I did; I just thought you were giving too much credit to people in marketing.Did you happen to read past the "and"?
I did; I just thought you were giving too much credit to people in marketing.Did you happen to read past the "and"?
Is that a real response?Is this a real question? A K has a 0% chance of hurting you. No seeing eye grounders, no possible boot by a fielder or an advancing of the runner. Sure a double play would be super but there is a non zero chance that something could go wrong. If you throw the third strike past him, there us no way he can hurt you.
There's a reasonable case to be made here, assuming the voters don't dig too deeply into the advanced stats.Snell went 5 innings tonight, no runs, 1 hit, 2bb's, 5 k's, and if TB can hang onto the 4-0 lead they currently have, he'll get to 20-5. With a 1.97 ERA, and a sub 1.00 WHIP, I think him and Sale have had almost identical seasons. IMO, if Snell continues to get starts and continues to dominate, and finishes with 25 or so more innings than Sale, he'd get my vote. Wins don't mean a lot, but they mean something, and he doesn't just have more of them, he's heading up into twice as many territory. That's something, and when everything other category is pretty damn equal, it's as good a tiebreaker as any, IMO.
We don't even have to go back that far to see W-L being an influential factor for BBWAA voters...Rick Porcello two years ago. No question he had a phenomenal year, but really the only thing he had going for him versus the other top candidates (Verlander, Kluber, Britton) was his win total.All of this is a way of saying -- I know we've come a long way since the times when W-L record was the arbiter of Cy Young candidacy, but I don't know if the BBWAA is as cold and methodical in its calculations as we are.
Snell has made four starts lasting 4 innings or fewer. But you go ahead and keep trying to find reasons to pick against a pitcher on your favorite team having a historic season.Snell has made 6 more "real" starts than Sale. (Sale's 1 and 3 inning jobs would have been at AAA).
That's roughly 20% of a starter's season. I would put Snell ahead of Sale.
When comparing two players side by side, is 33 6-inning starts better than 25 7-inning starts, when both put up great stats by any measure? Both are deserving.Yeah, I can't recall GS ever being considered for anything. It's IP.
Yeah. That's what I'm doing. I'm such a bad fan.Snell has made four starts lasting 4 innings or fewer. But you go ahead and keep trying to find reasons to pick against a pitcher on your favorite team having a historic season.
I thought we were having a conversation about who deserved the award, not who we were rooting for to get it.Snell has made four starts lasting 4 innings or fewer. But you go ahead and keep trying to find reasons to pick against a pitcher on your favorite team having a historic season.
I think both are deserving of the award but if Sale doesn't get votes because of his IP, Snell getting the award with <20 more innings would be absurd.When comparing two players side by side, is 33 6-inning starts better than 25 7-inning starts, when both put up great stats by any measure? Both are deserving.
Yeah. That's what I'm doing. I'm such a bad fan.
I thought your last post linked to an article that persuasively established Snell is not deserving to be even in the top 3. At this point people are bending over backwards to find reasons to give it to a guy who is undeserving when one who is has been staring them in the face.I thought we were having a conversation about who deserved the award, not who we were rooting for to get it.
This is especially true when Verlander and Kluber have started more games and pitched significantly more innings than Snell, and have been better in pretty much every way except for luck.I think both are deserving of the award but if Sale doesn't get votes because of his IP, Snell getting the award with <20 more innings would be absurd.
That's fair. But, not to belabor the point, these days 20IP is 3 games. When things are tight, I think that should carry some weight.I think both are deserving of the award but if Sale doesn't get votes because of his IP, Snell getting the award with <20 more innings would be absurd.
edit: Basically, if you are willing to vote for Snell, you should be willing to vote for Sale. If you think Snell was more valuable this year, that's a debatable stance.
That's why GS is a terrible number to use, because if you don't count Sale's last 2 starts, it isn't 3 games. It's 6.That's fair. But, not to belabor the point, these days 20IP is 3 games. When things are tight, I think that should carry some weight.
Um, no. Snell has a better K/9 and FIP than Kluber and a better HR/9 than either.This is especially true when Verlander and Kluber have started more games and pitched significantly more innings than Snell, and have been better in pretty much every way except for luck.
As you know from the link you posted, Snell appears to have been a beneficiary of a good deal of luck in his HR rate, and both Verlander and Kluber have a better xFIP. EDIT: And great, Snell has a very small edge in K/9, but a huge deficit in K:BB. You could also just replace Kluber with his teammate Bauer, who's only thrown 3 fewer innings than Snell, and has been a better pitcher over those innings, too.Um, no. Snell has a better K/9 and FIP than Kluber and a better HR/9 than either.
