Texas Rangers Thread

[Stautner]

To illustrate the point about BABIP...

Greg Maddux had a career BABIP of .281
Roy Halladay has a career BABIP of .292
Randy Johnson had a career BABIP of .291
Nolan Ryan had a career BABIP of .265
Steve Carlton had a career BABIP of .279
Tim Lincecum has a career BABIP of .294

Yeah, so what. Again, nobody has ever said Ogando will maintain the same pace all year, so there is no point with these stats.

It's laughable that you are resorting to the suggestion that I have said Ogando will maintain the same pace all years as a means to cover your claims that there is no reason to have any optimism about Ogando as a starting pitcher and that he can only be effective as a reliever.

Again, Ogando's stats could drop considerably and still be well in the range of what a quality MLB pitcher should do. That's damn sure reason for optimism.

 

[DIAF]

Yeah, so what. Again, nobody has ever said Ogando will maintain the same pace all year, so there is no point with these stats.

It's laughable that you are resorting to the suggestion that I have said Ogando will maintain the same pace all years as a means to cover your claims that there is no reason to have any optimism about Ogando as a starting pitcher and that he can only be effective as a reliever.

Again, Ogando's stats could drop considerably and still be well in the range of what a quality MLB pitcher should do. That's damn sure reason for optimism.

Wow, someone is looking for a fight. Are you always like this? I merely posted that to give some context to this talk about BABIP. Holy crap dude you need to see a therapist.

Feliz better fix it, or I'm almost ready to try someone else. He has been like this all year.

Something is wrong with Feliz. Has to be. His velocity is down, and he's basically just throwing one pitch.

 

[WDN]

Feliz better fix it, or I'm almost ready to try someone else. He has been like this all year.

He has a command problem this year and that has led to a confidence problem with his other pitches. He has just been throwing fastballs and I think the teams are on to him. I don't know if he can even fix it during the season. I do think that they need to decide whether he is going to be a starter or closer and leave it at that. Not sure if that has had anything to do with his problems this year or not but it seems like it might have

 

[tko112204]

Wow - you are actually claiming it is the stat that is causing him to prevent baserunners rather than him preventing baserunners being what causes the stat to be what it is. Come on ...

Nevertheless, nobody said he can sustain a .199 BABIP. You keep arguing as if I am saying Ogando is going to maintain the same pace all year despite the fact that I have said over and over that I do not expect that. That has NEVER been the point of contention in this thread.

The point of contention is and has always been whether what Ogando is doing is reason to be optimistic about his ability to be a quality starting pitcher in MLB. If you are disputing that we have a point of contention. If you are not, then you are arguing for no reason.

Besides all that, the fact that he is on a pace that isn't sustainable does not in any way indicate he is not pitching well. It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that if a guy is performing too well that means he is really performing poorly and we just don't know it yet.

The fact is players go through very good stretches and bad stretches all the time. Even Cy Young, Greg Maddox etc. Good pitchers aren't made out of keeping exactly the same level of BABIP at all times - its all an ebb and flow, and the difference with the good or very good and the ones is that they have fewer and shorter bad spells, and more and longer good spells.

Ogando is having a very good spell, and the fact remains his stats could drop off quite a bit and they would still be very good and well within the range of what a quality MLB pitchers stats would be.

Bottom line is you can't call it sheer luck when players go they go through very good spells anymore than you can call it sheer bad luck when they go through bad spells and it seems like every weak ground ball finds a hole.

Right, that's exactly what I said. I'm just gonna leave well enough alone at this point. You obviously aren't willing to use the stats the way they were designed to be used. So I give. You win.

I won't even say "I told you so" when he goes through his adjustment period and has a 8.0 ERA in June or July or whenever it happens.

 

[tko112204]

He has a command problem this year and that has led to a confidence problem with his other pitches. He has just been throwing fastballs and I think the teams are on to him. I don't know if he can even fix it during the season. I do think that they need to decide whether he is going to be a starter or closer and leave it at that. Not sure if that has had anything to do with his problems this year or not but it seems like it might have

His FB velocity is down over 1 MPH (96.3 in '10, 95.0 in '11). He's throwing it more than last year too (82.8% in '10, 84.5% in '11). And his swinging strike % is WAY down from last year (11.9% in '10, 8.3% in '11).

