Lookout Landing

Probably a stupid question, but would we not have a better chance to win

ballgames if Jakubauskas was the starter, and not Silva?

Obviously, we have a history with Silva we can go back to and punch up numbers, and get a fair idea of what he is and what his value is.

I guess we don’t have that with Jakubauskas, but from a pure stuff perspective, does he not have better stuff than Silva?

Anyway, can’t get angry about this one. The team battled back a couple times from a 2 run deficit, which must be tough to do given that Im sure most the roster knows that Silva is gonna keep giving up runs, therefore battling back doesn’t assure much..

Lowe looked fantastic.. Add in a nice two frames from Jakubauskas, and the Corcoran outing last night, and it there is plenty to be optimistic about despite the 1-2 start

Rudy4three - April 8, 2009 reply

Jakubauskas isn't good.

He might be useful out of the bullpen, but he’s still a replacement player until proven otherwise. Silva is annoying and makes way too much money but the fact that he’s easily hate able doesn’t make him atrociously bad.

But I think he's atrociously bad

ok.. well maybe not atrociously, but he sucks

schwagnah - April 8, 2009 reply

He was a bit below league average last season.

Sure, his FIP was 4.63 last year.

But his tRA was a much worse 5.43, good for a 79 tRA+. He was worse than a bit below league average.

= he sucks

schwagnah - April 8, 2009 reply

1.5 WAR.

WAR, FIP, and tRA are all imperfect.

That being said, for pitchers I think there is a more compelling argument that tRA is the closest than most other metrics…since it takes into account the types of balls in play a pitcher allows instead of what the outcomes of the balls in play were.

I think that tRA is better than FIP, sure.

But I also think that you have to look at his tRA in the context of his peripherals. His peripherals last season suggest that perhaps he was fairly unlucky.

Unusually high LD%

Wouldn't the amount of LDs a pitcher gives up be reflective of his stuff?

Like if you throw crappier pitches, they hit it harder? Or are LDs luck for pitchers?

LD% regresses very strongly

it could be indicative of a problem, but the signal/noise ratio is very low, so you have to assume luck until proven otherwise.

I'll admit I'm bias, and just assumed it was so high because luck assumes that a pitcher is throwing major league pitches.

And since I haven’t looked at the Pitch F/X really, him being just being really bad instead of kind of bad and unlucky makes me happier for some reason.

I remember Dave saying that Jakubauskas was basically Ryan Franklin

I think that’s a step above Silva. Jakubauskas isn’t good, but neither is Silva.

Also, this doesn’t even matter, because Silva will be staying in the rotation.

Ryan Franklin has never been as valuable as Silva was last year, and Silva is due for some positive regression.

Seriously, Silva sucks but he doesn’t suck nearly as bad as people think he does.

He's obviously not as good as he was in 2004/2005 and his 2007 was unsustainable

but he’s not this much worse.

Ryan Franklin is wanted on statch... probably

Franklin's tRA* in 2005 was better than Silva's in 2008.

He’s not terrible, but he’s not nearly as good as you are giving him credit for.

I'm giving him credit for being mediocre.

Everyone hates him because he’s a dick and he makes too much money. I hate him too, but I think it’s important to be honest when analyzing his actual performance.

Well, if you go by tRA, he's very much worse than mediocre.

WAR by tRA had Silva at -0.1 last year. One stat says he’s mediocre, the other says he’s terrible. Neither of us can be sure that he is terrible or mediocre, so giving him credit for being either seems silly. We know he’s somewhere between what tRA and FIP say, but to say he IS this or IS that…I don’t know, comes off a bit cocky to me.

I've been called worse.

The hatred for Silva the player should be divorced from the hatred for Silva the person. I’m fairly confident in saying that, unless he has taken a step back over the off-season, that Silva is a true-talent ~1.5 WAR pitcher. He could easily put up replacement level numbers and he could easily put up 3 WAR.

I wasn't calling you cocky per se, it just seemed that the wording being used in this thread came off that way.

Maybe you’re right, and I guess we’ll see over the course of the year, but I don’t know, 1.5 WAR seems pretty high, even given his past before Seattle.

To be fair I'm pretty fucking cocky.

The other thing about Silva is that he’s kind of hard to nail down; his stuff and skillset lends itself to fairly crazy swings. I just think that because his stuff and his peripherals are largely the same now as they’ve always been (save for the aforementioned spike in GB rate) and he has in the past been a 3-4 WAR pitcher, slightly below average is a reasonable assessment to make.

Maybe one of you guys could clarify a point for me.

I know I’ve read this before, but I can’t locate it at the moment.

Replacement level player = 0 WAR, league average = 2 WAR, do I have that right?

10-4

Yes.

Roughly. There are some caveats that someone smarter than I could explain, but that’s the general idea.

Thanks, that was driving me nuts

Yes

So statcorner has Silva as almost exactly replacement level tRA last year. But he’s probably more like 1 WAR in reality.

OlSalty - April 8, 2009 reply

For hitters, yes.

For pitchers it’s a bit more complicated.

I'm good with the broad strokes, 2 WAR for pitching is close enough?

I’m not even approaching the work you put in on pitching, I’m just looking to keep up with the definitions so I can follow the conversations.

Roughly good enough.

But frankly, I would just refer to StatCorner, since we explicitly give you a solid standard against average.

