Jonathan Sanchez's performance in bad situations

by El Person on Jan 14, 2011 7:13 PM PST

This is in reply to a comment by Goofus in the (highly recommended) Diary "2010 Jonathon Sanchez: BABIP fluke or a real step forward? Pitch F/X reveals some insight." For those who don't feel like clicking the link, Goofus wrote:

My impression (and I don’t think I’m alone) from watching him last season was that when things would go wrong, he was much more adept at putting out the fire rather than throwing gas on it. In other words, better at avoiding disastrous innings and better at staying in the game when things started looking bad.

Is there any evidence that either confirms of refutes this impression?

He isn't alone; I feel the same way, as do many others. However, I didn't have any evidence to prove this. I decided that the best way to go about finding evidence would be to look at his ERA in Jonathan Sanchez's starts after he first surrendered a run. For example, in this game, I would look at his ERA in the 4.2 innings after the Rodrigo Lopez sacrifice fly and before Sanchez's departure from the game. Come to think of it, it would have been much easier to look at his performance in high-leverage situations, but I didn't think of doing that.

Long chart follows; errors are possible.

Year	Date	IP	ER	ERA
2006	6-Sep	1	0	0.00
2006	12-Sep	4 2/3	3	5.79
2006	22-Sep	2	6	27.00
2006	27-Sep	5 2/3	2	3.18
Total 2006				7.43
2007	1-Sep	1 1/3	2	13.50
2007	7-Sep	6	2	3.00
2007	12-Sep	3	2	6.00
2007	18-Sep	1/3	3	81.00
Total 2007				7.59
2008	4-Apr	3 2/3	6	14.73
2008	14-Apr	4 1/3	1	2.08
2008	25-Apr	0	0	0.00
2008	30-Apr	1	1	9.00
2008	6-May	2	6	27.00
2008	11-May	2/3	2	27.00
2008	16-May	1/3	0	0.00
2008	21-May	5 2/3	1	1.59
2008	28-May	1/3	0	0.00
2008	2-Jun	3 1/3	1	2.70
2008	12-Jun	3 2/3	5	12.27
2008	17-Jun	1 1/3	2	13.50
2008	24-Jun	7	0	0.00
2008	29-Jun	6	0	0.00
2008	4-Jul	3	2	6.00
2008	9-Jul	1/3	0	0.00
2008	19-Jul	3 2/3	3	7.36
2008	25-Jul	1 1/3	5	33.75
2008	30-Jul	3 2/3	3	7.36
2008	5-Aug	1/3	2	54.00
2008	11-Aug	1 2/3	0	0.00
2008	1-Sep	5 1/3	2	3.38
2008	7-Sep	2/3	1	13.50
2008	12-Sep	1 1/3	0	0.00
2008	17-Sep	3	5	15.00
2008	24-Sep	2 2/3	5	16.88
Total 2008				7.19
2009	4-Apr	2 2/3	4	13.50
2009	28-Apr	3 2/3	0	0.00
2009	4-May	3 1/3	3	8.10
2009	9-May	4 1/3	4	8.31
2009	14-May	5	3	5.40
2009	20-May	4 1/3	1	2.08
2009	25-May	0	1	inf
2009	31-May	2	2	9.00
2009	6-Jun	2 1/3	4	15.43
2009	11-Jun	3 1/3	0	0.00
2009	16-Jun	3	5	15.00
2009	22-Jun	2 1/3	3	11.57
2009	20-Jul	4 2/3	2	3.86
2009	25-Jul	1 2/3	2	10.80
2009	30-Jul	5	1	1.80
2009	10-Aug	1 2/3	1	5.40
2009	16-Aug	2 1/3	0	0.00
2009	21-Aug	4 2/3	0	0.00
2009	26-Aug	7	1	1.29
2009	1-Sep	1 2/3	0	0.00
2009	6-Sep	1/3	0	0.00
2009	12-Sep	2 1/3	4	15.43
2009	18-Sep	3 2/3	3	7.36
2009	23-Sep	0	1	inf
2009	29-Sep	2	2	9.00
2009	4-Oct	0	0	0.00
Total 2009				5.77
2010	9-Apr	2 1/3	2	7.71
2010	20-Apr	3 2/3	0	0.00
2010	26-Apr	1	0	0.00
2010	2-May	1	3	27.00
2010	7-May	6 1/3	3	4.26
2010	13-May	3 1/3	0	0.00
2010	18-May	2	3	13.50
2010	23-May	2/3	1	13.50
2010	29-May	2 2/3	0	0.00
2010	4-Jun	4 2/3	3	5.79
2010	9-Jun	4 1/3	2	4.15
2010	14-Jun	6 1/3	1	1.42
2010	20-Jun	1 2/3	1	5.40
2010	25-Jun	5	0	0.00
2010	30-Jun	2 1/3	3	11.57
2010	5-Jul	4 1/3	1	2.08
2010	10-Jul	3 2/3	4	9.82
2010	18-Jul	4 1/3	1	2.08
2010	23-Jul	4 2/3	0	0.00
2010	28-Jul	3 2/3	4	9.82
2010	8-Aug	2 2/3	2	6.75
2010	13-Aug	4 1/3	2	4.15
2010	24-Aug	1 2/3	4	21.60
2010	16-Sep	7	1	1.29
2010	22-Sep	2 2/3	0	0.00
2010	28-Sep	4 2/3	1	1.93
Total 2010				4.15
Career				5.73
Before No-Hitter				7.32
After No-Hitter				4.15

