Olney: Twins are most surprising team

[DaveW]

ERA measures earned runs allowed, not runs allowed, since you want to play the snark game. ERA is based on a lot of things (like the defense behind you and the scorers definition of error). I like FIP better. It goes off things pitchers have actual control over. ERA is better than Wins/losses satt for pitchers, but (like errors and fielding %) still has it's flaws.

 

Thanks though.

 

Give me a break, ERA is "Flawed" no doubt, but you fail to mention how FIP and xFIP are "flawed" as well.

 

At the end of the day who would you rather have on your team over the course of a year:

 

The guy with a 4.00 ERA and 4.50 FIP

or the guy with a 4.50 ERA and a 4.00 FIP

 

It's pretty obvious player A put you in a better position to win, whether he was good/lucky or a combo of both

[ThePuck]

Give me a break, ERA is "Flawed" no doubt, but you fail to mention how FIP and xFIP are "flawed" as well.

 

At the end of the day who would you rather have on your team over the course of a year:

 

The guy with a 4.00 ERA and 4.50 FIP

or the guy with a 4.50 ERA and a 4.00 FIP

 

It's pretty obvious player A put you in a better position to win, whether he was good/lucky or a combo of both

 

Well, I didn't even mention xFIP, so I'm not sure why I'd be required to mention how it's flawed. And most stats are flawed, it's a matter of degrees. FIP is better than ERA (just like OBP is better than BA), and it tells a truer story about how the player himself did.

[LimestoneBaggy]

Overall, the General Manager's job is to manage. He should be relying on his scouts and other various personnel to assist him make decisions. Ultimately, decision making is his job. He may scout players with his own eyes or not. Either way, he should be taking responsibility for the signing, good or bad. A good manager would take the blame for the bad and pass on the kudos to the scouts for the good (this is not a indictment against JR, but a generalization of how the role should be carried out).

 

Frankly, if I recall correctly, the anger at the signing was two-fold: 1). Overpaid based upon the perceived market value of Kevin; and 2.) He headlined the class instead of being a piece of the puzzle. Frankly, I hated the signing for the above reasons and never expected him to be this good (whether it lasts or not).

 

Ultimately, good call JR and staff. I was wrong (whether it lasts or not).

[Mike Sixel]

good post limestonebaggy.....for me, it was the 2nd year (well, that and he was THE signing).....so far, he has been better than I expected.....hope to continue to be wrong

[ashbury]

At the end of the day who would you rather have on your team over the course of a year:

 

The guy with a 4.00 ERA and 4.50 FIP

or the guy with a 4.50 ERA and a 4.00 FIP

 

It's pretty obvious player A put you in a better position to win, whether he was good/lucky or a combo of both

 

At the end of the season and looking back I would rather have had the guy with the 4.00 ERA, for the reason you stated.

 

If looking forward and deciding which of these two to sign for the coming season, at approximately the same salary, I'd probably take the 4.00 FIP guy. Because that's more what FIP is for, to weed out irreproducible results versus the fundamentals.

[drjim]

ERA measures earned runs allowed, not runs allowed, since you want to play the snark game. ERA is based on a lot of things (like the defense behind you and the scorers definition of error). I like FIP better. It goes off things pitchers have actual control over. ERA is better than Wins/losses satt for pitchers, but (like errors and fielding %) still has it's flaws.

 

Thanks though.

 

I understand fip and the value it has and the components that go in to it. I don't accept it as a better measure of what actually happened. I would grant it is often a better indicator as to what may happen in the future.

[Thegrin]

I'm not surprised. I expected a .500 record. I didn't expect them to reach .500 in this way. So much has gone wrong, this year, it seems, yet they still stay in the .500 range. I am actually beginning to feel hopeful for the team.

[Guest USAFChief]

Well, I didn't even mention xFIP, so I'm not sure why I'd be required to mention how it's flawed. And most stats are flawed, it's a matter of degrees. FIP is better than ERA (just like OBP is better than BA), and it tells a truer story about how the player himself did.

The relationship of FIP to ERA is nothing at all like the relationship of BA to OBP.

 

Nothing at all.

 

I'll state again that I also disagree that FIP tell a truer story of what happened than ERA does.

[ThePuck]

The relationship of FIP to ERA is nothing at all like the relationship of BA to OBP.

 

Nothing at all.

 

 

It is in the way I said, simply that FIP is better than ERA and OBP is better than BA. Any further relationship between them doesn't matter, since I didn't imply any more than that.

 

And you go ahead and think ERA tells a better story. I disagree. I think it gives a better view of how the pitcher himself performed based on the things he can control and it's a better predictor too. I provided a while link as to why. Disagree if you like, that's fine, doesn't matter.

