Reading through a few of the free articles over at BP, I found this gem.

 

In the forthcoming Baseball Prospectus 2005, Keith Woolner has revamped our reliever evaluation tools, introducing a measure called WXRL (Win Expectation, adjusted for Replacement level and Lineup) which combines leverage (the game state, including inning, outs, baserunners, and margin) and performance. The top WXRLs since 1972, according to Woolner:

 

Year Pitcher              IP    WXRL

1973 John Hiller        125.3   9.640

2003 Eric Gagne          82.3   9.254

1984 Willie Hernandez   140.3   9.155

1996 Troy Percival       74.0   8.385

1998 Trevor Hoffman      73.0   8.318

2002 Eric Gagne          82.3   8.247

2000 Keith Foulke        88.0   8.219

1980 Dan Quisenberry    128.3   8.182

2004 Brad Lidge          94.7   8.132

1977 Rich Gossage       133.0   8.119

2004 Eric Gagne          82.3   8.001

 

Here's a link to Hiller's great season -- http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Khillj1010081973.htm

 

and foulke's 2000 -- http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Kfoulk0010052000.htm

 

Not looking to start up any argument here, just caught me by surprise that Foulke's 2000 was comparable to Gagne's 2002 and 2004, and among the 10 best performances by a reliever in the last 30 years.

 

 

 

Also, I'm putting money on Gagne pitching 82.1 IP next year.

Edited February 1, 200521 yr by Gene Honda Civic

Thought it was a bad trade when we traded him for koch before koch even threw his first pitch with the white sox.

Someone comes up with a new bulls*** stat, and all it does is lead to another dead horse beating. Great.

Actually i find this stat quite interesting...BP does some great stuff with stats. If nothing else, it introduces us to another evaluation tool.

Gagne 82.3 3 yrs that is a hell of a coincidence.

Reading through a few of the free articles over at BP, I found this gem.

Here's a link to Hiller's great season -- http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Khillj1010081973.htm

 

and foulke's 2000 -- http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Kfoulk0010052000.htm

 

Not looking to start up any argument here, just caught me by surprise that Foulke's 2000 was comparable to Gagne's 2002 and 2004, and among the 10 best performances by a reliever in the last 30 years.

Also, I'm putting money on Gagne pitching 82.1 IP next year.

 

Your sig man!

 

Thought it was a bad trade when we traded him for koch before koch even threw his first pitch with the white sox.

 

Would they have let us use Koch before we sent Foulke to Oakland?

 

I didn't think that was allowed.

Hell Yeah, more evidence that KW needs to be shipped out the door.. Hey JR.. get on the phone to Stoney.. at least we know he can handle the job.. of course we won't get him.. he costs money..

Hell Yeah, more evidence that KW needs to be shipped out the door.. Hey JR.. get on the phone to Stoney.. at least we know he can handle the job.. of course we won't get him.. he costs money..

Be careful. KW has rehabilitated his image somewhat the last two years. Now everyone (well almost) likes the guy. Nevertheless Koch for Foulke will go down as one of the worst trades in MLB baseball history.

ugh I never want to hear about the whole Foulke-Osuna-Marte-Koch thing again. ever. please don't even mention Foulke unless we'll be getting him back. Foulke's last season here, before the All-Star break he was hurt and sucked, regained his stuff, absolutely tore it up after the break with something like 10 appearances with no hits and 20+ innings without a run, and all the while I'm hoping Jerry Manuel puts Foulke back into the closers role, only he doesn't, he gives the ball to Osuna or Marte in the 9th, and while watching those 2 lose the game for us I'm looking on the internet how to tie a quality noose. then we trade a quality closer for Koch, who throws 100 MPH (at the time) but no control or decent second pitch, which is okay when you throw 100. but his velocity dropped to 94, and we waste nearly 2 seasons with Koch, and then trade him to the first team that doesn't hang up the phone immediately when Williams asks if they want Koch.

and while watching those 2 lose the game for us I'm looking on the internet how to tie a quality noose. 

 

 

Nice one. Welcome to soxtalk.

Interesting about Foulke.

Welcome Scott.

