bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 16:53:41 GMT -5
Edit: It's a real shame that the comments on the original article seem to have disappeared. As I said, there was a lot of great discussion. As I recall, it was fairly divided, though I think a small majority of the comments gave 2000 Pedro the edge because ultimately, the results (i.e. runs) have to matter.
I have no skin in the discussion regarding whether fWAR or bWAR is better, or which Pedro season was better. I enjoy reading what's been written here but do not have strong enough feelings to be able to add to a debate. I may be able to help with the comments, however.
Yes - thanks for this. I would agree with Tango and Poz - pitchers don't have either complete control or no control, but it is much farther on the no control side. One other element of bWAR vs. fWAR. This is sort of like saying which team is better: Team A wins 100 games and has a positive 150 run differential. Team B wins 105 games and has a positive 125 win differential. bWAR would say team B was better, fWAR would say team A was better. And the real answer is very much debatable.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 17:06:18 GMT -5
I have no skin in the discussion regarding whether fWAR or bWAR is better, or which Pedro season was better. I enjoy reading what's been written here but do not have strong enough feelings to be able to add to a debate. I may be able to help with the comments, however.
Yes - thanks for this. I would agree with Tango and Poz - pitchers don't have either complete control or no control, but it is much farther on the no control side. One other element of bWAR vs. fWAR. This is sort of like saying which team is better: Team A wins 100 games and has a positive 150 run differential. Team B wins 105 games and has a positive 125 win differential. bWAR would say team B was better, fWAR would say team A was better. And the real answer is very much debatable. Regarding run differential, I agree that it's debatable. And the quality of the opponents come into play too, but if the strength of schedule was equal, I'd lean toward Team B. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of thing is the 1960 World Series. Is a team that went 4-3 with a run differential of -28 better than a team that went 3-4 with a run differential of of +28? The win/loss record is close, but of course, winning four games is all that matters in the World Series. I think run differential and similar metrics are better for predictions than they are for analyzing results that have already happened. Now, if we're comparing teams with equal or very close to equal records (like undefeated college football champions), then something needs to be used as a tiebreaker.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 17:06:25 GMT -5
2) LBO% - 77.6% of the baserunners Martinez had on base when he left in the middle of an inning didn't score with the following relief pitchers [in 1999]. In 2000, it was 86.6% - Again, this was the highest % in his career. The relief pitchers that came in were much better at shutting down the inherited runners - something that Martinez has almost no control over. This is a reasonable point. However, we'd have to control for the game situation for those inherited runners. Were they runners on second and third with nobody out, or were they runners on first base with two outs? Those things matter. I doubt it would make up such a big gap in ERA+, but it's worth looking at. Though as I think about it, while it's true that he wouldn't have control over whether the relievers were able to get those inherited runners out, he is responsible for them being on base in the first place. So I don't think it really works to try to completely absolve him of runners that he's responsible for being on base. Edit: Also, Pedro was better in 2000 at not allowing baserunners in the first place. In 2000, he pitched 3.2 more innings than he did in 1999 but allowed 32 fewer hits and five fewer walks. As a result, his WHIP in 1999 was an incredible .737, by far the lowest of his career. In 1999, his WHIP was .923. Nothing is ever clear cut - and usually things are wrong when looking at extremes for proof. LOB% doesn't tell you everything - for the reasons you mentioned. We don't know the nature of where the batters were left on base or how many outs there were. Runner on 1st with 2 outs is much different than runner at 3rd with no one out. An assumption that these things even out over time - particularly with the same pitcher over 2 seasons - but we cannot be sure. Generally a higher LOB% is an indication of luck, not a guarantee of luck. BABIP cannot be taken as 100% luck. But the idea that Martinez would have his worst BABIP in one season and then follow with his best BABIP the next season and they are 100 points different - tells me that there was a lot of luck or lack of control going on. We know this on the batter side - short sample size great starts to a season are usually the result of elevated BABIP that will eventually revert back to the mean. This is the same thing we should expect from an elite pitcher over a 2 year period - or 5 year period. BABIP is the biggest 'luck' factor in any short sample baseball stat - and one full season can be a short sample size. 1999 Martinez allowed more baserunners - because more of the ground balls he gave up where hit away from the defense and found holes. Or more soft contact hits occurred. Unfortunately we didn't have stat cast back then - which has taken this stuff to a completely new level.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 17:12:16 GMT -5
Yes - thanks for this. I would agree with Tango and Poz - pitchers don't have either complete control or no control, but it is much farther on the no control side. One other element of bWAR vs. fWAR. This is sort of like saying which team is better: Team A wins 100 games and has a positive 150 run differential. Team B wins 105 games and has a positive 125 win differential. bWAR would say team B was better, fWAR would say team A was better. And the real answer is very much debatable. Regarding run differential, I agree that it's debatable. And the quality of the opponents come into play too, but if the strength of schedule was equal, I'd lean toward Team B. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of thing is the 1960 World Series. Is a team that went 4-3 with a run differential of -18 better than a team that went 3-4 with a run differential of of +18? The win/loss record is close, but of course, winning four games is all that matters in the World Series. I think run differential and similar metrics are better for predictions than they are for analyzing results that have already happened. Now, if we're comparing teams with equal or very close to equal records (like undefeated college football champions), then something needs to be used as a tiebreaker. Yes - I think there is a good argument for going with what happened (bWAR) vs. what was likely better (fWAR) - this is a very broad generalization. But I am not on board when we get into ridiculous small sample sizes like a 7 game series. There is a winner - and someone wins the WS and deserves the glory, but that doesn't make them the better team. And - the luck involved in winning a single baseball game or series is considerably higher than other sports like Football or Basketball.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 17:12:50 GMT -5
