Return to Baseball Leftovers

Abreu vs. Manny

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby davidmarver » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:56 pm

LBJackal wrote:First of all, he was extremely lucky last year that his ERA was that low, given his K's, BB's, and HR. It should have been around 2.75 without the luck factor (this is a formula I have; it's not off the top of my head). Then I figure he won't be as dominant as last year because it's tough for anybody to repeat that, et alone a guy as young and unproven as Peavy. So I have him at 2.97. He could be lower but he could also be higher and I'd pay for him thinking his ERA would be 2.97 in '05.


Peavy has a low amount of walks and more than a K an inning. He only gave up 13 HR. Opponents slugged just .359 against him and he had more groundball outs than flyball outs. Nothing here that goes against him repeating.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Postby LBJackal » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:05 pm

OK lets say he repeats what he did last year. If he gives up those same K's, BB's, and HR's, he'll probably post a 2.75 ERA. The formula isn't exact, but it's usually pretty accurate. There's no way, even if he pitches as well as he did last year, that he'll have an ERA close to 2.27.
Image

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 9018
(Past Year: -178)
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Hotel Yorba

Postby Secret Avatar » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:47 pm

I agree with Jackal on this one. Compare Peavey's ERA to his WHIP and other stats that measure hits and walks, and you'll find that they don't really jibe. A 2.27 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP?! Compare any other pitcher with an ERA that low, and you'll find a much lower WHIP. By contrast, compare pitchers with WHIP around 1.21 and you'll see ERAs around 3.0. Indeed, look at Peavey's own 2003 numbers, with a slightly higher WHIP (1.31) and much higher ERA (4.11).

How did Peavey manage a 2.27 ERA with such a comparatively high WHIP? Simple: he stranded an abnormally high number of runners on base. That's a statistical anomaly. Put another way, he got very lucky. It won't hold up over time. It can't. In fact, it might not have held up even in 2004, had Peavey not missed so many games (only 166 IP).

Don't get me wrong. I like Peavey and would be happy to have him on my team. But anyone who values him based on a 2.27 ERA in 2004 is betting against mathematics and is likely to be very disappointed. His projections for 2005 should assume an ERA of around 3.0 for 2004. Add to that his injury risks (he missed a lot of games last year with elbow injuries), and you're looking at a nice specimen but nothing to get everyone so hot and bothered over. IMO, he's hugely over-valued for 2005 based in large part on his 2.27 ERA.
I am the Master. Don't question the Master. Just do what he says and be proud.
Secret Avatar
General Manager
General Manager

Cafeholic
Posts: 3233
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Amazinz » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:55 pm

I think most people would agree that a repeat of that ERA over 200 IP is unlikely. Davey is just blinded by a man-crush. :-D
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby davidmarver » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:58 pm

Secret Avatar wrote:I agree with Jackal on this one. Compare Peavey's ERA to his WHIP and other stats that measure hits and walks, and you'll find that they don't really jibe. A 2.27 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP?! Compare any other pitcher with an ERA that low, and you'll find a much lower WHIP. By contrast, compare pitchers with WHIP around 1.21 and you'll see ERAs around 3.0. Indeed, look at Peavey's own 2003 numbers, with a slightly higher WHIP (1.31) and much higher ERA (4.11).

How did Peavey manage a 2.27 ERA with such a comparatively high WHIP? Simple: he stranded an abnormally high number of runners on base. That's a statistical anomaly. Put another way, he got very lucky. It won't hold up over time. It can't. In fact, it might not have held up even in 2004, had Peavey not missed so many games (only 166 IP).

Don't get me wrong. I like Peavey and would be happy to have him on my team. But anyone who values him based on a 2.27 ERA in 2004 is betting against mathematics and is likely to be very disappointed. His projections for 2005 should assume an ERA of around 3.0 for 2004. Add to that his injury risks (he missed a lot of games last year with elbow injuries), and you're looking at a nice specimen but nothing to get everyone so hot and bothered over. IMO, he's hugely over-valued for 2005 based in large part on his 2.27 ERA.


He only missed 5 starts...and it was injury not injuries. It isn't because he strands an abnormal amount of runners, it's because he allows abnormal amounts of extra-base hits.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Postby LBJackal » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:00 pm

davidmarver wrote:
Secret Avatar wrote:I agree with Jackal on this one. Compare Peavey's ERA to his WHIP and other stats that measure hits and walks, and you'll find that they don't really jibe. A 2.27 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP?! Compare any other pitcher with an ERA that low, and you'll find a much lower WHIP. By contrast, compare pitchers with WHIP around 1.21 and you'll see ERAs around 3.0. Indeed, look at Peavey's own 2003 numbers, with a slightly higher WHIP (1.31) and much higher ERA (4.11).

How did Peavey manage a 2.27 ERA with such a comparatively high WHIP? Simple: he stranded an abnormally high number of runners on base. That's a statistical anomaly. Put another way, he got very lucky. It won't hold up over time. It can't. In fact, it might not have held up even in 2004, had Peavey not missed so many games (only 166 IP).