That sounds like an underlying injury to me. He may also be experiencing a bit of dead arm from being stretched out this spring.

 

[DIAF]

I'm tired of this Neftali as closer experiment. Yes, he did a damn fine job last year and I have no doubt he can excel as one, but I'm going to be much happier when we finally see Neftali near the front of the rotation and Scheppers at the back end of the bullpen (or possibly Ogando).

 

[Stautner]

Right, that's exactly what I said. I'm just gonna leave well enough alone at this point. You obviously aren't willing to use the stats the way they were designed to be used. So I give. You win.

I won't even say "I told you so" when he goes through his adjustment period and has a 8.0 ERA in June or July or whenever it happens.

Not willing to use stats the way they were designed to be used? That's an interesting comment from a guy who can deny that keeping runners off base (WHIP) and keeping runners from scoring (ERA) are the two most important goals of a pitcher and that a pitchers ability to do those things are ultimately what determines success.

So. let me ask you this. Suppose he has a couple of poor starts in July and his era for that month ends up 8.00. Will that be a true indication of his chances to be a quality ML starting pitcher, or will that just be a bad stint much like right now he is going through a good stint? Will the rocky starts be meaningful while the outstanding starts only indicate pure luck?

All I know is this "luck" has extended for 2 months and resulted in him allowing fewer baserunners per 9 innings than any pitcher in baseball. Even thought that probably isn't sustainable, how in the world can anyone suggest that it doesn't provide sufficient reason to be optimistic about his abibility to be a quality starting pitcher?

Maybe, just maybe, his true ability to be a quality starting pitcher in MLB is still being defined, and isn't predetermined by a stat or a "pedigree" as DAIF suggests, and after looking back at how his 1st season as a starting MLB pitcher we will have more of a real feel for what he may be capable of doing and sustaining? Wow - what a radical thought!

The ridiculous thing is, again, your poor logic in suggesting that the fact that his numbers are too good to sustain means he really is pitching poorly and has just been lucky. Why can't it just be that he is a good pitcher that is going through an even better stretch than would normally be expected? Why is the conclusion that he will implode rather than just drop down to a normal range for a good pitcher?

 

[gmoney112]

Bats were alive today. Good lord.

 

[tko112204]

Not willing to use stats the way they were designed to be used? That's an interesting comment from a guy who can deny that keeping runners off base (WHIP) and keeping runners from scoring (ERA) are the two most important goals of a pitcher and that a pitchers ability to do those things are ultimately what determines success.

So. let me ask you this. Suppose he has a couple of poor starts in July and his era for that month ends up 8.00. Will that be a true indication of his chances to be a quality ML starting pitcher, or will that just be a bad stint much like right now he is going through a good stint? Will the rocky starts be meaningful while the outstanding starts only indicate pure luck?

All I know is this "luck" has extended for 2 months and resulted in him allowing fewer baserunners per 9 innings than any pitcher in baseball. Even thought that probably isn't sustainable, how in the world can anyone suggest that it doesn't provide sufficient reason to be optimistic about his abibility to be a quality starting pitcher?

Maybe, just maybe, his true ability to be a quality starting pitcher in MLB is still being defined, and isn't predetermined by a stat or a "pedigree" as DAIF suggests, and after looking back at how his 1st season as a starting MLB pitcher we will have more of a real feel for what he may be capable of doing and sustaining? Wow - what a radical thought!

The ridiculous thing is, again, your poor logic in suggesting that the fact that his numbers are too good to sustain means he really is pitching poorly and has just been lucky. Why can't it just be that he is a good pitcher that is going through an even better stretch than would normally be expected? Why is the conclusion that he will implode rather than just drop down to a normal range for a good pitcher?

WHIP is a fantasy baseball stat, not an analytical tool. Just like ERA.

