All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Poll: Best Shortstop Evah
6/26/2012 1:18 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Depends.  BB are way down and K are down slightly.   Not giving out free passes isn't luck, it's good pitching.
6/26/2012 6:08 PM
1899_spiders
Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 357 (0)
MLB - 16 NBA - 12 HD - 3 GD - 1

A warning to all posting in this thread. This is a baseball forum, and discussion in this thread should stick exclusively to that topic. No matter how much you disagree with someone, personal attacks are not acceptable here, and will be reported. Zero tolerance.
6/26/2012 9:44 PM
trsnoke
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 158 (0)
MLB - 124 HBD - 49

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2012 8:14:00 AM (view original):
I have no doubt that at least one person believes that.   I'll refer to the ol' saying of "The cream always rises to the top".

Lohse has proven, over the course of his career, to be a quite average pitcher.   So, in this particular game, he might have recorded 19 outs via lasers hit right at someone.    However, if history holds true, some of those 19 outs will become hits and Lohse will produce a line that's in line with his career numbers.  Some of those hits may be of the blooper variety where Lohse threw a perfect pitch, even mediocre pitchers are capable of it, and the batter simply stuck his bat out. 

For me, it's much easier to believe that things will always "even out" than for me to disregard, in this case, 86% of the game. 
Looks like I'm pretty late to this party but I love FIP.  Your last sentence - I think that's all FIP is trying to do: account for "evening out" of balls in play events by assigning a league average BABIP to each pitcher.  It generally works pretty darn well because pitchers' career BABIPs tend to be pretty tightly clustered.

FIP is just a measure of performance on outcomes that don't involve a fielder making a play on a ball.  It's scaled to ERA for context/ease of reading.  Strikeouts only measure one kind of out.  AVG only measures certain plate outcomes and ignores others.  It's not new for a stat to not cover every single outcome.  Most are designed to focus on one thing and ignore others.  FIP ignores batted balls touched by fielders (and so any resulting impact of luck and defensive differences, where they do exist, are then also removed) by highlighting specific outcomes that have been proven to be more stable for a pitcher (the things that are so called "more in their control").  The fact that it really does generally measure performance in a similar but more stable way than ERA does while not counting actual balls in play data is amazing (to me).

Given a long enough career, I think even saber nerds agree that ERA is a useful measuring stick (given normal caveats of adjustments to era, league, park, etc., I guess).  FIP and ERA converge well over time for most pitchers.  Because FIP isn't subject to all the non-pitcher controlled events that ERA is, FIP is more stable over time and probably provides a better measure of talent at any given point in time than ERA does because ERA is much more variable year to year. 

Data below is for all pitchers from 2001 - 2011 that pitched at least 150IP in consecutive years (621 instances).  Columns that end in 1 are the ERA, FIP and BABIP for pitchers in first year of pair and the other columns are results from following year.  Pitchers are grouped by amount of over- or under- performance in year one ERA relative to year one FIP.  Every group (but not every pitcher within group) saw ERA regress toward FIP in year two and BABIP regress toward the mean (.291) while FIP stayed pretty constant.  The groups with the biggest over- or under- performance saw the biggest moves toward FIP.    FIP was a better predictor of year 2 ERA than year 1 ERA was.  Not every pitcher moves this way every year but over time almost all of them do.  Isn't that pretty cool?
  
 Y1 FIP-ERA   #   ERA1   FIP1   BABIP1   ERA2   FIP2   BABIP2 
>= 1.00 15    3.33  4.54      0.257    4.40  4.56      0.283
0.99 >= 0.75 39    3.39  4.24      0.272    4.03  4.21      0.287
0.74 >= 0.50 76    3.65  4.26      0.274    4.11  4.23      0.287
0.49 >= 0.25 97    3.71  4.06      0.283    4.00  4.12      0.291
0.24 >= 0.01 119    3.89  4.01      0.288    4.06  4.10      0.291
                           
