6/21 gigantes

[Southcack77]

I'd say a high strikeout rate is over 8K/9

I'd say the best pitchers are the top 50 starters in FIP, and top 20 relievers in FIP

FIP is to your benefit since Ks are a component of the computation. But only 1 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 30 had a K rate under 8.

Not too dissimilar though from ERA or WAR. WAR probably scores the under 8 crowd the best -- I think because fangraphs scores infield flies as strike outs for purposes of WAR.

[sturg33]

FIP is to your benefit since Ks are a component of the computation. But only 1 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 30 had a K rate under 8.

Not too dissimilar though from ERA or WAR. WAR probably scores the under 8 crowd the best -- I think because fangraphs scores infield flies as strike outs for purposes of WAR.

We can probably use any stat we want, but I'm comfortable with 80 - 90% of the top pitchers in baseball have high k rates

It's important for Newcomb, who doesn't have great control, to have a high k rate.

[Southcack77]

Absolutely—that's all most of us are saying. It's good Newcomb has pitched some low-scoring games heretofore, but if he's going to keep it up, he needs to improve that strikeout rate, given his skillset. And—fingers crossed—he will.

I guess is my question is this. His K/9 in his first start was 10. It was 4.5 in his last two.

How do you decide which is the norm after three starts and how do you decide whether to worry about it or not?

[jpx7]

It's important for Newcomb, who doesn't have great control, to have a high k rate.

Which is also why raising the spectre of Greg Maddux, in Newcomb's case, was ... odd.

[jpx7]

I guess is my question is this. His K/9 in his first start was 10. It was 4.5 in his last two.

How do you decide which is the norm after three starts and how do you decide whether to worry about it or not?

Three starts is not enough for a strike-out norm. Same goes for his low-scoring start. All I'm saying is I wouldn't expect him to continue to post low-scoring outings if he continues to strike-out 4.5/9 in two-thirds of his starts, even if he strikes-out 10/9 in the other third.

As for "worry", that's up to you to decide. I'm not really worried about anything that happens on the field in 2017, outside of catastrophic injuries to core players, because I don't really care if the Braves win or lose individual games this year.

[thewupk]

The maddux didn't have a high k rate and is a TOR argument always annoys me. He compensated is above avg k rate of his time with all world bb rate and homerun suppression. His fip responded accordingly.

These type of players do come along from time to time but for the most part you need to k a lot and limit walks. It's just the nature of the beast.

[sturg33]

I guess is my question is this. His K/9 in his first start was 10. It was 4.5 in his last two.

How do you decide which is the norm after three starts and how do you decide whether to worry about it or not?

Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm not yet worried. Just commenting that I want to see some more Ks.

Why do I care? Most because I want to see if his stuff is translating. For example, a 95 MPH straight fastball in minors may result in Ks, but in the majors it gets rocked. Or maybe he is sacrificing some stuff in order to produce better control in the MLB level. Or maybe it's just a small sample and it won't matter. But to me, it's the most important thing this season. Sean Newcomb's K rate and BB rate for the rest of this season

[Southcack77]

The maddux didn't have a high k rate and is a TOR argument always annoys me. He compensated is above avg k rate of his time with all world bb rate and homerun suppression. His fip responded accordingly.

These type of players do come along from time to time but for the most part you need to k a lot and limit walks. It's just the nature of the beast.

I can't help what you find frustrating, but Maddux was never one of the big strike out pitchers of his era.

His rates were 6.68, 6.64, 6.95, 7.77, 6.32, 6.85, 7.31, 5.58, 6.86 (starting with his first Cy Young and ending with his last 7 WAR season). You are certainly right that his k/rate rated higher (better than average) then than it would now. It isn't clear to me how a K rate of 6.5 during the steroids error was less likely to end in peril than it is now, but I'm willing to entertain the discussion.

And yes of course his FIP reflected his lack of walks. the formula specifically accounts for that because whomever came up with it decided that the relationship between walks and strike outs was extremely important. Right or wrong, you can't use the formula to justify itself. I happen to tend to agree with it for the most part.

Also the admission that players without high K rates who limit walks come along is all anyone really needs to hear.

you show a remarkable willingness to dismiss out of hand data that doesn't support your hypotheses.

[sturg33]

I think you're using the exception to try to prove the rule.

There are a lot of factors that make a good pitcher.
'K rate is a big one.

In the minors, k's were Newcomb's strength

So I want to see more K's

[Southcack77]

I think you're using the exception to try to prove the rule.

There are a lot of factors that make a good pitcher.
'K rate is a big one.

In the minors, k's were Newcomb's strength

So I want to see more K's

I'm really not.

All things considered I'd rather have a big K rate. Helps in 5 x 5 leagues especially.

I brought Maddux up in reference to pitch counts not as any kind of counter-example. I'm happy to follow the stats down the rabbit hole.

[thewupk]

I can't help what you find frustrating, but Maddux was never one of the big strike out pitchers of his era.

His rates were 6.68, 6.64, 6.95, 7.77, 6.32, 6.85, 7.31, 5.58, 6.86 (starting with his first Cy Young and ending with his last 7 WAR season). You are certainly right that his k/rate rated higher (better than average) then than it would now. It isn't clear to me how a K rate of 6.5 during the steroids error was less likely to end in peril than it is now, but I'm willing to entertain the discussion.

And yes of course his FIP reflected his lack of walks. the formula specifically accounts for that because whomever came up with it decided that the relationship between walks and strike outs was extremely important. Right or wrong, you can't use the formula to justify itself. I happen to tend to agree with it for the most part.

Also the admission that players without high K rates who limit walks come along is all anyone really needs to hear.

you show a remarkable willingness to dismiss out of hand data that doesn't support your hypotheses.

I never said maddux was a big k guy. But he was above avg for his time. I'm saying TOR guys like him are rare especially when it's longer than just for a couple of seasons.

I'm not dismissing any data. Guys like maddux do exist. However as sturg said he is the exception. I don't like trying to predict players based on exceptions. The most successful road to being a TOR is a high k rate. It's way easier than having having a meh k rate and exceptional command with low walks and homerun suppression