Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Ryan Yarbrough has broken how Fangraphs calculates WAR - DRaysBay

Another reason not to use fWAR for pitchers.

The FIP shown isn’t the FIP that is used to calculate their brand of WAR. One has to add infield fly balls and the home park’s FIP park factor to reach the right calculation. After factoring in the 21 infield flyballs that Yarbrough has induced improves his 102 FIP- to 99 ifFIP- (in other words, he has been 0.8% better than the average American League pitcher).

It all comes down to replacement level. The other pitchers discussed have been used a starter outside of LeBlanc getting five appearances out of the bullpen, but replacement level is different for starting pitchers and relievers. Overall this makes sense as MLB starters have put up a 4.21 FIP and 101 FIP- while relievers have put up a 4.05 FIP and 98 FIP-.

However in the calculation of fWAR the replacement level for starters is 0.12 WPGAR (Wins Per Game Above Replacement Level) while being worth .03 WPGAR for relievers.

Jim Furtado Posted: September 08, 2018 at 10:12 AM | 22 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ryan yarbrough, war

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. puck Posted: September 08, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5740901)
The use of FIP was always the biggest thing to me about Fangraphs WAR. But I've never followed their reasoning closely. I didn't know they park adjust FIP, but I also think I'd rather see that as a standalone stat (it must make a difference for Rockies pitchers). I'd have to hear the reasoning for different replacement level for starters and relievers. I assume they thought relievers were being overvalued and starters undervalued.
   2. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5740924)
I'd have to hear the reasoning for different replacement level for starters and relievers. I assume they thought relievers were being overvalued and starters undervalued.


Because it's easier to replace a relief pitcher than a starting pitcher, and a relief pitcher can go balls to the wall for his one or two innings of appearances, while a starting pitcher has to conserve his energy and conserve his pitch selection. bWar also has a different replacement level for starters than relievers. With the data that we now have available, and the potential changing usage patterns, it might make sense to consider replacement level based upon inning of the appearance(which of course has it's own problems too)

war might be used in an arbitration hearing, but in Yarbrough case, he'll also bring up his innings pitched compare to other relievers and that will be a point in his favor.

   3. villageidiom Posted: September 09, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5741195)
Because it's easier to replace a relief pitcher than a starting pitcher, and a relief pitcher can go balls to the wall for his one or two innings of appearances, while a starting pitcher has to conserve his energy and conserve his pitch selection.
That's a matter of deployment, though. It's easier to replace a #9 hitter than a leadoff guy, but we don't adjust replacement level by batting order spot.

I'm not saying they should adjust replacement level based on batting order. I'm just saying the worth of the adjustment for pitchers, and thus the worth of the metrics that depend on that adjustment, is lessened when deployment is changed.
   4. bookbook Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5741209)
That's a matter of deployment, though. It's easier to replace a #9 hitter than a leadoff guy, but we don't adjust replacement level by batting order spot.


The difference is that the #9 hitter doesn't suddenly hit 10% better when you put him in the leadoff slot.

(We have reams of evidence that most starting pitchers do substantially better when called upon to pitch one inning instead of 6 or 7. Failed starters become ace relievers on a regular basis.)

[Interestingly, we also have plenty of evidence that hitters do substantially worse when called upon to DH. Though the replacement level for DH works in the opposite direction.]

   5. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 09, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5741231)

The difference is that the #9 hitter doesn't suddenly hit 10% better when you put him in the leadoff slot.


Many players hit better at certain spots in the order. At least a 10% difference.
   6. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 09, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5741233)
Many players hit better at certain spots in the order. At least a 10% difference.


I haven't yet found any evidence of this having predictive value - no more do than you'd expect from random chance.

There is *significant* predictive value for a pitcher relieving instead of starting.
   7. Sunday silence Posted: September 09, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5741244)
(We have reams of evidence that most starting pitchers do substantially better when called upon to pitch one inning instead of 6 or 7. Failed starters become ace relievers on a regular basis.)


then wouldnt the logical thing to do would be to adjust every pitcher according to the avg. number of inn. they pitch.

Here's a decent starter he goes 6 inn. on avg; we multiply his ERA+ by 1.1

Here's a good starter he avgs 7; multiply by 1.2

Here's a guy who's usually the bridge, he's averaging 2: 0.8

etc.
   8. Sunday silence Posted: September 09, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5741245)
Many players hit better at certain spots in the order. At least a 10% difference.


wow. I'd like to see the reference to this.
   9. cardsfanboy Posted: September 09, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5741252)


The word replacement is about replacing the guy on the 25 man roster, there is a reason that rpos is based upon position, and starting rpos is higher than a reliever rpos per inning, just like a catcher rpos is higher than a first baseman. This makes perfect sense in the current world we live in, but it's getting challenged by the Rays usage(which is the point of this article). You don't revamp an entire system simply because of a few aberrations. You acknowledge the aberrations, you make sure people using these numbers are informed of the potential limits with this stat for those aberrations, and you move forward.