Don't get me wrong. I like Peavey and would be happy to have him on my team. But anyone who values him based on a 2.27 ERA in 2004 is betting against mathematics and is likely to be very disappointed. His projections for 2005 should assume an ERA of around 3.0 for 2004. Add to that his injury risks (he missed a lot of games last year with elbow injuries), and you're looking at a nice specimen but nothing to get everyone so hot and bothered over. IMO, he's hugely over-valued for 2005 based in large part on his 2.27 ERA.


He only missed 5 starts...and it was injury not injuries. It isn't because he strands an abnormal amount of runners, it's because he allows abnormal amounts of extra-base hits.


Exactly. And SP's do not have very much control over allowing XBH, or stranding runners so when you neutralize the abnormal amount of XBH and stranded runners, 2.27 was a fluke... ~2.75 is what he should have posted.
Image

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 9018
(Past Year: -178)
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Hotel Yorba

Postby davidmarver » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:06 pm

LBJackal wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
Secret Avatar wrote:I agree with Jackal on this one. Compare Peavey's ERA to his WHIP and other stats that measure hits and walks, and you'll find that they don't really jibe. A 2.27 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP?! Compare any other pitcher with an ERA that low, and you'll find a much lower WHIP. By contrast, compare pitchers with WHIP around 1.21 and you'll see ERAs around 3.0. Indeed, look at Peavey's own 2003 numbers, with a slightly higher WHIP (1.31) and much higher ERA (4.11).

How did Peavey manage a 2.27 ERA with such a comparatively high WHIP? Simple: he stranded an abnormally high number of runners on base. That's a statistical anomaly. Put another way, he got very lucky. It won't hold up over time. It can't. In fact, it might not have held up even in 2004, had Peavey not missed so many games (only 166 IP).

Don't get me wrong. I like Peavey and would be happy to have him on my team. But anyone who values him based on a 2.27 ERA in 2004 is betting against mathematics and is likely to be very disappointed. His projections for 2005 should assume an ERA of around 3.0 for 2004. Add to that his injury risks (he missed a lot of games last year with elbow injuries), and you're looking at a nice specimen but nothing to get everyone so hot and bothered over. IMO, he's hugely over-valued for 2005 based in large part on his 2.27 ERA.


He only missed 5 starts...and it was injury not injuries. It isn't because he strands an abnormal amount of runners, it's because he allows abnormal amounts of extra-base hits.


Exactly. And SP's do not have very much control over allowing XBH, or stranding runners so when you neutralize the abnormal amount of XBH and stranded runners, 2.27 was a fluke... ~2.75 is what he should have posted.


OR...there was an abnormally high number of fluke singles, just barely dropping in or getting through. That would bring down the WHIP to a number that would correspond to the typical 2.27 ERA pitcher.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Postby Pokey » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:07 pm

Secret Avatar wrote:Manny will likely post better hitting numbers, but he doesn't steal. He's also two years older, with a terrible work ethic. If I had to choose who would decline first, I'd say Manny no question.


this is a common misconception about Manny. The guy may be a space-case, but he's always the first one in the batting cages. I say, Manny's work ethic is nothing to worry about.
Pokey
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1140
(Past Year: -4)
Joined: 6 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Vermont

Postby Secret Avatar » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:08 pm

"He only missed 5 starts...and it was injury not injuries."

Yes, only one injury. But whenever a young pitcher has an injury to this throwing arm, that's not a good thing. That's like a porn star having problems with his pen!s.

"It isn't because he strands an abnormal amount of runners, it's because he allows abnormal amounts of extra-base hits."

Um, I'm not sure I follow this at all. Even if it did make sense, that was true in 2004 but not 2003? Like I said, his own ERA and WHIP from 2003 show how abnormal a combo of 2.27/1.21 is. Look at any other pitcher with an ERA under 2.5 and you'll find WHIPs under 1.0. Much, much lower than 1.21. Guys with 1.21 WHIPs have ERAs around 3.0. Don't believe me? I challenge you to find one other pitcher, EVER, to have an ERA under 2.3 and a WHIP above 1.20. It just doesn't happen because it's hugely anomalous, and with work itself out over time as a matter of mathematical certainty.
Last edited by Secret Avatar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am the Master. Don't question the Master. Just do what he says and be proud.
Secret Avatar
General Manager
General Manager

Cafeholic
Posts: 3233
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davidmarver » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:09 pm

Secret Avatar wrote:"He only missed 5 starts...and it was injury not injuries."

Yes, only one injury. But whenever a young pitcher has an injury to this throwing arm, that's not a good thing. That's like a porn star having problems with his pen!s.

"It isn't because he strands an abnormal amount of runners, it's because he allows abnormal amounts of extra-base hits."

Um, I'm not sure I follow this at all. Even if it did make sense, that was true in 2004 but not 2003? Like I said, his own ERA and WHIP from 2003 show how abnormal a combo of 2.27/1.21 is. Look at any other pitcher with an ERA under 2.5 and you'll find WHIPs under 1.0. Much, much lower than 1.21. Guys with 1.21 WHIPs have ERAs around 3.0


It means he allows singles instead of doubles.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests

cron