The results are clear. There has been an unmistakable decline every year that Sanchez has been a starter. As the last two columns indicate, a shift took place in July of 2009. Before then, he was a terrible pitcher after surrendering a run; since then, he has been an average major league pitcher after that point in the game, aided by his tremendous strand rate.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 61 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting

But I’m not convinced it’s a repeatable skill.

My Adopted Giant
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.

by GiantPain on Jan 14, 2011 7:56 PM PST reply actions

That’s because it’s not a skill. It seems much more like a mindset, a quality of character, or, more crudely, an altered approach.

I assume you’re referring in particular to his strand rate, but my recollection from 2010 is that it was more than him being lucky with stranding runners. It was the ability to return to executing his pitches after he got hit hard. Which, frankly, would have some influence on his BABIP and strand rate anyway, although I doubt it fully accounts for the large shift in both. I think that is really the biggest change in his makeup over the last two seasons.

So, I don’t think that Sanchez is a 3.00 pitcher. But I don’t think that he’s a 5.00+ pitcher anymore, either.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 15, 2011 1:08 AM PST up reply actions

Whether or not it’s a skill doesn’t change the question of repeatability, though. We’re already presuming that the change in “mindset” or “skill” or whatever you want to call it shows up visibly in the stats. So if it’s repeatable, it will continue to have this effect on the stats over time. GiantPain is simply not convinced of that.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 15, 2011 10:52 AM PST up reply actions

Here's Sanchez's stats with and without runners in scoring position

I find it difficult to argue that Sanchez improved much in those spots. He actually walked more in those spots in 2010, with a similar (though proportionally lower) increase in strikeouts. The difference that stands out is that incredible drop in BABIP.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 15, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

It seems to me

That if this were a hitter, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion – I don’t remember the last time anyone brought up one of our hitter’s AVG with RISP at all, let alone as an argument that he is good/bad/improving/declining.

by Cookyman on Jan 15, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

The elite pitchers in the game can influence BABIP in high leverage situations

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/1/14/1936033/pitcher-influence-on-line-drives-revisted-also-clutchness

The study is only done for the top 5 pitchers in the league, but they clearly suppress line drives when they get into trouble.

by Nivra on Jan 16, 2011 12:26 AM PST up reply actions

That's interesting

But it’s not clear to me if that’s good or bad. He shows that the K rate and LD rate both drop, but not if the overall result is good or bad.

by Cookyman on Jan 16, 2011 4:51 PM PST up reply actions

See, what stands out to me is the 95 point drop in SLG, and the 112 point drop in OPS. That’s a lot, even when you adjust for the discrepancy in BABIP.

