You don't know what you got til it's playing in the AL Central

by Simons on Sep 6, 2007 1:08 PM EDT in Commentary Comment 37 comments

Last November the Mets traded a AAA shortstop to the Texas Rangers for a AAA second baseman. New York got about what you would expect; the guy played okay for about a month before losing his season to injury. The Rangers, on the other hand, found lightning in a bottle - their new shortstop played way beyond anyone's hopes and is now a serious candidate for rookie of the year. Still, because the Mets have shortstop pretty well covered, and because the trade only happened in the land of belabored hypotheticals, no one in New York is crying in their beer about the trade.

But there's been a lot of crying, gnashing of teeth, even pulling of hair over the trade that sent Brian Bannister to Kansas City in exchange for Ambiorix Burgos. Every time Bannister scatters nine hits to beat the Twins, the second-guessers emerge from the woodwork, putting in their two cents by dialing up the FAN, whining on a blog, or writing a column for Newsday. "Omar's an idiot!" "Bannister's the Mannister!" "I told you so!" And of course, "Oh, how the Mets miss could have used him this year!"

Please. Are these Monday Morning GMs for real, or are they auditioning for the role of bar-know-it-all Cliff Clavin in the hotly anticipated Broadway revival of Cheers? The New York rotation now features two Hall of Famers and three guys in the top 20 in ERA; their #6 is a first-round draft pick who was a bloop away from a no-hitter last week. The Mets didn't miss Bannister, the New Orleans Zephyrs did.

Of course, Mike Pelfrey wasn't exactly lights out in the first half of the year. He was faced and replaced by Jorge Sosa. Mijorge Pelsa combined to make 24 starts for New York, going 8-13 with a 4.92 ERA; in his 23 starts for K.C., Bannister is 12-7 with a 3.16 ERA. No wonder people want to call do-overs, reverse the trade, and award the Mets an extra 4.5 wins. But the Royals have given Bannister 4.7 runs a game to work with, a full run more than Pelfresosa's gotten. If you fired up the time machine, kept Bannister in orange and blue, and he got 3.6 runs a game to work with, he'd be, what, 11-9? At best his presence on the Mets would mean a three-game lift. With Atlanta and Philly on the mat, who cares?

We haven't even tickled the 800-pound gorilla in the room yet: Bannister's a fraud. His success this year is a fluke with a capital F. Broadcasters love the idea of a crafty finesse pitcher surviving on savvy and guile - because nobody in the booth has a 93 mph slider in their arsenal. But you can't make it in the show if you can't miss bats. Striking out four guys a night and putting the other 23 outs on the defense isn't a winning equation. It sure as hell doesn't equate to an ERA around 3 for very long, believe me.

Take any "control" pitcher you can name - anyone that Mel Stottlemyre would draft ahead of Dwight Gooden, for instance - and you'll see that by the time they reached Bannister's current age of 26, they'd demonstrated an ability to put guys away. When Greg Maddux was 26, he threw 268 innings, allowed 201 hits and struck out 199, a rate of 6.68 per 9 - in Wrigley Field. Tom Glavine struck out almost 200 when he was 25 - in the Fulton County launching pad. Jamie Moyer struck out 6.58 per 9 innings when he was 24 - in Wrigley. John Tudor had 6.72 K/9 when he was 28 - in Fenway. Etc., Etc.

The only guys who can survive with a K/9 rate anywhere near Brian's 4.37 are the sinkerballers who get three double plays a night. But Bannister's not a sinkerballer - his groundball / flyball ratio is just about even. You're looking at a guy who's hittable - he's given up more hits than Pelfrey and Sosa have in their starts, albeit with fewer walks - who doesn't get twin killings and doesn't strike anyone out. That ERA is about to regress to the mean faster than you can say "BABIP."

Not that I'm hoping Bannister collapses just to prove me right. I already know I'm right. He can win 20 games a year forever for all I care, as long as he keeps doing it in Kansas City. I hope they name a street after him. This weekend in particular, I wish him all the luck in the world.

