Can't you wait until after next weekend to write this!!

I'm waiting to see if they let Buehrle slide across the tarp if they coat the tarp with oil beforehand.

I'm waiting to see if they let Buehrle slide across the tarp if they coat the tarp with oil beforehand.

 

As long as he keeps some of that oil on his fingers for when he pitches...

As long as he keeps some of that oil on his fingers for when he pitches...

Can that really hurt?

These could be the least exciting cub sox series ever.

 

 

Ronny Paulion was 0-7 but he hada 4.03 ERA.

 

That dude's got one hell of a fastball.

That dude's got one hell of a fastball.

 

He must be terrible at locating his pitches. His stuff does does not translate to his numbers at all. Even his xFIP is 4.46.

Cy Silva at it again. We'll see him this weekend. Never in a million years did I think he'd be an All-Star.

Cy Silva at it again. We'll see him this weekend. Never in a million years did I think he'd be an All-Star.

 

If they keep this lead, he'll be 8-0. Who would have thought they would get that production from him, yet still be 5 games under .500?

Silva took the fluke baton from Randy Wells this year. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets crushed in interleague though, he's maybe the ultimate example of what a move to the NL can do for a pitcher. That league is an absolute joke, which makes the Cubs struggles even more surprising.

Edited June 7, 201015 yr by whitesoxfan101

Silva took the fluke baton from Randy Wells this year. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets crushed in interleague though, he's maybe the ultimate example of what a move to the NL can do for a pitcher. That league is an absolute joke, which makes the Cubs struggles even more surprising.

This argument again? The same one I see used for Peavy?

 

Let's not be ridiculous. A pitcher changes leagues and his ERA changes by 2 or 3 full points, and you seriously think that's because of the league change? If the AL was that much better, they'd win 95% of the interleague games, not 53% of them. The AL is better, but not even close to enough to solely justify Peavy's downfall or Silva's renaissance.

 

This argument again? The same one I see used for Peavy?

 

Let's not be ridiculous. A pitcher changes leagues and his ERA changes by 2 or 3 full points, and you seriously think that's because of the league change? If the AL was that much better, they'd win 95% of the interleague games, not 53% of them. The AL is better, but not even close to enough to solely justify Peavy's downfall or Silva's renaissance.

 

Completely disagree with you

Completely disagree with you

Results say otherwise.

 

Seriously, what is the AL win pct vs NL the past few seasons? I don't recall off hand but have seen it before, its certainly between .500 and .600, probably on the lower half of that range. Its not .800 or .900, which is what you are suggesting. Not to mention that taking a few specific cases to make the point in a league of a thousand players is statistically useless. I could easily find a couple guys traded the other way who did better in the AL, but that also proves nothing. Overall results, which are a much more complete reflection of reality, says that the AL is a little better than the NL. Not 2-3 full ERA runs better.

 

Looked it up - .566 AL vs NL in the past five complete seasons, goes down to .530's if you go to 10 years. This year so far, the NL is actually winning (in an admitedly small scale): .476.

 

Looked it up - .566 AL vs NL in the past five complete seasons, goes down to .530's if you go to 10 years. This year so far, the NL is actually winning (in an admitedly small scale): .476.

A .566 winning percentage would have won 2 divisions last year. That's basically the Rockies winning percentage last year. That's really good. That's a 92-70 average record over 162.

A .566 winning percentage would have won 2 divisions last year. That's basically the Rockies winning percentage last year. That's really good. That's a 92-70 average record over 162.

That's because the AL is better. Never said otherwise. I just think its silly to point to someone going from Cy Young level to really bad, or vice versa, and say that's how much better the AL is. It makes no sense. If the difference was that big, the WPct would be absurdly high, like .800 or .900, and no pitcher could ever go NL to AL and not end up being released. That's obviously not the case.

 

 

On a team by team basis the variables are too great. The Yankees beating the Phillies is not the same as the Cardinals beating the Royals.

