from Amazon
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Cliff Lee’s hot start: You wanted crap/yap from a premium writer….
From Rob Neyer, who is lately (maybe for a long while) just as obsessed (and misguided) as almost everyone else about short-term recent performance:
So is Cliff Lee for real? I think all we can say is that he’s really healthy. He’s going to give up a higher batting average on balls in play, and some reasonable percentage of the fly balls he gives up will fly over the fence. So no, he probably doesn’t wind up winning the Cy Young Award. But I’ll bet he’s better than average. And considering how well C.C. Sabathia’s pitched in his last two starts, suddenly the Indians would seem to have the best rotation in the majors.
So Cliff Lee, 31 years old, is better than average, because he has pitched well to 128 batters after having pitched mediocrely, at best, to 3047 batters over the last 4 years? I think not, and I will take up Neyer on that bet (he offered this time, although obviously not literally).
Here are Lee’s last 4 years’ NERC, keeping in mind that a league average pitcher, and full-time starter, within his league, is defined as 4.00:
04 4.87
05 3.84
06 4.45
07 4.93
That is a fairly sucky pitcher who, based on his 128 batters faced so far this year, is a now an ever-so-slightly less sucky pitcher! He is NOT better than a league average pitcher, nor he is a league average pitcher. (Warning: of course, I don’t KNOW what he is for sure, but my estimate, since it is based on science, is a heck of a lot better than Neyer’s, which is based on nothing, but a distorted and misinformed view of what 5 outings of good pitching following 4 years of poor pitching, means.)
Again, I ask, for any of these, “Is he for real?” questions, that someone simply look at all players in history of about the same age and circumstances, who have had X prior stats, followed by Y (presumably really good or really bad) stats for a short period of time (whatever you want) and then see how they all did in ANY future time period you want (the more, the larger the sample of course). Oh, you mean researchers have already done that (see Tango’s, my, and probably others’ “banner years” study)? And the answer is that they performed at around the usual Marcel projection? So why are these writers trying to answer the silly, “Is he for real?” question and coming up with equally silly answers? It is a combination of ignorance, they have to write something, and it has to be something that their audience likes (otherwise they are out of a job). However, it doesn’t matter much if what they write is true or not. They don’t get graded on the truth.
How about we all just say in unison, come on now, everyone together, “They will ALL likely (our best estimate) perform somewhere in between their past weighted performance and the ‘breakout’ (or collapse) period you are citing, MUCH closer to whichever is the largest sample!”
Then we can all get on with our lives.
Anyway, I am not done with Neyer.
So, now Sabathia is part of a great rotation, considering the way he performed in his last TWO starts?”
I guess before those two starts, when everyone was calling for Sabathia’s head, and wondering whether he was hiding an injury, the Indians’ staff was NOT great. But now it is. Considering Sabathia’s last 2 starts. Maybe we better wait until his (or Westbrook’s or Carmona’s) next start or two. Because if they pitch badly, then we are not so sure if the Indians have a great staff, right? I am just following Neyer’s logic and that of every other sports writer in the world.
News flash: The Indians staff is roughly the SAME staff it was before the season started, the same staff it is now, and the same staff it will be (assuming no major injuries) in a month from now, no matter how any of their pitchers pitch between now and then!
The sad part is that Neyer knows this stuff (I think), but he still writes the same crap that everyone else does.