Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Do balls hit in play that aren't home runs have anything to do with run scoring?

Absolutely. But if we aren't able to distinguish between the pitcher's role in allowing the hit in play and the defense's role in allowing the hit in play, how do we give credit one way or the other?

When i see a hard hit ball off the bat, my first assumption is that it's a hit.  When I see something weak hit off the bat, my first assumption is that it's an out.  Am I always right? No.  But more often that not I find myself praising/blaming a pitcher for what happened rather than a defender and his positioning or range.  And yes, often a lazy fly ball falls, and thats luck.  More often than not, that ball is caught, and I'll give the pitcher credit for it.

Intuitively that seems correct.  But there isn't any sort of BABIP trend to back it up.  You'd think hall of fame quality pitchers would almost always have low BABIP and that mediocre or bad pitchers would always have a higher BABIP.  But it isn't true.

There isn't much of a trend (I'll say not much, because there is some.  I did some quick looks at great pitchers and not so great pitchers and did find trends).  And that's why I don't have much argument against what you're saying.  But when you have numbers that don't make sense to you, intuitively, you shouldn't just use them because you don't know any better.  The pitcher has much more say than his defense on whether a ball he throws is a hit or not.  To take this out of the equation, intuitively, seems silly.

I will continue to use ERA as a measuring stick on determining who are the best pitchers in baseball.  It measures the amount of earned runs a pitcher has allowed.  And since my common sense tells me that a pitcher has much more say than a fielder does in determining hits from outs, this statistic also seems to make the most sense.

Just piggybacking off of this - if I find a pitcher has a 2.50 ERA but his K/9 is 6 and his BB/9 is 4, and his WHIP is 1.45, I'm going to assume he got lucky.  His FIP will probably be a 4.50 or something.  But I can use these numbers to come to that conclusion on my own.  I won't make a decision on who is a better pitcher based on one stat that only looks at 29% of all batters he faces.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Was I arguing that ERA was the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher?   If so, I can't recall it.

I'm not arguing that any stat is the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher.  Just that we should attempt to use the most accurate stats we have available.

What stat(s) would you like to use to evaluate a pitcher?

I don't think a single stat, even ADVANCED METRICS!!!!, can tell the story.  I'm not sure a collection of stats can tell the story.   I have no idea what sort of FIP the 90s Braves carried but I know, other than Smoltz, their SP didn't strike out a lot of batters.   Watching their games was almost annoying because the plate seemed to be about 25 inches wide with Maddux/Glavine on the mound.   But, because they could hit their spots so well, the umps would just follow them out there.  Then, once he realized he was calling pitches 6 inches off the plate strikes, they're bring it back in.   That led to bad swings and poorly hit balls because, get this, batters had to chase what the umps were calling strikes.     Maybe your precious FIP for them is good, they didn't give up homers or walks, but it won't tell the story.  You had to actually watch a game to get the full effect. of what they were doing.

If watching someone pitch was the only way anyone could evaluate a pitcher, we'd be hosed.  Not everyone can watch every pitch of every game for every pitcher since the turn of the century.  And even if you could, good luck remembering it all.  We have to use stats to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

I'd argue that we don't HAVE to do any such thing.

It would be hard to argue that the 90s Braves didn't have some of the best staffs we've seen in the last 30 years.  You could use wins and ERA as the stats to "prove" it.   Everyone hates wins as a stat and some, like you, believe ERA is just luck.   Yet I dare you to find anyone who'll say "Those guys were pretty average".

I don't think ERA is just luck.  Just that it incorporates defense and luck and if we have a more exact measurement available, we should use it.

Your example is perfect.  We could use Wins to show how great Maddux was.  But why use Wins when something better is available?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Do balls hit in play that aren't home runs have anything to do with run scoring?

Absolutely. But if we aren't able to distinguish between the pitcher's role in allowing the hit in play and the defense's role in allowing the hit in play, how do we give credit one way or the other?

How can we give him no credit at all and claim that we're using ADVANCED METRICS!?

Because we're eliminating the noise we can't measure.

So, again, if we can't measure it on a stat sheet, we should just ignore it as a skill?