[edited to remove unnecessary snark]
I didn't realize that I had. It's possible I selected and bolded that word by mistake and then hit the "I" instead of the "B" when trying to undo that.As you know from the link you posted, Snell appears to have been a beneficiary of a good deal of luck in his HR rate, and both Verlander and Kluber have a better xFIP.
Why'd you bold and italicize "significantly"? 33 IP is not a significant number, yet less than half that is enough to tip the scales in favor of Snell over Sale?
Not a subscriber, so no idea what those tables say.
That's all pretty vague, especially when you're talking about a lefty. A team's overall .800 OPS doesn't really mean the same when it sits its best hitters, right? What matters is the quality of the batters actually faced. To that end, BP keeps those numbers. The overall OPS of the hitters Snell and Verlander have faced is each .743.Snell is the only one of the contenders who had to make multiple starts against all of the most potent offenses in the league. The AL has been a two-tiered league this year, with five beast offenses--not coincidentally, the five playoff teams--pretty clearly separated from the pack. Here's how many starts each of the six contenders in the comparison link had to make against those top 5 offenses:
Sale 5
Snell 11
Kluber 5
Bauer 4
Verlander 6
Cole 8
Cole is the only one who had to make more than about half as many starts as Snell against the league's top offenses -- and 5 of those 8 were against Oakland, the weakest of the bunch. Snell had to face the Sox four times, and the Yankees three times; none of the others had to face either team more than twice. You might think, "well, at least he got to pitch to the bad teams a lot too," but not so: just twice vs. the O's and once vs. Toronto.
Where do you find that information? EDIT: nm, I see it. Not clear if fangraphs' RA9-WAR does, though.BBref's WAR factors this in; Fangraphs' apparently does not. When you talk about luck, this needs to be in the discussion along with BABIP.
I'd call it an accelerated ST formula in the sense that pitchers typically get 6-7 outings (not always starts) to progressively build pitch counts in spring training. I think the difference is that in spring training, the pitchers typically are coming off 4-5 months of inactivity whereas Sale is ramping up after just a month of inactivity. I think they're counting on him having retained at least some of his pitch count stamina from earlier in the year, allowing him to get up to speed a little sooner now than he might in March.Curious about the buildup of Sale to be ready for the Post Season. So he has 2 more starts and presumably a sim game or lots of bullpen throwing. Not paying much attention to Spring Training - how does this progression compare to a normal Spring? Does everyone think they are basically using that ST formula to build him up to a normal PC?
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/calculating-war-pitchers/Not a subscriber, so no idea what those tables say.
That's all pretty vague, especially when you're talking about a lefty. A team's overall .800 OPS doesn't really mean the same when it sits its best hitters, right? What matters is the quality of the batters actually faced. To that end, BP keeps those numbers. The overall OPS of the hitters Snell and Verlander have faced is each .743.
Where do you find that information? EDIT: nm, I see it. Not clear if fangraphs' RA9-WAR does, though.
Our version of WAR does not adjust for opponent strength.
One can reasonably quibble with the exact baselines used here, but WAR is explicitly designed to account for this sort of difference.I was talking in WAR terms, i.e., without reference to actual game outcomes. I just meant that by making more starts, Snell had brought his way-above-average performance to bear on more of his team's games than Sale has brought his way-way-above-average performance, and that this might make him more valuable in a way that I'm not sure WAR will account for.
So in a quick-and-dirty attempt to go into the quality of opposition argument, I took bbref data for every batter faced by Sale, Snell and Verlander. I selected OPS (just because) and for any batter that had fewer than 450 PAs I replaced his 'missing' PAs with league average ones. I then took the weighted average of OPS-against for each of the three pitchers (weighted by the PAs each pitcher faced each batter).There's one other thing in Snell's favor that I hadn't considered: FIP, and therefore fWAR, doesn't say anything about strength of opposition AFAICT. And when you look at this factor with relation to the Cy contenders, Snell clearly deserves the biggest bump for it:
BB ref pitcher comparison for 6 Cy contenders
Snell is the only one of the contenders who had to make multiple starts against all of the most potent offenses in the league. The AL has been a two-tiered league this year, with five beast offenses--not coincidentally, the five playoff teams--pretty clearly separated from the pack. Here's how many starts each of the six contenders in the comparison link had to make against those top 5 offenses:
Sale 5
Snell 11
Kluber 5
Bauer 4
Verlander 6
Cole 8
Cole is the only one who had to make more than about half as many starts as Snell against the league's top offenses -- and 5 of those 8 were against Oakland, the weakest of the bunch. Snell had to face the Sox four times, and the Yankees three times; none of the others had to face either team more than twice. You might think, "well, at least he got to pitch to the bad teams a lot too," but not so: just twice vs. the O's and once vs. Toronto.
