User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.1872 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It seems your problem is with FIP specifically; with estimating an ERA. So forget FIP. I think that runs allowed is a team statistic, and we should try to look at what the pitcher himself did, which includes an emphasis on BB/K/HR (but not to the exclusion of everything else). FIP is a way to measure that; I suppose if we just had some kind of score measuring those categories, but not masquerading as an ERA, it might seem less offensive.
Exactly, I don't see anything wrong with what Law attempted to do in spirit. But if fip isn't a good measure, then fine, don't use it for this purpose. But that doesn't mean a voter shouldn't try to give an award based on individual performance while controlling for team factors.
I know that the poster and a Met BTFer (Gelb?) have a bet going on for years that never gets completed for one reason or another. I guess I didn't get the joke.
Whenever Nolasco's name comes up in a thread, Jeff likes to bait me into the thread.
Ignoring the details of the calculations of the advanced stats, and the R vs ER question, and park adjustments, we have
ERC - ERA = situtational pitching, including holding runners (+ situational luck)
FIP - ERA = situational pitching - defensive support (+ situational luck - BIP luck/skill)
Then, ERC - FIP = defensive support + BIP luck/skill, eliminating the situational component. Not ERA - FIP, which confounds it with the sequencing issue. Pitchers whose ERC outperforms their FIP are getting good defensive support and/or BIP luck/skill. And pitchers whose ERC outperforms their ERA are those who are good at situational pitching (I believe this is Glavine's area of excellence) and/or lucky with event sequencing.
Here's my take on why FIP or anything like it is just an awful way to evaluate past performance. Pitchers generally try to throw the ball to spots in or near the strike zone where hitters can't make solid contact. Or to spots where the hitter will likely hit the ball to where ever the defense is aligned. It may not be a repeatable skill for most pitchers (certainly not young Yankees pitchers), but it seems to me that FIP and other stats of its ilk will remove credit for a pitcher inducing weak contact with well thrown pitches. I don't see why a pitcher shouldn't get credit for what he did do just because he may not be able to do it again. This notion among FIP/DIPS believers that any time a pitcher is successful, even if its just one game, without striking out a batter an inning, its wholly due to luck and defense, simply because a pitcher may not be able to repeat it, is unconvincing. Sometimes pitchers are just better at hitting their spots and inducing weak contact for a game, or a month or a season or the length of Kirk Reuter's career. That's a pitcher's real performance, even if its not a repeatable skill.
When you do that, you throw the baby out with the bath water - you remove things to which the pitcher contributed solely because other members of the team contributed as well.
Exactly. FIP doesn't properly account for everything the pitcher does because it doesn't take into account the effect that the pitcher has on balls in play. That impact may be "relatively" smaller than the impact that the fielders have (although it hasn't been proven) but the one thing that it is not is negligable.
-- MWE
Given the cachet of 20 wins, it's likely that Wainwright lost the Cy Young after he had thrown his final pitch of the (regular) season.
This is what I came here to post; the Brewers' season was not for naught.
the best example of it actually happening was the 2004 NL Cy, when Clemens' 18-4/2.98 beat out RJ's 16-14/2.60/ML-leading 0.900/NL-leading 177 and Oswalt's 20-10/3.49/1.245/125
Ben Sheets was the second name you were looking for there. There's a guy with a losing record (12-14) who probably should have finished second in the Cy Young voting but instead got a single third-place vote.
Only if you use FIP and ignore everything else. I don't think anybody's doing that (though maybe Law did).
I think he said all of the "advanced metrics" put him ahead of Carpenter, and I have no idea what all that includes. I'd assume FIP (or some form of it) and SNWL. That seems to me to be a flimsy basis for making a decision, given the assumptions that go into both stats.
-- MWE
EDIT: I take that back. It's probably WARP3 and FIP; Carpenter's SN stats are better than Vazquez's.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main