But that's exactly what's behind Bannister's run this year: luck, something you tend to run out of. Ambiorix Burgos has had wicked luck so far, but he also owns a skill: He can throw a ball harder than 99.99% of the planet. That skill gives him a good chance to help the team when he comes back in 2009, when he'll still only be 26.

I still like the trade.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

100% agree

Trades are made based on information. No GM has perfect information on the future and what a guy can do this year. So they estimate. Bannister was going be the 7th Starter and didn't have any options, so he dealt him and go a fireballing reliever with options. Said reliever blew out his elbow. This wasn't Kazmir for Zambrano. This piece could also be written about Heath Bell who pitched to 1.60 WHIP here, didn't get along with the Jacket and now every one is killing Peterson/Willie/Omar for getting rid of him.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Sep 6, 2007 1:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Half agree

Bannister for Burgos was and is still a fine trade, I completely agree. But while Bell had a bad run in NY, the fact is he had some of the most rotten luck this side of Burgos. Check out his BABIP for last year and the year before, and you can see the man got hosed. He was a great reliever in the minors for a while, and isn't now playing over his head, but rather to his ability.

My problem isn't with any one trade, or certainly Bannister for Burgos specifically (in fact I have absolutely no problem with that one and don't consider it part of what I'm about to say). My problem was the bizarre systematic trade of their bullpen depth over the off season (as I follow the minors, I for one was looking forward to seeing Henry Owens in orange and Blue) that was then followed by the signing of Scott Showenweis. Thanks, but I'd rather have had Bell, Owens, Ring and Lindstrom than Showenweis.

by jalsonmi on Sep 6, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bannister

I guess since I don't listen to shows like Mike and the Mad Dog, I didn't even realize that there has been howling about the Bannister-Burgos trade. You'd think that the seasons Perez and Maine have had, plus the return of Pedro, would have made everyone forget about Bannister, but I guess that's impossible in the land of WFAN and the New York Post.

It sucks that Burgos got hurt, but I certainly am not missing a guy with the inability to strike people and who doesn't compensate for that with a wicked sinker like Chien-Ming Wang does. Bannister WILL come back to earth sooner or later.

Every time Mota pitches, a kitten dies. Please think of the kittens!

by Greenpoint Ian on Sep 6, 2007 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No

If it makes you feel better, keep your rationalization. But the fact is that the Bannister for Burgos trade was a gamble that didn't -- and likely will never -- pay off for the Mets. Omar dumped his Toyota Corolla for a Mustang GT, but he disregarded the history of the Mustang and as a result traded reliability for a lemon.

That record and ERA on the Royals, speaks of more than just run support and luck.

I sure as hell would have rather seen Bannister on the mound than Brian frickin' Lawrence. More important, it would definitely be nice to have Bannister going into the playoffs as insurance given the fragility of Pedro and El Duque, the age of Glavine, and the recent mediocrity from Maine and Perez. Having Bannister would also have given the Mets a valuable tool to help repair our awful bullpen (either by serving there himself, or by allowing El Duque to be shifted there).

If I had to win a game tomorrow, I'd rather have Bannister pitching than any current Met.

by Tom on Sep 6, 2007 2:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

what?

I was with you when you expressed your opinion that Banniser is superior to Brian Lawrence, but then you had to conclude with this:

"If I had to win a game tomorrow, I'd rather have Bannister pitching than any current Met."

This reads like one of those awful odes to David Eckstein or Darin Erstad that bad sportswriters churn out by the bushel: "If there's one guy I'd want to build a winning team around, it's Darin Erstad/David Eckstein."

Every time Mota pitches, a kitten dies. Please think of the kittens!

by Greenpoint Ian on Sep 6, 2007 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously?

Bannister over ANY current Met? For real real? Not for play play?

by ams258 on Sep 6, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

Since the All-Star break, while he's gone 8-2 with a microscopic ERA, he's clearly been better than any Met starter:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=6474

Pedro has little but guile right now, and his lack of endurance opens the door to our pathetic bullpen.

Sure, on a good day, Ollie would be more likely to completely shut down the opposition. But at this point in their respective careers, I prefer Bannister's consistent control.