Here's maybe a better explanation of what I'm saying... If he had a league average BABIP, say .295, through NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, all of his stats would be worse. His ERA, his WHIP, his LOB%, all of it. His success so far is due to the fact that balls that are put in play against him have found gloves so far. That is not a SKILL for a pitcher. A pitcher has no control over whether or not the balls that are put in play against him fall for hits or are caught for outs.

When his BABIP corrects itself, which it assuredly will, he will look much more average. Conveniently, there is a stat for determining how well a pitcher has truly pitched, irregardless of defense and luck. It's called xFIP. His is 3.75 and like I said, still very good. But arguing that he hasn't been lucky in putting up his 1.81 ERA is foolish.

 

[tko112204]

Bats were alive today. Good lord.

Everyone except Michael Young...

Sorry, fantasy baseball frustrations.... lol.

 

[cowboyeric8]

Everyone except Michael Young...

Sorry, fantasy baseball frustrations.... lol.

Haha, I was about to say the guy can have an off day! But I totally understand, haha.

 

[tko112204]

Haha, I was about to say the guy can have an off day! But I totally understand, haha.

Nothing is worse than seeing that some team scored a bunch of runs, then finding out your guy didn't do jack! Bleh.

 

[Stautner]

WHIP is a fantasy baseball stat, not an analytical tool. Just like ERA.

Here's maybe a better explanation of what I'm saying... If he had a league average BABIP, say .295, through NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, all of his stats would be worse. His ERA, his WHIP, his LOB%, all of it. His success so far is due to the fact that balls that are put in play against him have found gloves so far. That is not a SKILL for a pitcher. A pitcher has no control over whether or not the balls that are put in play against him fall for hits or are caught for outs.

When his BABIP corrects itself, which it assuredly will, he will look much more average. Conveniently, there is a stat for determining how well a pitcher has truly pitched, irregardless of defense and luck. It's called xFIP. His is 3.75 and like I said, still very good. But arguing that he hasn't been lucky in putting up his 1.81 ERA is foolish.

Holy cow - what a ridiculous statement. ERA has been a key stat in analyzing pitchers since way before you or I or fantasy baseball was ever born. It is one of the standards throughout the history of baseball, and one recognized by MLB, unlike some of yours. WHIP isn't as old, but again, a standard, unlike yours.

To suggest keeping runners off base and keeping those that get on from scoring is not the primary goal and most important job of a pitcher is so incredibly ridiculous that it really can't be commented on. It's as basic as saying that the team that consistently scores more runs than it's opponents is gong to be successful.

NEVERTHELESS ........ AND LISTEN CAREFULLY - How many times to I have to hit you over the head with the VERY CLEAR AND THE REPEATED MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN reality that I have never said Ogando will stay on the same pace? You keep ridiculopusly arguing that as if it is even a point of contention. Wake up - I agree and have all along that Ogando is not going to keep up the same pace. And it has never been about whether Ogando can be among the most dominant pitchers in the game. It has been only about whether his performance so far provides optimism that he can be a quality MLB starting pitcher. DIAF has said no - what do you say? I don't know that you have ever offered an opinioin on the actual point of contention.

By the way, to suggest pitchers have no influence on whether a ball that is put in play is a hit suggests you only know stats and not the game.

HERE'S THE REALITY: Of course there is luck involved - if a ball is hit hard there certainly is luck involved if it finds a hole or is hit right at someone - no question. But pitchers very clearly do have an influence over whether balls put in play become hits - some pitchers are better at getting ground balls, or pop ups, or throw hard enough it is hard for a batter to use the whole field, or breaks bats, or jams people more frequeently, or has a great breaking ball that keeps people guessing and therefore they are more prone to make weak contact - there are MANY ways that a pitcher influences whether a ball put in play is going to be a hit.

 

[tko112204]

Holy cow - what a ridiculous statement. ERA has been a key stat in analyzing pitchers since way before you or I or fantasy baseball was ever born. It is one of the standards throughout the history of baseball, and one recognized by MLB, unlike some of yours. WHIP isn't as old, but again, a standard, unlike yours.

To suggest keeping runners off base and keeping those that get on from scoring is not the primary goal and most important job of a pitcher is so incredibly ridiculous that it really can't be commented on. It's as basic as saying that the team that consistently scores more runs than it's opponents is gong to be successful.

