Hey Cuse, Here are your numbers

[imb]

With the help of our friend http://www.baseball-reference.com, I went through every game that Mark Prior allowed four or more runs in during his career.

 

Twenty four times in his career with Chicago, Mark Prior allowed at least four runs. After allowing the fourth run, here are his numbers.

 

42.2IP 41H 22R 49K 25BB 3HBP

 

4.69 ERA 1.61 WHIP

 

Looking at those stats, everything looks completely normal except for the walks. That shouldn't be a surprise though, because if a good pitcher allows four or more runs, something is off. In Prior's case, it looks like more often than not it was lack of control.

 

So apparently, during his career, after allowing his fourth run, his ERA was just over 4.00. Makes sense, right?

 

Notes:

His career ERA is 3.51.

His career k/9 is 10.37. After allowing his fourth run, he averaged 10.35.

There were 24 games in which he allowed 4+ runs. On 11 occasions, that fourth run scored on a home run.

At the end of 2003, his ERA after allowing 4+ runs was 3.88. After 2004, it was 3.84. Before the injuries kicked in, he seems to have rebounded quite well after allowing his fourth run.

 

Someone who is smarter than I am (I'll get out my Meph pager) can go through these numbers and pull more meaning out of them. Obviously we don't know how other pitchers fared in games that they allowed 4+ runs in, so I'm not sure what this all means. The 4.69 ERA would have placed him 32nd in the NL last year. I'm not sure what ERA tells you though 42.2 innings, but if there are 16 teams in the National League, and each has five starters, that equals 80 pitchers. So after 4+ runs, he falls somewhere in the middle of the pack. The 3.84 ERA he had after 2004 would have been 15th in the NL (right behind Ted Lilly).

 

Until the injuries set in, it looks like he was really good after allowing his fourth run. In 2005 and 2006 he wasn't nearly as good. In 2005, however, there were only three instances of 4+ runs and the numbers are skewed by a game against the Astros that he allowed three runs in 1/3 of an inning. He only pitched 4 2/3 innings in 2005, and three of the five runs he surrendered came in 1/3 of an inning.

[imb]

June 1, 2002

Top of the 4th

Recorded two outs

3 hits, 2 runs

1 K

 

0.6IP 3H 2R 1K 0BB

 

June 29, 2002

Bottom of the 5th – allows 2R HR to Frank Thomas, 4-3 White Sox

Records three outs

0 hits, 0 runs

1K

 

1.6 3H 2R 2K 0BB

 

July 30, 2002

Top of the 6th – allows 2R HR to Bubba Trammel, 5-4 Cubs

Records one out

2 H, 1 R

0K, 0BB

 

2IP 5H 3R 2K 0BB

 

August 21, 2002

Bottom of the 4th – Daryle Ward doubles to leftfield, driving in Biggio

Records three outs

3H, 0R

1K, 0BB

 

3IP 8H 3R 3K 0BB

 

April 14, 2003

Top of the 5th – Felipe Lopez singles in two unearned runs, 4-1 Reds

Records four outs

2H, 1R

2K, 1BB

 

4.1IP 10H 4R 5K 1BB

 

 

May 12, 2003

Bottom of the 4th – allows 2R HR to Brooks Kieshnick, 9-4 Cubs

Records 7 outs

1H, 0R

4K, 3BB

 

6.2IP 11H 4R 9K 4BB

 

May 23, 2003

Bottom of the 1st – allows 3R HR to Jose Vizcaino, 6-2 Astros

Records 19 outs

4H, 1R

6K, 2BB

 

13IP 15H 5R 15K 6BB

 

May 28, 2003

Bottom of the 8th – allows RBI double to Aramis Ramirez, 5-4 Cubs

(Note: Prior is pulled immediately after the double.)