While Maine was better than Bannister the first half of the season, Brian has been superior since the beginning of August.

I would give Bannister the nod over Glavine as well because of consistency. It seems every other game Tommy forgets to take his Geritol and the opposing squad tees off on him.

by Tom on Sep 7, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To start ONE game for me

I don't want Bannister in ahead of any of the current Met starters.
Sorry. For ONE game, consistency is irrelevant. All of the Mets starters can give you ONE better game than Bannister can.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Sep 7, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Consistency is irrelevant?

For one game, I'd rather have a starter who I'm confident is going to give my offense a good chance to win the game.

Bannister might not shutout the other team, but as he has shown -- not giving up more than 4 runs in a game since June -- he won't blow the game either.

Is Bannister a true ace (dominant stuff, strikes fear in the opposing team, etc.)? No. But, I hate to break it to you, the Mets don't have one and haven't had one at least since Pedro went down for good last year. At this stage of their respective careers, neither Pedro or Glavine are shutdown pitchers. Perez can be, but of course too often isn't. Maine has marginally better stuff than Bannister, but his control is not as good. (One could argue that Glavine, despite his 300 wins and multiple Cy Youngs, has never been more than a very good #2 pitcher, but that's a separate thread.)

by Tom on Sep 7, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What AAA SS?

Who was the AAA shortstop traded to the Rangers?

by mattyrudes on Sep 6, 2007 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There was none.

He said it was a hypothetical. That means, "just pretend."

by madisonmetsfan on Sep 6, 2007 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wtf?

Okay, I officially discomprehend this whole cutesy opener. Is the point (as I took it to be) that Simons remembered some obscure trade rumor that we all forgot, then pretended (hypothetically) that it happened, and discussed what would've been the consequences? Or is the point that Simons is high, hallucinating, and using the word "hypothetical" to cover his fabrication of whatever reality is the most pleasing to discuss at the moment? Could we rejoin the fact-based community at some point?

by anonymous on Sep 6, 2007 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I don't understand the idea of that first paragraph at all. Real facts would have done just fine...

by Mikeybags84 on Sep 7, 2007 4:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bannister

I think you're being a little hard on Bannister. First, he's been flat-out better than the Pelfrey/Sosa combo:

                H    BB    SO
Bannister    8.19  2.18  4.37
Pelfresosa   8.96  3.70  5.31

Yeah, the strikeout rate is a tad better, but it really doesn't make up for the difference in walks.

And that's what Bannister does exceptionally well. Anytime you have a pitcher who's capable of only walking 2.18 batters a game, he's going to have some value. Is he going to regress? Sure. But how far is he going to regress? His FIP is 3.93, though my guess is it'll be a little higher than that. Even if he regresses to 4.50, he's going to be more valuable to the Royals than Burgos ever would have been. And who knows, Bannister could be the rare flyball pitcher who doesn't give up many homers (he never gave up homers in the minors, either).

That said, I do understand why Minaya made the trade in the first place. The Mets had more starting pitching depth at the time than relief depth, thanks to the departures of Bell, Ring, Owens, and Lindstrom. And Bannister was never in the long-term plans.

That's what made it an acceptable trade for Omar Minaya. And it's also what made it a great trade for Dayton Moore.

As an aside, I've never cared for Burgos. Outside of his ability to throw 99 and his strikeout rate, he's never actually pitched well. His minor league ERA is 4.38 and his minor league WHIP is 1.37. He walks too many and has given up a lot of homers. I really don't see why his one decent season should be considered any less of a fluke than Bannister's good one.

by Alex Nelson on Sep 6, 2007 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There is no AAA SS to Texas

something is wrong there, I'm going to say. Texas has zero rookies with more than 150 at bats. Michael Young has played 130 games and about 90% of all innings at SS.

The closest i can get is that the Mets traded Victor Diaz to Texas in August, and that Diaz WAS a 2nd baseman at one point in time. However, he is neither a rookie nor has he been that good in only 108 PA's(OBP of .259, good slg gives him an OPS+ of 100).

So what was that opening paragraph about?

