Warren Brusstar

If there's one constant about message boards, it's that posters want to know and they WANT TO KNOW RIGHT NOW. If the decision is made on Saturday afternoon, with sufficient time for games to be played on Sunday and Monday, has anything really been lost? Of course not. I'm utterly astounded by the collective whining in this thread about when and where baseball games are going to be played.

That is a good point. He made that comment ealier this year when he was still humping up that fastball to 96 and regularly throwing 93. Now he isn't doing it even when in a jam. I hope that he still can--and does occassionally in the play-offs. I am a big fan of power arms in the play-offs. They usually win. Time will tell. Harden's average velocity as a Cub is under 92. Yesterday it was just under 90. That means this is the only start his "velocity has been down", and it comes in his first outing in 2 weeks, where he still pitched very well, and still hit 94 at the end of his outing. "Harden's velocity is way down, he isn't the same pitcher" is trite, fatalistic, and an overwrought reaction considering the actual details of Harden's time with the Cubs and last night's start. Consider the source.

I'm utterly astounded that people think delaying these games past Monday is a good idea. There are no more offdays on the schedule. So the ONLY scenario is that they are made up after the regular season ends. If we haven't clinched by then, it would totally and completely screw up our postseason rotation -- the only thing that really matters. Moreover, the reasoning for this -- that the Astros are hot and the Cubs are not -- is absurd. We're scheduled to throw Marquis, Z, and Dempster against Jack Cassell, Alberto Arias, and Randy Wolf. If the games are made up at the end of the year and they are meaningful, you can be damn sure we'll see Oswalt.

And if we are just talking about the playoffs although I don't want to see this happen. If the cubs go 0-19 the Phillies would still have to go 7-11 to pass them. So that is good news but I see the Cubs going 11-8 give or take 1 game. So that would mean the Brewers would have to go. Cubs 10-9 Brewers would have to go 14-4 to tie us in the division 15-3 to take it from us If Brewers did that, Phillies would have to go 17-1 to tie us for the wild card and 18-0 to take the wild card from us Cubs 11-8 Brewers would have to go 15-3 to tie and 16-2 to take it from us Phillies would have to win out to tie us for wild card You get the picture and I think I did the math correctly. Looking at this further, 10-9 clinches no worse than a tie for a playoff spot because the Brewers and Phillies have 4 games against each other. If the Brewers were 14-4 over that time frame, we would tie them for the division. If the Brewers were 15-3 over that time frame (thus winning the division), the Phillies could finish no better than 17-1 because someone has to lose the 4 games between the Phillies and Brewers. In other words, 10-9 clinches a playoff spot unless the Brewers and Phillies each win every single game against other teams and the Phillies either sweep or take 3 of 4 from the Brewers.

You're absolutely right. Using BP's definition of high-leverage, medium-leverage, and low-leverage, his OPS is 782 in high leverage situations, 930 in medium leverage situations, and 1176 in low-leverage situations. The fact that those numbers are about 180 degrees from last year's numbers (when he 1146 in high leverage situations) is further compelling evidence that his curious splits are just random. Nevertheless, those splits also mean that he hasn't been nearly as valuable as the typical 1.000 OPS hitter. Despite this fact, you're going to get people here who absolutely object to considering those splits when choosing the MVP. And that's utterly ridiculous.

But that doesn't matter to the Cubs because they set their ticket prices and are going to sell out regardless. They explained their decision as a way to be "fair" to fans and if you define fans as anyone who is willing to go to a game at Wrigley then sure its fair. But it ain't fair to those of us that bleed the Cubs. Buy season tickets.

Not always.

Also, a complete lack of power.

Did abuck75 steal LLF's password?

Buddy? http://www.billandted.org/pics/ea/bteanapoleon.jpg LOL

Huh? What the heck does that have to do with my argument?

You are wrong. No, I'm right. Assume that leaguewide median expected performance is a .750 OPS. Assume that there are 20 hitters and pitchers that are anti-clutch performers who are worse in high-leverage spots -- the 10 pitchers in this group collectively have a .900 OPS against in high-leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750) and the 10 hitters in the group have a .600 OPS in high leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750). As a matter of mathematical certainty, the remaining hitters will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of greater than .750 and the remaining pitchers will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of less than .750.

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense. If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better. if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance. or 160 are performing and 20 others are performing higher. or 179 are performing the same and 1 is hitting 1.000 or whatever. baseball doesn't work this way Sure. I make no assertion about the distribution of better performance within the 180 remaining players. My claim is only that there is mathematical certainty that if certain players are anti-clutch and perform worse in high-leverage spots, the universe of remaining players is collectively (and necessarily) performing better.

