Let's be real about Newcomb

Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Since this post was made, Newk some somehow managed to increase his BB rate even higher...all the way up to 5.43.
 
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
 
sturg33 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
DirkPiggler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top