Do me a favour jrd - count up how many times you've said "outlier" or "one off" in this thread. 100 "one-off" scenarios is a lot.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, throwing strikeout pitchers out there will skew the stats.  We know they didn't throw no-hitters non-stop.   27 outs in a game.   If 10 are strikeouts, that leaves 17.    5 hits in a full game like that is .294.    A guy that gets 4 strikeouts can give up 6.7 hits per game and produce the same BABIP.

Let's not pretend that no one knows how it works. 

This, AC.

Halladay isn't what we'd call a "strikeout" pitchers any longer.   By choice or by Father Time's decision.  But he can still be effective despite a pedestrian BABIP.

I take that back.  He's actually striking out a lot more in the NL.  Beats me.

Outlier.

Actually, I'm contradicting myself.  By striking out more, he's increasing his BABIP.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, throwing strikeout pitchers out there will skew the stats.  We know they didn't throw no-hitters non-stop.   27 outs in a game.   If 10 are strikeouts, that leaves 17.    5 hits in a full game like that is .294.    A guy that gets 4 strikeouts can give up 6.7 hits per game and produce the same BABIP.

Let's not pretend that no one knows how it works. 

This, AC.

Halladay isn't what we'd call a "strikeout" pitchers any longer.   By choice or by Father Time's decision.  But he can still be effective despite a pedestrian BABIP.

First of all, Halladay's last 4 seasons have been his best full seasons in terms of K rate.

 

Secondly, even if his K rate was dropping, that logic is backward.  If your BABIP is relatively constant and you start striking out fewer guys, your overall OAV goes up.

Yeah, you might notice my two posts immediately following that one.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Actually, I'm contradicting myself.  By striking out more, he's increasing his BABIP.  

Except he's not - the last 4 years he's been above his career BABIP 2 times and below 2 times.  He did post 4 of his best 5 full season ERA's in that span though.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, you might notice my two posts immediately following that one.

Yeah, quoted it, did something else for a bit and then finished the post, then noticed you had posted twice in the meantime.

It's ironic.

This whole advanced statistics/SABRmetrics movement started when a third-shift security guard at a pork and beans factory with a lot of time on his hands challenged the conventional baseball wisdom at the time when batting average and earned run average were the gold standard of player evaluation.  Bill James stood up and said "Hey, maybe the way people have been thinking about baseball has been all wrong" while the old guard stubbornly refused to budge in their ways of thinking.

Now, the "advanced statistics" folks get themselves all ruffled up and defensive when their very strict interpretation and adherance to their own stats is questioned.

That's funny.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/23/2012 3:14:00 PM (view original):
It's ironic.

This whole advanced statistics/SABRmetrics movement started when a third-shift security guard at a pork and beans factory with a lot of time on his hands challenged the conventional baseball wisdom at the time when batting average and earned run average were the gold standard of player evaluation.  Bill James stood up and said "Hey, maybe the way people have been thinking about baseball has been all wrong" while the old guard stubbornly refused to budge in their ways of thinking.

Now, the "advanced statistics" folks get themselves all ruffled up and defensive when their very strict interpretation and adherance to their own stats is questioned.

That's funny.

It takes two to tango.  Certain people on this thread are more than a little riled up at the suggestion that a pitcher can't control whether a ball in play becomes a hit or an out.

Maybe because "certain people" understand that the game is played by people on a field, and not in Micorsoft Excel spreadsheets?

You're right. It does bother mean when people argue against common sense.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/23/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Maybe because "certain people" understand that the game is played by people on a field, and not in Micorsoft Excel spreadsheets?

I think we all understand that the game is played by people on the field.

No one is arguing that the game is played on spreadsheets.  Stats are an important part of baseball and people who love baseball are constantly trying to gain a better understanding of what is actually happening on the field.

Do you think front offices are relying on pitcher wins and ERA?  Or have they moved on to more advanced metrics?  A buddy of mine that works for the padres says their analysts have developed their own proprietary metrics that are way beyond anything you'll find on Fangraphs, especially when it comes to defense.

I'm sure you'll find very different schools of thought. I'm sure the following conservation goes on in many front offices:

Stat Geek: "I don't think Bob's that good. His stats are average"

Scout: "I've watched Bob play, a lot. He's got the goods. He's got all the qualities we want in a player".

And then the GM has to decide which way he wants to go. Money, character and the ever popular intangibles factor in as much as raw numbers.

But it's a balance.  A balance between what you see on the field and what you see in the stats.  When the two don't appear to align, you need to understand why and adjust your thinking accordingly.  You cannot just blindly follow the numbers.  Not every aspect or nuance of the game can be reduced to a stat in a spreadsheet.