Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

toddcommish
Posts: 4878 (1)
Hall of Famer
479 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
The biggest problem I have with BABIP and FIP is that there are multiple ways to achieve a low rate, thus rendering any analysis incomplete at best, grossly inaccurate at worst.

We've been throwing out examples of how a pitcher can have a fabulous BABIP or FIP, and still not be an effective pitcher. 

And tec, it's 74.8% of stats that are fabricated.  Over 98% of the experts agree on this.
3/1/2012 12:06 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 14008 (1)
Hall of Famer
627 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, I didn't make any homer comparisons and I'd probably disagree with some of what you said.   Yes, when considering signing a player, it does matter if he's scraping fences or hitting bombs.   If your park dimensions are 5 ft deeper, he's hitting flyouts.   If you're the Cubs and guy can't hit during the day because he has blue eyes(Hamilton's excuse), you don't want him. 

Anyway, back to WHIP.   Good pitchers have good WHIP.   It's just a fact.   You don't see a guy with a 1.53 WHIP and think "Future HOFer".     With BABIP and FIP, that's not true.  They measure tiny portions of a pitcher's game.  And, as has been noted, both "punish" pitchers for different things.    Pitcher can give up homers and have a wonderful BABIP but, if you strike batters out, your BABIP is automatically worsened because those outs don't count.    However, your FIP will be much better because you DO strike batters out.    Those two stats aren't "advanced", they're just retarded.
I wasn't trying to imply the HR example was yours. And I'm not talking about player evaluation for future use. I'm talking about determining how good a HR hitter was. If a guy has 500 HR, does it matter if they all cleared the fence by 2 inches, or 20 feet?  It's the whole that matters.
3/1/2012 12:16 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, I didn't make any homer comparisons and I'd probably disagree with some of what you said.   Yes, when considering signing a player, it does matter if he's scraping fences or hitting bombs.   If your park dimensions are 5 ft deeper, he's hitting flyouts.   If you're the Cubs and guy can't hit during the day because he has blue eyes(Hamilton's excuse), you don't want him. 

Anyway, back to WHIP.   Good pitchers have good WHIP.   It's just a fact.   You don't see a guy with a 1.53 WHIP and think "Future HOFer".     With BABIP and FIP, that's not true.  They measure tiny portions of a pitcher's game.  And, as has been noted, both "punish" pitchers for different things.    Pitcher can give up homers and have a wonderful BABIP but, if you strike batters out, your BABIP is automatically worsened because those outs don't count.    However, your FIP will be much better because you DO strike batters out.    Those two stats aren't "advanced", they're just retarded.
Have you ever seen someone with a really low  career FIP and thought they weren't any good?  Or a really high one and thought they were good?
3/1/2012 12:35 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 3/1/2012 12:06:00 PM (view original):
The biggest problem I have with BABIP and FIP is that there are multiple ways to achieve a low rate, thus rendering any analysis incomplete at best, grossly inaccurate at worst.

We've been throwing out examples of how a pitcher can have a fabulous BABIP or FIP, and still not be an effective pitcher. 

And tec, it's 74.8% of stats that are fabricated.  Over 98% of the experts agree on this.
BABIP only adds context.  If one pitcher has an average ERA and WHIP and a second pitcher has a slightly lower ERA and WHIP, it might be easy to say that the second pitcher was better.

But if the second pitcher had a gold glover at every position behind him and the first pitcher had Mo Vaughn at every position behind him, it might make us take a closer look, right?  

BABIP helps with that.

I'd be willing to bet the second pitcher with the gold glove defense would have a lower BABIP.  That doesn't mean he's a better pitcher, he just had a better defense. Looking past stats dependent on BABIP (and using stats like FIP), allows us to evaluate the pitchers without noise from the defense (and luck).


3/1/2012 1:00 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
The most important thing to understand about FIP is that it ignores 71% of the game.  Primarily, the parts where most of the outcome of the game is determined, i.e. hits and runs.
3/1/2012 1:04 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/1/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):
The most important thing to understand about FIP is that it ignores 71% of the game.  Primarily, the parts where most of the outcome of the game is determined, i.e. hits and runs.
If the pitcher doesn't control that 71%, it becomes irrelevant to the discussion of who was the better pitcher.
3/1/2012 1:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect

That would be true if one assumes that the pitcher has 0.00% control or influence over that other 71%.

Which would be pretty dumb to accept as fact.

3/1/2012 1:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 3/1/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, I didn't make any homer comparisons and I'd probably disagree with some of what you said.   Yes, when considering signing a player, it does matter if he's scraping fences or hitting bombs.   If your park dimensions are 5 ft deeper, he's hitting flyouts.   If you're the Cubs and guy can't hit during the day because he has blue eyes(Hamilton's excuse), you don't want him. 

Anyway, back to WHIP.   Good pitchers have good WHIP.   It's just a fact.   You don't see a guy with a 1.53 WHIP and think "Future HOFer".     With BABIP and FIP, that's not true.  They measure tiny portions of a pitcher's game.  And, as has been noted, both "punish" pitchers for different things.    Pitcher can give up homers and have a wonderful BABIP but, if you strike batters out, your BABIP is automatically worsened because those outs don't count.    However, your FIP will be much better because you DO strike batters out.    Those two stats aren't "advanced", they're just retarded.
Have you ever seen someone with a really low  career FIP and thought they weren't any good?  Or a really high one and thought they were good?

HA!  Why would I ever even consider/analyze a stat that I think is retarded? 

I dismissed FIP within 20 seconds of hearing about it.

Don't walk people, don't let them hit the ball a long way and, if possible, don't let them hit the ball at all.

Little League.

3/1/2012 1:52 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by kermit on 3/1/2012 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Let me just note that Pete Vukovich won the Cy Young award (and placed 18th in the MVP voting) with a 1.502 WHIP.

WOW.   IMO, everyone in the top 9 but the RP would have been better choices.   Bud was cheating for the Brewers back then.

3/1/2012 2:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I bet his FIP even sucked.   And his BABIP may have been the highest ever.
3/1/2012 2:08 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Vuckovich may be the worst CYA selection ever.  The voters were seduced by his 18-6 record for a first place team and disregarded the fact that all the rest of his numbers blew chunks.
3/1/2012 2:15 PM
kermit
Posts: 10973 (0)
Hall of Famer
522 480 126
Rookie
Vuke knew how to bear down with people on base.
3/1/2012 2:15 PM
kermit
Posts: 10973 (0)
Hall of Famer
522 480 126
Rookie
Also note that the "rest of his numbers" included an ERA of 3.34 (6th in the league).
3/1/2012 2:16 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Coincidentally, the great Steve Carlton was also a poor selection for NL CYA that year.  The more deserving Steve Rogers was robbed.
3/1/2012 2:18 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by kermit on 3/1/2012 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Also note that the "rest of his numbers" included an ERA of 3.34 (6th in the league).
And that's probably the only one of the "rest of his numbers" most anyone covering baseball was looking at in '82.
3/1/2012 2:18 PM
◂ Prev 1...74|75|76|77|78...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.