I would not put it all past Sanchez to walk a guy rather than give up the big hit in those spots. As I mention elsewhere, he attested to doing as much at least once last year.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 15, 2011 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

That’s a lot, even when you adjust for the discrepancy in BABIP.

But it’s not. For a start, the BABIP accounts for about 2/3 or the difference – you can see that bases per hit have only decreased slightly. The remaining 35ish points is nothing over a 100 balls in play sample. And we also have the much bigger sample for no RISP, where there is no such drop whatsoever.

And secondly, the improvement in bases per hit still puts him slightly below the league average. As this is an argument about whether he’s likely to continue to outperform his FIP, it’s difficult to argue that this is the reason if he’s still below league average in this area.

So basically
(1) I don’t believe he has gotten substantially better in this specific area; and
(2) Even if he has, this can’t be the reason for his 2010 ERA.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 15, 2011 2:18 PM PST up reply actions

I think there’s a lot of leaps in logic here that don’t make a lot of sense to me. There’s no assertion that it’s responsible for his 2010 ERA. And there’s no mention anywhere in this sub-thread about Sanchez outperforming his FIP.

YOU make the assertion, I assume, that as Sanchez’s FIP has held largely constant over the course of his career, he is still the same pitcher and has not improved. That’s fine, and a fine place to start from regarding your opinion of Sanchez.

However, I’m actually going to trust my eyes on this one, and say that there are things that FIP isn’t accounting for, and I think concerns about his BABIP are masking something else.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 15, 2011 3:43 PM PST up reply actions

I think there’s a lot of leaps in logic here that don’t make a lot of sense to me. There’s no assertion that it’s responsible for his 2010 ERA. And there’s no mention anywhere in this sub-thread about Sanchez outperforming his FIP.

This is a sub-thread from a thread titled “2010 Jonathon Sanchez: BABIP fluke or a real step forward?”, which started with a discussion of ERA vs FIP. And the underlying theme of all this discussion is whether his 2010 ERA was real or not, even though his FIP never improved.

And this thread is about whether Sanchez now has the ability to better limit runs after the first one; which, as Cookyman points out below, is basically the same thing as asking whether his overall ERA is real.

YOU make the assertion, I assume, that as Sanchez’s FIP has held largely constant over the course of his career, he is still the same pitcher and has not improved.

No, I don’t make the assertion that he’s the same pitcher because his FIP hasn’t moved. I assume his FIP hasn’t moved because he hasn’t improved much. I don’t think he’s improved much because there is no overall trend on his stats to suggest that he has.

The thing about stats is that people either want to ignore them when convenient, or treat them as a deity. Both approaches are misleading. But what I’ve always insisted stats should be used for testing your opinions – i.e. don’t start with a stat, start with an opinion and then see if the stats agree.

You say you want to trust your eyeballs – fine. But what do your eyeballs see? More than “he was just better”, what was actually different? Then, check to see whether the recorded version of events matches what you remember. You need to check whether you are remembering the results, or the cause of the results.

Do you think his control improved? Then you check whether there is a general trend across all stats which should be affected by control, and see if that makes sense. But if there isn’t a general trend, and only one stat has really moved (in this case BABIP), you have to ask whether we aren’t just hoping that there’s a reason for that other than noise.

We are all biased in favour of the Giants here. We also all have our own biases towards specific players. But every single fan believes that the players on their team are the exceptions to these rules, yet overall there are very few exceptions. We think that Cain, Sanchez, Torres, Huff, are all exceptions to various rules. How likely is it that there all are?

Put it this way, imagine if a Dodger put up Sanchez’s exact numbers, and a Dodger fan was on here claiming that it wasn’t just BABIP. Would you believe him?

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 15, 2011 5:30 PM PST up reply actions

I’d like to think it’s more than just wishful thinking on my part. Selective memory is always a hazard here, especially given Sanchez’s success as a product of his BABIP, but my feeling all year was that Sanchez was a more effective pitcher. As suggested by the original thread, his pitches looked sharper, and the number of starts in which he managed to dominate and go deep into a game were much more numerous than they were before.

