1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:04,680
Speaker 1: You found Cincinnati's ESPN fifteen thirty. So we read this

2
00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: last week. Comba legger, this is ESPN fifteen thirty. Thanks

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:08,520
Speaker 1: for listening.

4
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:12,280
Speaker 2: Last Friday, we read a blurb. I think blurb's the

5
00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:12,879
Speaker 2: right word.

6
00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:15,560
Speaker 1: There's an ESPN dot com piece on.

7
00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:20,400
Speaker 2: Best nuts for the upcoming baseball season, over unders, things

8
00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:24,840
Speaker 2: like that, and we read the snippet We'll go a

9
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:28,480
Speaker 2: snippet on the Reds, which was authored by a guy

10
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:32,879
Speaker 2: named Derek Carty, ESPN betting analyst, and he had the

11
00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:35,560
Speaker 2: Reds finishing with fewer than eighty two and a half wins,

12
00:00:35,600 --> 00:00:38,280
Speaker 2: and that I don't think is that far fetched. I've

13
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:40,360
Speaker 2: got him a little bit better. But you know, it's

14
00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:42,559
Speaker 2: they won eighty three games last year. If they won

15
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:44,559
Speaker 2: eighty two games, it wouldn't be a shock. Eighty two

16
00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:47,159
Speaker 2: would be the under. But what stood out to me,

17
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:49,160
Speaker 2: and I think what stood out to a lot of folks,

18
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:52,720
Speaker 2: was the explanation. And the explanation was, well, there's questions

19
00:00:52,760 --> 00:00:55,760
Speaker 2: in the rotation. Andrew Abbott's been one of the luckiest

20
00:00:55,760 --> 00:00:59,360
Speaker 2: pitchers in baseball. Nicoladolo's stuff declined after returning from injury,

21
00:00:59,800 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 2: and Derek wrote about projections having this as close to

22
00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:09,000
Speaker 2: a bottom five pitching staff. And so we read this

23
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:10,800
Speaker 2: on Friday and I said, man, I'd love to get

24
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:13,160
Speaker 2: this guy on because that doesn't mesh with the consensus.

25
00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:17,480
Speaker 2: Over the weekend, this was spread on Twitter and Derek

26
00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:21,760
Speaker 2: Carty became the latest Cincinnati sports internet villain. You know,

27
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:25,720
Speaker 2: on this show, we love getting on Cincinnati sports internet villains.

28
00:01:25,760 --> 00:01:28,360
Speaker 2: And so, in the middle of being called a bunch

29
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:30,560
Speaker 2: of names, I reached out to Derek and said, love

30
00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:32,760
Speaker 2: to have you on, and he was nice enough to

31
00:01:32,800 --> 00:01:33,840
Speaker 2: agree to a join us.

32
00:01:33,840 --> 00:01:37,560
Speaker 1: Derek Carty is here. How you doing, sir, I'm doing

33
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:38,039
Speaker 1: pretty well.

34
00:01:38,040 --> 00:01:38,920
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having me on.

35
00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:41,520
Speaker 2: What is the meanest thing a reds Fain either called

36
00:01:41,560 --> 00:01:42,840
Speaker 2: you or said to you over the weekend.

37
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 3: I don't know about the meanest, but I did learn

38
00:01:48,680 --> 00:01:51,080
Speaker 3: this weekend that the R word is in heavy rotation

39
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:52,360
Speaker 3: for most people these days.

40
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's uh, that's unfortunate. All right, let's uh,

41
00:01:56,440 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 2: let's get to a few of the the the basic

42
00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:02,200
Speaker 2: premises of your article. Let's start with Andrew Abbitt, who

43
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:05,520
Speaker 2: you expect to have regression. It's worth pointing out by

44
00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:08,120
Speaker 2: the way you offered it me a couple of sorts

45
00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:11,040
Speaker 2: on social media, a little bit of an explanation talked

46
00:02:11,040 --> 00:02:15,720
Speaker 2: about misreading some data. The snippet on the ESPN dot

47
00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 2: com piece has been rewritten to reflect that. But you

48
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:23,680
Speaker 2: expect Andrew Abbott to be a candidate for regression, and

49
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:25,679
Speaker 2: he was awesome in the first half last year. The

50
00:02:25,760 --> 00:02:28,480
Speaker 2: number is not so great in the second half. They

51
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:31,280
Speaker 2: weren't atrocious, but they weren't up to the standard he

52
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,040
Speaker 2: set with that amazing first half. Why do you expect

53
00:02:34,080 --> 00:02:36,080
Speaker 2: him to take a step back in twenty twenty six.

