Send Jedi to the Glue Factory
- Thread starter Todd Benzinger
- Start date
iayork said:
One question that intrigues me as a non-mathematician: the range from fastest to slowest FB in most of the starts is considerably larger than the range from fastest to slowest mean velocity among the starts. Does this have any impact on our ability to draw conclusions from differences between starts? Intuitively, it feels like the answer should be "yes", but I recognize the limits of intuition here.
There's quite a range of speeds in the pitches thrown during any one game. Ian's graphics show a thick box, with thin little whiskers sticking out above and below. The vertical extent of the box shows the range which encompasses 2/3 of the pitches, which is a pretty standard way to describe the distribution. A good, simple rule is to compare these thick boxes from one game to another. If the boxes overlap each other vertically, then the two games have pitch speeds which are effectively the same. If the boxes don't overlap, then you can make a strong claim that there is a significant difference from one game to the next.
Ian, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your work.
Ian, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your work.
StupendousMan said:
Yeeesss ... but we need to think about what we mean by "significance". There's statistical significance, which is an arbitrary concept often (though not always) set at p < 0.05, and there's functional significance, which can be very different. For example, we could have a hypothetical pitcher whose fastball ranged from 88 to 98 mph, averaging 93, compared to one whose fastball ranged from 92.5 to 93.5. They'd be statistically the same -- there would be no statistical significance to the difference -- but there could be a huge functional difference in how hard their pitches are to hit. Conversely, we could have two pitchers with almost no variation in their fastball speed, averaging out to 94 mph and 94.1 mph, who would achieve statistical significance because they have almost no variation in velocity, but there would be little or no functional significance to the difference.
(This is all super-simplified -- statisticians aren't that naive -- and I know Stups is already familiar with this, but it might help for background. )
We also need to remember the difference between descriptive and predictive stats. The charts above are descriptive -- they take phenomena that have been measured and counted more or less precisely. They are not a sample of a larger population, they are the entire population we're looking at. That means we can think about them in different ways than if we were sampling from a larger population, and we can interpret them in different ways than if we were using them to predict the future.
For example, the common and simple statistics that are usually used help correct for errors in sampling, and errors in measurement. We might be willing to argue that in this case neither is an issue.
(Again, super-simplified, we're ignoring many things here.)
Because these are descriptive and comprise the entire population, it's not unreasonable to just look at the mean and variation and use your intuition to tell you whether they're different or not. Is the average faster? Are the peaks higher? Are the valleys higher? Then it's not incorrect to say that he was faster in this game, even though a Student t test might say the difference is not significant.
But then if we start using these for the purposes of prediction, everything changes. Now, for example, we're drawing samples from a larger hypothetical sample of all Masterson's potential pitches, so we do have to worry about sampling error. We could look at today's game and made predictions as to the average and range of his pitches in next game, and we might say that his results would be statistically identical, and we still wouldn't be surprised to see boxes and whiskers that looked somewhat different.
So in conclusion: Yes.
Most of our velocity charts in the player cards also contain such customizable error bars (sem, ci, range, etc).
Also, our data is reclassified and corrected to account for park effects.
The reason for the 50' choice in pitchfx (and the 40' movement choice) are funny. When they first reported movement and velo values from closer to release, baseball men said that the systems were broken because the numbers were too high, especially for movement. So, they just resampled from a more restricted set of the trajectory.
Also, our data is reclassified and corrected to account for park effects.
The reason for the 50' choice in pitchfx (and the 40' movement choice) are funny. When they first reported movement and velo values from closer to release, baseball men said that the systems were broken because the numbers were too high, especially for movement. So, they just resampled from a more restricted set of the trajectory.
If he's really still sitting in the mid/high 80s, the leash should be remarkably short on him, particularly given Brian Johnson continues to show he's got little more to prove in AAA. However, a guy with his delivery even at 86-88 can still be effective in a situational reliever role. The Sox bullpen currently ranks 26th in xFIP, 25th in FIP, and 21st in ERA. Koji, Layne and Taz are the only guys with a FIP under 4.00 in the pen. All in all, it feels like there is a very logical conclusion to make here - move Masterson to the pen. Ogando's peripherals scream to a guy about to regress, leaving a role available for a righty-killer for the 6th/7th.
