0A272A3B3C2D3A7A79480 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
This tends to confirm a conclusion I've recently come to: we seem to overvalue our players, both major leaguers and prospects. We then hold on to a player too long killing any meaningful value.
It would seem the FO's plan would require well-timed trades of all value to restock.
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
It didn't help that they traded some outfielders. They thought they had a surplus there, with a fairly young ML outfield in place. But that has come back to bite them. Now the surplus seems to be in pitching, but who can say (especially with that old maxim, you can never have too much pitching).
-
CarolinaBucco
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
2 things ...
1. There was never a doubt in my mind they would wait all night to resume that game. I know it's technically the umps' decision. But the home team was down by 1 run, and you know they were making their preference very clear to the umps. I will GUARANTEE you if the Braves had been up 3-2 that game would have been called around 11 pm. Guaranteed.
2. There's not point in saying the Pirates shouldn't lose 3 of 4 to a bad Braves team. T
1. There was never a doubt in my mind they would wait all night to resume that game. I know it's technically the umps' decision. But the home team was down by 1 run, and you know they were making their preference very clear to the umps. I will GUARANTEE you if the Braves had been up 3-2 that game would have been called around 11 pm. Guaranteed.
2. There's not point in saying the Pirates shouldn't lose 3 of 4 to a bad Braves team. T
-
CarolinaBucco
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
My mistake. Hit "post" too soon.
My 2nd point ... It makes no sense to say the Pirates shouldn't lose 3 of 4 to a bad Braves team. THE PIRATES ARE A BAD TEAM. And we're on the road. The Braves actually have a better record. The Braves look at the Pirates as the perfect opportunity to win 3 of 4 (or 4 of 4, which is very possible).
My 2nd point ... It makes no sense to say the Pirates shouldn't lose 3 of 4 to a bad Braves team. THE PIRATES ARE A BAD TEAM. And we're on the road. The Braves actually have a better record. The Braves look at the Pirates as the perfect opportunity to win 3 of 4 (or 4 of 4, which is very possible).
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
597479686F7E69292A1B0 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
I agree to a point. But you know stats don't always tell the whole story. Many things don't make the box score. I say this in general, not based on the two players mentioned.
I would not fear anyone on the Pirates.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
I agree to a point. But you know stats don't always tell the whole story. Many things don't make the box score. I say this in general, not based on the two players mentioned.
I would not fear anyone on the Pirates.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
604D40515647501013220 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
-
Bobster21
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
0F3D31312517343D30353A3D5C0 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
Sure. But how long do we bat Cutch 3rd waiting for a turnaround? Based on his EV and BABIP it should have already happened. But there's no telling when a turnaround will happen if ever. If it does, we'll all know with or without the statisticians saying "I told you so." A player either produces or he doesn't.
EDIT: One more thing. Everyone laughs at what a bad hitter Bob Uecker was. Career .200 BA. No one looks at his career BABIP of .238 and concludes he was just unlucky and would eventually become a more productive hitter. He just didn't produce.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
Sure. But how long do we bat Cutch 3rd waiting for a turnaround? Based on his EV and BABIP it should have already happened. But there's no telling when a turnaround will happen if ever. If it does, we'll all know with or without the statisticians saying "I told you so." A player either produces or he doesn't.
EDIT: One more thing. Everyone laughs at what a bad hitter Bob Uecker was. Career .200 BA. No one looks at his career BABIP of .238 and concludes he was just unlucky and would eventually become a more productive hitter. He just didn't produce.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
537E73626574632320110 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
Sure. But how long do we bat Cutch 3rd waiting for a turnaround? Based on his EV and BABIP it should have already happened. But there's no telling when a turnaround will happen if ever. If it does, we'll all know with or without the statisticians saying "I told you so." A player either produces or he doesn't.
Oh, I agree in this specific case for sure. He hasn't been unlucky for a year and a half or whatever.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
It can help predict turnarounds though. People who study these things their entire lives didn't just pull it out of thin air.
Sure. But how long do we bat Cutch 3rd waiting for a turnaround? Based on his EV and BABIP it should have already happened. But there's no telling when a turnaround will happen if ever. If it does, we'll all know with or without the statisticians saying "I told you so." A player either produces or he doesn't.
Oh, I agree in this specific case for sure. He hasn't been unlucky for a year and a half or whatever.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
6F424F5E59485F1F1C2D0 wrote: Watson (3.54 ERA, 1.62 WHIP) is throwing good pitches and having bad luck. Cutch (.200/.271/,359) is hitting the ball hard.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
Hurdle is an idiot to not be able to recognize the closer should be Rivero. But for Hurdle it's about what you did 2 or 3 years ago and not what you're doing today. He doesn't have the best interest of the team, if he did he wouldn't have Cutch batting 3rd and Watson closing games.
When we see players on other teams with these kinds of stats do we make similar excuses and presume they are actually opponents to be feared? I don't think so. It is what it is. Players either produce or they don't. Bad stats are the result of prolonged periods of being unproductive. They don't give participation trophies for failure due to bad luck or hitting hard outs.
Hurdle is an idiot to not be able to recognize the closer should be Rivero. But for Hurdle it's about what you did 2 or 3 years ago and not what you're doing today. He doesn't have the best interest of the team, if he did he wouldn't have Cutch batting 3rd and Watson closing games.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
GlasNOW Time vs Braves 5/23
Yes. I'm sure he's an idiot.