Shelby to AZ for E. Inciarte, A. Blair, and Dansby Swanson

gilesfan said:
Is Samardzija a bad 3rd pitcher? Is Peavy/Cain bad options for 4/5th starter? What about Heston as backup?

"The bullpen is unimpressive." How so? Castila/Romo/Strickland is pretty damn nice.

The OF will start either Pagan or Blanco because Pence/Span are the other 2 starters.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, yes and yes. They suck. They didn't always suck. They do now.

2. Strickland was a gasoline fire in the playoffs. He was throwing BP. Every time I see Casilla, he's shaky. So yeah, I'm saying unimpressive.

3. My bad. I forgot they signed Span. A good signing.

They're very solid as a hitting club, no question. I do not like their pitching past Bumgarner and Cueto. Though that's a deluxe 1-2, I agree. In the day, I loved Cain and I really loved Peavy. They just don't have it anymore. As for Samardzija, take a hard look at his career numbers and tell me he deserves to be mentioned in the same tier with Cueto and some of the other guys who got upper teens money. I just absolutely don't see it.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
1. Yes, yes and yes. They suck. They didn't always suck. They do now.

2. Strickland was a gasoline fire in the playoffs. He was throwing BP. Every time I see Casilla, he's shaky. So yeah, I'm saying unimpressive.

3. My bad. I forgot they signed Span. A good signing.

They're very solid as a hitting club, no question. I do not like their pitching past Bumgarner and Cueto. Though that's a deluxe 1-2, I agree. In the day, I loved Cain and I really loved Peavy. They just don't have it anymore. As for Samardzija, take a hard look at his career numbers and tell me he deserves to be mentioned in the same tier with Cueto and some of the other guys who got upper teens money. I just absolutely don't see it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the love affair with Smardzija but I sometimes find myself with it as well. He can be excellent one start and flat-out BS the next. 47-61 with a 4.09 ERA for his career is pretty damn bad, though.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
1. Yes, yes and yes. They suck. They didn't always suck. They do now.

2. Strickland was a gasoline fire in the playoffs. He was throwing BP. Every time I see Casilla, he's shaky. So yeah, I'm saying unimpressive.

3. My bad. I forgot they signed Span. A good signing.

They're very solid as a hitting club, no question. I do not like their pitching past Bumgarner and Cueto. Though that's a deluxe 1-2, I agree. In the day, I loved Cain and I really loved Peavy. They just don't have it anymore. As for Samardzija, take a hard look at his career numbers and tell me he deserves to be mentioned in the same tier with Cueto and some of the other guys who got upper teens money. I just absolutely don't see it.
Click to expand...

Shark is projected to throw 195 IP with a 3.4 ERA. Teams would die for that as a 3.

PEavy 153 IP at 3.75 ERA

Cain 130 IP at 3.9 ERA (might be rich, but have Heston as backup)

Strickland didn't even pitch in the playoffs last year. He did the year before and Harper took him deep. I'm not sure why you would ignore 2015 bc of a 5 game playoff series.

Every time you watch Castilla, he's shaky. Well, there you go. SOlved.
 
gilesfan said:
Shark is projected to throw 195 IP with a 3.4 ERA. Teams would die for that as a 3.

PEavy 153 IP at 3.75 ERA

Cain 130 IP at 3.9 ERA (might be rich, but have Heston as backup)

Strickland didn't even pitch in the playoffs last year. He did the year before and Harper took him deep. I'm not sure why you would ignore 2015 bc of a 5 game playoff series.

Every time you watch Castilla, he's shaky. Well, there you go. SOlved.
Click to expand...

Those projections are utter crap. It's ok, we disagree. That's why they play the games.
 
gilesfan said:
Shark is projected to throw 195 IP with a 3.4 ERA. Teams would die for that as a 3.

PEavy 153 IP at 3.75 ERA

Cain 130 IP at 3.9 ERA (might be rich, but have Heston as backup)

Strickland didn't even pitch in the playoffs last year. He did the year before and Harper took him deep. I'm not sure why you would ignore 2015 bc of a 5 game playoff series.

Every time you watch Castilla, he's shaky. Well, there you go. SOlved.
Click to expand...

This is where you tell my observations are completely subjective and your made-up 2016 numbers are more objective, right?
 
chop2chip said:
Well one is grounded in statistical analysis and the other is... Well, like your opinion, man.
Click to expand...