I guess that might make sense if the Sox were 43-34. But given that they're 34-43, do you really want to pay Masterson $10 million to be a long reliever on a 5th place team?jscola85 said:
I would much rather he have another good start or two to increase his trade value, and then see what we could get for him from some team in the hunt.
Did he look a lot more "horizontal" or almost sidearm to anybody else yesterday? He looked something like a right handed Madison Bumgarner (would that he could be half as good, whatever half as good might be, of Madbum). For example, he didn't look anything like this:
https://vine.co/v/OFn3Q7M7luD
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwLdfOt7IY
I know he went more "horizontal" this year, but yesterday looked more extreme than ever.
https://vine.co/v/OFn3Q7M7luD
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwLdfOt7IY
I know he went more "horizontal" this year, but yesterday looked more extreme than ever.
dynomite said:
I am operating under the assumption that Masterson has no trade value. He's gone 18 months now of sucking in the majors as a starter. Hard to see much likelihood of a pre-July trade. Frankly he may resuscitate some of his value by showing he can be an asset in the bullpen. For the Red Sox, his $10M is sunk at this point - the question is now does the team benefit more with him in the pen than in the rotation.
His release point was in the same range as his other games this year, and if anything a little on the higher side than usual. Yesterday's game in red, previous games in grey, "release point" is PITCHf/x's 50-foot point rather than calculating it back to 55 feet because I'm in a hurry today.Al Zarilla said:
He also gets to throw max-effort, which probably helps his velocity, and gets to avoid facing a lineup stacked with lefties. Masterson has a decent chance to improve more than the average pitcher coming out of the bullpen.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
Maybe in relief of Miley and EdRod in the 6th or 7th, but anything later and teams are probably pinch hitting.O Captain! My Captain! said:
I could maybe see short stints facing guys like Adam Jones who wouldn't be pinch hit for.
Otherwise, mop-up city.
The good thing (if you can call it that) is that the middle/back end of this bullpen is pretty terrible, so Masterson has at least a decent shot to be of real value to the team back there. Not 9.5M in value, but still, a useful RHP in certain match ups. I think he should get a shot in those situations to see what he can do.
Clearly he should not get another start, barring multiple injuries. I'd probably start Wright, Johnson, Kelly and Owens before giving another one to Masterson.
Clearly he should not get another start, barring multiple injuries. I'd probably start Wright, Johnson, Kelly and Owens before giving another one to Masterson.
It seems that with the bullpen in disarray, there's only a couple of (non-trade) options to take advantage of the resurgent hitting.
Uehara
Tazawa
Ogando
Layne
Ross Wright
Breslow Kelly
Barnes Masterson
Buchholz
Rodriguez
Porcello
Miley
Masterson Johnson
Only one lefty in the pen is problematic, but with the most of the starters (Masterson is not a starter) unable to give quality starts, long (3 inning) men (Wright / Masterson) are more of a premium. There's a gliimmer of hope that Kelly can share a role with Ogando to bring heat late in the game. This year he's wasted as a starter.
Combine this with a solution to Napoli (Holt with Pedroia back? Either at first or third?) and Bradley called up after Victorino re-breaks...and there's a chance of improvement without making any deals. Of course the bench is pretty pathetic and De Aza/Bradley are not a complementary pair (De Aza/Victorino are), so luck is pretty important.
We all agree that Masterson goes to the BP, right? Why not Kelly too?
Uehara
Tazawa
Ogando
Layne
Buchholz
Rodriguez
Porcello
Miley
Only one lefty in the pen is problematic, but with the most of the starters (Masterson is not a starter) unable to give quality starts, long (3 inning) men (Wright / Masterson) are more of a premium. There's a gliimmer of hope that Kelly can share a role with Ogando to bring heat late in the game. This year he's wasted as a starter.
Combine this with a solution to Napoli (Holt with Pedroia back? Either at first or third?) and Bradley called up after Victorino re-breaks...and there's a chance of improvement without making any deals. Of course the bench is pretty pathetic and De Aza/Bradley are not a complementary pair (De Aza/Victorino are), so luck is pretty important.
