Let's be real about Newcomb
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
What criteria should I use if not the 2 biggest factors predicting Newk won't succeed (age and control)?
What query would you suggest I run to see the likelihood of Newk becoming a legit SP?
I'm sorry it offends you that Newk is very unlikely to have a significant MLB career, but if you are going to criticize you should be ready to offer an alternative hypothesis to test.
K rate? Hit rate? FIP? I'm not saying what you did was bad or any less good than any other query you could run. Again, it is interesting and useful.
But it is precisely the fact that they are the 2 biggest factors against him that makes it the most likely query to show negative results.
I could just as easily do this same kind of thing for Folty to 'prove' to you how little a chance he has at becoming something really good. For some reason you love to hype Folty and create straw men to tear down on Newcomb.
Who doesn't? How many people on this site have claimed anything different? We're all just waiting and hoping.
msstate7
Well-known member
Really... what has anyone said that's so unrealistic? And even if they did, who cares? It's not that serious
Wait, you are trying to point out that a query based on negative constraints will return a negative set of data? Of course it will...that was the whole point of the exercise...to see just how unlikely it is for a 24 year old with such terrible command to succeed.
Are you suggesting a query looking at his K and Hit rates will be more telling? Would you like to see that list? I bought 24 hour access to the full data set if you do. $2 well spent!
I hype Folty because he throws his 118th pitch of a game 97+. That is the kind of stuff worth "giving a chance".
I'm not sure why folks get so offended when they are told a player isn't likely to be very good. Almost like they are related to the player or something.
Here's a quick look at why a regurgitation of data isn't enough. The analysis the most important thing.
You claim that he has a 10% chance of being Harang and a 10% chance of being Dotel simply because they are each one of 10 other guys to debut at 24+ with a BB rate of 5+. But even a slightly deeper look at the numbers reveals that Newcomb clearly has the best overall numbers of that group. This list is Name/Age/K rate/BB rate/FIP:
Micah Bowie (negative) 24 7.2 6.0 5.94
Octavio Dotel (15.7, 4.2) 25 9.0 5.2 4.90
Ryan Glynn (negative) 24 6.4 5.8 6.06
Angel Guzman (1.4, 1,7) 24 9.6 5.9 5.40
Joel Hanrahan (4.3, 2.5) 25 7.6 6.7 6.08
Aaron Harang (23.5, 6.0) 24 7.4 5.2 4.33
Aaron Heilman (2.1, 2.2) 24 7.0 5.6 6.08
Kazuhisa Ishii (0.2, 0.7) 28 8.4 6.2 4.94
Justin Miller (1.4, 1.1) 24 6.0 5.8 5.41
Sean Newcomb (NA) 24 9.4 5.1 4.28
Blake Stein (2.8, 1.6) 24 6.8 5.4 6.00
So he is, by definition, among the youngest of the group. He has the 2nd best K rate behind Guzman (whose best year was his last at 27 before injuries derailed him); and his BB rate and FIP are the best among that group.
You are smart enough to know that putting a person within a group of people who also share the same lower bound in a category does not make them just as likely as anyone else in the group to become something. Newcomb should be at the top of this list in terms of likelihood to make it. The fact that two of this group actually did become good starters in the majors is actually a good sign for him. The closest in overall numbers of this group is Harang, but he didn't strike out nearly as many.
You claim that he has a 10% chance of being Harang and a 10% chance of being Dotel simply because they are each one of 10 other guys to debut at 24+ with a BB rate of 5+. But even a slightly deeper look at the numbers reveals that Newcomb clearly has the best overall numbers of that group. This list is Name/Age/K rate/BB rate/FIP:
Micah Bowie (negative) 24 7.2 6.0 5.94
Octavio Dotel (15.7, 4.2) 25 9.0 5.2 4.90
Ryan Glynn (negative) 24 6.4 5.8 6.06
Angel Guzman (1.4, 1,7) 24 9.6 5.9 5.40
Joel Hanrahan (4.3, 2.5) 25 7.6 6.7 6.08
Aaron Harang (23.5, 6.0) 24 7.4 5.2 4.33
Aaron Heilman (2.1, 2.2) 24 7.0 5.6 6.08
Kazuhisa Ishii (0.2, 0.7) 28 8.4 6.2 4.94
Justin Miller (1.4, 1.1) 24 6.0 5.8 5.41
Sean Newcomb (NA) 24 9.4 5.1 4.28
Blake Stein (2.8, 1.6) 24 6.8 5.4 6.00
So he is, by definition, among the youngest of the group. He has the 2nd best K rate behind Guzman (whose best year was his last at 27 before injuries derailed him); and his BB rate and FIP are the best among that group.
