Dear ESPN, A.J. Burnett Was As Much "Lucky" as "Good" Last Night

That the network that televises Yankees-Red Sox games in April, that has its headquarters in Connecticut, and that lead off its baseball tonight program the other night with “Yankees Rained Out!” even when there were two other playoff games to report on would overstate the accomplishments of a Yankees pitcher?

way too obnoxious, misapplies sabermetric principles, and generally just sucks.

hope nobody calls it “good.”

…and realize that in the postseason, results are how the majority of people are going evaluate a performance, and that’s who ESPN is marketing to. Plus, there is something to be said for not letting your mistakes get to you, and we all know Burnett is generally capable of that.

Not to mention that one of the walks was intentional, so I know I don’t need to tell you that 7 divided by 5 2/3 is quite different from 8 divided by 5 2/3 (which isn’t 1.50, by the way).

Also, after a rough first inning, he gave up four hits and one walk over 4 2/3 innings. That’s a pretty good WHIP of 1.07. Yeah, he got lucky that some of the hard-hit balls didn’t turn into hits, but to paraphrase a pretty famous expression, to be good you also have to be a little lucky.

So, I don’t think ESPN was wrong for characterizing it as a good outing. I’m sure they overstated it a bit, of course, as they’re prone to do, but the performance can be measured by criteria that extend (excuse the pun) beyond the box score.

I hear you about the “narratives” and I can certainly understand getting all worked up over it.

I would characterize the outing as pretty good on Burnett’s behalf, with a fair amount of luck elevating his results to good.

But, come on, it was AJ Burnett…in the postseason…in a must-win game. The bar was set so low and he cleared it by so much that of course ESPN was going to overstate how good he really was. :)

I said this to a facebook commenter, but good is so freaking vague. I’m not sure Bill should’ve parsed this out as much as he has, but I don’t think this is out of line in any way.

ESPN is shit and should never be watched, if only there were an alternative.

We’re not talking about a large sample here. We’re talking about a single game. When looking at one game, you need to focus on individual plays and the context — sequencing and base-out-run states — in which they occur.

Which brings me to my main thesis: luck and the Yankees defense — by which I mean Curtis Granderson — saved Burnett at least 3 runs last night, probably 4. Regardless of whether Grandy gets a good read on that bases-loaded line drive in the 1st, it’s a simple matter of luck that a ball hit with that much power was hit straight at CF. That’s 2-3 runs saved by some combination of luck and fielding. Additionally, Granderson’s lay-out dive after a Boone Logan line drive saved a run that also would have been charged to AJ

Just for a second, let’s pretend that those runs wouldn’t have chased Burnett from the game any earlier. Yes, “good” is a subjective term, but not so subjective that it could legitimately describe an outing of 4-5 R over 5.2 IP in an elimination game.

Now let’s stop pretending. There’s no way Burnett pitches a full 5.2 if that line drive drops in the first. He’d be more likely to pitch 0.2 IP than 5.2 at that point. It doesn’t matter how subjective a term "good" is. No knowledgeable individual speaking honestly would call an outing “good” if he gave up 4 runs in less than an official game.

Now back to the individual player: skill is what you’re left with when you remove luck and defense from the equation. AJ’s outing is a combination of all three, but AJ’s performance isolates his skill in that game. Simply put, if you end up with an outing that isn’t “good” when you remove fielding and luck, what you’re left with is a performance that simply isn’t good.

P.S. Before anyone screams bias or Yankee-hating, I’m the biggest Yankee fan you’ll ever meet. The Yankees were good last night. AJ was not. He was lucky.