We all agree that Masterson goes to the BP, right? Why not Kelly too?
I would love to see them try Kelly in the pen. They have a desperate need there. I'd also like to see Brian Johnson take Masterson's shot in the rotation. And sure, give Masterson a chance to take Breslow's place in the bullpen. But if Masterson can't get it done there, he should be DFA'd.geoduck no quahog said:
not sure where Rob Bradford is getting this from, but the idea that Masterson might get another chance as a starter seems difficult to understand:
Justin Masterson will ride out the rest of the week as a reliever, although he wasn't in the bullpen for Sunday's win. After the All-Star break the righty is banking on returning to the rotation, although Triple-A All-Star Brian Johnson is lined up to pitch in the Red Sox' first game back from the break in Anaheim if need be.
Justin Masterson will ride out the rest of the week as a reliever, although he wasn't in the bullpen for Sunday's win. After the All-Star break the righty is banking on returning to the rotation, although Triple-A All-Star Brian Johnson is lined up to pitch in the Red Sox' first game back from the break in Anaheim if need be.
yes, I'd like to see Johnson get a chance. I hope Bradford was just baselessly speculating about Masterson going back into the rotation after the all star break.
Stan Papi Was Framed said:
Masterson has already banked plenty this season. No thank you, let's see how you do getting through a batting order 1x.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 10m10 minutes ago
Farrell said Brian Johnson will start either Monday or Tuesday. Masterson not a candidate for other start. An internal option. #redsox
Farrell said Brian Johnson will start either Monday or Tuesday. Masterson not a candidate for other start. An internal option. #redsox
I just wanted to toss out Owens as a dark horse. I don't think it will be him what with being off the 40 man and all, but weirder things have happened. Maybe Breslow will finally get dispatched and they'll call up Owens and Wright.
I don't think we'll see Owens until September, but it's worth noting that he's been on a tear for his last few starts.
In his last six, he's 0-2, but he's thrown 40 IP (6 2/3 IP/start) with a 2.93 ERA, 34 K to 10 BB and only 24 hits, a sub-1 WHIP and a .527 OPS allowed.
The one big worry about Owens in the majors is that he allows a lot of fly balls. That might not be sustainable at the big league level.
In his last six, he's 0-2, but he's thrown 40 IP (6 2/3 IP/start) with a 2.93 ERA, 34 K to 10 BB and only 24 hits, a sub-1 WHIP and a .527 OPS allowed.
The one big worry about Owens in the majors is that he allows a lot of fly balls. That might not be sustainable at the big league level.
Surprised this didn't get bumped after last night's nearly dominant performance. One time around the order, fastball 90-92, and lots of bad swing and miss on the slider and nothing out of the infield. Maybe Masterson is a modern translation of Eckersley? I'd make him the primary set up man immediately, and see what happens going forward.
Last night was certainly intriguing. It would be awesome if Masterson was the force to stabilize the bullpen. Assuming that Masterson is that force and assuming that Farell stops using Ogando for more then one inning, you would have Ogando, Masterson, Taz, and Uehara as your high leverage relief guys. I suppose you can also throw Layne into the mix if Farrel stops using him against righties.
You need to be more consistent with your incorrect spelling of the manager's nameThelobsterroll said:
Plympton91 said:
I'd be too worried about his ability to get lefties out to put him in that role right away. Masterson never had anything close to Eck's control as a starter, so I don't imagine any transformation like that.
Having said that, he looked like a different pitcher out of the pen last night. Small sample size so far of course, but Masterson could be a nice addition to the pen as a 6th/7th inning guy or high leverage right handed specialist.
HriniakPosterChild said:
True, I think, but when he was a starter, Eck had serious heat, and didn't need that much precision. As a reliever he kept enough of the heat, and added pinpoint control. Closer Eck could throw darts.
Edes had this to say about Masterson's relief appearance:
-- Similarly, while reliever Justin Masterson had an encouraging three-inning scoreless stint out of the bullpen, his slider didn’t have good downward bite like it has in the past, though he got swings and misses on its sweeping path. Hard to imagine Masterson filling anything but a long-man role the rest of the way.