NEVERTHELESS ........ AND LISTEN CAREFULLY - How many times to I have to hit you over the head with the VERY CLEAR AND THE REPEATED MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN reality that I have never said Ogando will stay on the same pace? You keep ridiculopusly arguing that as if it is even a point of contention. Wake up - I agree and have all along that Ogando is not going to keep up the same pace. And it has never been about whether Ogando can be among the most dominant pitchers in the game. It has been only about whether his performance so far provides optimism that he can be a quality MLB starting pitcher. DIAF has said no - what do you say? I don't know that you have ever offered an opinioin on the actual point of contention.

By the way, to suggest pitchers have no influence on whether a ball that is put in play is a hit suggests you only know stats and not the game.

HERE'S THE REALITY: Of course there is luck involved - if a ball is hit hard there certainly is luck involved if it finds a hole or is hit right at someone - no question. But pitchers very clearly do have an influence over whether balls put in play become hits - some pitchers are better at getting ground balls, or pop ups, or throw hard enough it is hard for a batter to use the whole field, or breaks bats, or jams people more frequeently, or has a great breaking ball that keeps people guessing and therefore they are more prone to make weak contact - there are MANY ways that a pitcher influences whether a ball put in play is going to be a hit.

This is just wrong. It's just wrong. This isn't 1968 anymore. There are better ways to evaluate baseball players than the ones you are using. It's just that simple. But I don't want to argue with you anymore because you clearly are stuck in the past. I bet you site RBIs as a measure of how good someone is too.

By the way, I don't care what you're "beating over my head" or any of that other crap you wrote. I'm not a Rangers fan, I just like to talk baseball. So your pollyanna approach to what Ogando might become doesn't interest me.

 

[tko112204]

As for my opinion on Ogando, I've given it many times. I think there are a lot of good things he's doing RIGHT NOW. However, not a lot of guys with 2 pitches, who started as outfielders, and then were asked to throw 170 or so innings after only throwing 70 in a season 1 time turn out to be good SP. Especially not pitching in the AL, in Texas.

But we shall see. It would be an amazing story.

Stautner, you should go poke around fangraphs.com and read some of the stuff over there. You'll start to look at baseball a lot differently.

 

[Stautner]

[/b]This is just wrong. It's just wrong. This isn't 1968 anymore. There are better ways to evaluate baseball players than the ones you are using. It's just that simple. But I don't want to argue with you anymore because you clearly are stuck in the past. I bet you site RBIs as a measure of how good someone is too.

By the way, I don't care what you're "beating over my head" or any of that other crap you wrote. I'm not a Rangers fan, I just like to talk baseball. So your pollyanna approach to what Ogando might become doesn't interest me.

There are OTHER ways, but the bottm line is still and always will be if base runners and runs are allowed. The results are always going to matter more than how the results are acheived. That's the plain and simple truth of it.

You're a stats guy that prides himself on knowing all the trendy gadgets for evaluation, yet you don't actually understand the game. For you to not understand that a pitcher actually does have an influence on whether balls put in play become hits or not tells us that loud and clear.

The reality is that the ONLY area where Ogando is falling short of some of the top pitchers is SO's/9 innings, and he still isn't bad in that area. There is no other area that is a problem, and it's ahrd to call that one much of a problem..

As for my polyanna approach to what he might become (lloks like is is well on his way already) - you are now telling me you were defending DAIF's point without even knowing hat the point was. That only makes everything you said more laughable. You never even knew the point you were defending, nor the point I was making that you supposedly were disagreeing with. You were just throwing out stats as if they applied without knowing if they did or not. And to top it off, even after I told you over and over what the point was and what the disagreement was about, and even after I told you over and over that I have never - never - claimed Ogando would maintain the same pace, you continued to argue as if I had.

Unbeleivable.

 

[Stautner]

As for my opinion on Ogando, I've given it many times. I think there are a lot of good things he's doing RIGHT NOW. However, not a lot of guys with 2 pitches, who started as outfielders, and then were asked to throw 170 or so innings after only throwing 70 in a season 1 time turn out to be good SP. Especially not pitching in the AL, in Texas.

