You did make your point, but your tone was that of someone talking to an idiot child. You never specifically used the word “moron” but it sure seemed like you were thinking it loudly.

Finally, I never said that you shouted anything. To myself and someone else all you said was “small sample size.” I pointed out that, at that point, SSS was your entire argument.

You’re the one who asked “what’s a big sample size”? So I linked to the answer.

I never said anyone was dumb, or a moron, or whatever. I’m sure you’re not, and I’m sure Chris is not. All I said was that you and Chris and others don’t actually know why Papelbon has struggled in 8.1 innings of non-save-situation pitching this year. And when asked why I said so, I explained myself.

I’m sorry if you find detailed explanations condescending. But you’re the one who asked for the explanation. If you don’t like feeling that you’re being condescended to, well, I don’t like being told that I’m just shouting “small sample size” without knowing what the hell I’m talking about. Or being told (by Chris) that I’m not a Phillies fan when in fact I am.

I also played baseball my whole life up through college, and I’ve spent years as a youth coach.

Please don’t assume that, because I prefer not to tell stories about every little blip in every little stat, that I am not a Phillies fan or not a real baseball fan or don’t watch the game or don’t know the game or haven’t played the game or any of the other baseless insults that get trotted out by people who like to tell stories about every little blip in every little stat.

And please don’t say that you buy that in general, but that in this particular case you know what’s causing this particular blip. Because you don’t.

Look, it *kills* me when Papelbon blows a game, or when Charlie leaves the starter in too long to blow a game. Just like it kills you. The difference between us is, I don’t pretend that 8.1 innings worth of data give me any insight into what goes on in Papelbon’s head.

There are a million things that affect the outcome of every pitch Papelbon (or anyone) throws. What pitch was it? Exactly how hard was the pitch thrown, with exactly what spin and from exactly what release point (tiny differences in any of those can affect where the pitch goes)? Exactly how is the wind blowing between the mound and the plate as the pitch travels towards the plate? Who’s the batter? From what side does he bat? What pitch was the batter looking for, if he was guessing at all? Exactly how well did he pick up the pitch? Exactly when did he start his swing?…And because of all that and much more, the ball strikes the bat (or not), and goes somewhere (or not)–but where it goes (if it goes) can be totally different depending on *exactly* where it hits the bat (it’s a game of inches!). And then you have to ask who’s playing defense, and exactly where were they positioned, and on and on…Shall I keep going? You think that, with all that and much, much more going on, you can look at 8.1 innings worth of outcomes and figure out that not only is there one simple reason why Papelbon has pitched badly in non-save situations this year, but that you know what that reason is? Give me a frickin’ break.

Look, go ahead and tell yourself stories if it makes you feel better. But don’t expect me to believe your stories. The stories that appear to comfort you are no comfort to me. You see meaning in the tea leaves. Good for you. I just see tea leaves.

If you follow the link I provided, you can see non-normalized as well as normalized plots of pitch location.

No, Papelbon’s not a robot. Sure, maybe something has somehow changed this year that now, for the first time, is causing him to pitch badly when a save is not on the line.

But here’s the thing: you have NO evidence for that. You’re just making up stories after the fact, and the only evidence you’ve got for those stories are the very same stats *that caused you to make up the story in the first place*. I could equally well make up a different story–say, Papelbon is being paid by gamblers to pitch badly in non-save situations–and there’d be *just* as much evidence for it.

And if Papelbon suddenly starts pitching well in non-save situations and badly in save situations, you’ll make up a different story to explain it. Somehow he’s suddenly feeling the pressure in save situations and relaxed in non-save situations or something. Unlike you, I’m willing to actually stick my neck out and make a prediction (namely, that Papelbon will start pitching better in non-save situations). Not just make up stories about stuff that’s already happened.

I wish I had your psychic powers, so that I could somehow read the meaning in the tea leaves on the bottom of every cup. Because that’s pretty much what you’re claiming you can do.

Again, as long as you’re making up stories: Why is Papelbon pitching so poorly against #6 hitters this year? Why is he pitching so poorly on 2 days rest as compared to any other amount of rest? Because there is just as much reason to think that he has problems against #6 hitters, or on 2 days rest, as there is to to think he suddenly can’t pitch well in non-save situations. I don’t demand that you like stats, but I do demand that you be consistent. If you’re willing to “explain” why Papelbon is suddenly unable to pitch well in non-save situations, you should also be explaining why he’s suddenly unable to pitch well against #6 hitters and on 2 days rest.

Looking forward to hearing your stories, storyteller.

Sure, if Papelbon was a robot, then this would make perfect sense. “I am pitcher…I go to mound…I throw exact same way every single pitch, every single batter, every single inning, every single day.”