54
00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:41,160
Speaker 3: So a lot of it has to do with just

55
00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 3: some of the core principles of sabermetrics, with that limited

56
00:02:44,880 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 3: control over certain things. They have limited control over the

57
00:02:48,400 --> 00:02:50,480
Speaker 3: hits that they allow on balls and play, the percentage

58
00:02:50,480 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 3: of runners that they strand on base, the percentage of

59
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,440
Speaker 3: their fly balls that turn into home runs. Generally, when

60
00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 3: a picture does really well in one of these categories,

61
00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:00,480
Speaker 3: it helps his era. He looks really good, but it

62
00:03:00,520 --> 00:03:03,480
Speaker 3: doesn't necessarily carry over to his future era very well.

63
00:03:03,919 --> 00:03:07,440
Speaker 3: Abbot has outperformed in all three and even though he's

64
00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:09,040
Speaker 3: done it for three years, and that seems like a

65
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:11,040
Speaker 3: long time when it comes to these stats, the math

66
00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:13,920
Speaker 3: kind of says he's still probably likely to get worse

67
00:03:13,960 --> 00:03:15,560
Speaker 3: at them.

68
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:18,760
Speaker 2: So, all right, you can get worse, you're also getting

69
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:21,320
Speaker 2: worse from what was a pretty lofty standard in the

70
00:03:21,320 --> 00:03:23,839
Speaker 2: first half of last year. Does getting worse mean he's

71
00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:24,480
Speaker 2: a bad picture?

72
00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 3: No, No, I have Andrew Abbot projected as about an

73
00:03:29,120 --> 00:03:31,359
Speaker 3: average picture, maybe a little below average, which I think

74
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,640
Speaker 3: is still well below what most people want to hear.

75
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:38,120
Speaker 3: But when you look at kind of his underlying peripheral metrics,

76
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:39,880
Speaker 3: he doesn't strike a lot of guys out. He doesn't

77
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 3: have great control. He gives up a lot of fly balls.

78
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:46,040
Speaker 3: Even when you dive even deeper into the stackcast data,

79
00:03:46,280 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 3: you know what his pitch mix is and how good

80
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:49,600
Speaker 3: his stuff is. If you look at his velocity and

81
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:51,200
Speaker 3: his movement and his spin rate and his tilt and

82
00:03:51,240 --> 00:03:53,600
Speaker 3: his tunneling and all that kind of good stuff. We

83
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:55,880
Speaker 3: can quantify all that stuff now and we can say

84
00:03:56,360 --> 00:03:59,440
Speaker 3: precisely what scouts see with their eyes. And the problem

85
00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:01,360
Speaker 3: with Abbot is that all of these stuff models, no

86
00:04:01,360 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 3: matter who you look at, they don't like him. They

87
00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:06,240
Speaker 3: don't believe that he's one of these guys that can

88
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 3: outperform the underlying metrics, the way he's done for the

89
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 3: past couple of years. So it really just comes down to,

90
00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,680
Speaker 3: you know, maybe I'm wrong, Maybe the statistics here are wrong.

91
00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:22,560
Speaker 3: Maybe he really is an outlier like those guys do exist,

92
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:26,080
Speaker 3: But probability wise, I don't think he is. And we've

93
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 3: seen it time and again with guys throughout the history

94
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 3: of baseball, Like look at what Rick Corcello did in

95
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 3: Boston twenty sixteen. He had what like twenty two wins

96
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 3: like a three fifteen ERA, He won the Cy young.

97
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 3: He was only in the league for another four years

98
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:40,080
Speaker 3: after that, he never had an ERA under four again,

99
00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:42,000
Speaker 3: and then he was kind of forced out of the league,

100
00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:44,120
Speaker 3: like we saw it with Barry Zito in Oakland where

101
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:47,159
Speaker 3: he was overperforming his peripherals for so long and then

102
00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:49,840
Speaker 3: he completely fell apart. In the final like ten years

103
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 3: of his career. He never had an RA under four.