When asked why I was a Mets fan, I responded, "pain is my lifeblood."

by wrightHOF on Sep 6, 2007 6:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ahem

Still, because the Mets have shortstop pretty well covered, and because the trade only happened in the land of belabored hypotheticals, no one in New York is crying in their beer about the trade.

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on Sep 6, 2007 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I got that, but the reference is still opaque

I understand the idea of this pgph, but there's cute and cagey and then there's playing guessing-games. What long-forgotten trade rumor does this refer to, please?

by anonymous on Sep 6, 2007 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed that line

that was sneaky. And who's the last good SS prospect we've had since Jose? Unless he's talking about Lastings or another prospect, and changed the positions to protect the innocent.

When asked why I was a Mets fan, I responded, "pain is my lifeblood."

by wrightHOF on Sep 6, 2007 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just hypothetical, it's an analogy.

He used it as a way to put in perspective the Bannister trade. He knew no one would say way miss desperately a shortstop, since we have Reyes, and we had a whole in the second base department. Similarly, we don't need a starter, but we had a hole in the bullpen. It's not referring to a trade rumor (the Mets have no triple-A shortstops worth mentioning), it's simply an analogy. Belabored, sure, but he pointed that out himself at the start.

by jalsonmi on Sep 7, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you say so

This explanation still doesn't make sense of the opening paragraph to me, because a "hypothetical" is not the same as a "completely imaginary story someone just made up." A hypothetical scenario would be a scenario in which we extrapolate what the consequences would've been of an initial counterfactual assumption, like the trade in this case, not one where we made up the whole situation out of whole cloth. "Would the Mets have won the Series in 2000 if A-Rod had signed with them instead of the Rangers?" is a hypothetical question -- but "Would the Mets have won the Series in 2000 if they played clones of Roy Hobbs at every position with magical handmade lightning-wood bats?" is not. Rather, it is pure fiction (or bullshit, if you prefer). If you think this opening paragraph is more like the latter than like the former, that's fine, but it's hardly "hypothetical."

by anonymous on Sep 7, 2007 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The truth comes in the analogy

It might not be a textbook hypothetical--it was belabored, as he said, and is a little off what hypothetical is supposed to mean--but the way in which it was "a scenario in which we extrapolate what the consequences would've been of an initial counterfactual assumption" is by using it to analogize the Bannister for Burgos trade. This is done fairly often in real life. "Hypothetically, Jenny, what would you do if Bob cheated on you? By this I mean how will Josie react when she found out I cheated on her?" It's an analogous use of a hypothetical scenario.

by jalsonmi on Sep 7, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't

checked, but does anyone know offhand the type of defense Bannister has had behind him for KC? Would Bannister's stats be at all effected if he pitched for, let's say, Florida? I mean, obviously if he's not striking anyone out and not walking very many, then there's lots of ball put in play, as mentioned earlier...

by The Irresistable Force on Sep 7, 2007 1:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

if you knew that Burgos got tommy john, but while bannister is winning 25 games over the next two years, Burgos will be becoming a rehab all-star down in St. Lucie

by metamatic007 on Sep 7, 2007 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How would the current Mets team be better?

Bannister has obviously had the better year than the Met's fifth starters. But we're five games up in the standings and have most of our remaining schedule against the Marlins and Nationals. We're almost certainly fine this season. And down the road we'll still probably have depth at starter in front of where Bannister would be, long after he's regressed to a mediocre or worse pitcher. So what have the Mets lost? Very little.

It could be argued that Bannister could have yielded more than Burgos. That's ridiculous. In Burgos the Mets traded for a pitcher of pure potential--high risk, high reward. Bannister was high risk, low reward, as he has borderline stuff (and, seriously guys, NO ONE does well for a long time in the majors with mediocre stuff, even if they have pinpoint control. Guys who have mediocre fastballs, sure, but then they have big breaking curveballs or wicked change-ups or something. Bannister has no such pitch. He just hits his spots, and that's it). At the time, the trade looked like a swindle, with very good reason. Sure, right now Bannister most liekly has a much higher trade value, but for that to have happened with the Mets you have to assume the Mets would have pitched him as frequently in the majors (which they wouldn't have) and that he would have pitched as well for them (which he wouldn't have).