BBref's WAR factors this in; Fangraphs' apparently does not. When you talk about luck, this needs to be in the discussion along with BABIP.
(It would be interesting to see some of the component rate stats, like BB/9 and HR/9, broken down relative to opposition. Snell's HR/9 of 0.9, for instance, is already respectable in the 2018 environment, but looks even better on a guy who made seven starts against the Sox and Yankees.)
You and everyone else should be more worried about Sale. His fastball velocity has dipped each start since the Baltimore start in August. It went from 98.1 in Baltimore to 96.1 on 9/11 to 94.4 on 9/16 to 93.5 on 9/21. Unless he's holding back velocity like he did in April which is entirely possible, I'm concerned that the shoulder is not up to the point where it needs to be in order to be at his best in October.He was regularly reaching 95 tonight
This strikes me as an adjustment of dubious validity. I understand you're trying to be quick-and-dirty, but Joey Rickard shouldn't somehow be given credit for being a league average hitter for over half of his PA when he has a lifetime .677 OPS. Likewise in the other direction.So in a quick-and-dirty attempt to go into the quality of opposition argument, I took bbref data for every batter faced by Sale, Snell and Verlander. I selected OPS (just because) and for any batter that had fewer than 450 PAs I replaced his 'missing' PAs with league average ones. I then took the weighted average of OPS-against for each of the three pitchers (weighted by the PAs each pitcher faced each batter).
The velocity drop is directly tied to stretching out his innings. I think your latter explanation -- he is holding back a little -- is the correct one. This follows the pattern early in the season. I'll worry when the team gives cause to.You and everyone else should be more worried about Sale. His fastball velocity has dipped each start since the Baltimore start in August.
Let's hope that's all it is. The team won't say anything to the contrary unless they're going to shut him down. I'll worry when we see him in Game 1 and he can't go beyond the 5th inning and his velocity is still low.The velocity drop is directly tied to stretching out his innings. I think your latter explanation -- he is holding back a little -- is the correct one. This follows the pattern early in the season. I'll worry when the team gives cause to.
An odd example as Rickard's OPS is .724 and the league average I used was .732...This strikes me as an adjustment of dubious validity. I understand you're trying to be quick-and-dirty, but Joey Rickard shouldn't somehow be given credit for being a league average hitter for over half of his PA when he has a lifetime .677 OPS. Likewise in the other direction.
Not really an odd example, especially when one of the adjustments you probably should be making is excluding the PAs against the pitcher himself. Rickard had a career OPS of .659 coming into the season, and he has an OPS of .691 against pitchers other than Snell this year, and yet you are crediting him with an OPS of about .730 for the purposes of your exercise. You don't see a problem with that?An odd example as Rickard's OPS is .724 and the league average I used was .732...
The idea was how to deal with SSS problems. I figured those that had very few PAs shouldn't pollute the weighted average with 0.000 or 2.000 type OPS.
Lowest velocity since April. I'm worried for sure.Let's hope that's all it is. The team won't say anything to the contrary unless they're going to shut him down. I'll worry when we see him in Game 1 and he can't go beyond the 5th inning and his velocity is still low.
If he's throwing 94 with a change and nasty slider, he should still be a terrific pitcher. But yes, cause for concern.Lowest velocity since April. I'm worried for sure.
Look around, we're all with you on the ledge. I cannot think of any spin on this that is not awful, or a flat out lie.Ok, so...who is walking me off a ledge? 90 MPH and no command whatsoever...
In a completely meaningless game with a D- lineup out there, a guy who has been working himself back slowly and deliberately isn't out there throwing absolute bullets?Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 9m9 minutes ago
A bunch of Sale changeups have been categorized as fastballs on nesn that inning, he's actually throwing 50% changeups so far. He had hardly been throwing it all year until he threw a bunch his last start as well. Maybe trying to iron out a 3-pitch mix before the playoffs?
I mean he’s been babied for 6 weeks now, it’s obvious they have some concern about something. Then his starts go from 100 to 96 to 91. Saying it’s “insane” to be concerned is silly.In a completely meaningless game with a D- lineup out there, a guy who has been working himself back slowly and deliberately isn't out there throwing absolute bullets?
Shocker.
The reactionary panic from the first few replies today is insane.
It literally is insane.I mean he’s been babied for 6 weeks now, it’s obvious they have some concern about something. Then his starts go from 100 to 96 to 91. Saying it’s “insane” to be concerned is silly.
Maybe he’s fine, but it’s certainly fair game to be worried.
He wasn't the Chris Sale we saw all season before the original injury, or even between the two DL stints. Sure, we don't know why yet, but there's reason for concern.7 K 0 BB 2 H thru 4 dear god he sucks!