104
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:54,719
Speaker 3: Like it's just it's one of those things where he's

105
00:04:54,760 --> 00:04:57,080
Speaker 3: doing it, he's doing it right up until he can't anymore,

106
00:04:57,200 --> 00:04:59,240
Speaker 3: and a lot of times guys just can't do it

107
00:04:59,279 --> 00:04:59,880
Speaker 3: long term.

108
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:04,320
Speaker 2: Derek Carty is with us explain or elaborate on I

109
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:08,680
Speaker 2: guess Nick Lidolo's apparent decline and stuff after he came

110
00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 2: off a three week stint on the injuredless last year.

111
00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:12,800
Speaker 1: Yeah.

112
00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:15,880
Speaker 3: So, I mean, anytime a pitcher comes off an injury,

113
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:18,680
Speaker 3: there's always a chance that their stuff is going to

114
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:24,200
Speaker 3: be diminished. Nicklodolo, his fastold velocity was down a little bit.

115
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:28,359
Speaker 3: I'd have to look into exactly what the difference was.

116
00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:30,680
Speaker 3: But if you look at the stuff metrics, especially the

117
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:32,080
Speaker 3: one that I just developed, which is going to be

118
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:35,360
Speaker 3: a fangrass pretty soon, it says that his stuff was

119
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:38,719
Speaker 3: worse last year, and so it's you project him out

120
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:42,239
Speaker 3: just using what he actually did. I'd have him projected

121
00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:45,200
Speaker 3: for a four to seventeen ERA when you account for

122
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:47,520
Speaker 3: the decline and stuff, he projects for a four to

123
00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:51,800
Speaker 3: seventy three RA. So pretty significant drop off there for

124
00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:55,080
Speaker 3: a guy that, uh, you know, maybe next year the

125
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:57,480
Speaker 3: stuff bounces back. I mean, he came back from from

126
00:05:57,520 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 3: an injury. The stuff. You know, there might have been

127
00:05:59,279 --> 00:06:01,000
Speaker 3: some rust that he was taking. Often he might go

128
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:03,159
Speaker 3: back to being the guy that he was before the injury,

129
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:05,800
Speaker 3: but we don't know that. It's another question mark.

130
00:06:06,040 --> 00:06:09,520
Speaker 2: I just want fewer blisters. I'll settle for that when

131
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,359
Speaker 2: you talk about stuff, dive into that. For me is

132
00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:14,400
Speaker 2: that control is a command, is a velocity is an

133
00:06:14,400 --> 00:06:16,359
Speaker 2: accommodation of everything to find stuff.

134
00:06:16,400 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 3: For me, yes, stuff is. When I say stuff, I

135
00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 3: essentially mean the physical characteristics of a pitch. So it's

136
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,560
Speaker 3: the velocity, it's the movement, it's the spin rate, it's

137
00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:29,760
Speaker 3: the tilt, the late break, how well he tunnels it

138
00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:32,240
Speaker 3: off of other pitches, whether he has bridge pitches to

139
00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 3: work with it, all kinds of stuff like that that

140
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:37,600
Speaker 3: essentially tells us how good a fastball is, how good

141
00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:40,440
Speaker 3: a curveball is, how good a slider is, and we

142
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,080
Speaker 3: can quantify that. And when you do that, you've wind

143
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:44,960
Speaker 3: up seeing, okay, the guys that have really good stuff

144
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 3: for the guys you'd expect, and the guys who have

145
00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:50,919
Speaker 3: bad stuff or the guys you'd expect. And so you know,

146
00:06:50,960 --> 00:06:52,680
Speaker 3: it can be a really informative way of telling us

147
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:55,080
Speaker 3: who a picture is, or when a picture changes who

148
00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:57,680
Speaker 3: he is, which did appear to be the case with

149
00:06:57,720 --> 00:06:59,560
Speaker 3: the Ladola last year. After the injury.

150
00:07:00,600 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 2: Your original premise had Chase Burns, as you put it,

151
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:07,360
Speaker 2: representing a significant injury risk, and you've kind of walked

152
00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:08,200
Speaker 2: that back.

