Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last night I shared my newly acquired baseball knowledge with a couple of co-workers. I told them that RBI's, runs produced and batting average are no longer reliable guages of a player's value. And that we can no longer use win-loss records and ERA in evaluating pitchers. Both co-workers looked at me like I had three heads, but neither said a word. Later, one of them suggested that I not share this new knowledge with very many people because somebody might come and throw a net over me. This must be another of those silly dreams I have now and then. I certainly hope so.
This was a despressing post because it is so represenative of a failure to try and understand what is being said.
No one is arguing that win loss and ERA records reveal nothing, that they are worthless as indicators of a pitcher's value. What is being advanced is the idea that there are superior ways to evaluate pitcher contributions, ones which involve removing the distorting influences and provide more accurate, more valuable breakdowns on what the pitcher actually did.
Suppose that you were charged with reporting on what was taking place on a stage which had a thin cheesecloth curtain drawn across it, and you had to jump up and down on a pogostick while doing your observations.
Now...say that for eighty years, everyone who reported on what was going on behind the curtain, had been doing it in the manner described above. You can see through the curtain, just not as clearly as you would like. You can see and remember things while jumping up and down on the pogostick, but of course you cannot concentrate and remember as well as you could if you were not bouncing up and down.
Then someone comes along and figures out a way to remove the curtain and the pogostick. Now you may stand flatfooted and observe what is taking place without the distortions of the curtain or your own motion.
Which set of observations do you think will be more useful? The former or the latter?
Sabermetrics is all about tearing down those curtains and getting rid of the pogo sticks.
Yet...there are those who will attack and belittle the new methods, who will defend the inferior pogo/curtain methodolgy...why? Why would you mock a tool which does a better job than the one it replaces?
This RBI/BA/W/ERA stats being imperfect is not a new idea. I've been hearing this since I was a kid in the 90s, and it's only picked up steam in the last 10 years.
The problem with this discussion (and it comes up a lot, not just here) is the people in the "new school," are rather condescending to the people in the "old school." Then the old school gets defensive and the new school turns up the heat even more.
Advanced metrics almost certainly evaluate a player better than the classic stats, however they are not without flaw themselves. On the flip side, BA is not completely worthless, but it does not paint the whole picture. If someone hits north of .400, I'll still be impressed.
However, it's not a coincidence that most, if not all MLB teams employ sabrmatricians (or whatever they are called this year), as they put a ton of work into their craft and produce results. I am a big believer in the advanced metrics, but sometimes it does get a little too nitty for me.
This RBI/BA/W/ERA stats being imperfect is not a new idea. I've been hearing this since I was a kid in the 90s, and it's only picked up steam in the last 10 years.
The problem with this discussion (and it comes up a lot, not just here) is the people in the "new school," are rather condescending to the people in the "old school." Then the old school gets defensive and the new school turns up the heat even more.
Advanced metrics almost certainly evaluate a player better than the classic stats, however they are not without flaw themselves. On the flip side, BA is not completely worthless, but it does not paint the whole picture. If someone hits north of .400, I'll still be impressed.
However, it's not a coincidence that most, if not all MLB teams employ sabrmatricians (or whatever they are called this year), as they put a ton of work into their craft and produce results. I am a big believer in the advanced metrics, but sometimes it does get a little too nitty for me.
Orange...yours was a diplomatic post, not unexpected from a moderator, but metrics isn't about making everyone feel good, metrics are about making as precise measurements as are possible. The goal is the better understanding of the components which go into the creating or prevention of the scoring of runs.
The older metrics represent the easier way, the more comfortable way, a way that works only so long as someone does not come along with superior methods.
But people have come along with superior methods and employing them does indeed produce superior understandings of what is taking place and how much it is actually contributing toward winning ballgames.
Reaching those new understandings involves some homework. You have to read and understand the basis for the formulas, you have to become familiar with new numbers. Here is where the problems arise. Fan A who has not done the needed homework, sees a list of players ranked by something which he does not understand. It means nothing to that person that Soandso led the league with 93.2 BLZTYSZAPS and that the average player only produced 64.3 BLZTYSZAPS....because Fan A has not taken the time to understand what BLZTYSZAPS is actually measuring.