As for the playoff bullpen issue--Pelfrey is now in the fifth starter spot Bannister would have held. After this next start, he'll probably go to the bullpen. If he pitches well in this next start, he'll probably be in the playoff bullpen. In addition, one of our five starters will go to the bullpen. In other words, exactly what would have happened in Tom's Bannister scenario. And I would rather have a guy with good control and a devastating fastball in the bullpen than a guy with great control and a crap fastball.

Not having Bannister has not and will not cost this team very much. Burgos may not work out, but the potential was there. Don't let the flukiest of fluke years color your perspective. When Bannister has a 5.00 ERA next year no one will remember what the big deal was all about. For proof, see last year's Bronson Arroyo trade.

by jalsonmi on Sep 7, 2007 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Remember last season

When the Mets went into the postseason with a patched-up starting staff? We initially were fortunate because two of those patches -- Maine and Perez, pitched relatively well. But ultimately being without Pedro and El Duque (another patch of sorts) cost us against that underwhelming Cards team.

It doesn't matter as much that having Bannister in a Mets uniform would give the Mets 5-10 more wins in the regular season. What does matter is we'd have him for the postseason.

And again, Bannister has not simply had a better year than Pelfrey/Sosa/Lawrence, he's had a better year than any Mets pitcher, other than perhaps Maine, and of late, Bannister has clearly been better.

Oh, and in regard to "NO ONE does well for a long time in the majors with mediocre stuff, even if they have pinpoint control" -- tell that to the guy who recently won his 300th game, as well as to his former stablemate who has won even more.

by Tom on Sep 7, 2007 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couple of things

Tom Glavine used to be more of a groundball pitcher, and he also used to average 5.5 to 6 strikeouts per nine innings, well above Bannister's 2007 mark.

Also, the Mets ultimately lost to the Cardinals in last year's NLCS because they couldn't hit Jeff Suppan, not because their starting pitcher wasn't up to snuff. Maybe with Duque or Pedro they won the Trachsel start, but neither of those guys would have helped to put more runs on the board against Soup.

by Eric Simon on Sep 7, 2007 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Bannister is Glavine

Then Burgos is Mariano Rivera.

There's one guy in baseball who has become a top pitcher without a good K/BB rate, and that's Chien-Ming Wang, who doesn't give up any fly balls. Without a great GB/FB ratio, Bannister will come back to earth in short order.

And echoing Eric, the Mets lost the St. Louis in the NLCS because nobody hit besides Beltran and Delgado.

Every time Mota pitches, a kitten dies. Please think of the kittens!

by Greenpoint Ian on Sep 7, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying Bannister is Glavine in his prime

Rather, that -- at this time as we approach the postseason -- Bannister is at least as good as the Glavine we have now, or any of the pitchers that we have now.

One game was all that separated us from going on to play the Tigers. Bannister may not have been ready then, but even if not, he's matured into a reliable pitcher.

by Tom on Sep 7, 2007 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You kind of were saying that

I said no one succeeds for an extended time with mediocre stuff. You said Glavine and Maddux.

Well, Glavine and Maddux both ad/have better stuff than Bannister. Maddux's fastball used to get into the low 90s and had good movement. He also, like Glavine, has outstanding breaking stuff.

Also, Glavine is a bad comp because lefties are a completely different beast than righties. Lefty starters as a whole usually have more success than righties with equivalent stuff. I sound like a scout, which feels odd, but it's true, and has been true for a long time. Even then, both pitchers had equivalent or better stuff than Bannister, and had the added benefit of being two of the smartest pitchers in the history of the game.

by jalsonmi on Sep 7, 2007 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

El Duque has comparable numbers to Bannister except for wins, he can strike people out and is a clutch player. Glavine took a no-hitter into the 6th inning today, has not lost since July 2 and has given up 2 or fewer runs in seven of his last eight starts. No doubt Maine and Perez have been totally eratic of late but the veterans in the rotation are pitching as well as Bannister. That doesn't even include Pedro who looked okay the other day. If he continues to get stronger he is probably better than Bannister too.