[ThePuck]

I understand fip and the value it has and the components that go in to it. I don't accept it as a better measure of what actually happened. I would grant it is often a better indicator as to what may happen in the future.

 

That's fine. We disagree. No biggy. Is neither the first nor the last time that will happen.

[PseudoSABR]

It is in the way I said, simply that FIP is better than ERA.

That's not a forgone conclusion. I think the relationship between FIP and ERA is similar to BABIP and AVG. A given pitchers FIP tells us something about that same pitcher's ERA in terms of it's statistical variance. FIP, just like BABIP, looked at exclusively and not compared to career norms doesn't tell us much, and seems irresponsible.

 

FIP is a favorite around here because it disfavors 'ground ball pitchers' in its very nature. That pitchers have the capacity to effect balls in play is totally excised from the FIP stat.

[ThePuck]

FIP is a favorite around here because it disfavors 'ground ball pitchers' in its very nature. That pitchers have the capacity to effect balls in play is totally excised from the FIP stat.

 

That's a good point.

[Oxtung]

I'll state again that I also disagree that FIP tell a truer story of what happened than ERA does.

 

ERA tells the story of what the team did. Every ball put in play requires a fielder to touch it. Even things like pitch selection and framing, even if to what extent is unclear, effect ERA. ERA is very much a team stat, just like RBI's and wins and losses.

 

FIP attempts to tell how the pitcher did. Perhaps it's not a perfect stat, but at least it attempts to recognizes what the pitcher can control and what he can't.

[The Wise One]

More than one statistic would be beneficial when assessing a pitcher. The idea generally is to miss a bat. Looking at swing percent of balls out of the strike zone and walks given up would give one an idea of how well a pitcher can fool a batter. Looking at what the batter swings and misses at in terms of percent and number of pitches thrown would give you an idea. Actually scouting and seeing how many mistake pitches are made and hammered would be important. The notion that one number is going to tell you what pitcher is better than another is myopic at best.

[PseudoSABR]

at least it attempts to recognizes what the pitcher can control and what he can't.

It makes a huge assumption that pitchers don't have control of of balls in play, which seems absurd to me. Pitchers don't even have absolute control of walks, strikeouts, or homeruns--they'd need BIP (batting-independent pitching) for that (though maybe xFIP attempts to do something that through standardization).

 

Like I said, FIP can tell us a something about the ERA, but both stats in themselves don't give us a clear picture of a pitcher's contribution.

[Oxtung]

It makes a huge assumption that pitchers don't have control of of balls in play, which seems absurd to me. Pitchers don't even have absolute control of walks, strikeouts, or homeruns--they'd need BIP (batting-independent pitching) for that (though maybe xFIP attempts to do something that through standardization).

 

Like I said, FIP can tell us a something about the ERA, but both stats in themselves don't give us a clear picture of a pitcher's contribution.

 

I think every one is in agreement that FIP and xFIP are not perfect tools. However, it is a step in the direction of zeroing in on a pitchers true contribution. Frankly ERA was a step along this same path. It's just that we now, or hopefully shortly will, have better tools available to determine a pitchers talent without relying on his fielders and ballparks contributions. May we all see the day when the "Pitchers God Statistic" is discovered!

[PseudoSABR]

it is a step in the direction of zeroing in on a pitchers true contribution

Personally, I just don't buy the easy-out stat that saves us the trouble of paying attention to a number of metrics. I think there's lots of horse**** in regards to new metrics, because there's money to be had in the promotion of easy-go-to references for what has been complicated scouting and inference from basic statistics.

 

"Pitchers God Statistic"

I actually think this is an intersting metaphor--why was the Higgs-Bonson particle namesaked as the god particle? Because it was theorized that it would account for the mass differential of an atom and what we can actually account for (protons, neutrons, electrons, the like). But after discovering that particles (a field really) exist that might fit the Higgs-Bonson profile, (and I'm not a scientist so correct me if I'm wrong), the mass differential still exists (between the parts and the whole). There's still **** in an atom that we can't quantify--humbling **** for science and humanity honestly.

 

The weight (or worth) of a pitcher probably will never be easily quantifiable (which, honestly is awesome, because it takes a number a skills to pick the right measures)--the metrics that claim to do a better job of either measuring what a pitcher has contributed to a win or what he will contribute to a win make me cringe with cynicism. I doubt I'm the only one.

[Oxtung]

Personally, I just don't buy the easy-out stat that saves us the trouble of paying attention to a number of metrics. I think there's lots of horse**** in regards to new metrics, because there's money to be had in the promotion of easy-go-to references for what has been complicated scouting and inference from basic statistics.