If we can't distinguish the pitcher's role in BABIP from the defense's, we should find stats that evaluate the pitcher without incorporating BABIP.

But we can.   If we accept that the ability to locate and change speeds are probably the most important skills a pitcher can possess, we can actually WATCH an occassional game and evaluate a pitcher's ability to get batters out without throwing it past them.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/25/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Do balls hit in play that aren't home runs have anything to do with run scoring?

Absolutely. But if we aren't able to distinguish between the pitcher's role in allowing the hit in play and the defense's role in allowing the hit in play, how do we give credit one way or the other?

How can we give him no credit at all and claim that we're using ADVANCED METRICS!?

Because we're eliminating the noise we can't measure.

So, again, if we can't measure it on a stat sheet, we should just ignore it as a skill?

If we can't distinguish the pitcher's role in BABIP from the defense's, we should find stats that evaluate the pitcher without incorporating BABIP.

But we can.   If we accept that the ability to locate and change speeds are probably the most important skills a pitcher can possess, we can actually WATCH an occassional game and evaluate a pitcher's ability to get batters out without throwing it past them.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Was I arguing that ERA was the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher?   If so, I can't recall it.

I'm not arguing that any stat is the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher.  Just that we should attempt to use the most accurate stats we have available.

What stat(s) would you like to use to evaluate a pitcher?

I don't think a single stat, even ADVANCED METRICS!!!!, can tell the story.  I'm not sure a collection of stats can tell the story.   I have no idea what sort of FIP the 90s Braves carried but I know, other than Smoltz, their SP didn't strike out a lot of batters.   Watching their games was almost annoying because the plate seemed to be about 25 inches wide with Maddux/Glavine on the mound.   But, because they could hit their spots so well, the umps would just follow them out there.  Then, once he realized he was calling pitches 6 inches off the plate strikes, they're bring it back in.   That led to bad swings and poorly hit balls because, get this, batters had to chase what the umps were calling strikes.     Maybe your precious FIP for them is good, they didn't give up homers or walks, but it won't tell the story.  You had to actually watch a game to get the full effect. of what they were doing.

If watching someone pitch was the only way anyone could evaluate a pitcher, we'd be hosed.  Not everyone can watch every pitch of every game for every pitcher since the turn of the century.  And even if you could, good luck remembering it all.  We have to use stats to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

I'd argue that we don't HAVE to do any such thing.

It would be hard to argue that the 90s Braves didn't have some of the best staffs we've seen in the last 30 years.  You could use wins and ERA as the stats to "prove" it.   Everyone hates wins as a stat and some, like you, believe ERA is just luck.   Yet I dare you to find anyone who'll say "Those guys were pretty average".

I don't think ERA is just luck.  Just that it incorporates defense and luck and if we have a more exact measurement available, we should use it.

Your example is perfect.  We could use Wins to show how great Maddux was.  But why use Wins when something better is available?

And what is the "more exact measurement" that you're referring to?  It can't be FIP, because FIP ignores 71% of the game.  Unless you consider 29% to be "exact" enough to be meaningful.

jrd_x, one more thing, and then I'll get back to work and come back in a few hours to argue some more.  Have you ever seen Mo Rivera pitch a full inning?  Does a ball hit off him have as high a chance of being a hit than one of (enter average pitcher)? Does he have any say in whether a non-strikeout is an out or a hit?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Was I arguing that ERA was the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher?   If so, I can't recall it.

I'm not arguing that any stat is the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher.  Just that we should attempt to use the most accurate stats we have available.

What stat(s) would you like to use to evaluate a pitcher?

I don't think a single stat, even ADVANCED METRICS!!!!, can tell the story.  I'm not sure a collection of stats can tell the story.   I have no idea what sort of FIP the 90s Braves carried but I know, other than Smoltz, their SP didn't strike out a lot of batters.   Watching their games was almost annoying because the plate seemed to be about 25 inches wide with Maddux/Glavine on the mound.   But, because they could hit their spots so well, the umps would just follow them out there.  Then, once he realized he was calling pitches 6 inches off the plate strikes, they're bring it back in.   That led to bad swings and poorly hit balls because, get this, batters had to chase what the umps were calling strikes.     Maybe your precious FIP for them is good, they didn't give up homers or walks, but it won't tell the story.  You had to actually watch a game to get the full effect. of what they were doing.