To give some numbers…

Number of starts with 8+, 7+, 6+ IP
Before 7/10/09: 1, 8, 15
After 7/10/09: 4, 15, 24

In 2010, half of his starts were appearances of 6+ IP. That, in itself, is an improvement. Does some of that come from stranding runners and working his way out of jams that he probably should not have. Yes. But in those starts, he was also more efficient in not walking people.

> 6 IP games w/ 3+ BBs: 6
< 6 IP games w/ 3+ BBs: 10

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that observation has yielded that Sanchez is a Jekyll & Hyde kind of pitcher. He either has it, or he doesn’t. But since the no-hitter, “Good Sanchez” has been in attendance a lot more often.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 15, 2011 8:36 PM PST up reply actions

and the number of starts in which he managed to dominate and go deep into a game were much more numerous than they were before.

But that’s a stat which is strongly influenced by BABIP. If you get outs, you have to throw to less hitters, saving your pitch count. Often he wasn’t getting taken out of games in 2009 because he was getting hit around, but because his pitchcount was high – look at how often in that year he gave up 2 earned runs or less, but didn’t get an out in the 7th.

Yes. But in those starts, he was also more efficient in not walking people.

No, this doesn’t show he was more efficient . This is self-selection – “in starts where a pitcher went deep, he pitched to less batters per inning” is not a surprising finding, because going deep and number of batters faced are highly correlated stats. You will find that in starts where he went deeper, he had a lower BABIP, higher strikeout rate etc. You’ll also find that this is true of every other pitcher in the league, given a large enough sample.

To show this, look at Sanchez’s splits as a starter:

The way to think about this is to consider what would you see if Sanchez was 100% the same pitcher at all times. In that case, you’d still see better stats in long starts than short starts, simply because that what makes them long starts!

This is true of all pitchers – just to pick a pitcher who is the absolute opposite of Sanchez, look at Greg Maddux:

This is what I mean about looking at stats in isolation and not as a group. Longer starts is not automatically due to the pitcher, you have to look around to see whether they tell a convincing story as whole. The only thing the stats show conclusively is that the fielders behind him made more outs when he got hit.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 16, 2011 5:09 AM PST up reply actions

Looking at a split like that purely in the context of rate stats completely ignores the point though. There is good Sanchez, a la the no-hitter, and there is bad Sanchez, a la pick a start at random from the first half of 2009. It’s how often that those two show up relative to one another that matters, in this case. Rate stats ignore that entirely. Batters have an OPS of .034 in games where Sanchez goes nine innings! But that doesn’t tell us anything, because it almost never happens. It’s the frequency that is of value.

The frequency at which he produces quality starts is what is of interest, and the fact that these starts have higher K/9 and BB/9 and lower BABIP is probably more suggestive of the fact that the pitcher is more effective, rather than lucky every time he goes deep into a game. The correlation seems to surround control, which we all know has been one of Sanchez’s biggest hurdles.

For the umpeeth time, I’m not saying that Sanchez’s success is all his own. He got extra help from an above-average defense that was in the right place at the right time to make the plays. But to say that none of Sanchez’s is utterly at the mercy of his BABIP is cynical at best. BABIP is a useful tool that tells us a lot about the influence of “noise” on a pitcher’s performance, but it is not Fate with a capital F.

I see the numbers, I acknowledge the numbers, I understand the numbers, I am at terms with the fact that the numbers are all interrelated. But I am addressing them in the context of watching Sanchez pitch over the course of the last two seasons.

A four-year downtrend in BABIP that is predictable and coincides with a pitcher maturing into his late twenties could be purely luck. Sure. FIP tells us that his composition of rate stats hasn’t shifted meaningfully since entering the league. And BABIP the defense is fielding more balls than norma and turning them into outs, and it fits his other BIP stats accordingly. But between bat and glove, we don’t have a statistical expression of what happens.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 16, 2011 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

Nitpick

Batters have an OPS of .034 in games where Sanchez goes nine innings!

