years some variant of “Uh… yeah, it’s like on-base, but better. Not exactly sure how.”
Baseball fans will adapt to any scale as long as they have access to sortable leaderboards. Just ask OPS.
GWQuote Reply
(dying laughing) @ Votto
dmick89Quote Reply
(dying laughing) Baez thinking 3. That’s just great.
dmick89Quote Reply
Maybe just 6 innings for Lester tonight.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Fowler was playing too deep to catch that one.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Perkins,
need to make sure he gets another AB in before being pulled.
GWQuote Reply
Maddon shut me right up.
PerkinsQuote Reply
OPS is fundamentally different than wOBA. It can be calculated with simple arithmetic—it’s not weighted and isn’t adjusted depending on esoteric factors. Scaling it would be stupid unless it was a league/park adjusted metric like OPS+.
But wOBA is obfuscated from the beginning. Scaling it or not really doesn’t matter, so adjusting it so that it approximates OBP is for all intents and purposes fine. Maybe it should be scaled to OPS or just keep an arbitrary weight constant and shift the others relative to it and have a different baseline altogether. The fact that it is convoluted lends itself to this kind of manipulation. But I do think that it should mean something tangible or simply be scaled to 100 like OPS+ and ERA+ (I don’t prefer ERA- or FIP-).
All things being equal, I think the stats that are more familiar are more likely to be adopted, hence wOBA is like OBP, but better, and people thought they understood it enough for it to be meaningful. But now that you have brought it up, it’s kind of a turd in a black box.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Simply.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I’d prefer wOBA not be scaled. Without scaling, it tells us exactly what’s important: runs per plate appearance relative to an out.
dmick89Quote Reply
I have to say, I am really impressed by Duvall’s defense. Wasn’t also Heyward that he robbed in the Cubs’ home opener?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Javy!
ceruleanQuote Reply
Cubs hitters rob Rondon of yet another save opportunity.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
A launch angle of 18º—it’s a wonder it made it out.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I think Russell needs to be sent down so he can learn not to line out fielders. He just isn’t ready.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Maybe Grimm will be nice enough to give up a run for Hector’s sake.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Fixed.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Hoover is showing us how bad you have to be to lose the closer position in the Reds’ bullpen.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
It’s pretty damn difficult to calculate if you start from scratch. My point is that people adapted to the 0.500-1.100 range without batting an eye.
If you leave wOBA alone, it’s perfectly fine. Runs per plate appearance. The next step is explaining that a HR is typically worth more than one run because of men on base, etc.. Scale it, and it means nothing.
OPS means nothing from the get-go. It’s only because of the implicit linear weights in the calculation that it tracks well with runs.
GWQuote Reply
Keep piling them on, boys.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I must say, Hoover is aptly named.
“I keep trying not to suck…but…”
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
He sucks and blows!
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I disagree with the sentiment behind this notion simply because both OBP and SLG are pretty much givens. I with you on the rest.
ceruleanQuote Reply
OPS = (H + BB + HBP) / (AB + BB + HBP + SF) + (1b + 2b*2 + 3b*3 + HR*4) / AB
dmick89Quote Reply
He also sucks at blowing because he certainly isn’t blowing anybody away.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
They’re only givens because other people calculate it. It’s a much sloppier overall formula than wOBA. I have highlighted that many times.
WOBA is pretty much a given at this point and so is FIP.
dmick89Quote Reply
This team is awesome.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I think Hector has to be pitching at least one of the weekend games to make sure he remembers how.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Is it too much to ask for a +100 run differential by May 1st?
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Things I hate: Reach on Error is not included in OBP. SF counts against OBP but SH does not. But even so, that clusterfuck of a calculation is one integer divided by another integer plus some other integer divided by another. There are no floating point coefficients to deal with. Much easier.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I was told there would be no math.
uncle daveQuote Reply
But scoring at such a rate will only make them unluckier. Do you really wish bad luck upon the Cubs?
ceruleanQuote Reply
I don’t have to. This team can’t even do once in a generation right.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Sac flies count because the batter was trying to get a hit. He failed. Sac bunts are when the batter is intentionally making an out. Those are often called from the bench so I’m ok with including one and not the other.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I disagree with that assessment. A sacrifice fly is by no means failure. I don’t think intentionality should have any bearing on it.
ceruleanQuote Reply
You were lied to by the pseudoauthority to placate you. Math is everywhere. It creeps in the shadows, it blinds you with light—you cannot escape it—it has you in its grasp. And one day, it will make a new formula out of your everlasting soul.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I love that this team is dominating both on offense and defense. Most RS, least RA, every other team fits in the middle. The Cubs are bookending the league.
ceruleanQuote Reply
If I have done the math right, the Cubs have outscored the Reds 46–7 for an average score of 9.2–1.4 and a differential near 8 runs per game. Wow.
The Reds RDSC (Run Diff Sans Cubs) is 0.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Remember when the Reds had a winning record? I remember it like it was yesterday.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
cerulean,
I meant failure in the sense the batter failed to get on base, which is what OBP is measuring.
dmick89Quote Reply
cerulean,
In one, the batter is clearly trying to reach base while the other he’s not trying to. I agree, if we’re measuring overall offensive output we have to include these and they are. If we are only interested in measuring the rate at which the player reached base, we ought to include SF as a failed attempt to reach base.
dmick89Quote Reply
Wainwright is still sucking. I wonder if he’ll ever pitch like his old self again.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
At least he’s sucking The Right Way
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://obstructedview.net/cubs-8-reds-1-42216/
berseliusQuote Reply