Bartolo back on the gravy train

The key weapon in Colon’s arsenal tonight was the four-seam fastball. Colon threw a whopping 71 of those (compared to just 8 two-seamers), 51 of them for strikes, with 9 of those being swinging strikes. Interestingly, Colon’s primary secondary pitch was his slider, of which he threw 18, and he also mixed in a very effective changeup (threw it 7 times, 6 of them for strikes). But the fastball was Colon’s bread and butter on this night, and the Rays just couldn’t do much with it for ~6 innings.

Ultimately the Yankees lost the game, but it’s hard to expect much else when you only score 2 runs against an A.L. East opponent. But Colon certainly gave the Yankees a quality start on this night, absolutely giving them a chance to win, with strong peripherals as well. Hopefully it’s a sign that Colon’s last start in Toronto was just a minor hiccup, because if the Yankees can get this kind of performance from Colon the rest of the way through 2011, they’ll be in pretty good shape for the stretch run and the postseason. And if he stays healthy and keeps throwing a fastball this good, I really can’t see any reason he won’t be able to keep it going.

Who’d have thunk it, it’s July 19th, 2011 and I have faith in Bartolo Colon. You just can’t predict baseball, can you Suzyn?

About Brien Jackson

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

8 thoughts on “Bartolo back on the gravy train

  1. This article is a great example! It presents more than a few statistics. Some are of the sort that can be counted by anyone, others of the sort that one has to rely on other people counting and/or deriving them correctly. One of the easier statistics for anyone to count is earned runs, and the author of this article counts them incorrectly! This establishes reasonable doubt when any new-age metrics demagogue presents a counter-intuitive argument based on statistics that cannot be personally verified. NOTE: I have also observed errors on the statistical websites that are frequently cited in such arguments.

    • It's just an honest mistake. Plus, I'm certain that they changed the amount of earned runs charged to Colon at least once. The official scoring may have said all three were earned at the time Brien wrote this.

      If anything, they need to stop being silly and charge errors on fielders when they clearly botched a play, though didn't touch the ball.

      • Yeah, I think they made the scoring change overnight, and now only 2 runs are earned. It was definitely all 3 of them last night, because I was even thinking how goofy it was that all of them were earned.

      • No, there was always at least one unearned run. Even so, it doesn't matter. This sort of example is repeated a sickeningly frequent number of times. It shows rampant carelessness. This carelessness cannot help but effect the basic reasoning process, and lead to false conclusions. Many readers are exactly like you. When you are told what you want to hear, you're more than happy to excuse any mistakes.

        You are correct about charging errors on botched plays.

        • Well, if you say so I guess. I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway. Even leaving out the sketchy practice of attributing runs to the pitcher who allowed the guy to get on base in all cases, my conclusion was that Colon pitched a good game. I'm not exactly sure how allowing *fewer* earned runs is supposed to change that.

          • Okay, I think that I need to be a little more clear. I do agree with your conclusion. I have been reading your articles for some time and have noted some conclusions that I disagree with. In these cases your support has been based on statistics that cannot be verified by an ordinary person. These statistics are suspect based on multiple observations of your carelessness with "ordinary" statistics, as well as erroneous statistics on sites such as fangraphs and baseball-reference. This leads me to distrust certain conclusions that are based on them. I did not intend to make an example of you. These circumstances seem to apply regarding all authors of articles relating to modern statistics. It is sad, but the work being done does not meet the properly rigorous standards of legitimate academic pursuit.

          • Well, if you say so, I guess I'll just take your word for it then.

            Then again, if there are transciption errors at B-Ref or Fangraphs (or for that matter) then what exactly is your point? Of course counting stats can't be tabulated manually by one person, because the amount of time it would take to watch, score, and aggregate every single game is enormous.