Which on for Cy Young Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
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.
I remember that thread; it made me wonder if playing Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Yorvit James was worth it. 
Couldn't have been too much of a detriment, as I won the World Series with him there most of the time.
2/21/2012 12:28 PM
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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.

This is completly comical.  Like I said "THIS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE; NEITHER IS BASEBALL".  The only direct comparison you have been able to bring up is that Sheldon + Below Average Pitcher = Ducey.  If you think you have to run equations and rank players based on one all-encompassing number to vote for the awards, good on you, I guess.  Go and run Ricky Nolasco as your fantasy ace because it's clearly going to turnaround one of these days... it HAS TO, HIS FIP IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN HIS ERA. 

2/21/2012 12:32 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):
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.
I would be very interested in seeing that thread, Mike.  Thanks.

Gotta disagree that stats play little role in real life Gold Gloves.  Voters look at Fielding%, which of course fails to capture what we would call +/- plays in HBD.  But I think we can all agree that real life GGs are a joke.
2/21/2012 12:32 PM

There's always a trade-off.   As I said, the objective of the game is to score/prevent runs.   One guy hurting the cause in one direction while helping in the other can easily offset his negatives.

2/21/2012 12:33 PM
Posted by gjello10 on 2/21/2012 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):
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.
I would be very interested in seeing that thread, Mike.  Thanks.

Gotta disagree that stats play little role in real life Gold Gloves.  Voters look at Fielding%, which of course fails to capture what we would call +/- plays in HBD.  But I think we can all agree that real life GGs are a joke.
I started largely ignore real-life GG when Palmeiro won one while playing a dozen games in the field. 
2/21/2012 12:34 PM
Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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.

This is completly comical.  Like I said "THIS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE; NEITHER IS BASEBALL".  The only direct comparison you have been able to bring up is that Sheldon + Below Average Pitcher = Ducey.  If you think you have to run equations and rank players based on one all-encompassing number to vote for the awards, good on you, I guess.  Go and run Ricky Nolasco as your fantasy ace because it's clearly going to turnaround one of these days... it HAS TO, HIS FIP IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN HIS ERA. 

We've already beaten this drum.  Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher.  Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings.  What dont you see about this.
2/21/2012 12:34 PM
I'm a friend posting under JFerg's account.

First, we need to make sure we understand how to evaluate baseball players.  Wins are the primary unit of measurement, with runs being the secondary unit of measurement.  Basically, in your typical baseball season, every 10 runs or so will create one win for your team.  This depends on the run scoring environment though.  The run scoring environment for this league seems to be a little higher than normal, but this doesn't matter when comparing two players within one season, but instead when comparing two players in two different seasons.  

So now we're looking for how many runs each pitcher saved.  The most basic stat to look at is ERA.  If you want to attribute a pitcher's ERA fully to himself, you have every right to do so.  But let's break down what ERA is comprised of.  Basically, it involves three things.  They are:

1.  Balls not in play (K, BB, HBP, HR)  These are almost 100% under the pitcher's control.
2.  Balls in play (All non-HR hits and outs recorded by fieders)  I don't think anyone would argue that the pitcher entirely controls these plays
3.  Sequencing (Out, out, 2B, BB, BB, out vs. BB, BB, 2B, out, out, out) 

It's up to everyone individually to determine how much of these three to use in evaluating pitchers.  If you're just using FIP, you're ignoring #2 and #3.  If you're using ERA, you're using all three.  If you use ERA but try to factor out the differences of defense behind each pitcher, your using #1, #3, and some of #2.  

For #1, Ducey did outpitch Sheldon.  You can just use FIP and see that this is true.  My guess is that Sheldon's ERA advantage comes from #2, and maybe #3.  I don't have the BABIP numbers, but my guess is Sheldon did better on balls in play.  Here's the problem with that in real life.  At the seasonal level, most of the difference between BABIP is due to luck.  Or if the luck doesn't sit well with you, call it random variation.  Here is a link to see what I mean: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/do_you_want_to_bet_rob_neyer/ 

As you can see, there is a tiny amount of skill in terms of balls in play, but it takes a large amount of data to accurately see that skill.  Now, I've been told that BABIP differences are larger than real life in this simulation.  I'm in a good mood though, so I'm going to give 100% of that difference to the pitchers.  Which means I'm not even going to consider the differences in defense for both teams.  Same thing goes for sequencing.  Whatever difference there was, I'm going to fully attribute it to each pitcher.  Thus, I'm solely going to use ERA in comparing both pitchers.