 

I actually think this is an intersting metaphor--why was the Higgs-Bonson particle namesaked as the god particle? Because it was theorized that it would account for the mass differential of an atom and what we can actually account for (protons, neutrons, electrons, the like). But after discovering that particles (a field really) exist that might fit the Higgs-Bonson profile, (and I'm not a scientist so correct me if I'm wrong), the mass differential still exists (between the parts and the whole). There's still **** in an atom that we can't quantify--humbling **** for science and humanity honestly.

 

The weight (or worth) of a pitcher probably will never be easily quantifiable (which, honestly is awesome, because it takes a number a skills to pick the right measures)--the metrics that claim to do a better job of either measuring what a pitcher has contributed to a win or what he will contribute to a win make me cringe with cynicism. I doubt I'm the only one.

 

The argument wasn't one statistic is better than looking at a collection of statistics. The argument is that FIP/xFIP (depending on the situation) is a more accurate representation of a pitchers contribution than ERA because they attempt to eliminate fielders and ballpark contributions.

 

Again, I don't think anybody thinks FIP/xFIP are the be all end all of statistics. I think everyone hopes we continue to refine our approach to quantifying individual contributions to the team. I think most people would even agree that looking at a panorama of statistics will give you a better understanding of a pitcher than just looking at one. However, that wasn't the point being argued in this thread.

[Willihammer]

FIP is a favorite around here because it disfavors 'ground ball pitchers' in its very nature. That pitchers have the capacity to effect balls in play is totally excised from the FIP stat.

 

Its actually the opposite. Contact pitchers have higher BABIPs than strikeout pitchers, on average. They have worse HR/FB rates too, so xFIP overvalues them also.

[jay]

I'll state again that I also disagree that FIP tell a truer story of what happened than ERA does.

 

I think I'd agree with that. ERA tells us exactly what happened. FIP tells us what more likely should have happened if all those other guys on the field performed at league average and is certainly a better indicator of the pitcher's talent than ERA.

[jay]

Its actually the opposite. Contact pitchers have higher BABIPs than strikeout pitchers, on average. They have worse HR/FB rates too, so xFIP overvalues them also.

 

Not trying to be snarky here at all, where have you seen this? I'd be interested to read it.

[Willihammer]

Not trying to be snarky here at all, where have you seen this? I'd be interested to read it.

New SIERA, Part One (of Five): Pitchers with High Strikeouts Have Low BABIPs | FanGraphs Baseball

 

[TABLE]

STRIKEOUT GROUP

BABIP

[TD=width: 58]HR/FB[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]HIGH[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].286[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]9.1%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]MEDIUM-HIGH[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].295[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.2%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]MEDIUM-LOW[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].298[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.7%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]LOW[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].301[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.7%[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

 

BTW, SIERA's your god stat. Or as close to it as anything I"m aware of.

[jay]

New SIERA, Part One (of Five): Pitchers with High Strikeouts Have Low BABIPs | FanGraphs Baseball

 

[TABLE]

STRIKEOUT GROUP

BABIP

HR/FB

[TD=width: 139]HIGH[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].286[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]9.1%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]MEDIUM-HIGH[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].295[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.2%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]MEDIUM-LOW[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].298[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.7%[/TD]

[TD=width: 139]LOW[/TD]

[TD=width: 50].301[/TD]

[TD=width: 58]10.7%[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

 

BTW, SIERA's your god stat. Or as close to it as anything I"m aware of.

 

Good stuff. I've seen SIERA, but hadn't read up on all the details. It shouldn't come as a surprise that SIERA almost universally likes the Twins starters less than tERA and xFIP.

[The Wise One]

From your article wwas the following table.

nine years:[TABLE]

Year

[TD=width: 138]Pitcher[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]SO/PA[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]BABIP[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2010[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Jon Lester[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]26.1%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].291[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2009[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Tim Lincecum[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]28.8%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].288[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2008[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Tim Lincecum[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]28.6%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].310[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2007[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Erik Bedard[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]30.2%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].284[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2006[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Johan Santana[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]26.5%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].271[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2005[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Mark Prior[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]26.8%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].281[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2004[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Randy Johnson[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]30.1%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].267[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2003[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Kerry Wood[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]30.0%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].275[/TD]

[TD=width: 49]2002[/TD]

[TD=width: 138]Randy Johnson[/TD]

[TD=width: 60]32.3%[/TD]

[TD=width: 60].291[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

League average BABIP over that time appears to be somewhat near .290. I would ask what the correlation coeeficient between BABIP and SO/PA before I got too excited about it. If you only look at two numers you are not going to get a clear picture. Would you want a pitcher who stuck out 16.5% of the batters he faced and a career average BABIP against of .281?