Crawford has not been good? Maybe I have been watching a different CC. He has been key to a number of our victories over the last two and a half weeks.

Just heard on baseball tonight that CC is on pace for 92 RBIs, 156 runs scored, and 46 steals. Also, he is hitting .292.

I mean really that is terrible. What a below average bum.

Aki Pena and Carl are all underperforming offensively. Carl is doing well but I expect more out of him. His plate discipline needs work. Aki is currently a liability at the plate although he has an excellent glove. Pena is the same way though hopefully he is turning things around at the plate. I don’t expect or at this point even want Pena to hit as many HR as he did last time. I just want him to make solid contact and work on RBIs.

Offensively though we aren’t slouching: we’re tenth in the league in RS. I just want more plate discipline out of the front of our lineup and someone to nail aki’s feet to the batter’s box when he’s up to swing.

Let me try this another way. As I am very unsophisticated in sabermetrics and in statistical reasoning, I am glad to defer to R.J, Patrick, Jake or anyone else who is far more knowledgeable than I am if they show me my errors.

Take a statement I made above that pitchers are not distracted by baserunners. On its face, it appears illogical. I am sure there are instances when they are. I am also sure there are plenty of testimonies from pitchers that they have been distracted.

But if they are distracted, there ought to be some trace of it in the actual playing record. If baserunners or stolen base threats affect the pitcher’s performance, there must be some evidence of it in the record, something indicating that batters hit better with men on base or with Henderson on base rather than Luzinski or something like that. I do not mean in every instance, but as the norm over time.

If after research no such evidence exists, we can tentatively say that no such distraction occurs. I say tentatively because any good researcher will admit that further investigation might alter the conclusion. (That is skepticism.) Possibly some factors have not been considered. Possibly some have been misinterpreted. Possibly there are factors affecting results but we cannot measure the results. Or don’t know how to measure the results. Perhaps there are so many factors interacting that we have not been able to disentangle them properly.

Every reasonable investigator understands the tentative nature of any conclusion. In a sense, anything a sabermetrically oriented person says should be prefaced with the statement, “As far as the evidence shows so far….”, but it is a rather clumsy way to write. So they (we) make assertive statements expecting readers to be aware of the proviso. It requires respect for the reader.

If a person requires certainty and absolute knowledge, sabermetric thinking is not for you. For myself, I find uncertainty and provisional assertions congenial. I am thrilled when I read some traditional or accepted nostrum challenged, even when it is among the hallowed sabermetric notions. It inspires me to think, not parrot, to reconsider, not accept.

For example, among the more controversial conclusions of sabermetrics has been that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter, a statement usually misrepresented, by the way, by those who disagree. But recently Bill James has suggested that there may indeed be such a thing, and it is raising interesting arguments.

I find traditional analysis generally boring because I know in advance what it will say. It is received wisdom and it is merely a matter of applying it to the specific circumstance. So I know that if the Rays slump it will be because they are young and not ready to handle the pressure of a pennant race. If they thrive, it is because their youthful enthusiasm immunizes them from that pressure or perhaps because the infusion of veteran wisdom has helped them cope. It doesn’t challenge or kindle interest; it confirms preconceptions.

I recently saved this quotation from Sheehan’s recent BP chat. I think it summarizes a point nicely, particularly the last paragraph:

“Otto (Halifax): Are we at the point now that we can start making judgements and not worry (too much) about small sample size?

Joe Sheehan: You won’t like this answer, but we may never be at that point. I’m struck, the longer I do this, by just how volatile player performance is, and therefore, team performance. You start to understand why GMs sign guys with no upside but not much downside, just to save the agita.

All we can do is take the information at our disposal and do the best analysis we can. That’s why I emphasize the process, the reasoning, behind claims, and not just the end result.”

It is the process and the reasoning!

I’m an Astros fan, but check this blog frequently to see how our ex-Astros in the Rays org. are doing.

The Astros have a couple of “league average” players they’d love to trade for Houston native Carl Crawford. Please send him home soon.