GatewayRedbirds.com

Thanks again mgl, you've been great. Let me know if anyone else has any chat ideas.

I hope it's not too late, but I had one more question, one I can't believe I forgot about....

MGL-

Did you have any role in the pursuit of Burnett? He seemed to fit some of the aspects you listed in looking for an ace, and I think he does have that potential.

Check out our followup discussion here.

RC21 wrote:Wow. What a spectacular thread.

mgl, if your'e still answering... it would seem that you're an advocate of having Brad Thompson as a starter rather than a reliever. Am I correct in that assertion?

Whether someone is suited for a starter or reliever role is out of my area of expertise. I definitely leave that to the scouts, coaches, and managers. If there is a certain profile or type of pitcher who is suited for one or the othe role (other than the obvious ones, like stamina or lack of more than 1 or 2 good pitches, although lots of starters have only 2 pitches), I am unaware of it.

Generally a starter is much more valuable than a reliever, especially if the reliever does not pitch in mostly high leverage situations (a la a typical closer). If you have a good young pitcher, you should try and develop him as a starter if at all possible. To groom a young pitcher as a non-closer reliever is a complete waste of time. Other than closers, relievers should be RH or LH specialists, those pitchers incapable, for whatever reasons, of being a decent starter, or simply bad pitchers (to pitch in low leverage situations),

Reverend Redbird wrote:I hope it's not too late, but I had one more question, one I can't believe I forgot about....

MGL-

Did you have any role in the pursuit of Burnett? He seemed to fit some of the aspects you listed in looking for an ace, and I think he does have that potential.

I think we had some mild interest in him and he is a very good pitcher when healthy. However, given his injury history and the fact that starting pitchers are generally overpriced, the asking price was way too high.

It is still possible to get a bargian in a starting pitcher occasionally, but it is usually going to be a good but not great one who is not a household name (not that Burnett is/was a household name, but he was definitely "known" as an ace or near-ace).

tangotiger wrote:

stewie13 wrote:I don't have the tools/databases to quickly calculate these numbers but is how does run scoring compare in the playoffs vs. regular season?

IIRC, the average team that makes the playoffs scores 5 and allows 4 in the regular season (since 1969). In the playoffs they score and allow 4.

I have seen you, Tangotiger and others say something like if a pitcher with a true talent OPS against of .700 faces a hitter with a true talent OPS of .900... the expected result is simply the average (OPS 800). IF this holds true during the regular is there also statistical analysis that verifies for the playoffs?

Not quite. The quick expected would be: hitter + pitcher - league. So, a .400 OBP hitter against a .300 OBP pitcher in a league of .340 OBP would give you an expectation of .360 OBP. Another way would be hitter*pitcher/league, which in this case gives us .353. The Odds Ratio Method (which is the most correct) would give us .357.

Why would you think it'd be any different in the playoffs?

BP has in anteresting chapter on "playoff baseball" in their BBBTN book. Some of the results of their research is quite surprising and inexplicable to me, although I really haven't given it that much thought. There are probably some considerations in the playoffs that have not been studied or researched enough. I agree that it is still an area that is not fully understood. I don't think that the dynamics of any of the interactions change in the post-season ("playoff" is technically when two teams tie for a dividion title), but there are definitely situations that can be leveraged, such as the 1,2 or 3 dominant starters, throwing ace relievers more innings (and 2 innings at a time), pinch runner specialists, having your main catcher play every game, etc.