Can someone post and analyze his pitch chart relative to this comment?
-- Similarly, while reliever Justin Masterson had an encouraging three-inning scoreless stint out of the bullpen, his slider didn’t have good downward bite like it has in the past, though he got swings and misses on its sweeping path. Hard to imagine Masterson filling anything but a long-man role the rest of the way.
Can someone post and analyze his pitch chart relative to this comment?
HriniakPosterChild said:
The cool thing is, we don't have to "recall" anything.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eckerde01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/masteju01.shtml
As a starter (after his first 2 seasons), Eck ranged between 1.0 and 2.4 BB/9 innings. In 1985, in 25 starts he had 19 walks in 169 IP. Even before his shift to the bullpen, he had a long sustained period of great control.
As a starter, Masterson has ranged from 2.7 to 4.8 BB/9 innings. His last 3 full seasons he has been at 3.8, 3.5, 4.8.
They are not remotely similar in this regard.
HriniakPosterChild said:
Gas is too undifferentiated. I think Eck would put it differently. As a reliever, his cheese was sneakier, but not quite as stinky, more Emmental than Roquefort.
Heating up in the bullpen said:
Here is Old Jedi's pitchfx from July 18. Proper fermentation and ageing always requires analysis. Here's my cheesemaker's recipe: location meh (nothing on the edges, plenty middle-middle); slightly improved velocity on fastball and sinker (up to 92); and more sliders, with relatively more horizontal movement ('sweep'). The slider is a really good pitch against RHB, and it's no surprise that the new Jedi throws the slider most of all, and its results are best of all.
Even with his depressing performance as a starting pitcher in 2015, he still has a very respectable .311 wOBA against RHB. He is what we thought he was 5 years ago -- a good high-leverage ROOGY, medium-leverage RRLRR, and a durable reliever for low-leverage multiple innings. Blessed are the cheesemakers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xLUEMj6cwA
radsoxfan said:
I thought we were comparing starter Jedi to closer Eck. Yes, starter Eck was quite good, but closer Eck was even better.
A $9.5 million gamble.
Many of the Sox moves reek of this same methodology... pay a lot of $ to someone and wish really hard that they will perform at a level matching the contract.
Many of the Sox moves reek of this same methodology... pay a lot of $ to someone and wish really hard that they will perform at a level matching the contract.
The methodology was the same one that got us ShaneV - sign a former top tier guy who has recently underperformed because of injury and hope to get him healthy. Probably the same thinking for Craig.
And if so, Ben should retire this strategy.
Gambles are fine provided of course they stay just that. They signed Masterson to be a key part of this rotation. While I guess I get protecting the farm at all costs you should have paid Lester or traded for Hamels. Not that it would have fixed every issue this team had but it certainly would look much better.BoredViewer said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
They did? Wasn't he the 5th starter behind Porcello, Miley, Buchholz and Kelly? While it's logical to criticize how much he was paid, he wasn't expected to be much more than a 5th starter. The best they could have hoped for was 3rd starter performance at 4th starter money. They overpaid and it didn't work out.
DanoooME said:
Yeah, Masterson was this year's version of 2009 Brad Penny...a veteran rotation placeholder that only needs to stick until an up-and-coming prospect (or an injured starter) emerges to push him out. Optimistically, they hope he catches lightning in a bottle and is better than expected such that he doesn't get pushed out or he becomes a trade chit at the deadline. Realistically, he gives them decent innings until a kid comes up to supplant him. Unfortunately, the decent innings part didn't happen for Masterson, but the kid coming up to supplant him did.
Masterson had no business making $9M as a bounce-back candidate. Here's some other "bounceback" deals signed in 2014:
Kyle Kendrick - 1 year, $5.5M
Brett Anderson - 1 year, $10M
Gavin Floyd - 1 year, $4M
Aaron Harang - 1 year, $5M
Colby Lewis - 1 year, $4M
Brendan Morrow - 1 year, $2.5M
Kris Medlen - 2 years, $8.5M
Ryan Vogelsong - 1 year, $4M
Chris Young - 1 year, $0.7M
It's pretty obvious the organization could have filled that 5th starter role with an equally-talented pitcher to Masterson at half the cost. Outside Brett Anderson, whose concern was more injuries than performance, the rest of those guys signed $1-4M/yr deals, all but Medlen 1-year contracts.
