Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 132 of 132

Thread: Let's be real about Newcomb

  1. #121
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    For those wondering why the back and forth happens on these forums, it is because of pointless contrarian posts like Smoot's. They contribute nothing to the discussion and are nothing but argumentative.
    So pointing out flaws in your analysis is pointless? So I just accept the results of the flawed analysis?

    And giant lulz on you thinking that any disagreement with analysis of data equates to some sort of lack of understanding of, or interest in, analytics.

  2. #122
    Called Up to the Major Leagues SJ24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,963
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    30
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    291 Posts
    Newcomb at Coors tonight.

    Lol.

  3. #123
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    So pointing out flaws in your analysis is pointless? So I just accept the results of the flawed analysis?

    And giant lulz on you thinking that any disagreement with analysis of data equates to some sort of lack of understanding of, or interest in, analytics.
    Um, your arguments have literally been, "I don't know what the right answer is, I don't know how to get the right answer, and I don't have any new data of my own, but your analysis is wrong, because I think something else is true based on no data whatsoever".

    That is, by definition, a useless contrarian statement that adds nothing to an analytical discussion.

  4. #124
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Um, your arguments have literally been, "I don't know what the right answer is, I don't know how to get the right answer, and I don't have any new data of my own, but your analysis is wrong, because I think something else is true based on no data whatsoever".

    That is, by definition, a useless contrarian statement that adds nothing to an analytical discussion.
    I didn't just say 'I believe something else is true.' I used your data. Like I said, it is useful. But Newcomb clearly has the best numbers of the guys you listed with him. You treated him as though he is equal to everyone with as many or more walks than him. That list is a list of guys who are as bad as, or worse, than Newcomb in every category. It is poor analysis of the data available.

    It would be just as useful to look at all the guys at that age, with 5.1 or fewer BB/9. This is my point. It is an arbitrary lower bound designed to compare him with guys even worse than him. A pitcher with 12 K and 1 BB per 9 has as much relevance in comparison with him as a guy with 6 K and 6 BB.

    I'm not just saying 'Eh, I don't think you're right.' I'm saying that you can't use that data to say what you're saying. And I have given the reasons why.

    I don't have access to that data to run these queries, so all I can do is use yours. I think it's interesting data, you just can't use it to say anything definitive.
    Last edited by smootness; 08-15-2017 at 07:05 PM.

  5. #125
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,693
    Thanked in
    3,881 Posts
    Anyone think the changeup looked good (or better?) last time out?
    Ivermectin Man

  6. #126
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    I didn't just say 'I believe something else is true.' I used your data. Like I said, it is useful. But Newcomb clearly has the best numbers of the guys you listed with him. You treated him as though he is equal to everyone with as many or more walks than him. That list is a list of guys who are as bad as, or worse, than Newcomb in every category. It is poor analysis of the data available.

    It would be just as useful to look at all the guys at that age, with 5.1 or fewer BB/9. This is my point. It is an arbitrary lower bound designed to compare him with guys even worse than him. A pitcher with 12 K and 1 BB per 9 has as much relevance in comparison with him as a guy with 6 K and 6 BB.

    I'm not just saying 'Eh, I don't think you're right.' I'm saying that you can't use that data to say what you're saying. And I have given the reasons why.

    I don't have access to that data to run these queries, so all I can do is use yours. I think it's interesting data, you just can't use it to say anything definitive.
    Not so much scientific method as it is someone blowing up at you to see if you will stop questioning his claim and method.

    He's picked somewhat arbitrary numbers to advance his point. Of course, he could have picked arbitrary numbers in a wider range showing that this kind of initial performance does not often result in greatness.

    No real mystery in suggesting a pitcher who is walking 5 guys an inning is not particularly likely to ever be an above average major league pitcher.

    It's all a fancy way of saying you can't walk guys and succeed in the major leagues and here is some evidence that once you start walking guys you aren't likely to stop.

    At the end of the day, he's probably right because guys that haven't gotten walks out of their system by the time they get to the majors generally have bigger problems that don't get solved up there. But I think there are pitchers who figure it out. Might as well see if Newcomb is one of them.

  7. #127
    Where's My Cup of Coffee?
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    297
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    419
    Thanked in
    221 Posts
    the funny thing is everybody in this thread agrees on the big points and the big points are all pretty common sense.

    - everybody agrees that Newk needs to walk less people to be a good starter.
    - everybody agrees that given the current state of the team he should be given ample opportunity to see if he can succeed.

  8. #128
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Since this post was made, Newk some somehow managed to increase his BB rate even higher...all the way up to 5.43.

  9. #129
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    765
    Thanked in
    445 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Since this post was made, Newk some somehow managed to increase his BB rate even higher...all the way up to 5.43.

    If you take out IBBs the rate drops to 4.8. Clearly he needs to stop with the intentional walks if he wants to make it in the majors.

  10. #130
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    IBBs tend to happen more when you allow a lot of base runners.

    You tend to allow a lot of base runners when you walk a lot of people

  11. #131
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    765
    Thanked in
    445 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    IBBs tend to happen more when you allow a lot of base runners.

    You tend to allow a lot of base runners when you walk a lot of people


    I thought the inanity of my post would make it clear it was sarcasm.

    I'm sure all the other guys with BB/9 over 5 had their share of IBBs as well.

  12. #132
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DirkPiggler View Post
    I thought the inanity of my post would make it clear it was sarcasm.

    I'm sure all the other guys with BB/9 over 5 had their share of IBBs as well.
    Wrong. Newk is the only pitcher to suffer from IBBs and bad umpires. Therefore, he is a special case never before seen in the history of MLB and should be treated as such.

Similar Threads

  1. Newcomb
    By Acuña’s Bat Flip in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-03-2019, 08:05 AM
  2. Who is for real?
    By BeanieAntics in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-22-2018, 10:05 AM
  3. Newcomb
    By msstate7 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 10:18 PM
  4. Is Olivera for Real?
    By jimsnores in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-03-2016, 11:32 AM
  5. Real Problems
    By BedellBrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-21-2013, 10:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •