Comments on: Whoops – You Aren’t Good, Are You? http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:21:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Appelman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32974 David Appelman Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:20:27 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32974 I had to laugh when I read this. 1.2 is soooo low. You have to start looking pre-1950 to see anyone who had a K/9 that low. If he put every single ball into play, xFIP suggests his ERA would be around 4.60 with his current GB/FB/LD splits. I think if you start including LD impact it'd be higher, but 4.60 is right in line with what he's been doing. I had to laugh when I read this. 1.2 is soooo low. You have to start looking pre-1950 to see anyone who had a K/9 that low.

If he put every single ball into play, xFIP suggests his ERA would be around 4.60 with his current GB/FB/LD splits. I think if you start including LD impact it’d be higher, but 4.60 is right in line with what he’s been doing.

]]> By: Eric J. Seidman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32970 Eric J. Seidman Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:20:46 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32970 It's very similar to what everyone expected out of Kyle Kendrick, in the sense that he doesn't strike many batters out. More balls will be in play and there is a greater chance of them resulting in hits surrendered and runs. However, Garland has proven himself to be durable in the 195-210 IP range and though his K/9 has essentially decreased since 2002 he has still remained in the 4.2-5.2 range. This 1.2 is borderline ridiculous. He could be in for a long season but if I were a betting man my money would be on the idea that things will be different towards the end of the season. It’s very similar to what everyone expected out of Kyle Kendrick, in the sense that he doesn’t strike many batters out. More balls will be in play and there is a greater chance of them resulting in hits surrendered and runs. However, Garland has proven himself to be durable in the 195-210 IP range and though his K/9 has essentially decreased since 2002 he has still remained in the 4.2-5.2 range. This 1.2 is borderline ridiculous. He could be in for a long season but if I were a betting man my money would be on the idea that things will be different towards the end of the season.

]]> By: Zu Long http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32968 Zu Long Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:56:58 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/whoops-you-arent-good-are-you/#comment-32968 In the Angel's defense, it's not like the guy they traded has lit the world on fire- Cabrera has put up a .250 average and a .677 OPS thus far. The guy they replaced Cabrera with, Erick Aybar, has put up a .349 average and a .788 OPS, on top of flat out ridiculous defense. Garland hasn't been entirely horrible for them (in the sense of Jeff Weaver's 2007 April), and in the wake of the injuries to Lackey and Escobar, he's still been worth the spot in the rotation. You could make an argument that Adenhart would pitch better, but even then, Dustin Moseley would be the odd man out. In the Angel’s defense, it’s not like the guy they traded has lit the world on fire- Cabrera has put up a .250 average and a .677 OPS thus far. The guy they replaced Cabrera with, Erick Aybar, has put up a .349 average and a .788 OPS, on top of flat out ridiculous defense. Garland hasn’t been entirely horrible for them (in the sense of Jeff Weaver’s 2007 April), and in the wake of the injuries to Lackey and Escobar, he’s still been worth the spot in the rotation. You could make an argument that Adenhart would pitch better, but even then, Dustin Moseley would be the odd man out.

]]>