But he is not a robot. Isn’t it fair to think that maybe, this year, with all the money he got and the fact that he is now on a new team, with a new life basically, that maybe, just maybe, he isn’t that same person he was before this year? Oh no…this is a small-sample size. He is just Papelbon v 2.0 and he is a robot. Nothing has changed with the guy. He pitches the same exact way as his whole career and if he is struggling this year in non-save situations, then you STUPID MORON, it’s simply sample-size.

And if you think anything differently, then I will condescendingly send you a link to the bible-writer of the sample-size cult, fangraphs.

Before you wrongfully declare that I am denigrating sample-size a whole, I am not. What I am saying is that you can’t always just say “SAMPLE-SIZE” and that explains everything. In this case, I think there is a good argument that Papelbon is pitching differently based on the situation. If you were a Phillies fan, you would know that he has been in this situation quite a few times this year. And if that dummy managing this team would have been smart enough to have him warming up to put him in last night to get one stinking out in the 8th, they may have won.

Papelbon started a new chapter of his career this year. You may think he is a robot who just “sees THE ball and throws THE ball”, but there has only been one robot in MLB that I know of and his name was Manny B. Manny.

I DID survive a stint as a Little-League ump, barely, and it’s a hard and thankless job. That isn’t an excuse to suck at it.

As pitchers, we all want a couple of inches off the edge, but do not count on them, and he was a lunatic to think that he was going to get that call. For him to make a scene after the pitch, after the inning, and after the game is bush league. Gordon is not a strong batter at this stage in his career. Make a better pitch and there is little or no discussion.

If the ump evaluators deem that the young man did an overall poor job, so be it.

Start working with Little Leaguers and work up to high school double headers at night with bad lighting, for $40 a night.

Get used to working every Friday and Saturday night. Get used to gettting no respect from no one. Get used to getting cussed out by 15-years old, and their mothers. Get used to people cheering and jeering when you take a foul ball in the nads. Get used to dumbass rednecks wanting to meet you in parking lot after the game.

Keep doing that for a few years and keep trying to get a slot in the school. Maybe get into college or the low minors, and spend years driving from game to game with worse pay than the players.

Then maybe, just maybe, you get a chance at AAA or the majors. And all your get are dickheads like you compalinging about everything.

You’re so fucking perfect, and so fucking good, why aren’t you out there doing it? It’s hard enough to find a job you love doing, but to know you are an object of abuse (verbal and physical) just because you show up for work shouldn’t be part of it.

I’m happy you’re so much better than the current crop of umpires out there. But if you’re so good, why not get off of your dead ass and try it yourself?

Or are you afraid you might actually have to read the rule book and find out you don’t really know shit about the game after all?

Fucking punk.

On days like today, I could care less if the umpires are perfect, or miss every call.

But it’s nice to know you guys value my opinion.

Hoyle would disapprove.

Hey, if you want to rely on machines rather than your eyes to track the position of a small, fast-moving object, have at it.

I think pitchers and hitters know the strike zone, for the most part. Most umps do, too, I believe. Some may see the zone a little off one day. I see players ask the umps for the zone, politely, to check that they are on the same page. Pedroia has done this, Aviles has done this, Jeter has done this, Arod had done this. This is also not to say that the players, umps and pitchers haven’t been ill-tempered re: a call. I could go on, but I pretty much have rambled on.

That’s not far from the truth. Which is why the performance of the typical reliever fluctuates a lot from year to year.

“When does a small sample size become a regular sample size?”

Glad you asked! I found the answer in less than 10 seconds with an invention called “Google”:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/principles/sample-size/ (this post summarizes the answer; follow the links at the bottom of the post for details on how the answer was calculated)

To say that Papelbon can’t be effective in non-save situations is indeed silly. Here are Papelbon’s career stats in save vs. non-save situations:

Save: IP 274.2, ERA 2.26, WHIP 0.998, K/9 10.7, K/BB 4.43,

Non-save: IP 162, ERA 2.44, WHIP 0.988, K/9 10.7, K/BB 5.51

Not a dime’s worth of difference.

Papelbon has pitched 8.1 innings in non-save situations this year. Are you seriously going to claim that’s a large enough sample to be worth talking about?

By the way, his batting average on balls in play in non-save situations this year? .400. Which is not only totally out of his control (it’s down to a combination of luck and the quality of defense behind him), but is extraordinarily high and very likely to come down.

As long as we’re telling stories about meaningless blips in Papelbon’s stats…Papelbon is allowing a .798 OPS at home this year vs. .277 on the road. Hey, maybe that means he can’t pitch at home, because the roar of the crowd interferes with the flow of his adrenaline! Papelbon is also conceding a 1.038 OPS (!) to guys hitting 6th in the order. Clearly the problem is that he relaxes after getting through the heart of the lineup! And he’s conceding an .820 OPS on 2 days of rest. Clearly the Phillies should just pitch him every day to keep him sharp, since on no rest he’s only conceding a .286 OPS this year!

Or maybe people should quit pretending that they know squat about why it just so happens that Papelbon has had a few shaky innings in non-save situations.

Now have I won the argument?