If the aberrations become more common, then you might need to adjust the system, but until then, you just think of potential fixes. We know that there are some limitations to fip, we know there are some limitations to errors, unearned runs vs earned runs, the save stat, the quality start stat, the win stat, the rbi stat, etc.... but we use them knowing full and well their limitations because in 90% of the cases they work well enough.
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: September 09, 2018 at 02:42 PM (#5741258)
wow. I'd like to see the reference to this.


Alfonso Soriano is the most notable example. He openly stated his preference to hit leadoff, and he hit much better there (877 OPS) than anywhere else in the lineup (next highest was 801 in the No. 5 hole).

To the extent this could be self-fulfilling is unknown. And I don't have any desire to break this down seasonally (it stands to reason that he would hit more frequently in his preferred leadoff role when he was closer to his prime as a hitter).



   11. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: September 09, 2018 at 10:15 PM (#5741410)
Alfonso Soriano is the most notable example. He openly stated his preference to hit leadoff, and he hit much better there (877 OPS) than anywhere else in the lineup (next highest was 801 in the No. 5 hole).

To the extent that this is true, it's still specific to the individual player. As far as I'm aware, players in general don't hit better in (for example) the leadoff spot than in other positions in the order, while pitchers in general do perform better in roles that have fewer innings per appearance.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: September 09, 2018 at 10:55 PM (#5741434)
To the extent that this is true, it's still specific to the individual player. As far as I'm aware, players in general don't hit better in (for example) the leadoff spot than in other positions in the order, while pitchers in general do perform better in roles that have fewer innings per appearance.


No question.
   13. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:13 PM (#5741439)
wrong thread...
   14. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5741542)
Alfonso Soriano is the most notable example. He openly stated his preference to hit leadoff, and he hit much better there (877 OPS) than anywhere else in the lineup (next highest was 801 in the No. 5 hole).

Except the problem with that is that he got almost all his leadoff appearances during his prime. From 33-38 he had 3057 plate appearances and only 334 plate appearances at leadoff. He had an .847 OPS through 32 and a .771 OPS after 32. A large part of the difference is likely simply reflecting aging in baseball.

To test this, I applied generic aging factors backwards and forward each year to "age" each leadoff/non-leadoff line to age 27. That eliminates roughly 77% of the difference in the two lines, what remains being entirely powered by his two down years in Texas.
   15. SoSH U at work Posted: September 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5741545)
Except the problem with that is that he got almost all his leadoff appearances during his prime. From 33-38 he had 3057 plate appearances and only 334 plate appearances at leadoff. He had an .847 OPS through 32 and a .771 OPS after 32. A large part of the difference is likely simply reflecting aging in baseball.


It is legal to read to the end of the post.

But, I do recall that even during his prime, the numbers already demonstrated a tilt toward hitting leadoff (we talked about it here frequently), though as I also mentioned in the paragraph you ignored, there could be some self-fulfillment there (if he liked hitting leadoff, he might have had a better attitude on day's when he was in that role).

   16. Rally Posted: September 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5741568)
Doesn't really matter about Soriano. We cannot take a guy with an 800 OPS in the #5 spot, and say "leading off is easier, he'll have a 900 OPS if you hit him there" and have it work out often enough that you get an average OPS change of 100 points across all #5 hitters who move to the leadoff spot. Some players might prefer leadoff and hit better there, some might prefer hitting in the middle of the order.

We can predict such a massive change in performance by moving a starter to the pen. Won't work every time, but it works often enough to show that magnitude of a split on average.
   17. SoSH U at work Posted: September 10, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5741572)
Doesn't really matter about Soriano. We cannot take a guy with an 800 OPS in the #5 spot, and say "leading off is easier, he'll have a 900 OPS if you hit him there" and have it work out often enough that you get an average OPS change of 100 points across all #5 hitters who move to the leadoff spot. Some players might prefer leadoff and hit better there, some might prefer hitting in the middle of the order.

We can predict such a massive change in performance by moving a starter to the pen. Won't work every time, but it works often enough to show that magnitude of a split on average.


Has anyone argued otherwise?

   18. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: September 10, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5741597)
Going back to starter/reliever splits... what's a better way to do this?