It’s actually .000, since the only batter who reached base did it on an error.

"Lee pitches...Renteria hits a high drive, deep left-center field, David Murphy going back, he's on the warning track—it is...go-one!"

by El Person on Jan 16, 2011 1:22 PM PST up reply actions

Batters have an OPS of .034 in games where Sanchez goes nine innings! But that doesn’t tell us anything, because it almost never happens

No, that not why it tells us nothing – it would still tell us nothing if we have 1000 years of data and complete games to review. It tells us nothing because a low OPS for CGs is exactly what you would expect – you don’t get CGs on days when Sanchez has average luck, because he’d have to face about 40 batters and throw over 160 pitches.

The stats you quoted on how many times he walked 3+ people are caused by this selection bias.

The frequency at which he produces quality starts is what is of interest, and the fact that these starts have higher K/9 and BB/9 and lower BABIP is probably more suggestive of the fact that the pitcher is more effective, rather than lucky every time he goes deep into a game.

It’s not suggestive of that at all. Just humour me: what would the stats look like if this was a 100% BABIP thing, i.e. it was all down to luck and better fielding? The answer is that they would look exactly like they do. How can the stats be suggestive that it is not luck, when the stats match that hypothesis exactly?

That’s not to say it is luck; it’s just to say there’s no statistical evidence that it isn’t.

For the umpeeth time, I’m not saying that Sanchez’s success is all his own.

And I understand that. I’m questioning how much evidence there is for anything else.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 16, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions

You’re continuing to miss my point, which is about frequency. Take a step back and try to see the forest for the trees here.

Games where the pitcher performs better on balls not put in play and balls put in play is suggestive that a pitcher is probably pitching more effectively in those starts.

And my point is that BABIP doesn’t tell us much, other than how many balls put in play are turned into outs and, through staistical analysis, that the league average settles right around .300. It doesn’t tell us anything about the balls hit. There’s a black box there. We don’t know what causes Matt Cain to have a career .274 BABIP, or why his BABIP has been under .285 in four of his five full seasons. So we have no choice but to move to speculation. It’s why we still have scouts.

The same can be said for Sanchez. BABIP tells us that in 2009 and 2010, pitches by Sanchez that were put into play were turned into outs more frequently than the league average. Conventional wisdom is that Sanchez was lucky. And I will not argue that Sanchez’s performance is dependent on his BABIP. But the downward trend over the past few seasons in his BABIP is something to consider when looking at him as a pitcher, rather than disregarding it as completely random.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 16, 2011 5:40 PM PST up reply actions

You’re continuing to miss my point, which is about frequency. Take a step back and try to see the forest for the trees here.

I don’t think I am, and I think you are seeing a single tree and assuming there must be a forest around here somewhere.

Games where the pitcher performs better on balls not put in play and balls put in play is suggestive that a pitcher is probably pitching more effectively in those starts.

That’s not true, you haven’t shown that, and I don’t think you understand the concept of a biased sample.

The grouping “games with 6+ innings” is biased, because it includes a greater proportion of games where Sanchez had good results. Note: good results, not better play. Even if all of pitching was 100% luck, “games with 6+ innings” would still have better results than “games with <6 innings”, because the former is self-selected to be good starts, and the latter is self-selected to be bad starts.

rather than disregarding it as completely random.

That is very clearly not what I am doing. BABIP does have a pitcher component, but analysis has shown that (a) it is very small, and (b) the vast players who show a big improvement regress right back. In the face of that, managing to decrease his BABIP twice in a row (three if you want to include a partial season) is very weak evidence. After all, the odds of improving a couple of times in a row aren’t exactly massive, even by a decent margin, aren’t huge – if you look historically, they’ll be multiple pitchers every year.

Evidenced must be weighed in the context of what you are trying to prove, not given an absolute weight. In this case, showing a significant improvement in BABIP is an extraordinary thing, because it is rare (not impossible, but rare). Sanchez stands alongside several other pitchers who also put up great BABIP numbers in 2010, after 2 seasons of improvement. The question I ask is: what makes Sanchez stand out, when compared to Jeff Niemann, or Clay Buchholz, or Ubaldo Jimenez, or Felix Hernandez?

