Jump to content

Ron Burgandy

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    4,661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ron Burgandy


  1. Just to be clear, I get that there is a high degree of luck involved in short playoff series. I don't believe the best team always wins. But to suggest that Oakland and Minnesota are 1-10 in playoff series over the last 13 years (with the only win being head-to-head) is explainable simply through bad luck just isn't credible. There is more going on there. To say that the playoffs are a crap shoot is a cop-out, one that largely took root in Moneyball as an excuse to explain why the A's hadn't had more postseason success.


  2. It will be interesting to see if this trend holds going forward. If I had to guess it won't (it was only 4-3 in 2013, according to the article). Often models that work well looking backward fail when applied looking forward. Looking at series wins rather than pure win-loss record seems like a poor choice as well. What happens if you change the end points to 2010 or 2008?

    Bill James looked at this in the 80's and thought he found a formula. He publicized it and it proceeded to miss every series the following year and never held up over any period of time after he published the results.

    I could see the contact rate correlation being fleeting, but power pitching is a pretty well established formula for post-season success. And contact rate would seemingly provide one of the most effective means of counteracting power pitching...


  3. Not to people I considered friends. I am not sure if I have ever called someone stupid in RL....I have THOUGHT it about many people...not many of those people were friends if any, but never called them that. I think I may have done it here a couple times. I am sure I apologized after the fact though.

    You want to call that 'moral superiority' that is on you. I call it common courtesy.

    "Stupid" was a poor choice of words. His response was clearly illogical, but I nevertheless should have taken the higher road. That having been said, I wouldn't consider him a "friend," so I'm not sure how you and I are any different.


  4. you're the one typing this ******** that, I'm pretty sure, most people here know isn't true

    hey, wanna know why teams with high contact rates typically win the series? because high contact offenses are probably GOOD OFFENSES

    that does not mean that you need to be a high contact team to have a good offense. who had the better offense between the Tigers and Red Sox? the Red Sox. that's why they won. why do teams with power pitching usually win? because power pitching usually means the pitchers are good.

    if a team has good pitchers, they will win, whether that's greg maddux or roger clemens. if a team has good hitters, they will win, whether that's evan longoria or jacoby ellsbury.

    oh wait, now you're probably going to tell me evan longoria isn't a good player and that the Rays will never win with him. if you'd like another example, I'll make sure to pick out a guy who strikes out a ton and yet still won the world series. you know, like mike napoli.

    argument over

    Looks like I was wrong. You really are that stupid. Thanks for the confirmation.

    Edit: And just in case it isn't clear, almost every team in the playoffs has good pitchers and good offenses. Some pitching staffs are more finesse oriented, some more power oriented. Oakland and Minnesota (when they were good) have had good pitching, but it wasn't dominant, power pitching. They are something like a combined 1-10 in playoff series since 2000. And the only victory was when they played each other. You can say that's just a fluke, but I don't buy it.


  5. sigh

    Sigh all you want, but it's true. Since 2009, teams with the better contact rate in the regular season are now 26-9 in postseason series.

    What we learned from the 2013 season - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

    Meanwhile, Oakland is now 1-7 in playoff series since 2000.

    Just because an individual playoff series may be difficult to predict does not mean that playoff success is just blind luck. Over a large enough sample of playoff series, trends emerge. Power, strikeout pitching generally rules the day in October. The teams that have it tend to advance, those that don't have it tend to go home. Conversely, high contact offenses tend to do better in October.

    The notion that the playoffs are a complete crap shoot is a myth. It's one of the things the SABR folks have been wrong about.


  6. There is no formula to winning in the post-season.

    Untrue. While playoff baseball is difficult to predict due to the short series, trends do emerge over time. There is a reason the A's never win in the playoffs, and why Dombrowski built teams usually do.


  7. C'mon people, let's be a little balanced in our perspective. This team has not in any way, shape or form improved itself this offseason on-the-field....it has taken several significant steps backwards..not enough to drop us out of the ALC title, but enough to make it tight.

    I agree that as of today we are a worse team than we were at the end of 2013. But I disagree that we haven't improved in any way. Our defense is poised to be substantially better in 2014 than in 2013. I think you have to factor that into your run prevention analysis. Even if the pitching inevitably takes a step back in 2014, some (lots?) of that difference will be offset by the defensive improvement. Hell, Iglesias could himself be a 20 run improvement defensively next year.


  8. I don't understand why DD seemingly only considered trading Fister for a SP prospect. That significantly reduces the field of our potential return, and seems short-sighted. Sure we might prefer to get a pitching prospect back, but why zero in so specifically on that when someone might have been willing to offer a superior positional prospect.


