Posted by Crump123 on 2/21/2012 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gjello10 on 2/21/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Also, I don't know how it would change the evaluation of FIP, but I think it is incredibly meaningful within WIS (if you are going to use FIP) the order in which outcomes are determined.  IIRC, it goes:  Is it a hit?  Yes> Was the hit taken away by a good/great play, Was the hit a Single/Double/Triple/HR, Was Double/Triple/HR reduced to something less by a great play, etc... or something like that.
I may be thinking of this incorrectly, but the fact that the determination of "Hit" is made before "HR" makes an HR less damning to a pitcher's production... i.e. it is quite possible that a pitcher that gives up a lot of HR can "always" have so few runners on base that an ERA/WHIP like Sheldon's with a high HR rate makes sense, and is not just luck.

This is sort of what I was getting at.  I don't think formulas like FIP, xFIP, or SIERA, or on the offensive side, wOBA or OPS+, have much bearing on HBD because a lot of the assumptions behind them, which have been tested in real life and work well when evaluating real life, don't apply to the way a PA is broken down by the HBD Sim.  I actually don't think hit is determined before HR in the sim, by the way.  I think the Sim for a PA works roughly in the order, HBP, BB, K, HR, type of ball in play, outcome of ball in play.   But the point is, we don't really know and we would need to understand this better to come up with a Sabermetrics for HBD.     

+ 1 Million.

I'm not sure i would have K separate from type of out though, if it was evaluated separately i would expect high K pitchers to be more dominant than an equivalent soft tosser, and i dont think you can definitively show that.

Yeah, but I think it's pretty clear that Contact and Velo matter for Ks, and not for other types of outs, and I definately see low-Contact guys having lower BAs than their splits would suggest.  This suggests to me that K/no-K is determined before outcome of ball in play.  Also, odds of an out on a ball in play are impacted by park factor, and Ks seem not to be.  Therefore, I would think that K/no-K and out/hit on ball in play have to be distinct steps in the Sim.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
The objective of baseball:  Run scoring/prevention.   Secondary objective(which helps with the primary):  Prevent/get baserunners.

So, yeah, I think ERA/WHIP are pretty good indicators of how a pitcher performed.   You'll seldom find a low WHIP/high ERA or vice versa.

I don't think all hits, or homers, are created equal.   A 500 ft bomb appears the same as a ball off the pole.    To use FIP as some fantastic evaluator of pitching, you have to suspend all rational thought that pitchers can make a perfect pitch and have it deposited in the seats or have that same pitch be a weak grounder back to the mound. 

Does the DEFENSE not affect these numbers in anyway?!  How about the stadium factors?

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
The objective of baseball:  Run scoring/prevention.   Secondary objective(which helps with the primary):  Prevent/get baserunners.

So, yeah, I think ERA/WHIP are pretty good indicators of how a pitcher performed.   You'll seldom find a low WHIP/high ERA or vice versa.

I don't think all hits, or homers, are created equal.   A 500 ft bomb appears the same as a ball off the pole.    To use FIP as some fantastic evaluator of pitching, you have to suspend all rational thought that pitchers can make a perfect pitch and have it deposited in the seats or have that same pitch be a weak grounder back to the mound. 

Does the DEFENSE not affect these numbers in anyway?!  How about the stadium factors?

Of course they do.

However, in this specific case, the defenses are almost identical.  I've asked, several times, why you think one D is better than the other.  Identical F% and damn near the same +/- plays.  Is there some other HBD defensive stat I don't know about that you're using to evaluate D?

If you read the posts in full you'll see i've stated the defensive advantages.  Let me go find them again for you.

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I think the combination of ERA/WHIP in a given year is a pretty good indication of how good they were THAT YEAR.  For predicting future performance, it is all over the charts, just like FIP appears to be (probably more-so, but I haven't studied large groups of players for FIP vs. ERA, and don't plan to do so... maybe I'll look at it a bit more before my fantasy auction this season and see where it gets me).

So back the original question, how do you value the extra 81 innings when ERA/WHIP do not take them into account?

I do take the extra 81 innings into account.  If Ducey had ~2.75 ERA & ~1.05 WHIP, I probably would sway towards him... 81 extra innings vs. 0.68 Runs and 0.14 WHIP doesn't add up to "he was more outstanding" to me, and the Cy Young, in my book, is "Who was the most outstanding pitcher?" 
We've already calculated (based on Pitcher Runs that you brought up) that we could have a league average pitcher (4.51 ERA... actually, slightly worse than that) throw those other 81 innings and come out to:   Ducey (286 innings)= Sheldon (205 innings) + Slightly Worse Than League Average Guy (81 innings)
I might be closer to voting for Ducey for MVP (if we could), as I think there is a much better argument that he was the MVP, vs. the most outstanding pitcher.
This isn't an exact science, and I'm not going to crunch some numbers to have one player come out at 1.98 and the other 1.89 so I vote for Mr. 1.98 because Baseball is not an exact science, as much as Sabermatricians would like it to be.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
The objective of baseball:  Run scoring/prevention.   Secondary objective(which helps with the primary):  Prevent/get baserunners.