So, the choices become:
A) Learn what BLZTYSZAPS are.
B) Do not learn and pay no attention to the numbers produced.
C) React with anger and attack the entire concept despite having no understanding of it at all.
A is great. B is okay...no one is under any obligation to learn or even think about it.
C is inexplicable...and if sabremetricians do seem to be condescending toward some people, you may safely rely on the fact that it is someone from that C group which has triggered it.
Rooting around in the stats I discovered that among all NL pitchers qualified for the ERA title, the Giants Madison Bumgarner has been the least fortunate in terms of BA on balls in play. For whatever reasons, the Giants defenders have done a poor job of policing the field when Bumgarner is on the mound, he's been hit for a .319 average.
That being the case, I expected that Bumgarner's Defense independent ERA would have to be among the league's best, and checking that, it is true. The current DIPS leaders in the NL are:
Halladay 2.48
Kershaw 2.75
Bumgarner 2.80
Bumgarner is having a hell of a good year, but it is completely masked by his 7-11, 3.49 record. Halladay and Kershaw are the two legitimate Cy Young candidates and one of them should and will win the award. I bet we don't see much support for Bumgarner though.
Rooting around in the stats I discovered that among all NL pitchers qualified for the ERA title, the Giants Madison Bumgarner has been the least fortunate in terms of BA on balls in play. For whatever reasons, the Giants defenders have done a poor job of policing the field when Bumgarner is on the mound, he's been hit for a .319 average.
That being the case, I expected that Bumgarner's Defense independent ERA would have to be among the league's best, and checking that, it is true. The current DIPS leaders in the NL are:
Halladay 2.48
Kershaw 2.75
Bumgarner 2.80
Bumgarner is having a hell of a good year, but it is completely masked by his 7-11, 3.49 record. Halladay and Kershaw are the two legitimate Cy Young candidates and one of them should and will win the award. I bet we don't see much support for Bumgarner though.
I prefer tERA and Batted Ball FIP as those metrics include batted ball types, ie a line drive has a higher result than a ground ball.
I prefer tERA and Batted Ball FIP as those metrics include batted ball types, ie a line drive has a higher result than a ground ball.
Doesn't the decision to start discriminating and assigning different values to different types of balls in play, fly in the face of the basic McCracken conclusion that pitchers do not control elements of hitting outside of walks, homeruns and strikeouts?
Witb Batted Ball FIP, Tango seems to be assuming that pitchers control the linedrive rates against them. Has that been established by someone?
Doesn't the decision to start discriminating and assigning different values to different types of balls in play, fly in the face of the basic McCracken conclusion that pitchers do not control elements of hitting outside of walks, homeruns and strikeouts?
Witb Batted Ball FIP, Tango seems to be assuming that pitchers control the linedrive rates against them. Has that been established by someone?
Batted ball rates certainly correlate from year to year by pitchers.
Greg Maddux; like a straight edge
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/104_P_season_mini_9_20110815.png (broken link)
Derek Lowe; always a high ground ball rate
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/199_P_season_mini_9_20110815.png (broken link)
Ted Lilly; always a high fly ball rate
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/833_P_season_mini_9_20110815.png (broken link)
None of these graphs looks the same and show clear trends and differences between the pitchers.
The biggest problem with analyzing pitching, and hitting, is determining who gets blame/credit for the outcome of an at bat.
This is true for events like walks and strike outs; the pitcher, the batter, the umpire, the stadium all come into play.
But it is truer for events like singles, doubles, and triples; the pitcher, the batter, the umpire, the stadium all come into play, as well as the fielders.
It is certainly true, though, that the average fly ball has a much different outcome than the average ground ball and the average line drive.
Ideally, we could measure the speed and angle of each hit off of the bat, but we aren't there yet. These large groupings are the best that we have right now.
Bumgarner's not Halladay or Kershaw, but I'm not looking forward to facing him for the next 5 years
This is why
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