 

13IP 15H 5R 15K 6BB

 

July 6, 2003

Top of the 5th – allows RBI single to Jim Edmonds

Records 7 outs

1H, 0R

2K, 0BB

 

15.1IP 16H 5R 17K 6BB

 

July 11, 2003

Bottom of the 4th – allows 2RBI single to Vinny Castilla, 4-1 Braves

Records 4 outs

2H, 2R

0K, 1BB

 

16.2IP 18H 7R 17K 7BB

 

June 9, 2004

Top of the 4th – allows grand slam to Edgar Renteria, 5-0 Cardinals

(Note: Prior is pulled immediately after the home run.)

 

16.2IP 18H 7R 17K 7BB

 

July 6, 2004

Bottom of the 1st – allows 2R HR to K. Ginter, 4-0 Brewers

Records 10 outs

0H, 0R

8K, 3BB

 

20IP 18H 7R 25K 10BB

 

July 30, 2004

Top of the 5th – allows 3R HR to Bobby Abreu, 6-3 Phillies

Records 1 out

1H, 0R

1K, 0BB

 

20.1IP 19H 7R 26K 10BB

 

August 10, 2004

Top of the 3rd – allows 2RBI single to Adam Eaton, 4-2 Padres

Records 1 out

2H, 3R (allowed by Glendon Rusch, charged to Prior.)

1K, 0BB 1HBP

 

20.2IP 21H 10R 27K 10BB 1HBP

 

August 31, 2004

Bottom of the 1st – allows RBI single to Brian Schneider, 4-0 Expos

Records 13 outs

2H, 1R

6K, 3BB

 

25IP 23H 11R 33K 13BB 1HBP

 

September 15, 2004

Top of the 2nd – allows sacrifice fly to Jack Wilson

Records 10 outs

5H, 1R

4K, 0BB

 

28.1IP 28H 12R 37K 13BB 1HBP

 

May 1, 2005

Bottom of the 5th – allows grand slam to Mike Lamb, 5-3 Astros

Records 1 out

1H, 3R

1K, 2BB

 

28.2IP 29H 15R 38K 15BB 1HBP

 

July 7, 2005

Bottom of the 5th – allows 3R HR to Julio Franco, 6-0 Atlanta

Records 0 outs

1H, 0R

0K, 1BB

 

28.2IP 30H 15R 38K 16BB 1HBP

 

August 4, 2005

Bottom of the 1st – allows grand slam to Bobby Abreu

Records 13 outs

3H, 2R

7K, 2BB

 

33IP 33H 17R 45K 18BB 1HBP

 

June 18, 2006

Top of the 1st – allows 3R HR to Carlos Guillen, 4-0 Tigers

Records 10 outs

4H 3R

2K, 1BB, 1HBP

 

36.1IP 37H 20R 47K 19BB 2HBP

 

June 29, 2006

Top of the 6th – allows 2RBI single to Gabe Gross

(Note: Prior is pulled immediately after the single.)

36.1IP 37H 20R 47K 19BB 2HBP

 

July 21, 2006

Bottom of the 2nd – allows 3 RBI double to Marlon Anderson

Records 5 outs

1H, 0R

0K, 2BB

 

38IP 38H 20R 47K 21BB 2HBP

 

July 31, 2006

Top of the 3rd – allows grand slam to Orlando Hudson, 6-1 Diamondbacks

Records 7 outs

1H, 0R

1K, 2BB, 1HBP

 

40.1IP 39H 20R 48K 23BB 3HBP

 

August 10, 2006

Bottom of the 1st – allows sacrifice fly to D. Bell (Kevin Mench scores – unearned run), 4-1 Brewers

Records 7 outs

2H, 2R

1K, 2BB

 

42.2IP 41H 22R 49K 25BB 3HBP

 

4.69 ERA 1.61 WHIP

[CuseCubFan69]

Thanks for the numbers IMB. Interesting numbers, I wonder what his WHIP ranked?

 

I've always been curious to see numbers wise how pitchers react/battle through while having a bad game.

[imb]

His WHIP would have been 41st.

 

Bear in mind that when I say 41st (for WHIP) and 32nd (for ERA), I don't mean that's where he ranked among pitchers who allowed 4+ runs. That's where those numbers would have ranked among the season leaders had those been his season stats.