Right on, thanks for clarifying there's a difference between pitchers and batters.

I didn’t realize that until you mentioned it, thanks.

Probably not.

ThundaPC - April 8, 2009 reply

What exactly is the rationale behind saying Silva not being as bad as his numbers look?

Is there something that stands out when doing the in depth saber analysis that shows he’s better than his numbers, and my eyes see?

Rudy4three - April 8, 2009 reply

His peripherals are roughly the same as they have been for his entire career.

He had one year where his GB% was nuts.

Any reason you changed the wording from "Total Contribution by Hitters"

to “Total Contribution by Lineup” this year?

It includes defense so I thought lineup was more appropriate

That makes sense

I knew there was a method behind the madness

Also it hasn't been hitters since last June 7th

That's embarassing

It was "position players" for two weeks

In fairness I was working nights 5 days a week when the changeover occurred

Five days a week?!?

I think that’s illegal.

Oh, I read that wrong.

If anything I am impressed by your memory

So Mark Lowe was good...

The one inning I left the house . . .

Hopefully MLB.tv archives the game tonight.

They don't even have all of opening day up

I had heard something along these lines.

Shitty. I trust them to get it all figured out soon, but that’s lame.

I'm trying to watch the archive but the piece of fuck keeps freezing on me.

This thing has negative value and everyone who works for mlb tv sohuld be killed.

On a positive note, the outfield defense was awesome tonight.

I wasn’t scared at all on the balls that didn’t leave the field.

Gee I hope they play this 3 times again tonight!

d0nkey - April 8, 2009 reply

LOL CUZ HES FAT

WE GET IT

Silva fat jokes were tired and played two innings into his first start of last year

I just wish people would at least try to be creative.

I've been creative but the powers that be decide to hide them.

Even those are not funny.

Meh I feel like I've at least batted .250

That's a quarter! Like a Quarter Pounder! WHICH SILVA LOVES BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING FAT FUCK HAHAHAA

Such an outdated stat really tells us nothing about your performance

Kirsten Schlewitz - April 8, 2009 reply

My Green Rec Percentage is through the roof silly girl.

lol silvas?

Silva fat jokes need to be bannable offenses.

All Silva fat jokes, funny or not.

Goose - April 8, 2009 reply

I would argue that funny jokes should not be bannable offenses.

Can't risk somebody making a stupid non funny one.

Goose - April 8, 2009 reply

I'd be okay with boxable because everyone thinks their Silva fat jokes are funny so there needs to be some deterrent.

They shouldn't be,

but there are no funny Silva fat jokes.

This sounds like a challenge

Only in how long you guess you'll be boxed before one of the other mods lets you out

because I immediately forget that I have banned people and never unban them.

Not only that but he is a expert in making being feel aweful for others.

9/11 was actually caused by my passive-aggressiveness and continual expressions of disappointment in people.

say huh?

Kirsten Schlewitz - April 8, 2009 reply

I still feel bad about house because Matthew made me.

and at least this typo was cause by beer.

Please capitalise properly

Graham MacAree - April 8, 2009 reply

Please return my computer so that I can have one that's keyboard doesn't stick.

Of course, you won’t get apostrophes, so it’s your choice.

Kirsten Schlewitz - April 8, 2009 reply

LL LJ.

Amazingly this isn't just an idle threat

Wait, funny new ones should be allowed.

There is no such thing.

There is one and it must wait to the exact right moment.

"New" means you haven't read it yet.

Funny means funny.

Sounds like a challenge to me.

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/4/8/827917/1-2-chart#13908686

`

Works for me - new, funny fat jokes about Silva are totally unnecessary.

Works for me - new, funny fat jokes about Silva are totally unnecessary.

Now how did you double post 41 mins apart?

Wow.

seattlesundevil - April 8, 2009 reply

I'm thinking his signature change is the reason for this.

Wilder. - April 8, 2009 reply

That signature seems a tad political

That signature is very much political.

That's the problem

How is that a problem?

All I want is more fat Silva jokes. Why should they be banned? Diabetic joke are fair game? Child sexual abuse seem to be appropriate (Washburn is pitching toMorrow), what’s the problem? I don’t want to read the same tired old ones that we’ve all read before, but I’m not opposed to any new, funny ones.

You're missing the point entirely.

I'm apparently missing the point entirely, please fill me.

in*

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/1/5/701676/ll-off-topic-commenting-gu

look at the comment directly below this.

ermac - April 8, 2009 reply

Please read the first heading

Silva jokes aren't funny any longer because people have been making them for a year.

Even if a Silva fat joke were funny in a vacuum it wouldn’t be funny here because we’re all really fucking sick of them. And fat jokes in general aren’t very funny because Jesus Christ show some creativity.

Also, this website is not a democracy and you do not have the right to say and/or do whatever you want. When the moderators ask you to do something you do it or you leave. If you think you’re being treated unfairly, you can e-mail them.

Think of LL as a place where anything is allowed

as long as it isn’t specifically prohibited. Politics and Silva fat jokes happen to be two of the things on the rather short list of things that are prohibited

seattlebruin - April 8, 2009 reply

"All I want is more fat Silva jokes."

That is the problem.

Got it.

Sorry, I would only mention that you might be banning a really new and funny Silva fat joke based on some … makes no difference. Your house – your rules.