Chris Paddack is on a Roll, But So Far, His Resurgence is Little More Than a Mirage

5 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Using a single peripheral metric or even a couple can paint an inaccurate picture of potential regression because they all have flaws and outliers.

ERA is king over multiple full seasons in my opinion.
Paddack's ERA is 3.98 this year. It's 4.33 lifetime.

On to some of the metrics. FIP and xFIP ignore batted ball data treating all batted balls (except home runs) the same, and all ballparks the same. In general, it works pretty well at a glance because "most" pitchers will be fairly accurate to these metrics. FIP thinks ground balls are the same as line drives and xFIP thinks an infield pop up at Great American Ballpark (Cincinatti) is the same as warning track fly balls at Oracle (San Fran).
Paddack's FIP and xFIP are 4.64 and 4.96 while being at 4.09 and 4.02 lifetime.

Metrics like SIERA look at the type of batted ball like pop up, line drive, grounder or fly ball, and adjusts for the ballpark factor. xERA takes detailed batted ball information like exit velocities, launch angles, etc. into account, but ignores the park factors. SIERA treats a 120mph 500ft towering home run the same as a 80mph soft fly ball. xERA treats T-Mobile (Seattle) like Coors Field (Denver) for batted balls.
His SIERA and xERAs are 4.23 and 4.90. Lifetime 4.02 and 4.26, respectively.

Then there are metrics like strikeout percentage and walk percentage. If a pitcher strikes a ton of guys out and doesn't walk anybody, they're going to be expected to be dominant as there will rarely be guys on base to do damage. 16.1% and 8.8% for Paddack is terrible for K rate and pretty poor for walk rate. K/9 and BB/9 are nice to glance at because they're easier to understand, but if tons of guys are getting on base, it dilutes the /9 rates down.

Metrics like FIP, xFIP, SIERA, xERA, K/9, BB/9, K%, BB%, Exit Velocity and BABIP are all designed to replicate the "eye test" for the most part. Except an "eye test" which is totally unbiased and observes every single walk, strike out or batted ball for a pitcher. It's like circumstantial evidence in a case. When all the evidence corroborates a story, the chances the evidence is wrong is lower.

Looking at metrics and using them as projection devices can be largely opinion based. Which metrics a person values or doesn't value, looking at the peripherals and adjusting the picture, adding the history of a player or changes to mechanics, etc to the equation. I guess... metrics turn people into professional scouts who can watch every single game, every pitch, every batted ball in a way.

To me, folks who intentionally mislead about the value or lack of value of metrics are basically pointing to Ben Revere hitting a home run as proof he's a power hitter.

There are also instances where the "eye test" can be argued against metrics.
@chpettit19 watched a game or two where Mickey Gasper was the catcher in AAA and believes Gasper just looked like he was doing a poor job. With the limited metrics available, it looks like Gasper is "adequate" behind the dish. @chpettit19's eye test might be a lot more valuable than the metrics I can see because those metrics are so limited in that case, but he's also strongly personally biased in my opinion. YMMV on how valuable his accounting of events based on his eye test is or how valuable the limited data is in supporting Gasper's credibility as a potential depth catcher.

Interesting argument here as you make the argument both for and then against metrics once you get to the bottom and start claiming you have any meaningful metrics available for Mickey Gasper behind the plate. His 15% caught stealing percentage (according to b-ref) is not "adequate," and is mostly about the pitcher. 15% in the majors would put him in the 33rd percentile. What are his wild pitch metrics? You've provided passed ball numbers, but not wild pitch. The expectation for major league catchers is that they can block pitches and prevent wild pitches. 

I didn't even know Mickey Gasper existed 6 months ago. I have nothing against him. I've hoped he was a possible answer behind the plate since the day I found out he was a real life human and he was a new member of the Twins organization. I've wished he was the answer to finally getting rid of Vazquez since the day they made that trade. I have 0 bias against him. In fact, if I had any it would've been towards to positive like for every other Twins player/prospect that you call me out for being too positive on. When I disagree with you too positively I'm drinking the TD koolaid and turning them into superstars unrealistically but when I disagree with you negatively I'm "strongly personally biased" against that player? Or am I just "strongly personally biased" against you when I don't agree with you? The bias I have for Gasper is I wish he'd take Vazquez's spot. But I don't think he can. My bias towards Gasper is the opposite of the bias you're claiming I have. I want him to be good. I've wanted him to be worthy of being the backup since the trade. I didn't even know it was him catching the first game I watched until about the 3rd inning. I'm sorry I don't think he's good. Feel free to actually watch him some time and form your own opinion instead of going off the insanely limited "metrics" you can dig up.

But it's all a balance. Especially when it comes to the defensive metrics. It's a mix of "eye test" and metrics. The computers are better at measuring some things than others. Defensive "stats" and metrics are WAY behind the offensive side of things. Pitching is in the middle. But no team does, or should, use just numbers or just their scout's eyes. They all find a balance. Then they cross check. They see what their numbers say and what their scouts say and see if they match up and discuss why they might not match if they don't. 

10 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I meant it when I said your "eye test" might be a lot more valuable than the limited metrics I have to go on. It wasn't me being sarcastic. There aren't enough quality metrics out there on Gasper to make a strong case in his defense.

Oh, I took it as you meaning it. But you then immediately followed it up with believing I'm "strongly personally biased" without any basis for that belief which undercuts your original statement.

But this article isn't about Mickey Gasper so we can just leave it here.