Perceptions

by bobr on May 7, 2008 11:59 AM EDT

What would we be saying about Sonnanstine's performance had the Rays lost the game, say 4-3. Most of what I am reading is praising his gutsy perfomance, his ability to contain the damage, to pitch through the 6th in a game in which he did not have his best stuff.

But the actual line is unimpressive. He gave up 10 hits and a walk, a WHIP of almost 2, and 4 earned runs (an ERA of 6, even if 2 were built on questionable calls), and he only struck out 2. How often will the Rays win against Burnett if they have to score 5 runs?

So because we won, Sonnanstine performed well. He got the two strikeouts and a DP grounder in big spots. And to me that reflects why he can become a solid #4 or 5 starter. He did not give up the 4 runs in 3 innings. He did not allow a 5-3 lead become a 7-5 trail.

Sometimes he probably will give up those leads or be hammered. But I think that more often he will hang in there, give the team a chance to win and occasionally pitch a gem. That, to me, is a useful starter at the end of the rotation. If the perception is that he is a star pitcher, I think that is wrong, and I think the perception that he pitched well in this game is wrong. That would entail some superstition about "pitching to the score".

But similarly, if the perception is that his ERA indicates he is not a good pitcher, that too is wrong. He is a good pitcher because he consistently gives his team a reasonable chance to win. In some years, circumstances may translate that into a 5-13, 4.6 ERA season. And in some, circumstances may translate that into a 15-8, 4.6 ERA season.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Sonny was fortunate last night

A lot of hard hit outs saved the game for the Rays

by ttnorm on May 7, 2008 12:19 PM EDT 0 recs

As I said,

It is a matter of perception. Your stress is on the hard hit balls turned into outs (is that a surreptitious reference to BABIP?). Someone else’s might be on the 2 Ks with men on base or the DP grounder to end the threat in the 6th.

Actually, you are making my point. There is a lot of luck involved in many stats (such as runs scored, for example) which may be set up by the skill of the player, but which are nonetheless somewhat random over short stretches. One hard hit ball yesterday that found a hole might have given Sonnanstine a bad loss. Our perceptions are colored by anecdotes, incomplete stats and observations that confirm preconceptions.

To some extent, more sophisticated stats based on larger samples help correct for some of those biases. They are not easily applicable in every situation, but help interpret longer range tendencies more accurately.

In any case, regarding Sonnanstine, fortune is what underlies my point about his potential records in different seasons. Next year, or next time, Andy may pitch just as well (or badly) or better and come away with a loss, even a rout. So the question is whether he has the capacity to put himself in the way of luck on a reasonably consistent basis. My impression, based on his minor league history, K/BB rate and scouting information about his stuff and intelligence is that he can and will.

by bobr on May 7, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

What would we be saying?

We’d be saying, “It should have been 3-2 for us.” That’s what we’d be saying. Remember, we got screwed over for two runs.

by Orlando Rays on May 7, 2008 12:21 PM EDT 0 recs

exactly what i was thinking

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on May 7, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Expected Range of Outcomes

One thing I started to look at last year was the standard deviation of ER’s that a pitcher gives up. I actually started to look at it back when Zito was a free agent and people were clamoring for him. Would you prefer a very volatile starter, as in one who is either very dominant or very bad? Or would you like one that just keeps his team in the game, very few dominant starts but very few terrible ones?

Sonnanstine hasn’t established himself yet as either, but I do wonder what people want. We hate the ordinary player but maybe that’s what our offense needs. I think an old Bill James guide said that a when a pitcher has a quality start the team wins 67% of the games. I think most would prefer the volatile pitcher whether they’d admit it or not.

by tallyray on May 7, 2008 7:35 PM EDT 0 recs

Depends on the offense

If your the Red Sox you take the consistency because you’ll win most games where you only need to score 5-6 runs. If your the Giants you take the volatile one because 5 runs and your sunk, but you could win games 1-0 or 2-1. With our offense I’ll take the guy that goes 6 strong giving up 3-4 runs everytime.

by rglass44 on May 7, 2008 10:21 PM EDT up 0 recs