Hi. I’m 13-5 with a 3.49 ERA. Do You Know Who I Am?

Josh Beckett? Almost! Josh is 13-5, 3.51. That’s pretty good! But I guess I’m just a bit better. Nihao!

25 comments… add one
  • It’s remarkable how similar their pitching lines are, and the fact they are both tall 27-year-olds and de-facto aces of their respective staffs makes me think that we could be in for many years of great battles. Of course Beckett has one accolade to lord over the Yankees prior to his time in Boston.

    attackgerbil August 3, 2007, 10:59 pm
  • is it clemens?

    sf rod August 3, 2007, 11:12 pm
  • Where’s Brad and the “Wang will eventually regress” gang? K/rate says what?

    bloodyank78 August 3, 2007, 11:18 pm
  • In fairness, I think Beckett’s had a (slightly) better year; his whip is better, his strikeout rate is higher, he’s not giving out free passes, and his homer rate is way down. Lots of the SFs here saw this coming–and kudos to them for seeing thru last year’s troubles. On the other hand, Wang has been his usual terrific self, and is basically doing just what he did last year–as we suspected, and many of the SFs here thought wildly unlikely.

    YF August 3, 2007, 11:21 pm
  • YF: Both awesome pitchers. It just so happens that Wang is more awesomer, just because.

    attackgerbil August 4, 2007, 12:00 am
  • “In fairness, I think Beckett’s had a (slightly) better year; his whip is better, his strikeout rate is higher, he’s not giving out free passes, and his homer rate is way down.”
    YF, you’re operating within the old paradigm of taking peripherals as if they’re reflective of true performance. Wang defies all peripherals. He is a revolution. Both Beckett and he are having similar quality years. No edge to either at this point. Frankly, it’s pretty glorious given the pre-season debates about these two on this site, how similar their lines are. Brad and I are eating crow and it’s great!

    Nick-YF August 4, 2007, 12:24 am
  • at least beckett can grow gross facial hair!

    Ric August 4, 2007, 12:48 am
  • Wang operates outside the Matrix. He sees through K/9 rates like Neo sees through Agent Smith.

    yankees76 August 4, 2007, 2:10 am
  • Beckett’s ERA is 3.41. You know, just a bit better than Wang’s 3.49.

    Tyrel SF August 4, 2007, 2:11 am
  • He’s the Wang! (Err, Wong/One? Okay, pun jokes are tough online!)

    Lar August 4, 2007, 3:33 am
  • Since you called me on my “Damon bitterness” misrepresentation YF a couple of days ago (and correctly so), I think it’s fair I point out that you somewhat misrepresent (and generalize) the SF sentiment at this site regarding Wang. Certainly there were the naysayers (Brad, I think, was most vocal about ti), but I think the naysayers’ volume informs your memory. The thread below is remarkably critical, and smartly so, of both Beckett and Wang, from both YFs and SFs alike. Funnily, you admit (at the time) that you agree with my sentiments on Wang, Beckett, and some of the more acronymized pitching analysis 100%. I imagine the two most vocal people at this site regarding these two pitchers were Nick (who you can tell just KNEW Beckett was going to adapt to the AL ;-)) and Brad, and that informs our perception of the debate, to an extent. It wasn’t quite so zero-sum.
    And this thread is interesting, particularly as it came from Nick, earlier in Wang’s Yankee career – it beats the drum, quite hard, that YF accuses us SFs of thumping.

    Anonymous August 4, 2007, 10:44 am
  • SF: Paul and Brad both ran thre Wang-will-regress theme pretty hard for a long time. I did not mean to tar you with that brush, so apologies. I think if you search through the threads, you’ll see me aguing that Wang has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and if he was due for some “regression” this year, it was mainly due to his extremely high win total last season, which is of course something not entirely in a pitcher’s control. I don’t have time to find the thread, but i seem to remember pegging him for 15-18 wins and a hi 3/low 4 era. he’s actually been a better pitcher than ever this year, striking out more batters, but that’s roughly the territory he’s headed for.