Note that three of those guys also put up much improved FIP numbers in 2010. Whatever explanation you want to put up for a BABIP improvement (control, temperament, an improved pitch etc.), doesn’t the reasoning look a whole lot more solid when the entire range of stats improves, rather than just BABIP?

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 17, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions

If the K/BB rate is correspondingly higher in games where pitchers pitch more innings, then that would support the theory that they perform better in starts where they go deeper into the game. There is an element of luck in the umpiring, but a large enough sample size – which is what I suggested the last two times I asserted this – should give us a reasonably good idea. Strike % can also be utilized to this purpose. If K/BB is higher, strike % is higher, and BABIP is lower across a large sample size, there is a correlation to be considered.

Personally, I find reasoning to be more solid when it is not context independent. If you look at his FIP and his BABIP, then yes, all else being equal, he has not changed as a pitcher. But it’s not equal. As Nivra pointed out in the other thread, there are a variety of factors that have shifted for Sanchez in the last two seasons. To take his O-Swing% and O-Contact% argument a bit further, there was a notable shift in pitching distribution from 2008 to 2009.

In 2006 – 2008, Sanchez threw his fastball roughly 72% of the time and his Slider roughly 12% of the time. In 2009 and 2010, they shifted to roughly 65% and 19%, a 7% tradeoff. In 2010 we also saw an increased use of his changeup from the year prior, giving Sanchez the broadest pitch distribution of his career.

We don’t talk about this because we don’t have an easy way of compartmentalizing it into a single number, like we do with FIP and BABIP. Just because the compostion of Sanchez’s home runs, walks, strikeouts, and IP has not changed meaningfully does not mean that he is the same pitcher. It is a very helpful predictor, but it is not ironclad. In light of what I have seen Sanchez do in the last two seasons, I accept that the statistics suggest that he is a likely candidate for regression, but I suspect that his regression will be less drastic than many people seem to be predicting.

And I think that’s the last that needs to be said about.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 17, 2011 5:05 PM PST up reply actions

If the K/BB rate is correspondingly higher in games where pitchers pitch more innings, then that would support the theory that they perform better in starts where they go deeper into the game.

Again, biased sample. The K/BB rate would be higher even if Sanchez pitched slightly worse in games where he went deep. The same is true for BABIP, strike %, BB/9, all these stats. The important correlation between the stats is their co-dependence.

If you want to show there is a genuine improvement in this specific area, you need to show (through Bayes etc.) that there is an improvement over and above that sampling bias.

These last few posts haven’t really been about Sanchez too much; it’s that you are misusing stats. Two stats moving in the same direction does not necessarily increase your confidence that the underlying distribution has changed. The example I gave in the other thread was tossing a coin 5 times and getting 5 heads, and then saying “not only that, I got no tails! That’s two pieces of information, which makes it more likely that this was skill!”. The second piece of information isn’t actually new information at all, and hence tells us nothing. Likewise, finding out that Sanchez has better stats in games where he went deeper (and therefore had better results: you’ve ignored all the games where he didn’t get 18 outs, so clearly the sample is biased) is an empty statement.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 18, 2011 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

They’ve been largely about Sanchez for me. You might have missed that from up on your soapbox.

It’s really easy to back up an argument when you butcher, oversimplify, and ignore opposing viewpoints. So, have fun with that.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 18, 2011 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

I don’t really see where he did any of that.

Mark DeRosa, still existing.

by oldjacket on Jan 18, 2011 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

I'm really good and getting tail

hey-o!

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 19, 2011 6:12 AM PST up reply actions

Is it responsible for all the effect? Certainly not. Is it responsible for some of it? Quite possibly.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 15, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions

Well of course it’s possible. Neither GiantPain nor I are saying that it’s not possible. But that doesn’t make it convincing.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 15, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions

Beyond the numbers mumbo jumbo

If we go with the theory that Sanchez than his normal self when things started to go bad, and now he merely pitches more like he does the rest of the time (i.e. no longer melts down), I would think maturing and being more consistent in high stress situations is repeatable.

