FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. ERA is not a dumb stat. This is what is so off putting about Fangraphs. The condescending arrogance about your saber stats.

    Comment by QT — June 23, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

  2. Dumb is in parentheses, its used here to show that ERA is not a good tool to predict future success. Also, if you are off put by Fangraphs, don’t read it…

    Comment by Thomas — June 23, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

  3. ERA for relievers is typically a weak stat to use for relievers. Especially closers, who pitch very limited innings.

    Comment by Jon — June 23, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

  4. Thomas, what a horrible stance to take and quite immature. If a writer puts his work out there for praise he must accept criticism.

    The way his condesending attitude shines here, I’d hate to see his obits. “Yea Mildred Jones died yesterday, but she was old and never turned off her turn signal when driving, so there ya go.” Despite his great observation that using the change up has increased the effectiveness of his slider and fastball. It was hard to take him seriously when he takes a smug stance. Might as well dig up Cartwright and slap him across the face.

    The article itself, I like Inherited runner score % to show the value of relievers. That’s just me…

    Comment by James — June 23, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

  5. So how about that Nunez guy?

    Comment by Fly Molo — June 23, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

  6. Nunez has been terrific, and more important than how good he is – is how many saves and wins he gets dorks like me. Though throwing more changeups than ever, his K’s are way up.

    You sabre dudes are both insulting and entertaining. Mostly just wrong.

    Comment by quinnsdaddy — June 23, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

  7. Pop in video of Nunez in 2009. I assure you what you witness will leave you impressed.

    He was a guy with a solid to very good arm. He lacked command, partially due to his excellent movement. Watch. It is there. Your numbers missed it.

    Nunez, like many successful ball players, improved, kept improving and the numbers would not have predicted it.

    Not saying observation predicted it either, but by watching you could assign some probability of upside. Sure enough that upside has been realized now, in 2010.


    Comment by TedWilson — June 23, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *

Close this window.

0.771 Powered by WordPress