    YF August 4, 2007, 10:56 am
  • Hey, I’ll be the first to admit that I had my doubts about Wang. In retrospect YF’s comments in that last thread I put up were especially astute. Bravo to him:
    “I think Mahnken is way off base here, and is illustrating the weakness of an analysis that is so enamored with its own infallibility that it fails to adjust for reality. When stats aren’t reflecting what’s happening on the field, consistently, then there’s a problem with the statistician. And so we come to Wang, who has been a well-above-average pitcher for the Yanks over 2 seasons. He might not fit into the model that certain sabermetricians favor in a pitcher (hi k/9in rates, etc), but he’s such an extreme ground-ball pitcher that you have to wonder whether he will always be an anomaly.”
    I’d like to think that as I follow this game longer, I get a better understanding of ways to analyze performance. Wang is truly exciting because he seems to be a statistical anomoly, someone whose performance seems to contravene old statistical models of understanding. There was an obvious logic to the argument against Wang being able to repeat his brilliant performances from game to game that was hard to deny. Yet, my eyes told me that it made sense. For me it was/is an interesting conflict to think about.

    Nick-YF August 4, 2007, 11:02 am
  • Don’t forget, there are still many seasons more for Wang to regress!

    SF August 4, 2007, 11:03 am
  • Add Trisk to Brad and Paul, YF, and you’re onto something. It wasn’t just SFs.

    SF August 4, 2007, 11:08 am
  • Wang means penis, therefore Beckett wins the tiebreaker.

    Atheose August 4, 2007, 11:53 am
  • I might have been wrong to expect a Wang regression, but I was dead on regarding Beckett, so I take solace in that fact.
    At any rate, no tiebreaker needed, Atheose, considering Beckett’s ERA is actually lower than Wang’s, not higher… Still waiting on the correction for that, YF :-P

    Paul SF August 4, 2007, 12:41 pm
  • From Pete Abe’s blog:
    “Most wins since start of 2006 season:
    Chien-Ming Wang (Yankees) 32
    Carlos Zambrano (Cubs) 30
    Johan Santana (Twins) 30
    Josh Beckett (Red Sox) 29
    Brad Penny (Dodgers) 29
    Roy Halladay (Blue Jays) 28”
    That’s pretty damn impressive.

    bloodyank78 August 4, 2007, 12:52 pm
  • Zambrano and Halladay are the two most impressive, from a “we play for basically medocrities” standpoint.

    SF August 4, 2007, 12:54 pm
  • You know, it’s possible for everyone to be right! The knock against Wang was his 3.14 K/9 last season; this season, he’s upped it to an incredible 4.21!
    I’m not really sure what the statistical advantage of 1.07 K/9 is, but it seems sort of significant. 4.21 is a little closer to average, and I guess that all Wang really needs with those GB rates is close-to-average. There was no regression because Wang’s been a slightly different/better pitcher this season. Anyone who said he was physically incapable of striking people out was wrong. But anyone who said he’d have to strike out more people to maintain last season’s success was…right, I guess.

    Josh SF (D1) August 4, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • It’s a 33% increase, D1. It’s statistically quite significant.

    SF August 4, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • Bravo to him. But, I still take Beckett every day of the week. But, I’m biased! For the record though, the only people who DIDN’T think the luckiest man in baseball was going to regress were faithful Yankee zealots.

    Regular_Brad August 4, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • Beckett:
    H/9: 8.11
    K/9: 8.39
    BB/9: 1.84
    WHIP: 1.11
    ERA: 3.41
    FIP: 3.03
    xFIP: 3.58
    H/9: 8.89
    K/9: 4.21
    BB/9: 2.24
    WHIP: 1.24
    ERA: 3.49
    FIP: 3.81
    xFIP: 4.32
    Sure Wang’s a tiny bit better, if you don’t care about facts.

    mouse - SF August 4, 2007, 3:12 pm
  • Wang means penis, which means Beckett loses the tiebreaker.

    Doug August 4, 2007, 3:57 pm
  • Beckett’s start today reinforces the fact that he is better than Wang, statistically speaking, on almost every front. YF wasn’t a math major, apparently.

    SF August 5, 2007, 7:14 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.