If watching someone pitch was the only way anyone could evaluate a pitcher, we'd be hosed.  Not everyone can watch every pitch of every game for every pitcher since the turn of the century.  And even if you could, good luck remembering it all.  We have to use stats to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

I'd argue that we don't HAVE to do any such thing.

It would be hard to argue that the 90s Braves didn't have some of the best staffs we've seen in the last 30 years.  You could use wins and ERA as the stats to "prove" it.   Everyone hates wins as a stat and some, like you, believe ERA is just luck.   Yet I dare you to find anyone who'll say "Those guys were pretty average".

I don't think ERA is just luck.  Just that it incorporates defense and luck and if we have a more exact measurement available, we should use it.

Your example is perfect.  We could use Wins to show how great Maddux was.  But why use Wins when something better is available?

Isn't that the problem?    "Better" isn't defined by any one individual.   You think FIP is "better".  I think FIP is "horseshit".

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Was I arguing that ERA was the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher?   If so, I can't recall it.

I'm not arguing that any stat is the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher.  Just that we should attempt to use the most accurate stats we have available.

What stat(s) would you like to use to evaluate a pitcher?

I don't think a single stat, even ADVANCED METRICS!!!!, can tell the story.  I'm not sure a collection of stats can tell the story.   I have no idea what sort of FIP the 90s Braves carried but I know, other than Smoltz, their SP didn't strike out a lot of batters.   Watching their games was almost annoying because the plate seemed to be about 25 inches wide with Maddux/Glavine on the mound.   But, because they could hit their spots so well, the umps would just follow them out there.  Then, once he realized he was calling pitches 6 inches off the plate strikes, they're bring it back in.   That led to bad swings and poorly hit balls because, get this, batters had to chase what the umps were calling strikes.     Maybe your precious FIP for them is good, they didn't give up homers or walks, but it won't tell the story.  You had to actually watch a game to get the full effect. of what they were doing.

If watching someone pitch was the only way anyone could evaluate a pitcher, we'd be hosed.  Not everyone can watch every pitch of every game for every pitcher since the turn of the century.  And even if you could, good luck remembering it all.  We have to use stats to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

I'd argue that we don't HAVE to do any such thing.

It would be hard to argue that the 90s Braves didn't have some of the best staffs we've seen in the last 30 years.  You could use wins and ERA as the stats to "prove" it.   Everyone hates wins as a stat and some, like you, believe ERA is just luck.   Yet I dare you to find anyone who'll say "Those guys were pretty average".

I don't think ERA is just luck.  Just that it incorporates defense and luck and if we have a more exact measurement available, we should use it.

Your example is perfect.  We could use Wins to show how great Maddux was.  But why use Wins when something better is available?

And what is the "more exact measurement" that you're referring to?  It can't be FIP, because FIP ignores 71% of the game.  Unless you consider 29% to be "exact" enough to be meaningful.

Because the pitcher isn't playing SS.  Or Cf.  Or 1B. He isn't in control of 100% of the game.  Why should we hold him accountable for 100% of the game?

But we can.   If we accept that the ability to locate and change speeds are probably the most important skills a pitcher can possess, we can actually WATCH an occassional game and evaluate a pitcher's ability to get batters out without throwing it past them.

We can distinguish a pitcher's role in BABIP?  Without watching every pitch of every game, how could we do that?  We know that even hall of fame pitchers with amazing control aren't able to control their BABIP.  So how do you distinguish what the pitcher did and what the defense did?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):

But we can.   If we accept that the ability to locate and change speeds are probably the most important skills a pitcher can possess, we can actually WATCH an occassional game and evaluate a pitcher's ability to get batters out without throwing it past them.

We can distinguish a pitcher's role in BABIP?  Without watching every pitch of every game, how could we do that?  We know that even hall of fame pitchers with amazing control aren't able to control their BABIP.  So how do you distinguish what the pitcher did and what the defense did?