0.00 5    3.65  3.65      0.293    3.89  3.99      0.293
                           
-0.24 <= -0.01 110    4.04  3.92      0.295    4.01  4.03      0.291
-0.49 <= -0.25 75    4.38  4.02      0.301    3.95  3.94      0.291
-0.74 <= -0.50 46    4.71  4.10      0.311    4.27  4.00      0.303
-0.99 <= -0.75 23    4.80  3.95      0.320    3.97  3.89      0.292
<= -1.00 16    5.43  4.21      0.327    4.33  4.32      0.289

6/27/2012 8:26 AM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

My problem with FIP is that A) it ignores 70% of the game of baseball B) it ignores the ability to induce "weak" outs C) it marginalizes what I consider to be the most important aspect of pitching: location.

As I've pointed out, even Ted Williams recognizes that he can't hit low and away.   If you accept that pitching Ted waist high and in the meat of the plate will likely produce more hits than low and away, you have to accept that a pitcher capable of hitting his spots will be more effective in producing outs that are not whiffs.   Ignoring that never giving a hitter the same "look" in an AB will produce better results seems asinine IMO. 
6/27/2012 2:51 PM
trsnoke
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 158 (0)
MLB - 124 HBD - 49

FIP was invented to look at outcomes of plays where fielders aren't involved so it is supposed to ignore part of the game.  Ignoring part of the game is something all stats do because that's the way they are designed.  Strikeout totals only look at one kind of out.  OBP treats all reach base events equally.  AVG ignores certain plate outcomes, even some batted ball ones.  In my opinion FIP works well as a good overall evaluator (but still not one I'd use alone) so maybe the things that it disregards are accounted for sufficiently by proxy or are maybe some things don't need to be accounted for exactly, as traditional thought believes.  By looking at BB, K and HR per IP, it includes some things that are pretty location dependent so maybe those serve to be a pretty good proxy for "location" in general.

I think the biggest factor that makes FIP work is that it's application is limited to a small population where it can work.  In my study above, I looked at just MLB pitchers that pitched a minimum of 150 innings in each of two consecutive years.  By definition, that's going to be a pretty decent group of pitchers overall.  At the very least, it includes pitchers that management believes is capable of pitching quality innings at the big league level or they wouldn't be out there.  FIP wouldn't work for you or me or probably for most minor leaguers because the talent distribution is too wide (I would not be abe to locate).  The difference betwen Justin Verlander and Kyle Lohse, though, is not nearly as wide as the difference between Lohse and a career minor leaguer.  I am sure there are differences between ptichers in ability to induce weakly hit balls but some weakly hit balls are still hits and some well hit balls are still outs and over time the BABIP distribution of MLB pitchers is pretty tight.  Verlander's is a relatively low .283 but Randy Wolf's is .286.  Kyle Kendrick sports a .290, slightly lower than Halladay's .292.  CC Cabathia's is also .292 while Freddy Garcia's is .284.  As of yet, I don't think anyone has come up with good ways to identify guys who are better than most and will continue to be (repeatable skill) at inducing weakly hit balls.  I'm sure when that's available, adjustments will be made.  Most analysts do look at BABIP history for a given pitcher and if he has been able to maintain a lower than average BABIP, they'll note that, though.
6/27/2012 3:21 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Totals are a different breed.

OBP accounts for ALL AB.

AVG discounts sacrfices(assuming the batter was skilled enough to "give himself up") but accounts for every other struck ball.

FIP accounts for three outcomes and ignores 70% of baseball.

I find that intolerable for something that is supposed to be a meaningful stat.  
6/27/2012 4:38 PM
Crump123
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 361 (0)
MLB - 237 HBD - 130

riveraveblues.com/2010/02/the-stats-we-use-fip-23427/

You can see for yourself. Here’s Pedro’s BABIP in 2000, .253, tops in the majors, and here’s his BABIP in 1999, third worst among qualifying starters. You can see Greg Maddux on that list as well, seventh worst among qualifying pitchers, while he finished sixth best in 1999. So if pitchers as prolific as Maddux and Martinez can go from among the best to among the worst in the span of one season, it should say something about the nature of a pitcher’s ability to control the outcome of balls put in play.