Sunday Silence put forth the idea of having the replacement level be a function of how many innings on average the starter goes. (Alternately, this could be a summed game by game calculation.) Presumably, this would require a countervailing change for the relievers in those games. This is perilously close (which may or may not be a bad thing) to basing WAR on game state, which is a different type of calculation entirely.
   19. Sunday silence Posted: September 11, 2018 at 04:40 PM (#5742410)
Has anyone argued otherwise?


well yes. The quote that got this started was slivers saying; Many players hit better...at least 10% difference."

As it stands now we have one example and that's certainly questionable. If you got one example out of 13,000 baseball players this is more like some statistical aberration than anything else.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: September 11, 2018 at 09:13 PM (#5742566)
well yes. The quote that got this started was slivers saying; Many players hit better...at least 10% difference."


He didn't say it was predictive, or that you can move people, in general, from the No. 9 hole to the No. 5 hole and expect improvement (as you can with starters to relievers). He simply noted that some players have performed better in one spot vs. another. Which is absolutely true. The why behind such splits is largely unknown, and is often likely to be nothing more than sample size aberration or other factors (such as your spot in the lineup corresponding with how good you are at a given point in your career).

On the other hand, it's also not hard to imagine that some hitters perform better in different lineup spots based on roles, such as a guy prefers the No. 8 hole rather than the No. 2 behind a stolen-base threat in front of him.

   21. cardsfanboy Posted: September 11, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5742583)

As it stands now we have one example and that's certainly questionable. If you got one example out of 13,000 baseball players this is more like some statistical aberration than anything else.


Matt Carpenter is another guy who prefers to leadoff...


but that doesn't matter in the least. That isn't the same thing as a reliever/starter split in any universe on the planet.

Sliver took this discussion into a direction that doesn't remotely matter to the actual conversation... it was just a point being made, not an actual argument of a change of evaluation.


Relievers pitch fewer innings, by logic pitching a smaller workload allows a pitcher to throw harder, there is plenty of evidence to back this up(mostly from young pitchers pitching in relief in the second half of the season, and their velocities as starters the next year) and then you add the large amount of data of starting pitchers who have struggled or aged away from being good, to move into relief roles and see their era and other peripherals improve...to the point that this isn't even a debate any more... it's clear that replacement level relievers has a higher base than replacement level starters.. bb-ref and fangraphs do not doubt that in one bit.

The argument that relievers should have the same replacement level as starters is at the point that the people making the argument need to prove themselves.... as the other side of the argument is considered more or less proven science.
   22. cardsfanboy Posted: September 11, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5742590)
On the other hand, it's also not hard to imagine that some hitters perform better in different lineup spots based on roles, such as a guy prefers the No. 8 hole rather than the No. 2 behind a stolen-base threat in front of him.


I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that certain type of hitters excel in certain lineup spots as the data starts to get examined. For the most part, I'm assuming that every batter on the planet puts up better numbers batting 8th in a national league game(assuming pitcher batting 8th) than they do in any other spot... It just seems logical, more walks, more fast balls with two outs and nobody on... that type of thing. The other team has two options pitch around the batter if need be(adding to the obp) or just trying to get the batter out so that the pitcher leads off next inning...meaning more balls in the strike zone...either way, the 8th place hitter for an NL team is probably producing a better ops than he really is capable of doing when moved to another spot.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency
(468 - 9:26am, Sep 25)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(830 - 9:25am, Sep 25)
Last: Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!

Sox TherapyDecisions Decisions
(10 - 9:20am, Sep 25)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogDidi Gregorius possibly out for season with cartilage tear in wrist
(1 - 9:11am, Sep 25)
Last: TRBMB

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(562 - 8:54am, Sep 25)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogTickets available as Marlins host Reds
(83 - 8:51am, Sep 25)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBobby Evans’ days as the Giants’ GM appear to be numbered
(5 - 8:25am, Sep 25)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(398 - 4:57am, Sep 25)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogScrabble added 300 words, none of them OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 24, 2018
(78 - 12:42am, Sep 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogLong-time White Sox broadcaster 'Hawk' Harrelson bids emotional farewell in home finale vs. Cubs
(30 - 10:51pm, Sep 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(191 - 9:25pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFive Tool Players | Articles | Bill James Online
(41 - 8:53pm, Sep 24)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogFowler, still owed almost $50 million, eager to be part of Cardinals' future | St. Louis Cardinals | stltoday.com
(12 - 7:40pm, Sep 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAlen Hanson gets back-to-back starts, likely still in Giants’ plans
(6 - 5:30pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTim Anderson's eventful day at the yard ends with shot at Joe West: 'Everybody knows he's terrible'
(25 - 5:00pm, Sep 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.3289 seconds
46 querie(s) executed