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 16, 2011 8:11 PM PST up reply actions

The thing is, though, that would show up in the numbers. At least as long as we’re speculating that it’s the cause of his numerical improvement to begin with, the theory seems pretty useless if it doesn’t mean that’s going to continue.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2011 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

Oh, never mind. I think that last comment missed the point entirely. Feel free to ignore it. You know, more than usual.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

i think he’ll put up something like 15-7 with a 2.80 ERA this year….

by repeat_in_2011 on Jan 14, 2011 8:30 PM PST reply actions

Heh

Maybe if he cuts the walks in half.

My Adopted Giant
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.

by GiantPain on Jan 14, 2011 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

that is quite optimistic. that’s kershaw status.

There's a First for Everything:
Edgar Renteria, The First World Series MVP in Giants History.

by Unitard on Jan 14, 2011 11:17 PM PST up reply actions

29-8, 1.57 ERA, 16 saves.

He’ll pretty much pitch exceptionally in every role all year.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 15, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions

eh, you guys are prob right, i’m too optimistic…..

it’s becoming clear to me that other folks on here know quite a lot more about baseball than i ever imagined i did….

i’ll still hope for a great year from Sanchez though….

by repeat_in_2011 on Jan 15, 2011 2:56 PM PST up reply actions

I was just joking around.

But you have to admit your prediction is pretty optimistic.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 15, 2011 3:19 PM PST up reply actions

yeah, i know you were joking…

i just thought this(15-7 2.80) is the kind of talent level they(Krukow, etc) always thought Sanchez might have…i thought he could reach that level finally but the stat guys on here tend to disagree…and it looks like they have quite a few baseball IQ points on me at least…

by repeat_in_2011 on Jan 16, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah

If Randy Johnson says you have the best stuff on a team that includes Lincecum, Cain and Wilson, your upside is pretty high

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 16, 2011 8:09 PM PST up reply actions

Sanchez is the definition of upside. The question is whether or he has or will reach it.

"Today, it's as if McCovey's line drive finally went through. And the earthquake didn't happen. And Spiezio struck out. And Snow was safe."

by Ceora on Jan 17, 2011 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

I'll give this a rec.

Thanks for digging all this up. Good stuff. I’ve been wondering about it too because I felt the same way.

"Today, it's as if McCovey's line drive finally went through. And the earthquake didn't happen. And Spiezio struck out. And Snow was safe."

by Ceora on Jan 14, 2011 8:34 PM PST reply actions

I rec'd it too

It’s good stuff and quotes me…what more could you want in a post?

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 16, 2011 8:20 PM PST up reply actions

the question: does he just pitch tougher? Use his full repertoire and go for strikeouts? Or does he get less upset?

former adoptive papa of "Geno" Eugenio Velez, Antoin Jamison, and Adam Wittler--

by foothillsfan on Jan 14, 2011 9:27 PM PST reply actions

This is basically the same improvement we see in his overall ERA, though, isn’t it? It went down from 5.21 pre-NH to 3.20 since.

by Cookyman on Jan 15, 2011 11:55 AM PST reply actions

Exactly – if his ERA drops that much, it would be amazing if his ERA after the first run didn’t drop too. After all, he wouldn’t have had an ERA if he didn’t give up runs after the first one, and his ERA wouldn’t have then dropped to 3 if he continued giving up as many runs after the first one.

by sarf_london_niner on Jan 15, 2011 12:21 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, the only other way to improve your ERA is to lower the number of games in which you allow any runs at all, and I doubt that’s the common way pitchers improve.

by Cookyman on Jan 15, 2011 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

Increase, not lower.

Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.

Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)

by quincy0191 on Jan 15, 2011 6:33 PM PST up reply actions

No, lower

by Cookyman on Jan 15, 2011 6:38 PM PST up reply actions

It’s clumsy phrasing, but lower is still correct.

by Cookyman on Jan 15, 2011 6:38 PM PST up reply actions

Doesn't make sense to me

If you lower the number of games where you give up runs, that means you have more games where you give up runs. So more games where you give up runs = more games where you have “ERA after first run”.

