Comments on: 2009 NL All-Star Ballot

By: James

James — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:11:26 +0000

I don’t understand all the stupid argument about who’s better: Cain vs. Lincecum. The argument should be why Cain vs. everyone else who’s not Lincecum. Cain should be a lock for a an NL starter spot, but for some ludicrous reason this retarded page doesn’t even list him. How can you leave off a guy how is in the top 3 in Wins, ERA and Winning %? Disgusting.

By: stlfan

stlfan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:15:14 +0000

I’m biased as a Cardinals’ fan, but no love for Joel PIneiro (top ten FIP in NL) and Chris Carpenter even though the game is going to be in STL?

By: k burrell

k burrell — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:45:25 +0000

mccann & chipper come on guys vote for them

By: jpd

jpd — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:21:18 +0000

Hey, Andrew, I’m gonna have to say, you sound like a huge jerk.

Exibit A:
“It,s clear that I know more about the ones we’re using than you”

sorry, I couldn’t help myself

and, I support B. actual results over what should have happened. How can you argue against actual results, as fluky as they may be? what actually happened is always more important.

By: aweb

aweb — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:45:10 +0000

Such a heated debate for what comes down to – some of us don’t have any issues with rewarding pitchers who have gotten luckier than others. Yes, Lincecum, from all reasonable measures, has done more to prevent runs this year than Cain has. But Cain has been luckier, as evidenced by unreasonably low BABIP in key situations – it doesn’t bother me at all giving him a trip to the all-star game for that. That makes some of us strange in the view of others, perhaps, but that’s all there is to it.

The All-star game is an exhibition game – managers still treat it that way, as do players who drop out with minor injuries. I honestly don’t care if the very best possible players are selected, and I’m fine with rewarding flukey first-halfs. That’s how the all-stars have usually been selected. Of course, by the time it comes to picking the all-star staff, it’s quite likely Lincecum will look better than Cain, even by the basic “runs scored while he was pitching”, results-based method. All-star games are like post-season awards to me (and others, although I can’t speak specifically for anyone here) – they reward what has happened, lucky or not.

By: B

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:05:42 +0000

Well…fair enough.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:43:22 +0000

Why should I bother doing you a favor? All you have done so far is bash my knowledge of stats and ignore everything that goes against what you’ve been saying (Cain’s BABIP with RISP, for example). If you are too lazy to educate yourself, then that’s your problem not mine. I provided you a link above – click it.

By: B

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:22:52 +0000

My attacks were more over your grasp of statistical principles, not your knowledge of different baseball stats.
“The part of it which is subject to regression are the home runs, and xFIP solves that.”

When measuring the runs a pitcher is responsible for (our goal for the day), there are sources outside of FIP’s equation that “regress to the mean” to make FIP more accurately reflect those runs. In fact, you brought one up yourself. “He should not be rewarded for unsustainable BABIP rates.” Those BABIP rates regress to the mean, and as they do, FIP does a better job of explaining the runs the pitcher was responsible for. These runs, by the way, are an objective number we know (pretty easy to measure the number of runs scored when a pitcher is on the mound). The real issue is dividing responsibility for them, and that’s where sample size comes in. There’s not really a whole lot to say without repeating myself…so I guess I’ll just let it go?

By: B

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:15:02 +0000

It seems LIPS refers to late inning pressure situation? Not sure how that’s relevant, so why don’t you give a go at explaining the stat, what it’s uses are, what it’s strengths and weaknesses are, and the theory behind it, and why it’s relevant in this specific situation.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:58:52 +0000

Also, B, since you seem to have such a problem with regression issues, read up on LIPS and then please tell me why it’s flawed in telling us Lincecum has been much better than Cain this year.

“…think any of us will be hard pressed to figure out how much of it was from things in Cain’s control (good pitches in the situation that he normally doesn’t make, for instance) compared to how much of it was simple luck (like hard line drives that happen to go right at someone).”

Exhibit A, again:
Cain’s BABIP with runners on: .159
Cain’s BABIP with RISP: .105

Sorry but I couldn’t help myself.