Be careful. KW has rehabilitated his image somewhat the last two years. Now everyone (well almost) likes the guy. Nevertheless Koch for Foulke will go down as one of the worst trades in MLB baseball history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When he wins us something higher than 2nd place in the Div.. then I will start to give him respect. and Only then.

it's not like he lost us the division last year...injuries and the lack of a 5th starter did us in. Williams would have a near perfect track record if not for trading Foulke.

it's not like he lost us the division last year...injuries and the lack of a 5th starter did us in.  Williams would have a near perfect track record if not for trading Foulke.

 

For starters...blame could be put on KW for not bringing in a 5th starter for us.

 

Secondly..while I am generally happy with KW's performance as GM...he botched up the David Wells trade(one would wonder why he did his ace from the prior year for another 'ace'...if he knew he was healthy, he would have found a different package of guys). Secondly, I would argue that his Foulke for Koch trade was not his worst...I would argue that his trade for Ritchie was the worst. Fogg has been a mediocre pitcher for Pittsburgh for 2 or 3 years now(far better then what Ritchie produced for us in 1 year), Wells was very solid in 2002, though I believe he has struggled a bit the past two, and Lowe seemed to be a sometimes reliable pitcher out of the pen for us. That trade really hurt.

 

He also traded a young pitcher in Aaron Myette for Royce Clayton, a $4.5 mill bench player for Texas...that trade didn't work out too well for us either. Given, Myette has done nothing in his career in the majors(except start on two consecutive days with Texas or Cleveland, IIRC), but he was a good looking young prospect at the time, and it really was a bad trade.

 

He has messed up here and there, but overall, he has done a very good job. At times, it has been underachieving that has lost us games(like having a 1-2-3 of Loaiza-Buehrle-Colon, or whichever order you prefer...and only winning 86 games with a dynamite offense), or injuries as well(2001 and 2004). All we can do is hope this year is different.

Someone comes up with a new bulls*** stat, and all it does is lead to another dead horse beating.  Great.

 

May I ask why it's a 'bulls***' stat...?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 05:44 PM)

May I ask why it's a 'bulls***' stat...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The games are played on turf and grass, not paper.

Does this new stat take into account how many people were watching the game, and what the decibel level was at the stadium? :rolly

May I ask why it's a 'bulls***' stat...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anything that proves him wrong.. which seems to be almost ever stat.

The games are played on turf and grass, not paper.

 

This is true, but it does not make it bulls***.

Anything that proves him wrong.. which seems to be almost ever stat.

 

You got yourself confused some what.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 06:05 PM)

This is true, but it does not make it bulls***.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should I pay any attention to this stat then? To me it's bulls*** if I don't need to pay attention to it. You just simply can't compare this crap to ERA, WHIP, and strikeout rates.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 06:06 PM)

You got yourself confused some what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're (or should I say "your" :rolly ) arguing with someone who thinks we traded Dave Wickman for Steve Sax, Francisco Cordero for Carl Everett, and thinks we needed Bartolo's 18 wins but high ERA last season, but not McDowell's 13 wins and high ERA when we blew the Wild Card lead back in September of 1996 . :rolly

Why should I pay any attention to this stat then?  To me it's bulls*** if I don't need to pay attention to it.  You just simply can't compare this crap to ERA, WHIP, and strikeout rates.

 

So basically, you don't understand the stat, so it's bulls***.

 

Mmkay.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 1, 2005 -> 06:10 PM)

So basically, you don't understand the stat, so it's bulls***.

 

Mmkay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sigh.

 

You sabermetricians are relentless.

 

Win Expectation, adjusted for Replacement level and Lineup) which combines leverage (the game state, including inning, outs, baserunners, and margin

 

Why stop there? Why not include television ratings, and stadium atmosphere?

You're (or should I say "your" :rolly ) arguing with someone who thinks we traded Dave Wickman for Steve Sax, Francisco Cordero for Carl Everett, and thinks we needed Bartolo's 18 wins but high ERA last season, but not McDowell's 13 wins and high ERA when we blew the Wild Card lead back in September of 1996 . :rolly

Your're. You're means you are. A nun at St. Rita taught me to remember it by saying your pants are on fire, not you are pants on fire. 40 years and I still remember it, cause she'll come back and rap me one it if forget!