White Sox should invest time in Humber

lol

I could say 0.8 wins because it sounds about right, but I’d rather talk through it than try to sum it up in a number that doesn’t mean a lot to me.

No one has pitched “significantly better” on the staff than anyone. Nobody has sucked.

look at that K and BB link. 75% of runs allowed were explained by Ks and BBs in that (admittedly very large) sample. that’s backwards looking, not predictive of future performance.

so starting from there, it’s likely that Jackson’s performance in K’s and BB’s so far means that he actually pitched better than Humber. the only way for this not to be true is if the batted balls Humber ceded were significantly easier to field than Jackson. and indeed, we think he allowed a lot fewer line drives. those are very difficult to field. so i adjusted for that and that gave Humber the lead again. but then i adjusted for the remainder of the batted balls and they were in effect tied.

so either the average value of any batted ball for Jackson is much worse than Humber, a heretofore replacement level pitcher, or Jackson has been unlucky with his sequencing or getting unlucky with the actual location of those batted balls relative to defenders.

so let’s see what his FIP and ERA are up to. his FIP and ERA are barely divergent (3 runs per 200 IP) despite the fact he’s got a really shitty BABIP for his career, it seems reasonable to guess that he’s actually unlucky. that is to say, sequencing and BABIP to this point in his career have been worth 3 runs per 200 IP below average.

given that we’ve ruled out everything else, the best guess is that Jackson has been a victim of “hit ‘em where they ain’t” whereas Humber has not (and then some and then some and then some) and that that’s the primary difference between the two in terms of ERA to this point.

if to you that means they’ve still performed differently in a meaningful way, then we’ve got a different definition of meaningful.

I sure as hell looked at him from a distance and thought that. Felt like with Coop “this would all change”. Argued folks up and down against his predicted season stats and wagered a bottle of wine with that crook WU.

i’m saying that even if we start tacking on things that he’s not responsible for by traditional metrics (all batted balls), the runs allowed difference is massive. the only thing left to explain their different performance is actual luck, like a ground ball being an inch too far in one direction.

the only way for him to be not pitching better is to assume that the positive changes he’s made are only going to result in a much much higher BABIP than he’s had his entire career, when he had the same stuff but demonstrated worse command. Cooper has made him better than he’s been so far. the stats back it up.

you’re seeing a somewhat different pitcher than he’s been in the past and saying “he’s the same ol’ same ’ol” because of the issues you mention. those issues were WORSE in his previous stops! this is what happens when a guy who has no idea where it’s going develops some idea where it’s going. it’s still ugly.

when was the last time you saw a GB turn into a HR?

He’s like the e-gus of uniforms.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15222601&topic_id=8879838&c_id=mlb

what do we count as “results” ? is there a defense behind them or isn’t there?

since it depends least on things that require a high sample to stabilize. K’s in particular stabilize very quickly.

of course what i would use most ideally are actual updated projections that regress each peripheral appropriately, but the whole problem there is that it presupposes my point.

i on the other hand am tactless.