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense. If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better. If 20 players performance worse in clutch situations than they normally do in regular situations, how in the hell is there any certainty that 20 others perform better in the clutch than they do in normal situations? You must be confusing with me someone else. I've never argued that. If 20 players perform worst in high-leverage spots than their expected performane generally, the rest of the players collectively (All players minus the 20 "anti-clutch" players) must perform better in hig-leverage spots than their performance generally. Obviously, within that 180 players there is going to be a inevitable distribution of performance, some better, some worse, but the total collective performance will be better.

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense. If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better. if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense. If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

Go argue with Nate Silver.

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots? How about just worse or not worse? right. The anti-clutch group isn't playing in a vacuum. If a subset of players is worse in high leverage situations, someone (as a matter of mathematics) is performing better.

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots? How about just worse or not worse? right. You're missing the point. For simplicity, let's take a pool of the 200 players that will be in the playoffs. Let's assume that the mean performance level for those 200 hitters and pitchers is a .750 OPS. If -- as you concede -- there are certain players who choke in high leverage situations, we know that those players will perform worse than their average performance (i.e. the "anti-clutch" hitters will be less than a .750 OPS, the "anti-clutch" pitchers will be higher than a .750 OPS). Hypothetically, let's say there are 20 players out of 200 (I make no assertion about the likely percentage of players that have "anti-clutch" tendencies; note that even if the number is 1, that's enough to demonstrate my point). If those 20 players perform WORSE than normal in high leverage situations, the other 180 players will perform BETTER as a matter of mathematical certainty. I too am skeptical that any player has better focus or concentration during high leverage situations. But that doesn't have anything to do with the original point, which is that if "anti-clutch" performers exist (which you've conceded), then "clutch" performers must also exist simply becuase someone has to be performing better if others are performing worse; in other words, the "anti-clutch" performers are not playing in a vacuum. Nate Silver's chapter in Baseball Between the Numbers demonstrates this truth too. According to Silver's research, Mark Grace was the best clutch hitter of the last 30 years.

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots? No law dictates anything. You should go argue with Nate Silver who demonstrated in Baseball Between the Numbers that hitters with high walk/low strikeout rates maximize win expectancy better than other hitters.

this is, of course, ridiculous and really, really terrible logic. i believe in choking, as it's obvious someone can crumble under pressure. but the idea that someone can magically enhance their ability in certain situations is enough to make me not believe in "clutch." if ramirez had the ability to turn it on in certain spots or enhance his focus in certain situations, he would do it all the time and make millions and millions of more dollars. unless it's like video game power that can only be used for so long...like the wings in super mario 3. You're missing the point entirely. And no, his logic is absolutely sound. If, as you concede, there are certain players that are "anti-clutch" -- that choke in certain situations, the players that do not "choke" in those situations will show an improved level of performance simply by maintaining their focus and ability in those same situations. This isn't complicated. If 25% of players have "anti-clutch" traits that result in poorer performance in high leverage situations, the other 75% will on whole show greater performance in those same situations. You had me till you used that word. What word?

this is, of course, ridiculous and really, really terrible logic. i believe in choking, as it's obvious someone can crumble under pressure. but the idea that someone can magically enhance their ability in certain situations is enough to make me not believe in "clutch." if ramirez had the ability to turn it on in certain spots or enhance his focus in certain situations, he would do it all the time and make millions and millions of more dollars. unless it's like video game power that can only be used for so long...like the wings in super mario 3. You're missing the point entirely. And no, his logic is absolutely sound. If, as you concede, there are certain players that are "anti-clutch" -- that choke in certain situations, the players that do not "choke" in those situations will show an improved level of performance simply by maintaining their focus and ability in those same situations. This isn't complicated. If 25% of players have "anti-clutch" traits that result in poorer performance in high leverage situations, the other 75% will on whole show greater performance in those same situations.

wrong, you celebrate the playoff berth, as a division title doesn't mean much more. Care to wager which will be the bigger celebration? I agree that a playoff berth is a significantly more important milestone but tradition alone dictates that the division title will be the bigger celebration.

If the Cubs are making any decisions at all about the future and are counting on Rich Hill being part of it, it's a really poor process. At this point, you have to treat Hill like they treated Prior in '07. If he can come back and contribute, great. But they have to build their roster under the assumption that he will not.

I would hope that nobody is rooting against these kids. From the guy who can't wait to run over to NSBB and update everyone on Murton's, Patterson's, and Gallagher's struggles, that's rich. well, I would be more than happy to report on their successes when they occur. Why the personal shot, Brusstar? Who pee'd in your proverbial Cherios? Really? Why is this thread missing posts from you regarding Gallagher's first four starts?