But we shall see. It would be an amazing story.

Stautner, you should go poke around fangraphs.com and read some of the stuff over there. You'll start to look at baseball a lot differently.

Without a doubt it isn't the normal path, although it certainly has happened that people have started as position players and converted when that didn't work out in the minor leagues. And of course he may have some trouble with the additional innings pitched from what he is used to. I've made exactly that poing myself a few times in this thread.

But why can't a guy who has only been pitching 5 years and only one year in an MLB farm system learn another pitch - and whey can't he learn more about pitching as a starter, and the tendencies of batters - and why can't he grow into a starting role that requites throwing a lot of innings. Heck - all of that is upside from what he is doing now.

Frankly, for a guy to be doing what Ogando is with less minor league experience than any pitcher in major league baseball, I can't see anyway to not be encouraged about the possibilities.

Again, that is not to say he will be a stud, but how can one not believe he has a very real chance to develop into a very solid MLB starting pitcher?

 

[tko112204]

There are OTHER ways, but the bottm line is still and always will be if base runners and runs are allowed. The results are always going to matter more than how the results are acheived. That's the plain and simple truth of it.

You're a stats guy that prides himself on knowing all the trendy gadgets for evaluation, yet you don't actually understand the game. For you to not understand that a pitcher actually does have an influence on whether balls put in play become hits or not tells us that loud and clear.

The reality is that the ONLY area where Ogando is falling short of some of the top pitchers is SO's/9 innings, and he still isn't bad in that area. There is no other area that

As for my polyanna approach to what he might become (lloks like is is well on his way already) - you are now telling me you were defending DAIF's point without even knowing hat the point was. That only makes everything you said more laughable. You never even knew the point you were defending, nor the point I was making that you supposedly were disagreeing with. You were just throwing out stats as if they applied without knowing if they did or not. And to top it off, even after I told you over and over what the point was, and even after I told you over and over that I have never - never - claimed Ogando would maintain the same pace, you continued to argue as if I had.

Unbeleivable.

Cool story, bro. Too bad it's about as factual as Avatar. (And not as interesting.)

If you're gonna argue "old school baseball" with me, then it's not worth my time.

 

[tko112204]

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/babip/

http://207.56.97.150/articles/ipavg2.htm

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/?replytocom=222


These will make you smarter.

 

[Stautner]

Cool story, bro. Too bad it's about as factual as Avatar. (And not as interesting.)

If you're gonna argue "old school baseball" with me, then it's not worth my time.

What did i say that wasn't factual. It's easy to make the claim, but what point did i make in taht post that was false? Tell me - or were you just making a vague comment to defelect attention?

Explain to me how a guy that isn't allowing baserunners or runners to score isn't successful, or how doing so consistently for 2 months isn't worthy of excitement and optimism? I know "Old School" Nolan Ryan is pretty pumped about the guy.

Explain to me what specific areas Ogando is falling short in - after all, a conglomerate stat con only reflect something bad if there is something bad in the individual areas that make up the conglmerate stat.

Also explain to me why getting results at an unsustainably high level means he is going to implode and why it can't simply mean he will eventually settle into a more normal range for effective major league starters.

That's a real interesting point to explore. My guess is if Ogando had a 4-2 record with a 3.50 era and 1.30 WHIP and your other cute stats were in a normal range for a quality No. 2 or 3 ML pitcher you would concede that he is in a comfortable range and there is reason to have hope for him, yet somehow performing at a much better level than that means he will implode? Explain that logic to me.

As for "old school baseball", there isn't a coach in MLB (or minor leagues for that matter) that will discount era and WHIP the way you do. There isn't a coach in MLB that would suggest there isn't a lot of room for excitement about Ogando based on what he is doing. You can be the computer guy who gets his enite understanding of the game off a monitor, but guys that know baseball know better. I can promise you there isn't a manager or pitching coach that would be searching for a replacement for Ogando at this point based on somebody's notion that Ogando will eventually blow up.