6/27/2012 4:41 PM
Crump123
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 361 (0)
MLB - 237 HBD - 130

I don't have a problem with FIP in and of itself, i think it can be useful for certain things, what i object to, is people using it to justify positions that it can't and doesn't support.
6/27/2012 5:05 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

Anyone who doesn't believe location is important in pitching, thus eliminating "good wood", obviously doesn't believe Ted Williams knows squat about hitting.   If someone can find me a chart that shows more hits come off bats on up/in or low/away than waist high and across the middle, I may change my mind.
6/27/2012 5:28 PM
trsnoke
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 158 (0)
MLB - 124 HBD - 49

I know I've found FIP useful.  I don't understand the argument that it can't possibly be meaningful if it excludes specific ball in play data - it it works, it works.  It's not a theory that hasn't been tested.  The fact that it useful without those things has taught us new things re: pitcher control over balls in play.  It's not perfect.  I think Tom Glavine has about a 0.40 career gap between his FIP and ERA, which is probably about as wide as you'll see.  I haven't the foggiest idea why he has that gap and others don't.  It very well may be some skill that FIP doesn't capture.  That skill sure is rare in other successful pitchers, though, since they most of them don't have that gap.  And I wouldn't use it as a stand alone number to prove who the best pitcher on the planet is.  I haven't studied this but I also don't think it probably works as well for relievers as it does for starters.  Don't relievers generally have a lower BABIP than starters?  Still, I don't see how you can look at all the evidence that supports it and just say "no matter what I see, it can't be true."  I guess if you don't want to look at the evidence, though, that's your prerogative. I apologize if I am misunderstanding the argument.

6/27/2012 6:53 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

To summarize, I think all of us agree that issuing walks and giving up homers is bad.   Not letting the other team hit the ball is good.   I can look at IP, BB, K and HRA totals and say "Damn.   He's getting lit up" or "Dude is pitching well".    FIP is rather useless if you have that sort of knowledge.   Calling it an "Advanced metric" when my mom would say "Damn, he got lit the **** up" by looking at a boxscore just annoys me.

As for Glavine, that goes back to my 90s Braves reference.  He and Maddux would walk the ball off the plate until the ump made them reel it back in.   They hit their spots like no other duo that I've seen.   That's why he has that gap. 

6/27/2012 7:16 PM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

It offends me that someone took the obvious, created a formula, said "LOOK AT THIS AWESOME STAT!!!" and baseball fans buy into it.
6/27/2012 7:33 PM
thejuice6
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Hall of Famer
Posts: 3716 (0)
MLB - 1135 NHL - 1 HD - 1

My mom was one of those ladies who I had never heard her utter any kind of curse word in my entire life of living at home.  The thought of her sitting in the living room, watching a ballgame, and saying, "Damn, he got lit the **** up" just cracks me up to no end...
6/27/2012 8:58 PM
trsnoke
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 158 (0)
MLB - 124 HBD - 49

Except Maddux doesn't have that gap.  His is 3.16 ERA, 3.26 FIP.  Glavine's is 3.54 ERA, 3.95 FIP.  I am completely with you that FIP is not rocket science.  I just like it for it's stability, because it generally provides some evidence regarding whether pitcher has been lucky, unlucky, blah, blah, it's all been said already.  That's not  obvious just from looking at the individual stats. Not obvious to me, anyway.

6/28/2012 8:38 AM
MikeT23
Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect
Posts: 25000 (3)
MLB - 85 NHL - 1 HD - 26 GD - 1 HBD - 115

I'd be curious, not enough to look it up, about Maddux's FIP/ERA in ATL as compared to the other half of his career.    I don't recall him being a master of the strike zone in Chicago to start his career and, quite honestly, he was pretty much done when he left ATL.    I don't want to throw too much credit to Mazzone but maybe there's something there. 

of 26
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Poll: Best Shortstop Evah

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2013 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.