User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.1579 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Tuesday, August 12, 2014FG: Clayton Kershaw, Felix Hernandez and Appreciating Greatness
The District Attorney
Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:57 PM | 11 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: clayton kershaw, dodgers, felix hernandez, history, mariners, sabermetrics |
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics
(473 - 6:47pm, Apr 24) Last: Stormy JE Newsblog: She's got legs that go all the way up to her OMNICHATTER! for April 24, 2018 (13 - 6:45pm, Apr 24) Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Newsblog: Pujols' Age Revisted (22 - 6:44pm, Apr 24) Last: PreservedFish Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018) (242 - 6:33pm, Apr 24) Last: cardsfanboy Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1591 - 6:28pm, Apr 24) Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy Newsblog: VIDEO: Rockies Announcers Sound Like Complete Idiots Talking About Javier Baez (26 - 6:25pm, Apr 24) Last: Brian C Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2571 - 6:12pm, Apr 24) Last: JC in DC Newsblog: ESPN's top 50 players (73 - 6:06pm, Apr 24) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Long-Term Battery Combiniations (6 - 5:41pm, Apr 24) Last: McCoy Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-24-2018 (32 - 5:38pm, Apr 24) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Forget that one call; Sean Manaea deserves our full attention (22 - 5:19pm, Apr 24) Last: villageidiom Newsblog: Brandon Belt sets MLB record, sees 21 pitches in AB before lining out (26 - 4:14pm, Apr 24) Last: Batman Newsblog: 'Family' and sense of 'brotherhood' has Diamondbacks picking up right where they left off (17 - 3:35pm, Apr 24) Last: shoewizard Gonfalon Cubs: Riding the Rails of Mediocrity (17 - 3:00pm, Apr 24) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Sox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors (13 - 2:47pm, Apr 24) Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.1579 seconds |
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.
1. toratoratora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:45 PM (#4769749)How soon they forget Pedro.
...This isn’t just “best pitcher in baseball” performance; this is “best you might see in your entire lifetime” kind of stuff.
Especially if you're a toad or a wombat who's getting up in years (avg. lifespan for both: 15).
they'd have to get a bigger chart, a few of his great seasons were over 30% K-BB rates.
I just snarfed beer. Thanks. Be less funny.
Kershaw is having an incredible season, but it's only 136 IP so far.
I know I bag on fip, and it's a fine concept, but that leaderboard pretty much points to the problem with it, fip is not era adjusted in the slightest, ok, it's adjusted in that the multiplier is era adjusted, but it's not era adjusted by components. A k/9 of 7.5 in today's game is not the same thing of a k/9 of 7.5 in the 1970's. And as the article points out, the homerun rate in the 1910's is not the same as current day.
I think that if they came up with a formula that adjusts the components by era, that Pedro will look even more impressive, while a few other names at the top might have some jostling. (yes I know a nitpick, and I'm not really arguing against this article, just kinda free thinking right now while waiting for the game to start.)
Having said that, I'm still reading the article(Yes I read and comment so that I don't forget what is in my head) it's nice to see this acknowledgement, which makes me think there might be something more to this article than I first assumed.
But as I read the article, he ends up throwing that thought out the window for the most part, acknowledge the flaw and then soldiers on ignoring the flaw more or less.
And of course he double dips.... Arguing for a 'low homerun' stat, then arguing for high groundball rate because it keeps the low homeruns down. Ugh...you've already included it once, in fact, why argue for groundballs, when babip on ground balls is higher than it is on fly balls? wouldn't the perfect pitcher be a high k, low bb, low homerun fly ball pitcher?
Add in that the results produced two guys who pitch in pretty good pitchers park and all the concept of adjusting for park, eras etc just flew out of the window. I absolutely agree that Felix and Kershaw are the best pitchers in baseball(even in my Wainwright for all-star starter arguments, I've never said any different...there I was arguing ultimate results, not skill)
Kershaw is having a pretty great year(no reason to not compare it to a Pedro year, great rate numbers, missed a few starts) but I have a mild annoyance with this comment..
Ugh.... the difference between Kershaw, Dickey and Cueto was miniscule, no reason to be surprised with the voting, the fact that Cueto did as poorly as he did was something more to be upset about than Kershaw not winning. (Fangraphs typical fascination with fip)
The conclusion is pretty funny, again, not sure why the writer thinks double counting ground ball and low homerun totals is the way to go in this type of analysis.
it's not clear to me that it should be. FIP is an estimate for ERA or a "true ERA" or a "DIPs components ERA". It's basically:
a) you do not give up runs when you K batters, therefore, based on this pitcher's numbers of Ks (per IP really) ...
b) you do give up runs because of walks, therefore based on this pitchers number of BBs/IP ...
c) you do give up runs because of HRs, therefore ...
d) you do give up runs based on BIP but we assume everybody give those up at the same rate/BIP therefore ...
e) add that all up in a magic formula
The values attached to any specific event are generally pretty stable across time ... especially since the introduction of the live ball. The value varies a little bit based on general run context but that's not a substantial amount of variation. Striking out 8 guys in 1968 was probably every bit as good as striking out 8 guys in 1998. It's really no different than comparing two batters' RCs or RC/PA or similar.
To era-adjust though you do need FIP+. A straight comparison of a 1998 FIP to a 1968 FIP is as useless as comparing ERAs.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main