So a guy with a 4.97 ERA who gives up a league leading 29 bombs and a league-leading 228 hits, a career ERA north of four projects to a 3.4 ERA because of statistical analysis?

I have a head analyst at work who tells me she can make numbers say anything she wants them to say.

I do look at stats but I don't only look at stats and I try to think critically about them rather than taking them at face value.
 
gilesfan said:
Shark is projected to throw 195 IP with a 3.4 ERA. Teams would die for that as a 3.

PEavy 153 IP at 3.75 ERA

Cain 130 IP at 3.9 ERA (might be rich, but have Heston as backup)

Strickland didn't even pitch in the playoffs last year. He did the year before and Harper took him deep. I'm not sure why you would ignore 2015 bc of a 5 game playoff series.

Every time you watch Castilla, he's shaky. Well, there you go. SOlved.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up. Strickland gave up 6 homers in 8.1 innings in the 2014 playoffs. Six.

You can make your numbers say whatever you want. But yeah, I think that matters and is part of why I think that bullpen is sketchy.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
So a guy with a 4.97 ERA who gives up a league leading 29 bombs and a league-leading 228 hits, a career ERA north of four projects to a 3.4 ERA because of statistical analysis?

I have a head analyst at work who tells me she can make numbers say anything she wants them to say.

I do look at stats but I don't only look at stats and I try to think critically about them rather than taking them at face value.
Click to expand...

1) He had an ERA of 2.99 the year before. Seems reasonable that an unbiased computer model could spit out that outcome.

(2) Your colleague is smart, but what she's referring to is not the same thing as this. Now, if Zips was tinkering with their assumptions in the model until it produced a favorable outcome for Shark then you would have a valid explanation.

(3) I agree with you that stats without context aren't enough to draw conclusions, but you don't have a monopoly on critical thinking. I didn't see anyone here just taking stats for face value.
 
chop2chip said:
1) He had an ERA of 2.99 the year before. Seems reasonable that an unbiased computer model could spit out that outcome.

(2) Your colleague is smart, but what she's referring to is not the same thing as this. Now, if Zips was tinkering with their assumptions in the model until it produced a favorable outcome for Shark then you would have a valid explanation.

(3) I agree with you that stats without context aren't enough to draw conclusions, but you don't have a monopoly on critical thinking. I didn't see anyone here just taking stats for face value.
Click to expand...

So what does ZIPS put into their model? Do you know? Do they publish their methodology?

That comment was actually directed at giles and just in this one particular instance. I didn't mean to imply that I had a monopoly on critical thinking. I have noticed that when stat time comes, I tend to cite raw numbers where others cite numbers that have been refined, like WAR or FIP. Probably and old school/new school thing.

But I know without a whole lot of refinement what giving up 228 hits and 29 dingers in 214 innings means - and that he had a good year the year before, and that he'll probably be somewhere in the middle, and that the big park in SF helps. I just think 3.4 is very ambitious and can't see how any methodology supports it. The guy's been erratic his entire career and very hittable for much of it.
 
So you admit you think he'll be somewhere in the middle of 2.99 and 4.97, and you think the park in SF will help...but you think 3.4 is way off where he'll finish?

Neither raw numbers nor more analytical numbers are bad. Raw numbers generally give you a good idea of what actually happened, while the more analytical numbers are presumably a better predictor going forward. These ZIPS models should all be given consideration while taken with a grain of salt.
 
Shark will be much better than last year, in my opinion. A lot of it comes down to the ballpark, which will help him giving up many dingers.

I think he'll probably have an ERA around 3.6 or so, which is solid.
 
Even without getting into analytics I don't think it would be hard to come to the conclusion that his ERA will be be much improved over last year after coming back to the NL and espeically going to that park.
 
DBacks are good, but have concerns.

Rotation depth, lineup due to trades, and depth overall.

Dodgers rotation can be very good depending on health and how Maeda plays out, Giants rotation is pretty nasty though with Bum, Cueto, JSam, and others.

Would be surprised if LAD or SF dont win the division.

I'd probably have LA/SF around 90-95 wins, and Arz in the 84-86 win range.
 
smootness said:
So the D-Backs had the 2nd worst offseason, largely on the back of that one trade, and we had the 5th best, almost solely because of that trade. That's how lopsided that trade was.
Click to expand...

I agree with the way they assessed our off-season, including the view that the we not get that good a return for Simmons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dak
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top