 

For instance, here are the league average ERAs from 2002-2006

2002 - 4.03

2003 - 4.33

2004 - 4.40

2005 - 4.40

2006 - 4.63

 

So, in games where he allowed less than four runs, he was quite good (duh). In the innings after he allowed his fourth run, he was...average. Do you think that's because he's mentally weak, or because he just didn't have his best stuff? When you look at a pitcher that allows at least four runs, and his ERA after the fourth run is just over 4.00, that seems to indicate that he just didn't have his best stuff that day, not that he completely fell apart.

[CuseCubFan69]

His WHIP would have been 41st.

 

Bear in mind that when I say 41st (for WHIP) and 32nd (for ERA), I don't mean that's where he ranked among pitchers who allowed 4+ runs. That's where those numbers would have ranked among the season leaders had those been his season stats.

 

For instance, here are the league average ERAs from 2002-2006

2002 - 4.03

2003 - 4.33

2004 - 4.40

2005 - 4.40

2006 - 4.63

 

So, in games where he allowed less than four runs, he was quite good (duh). In the innings after he allowed his fourth run, he was...average. Do you think that's because he's mentally weak, or because he just didn't have his best stuff? When you look at a pitcher that allows at least four runs, and his ERA after the fourth run is just over 4.00, that seems to indicate that he just didn't have his best stuff that day, not that he completely fell apart.

 

Very well put. It's probably not his best stuff or other circumstances but you're right, by those numbers he didn't completely fall apart.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wow, impressive, IMB

[Fred Hornkohl]

Wow.... that IMB fella is about half smart !!

[haltz]

When you look at a pitcher that allows at least four runs, and his ERA after the fourth run is just over 4.00, that seems to indicate that he just didn't have his best stuff that day, not that he completely fell apart.

And that he might've thrown 75 pitches, and regardless of how many runs he's given up hitters have a career .798 OPS against him at that point in the game. Prior's splits make it look like he's a guy that needs a little time to settle in, but once a pitch count starts to get up there, I'd say very few pitchers are going to be more effective on average.

 

As the game goes on, the hitter has a progressively greater advantage over the starting pitcher.

Also:

You can indeed tell if a pitcher is off based solely on the results of the first nine batters he faces. Such pitchers will perform somewhat worse than their true talent levels the rest of the way.

Just more numbers to back up the urge I feel to punch someone when a fan calls a pitcher (who's having a rough night) a headcase from his couch.

[Guest]

Holy crap, IMB! Well done.

[Yanksfan1523]

IMB, you should be working as a stat researcher for ESPN or a sports network.

[sethuel1]

IMB, you should be working as a stat researcher for ESPN or a sports network.

baseball stat researchers for ESPN: the most ignored people on earth.

[Yanksfan1523]

IMB, you should be working as a stat researcher for ESPN or a sports network.

baseball stat researchers for ESPN: the most ignored people on earth.

 

I didn't say it was a glorious position.

[Mephistopheles]

Someone who is smarter than I am (I'll get out my Meph pager) can go through these numbers and pull more meaning out of them. Obviously we don't know how other pitchers fared in games that they allowed 4+ runs in, so I'm not sure what this all means.

 

I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but I would be willing to guess that it's somewhere between 5.25 and 5.50, perhaps higher. Another interesting study is to look at Mark Prior's ERA based off of pitch counts. When you are looking at ERA after the first four runs, you're adding a second very very high variable: fatigue. Personally, the way I would have adjusted for this is by looking at two groups, a weighted ERA based on the pitch counts where he was giving up the runs, versus the same pitch counts weighted averaged to when he had only given up one or no runs up to the point. Essentially giving meaning to this by factoring out fatigue, obviously the control group would be biased towards his good starts. If there is little to no difference between the two (which I suspect) then we can certainly conclude that Mark Prior does not self-destruct.

[NCCubFan]

IMB! is a Meph-in-training. :D

[abuck1220]

why is imb getting all this credit? i knew cuse was wrong, and i didn't even have to look it up.