So, yeah, I think ERA/WHIP are pretty good indicators of how a pitcher performed.   You'll seldom find a low WHIP/high ERA or vice versa.

I don't think all hits, or homers, are created equal.   A 500 ft bomb appears the same as a ball off the pole.    To use FIP as some fantastic evaluator of pitching, you have to suspend all rational thought that pitchers can make a perfect pitch and have it deposited in the seats or have that same pitch be a weak grounder back to the mound. 

Does the DEFENSE not affect these numbers in anyway?!  How about the stadium factors?

Of course they do.

However, in this specific case, the defenses are almost identical.  I've asked, several times, why you think one D is better than the other.  Identical F% and damn near the same +/- plays.  Is there some other HBD defensive stat I don't know about that you're using to evaluate D?

The defenses are almost identical in terms of stats.  Stats, imo, have a hard time dealing with defense in HBD (real life too, unless you're a Saber-head and get UZR/DRS/TZ, which is why Derek Jeter has 5 Gold Gloves and Raffy Palmeiro won a GG at 1B in a year when he DHd all but 24 games).  The ratings show a difference in defense.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Also looking at the defense Honolulu had 5 players with over an 80 range while Nashville had 1. 7 for honolulu with glove/4 with Nashville for over 80 rating.  So its pretty evident honolulu had a better defense as well.

Same fielding percentage, almost identical +/- numbers.  Not sure where you're getting "better defense" from that.

Ok you did reply, my bad on that one.  So we are going to go strictly off of fielding percentage and +/- plays.  I really don't know if this incases all that matters.  But i clearly see in the ratings a large advantage for honolulu so i'm questioning the fact that just those 2 stat categories incases the entire defense.

I know you listed the ratings(range) for the players.   The results are the same.   83 isn't significantly better than 79.   Or, at the very least, it didn't result in significantly more +, less - or more errors.    The defense was not the reason for Sheldon's much better results.  At home and on the road.

The only real argument is over the 81 innings.   Sheldon was a much more impressive pitcher for 205 innings.   Ducey pitched 81 more quality innings. 

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Also looking at the defense Honolulu had 5 players with over an 80 range while Nashville had 1. 7 for honolulu with glove/4 with Nashville for over 80 rating.  So its pretty evident honolulu had a better defense as well.

Same fielding percentage, almost identical +/- numbers.  Not sure where you're getting "better defense" from that.

Ok you did reply, my bad on that one.  So we are going to go strictly off of fielding percentage and +/- plays.  I really don't know if this incases all that matters.  But i clearly see in the ratings a large advantage for honolulu so i'm questioning the fact that just those 2 stat categories incases the entire defense.

You are now pulling in "his team was more talented, which made him better"... but his team didn't perform significantly "more talented"... they performed pretty closely (although, IIRC from when I looked, Nashville appeared to use a pretty ****** C, as far as throwing base-stealers out, so you can count that on your side).

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I think the combination of ERA/WHIP in a given year is a pretty good indication of how good they were THAT YEAR.  For predicting future performance, it is all over the charts, just like FIP appears to be (probably more-so, but I haven't studied large groups of players for FIP vs. ERA, and don't plan to do so... maybe I'll look at it a bit more before my fantasy auction this season and see where it gets me).

So back the original question, how do you value the extra 81 innings when ERA/WHIP do not take them into account?

I do take the extra 81 innings into account.  If Ducey had ~2.75 ERA & ~1.05 WHIP, I probably would sway towards him... 81 extra innings vs. 0.68 Runs and 0.14 WHIP doesn't add up to "he was more outstanding" to me, and the Cy Young, in my book, is "Who was the most outstanding pitcher?" 
We've already calculated (based on Pitcher Runs that you brought up) that we could have a league average pitcher (4.51 ERA... actually, slightly worse than that) throw those other 81 innings and come out to:   Ducey (286 innings)= Sheldon (205 innings) + Slightly Worse Than League Average Guy (81 innings)
I might be closer to voting for Ducey for MVP (if we could), as I think there is a much better argument that he was the MVP, vs. the most outstanding pitcher.
This isn't an exact science, and I'm not going to crunch some numbers to have one player come out at 1.98 and the other 1.89 so I vote for Mr. 1.98 because Baseball is not an exact science, as much as Sabermatricians would like it to be.

So you are randomly coming up with the 2.75 and 1.05?  

MLB Gold Gloves are voted on.   Stats play little or no factor.  

Defense is much more quantifiable in HBD.    I'll bump a thread I created tracking 5 pitchers, and their results, based on my fluctuating D.

