CubinNY

Good topic and good post. This is exactly the cushion the Cubs need.

Who are the particulars?

That's hilarious.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games. The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on. The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case. It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins. Yes, that's what I was just saying. Every team still has that same standard deviation regardless of their talent level. I don't see how that invalidates his conclusion. A binomial distribution assumes that the there is an equal likelihood of a yes/no outcome. In most cases in sports there is not. Therefore, the SD is correct only in theory. It's a nice thought experiment though and shows how much chance there when two teams are equal.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games. The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on. The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case. It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins.

No offense to Meph, but it's one of the more ridiculous things he's written. There is no normal distribution in baseball. Talent is not equally dispersed across the league. He's still has never defined what "true talent" means. In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

What's the over on the number of games he gets tossed?

Uh, no. They went from one of the best in the game (Hunsicker) to a guy so far in over his head that anyone with an ounce of compassion had to feel sorry for him (Purpura) to a Lynch-level GM (Wade). Yes Hunsicker is the guy I was thinking of.

Yost manages kind of like Dusty but without all of the 10ç philosophy and deflection. I think he actually does more stupid stuff too.

I want to start a "Could Anybody Use Marquis" Thread.

I wonder if they'll bring up Pie and let him play a lot if they get a big lead the final month of the season.

It's crazy. They went from a good GM (Tim Purpora) to a terrible one.

Neither is baseball. Hopefully he's ready to go if need be tomorrow.

The Cubs have come to show who's what. Lou is going to kill big Z.

I think Lou thinks he only has three guys in the pen. He constantly mismanages the bullpen. It's his biggest weakness. And its a big one.

Really, you wouldn't be surprised if they rubbed his finger against rough service or burnt it so that they could create the grand illusion that Kerry Wood is in fact still alive? I was wondering when someone was going to bust out the Potemkin Closer theory. It was just a matter of time... The fake blister is just the tip of the iceberg. Follow the money. The truth is out there. Kerry Wood never actually existed. There's a grave in Texas with the bones of a jackal

I was thinking the same thing. I'm impressed yet skeptical that he can keep it together. We'll see if IMB's Peter Principle holds.

Last time I checked, I wasn't embarrassed by citing the 11% number. But it seems that we've drawn different conclusions from the same point. While I'm willing to examine whether or not conventional wisdom is correct, all you're willing to do is claim some sort of bizarre ownership of a point made by another publication and parrot the point that inside change-ups are dangerous because if its hit, it goes really, really, really far. I contend that change-ups go very far regardless of where they are thrown -- provided a hitter is sitting on the pitch. So why aren't they thrown inside more often? Pitching is all about location. Pitching inside is dangerous regardless of wether the dude is sitting on a pitch or not because even if the dude is fooled the sweet part of his bat is in the hitting area for longer on an inside pitch. Really accurate pitchers and pitchers who throw heat can get away with pitching inside with high frequencies. Most pitchers cannot because of the physics of a baseball swing (and ball bearings). Anyway, "sitting" on a change up is not something that is done most of the time. Hitters have to look fastball and adjust to off-speed pitches. Nonetheless, with rare exceptions it's the location of a pitch that is the problem and not the selection of the pitch when a someone hits the ball hard.

He was wearing a Brewers uniform. But really, nothing.

Most change-ups are thrown outside for the very reasons that have been mentioned previously. Lilly in 2007 was an extreme case of not doing that, even though his proportion was around 1:1. The fact that he used it so rarely and occasionally threw it inside probably had a lot to do with it's success.

So tell me why don't pitchers who throw a lot of change ups, throw the change up pitch inside as much as they throw it outside? Tell me where I'm wrong.

I think the price would be a lot less than people think if they are that upset at Manny's behavior. You can't keep feeding the beast and then get upset when he acts like one. The Cubs have no use for him unless they move Fukudome to CF and Soriano to RF. This late in the season I don't see that happening.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball. It's a matter of physics. That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays. I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft... Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far. According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing. Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them? That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it). Seriously, are you always this irascible? It's pretty annoying. Yes, I "bothered" to read your posts. Any change-of-pace pitch -- regardless of location -- is dangerous if a hitter can turn on it. That includes outside pitches... or those down the middle. The physics of a hit ball's flight path are heavily dependent, though not entirely dependent, upon the bat's location, angle and speed. A change-up on the outer half can be hit a long, long way. Just as one on the inner half. Irascible? Annoying is having a point made to you that you made several hours ago. The entire point of a change up, the ONLY reason it is thrown is to fool a batter into thinking it is a fastball. If the hitter is sitting on it and it's outside only most team's 3.4, and 5 hitters (and Mike Fontenot) have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field. Worst case is a double or a single (most of the time). If a batter tries to pull an outside pitch they ground out weakly. If he's fooled and his bat is sped up, he's are going to ground out weakly or pop up the pitch. If the pitch is inside and he hits the ball he will hit it hard most of the time, fair or foul. You don't see a lot of outside pitches hit 400 feet foul. If a batter is sitting on the change (a very stupid idea), I'd rather see it outside than inside. The odds and physics of hitting make it much more likely to have a good outcome. Last year Lilly used his change-up very effectively and against the odds, very wisely, if sparingly. Oh my God, I'm sorry your worshipfulness... I shouldn't have used the 11% number! Apparently you own that observation. Or, not as it were. Given that I am making a different point than you -- in point of fact, I don't agree with your analysis fully supporting baseball's conventional wisdom regarding change-ups -- I felt like making that point. Last time I checked, I can do that. And, you know what's annoying? Reading your extreme condescension and arrogance towards other posters throughout the board. The question, "did you read my post" had to do with you parroting back to me the exact point I made (several hours before) as to why Lilly's change up may have worked as if it were something I overlooked. I'm sorry if I embarrassed you or whatever, but those are your bricks to carry and not mine.

He thinks eggs are vegetables. If you cook Tofu in vegetable oil it'll put on the pounds.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball. It's a matter of physics. That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays. I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft... Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far. According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing. Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them? That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it). Seriously, are you always this irascible? It's pretty annoying. Yes, I "bothered" to read your posts. Any change-of-pace pitch -- regardless of location -- is dangerous if a hitter can turn on it. That includes outside pitches... or those down the middle. The physics of a hit ball's flight path are heavily dependent, though not entirely dependent, upon the bat's location, angle and speed. A change-up on the outer half can be hit a long, long way. Just as one on the inner half. Irascible? Annoying is having a point made to you that you made several hours ago. The entire point of a change up, the ONLY reason it is thrown is to fool a batter into thinking it is a fastball. If the hitter is sitting on it and it's outside only most team's 3.4, and 5 hitters (and Mike Fontenot) have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field. Worst case is a double or a single (most of the time). If a batter tries to pull an outside pitch they ground out weakly. If he's fooled and his bat is sped up, he's are going to ground out weakly or pop up the pitch. If the pitch is inside and he hits the ball he will hit it hard most of the time, fair or foul. You don't see a lot of outside pitches hit 400 feet foul. If a batter is sitting on the change (a very stupid idea), I'd rather see it outside than inside. The odds and physics of hitting make it much more likely to have a good outcome. Last year Lilly used his change-up very effectively and against the odds, very wisely, if sparingly.