[SouthSideRyan]

why is imb getting all this credit? i knew cuse was wrong, and i didn't even have to look it up.

 

Teach a man to fish.

[hardcorecubfan]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

I am truly impressed, but if you keep this up the wife will leave you

[abuck1220]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

[WilcoFan]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

[treebird]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

 

pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them.

[WilcoFan]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

 

pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them.

 

 

Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method.

[treebird]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

 

pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them.

 

 

Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method.

 

are the observed phenomena just people claiming they have a good eye and throwing stuff out claiming it's true?

 

 

dear world,

 

i think gravity might exist or something. you guys figure it out and let me know.

 

love,

 

isaac

[WilcoFan]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

 

pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them.

 

 

Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method.

 

dear world,

 

i think gravity might exist or something. you guys figure it out and let me know.

 

love,

 

isaac

 

 

Wow. Proved me wrong. Sarcasm and ridicule proves a point better than discussion ever could, apparently.

 

a. Cuse had an observation

b. IMB did research to disprove his observation

c. The truth was discovered

 

Seems pretty simple to me, and really not nearly as contentious and in need of pointless ridicule and silly sarcasm as you think. What, exactly, is gained by taking shots at Cuse (and me, apparently) because he had an observation that differed from yours? His theory was proven false-isn't that enough? Or does everyone somehow benefit by taking shots at others after the fact?

[WilcoFan]

are the observed phenomena just people claiming they have a good eye and throwing stuff out claiming it's true?

 

I believe that every truth that we now accept started out as someone observing something, then claiming its true. Through experimentation (in this case, a look through relevant statistics), that observation is either proven to be true or proven to be false. '

 

Oddly enough, the sarcastic situation you threw out (Newton and gravity) was just Newton claiming to have a good eye and throwing something out there. Only through research and experimentation was his good eye proven to be true.

[treebird]

WOW, I am dizzy, nice job I think???

 

or does the nice job go to cuse for having you run out and accumulate these numbers.

 

 

yes, truly, cuse deserves all the credit for imb's work. without his baseless assertion, imb's research would never exist.

 

=D>

 

 

Silly sarcasm aside, isn't this the nature of scientific research? Someone has a theorem, they don't know if its true, research is done to either prove the theorem true or false. What IMB did was necessary to actually come to some level of resolution to the debate. Relying upon the idea that "it sounds baseless, so it must be wrong" doesn't exactly seem like a reliable way of actually, I don't know, proving something.

 

pick up a scientific journal and see how many submissions you can find that are just people throwing out baseless hypotheses, asking people to either disprove or support them.

 

 

Actually, scientific journals are FULL of observed phenomenon that are either (a.) proven to be true through experimentation or (b.) proven to be false through experimentation. Its the nature of the scientific method.

 

dear world,

 

i think gravity might exist or something. you guys figure it out and let me know.

 

love,

 

isaac

 

 

Wow. Proved me wrong. Sarcasm and ridicule proves a point better than discussion ever could, apparently.

 

a. Cuse had an observation

b. IMB did research to disprove his observation

c. The truth was discovered

 

Seems pretty simple to me, and really not nearly as contentious and in need of pointless ridicule and silly sarcasm as you think. What, exactly, is gained by taking shots at Cuse (and me, apparently) because he had an observation that differed from yours? His theory was proven false-isn't that enough? Or does everyone somehow benefit by taking shots at others after the fact?

 

cuse had a completely unsubstantiated argument which he continually advocated to be true on the basis of nothing. attempting to shift the conversation to something along the lines of "hey, you're just rubbing it in his face" is a waste of time. the fact that imb did all this hard work gives cuse's thoughts more credence than they deserved. if he, or anyone else, wants to advocate a position as extreme as his, there needs to be some modicum of evidence behind it.

 

hopefully imb's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that it's important not to trust your eyes and to try to prove things if you want people to believe them. unfortunately, i'm sure it will only lead to people saying, "well, if i'm wrong, imb or someone will come in with evidence to show me."