Kyle Kendrick - 1 year, $5.5M
Brett Anderson - 1 year, $10M
Gavin Floyd - 1 year, $4M
Aaron Harang - 1 year, $5M
Colby Lewis - 1 year, $4M
Brendan Morrow - 1 year, $2.5M
Kris Medlen - 2 years, $8.5M
Ryan Vogelsong - 1 year, $4M
Chris Young - 1 year, $0.7M
It's pretty obvious the organization could have filled that 5th starter role with an equally-talented pitcher to Masterson at half the cost. Outside Brett Anderson, whose concern was more injuries than performance, the rest of those guys signed $1-4M/yr deals, all but Medlen 1-year contracts.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Masterson was not even close to a Victorino situation. Victorino was basically a 4 fWAR player for the Phillies who dropped to 3 fWAR in his last year there. Masterson was a 3 fWAR player who dropped to 0.
Brad Penny (mentioned earlier) is a better example -- a 3-4 WAR player for LA who dropped to 0 WAR in his last year there.
That's not an top tier guy "underperforming". This is a reclamation project. And an expensive one at that.
Yes, the Masterson signing (and the decision to give him 9 starts and a continued place in the pen over Wright or Barnes) really has me questioning the front office. They make alot of incredibly complex decisions with massively uncertain results so you have to forgive some mistakes which reveal themselves after the fact, but getting the obvious shit wrong is intolerable.
Masterson was a terrible pitcher last year, one of the worst in the big leagues. When they decide to drop 9M on him in the off season, my first reaction is you have to be kidding, he's terrible, why would they let him on the team let alone give him 9M$ of real money. If the Yanks or Os or Jays brought in Masterson, and gave hm a spot in rotation, you would have laughed out loud.
But then again you think, surely to God the Sox and Farrell in particular must have a pretty damn good handle what was wrong with Masterson last year and surely they would not have made this deal without a good reason to think the problem is in the past. Surely the signing had to be predicated on having good reason to think that his precipitous drop in velocity last year was temporary OR that he could be effective despite his lack of control, sitting at 86-88, all contra the 2014 evidence. In Ben we trust after all.
But by the end of spring training, it seemed apparent even to an ill-informed couch surfer like me, that they were wrong: Justin Masterson may be a nice guy but it seemed pretty clear he was no longer even a decent ML pitcher. Still he gets 7 starts out of the chute and now in late July he still holds down a spot in the pen over a top prospect who can throw 95 and a credible knuckler who has nothing left to prove at AAA. it is verging on being impossible to justify.
Every game he pitches from here on out (embarrassing himself and the team like he did last night) further undermines my confidence in whoever is running this team.
Masterson was a terrible pitcher last year, one of the worst in the big leagues. When they decide to drop 9M on him in the off season, my first reaction is you have to be kidding, he's terrible, why would they let him on the team let alone give him 9M$ of real money. If the Yanks or Os or Jays brought in Masterson, and gave hm a spot in rotation, you would have laughed out loud.
But then again you think, surely to God the Sox and Farrell in particular must have a pretty damn good handle what was wrong with Masterson last year and surely they would not have made this deal without a good reason to think the problem is in the past. Surely the signing had to be predicated on having good reason to think that his precipitous drop in velocity last year was temporary OR that he could be effective despite his lack of control, sitting at 86-88, all contra the 2014 evidence. In Ben we trust after all.
But by the end of spring training, it seemed apparent even to an ill-informed couch surfer like me, that they were wrong: Justin Masterson may be a nice guy but it seemed pretty clear he was no longer even a decent ML pitcher. Still he gets 7 starts out of the chute and now in late July he still holds down a spot in the pen over a top prospect who can throw 95 and a credible knuckler who has nothing left to prove at AAA. it is verging on being impossible to justify.
Every game he pitches from here on out (embarrassing himself and the team like he did last night) further undermines my confidence in whoever is running this team.