Glavine Sucks
 

I think the braves figured why try to get a run or 2 off the mets when they can get 500 by giving them glavine, Man he was a joke against Florida yesterday.

Now I only looked at the box score but the box score doesn't seem all that bad for the guy. 6IP, 4R, 3ER isn't THAT bad. He is 39 though.

Just wait till he plays AZ. I'm sure he'll find a way to pitch a perfect game against my DBacks.

6IP and 3ER is actually statistically considered a "Quality start" - which is some stat some random writer made up that some people use.

A quality start is when a pitcher goes 6 innings or more and gives up 3 earned runs or less.

Yeah, Glavine isn't bad, just average-ish nowadays. He was hurt 3 years ago when the new strike zone, which emphasized a greater vertical strike zone at the expense of the horizontal one, and had a bad year (you may notice he lives - lives! - on the outside corner). Then he adjusted, but that change combined with his aging have begun to slowly but surely erode his skills.

Don't get me started on the concept of a quality start, I hate that subject. Few would describe a 4.50 ERA starting pitcher as a 'quality pitcher'

Also, I want to add that more and more I am starting to hate the concept of earned runs. Pitchers should be able to pitch around the errors of their fielders to some extent. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd prefer total runs allowed but there has to be a much more valuable midpoint.

For example, runner on second, 1 out. Batter hits it to the 2B who throws to the 1B. Ball isn't caught and runner on second scores. I can see that you don't hold that run against the pitcher.

Next example:

Two out, runner on second. Fly ball to RF, who drops it. Runner scores, batter ends up on 1B. Pitcher allows a HR. ERA doesn't count any of those. I think the pitcher should be off the hook for the first one but charged ERs for the other two.

In other words, runs that score on a play that is botched should not count. However the batter that reaches on error and any subsequent runs (assuming no more errors) should count.

I agree with you completely, Kutulu, regarding unearned runs. Given the absolutely haphazard way errors are assigned, and the arbitrary manner in which they affect what becomes an "earned" or "unearned" run, it is time pitchers are evaluated by total RA.

Many sabermetricians have actually been doing this for years. Judging a pitcher's RA rather than ERA has been shown, consistently, to be a better measure of performance.

wouldn't RA be useful over ERA only insofar as you standardized among the team somehow? you alluded to runs that weren't at all the P's fault...if some team just has 8 fat toads fielding, they may allow a ton of UER as a team, and finding some sort of "base" figure (aw, crap...bad pun) to use for calculations for their pitchers would eliminate some of the uncertainty and allow for some of those runs that weren't the pitcher's fault in any way, shape or form.

i enjoy BIPA (BA-against on balls put in play) and DIPS ERA's (defense-independent ERA)? i get more out of those than i think i'd get out of just runs allowed, b/c it gives an idea about who should be on base in the first place. it also seems like it'd be a good predictor of future performance (depending on the defensive changes made by the team and amount of "luck" that goes into D). al leiter, jake peavy, and carlos zambrano (?!?) had the biggest hikes in ERA if defense is taken out. leiter went up 1.6, peavy .94 (it's done by % increase, so peavy's absurd 2.27 ERA goes up 41%), and zambrano goes up .93. among the bottom 6 (those least helped by their D) were derek lowe (predictable, with his high grounder totals and low k's), jason johnson, sid ponson, bonderman, lieber, and lackey. kris benson's also up there.

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm
Thought I'd also share this interesting article on quality starts. it's old as hell, but back in the day, apparently 5.7% of starts in this eight year period fit the "exactly 6ip 3er" mold. if you don't wanna read it, it basically argues that in the aggregate, it's an effective statistic, though it has an arbitrary dividing line.

MLB rules seem to indicate otherwise. the guy who hit the HR would've conceivably hit it regardless of situation, so his run is earned. The other two are unearned, because but for the fielder's error, both would've been erased.

I like DIPS, however it is very unfriendly to extreme groundball pitchers who don't K many batters.

Yeah, DIPS is hard on those extreme groundballers, but then, it's sort of a semantic question, isn't it? What do we regard as "valuable?" Is a groundball pitcher whose home park is artificial turf with a terrible fielding team "valuable," just put in a poor situation? Or does a groundball pitcher only attain value when pitching with a better than average defensive team?

I guess the question is, is a groundball pitcher valuable in a vacuum, or only in the right situation? Take player A, who is a groundball pitcher of approximately the same talent as player B, who strikes out a bunch of guys but gives up a lot of extra base hits. On a poor fielding team, A may actually be a bad pitcher, while he becomes valuable on a good fielding team, and vice-versa for pitcher B. Is value context dependence?

I don't know, I'm babbling...does any of this make any sense?

glavine is old, he's been in the league for like what, 14 years? the mets love their old pitchers though, at least mo vaughn retired though...

You're making sense and I understand what you are saying. I wasn't saying DIPS is bad in any way, just that we need to understand it's limitations and what types of pitchers for which it won't predict reliable results.

You are partially right there. Examples from the mlb rule book (scroll down to the section on earned runs):

This is exactly why the concept of ER's is screwed up.