153
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:14,160
Speaker 3: Explain that to me, Yeah, so significant. Maybe I overstated it,

154
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:16,960
Speaker 3: but he did have the flexer strain last year, which

155
00:07:17,040 --> 00:07:20,680
Speaker 3: does oftentimes lead to Tommy John surgery. So that was

156
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:23,160
Speaker 3: where I was coming from. With Chase Burns, I had

157
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:24,800
Speaker 3: a lot of red stands tell me that they don't

158
00:07:24,800 --> 00:07:26,240
Speaker 3: believe it was a real injury, that it was a

159
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:29,320
Speaker 3: phantom injury. They were trying to manage his workload. Maybe

160
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 3: that was the case. I'm surprised they'd call it a

161
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:33,600
Speaker 3: flexer strain if that's what it was, if that's what

162
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:36,680
Speaker 3: they were doing, But that's kind of where that train

163
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:37,840
Speaker 3: of logic with that came from.

164
00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:42,360
Speaker 2: They have prioritized the bullpen this spring, and there have

165
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 2: been off seasons where it felt like what they're doing

166
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:46,920
Speaker 2: in the bullpen is just find some random guys who

167
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:49,360
Speaker 2: used to be good and maybe they catch lightning in

168
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:51,920
Speaker 2: the bottle or get a failed starter and put them

169
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:54,320
Speaker 2: out there. It felt like they made a priority, made

170
00:07:54,320 --> 00:07:57,280
Speaker 2: it a priority to get guys to fill specific roles

171
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:00,520
Speaker 2: in the bullpen. With Ameliopegon coming back to be the closer,

172
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 2: you don't love the bullpen as much as people here may.

173
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:09,240
Speaker 3: Why they made they made additions to the bullpen, but

174
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:11,880
Speaker 3: I don't know if they made any real impact editions,

175
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:15,080
Speaker 3: Like they added, uh, they had brock Burke, who's like,

176
00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 3: he's fine, but he's not anything special. They added Pierce Johnson,

177
00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:24,400
Speaker 3: who again is fine, but he's not anything special. They

178
00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:26,640
Speaker 3: don't have an elad Arm in the bullpen. A lot

179
00:08:26,640 --> 00:08:30,120
Speaker 3: of teams have two or even three. Amelia Pegan is

180
00:08:30,760 --> 00:08:33,760
Speaker 3: you know, by you know, ninth inning closer, you know,

181
00:08:34,600 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 3: fireman standards. You know, he's realistically one of the weaker

182
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:40,840
Speaker 3: ones in baseball. So they just don't have that high

183
00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 3: end of the bullpen to really make their bullpen threatening,

184
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:45,480
Speaker 3: even if they do have a little more depth to

185
00:08:45,480 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 3: it now.

186
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:51,400
Speaker 2: Offensively, you know they did at ayuhanios Lorez And you

187
00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:55,599
Speaker 2: mentioned your your model projects close to seventy nine and

188
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:58,520
Speaker 2: a half wins for the Reds and that was even

189
00:08:58,679 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 2: accounting for the addition of u Haaneosuarez. So what was

190
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:06,439
Speaker 2: it before and where do you think the biggest shortcoming

191
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:07,320
Speaker 2: is going to be for this team?

192
00:09:07,360 --> 00:09:07,920
Speaker 1: Offensively?

193
00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 3: I think the biggest shortcoming really is it's not any

194
00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 3: one spot specifically, It's just that they don't have a

195
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:20,079
Speaker 3: lot of star power outside of Ellie Da La Cruz

196
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 3: and they It's hard to put my finger on it.

197
00:09:25,400 --> 00:09:27,160
Speaker 3: It's just that they have a bunch of guys that

198
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:30,160
Speaker 3: are kind of mediocre or below average, and that's kind

199
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:32,440
Speaker 3: of what their offense is. It's a little below average.

200
00:09:33,280 --> 00:09:35,360
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the thing, right, Like it was it was

201
00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:36,720
Speaker 2: fourteenth and one score less.

202
00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:39,240
Speaker 1: Not like they were terrible, but I understand the general point.