If you increase the number of games where you don’t allow any runs, then you can have the same “ERA after first run” as before and a lower overall ERA since the shutouts help you out.

Oh, now I get it. Yeah, that’s weird.

Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.

Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)

by quincy0191 on Jan 16, 2011 1:29 AM PST up reply actions

If you lower the number of games where you give up runs, then you have more games where you don’t give up runs.

I have 30 starts. I give up runs in 27 of them. I therefore give up 0 runs in 3 games.

I lower the number of games I give up runs in. I now give up runs in 20 games. Now I have 10 games where I have given up 0 runs.

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 16, 2011 1:19 PM PST up reply actions

I SAID I GOT IT GET OFF MY BACK HOWIE YOU’RE TOO FAT TO CARRY AROUND ALL THE TIME

Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.

Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)

by quincy0191 on Jan 16, 2011 5:23 PM PST up reply actions

LESS EQUALS NOT AS MANY. THAT MEANS THERE WILL BE A GREATER NUMBER OF THE OPPOSITE OUTCOME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

It looks like dancing frog in the sky because it's green.

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2011 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, I’m not sure it has any actual value. It’s just based on an impression that many have had that he’s been better at righting the ship after getting in a jam. I think we would get a clearer picture as to whether this statistic has any value at all if we looked at other pitchers, but since I see no way of doing this other than poring through box scores it would take too long to find data.

"Lee pitches...Renteria hits a high drive, deep left-center field, David Murphy going back, he's on the warning track—it is...go-one!"

by El Person on Jan 15, 2011 11:49 PM PST up reply actions

This.

As I said above. Pitcher clutchness in high leverage situations exists and is detectable among the best pitchers in the leagues when looking at their career averages.

Sanchez isn’t one of those, and I doubt any clutchness would be detectable from his 18.1 high Leverage innings pitched in 2010.

by Nivra on Jan 16, 2011 12:40 AM PST up reply actions

I tend to think that pitcher clutchiness, in Sanchez' case

…is more about staying cool and pitching your game, as opposed to losing focus, trying to be too perfect, etc and actually pitching worse.

If Sanchez can just pitch like he’s capable of on a consistent basis, he doesn’t need to be superhuman in high-leverage situations

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 16, 2011 8:18 PM PST up reply actions

This camp.

I am in it.

Et tu, Ribe?

by Solidarity on Jan 16, 2011 9:43 PM PST up reply actions

Ditto.

"Today, it's as if McCovey's line drive finally went through. And the earthquake didn't happen. And Spiezio struck out. And Snow was safe."

by Ceora on Jan 17, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions

I guess it would also explain why his ERA would go down while his peripherals are relatively consistent

When he’s able to remain calm (all is well!) and avoid a disastrous inning (ex: giving up a run instead of three runs), two things happen:

He gives up fewer runs
He stays in the game longer

Both of these will tend to drive a pitcher’s ERA down. (Thanks for the deep insight, Goofus!)

The thong is, it happened.

by Goofus on Jan 18, 2011 7:59 AM PST up reply actions

13-9, 3-ERA, lefty leader in Ks

haterz gonna hate

Durty is a top 5 lefty

Trade Sabean/jk...Fire the Ydorks...

by Regulus on Jan 16, 2011 10:35 AM PST reply actions

if it were Zeets giving you these numbers

you all would worship him

Trade Sabean/jk...Fire the Ydorks...

by Regulus on Jan 16, 2011 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

not me…..but m. urban would be in non-stop grovel mode….

by repeat_in_2011 on Jan 16, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

i think part of it if, is sanchez justs walks guys in high leverage sitatuations

he’s admitted to doing it this past season. He won’t give them anything to hit, and if he walks a guy (or two… or three), oh well, he’s gonna keep chippin away at the corners (or let one sail into the backstop) until he the batters start getting themselves out

by shallow23 on Jan 19, 2011 9:17 AM PST reply actions