It is more then era, he doesn t get the win. no matter how decent your era you still need the win. a pitcher needs to set the pace and Glavine has been weak in leadership when he pitches (not in the club house)

Weak in leadership when he pitches? What the hell does that even mean? A pitcher doesn't have leadership on the mound, he has his pitches. Glavine has been experiencing a slow, steady decline as a pitcher, but not because of some undefinable, ludicrous leadership vacuum.

I think Andruw Jones was a large reason to Glavine's success

I think a consistently generous outside corner, consistently above-averge defensive teams, and a great pitchers park are all large reasons for Glavine's success. But he's still one of the greats of the 90s.

It's like the elusive 'veteran presence' that PR guys rave about. God I hate that expression.

Leo Mazzone had something to do with it too. Everything he touches turns to gold and a lot of pitchers end up sucking after they leave Atl.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add Mazzone to my reason for Glavine's success. Good catch, kutulu.

i think the andruw jones thing is irrelevant here because

1) he's a fat toad with the maturity of a 14 year old, so while he makes amazing looking plays, he also misses plays others would make

and 2) mike cameron and carlos beltran. uh...between jones, these two, edmonds, and torii hunter, that's basically the five premier defensive CF's in the game. glavine shouldn't be hurting for numbers with that behind him (compared to andruw, anyway) and when you throw in the fact glavine is in a MUUUUUUCH better pitchers park at shea than ATL, age and/or mazzone is what's left, but andruw definitely isn't the problem.

I have to disagree, even though those are all great outfielders, I still believe Andruw Jones is a major factor. You mentioned missing plays, but that guy is always in the 99% when it comes to success, so unless those are spotlighted I don't think that that's a huge downturn.

I'll add this though, Rafael furcal I believe is a major reason also. Yes he commits a lot of errors, but that's what happens when you can cover the range he does. The balls he try to play would be a instant hit for a majority of other infielders. Defensively the braves have an incredible mid field and it really helps their pitchers. I believe Leo Mazzone knows this, so along he isn't shy from telling the pitchers to throw hittible balls that would be safe for the fielders.

Glavine was that type of pitcher, he didn't have stuff that would tear you down and he isn't a strikeout king. He either hit the corners, or made you hit it to a fielder, and with Atlanta's strong fielding he got better and better as he was here.

i don't think furcal explains glavine's success either. he didn't come to ATL till 2000, so he only played 3 years with glavine (and missed half a season). while braves fans will remember walt weiss for one sensational play, he was hardly spectacular, and jeff blauser didn't set the world on fire either. the braves have never had a particularly impressive defensive unit. it's often been steady, but i can't think of any braves winning gold gloves (andruw aside) unless big cat got one while he was there. his fpct's the years with glavine there were 950 970 and 963, and while your "he gets to balls others don't" argument may apply, it's only an error if it shouldn't have been a hit anyway, or if furcal allows an extra base by chuckin it toward the dugout.

furcal played half a season in 2001, but would've been 19th in fpct. his range factor would be 16th, and that's possibly skewed in his favor by braves pitchers putting more balls on the ground. his 828 zone rating (which actually rates balls fielded in a given area) would beat only FOUR shortstops in MLB for '01. the range factor was up in '02, but zone rating and fielding pct were among the worst around.

i do think a player with his range gets unfairly tagged with errors, but he also takes gambles that lead to more trouble. if you put a statue at short, Hit-X gets through for a single. with furcal, he makes a tough play to field it, then heaves it toward bobby cox in the dugout, and suddenly that guy's on 2nd. he'll leave ATL after this year, and he'll be missed, but he's gonna get paid a lot of money to do the spectacular even though he often can't do the routine.

The problem with evaluating defense is that the metrics used to measure their performance are subjective and unreliable. Because of this, people get reputations attached to them that stay long after they lose their abilities. Furthermore, if a player is a light hitter, they are more likely to get that "great fielder" tag put on them.

Take Royce Clayton. Dude just can't hit. Maybe he used to be an excellent fielder but he's just average now. However the DBacks got him because of his reputation and now he blocks a much better overall player.

Now Andrew Jones, on the other hand is one of the best offensive CFs in the game... and he's still under 30. He's also a very good defensive CF.

see...maybe i'm jumping the gun here, but even though he's under 30, i feel like andruw's already wearing down. there's no doubt ATL would love to get out from the 39m they owe him for the next three years, but i don't even see him as the spectacular fielder he once was. he never developed any grasp of the strike zone, and while there aren't many big-bat CF's in the game, there are plenty with defined roles i'd take over jones. maybe i'm jaded from spending over half a decade waiting for him to make The Leap, but he looks like he's already tailing off a little bit, and his hitting has never come remotely close to matching his ability.

no, blankgold4, you are right. Most defensive metrics have Andruw Jones sliding from supercalifragilistic defensively a few years ago to merely really damn good now.

I guess you have never played baseball huh?

Of course a pitcher leads his team when he pitches; he sets the rythem of the whole game.
The pitcher and catcher set the pace for the rest of the team and the team has to play off their lead.

how meaningless. declining skills >>>>> weak in leadership when he pitches.