 

Look at the pitchers that have changed leagues. I would say Halladay, Vazquez, Peavy, Silva, etc. and compare the change in ERA from last year to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people take the AL vs. NL comparisons way too far. Yes, the AL is better, like NorthSide has said, but not infinitely better where a good NL pitcher will become absolute crap every time he comes to the AL and vice versa.

Edited June 7, 201015 yr by chw42

Some people take the AL vs. NL comparisons way too far. Yes, the AL is better, like NorthSide has said, but not infinitely better where a good NL pitcher will become absolute crap every time he comes to the AL and vice versa.

 

Really? Can you name 3 pitchers over the last 5 years who went from the NL to the AL and their numbers got better?

Really? Can you name 3 pitchers over the last 5 years who went from the NL to the AL and their numbers got better?

 

Kevin Millwood, Kyle Davies, and Gavin Floyd

Kevin Millwood, Kyle Davies, and Gavin Floyd

 

Maybe there should be a criteria. Millwood did have a better year in 2005 (his first year in the AL) than 2004 (his last year in the NL). But clearly his best years came while in the NL. Davies has sucked in both leagues save 2008. Not really a good example. I don't think Gavin Floyd is valid. He had about 20 total starts in three years in the NL. I'm talking guys that were average or even below average in the NL over multiple seasons and then made the switch to the AL and got considerably better. In the last two years alone we've seen Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Jon Garland and Carlos Silva go from replacement level in the AL to #3 starter caliber in the NL. I think will be able to add Dontrelle Willis to that list, as he just recently tossed 6 shutout innings in his first start in the NL.

Edited June 8, 201015 yr by Jordan4life

Really? Can you name 3 pitchers over the last 5 years who went from the NL to the AL and their numbers got better?

 

That's not my argument. My argument was that you can't just go from one league to another and become infinitely better or infinitely worse. There will be gains and losses, but it shouldn't be anything extremely drastic, like 2 runs on your ERA.

That's not my argument. My argument was that you can't just go from one league to another and become infinitely better or infinitely worse. There will be gains and losses, but it shouldn't be anything extremely drastic, like 2 runs on your ERA.

I can't find the article any more, but Verducci did the math a couple years ago and found that the average change in ERA for switching leagues was about a run, and that it was distributed, such that some guys saw larger declines and others didn't. In general though, saying that the difference upon switching leagues is about 1 run in ERA isn't a bad guess.

I can't find the article any more, but Verducci did the math a couple years ago and found that the average change in ERA for switching leagues was about a run, and that it was distributed, such that some guys saw larger declines and others didn't. In general though, saying that the difference upon switching leagues is about 1 run in ERA isn't a bad guess.

 

So a mediocre AL pitcher (4.50 ERA) can become a #1 or #2 in the NL (3.50 ERA)?

 

I think a half run is a better estimation.

 

Edited June 8, 201015 yr by chw42

So a mediocre AL pitcher (4.50 ERA) can become a #1 or #2 in the NL (3.50 ERA)?

 

I think a half run is a better estimation.

On average, it was a full run, or close to 0.9 runs, something like that.

 

After searching a bit more, it seems like it depends a lot on who does the analysis. Here's the NYT quoting 0.9 runs, , here's hardballtimes quoting 0.41 runs.

On average, it was a full run, or close to 0.9 runs, something like that.

 

After searching a bit more, it seems like it depends a lot on who does the analysis. Here's the NYT quoting 0.9 runs, , here's hardballtimes quoting 0.41 runs.

 

It looks like the former one took only the 57 starters that had at least 20 starts (ie the relatively competent) while the latter used everyone (414 for his purposes). I would imagine that if you truly and completely suck, the difference in leagues doesn't affect your results a whole lot (just a theory though). The latter also used multi-year statistics, which probably eliminates some of the variation.

Why can Milwaukee not hit the Cubs in Milwaukee this season?