Aren't you forgetting someone?   Maybe the batter has some control in any particular AB.   Are you disputing that?   And are you insisting that deception plays no part in pitching?   Do you think a pitching machine, winging 105 MPH fastballs down the middle, would record many outs?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Park factors are very important.  No one is arguing otherwise.  But your point suggests we need more advanced stats, not less.

No, my point is FIP is a horseshit stat that ignores so many things baseball that I'm not even sure it should count as a baseball stat.

ERA ignores park factors, defense, and luck.  Those things have a HUGE impact on run scoring.

Was I arguing that ERA was the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher?   If so, I can't recall it.

I'm not arguing that any stat is the ultimate stat for evaluating a pitcher.  Just that we should attempt to use the most accurate stats we have available.

What stat(s) would you like to use to evaluate a pitcher?

I don't think a single stat, even ADVANCED METRICS!!!!, can tell the story.  I'm not sure a collection of stats can tell the story.   I have no idea what sort of FIP the 90s Braves carried but I know, other than Smoltz, their SP didn't strike out a lot of batters.   Watching their games was almost annoying because the plate seemed to be about 25 inches wide with Maddux/Glavine on the mound.   But, because they could hit their spots so well, the umps would just follow them out there.  Then, once he realized he was calling pitches 6 inches off the plate strikes, they're bring it back in.   That led to bad swings and poorly hit balls because, get this, batters had to chase what the umps were calling strikes.     Maybe your precious FIP for them is good, they didn't give up homers or walks, but it won't tell the story.  You had to actually watch a game to get the full effect. of what they were doing.

If watching someone pitch was the only way anyone could evaluate a pitcher, we'd be hosed.  Not everyone can watch every pitch of every game for every pitcher since the turn of the century.  And even if you could, good luck remembering it all.  We have to use stats to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

I'd argue that we don't HAVE to do any such thing.

It would be hard to argue that the 90s Braves didn't have some of the best staffs we've seen in the last 30 years.  You could use wins and ERA as the stats to "prove" it.   Everyone hates wins as a stat and some, like you, believe ERA is just luck.   Yet I dare you to find anyone who'll say "Those guys were pretty average".

I don't think ERA is just luck.  Just that it incorporates defense and luck and if we have a more exact measurement available, we should use it.

Your example is perfect.  We could use Wins to show how great Maddux was.  But why use Wins when something better is available?

And what is the "more exact measurement" that you're referring to?  It can't be FIP, because FIP ignores 71% of the game.  Unless you consider 29% to be "exact" enough to be meaningful.

Because the pitcher isn't playing SS.  Or Cf.  Or 1B. He isn't in control of 100% of the game.  Why should we hold him accountable for 100% of the game?

?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2012 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):

But we can.   If we accept that the ability to locate and change speeds are probably the most important skills a pitcher can possess, we can actually WATCH an occassional game and evaluate a pitcher's ability to get batters out without throwing it past them.

We can distinguish a pitcher's role in BABIP?  Without watching every pitch of every game, how could we do that?  We know that even hall of fame pitchers with amazing control aren't able to control their BABIP.  So how do you distinguish what the pitcher did and what the defense did?

Aren't you forgetting someone?   Maybe the batter has some control in any particular AB.   Are you disputing that?   And are you insisting that deception plays no part in pitching?   Do you think a pitching machine, winging 105 MPH fastballs down the middle, would record many outs?

The batter has some control over what happens to a ball in play.  That's why great hitters often have very high BABIP.

Of course deception plays a part in pitching.

I think this is a legit question for jrdx. 

How much of baseball is skill and how much is dumb luck?   Percentage-wise.

So if according to jrd_x a pitcher can't control BABIP, wouldn't the same be true where a hitter can't control it either?

Rey Ordonez career BABIP is .273
Vladimir Guerrero career BABIP is .318

Obviously Rey Ordonez must have just been extremely unlucky.

I've already made the point that pitchers/hitters with high strikeout percentages are punished/rewarded in BABIP.