203
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they have upside. I mean they have guys

204
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:44,760
Speaker 3: like South Stewart, who could you know, do something. Maybe

205
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:47,719
Speaker 3: Matt McLean turns it around. Cabrian Hayes was always a

206
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:50,000
Speaker 3: guy that I thought was interesting coming up for the Pirates,

207
00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:53,840
Speaker 3: Like they have guys. It's just, uh, you look at

208
00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:56,199
Speaker 3: it right now, and there's not a lot of proven

209
00:09:56,559 --> 00:09:57,920
Speaker 3: offense in this lineup.

210
00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:03,120
Speaker 2: So uh, you go from originally concluding they could have

211
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:05,640
Speaker 2: close to a bottom five rotation too, when you're Miya

212
00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:09,240
Speaker 2: Kalpa talking about how like actually top five rotation? How

213
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:12,680
Speaker 2: and don't take this the wrong way, but how do

214
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:15,559
Speaker 2: you interpret the data one way and then look at

215
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:18,120
Speaker 2: it in another way that gives us such an extreme

216
00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 2: difference between the two conclusions.

217
00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's no way around it. It was

218
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:27,080
Speaker 3: a mistake on my end. It was a stupid mistake,

219
00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:28,760
Speaker 3: and it's one that I'm going to be very careful

220
00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:32,960
Speaker 3: to make again. I'm not one hundred percent sure what happened,

221
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:35,560
Speaker 3: but what I'm pretty sure happened is kind of the

222
00:10:35,559 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 3: way I approached that piece. Again, it was a betting

223
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:39,439
Speaker 3: piece that wasn't like a deep dive into the reds.

224
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:41,599
Speaker 3: So I was giving a bet and a sentence or

225
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:44,040
Speaker 3: two to support the bet. And I always start with

226
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:46,520
Speaker 3: the projection because I run the projection system the bad X,

227
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:49,280
Speaker 3: which you might know from fangraphs or elsewhere. It's found

228
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:51,200
Speaker 3: to be the most accurate the last six years running

229
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 3: like it's good. So when people tell me that they

230
00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:56,880
Speaker 3: hate when you say trust the math, I have a

231
00:10:56,920 --> 00:10:59,280
Speaker 3: very good reason to trust the math sometimes because my

232
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:02,680
Speaker 3: math is pretty good. So I was just trusting the

233
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:07,560
Speaker 3: math on the projection. The projection said, okay, they project

234
00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:09,400
Speaker 3: for about seventy nine and a half wins under eighty

235
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 3: two and a half. There's a little bit of value there. Okay.

236
00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:14,199
Speaker 3: Now I need to find a sentence or two to

237
00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 3: write up to explain why the projection sees that. And

238
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:20,760
Speaker 3: I must have pulled the data wrong because when I

239
00:11:20,800 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 3: went back and look, the Reds do not have a

240
00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:25,400
Speaker 3: bottom five rotation in baseball. They actually projected the top

241
00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:28,120
Speaker 3: five rotation in my system right now. So I don't

242
00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:29,560
Speaker 3: know if I had it sorted.

243
00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:30,320
Speaker 1: The wrong way or what.

244
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:34,080
Speaker 3: I have no app I have no no idea it was.

245
00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 3: It was just a mistake, you know what.

246
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:41,720
Speaker 2: The Miya Kulpa and the transparency and the willingness to

247
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,560
Speaker 2: do this and engage some fans on social media are

248
00:11:44,679 --> 00:11:46,920
Speaker 2: things that I admire. Go back to last year, so

249
00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 2: they won eighty three, which, if memory serves me correct,

250
00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:51,840
Speaker 2: they barely hit the over.

251
00:11:51,920 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: I know they hit the over.

252
00:11:52,760 --> 00:11:54,760
Speaker 2: Because I, like an idiot, I bet them to hit

253
00:11:54,800 --> 00:11:56,800
Speaker 2: the over every year, and my track record's terrible.

254
00:11:57,400 --> 00:11:59,200
Speaker 1: What did you have the Reds out last year?

255
00:12:00,640 --> 00:12:02,480
Speaker 3: I think I had it similar last year where I

256
00:12:02,520 --> 00:12:05,560
Speaker 3: had them about two or three wins under the line

257
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:08,360
Speaker 3: and it wound up losing. I think if you looked

258
00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 3: at what I had for all thirty teams, it wound

259
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:13,080
Speaker 3: up being very profitable. But I was wrong about the

260
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:14,160
Speaker 3: Reds last year as well.