  9. Here, I fixed that for you. I don't know why everyone wants to look at this as a package deal while assuming that the offseason is over.

    I agree the trades and signings shouldn't be viewed as a package deal. The Fister trade was bad regardless of what we do/did with the extra $7 million. We could have shed that salary and still received a better package in return.


  10. Then I would submit you are highly overestimating fister's market.

    Let's say smyly breaks his arm this afternoon.

    Would you trade castellanos, krol, and lombardozzi back to Washington for fister?

    Or would you just sign ubaldo to 4/48 or Ervin Santana at 3/39?

    Come on bro, even you know this is absurd. You aren't getting Ubaldo or Santana on either of those deals. Santana's looking for $100 million for crying out loud.

    Your proposed Castellanos deal also isn't a valid comparison. Castellanos is a significantly better prospect than Ray. So even if I wouldn't trade Castellanos for Fister, that doesn't mean that Ray is sufficient value.

    In short, I would trade Ray/Krol/Lombo back to the Nationals in a heartbeat, regardless of the condition of Smyly's arm.


  11. No team was going to give up a top prospect for Doug fister. Not when he's in year 5 and 6 of his team control years.

    Then we shouldn't have traded him. You don't move assets for less than fair market value when you don't have to. We could have ridden one more year of Smyly in the pen, and had him ready to take over for Scherzer next year.

    It's the same as why people don't think we should trade Scherzer. They'd rather take the remaining surplus value on his contract for 2014, than accept what they believe will be below-market value.

    At the end of the day, it's all cost-benefit. With Fister, the benefit apparently didn't outweigh the cost of the move. Hence, it was a bad decision.


  12. No one is denying that prospects have value, or that we have a depleted farm system. The question is whether Ray is sufficient return for Fister (Krol could easily and cheaply be replaced on the FA or trade market, while Lombo has little value). I don't see how a potential #3 or 4 starter is fair return for two arbitration years of an established top-flight #3 starter.

    Now if Ray projected as a #1 or #2, maybe it's a different story. But all reports indicate he's a 3 or 4. That simply isn't enough.


  13. The other factor here is that even if we assume for a second that the trade market for SP is much weaker this year than in the past (which I reject, given the dearth of quality FA starters), then we should have made a move last year instead. Fister with 3 years left would have been even more valuable, and we still had a ready replacement in hand with Smyly.


  14. Any team looking at fister could also address their need for a SP through free agency. There are a good number of free agent starters that are comparable to fister. Maybe not quite as good, but comparable.

    Nolasco signed for 4/49.

    Obviously, fister is on a better contract, but how much better, really?

    The difference between the two is covered by the value of the players that Washington gave up.

    Seriously? You really think Ricky Nolasco and Doug Fister are roughly analogous pitchers? Over the last three years Fister has been one of the top 10-15 most productive pitchers in the game. Nolasco would be lucky to fall in the top 50. As but one short-hand measure, Nolasco's been worth 8.5 wins over the last 3 years, Fister 12.4.

    If you are starting from the assumption that Nolasco effectively equals Fister, then perhaps this deal is fair value. But I submit that that is woefully overestimating Nolasco, or selling Fister very short.


  15. It will be interesting to see if and how we spend the money we have freed up. If this is what allows us to sign Joe Nathan, does that make it worth it?

    Nope, not in the slightest. Nathan is going to be vastly overpaid and at greater risk of an immediate, steep decline than Fister allegedly was.


  16. If only they had more time this offseason to fill those holes.

    Considering we just moved our last decent trade chip (surplus SP), we're going to have to fill those holes on the FA market most likely. To get anything good (Cano, Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran), that'll require us to take on another questionable long-term contract AND lose our first round draft pick. So yes, Ray does help the minor league system a little, but in the bigger picture it's one step forward and one step back on the farm.

    Instead, we should have used the trade chip to fill a need at the MLB level and refurbished the system with our own first round pick.


  17. All this talk about being able to get more is directly contradicted by what we actually got. I think many are severely overestimating what his value this offseason actually was.

    The MLB team is probably equal to what it was yesterday. Maybe half a win worse.

    But they now have a legitimate prospect in their system that they didn't have previously.

    If this is the most Fister could yield on the trade market, then we should have held on to him. His surplus value over the next two years outweighs the return here. We didn't have to make a move. Instead, we just moved our best trade piece and didn't fill any of our most pressing holes at the MLB-level.

×
×
  • Create New...