Another poster pointed how many runs each saved compared to average.  And they were identical.  What this means is, when using an average baseline, both pitchers saved the same amount of runs for their team.  However, in real life, baseball talent is NOT evenly distributed.  There is not a bell curve when in comes to MLB talent.  What this means, is that there are far, far more below average players than above average players.  There are far, far more below average players than exactly average players.  What this means is that being below average still has value.  I'm going to assume that this non-even distribution of talent also exists in this league.  

What this means, is that the average baseline is too high.  You're missing out on some of their value.  The replacement level for a starting pitchers is about 70% below average.  Using this baseline, Ducey actually has saved about 10 more runs than Sheldon through out the season.  For anyone trying to remove Ducey's IP advantage, you are wrong, at least in real life.  Basically, Sheldon plus 81 average innings = Ducey.  But, if this league is similar to real MLB, average is hard to come by.  Meaning there is value in those 81 extra innings.  

Last thing we need to look at is home parks.  From what I'm told Shledon pitches in a pitcher's park and Ducey pitches in a hitter's park.  I don't have the exact increases in scoring for each park, so I'm just going to assume that it's 5% for both parks.  That is, one park increases scoring by 5% and the other decreases scoring by 5%.  This may not seem huge, but it actually creates another 10-difference between the two players.  Thus, Ducey is now 20 runs better than Sheldon.  Or approximately 2 wins above replacement better.  

I used only four things in making this evaluation by the way.  They were ERA, IP, replacement level, and differences in their home parks.  Bottom line, Sheldon saved runs at a better rate, but pitched less innings, and did so in a pitcher's park.  The math says Ducey had a better season.  You can't argue with the math, only with the assumptions.  If you knock out using replacement level, then Ducey still wins based on being equal compared to average but doing so in a tougher park.  If you knock out the park advantage, they're equal.  So you have to knock out the innings advantage, and look only at ERA to get Sheldon being more valuable than Ducey.

I'll be more than happy to answer any questions.

Bobzilla

2/21/2012 12:34 PM
"We've already beaten this drum.  Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher.  Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings.  What dont you see about this."


Yes, he threw an additional 81 quality innings.    But it does equal Sheldon's 205 + league average pitcher adding the other 81.
2/21/2012 12:37 PM
We've already beaten this drum. Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher. Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings. What dont you see about this.

 
Gonna cut it down to this... getting too wide/long.  You are misunderstanding and Mike did not agree to that.  If Sheldon puts up the numbers he put up in 205 innings, and then a slightly below average pitcher (>4.51 ERA by an amount I haven't calculated), they will accumulate the same number of Pitcher Runs that Ducey did in 286 innings.... i.e. they will save the same numbe of runs in the same numbe of innings.  Ducey will be more consistent than that duo, at 3.08 ERA over 286 innings vs. 2.50 ERA for 205 innings then 4.51+ ERA for 81 innings, but the outcome will be the same, using that statistic.
2/21/2012 12:38 PM
kcden,

There are definately examples of real-life guys whose top-line #s consistently over/under-perform their Saber #s.  Nolasco is one such guy on the underperform side.  The classic example on the overperform side is Matt Cain, whose Saber numbers suggest that his top-line #s shouldn't be nearly as good as they are over a sample size as large as his career to date.

But these examples are pretty rare, and overall, past FIP/xFIP/SIERA do tend to be considerably better at predicting future performance than past ERA is.

For the record, when looking (in real life) at who I want my team to sign, how big an extension they should give a certain pitcher, or who I want on my Fantasy Team, I'm going to start with the Advanced Metrics, because they are a better forward-looking tool than top-line stats.  For Cy Young voting, which is inherently backward-looking, I'm more apt to look at ERA/WHIP/W-L, because these top-line stats are 100% accurate as a backward-looking measure.
2/21/2012 12:40 PM
Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
We've already beaten this drum. Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher. Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings. What dont you see about this.

 
Gonna cut it down to this... getting too wide/long.  You are misunderstanding and Mike did not agree to that.  If Sheldon puts up the numbers he put up in 205 innings, and then a slightly below average pitcher (>4.51 ERA by an amount I haven't calculated), they will accumulate the same number of Pitcher Runs that Ducey did in 286 innings.... i.e. they will save the same numbe of runs in the same numbe of innings.  Ducey will be more consistent than that duo, at 3.08 ERA over 286 innings vs. 2.50 ERA for 205 innings then 4.51+ ERA for 81 innings, but the outcome will be the same, using that statistic.
Read JFergs or Bobzillas last post
2/21/2012 12:42 PM
Posted by gjello10 on 2/21/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):
kcden,

There are definately examples of real-life guys whose top-line #s consistently over/under-perform their Saber #s.  Nolasco is one such guy on the underperform side.  The classic example on the overperform side is Matt Cain, whose Saber numbers suggest that his top-line #s shouldn't be nearly as good as they are over a sample size as large as his career to date.

