Biggest Contribution: Ronny Cedeno!, +12.9%
Biggest Suckfest: Garrett Olson, -26.7%
Most Important PA: Cedeno walk, +10.3%
Most Important Pitch: Gonzalez homer, -22.9%
Total Contribution by Pitcher(s): -33.7%
Total Contribution by Lineup: -16.5%
Total Contribution by Opposition: +0.2%
(What is this chart?)
0 recs | 42 comments
Maybe if Wak had printed out the lineup card like that, Olson would have paid it more attention.
Matthew - June 23, 2009
Johnson set up low and away and Olson threw up and in
whoops a doodle
Jeff Sullivan - June 23, 2009
Would that count as "only one bad pitch"?
msb - June 24, 2009
Well no wonder they love pitching to him.
Kirsten Schlewitz - June 24, 2009
So I'm watching the game re-run, and Yuniesky Betancourt fielded a tough ball, and made a good throw afterwards, also!
JamMasterJesus - June 23, 2009
keep watching
he gets worse
angrybeltre - June 23, 2009
!
Robert - June 23, 2009
Why is the exclamation mark upside down?
abender20 - June 24, 2009
Excitement!
Robert - June 24, 2009
Multilingual!
He’s ! in English AND Spanish¡
PositivePaul - June 24, 2009
I was only able to catch part of the game
But the part I saw was Roy Corcoran give up like 5 runs. How does Garret Olson get the biggest suckfest over him? Did Corcoran inherit a a few runners from Olson or what?
Willie Mays Haze - June 23, 2009
.
Here
CapSea - June 23, 2009
I think it's because even when Olson was cruising, he was getting hit hard.
Just that in the beginning those FBs and LDs were finding gloves, later on they weren’t.
Hopefulmsfan - June 23, 2009
Or what he posted above. My bad.
Hopefulmsfan - June 23, 2009
That's not what WPA is.
CapSea - June 23, 2009
I know but your explanation as to why Olson was a bit more thorough and informed than mine.
Hopefulmsfan - June 24, 2009
Why Olson sucked*
Hopefulmsfan - June 24, 2009
Also, WPA is situation based
Olson had a lead, then lost that lead (turning what was a positive win value immediately into a neutral win value, give or take), then gave up 3 more runs which statistically made it far less likely we were going to come back and win the game.
Corcoran, on the other hand, gave up more runs, but he gave up those runs when the Mariners already had a less-than-likely chance of winning, thereby giving him less punishment.
CapSea - June 24, 2009
For reference:
Here
And Here
CapSea - June 24, 2009
OK, that makes sense.
Hopefulmsfan - June 24, 2009
When Corcoran came into the game, the M's chances of winning were already below 10%
Jeff Sullivan - June 24, 2009
Gotcha
I guess I didn’t realize how poorly Olson had done. I just saw Corcoran give up those runs including walking someone home and figured he was the cause of the suffering. Perhaps it’s been because Corcoran hasn’t been that good this year and I just jumped to a conclusion. I see the error of my ways.
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
Corcoran did worse.
Again, it is based off Win Expectancy. Olson gave the Mariners less chance of winning because he put them from 1 run up (positive win expectancy) to 3 runs down (very negative expectancy).
Or, to put it another way, imagine Santana and Lincecum are pitching against each other. Randy Winn hits a 3 run home run in the top of the 1st inning, giving the Giants a good chance of winning, but not great, because there is still 9 innings to go.
Then it becomes an epic pitchers duel – each gets exactly 12 strikeouts, and the exact same line, except in the bottom of the 9th inning, Santana gives up a 3 run home run to Carlos Beltran. The game is tied. The boxscore of both pitchers is exactly the same, and the game is not over. But Lincecum is going to have a VERY negative WPA while Santana may only have a slightly negative WPA, maybe even a positive WPA. Why? Because the chances of the Giants winning in the bottom of the 9th was much greater since they were only 3 outs away, while in the top of the 1st, there was much game to be played. So Lincecum gets a much worse WPA and would easily be biggest suckfest, despite pitching exactly the same game as Santana.
CapSea - June 24, 2009
Thanks for the explanation
I get it now. I guess I assumed that Corcorans WPA would be worse because he gave up so many runs and we ended up only losing by 2. But Like Jeff pointed out, our odds of winning when he entered the game were below 10% so while he sucked more his suckage mattered less at that point in the game.
On another note, what happened to Corcoran this year? I remember him being effective last year and this year it seems like he struggles whenever he is in the game. I realize our chances of winning were low when he came in but then we ended up scoring 7 runs but came up short in part due to his ineffectiveness.