You are smart enough to know that putting a person within a group of people who also share the same lower bound in a category does not make them just as likely as anyone else in the group to become something. Newcomb should be at the top of this list in terms of likelihood to make it. The fact that two of this group actually did become good starters in the majors is actually a good sign for him. The closest in overall numbers of this group is Harang, but he didn't strike out nearly as many.
Sure. Give me the list of guys his age who have produced that K rate and FIP. I would love to see it.
Again, you took the most negative query possible and said, this is the precise figure as to how likely it is for him to become something. That is absurd, and I think you know that.
Again, the most negative query you could possibly run still produced 20% positive results.
striker42
Well-known member
I actually think this list tells a better story and probably gives an accurate spread of the chances of success of most young starters. You have some guys who had excellent careers as starters, some with good stuff who shifted to the pen and had great success, others who had their careers derailed by injury, some that just plain busted, and some that were never really expected to do much.
I wouldn't say Newcomb has a 10% chance of success simply because he has things going for him (high K, low BAA) as well as excellent stuff. I think that eliminates a large portion of that list as comps.
The real question here is whether he'll end up as a good starter like Gio, a mediocre starter like Kip Wells, a reliever like Nathan, or a bust like Drabek.
I wouldn't characterize his odds of being even an average MLB starter as a "longshot." I mean let's realize that he's basically been an average starter so far in just his rookie season.
I concede that it's unlikely he'll sustain a long career as a starter with such high BB rates. But there are semi-rare cases like Edinson Volquez. May be Newk can buck the trend.
I concede that it's unlikely he'll sustain a long career as a starter with such high BB rates. But there are semi-rare cases like Edinson Volquez. May be Newk can buck the trend.
I think lots of people on here have underestimated the impact of Newks bb rate and somehow think it will magically turn around. Sims too. I think both guys will end up in the pen or be out of baseball once they aren't cheap. That opinion didn't set well with many because it was before they were given a chance.
Sure thing. There isn't an option for FIP, so ERA will have to serve as a proxy.
Here are the results For single seasons, From 1997 to 2017, Age at or above 24, From 1st season to 2nd season, For any choice in Season Totals, (requiring GS >= 10, SOp9 >= 9, earned_run_avg >= 4.0 and earned_run_avg
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
Managuarantano's Volunteers
<B><I>The Artist Formally Known as <P>Ventura's St
If Newcomb avoids 7BB games, he'll have much better looking control.
Having said that, I'm thinking he'll stay around 4.5 BB/9 for his career.
Having said that, I'm thinking he'll stay around 4.5 BB/9 for his career.
Data Analysis 101
The narrative surrounding Newk has always been, "He just needs to improve his control".
Therefore, from an analysis point of view, the question to be answered is: How likely is a pitcher making his MLB debut at 24 to improve upon his 5+ BB/9 rate?
The query was then set up to answer that question. The answer turned out to be: not very likely.
I am probably at fault here. I should have reported the career BB/9 of the pitchers on the list rather than their career WAR totals. Their ultimate BB/9 rate is the actual answer to the question that was posed, not their overall production. It was faulty to assumethier lack of production was based solely from inflated BB/9 rates.
The narrative surrounding Newk has always been, "He just needs to improve his control".
Therefore, from an analysis point of view, the question to be answered is: How likely is a pitcher making his MLB debut at 24 to improve upon his 5+ BB/9 rate?
The query was then set up to answer that question. The answer turned out to be: not very likely.
I am probably at fault here. I should have reported the career BB/9 of the pitchers on the list rather than their career WAR totals. Their ultimate BB/9 rate is the actual answer to the question that was posed, not their overall production. It was faulty to assumethier lack of production was based solely from inflated BB/9 rates.
msstate7
Well-known member
Interesting point... if you throw out Newcomb's best bb game (6.0 ip and 1 bb, which he's done 3 times) and his worst bb game (4.2 ip and 7 bb, which he's done 1 time), then his bb/9 is 4.7. 4.7 isn't good, but it's better and a more accurate representation of his performance so far this season.