But these examples are pretty rare, and overall, past FIP/xFIP/SIERA do tend to be considerably better at predicting future performance than past ERA is.

For the record, when looking (in real life) at who I want my team to sign, how big an extension they should give a certain pitcher, or who I want on my Fantasy Team, I'm going to start with the Advanced Metrics, because they are a better forward-looking tool than top-line stats.  For Cy Young voting, which is inherently backward-looking, I'm more apt to look at ERA/WHIP/W-L, because these top-line stats are 100% accurate as a backward-looking measure.
I probably haven't said it well (if at all, really) but that is basically my view of the awards.  A hitter/pitcher maybe SHOULD have done better (Ducey... or worse- Sheldon) but they didn't; they did what they did.  Sheldon's numbers are far more "outstanding", to me.  The only outstanding thing that Ducey did was throw an extra 81 innings at a pretty high level (but not "outstanding").  For me, that says Sheldon is the Cy Young winner, but I can certainly understand someone looking at it a different way and saying Ducey should have won.
2/21/2012 12:45 PM
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
We've already beaten this drum. Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher. Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings. What dont you see about this.

 
Gonna cut it down to this... getting too wide/long.  You are misunderstanding and Mike did not agree to that.  If Sheldon puts up the numbers he put up in 205 innings, and then a slightly below average pitcher (>4.51 ERA by an amount I haven't calculated), they will accumulate the same number of Pitcher Runs that Ducey did in 286 innings.... i.e. they will save the same numbe of runs in the same numbe of innings.  Ducey will be more consistent than that duo, at 3.08 ERA over 286 innings vs. 2.50 ERA for 205 innings then 4.51+ ERA for 81 innings, but the outcome will be the same, using that statistic.
Read JFergs or Bobzillas last post

You had an above average staff.   My guess is you weren't maxed out in IP among that group.  My guess is you could have squeezed another 81 innings from that group with no problem.     Those 81 innings wouldn't have been hard to acquire(as you already had them) and, thus, those 81 innings from Ducey weren't that valuable. 

You could argue he saved your bullpen and made them better.   But that's probably not a road you want to travel.

2/21/2012 12:46 PM
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
We've already beaten this drum. Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher. Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings. What dont you see about this.

 
Gonna cut it down to this... getting too wide/long.  You are misunderstanding and Mike did not agree to that.  If Sheldon puts up the numbers he put up in 205 innings, and then a slightly below average pitcher (>4.51 ERA by an amount I haven't calculated), they will accumulate the same number of Pitcher Runs that Ducey did in 286 innings.... i.e. they will save the same numbe of runs in the same numbe of innings.  Ducey will be more consistent than that duo, at 3.08 ERA over 286 innings vs. 2.50 ERA for 205 innings then 4.51+ ERA for 81 innings, but the outcome will be the same, using that statistic.
Read JFergs or Bobzillas last post
I did; I still think Sheldon deserves the Cy Young.  Like I said previously, Ducey has a much better case for MVP, just not Cy Young, IMO.
2/21/2012 12:46 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
We've already beaten this drum. Its not Ducey = Sheldon + Less then average pitcher. Even Mike recognized that Ducey threw an additional 81 quality innings. What dont you see about this.

 
Gonna cut it down to this... getting too wide/long.  You are misunderstanding and Mike did not agree to that.  If Sheldon puts up the numbers he put up in 205 innings, and then a slightly below average pitcher (>4.51 ERA by an amount I haven't calculated), they will accumulate the same number of Pitcher Runs that Ducey did in 286 innings.... i.e. they will save the same numbe of runs in the same numbe of innings.  Ducey will be more consistent than that duo, at 3.08 ERA over 286 innings vs. 2.50 ERA for 205 innings then 4.51+ ERA for 81 innings, but the outcome will be the same, using that statistic.
Read JFergs or Bobzillas last post

You had an above average staff.   My guess is you weren't maxed out in IP among that group.  My guess is you could have squeezed another 81 innings from that group with no problem.     Those 81 innings wouldn't have been hard to acquire(as you already had them) and, thus, those 81 innings from Ducey weren't that valuable. 

You could argue he saved your bullpen and made them better.   But that's probably not a road you want to travel.

We are getting into specific instances.  So you're voting on Cy Young now based on the rest of the staff?  

Also - because of injuries and decreasing in durability I am not sure I could have gotten those 81 innings out of my staff
2/21/2012 12:50 PM
◂ Prev 1...10|11|12|13|14...24 Next ▸
Which on for Cy Young Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.