You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Jeff Sullivan FanGraphs Chat -- 9/15/17
powered byJotCast
View Full Chat Next Page
Jeff Sullivan
9:04
Hello friends
Welcome to Friday baseball chat
Sterling Mallory Chris Archer
9:04
I appreciate you and our Friday chats, Jeff.  Last year we had the Cubs storyline enthrall us all. What narrative this year could bring us some kind of excitement like last years?
Jeff Sullivan
9:05
It's the Indians, right?
It's obviously the Indians
Longest existing title drought, modern-record win streak, smaller-market operation, coming back from one of the most devastating World Series losses imaginable
CamdenWarehouse
9:05
Is there anywhere the eye test is more misleading than outfield defense?
Jeff Sullivan
9:06
Is it that misleading? I personally feel like it usually goes mostly according to what the numbers say, although I suppose I'm biased by being mostly aware of the numbers in the first place
9:07
Maybe the answer is Fernando Rodney. Seems like a nightmare every single time. Still typically gets the job done
Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe
9:07
Was the Indians' "Hatteberg Moment" the Lindor double or the Bruce double?
Jeff Sullivan
9:09
I feel like it was the Lindor double. I get the argument against it, but when Bruce hit his double, you could already almost assume the win. When Lindor came up, the Indians' win expectancy was 11%, and he promptly fell behind 1-and-2. Then he hit a ball to the opposite field just barely out of the reach of one of the best defensive LF in the modern era
The Lindor double is far more memorable, for all of its nooks and crannies
Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe
9:10
Please note that the Fangraphs playoff predictions seem to be off. The Nationals have a 100% Postseason chance with a 7.5% World Series win, while the Cubs have an 88.8% playoff chance with a 12.2% World Series win. Seems like a flaw in the projections, right?
Jeff Sullivan
9:12
Seems like something must be slightly off -- for example, we give the Nationals a 36% chance of winning the World Series, *if they make the World Series*. That's too low. But we do currently have the Nationals projected as worse than the Cubs, Dodgers, Indians, etc, in large part because Bryce Harper is still absent
Ross
9:14
Is Chris Archer basically Jeff Samardzija with a better contract? Durable, good stuff, good FIP, lots of K's, but the results always leave you disappointed. Running an ERA over 4 for the second straight year. Basically, someone who's always disappointing because he's not as good as it seems he should be.
Jeff Sullivan
9:15
I think, with Archer, there's a little more bad luck. His runners-on splits appear more unlucky, while with Samardzija, there's more of a hint of worse performance. So while there are some parallels, I think Archer is better here, and deserves a lower ERA
Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe
9:15
Remember when the Diamondbacks intentionally walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded in the 9th inning to face Brent Mayne? How often do you think Brent Mayne thinks about when the Diamondbacks intentionally walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded in the 9th inning to face Brent Mayne?
Jeff Sullivan
9:16
I can't imagine you feel too bad as a former baseball player when you reflect on a particular situation and understand that the other team saw you as less of a threat than God
CLE
9:16
Jeff, in your opinion, did the Indians set the record last night? Or, is the record still 26 games?
Jeff Sullivan
9:16
The record is still 26 games, but on the other hand, who could give a shit what happened 101 years ago
SP Jeremy Jeffress
9:17
First career start today, going for 3ip or 50 pitches. Am I a sneaky source of good innings or an implosion?
Jeff Sullivan
9:17
You have a 5.53 FIP
9:18
You're a very conspicuous source of hittable baseballs
Babe Lincoln
9:18
Best chat of the week
Jeff Sullivan
9:18
I certainly think so
Stuafoo
9:18
Is there any advantage at all for a batter to stand at the very front of the box? Maybe you catch a breaking ball before it has a chance to fully drop? Doesn't seem like that would overcome the reduced reaction time, but it's been a curiosity for me. Does anyone ever do this?
Jeff Sullivan
9:20
Whatever advantage you gain in reducing the break difference between pitches is indeed probably given away via the reduced flight time. So I figure it's better to stand further back; give yourself an extra split second, and assume you can tell the difference between one pitch type and another
Maybe, if you're *really* vulnerable to the low-away slider, you should move up. But I doubt it
Red
9:20
Is Judge back?
Jeff Sullivan
9:20
Seems like it
Jack
9:22
Should baseball make the "Jacoby Ellsbury rule" and change catcher's interference? The spirit of the rule seems to be that it is always the catcher's fault when a batter's swing hits his glove, but if someone like Ellsbury has this happen way more often, then clearly it's not all on the catcher. This is a pretty garbage way to reach base, especially if there are certain players whose swing allows them to take advantage of the rule way more often than others. I understand that even with Ellsbury this is still something that only happens occasionally, but still, why not just call it no pitch?
Jeff Sullivan
9:23
It's so uncommon, and it would be so easy to avoid -- just scoot back another few inches. Ellsbury doesn't *want* to reach on interference. It's never on purpose. I think you need to preserve the rule to avoid other kinds of catcher interference, and then you just figure it will self-correct if it ever threatens to spiral out of control
HappyFunBall
9:24
Just read your team WAR article. Good stuff as usual! I wonder a bit about the final table though. I can't speak to every club, but just in watching the Nationals every day I feel like it's misleading. The Nats have a FAR better bench than they did in 2016, as evidenced by guys like Taylor, Difo, Goodwin, etc ... stepping in for some pretty significant injured starters this year. I wonder if a comparison of ordinal rankings doesn't well capture what happens when the guys you "expect" to be top-10 vs 11-25 don't necessarily end up there due to how playing time really shakes out?
Jeff Sullivan
9:24
Yeah, something gets lost when you end up with so many injury replacements. The Nationals have the best depth they've had in a while, probably, but the best depth pieces have had to turn into starting pieces
Moonlight Graham
9:25
So on your August 22 Effectively Wild podcast, it seemed like Ben, Sam, and you were enjoying "the best Oregon had to offer" in terms of plant life.  Is that fair to say?  I can take my answer off the air (and I'm not a cop, either!)
Jeff Sullivan
9:26
No one was high. We had collectively slept about three hours over the previous two days
I was responsible for 2.5 of those hours
Guest
9:28
So, with Cleveland holding an AL win-streak record that could stand for a long time, and approaching an MLB record that could stand even longer, can fans, writers, and commentators forcibly rename the ball club? Could we all just refer to them as Cleveland and refuse to refer to them by their official team name?
Jeff Sullivan
9:29
They haven't even gotten rid of Chief Wahoo yet. You think you're going to make progress changing the very nickname of the franchise itself?
9:30
Even if you *did*, they'd still be the Indians today. And when we refer to historical baseball players, we still refer to their occasionally offensive nicknames.
Connecting…