261
00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:16,800
Speaker 2: Go back and I know you're tied on time. Two

262
00:12:16,880 --> 00:12:23,120
Speaker 2: things one Andrew Abbot being lucky which is something you

263
00:12:23,160 --> 00:12:24,800
Speaker 2: put out there for lack of a better way of

264
00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:27,800
Speaker 2: putting it. How do we account for that? Dive into

265
00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:29,680
Speaker 2: that for me, because I could look at Andrew Abbit's

266
00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:32,480
Speaker 2: number seco dude had a pretty good year. Walk me

267
00:12:32,520 --> 00:12:35,280
Speaker 2: through like factoring and luck Why was he lucky last year?

268
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:39,800
Speaker 3: Well, so Andrew Abbot, Like you look on the surface

269
00:12:39,800 --> 00:12:42,320
Speaker 3: and it looks like he was fantastic. He had pulling

270
00:12:42,400 --> 00:12:43,800
Speaker 3: up this page right now, he had a two eighty

271
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:47,080
Speaker 3: seven ERA, which is fantastic. But you look under the

272
00:12:47,080 --> 00:12:49,320
Speaker 3: hood at the peripheral metrics and his ex FIP was

273
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:52,160
Speaker 3: four thirty one. His SIERRA was four twenty. He had

274
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:54,640
Speaker 3: a two seventy four Babbitt, which is probably lower than

275
00:12:54,679 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 3: he's able to sustain. He had an eighty percent left

276
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:59,560
Speaker 3: on base percentage, which is much higher than anybody can sustain.

277
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 3: You look at his stuff plus and it's below average.

278
00:13:03,440 --> 00:13:06,960
Speaker 3: It's just uh, you look under the hood and it's like, Okay,

279
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 3: he's done these things on the surface, he's been able

280
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:11,199
Speaker 3: to prevent these runs, but he's not doing the types

281
00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:15,000
Speaker 3: of things that guys who prevent runs consistently are able

282
00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:15,360
Speaker 3: to do.

283
00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:16,840
Speaker 1: And what is that.

284
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:24,240
Speaker 3: Strike? Guys out. I mean, that's a big It sounds

285
00:13:23,920 --> 00:13:26,679
Speaker 3: so simple, stupid, but that is a big part of it. Like,

286
00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 3: strikeouts are one of the stickiest stats we have for

287
00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 3: a picture. It's one of the most important things that

288
00:13:31,160 --> 00:13:33,640
Speaker 3: you can do as a pitcher, and Andrew Abbitt doesn't

289
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:35,720
Speaker 3: do it. So at the very least, I think we're

290
00:13:35,760 --> 00:13:38,120
Speaker 3: seeing a guy who's going to regress to being above average,

291
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:40,600
Speaker 3: if not a little bit worse than that.

292
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:42,960
Speaker 1: What do you project from my guy, Hunter Green this year?

293
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 3: Oh? I love Hunter Green. This year Hunter Green and

294
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,280
Speaker 3: Chase Burns. My system absolutely loves it, has been both

295
00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:54,040
Speaker 3: his top ten pictures in baseball at this point, projecting

296
00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:56,680
Speaker 3: big years for Green, especially this year.

297
00:13:56,840 --> 00:13:59,600
Speaker 2: Among all the baseball fan bases, where are red fans

298
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:00,520
Speaker 2: on the me scale?

299
00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 3: Oh, they are pretty high. They are pretty high, all right.

300
00:14:07,200 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 3: The BackFlash was it was a lot this weekend. It

301
00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:10,360
Speaker 3: was a lot.

302
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:11,560
Speaker 1: Yeah. I uh.

303
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:14,600
Speaker 2: I was sitting there at my kitchen table on Saturday

304
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:16,600
Speaker 2: morning watching you take it, and I'm like, all right,

305
00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:18,240
Speaker 2: I got to see if this dude will come on

306
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 2: the air with me, and hopefully he doesn't think I'm

307
00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:22,320
Speaker 2: gonna yell and scream at him as well. So I

308
00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:25,080
Speaker 2: appreciate you doing this and uh we'll do it again.

309
00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:25,240
Speaker 3: Man.

310
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:27,320
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Yeah, no problem.

311
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me on