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I think the combination of ERA/WHIP in a given year is a pretty good indication of how good they were THAT YEAR.  For predicting future performance, it is all over the charts, just like FIP appears to be (probably more-so, but I haven't studied large groups of players for FIP vs. ERA, and don't plan to do so... maybe I'll look at it a bit more before my fantasy auction this season and see where it gets me).

So back the original question, how do you value the extra 81 innings when ERA/WHIP do not take them into account?

I do take the extra 81 innings into account.  If Ducey had ~2.75 ERA & ~1.05 WHIP, I probably would sway towards him... 81 extra innings vs. 0.68 Runs and 0.14 WHIP doesn't add up to "he was more outstanding" to me, and the Cy Young, in my book, is "Who was the most outstanding pitcher?" 
We've already calculated (based on Pitcher Runs that you brought up) that we could have a league average pitcher (4.51 ERA... actually, slightly worse than that) throw those other 81 innings and come out to:   Ducey (286 innings)= Sheldon (205 innings) + Slightly Worse Than League Average Guy (81 innings)
I might be closer to voting for Ducey for MVP (if we could), as I think there is a much better argument that he was the MVP, vs. the most outstanding pitcher.
This isn't an exact science, and I'm not going to crunch some numbers to have one player come out at 1.98 and the other 1.89 so I vote for Mr. 1.98 because Baseball is not an exact science, as much as Sabermatricians would like it to be.

So you are randomly coming up with the 2.75 and 1.05?  

Did you stop reading my post at that point?  I clearly said I was not going to plug a bunch of random stats into a calculator and come up with a number that said Mr. A was Better than Mr. B to me.
Yes, I am "randomly" coming up with those numbers from my experience with Baseball and HBD.  It feels about right to me.

20 glove at 1B, jello. 

I suppose one could scream "SSS" but the innings are pretty signifcant each season and the pitcher ratings were constant throughout.

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I think the combination of ERA/WHIP in a given year is a pretty good indication of how good they were THAT YEAR.  For predicting future performance, it is all over the charts, just like FIP appears to be (probably more-so, but I haven't studied large groups of players for FIP vs. ERA, and don't plan to do so... maybe I'll look at it a bit more before my fantasy auction this season and see where it gets me).

So back the original question, how do you value the extra 81 innings when ERA/WHIP do not take them into account?

I do take the extra 81 innings into account.  If Ducey had ~2.75 ERA & ~1.05 WHIP, I probably would sway towards him... 81 extra innings vs. 0.68 Runs and 0.14 WHIP doesn't add up to "he was more outstanding" to me, and the Cy Young, in my book, is "Who was the most outstanding pitcher?" 
We've already calculated (based on Pitcher Runs that you brought up) that we could have a league average pitcher (4.51 ERA... actually, slightly worse than that) throw those other 81 innings and come out to:   Ducey (286 innings)= Sheldon (205 innings) + Slightly Worse Than League Average Guy (81 innings)
I might be closer to voting for Ducey for MVP (if we could), as I think there is a much better argument that he was the MVP, vs. the most outstanding pitcher.
This isn't an exact science, and I'm not going to crunch some numbers to have one player come out at 1.98 and the other 1.89 so I vote for Mr. 1.98 because Baseball is not an exact science, as much as Sabermatricians would like it to be.

So you are randomly coming up with the 2.75 and 1.05?  

Did you stop reading my post at that point?  I clearly said I was not going to plug a bunch of random stats into a calculator and come up with a number that said Mr. A was Better than Mr. B to me.
Yes, I am "randomly" coming up with those numbers from my experience with Baseball and HBD.  It feels about right to me.

Then your arguments hold no water to me.

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Also looking at the defense Honolulu had 5 players with over an 80 range while Nashville had 1. 7 for honolulu with glove/4 with Nashville for over 80 rating.  So its pretty evident honolulu had a better defense as well.

Same fielding percentage, almost identical +/- numbers.  Not sure where you're getting "better defense" from that.

Ok you did reply, my bad on that one.  So we are going to go strictly off of fielding percentage and +/- plays.  I really don't know if this incases all that matters.  But i clearly see in the ratings a large advantage for honolulu so i'm questioning the fact that just those 2 stat categories incases the entire defense.

You are now pulling in "his team was more talented, which made him better"... but his team didn't perform significantly "more talented"... they performed pretty closely (although, IIRC from when I looked, Nashville appeared to use a pretty ****** C, as far as throwing base-stealers out, so you can count that on your side).

I'm saying are we insure those categories incase everything.  Fielding if you have a better glove, and better range the thought process would be better numbers.  Especially when they seem to be a larger difference instead of an insignificant difference.  You are assuming that they didn't perform better on the only 2 stats given, maybe there is more to it maybe there isn't.  I don't know.