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
Small sample, he's not yet at 100%, and he's never been real good about throwing strikes
Jeff Sullivan - June 24, 2009
It looks like his LD% is through the roof compared to last year
And his walks are way up too. But like you said it is a small sample size of only a little over 10 innings pitched. Pus looking at his past stats it looks like his GB and FB rates fluctuate a lot. Some yers he’s a GB machine and others his giving up liners left and right
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
I haven't been able to follow the games as closely as I would like
So maybe I missed something. I know our bullpen is a little beleaguered by injuries but was Corcoran the best guy to put at that moment to try to stop the bleeding? Like you said he’s ot quite 100% and not great at throwing strikes. Seems like a bad recipe bringing him in with two on.
An aside, I can’t wait to get Shawn Kelley back!!! It’ll be nice to have someone in the bullpen who doesn’t induce heart palpitations in an otherwise healthy person.
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
No, he wasn't the best choice
but in a game where your odds of winning are already so low, you generally don’t want to start burning through your best options.
Jeff Sullivan - June 24, 2009
That makes sense
It just seems like for most managers and to the casual fan they would view us as still in the game at that point despite our WE being at like 9.8%. So while WE tells us he wasn’t punting the game by bringing in Corcoran I would be curious as to Wak’s reasoning behind decision in doing so. Would he say our odds of winnning were so low so, fuck it, bring out the gimp, or would he defend it by saying that Corcoran was the best option?
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
He'd say something middle-ground and inoffensive
Corcoran needs to get his work in anyway.
Jeff Sullivan - June 24, 2009
"Bring out the gimp" isn't middle ground and inoffensive?
No wonder my manager doesn’t like it when I refer to him as such. Anyway, I suppose it didn’t much matter, like you said. It just hurts more because we ended up losing by 2 after being down 9-1. So it feels our chances to win were better than they actually were.
Willie Mays Haze - June 24, 2009
and he hasn't pitched a lot since he's been back.
msb - June 24, 2009
Well done...
This is a good Idiot’s guide to WPA, IMHO…
PositivePaul - June 24, 2009
I don't know nothin' about nothin, and assume there is some combination of metrics that explains why, but:
has Win Expectancy been established as an important measure? And if so, what are we supposed to do with it?
In this case, WE matched up with the traditional measure: Olson gave up 6 earned runs and took the loss. He gave up the lead and his team never regained the lead or tie. But Corcoran let both his inherited runners score and gave up 3 more of his own. Meanwhile, the offense came back and put up 6 late runs. So, if Corco slams the door and Tits holds as he did (more likely one inning at best, with Aardsma closing), then the M’s get the W.
So, the stats say Olson lost the game. But the fan watches the game and sees Corcoran as the goat because he was the guy who let the floodgates open. And this is somewhat reinforced by the chart, as the Mariners’ WE flatlines when Corco gets his head beat in. Should there be an adjustment for this kind of situation, where a pitcher gave up the runs that ended up being the difference in the loss? – .079 doesn’t seem like adequate blame for Corcoran’s effect on the outcome.
lemonverbena - June 24, 2009
He only had a significant effect on the outcome in hindsight
Win Expectancy stuff is real-time, and the fact of the matter is that, when Corcoran entered the game, the M’s were already heavy underdogs. At the time, he just didn’t do that much damage, because our odds of winning were already so low. Yeah, they came back and made his outing look really bad, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was Olson who hurt us the most.
Jeff Sullivan - June 24, 2009
Needs more words so that I can finish typing first.
CapSea - June 24, 2009
This is more of a defense of the measurement, and I don't wholeheartedly agree, but it makes sense I concede the point.
I still think there ought to be some sort of “straw that broke the camel’s back” burden placed on Corco. Maybe Griff can take care of it in the Kangaroo Court.
lemonverbena - June 24, 2009
WE is not a predictive stat, more like a descriptive stat.
In many ways it is meaningless – what it does is explain what happened in the game, and shows how a player affected it. There is the possibility (a good possibility) that there is something to WE in terms of predictive value, but it has not yet been studied so at the moment WE is more of an interesting stat that shows how the player actually contributed to their teams chances of winning but not necessarily the true talent level of the player.
For a quick example, if a player sucks, but manages to get every single clutch hit possible (meaning any time the team is behind, this player is able to catch them back up with a single or homerun), then the player brought a ton of value to the team because he helped them win every game, but it doesn’t show that he will continue to dot hat going forward.
I think I am explaining that right. But to support this, read here and here. It is a great way to see how a player contributed, but not necessarily reliable for knowing how they will do going forward. For that you would turn to other stats, like wOBA, WPA/LI (maybe), etc.
CapSea - June 24, 2009
OK, thanks.
Sort of an “isn’t it interesting” stat.
lemonverbena - June 24, 2009
More like a result-based stat.
ThundaPC - June 24, 2009
Or as someone in the THT annual referred to it: "the story stat."
Teej - June 24, 2009
As opposed to ethereal stats?
lemonverbena - June 24, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.