I don't disagree the trade doesn't look good but the Mets have at least 2 and possible 3 pitchers (depending on Pedro) who are throwing as well as Bannister. I frankly don't miss the guy that much.

by millsy on Sep 8, 2007 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K/BB Ratio

We're ignoring the fact that Bannister has a good K/BB ratio - its over 2 to 1.

I also think its odd that we're asked to ignore Bannister's very good walk rate as if keeping runners off base were an incidental part of the game. We're also asked to ignore that Burgos can't keep the ball in the park because he throws hard (or, if you prefer, has good tools.)

I don't think that Bannister will continue to be to be a pitcher in the top ten in WHIP and ERA, but I do think that with his walk rate he will be a very effective back end of the rotation pitcher.

by Shomov on Sep 8, 2007 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but the point is

We don't need effective back of the rotation pitchers. At the moment we have a rotation of 5 #3 starters (though, yes, Pedro and Perez have the potential to be #1s, and Pelfrey too if we want to throw him in there). Adding Bannister wouldn't do much for us overall (he's not a #1, never will be).

Burgos so far hasn't worked out, and probably won't, but the essence is that the trade was giving up a commodity we don't need for a commodity that might be very useful. As said, the latter commodity might not work out, but we couldn't have gotten much more for Bannister. And if he wasn't going to do much for us (which he wouldn't have) and he wasn't going to bring much more than he did (and the only way he would have brought more is if he cloned his performance this year in a Met uniform, and I doubt he would have had either the opportunity or the ability to do so--that's right, I don't think his luck would have been this high as a Met--luck is caused by a lot of things and such things as place it takes place, against who it's taking place, and amount of stress you're under when it's taking place all can affect it), than what's the issue?

Not every trade can be Nady for Perez or Jeff Keppinger for Ruben Gotay. Along the same lines, though, not every trade that doesn't work out it the equivalent of Ryan for Fregosi or Kazmir for Zambrano.

by jalsonmi on Sep 8, 2007 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that this trade has not adversely affected the Mets chances either this year or in the future. Nevertheless, I think that one can still assess which team got the better end of a deal by asking which team received more value. Royals got a starter who doesn't walk anyone and the Mets got a reliever with a bum arm who gives up 500 foot homeruns.

Note, however, that I am not criticizing the trade. Burgos was worth the risk in exchange for a player who did not factor into the Mets' plans; it just has not worked out well thus far and I doubt that it will. I think that is fair to say that the Royals received the more valuable player (I antipate a "value to whom" retort that I think misses the mark).

Trades often work out this way. Teams trade a potentially valuable player who they have no use for in order to fill a need, and the player traded turns out to be quite good when given the chance to play. One team receives a windfall and the other team is left off no worse off.

by Shomov on Sep 8, 2007 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very Well Said

Agree 100%. All trades are a gamble to a certain extent and we gave up Bannister to attempt to fill a bullpen need. So far it hasn't worked out but this is not likely to be Kazmir for Zambrano either.

by millsy on Sep 9, 2007 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He let us down last night

5 innings, 7 ER, 3 HR, 1 K, 3 BB against the Yankees.

by Shomov on Sep 9, 2007 8:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Control Pitchers

We are asked to "Take any 'control' pitcher you can name ... and you'll see that by the time they reached Bannister's current age of 26, they'd demonstrated an ability to put guys away." Simons then cites two 300 game winners, a 228 game winnner and a guy who had one one the most dominant seasons in the last twenty five years. The guys he references are not exactly a representative sample of "control" pitchers. The fact that Bannister is not, and never will be, equivalent to any of them is not exactly an indictment.

by Shomov on Sep 9, 2007 8:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Survivorship Bias

I have to compare Bannister to pitchers that we've actually heard of, i.e., successful pitchers. I could compare him to low-strikeout guys who had a couple of good years before flaming out, but then everyone would say, "Who the hell are Bill Stafford and Dave Fleming?"

by Simons on Sep 16, 2007 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs