Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Twins make offer for Chris Archer

  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#241 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,500 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:20 PM

 

But their biggest need is a front of the rotation starter. (Darvish or Archer.) A number 4, (Cobb/Lynn), or 5 (Tillman/Garcia), doesn't really move the needle much.

OK... sorry.. but Cobb/Lynn aren't 4s... they were both better than average, even if their peripherals weren't ideal. 


#242 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,689 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:34 PM

 

Is your home run rate adjusting for league-wide tendencies?

 

Because MLB total home runs rose just shy of 50% (!!!!!) from 2014-2017.

 

It's based on comparison of FIP (actual HR rate) to xFIP (expected HR rate by league average).I think that's how xFIP is calculated anyway... I'd assume league average is based on that season, but don't know for sure.Could be historical average.

That's the same argument I use against Sano when comparing his whole skill set.The HR are nice, but 30 or 35 isn't what it used to be, or it is what it used to be, depending on which era it we're comparing to.

  • Brock Beauchamp likes this

#243 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 4,392 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:21 PM

I like Kepler too, but I guess I am not understanding the angst over trading a guy who is the third best overall outfielder on the team. Trading Kepler would likely mean that Grossman starts in RF (or possibly LF with Rosario switching to RF), Vargas is the primary DH and Granite is a late inning defensive sub a lot. I am not at all convinced that Gordon or Romero will pan out. Romero has substantial injury history and seems destined to be in the bullpen IMO. It’s doubtful Gordon will stick at SS and not at all certain he will hit well enough to stick anywhere. If trading three questionable upside players is what it takes to get a pitcher like Archer, I’d do it everyday and twice on Saturday.
  • PseudoSABR, nmcowboy and Tomj14 like this

#244 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,762 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:51 PM

OK... sorry.. but Cobb/Lynn aren't 4s... they were both better than average, even if their peripherals weren't ideal.


4.16 and 4.82 FIP, respectively.

#245 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,762 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:53 PM

I like Kepler too, but I guess I am not understanding the angst over trading a guy who is the third best overall outfielder on the team. Trading Kepler would likely mean that Grossman starts in RF (or possibly LF with Rosario switching to RF), Vargas is the primary DH and Granite is a late inning defensive sub a lot. I am not at all convinced that Gordon or Romero will pan out. Romero has substantial injury history and seems destined to be in the bullpen IMO. It’s doubtful Gordon will stick at SS and not at all certain he will hit well enough to stick anywhere. If trading three questionable upside players is what it takes to get a pitcher like Archer, I’d do it everyday and twice on Saturday.


If that would be enough for Archer (I don't think it's close), I'd hope the deal would already be done.
I don't think you even get a return phone call for any package that doesn't include Lewis.

#246 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:59 PM

 

ftfy

Disagree if you want, but I did not say he was not a quality pitcher. If you believe fip as the end all, be all you will over value Archer.There are other measures that do not like Archer.

Edited by old nurse, 13 February 2018 - 10:09 PM.

  • gunnarthor likes this

#247 AlwaysinModeration

AlwaysinModeration

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,917 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:21 PM

Part of it is the initial reaction. I think people were good with the contract when it was signed. It worked out poorly but we needed pitching and it was a market contract.

Hughes’ extension was a head scratcher from the get go


Hughes made a brilliant move by not asking to go back out for another inning in his last start (which would have triggered a incentive bonus). TR was so impressed by his selflessness he gave him an extra $48 million.
  • lukeduke1980 likes this

#248 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,344 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:11 AM

What I find striking is that he consistently underperforms his FIP... Nolasco was the same way, though not to the extreme. I think there's something to be said for something other than luck here (dont' get me wrong, I like Archer, as he's not 'unlucky' enough to avoid acquiring)... but bottom line is that pitchers have more influence in BABIP than stat heads are willing to accept. There are too many anomalies.

I don’t find a 0.18 difference very compelling.

But I think you’re right that some pitchers seem to pitch outside the parameters recorded by FIP, I’m just not sure Archer is one of them.

  • diehardtwinsfan and jimmer like this

#249 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,500 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 14 February 2018 - 06:35 AM

 

Saying he underperforms his FIP assumes ERA is his actual performance.Basically, it goes back to saying ERA is the best stat to evaluate performance.

 

I'm not really saying that at all. I'm saying that there's more skill involved in a pitchers results than stats like FIP seem to recognize. If ERA was as random as is often implied here, there would be no such things as pitchers that could consistently under or over perform their FIP. I'm not saying ERA is the be-all/end-all stat for evaluating pitchers. I'm simply saying that I don't buy into the idea that it is largely luck driven. Usually it's an adjustment that a pitcher makes which gets their results in line with their peripherals, not just more reps.


#250 Oxtung

Oxtung

    If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence of tryin

  • Members
  • 1,979 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:26 AM

 

I'm not really saying that at all. I'm saying that there's more skill involved in a pitchers results than stats like FIP seem to recognize. If ERA was as random as is often implied here, there would be no such things as pitchers that could consistently under or over perform their FIP. 

 

Yes there would be. Statistics actually demands there will be. Ever flipped a coin 100 times? At some point it is going to land same side up a bunch of times in a row.

 

 

I'm not saying ERA is the be-all/end-all stat for evaluating pitchers. I'm simply saying that I don't buy into the idea that it is largely luck driven. Usually it's an adjustment that a pitcher makes which gets their results in line with their peripherals, not just more reps.

 

Nobody is saying ERA is primarily luck driven but we are saying it takes into account things a pitcher can control and things they can't control. Among the list of things they can't control is the park they play in, is a 4.00 ERA from Coors field the same as a 4.00 ERA at Petco Park? When a flyball is hit to Buxton is that the same as Denard Span? Defense matters. In addition to the onfield differences there will also be statistical variation; sometimes a ball drops and sometimes it doesn't. If Sano gets a pitch over the heart of the plate he can tattoo a ball but if it's hit right at the 3rd baseman does that mean the pitcher did something amazing or did he get lucky? Some years that's going to happen more than others and that will affect a pitchers ERA even though there has been no discernible skill change.

 

So, is ERA entirely luck driven? No. Are there components a pitcher can't control? Yes. Is one of those things statistical variation? Yes. Will there be pitchers whose statistical variation consistently overperform their true talent? Yes. Statistics demands it.

  • Mr. Brooks likes this

#251 FormerMinnasotan

FormerMinnasotan

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 621 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:33 AM

I don't think so. A team receiving him would be getting half a year less of control, and deadline deals don't always fetch a premium, David Price being another Tampa example. I'm sure there are more, but I'm in public transportation and don't feel equipped to do the research.

It may not cost us potentially as much for major league talent, but we may have to give up more higher up prospects if we trade for Acher at the trade deadline. Consider this: right now we may have to give up Kepler, Romero (who may never pan out as a starter), and Nick Gordon. If we trade for Archer at the trade deadline we may have to give up the likes of Lewis Thorpe, Blayne Enlow, etc. That’s what I mean when I say we’d have to give up more at the trade deadline. We’d have to give up higher ceiling guys than we do now.

#252 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,344 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:56 AM

 

Yes there would be. Statistics actually demands there will be. Ever flipped a coin 100 times? At some point it is going to land same side up a bunch of times in a row.

 

 

Nobody is saying ERA is primarily luck driven but we are saying it takes into account things a pitcher can control and things they can't control. Among the list of things they can't control is the park they play in, is a 4.00 ERA from Coors field the same as a 4.00 ERA at Petco Park? When a flyball is hit to Buxton is that the same as Denard Span? Defense matters. In addition to the onfield differences there will also be statistical variation; sometimes a ball drops and sometimes it doesn't. If Sano gets a pitch over the heart of the plate he can tattoo a ball but if it's hit right at the 3rd baseman does that mean the pitcher did something amazing or did he get lucky? Some years that's going to happen more than others and that will affect a pitchers ERA even though there has been no discernible skill change.

 

So, is ERA entirely luck driven? No. Are there components a pitcher can't control? Yes. Is one of those things statistical variation? Yes. Will there be pitchers whose statistical variation consistently overperform their true talent? Yes. Statistics demands it.

The problem here is that diehard is talking career FIP/ERA (or at least several consecutive seasons) while you're talking about FIP on a yearly basis.

 

There's no explanation for Ricky Nolasco's career FIP discrepancy that doesn't involve the statement "FIP is missing something here". Nolasco has played for three teams in two leagues in front of a variety of defenses, both good and bad.

 

Yet he has underperformed his FIP in ten seasons and overperformed it just twice and never by more than .18 runs (well within a reasonable margin of error).

 

His career FIP/ERA difference is nearly six-tenths of a run.

 

FIP is a very good stat. It's not a perfect stat and doesn't seem to accurately judge the talent level of a few pitchers. I've never seen a good explanation why that is the case.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#253 Oxtung

Oxtung

    If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence of tryin

  • Members
  • 1,979 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:24 AM

 

The problem here is that diehard is talking career FIP/ERA (or at least several consecutive seasons) while you're talking about FIP on a yearly basis.

 

There's no explanation for Ricky Nolasco's career FIP discrepancy that doesn't involve the statement "FIP is missing something here". Nolasco has played for three teams in two leagues in front of a variety of defenses, both good and bad.

 

Yet he has underperformed his FIP in ten seasons and overperformed it just twice and never by more than .18 runs (well within a reasonable margin of error).

 

His career FIP/ERA difference is nearly six-tenths of a run.

 

FIP is a very good stat. It's not a perfect stat and doesn't seem to accurately judge the talent level of a few pitchers. I've never seen a good explanation why that is the case.

 

Absolutely I was talking about career stats. Statistics says there will be people who under/over perform consistently. That's why tails will come up 9 times in a row when you flip a coin 100 times. That is the definition of a bell curve. If there weren't outliers then I would be worried. 

 

Is FIP perfect? No. Does a player's ERA outperforming their FIP for their career mean FIP is broken? No. Could there be something FIP isn't catching? Sure, but there better be more proof for it than "Random player X is out performing his FIP, it must be broken".


#254 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,933 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:17 AM

Absolutely I was talking about career stats. Statistics says there will be people who under/over perform consistently. That's why tails will come up 9 times in a row when you flip a coin 100 times. That is the definition of a bell curve. If there weren't outliers then I would be worried. 
 
Is FIP perfect? No. Does a player's ERA outperforming their FIP for their career mean FIP is broken? No. Could there be something FIP isn't catching? Sure, but there better be more proof for it than "Random player X is out performing his FIP, it must be broken".


I think the onus is on the FIP proponents to supply more proof than “ignore the counter evidence, FIP isn’t broken.”
  • gunnarthor likes this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#255 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,626 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:20 AM

I hope we don't trade for Archer. We'd have to revisit ERA-versus-FIP in every thread about him. :)

  • Twins33, markos and tvagle like this

I'm in big trouble at home. I used one of the couch pillows AS A PILLOW.


#256 bcs4

bcs4

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 139 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:21 AM

Questions:

 

1: Is the FIP shown in the comparison above for Archer and another pitcher (sorry, I forget who) a calculation for the following year, or based on current year numbers for that year?Same question for ERA.

 

2: Is the differential between the 2 calculated by adding the total of the ERA and FIP and then dividing by the number of years shown?

 

Any help would sure be appreciated.Thanks

 

 


#257 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,626 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:23 AM

I think the onus is on the FIP proponents to supply more proof than “ignore the counter evidence, FIP isn’t broken.”

I can accept that FIP correlates better to next-season ERA than ERA itself does.

 

It still leaves me cold. It's not "fielding-independent" as named, it removes fielding by taking out much of what makes baseball baseball. It's kind of the "Garfield Minus Garfield" of baseball stats.

 

tumblr_owyhtwOtd01qz8z2ro1_500.png

  • USAFChief and markos like this

I'm in big trouble at home. I used one of the couch pillows AS A PILLOW.


#258 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,689 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

I can accept that FIP correlates better to next-season ERA than ERA itself does.

It still leaves me cold. It's not "fielding-independent" as named, it removes fielding plus a lot of what makes baseball baseball. It's kind of the "Garfield Minus Garfield" of baseball stats.

tumblr_owyhtwOtd01qz8z2ro1_500.png


It also has a failed premise of trying to predict era. The whole point of fip Siera etc is to get away from era which has too many variable to be a great measure of performance. Why not try to predict itself? The wide variation in fip and xFIP from year to year tells us it's not perfect. But who really cares? Pitchers also change from year to year. There is no perfect measure or perfect prediction. Archer is a top quality pitcher by many measures but not results. We hypothesize why. I believe it's mostly competition. But whatever. He's the exact type of player a team like Tampa is trying to acquire, not trade. They'd have to get a prospect projecting to be better than archer and several pieces that are ready now. We don't even have the first part.
  • USAFChief likes this

#259 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,344 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:38 AM

 

Absolutely I was talking about career stats. Statistics says there will be people who under/over perform consistently. That's why tails will come up 9 times in a row when you flip a coin 100 times. That is the definition of a bell curve. If there weren't outliers then I would be worried. 

 

Is FIP perfect? No. Does a player's ERA outperforming their FIP for their career mean FIP is broken? No. Could there be something FIP isn't catching? Sure, but there better be more proof for it than "Random player X is out performing his FIP, it must be broken".

You're confusing your analogies. The coin coming up heads nine times in a row is the equivalent of a single season. It's a statistical aberration but not unreasonably so (1 in 512 chance).

 

The coin coming up heads 70 times out of 100 is the equivalent of a career (1 in 43,000-something chance). There's a huge statistical difference there. The more data points, the more the odds of unusual performance plummet.

 

When you apply that to a real world person who plays for multiple teams, in multiple leagues, in multiple divisions, over the course of a 12 year career, and it happens almost every year, the odds are so low they're not worth mentioning.


#260 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,344 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:43 AM

 

I hope we don't trade for Archer. We'd have to revisit ERA-versus-FIP in every thread about him. :)

We shouldn't because FIP actually works for Archer. He had one kinda weird FIP/ERA year but his overall career numbers are close enough to make it irrelevant.