This is a reasonable point. However, we'd have to control for the game situation for those inherited runners. Were they runners on second and third with nobody out, or were they runners on first base with two outs? Those things matter. I doubt it would make up such a big gap in ERA+, but it's worth looking at. Though as I think about it, while it's true that he wouldn't have control over whether the relievers were able to get those inherited runners out, he is responsible for them being on base in the first place. So I don't think it really works to try to completely absolve him of runners that he's responsible for being on base. Edit: Also, Pedro was better in 2000 at not allowing baserunners in the first place. In 2000, he pitched 3.2 more innings than he did in 1999 but allowed 32 fewer hits and five fewer walks. As a result, his WHIP in 1999 was an incredible .737, by far the lowest of his career. In 1999, his WHIP was .923. Nothing is ever clear cut - and usually things are wrong when looking at extremes for proof. LOB% doesn't tell you everything - for the reasons you mentioned. We don't know the nature of where the batters were left on base or how many outs there were. Runner on 1st with 2 outs is much different than runner at 3rd with no one out. An assumption that these things even out over time - particularly with the same pitcher over 2 seasons - but we cannot be sure. Generally a higher LOB% is an indication of luck, not a guarantee of luck. BABIP cannot be taken as 100% luck. But the idea that Martinez would have his worst BABIP in one season and then follow with his best BABIP the next season and they are 100 points different - tells me that there was a lot of luck or lack of control going on. We know this on the batter side - short sample size great starts to a season are usually the result of elevated BABIP that will eventually revert back to the mean. This is the same thing we should expect from an elite pitcher over a 2 year period - or 5 year period. BABIP is the biggest 'luck' factor in any short sample baseball stat - and one full season can be a short sample size. 1999 Martinez allowed more baserunners - because more of the ground balls he gave up where hit away from the defense and found holes. Or more soft contact hits occurred. Unfortunately we didn't have stat cast back then - which has taken this stuff to a completely new level. Certainly, there is some luck in BABIP, no question about that. I guess when it gets back to the premise of the question, if I had one pitcher for a must-win game, I would prefer a great pitcher who was also lucky than a great pitcher who was unlucky. So I'd ride with 2000 Pedro. But you make some fair points.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 16, 2022 17:31:17 GMT -5
What exactly constitutes a Hold? I ask because I'm not sure it's recorded consistently. There are times I think a guy should get a hold, and he does not. Then when I think he should not get one, he does.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 16, 2022 20:09:57 GMT -5
What exactly constitutes a Hold? I ask because I'm not sure it's recorded consistently. There are times I think a guy should get a hold, and he does not. Then when I think he should not get one, he does. More or less the definition is simply "a pitcher comes in to a save situation and leaves with the same save situation intact". If you have a four-run lead, that's not a hold. If you come in with a 3-run lead and go out with a 1-run lead, pretty sure that's still a hold. If you come in with a 2-run lead and go out with a 7-run lead, I am not sure if that counts as a hold or not. Also, I'm not certain whether you can get a hold in a game your team ultimately loses because a later pitcher blows it. The "hold" stat is non-traditional, so I'm not sure there is an official consensus on what it means.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 16, 2022 20:11:26 GMT -5
Saves are part of the official MLB rules. Holds are not.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 16, 2022 20:18:06 GMT -5
The wikipedia article on holds says that they basically mean: 1. Comes in in a save situation 2. Does not give up the lead 3. Does not get a win or a save 4. Gets at least one out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_(baseball)So my examples: - hold - hold - hold
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 6:05:12 GMT -5
The first math study of pitchers affecting things was in the 1990s by Voros McCracken. Yes McCracken. And I was off by ~ 20 years. From what I remember, he came up with this theory, tested the theory - and it was so intuitively outrageous no one could believe it. I think Bill James when he first read about it - didn't believe it. Then he couldn't figure out why he didn't think about it... The problem for McCracken was he posted it before protecting it--he was never paid for it unlike all the other sabrmetric people who did research from that point forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 6:06:45 GMT -5
They don't. Once the ball is contacted, everything is up to the fielders and their positioning. That is an absurd assertion that I could not disagree more with. Obviously, the fielder still needs to make the play, but if you induce a pop-up, it's a lot easier for the fielder to get an out than if you give up a booming double off the wall or even just any kind of line drive. Now, I understand that this effectively is the position that FanGraphs takes. But as I've already said, this is also why I view fWAR for pitchers as less than worthless. Edit: Actually, if you're saying they have no control after the ball has already been contacted, that's probably true unless they're fielding their own position. But if the argument is that they have no control over the type of contact they give up (i.e. what fWAR thinks), I think that's ridiculous. So you are saying--once the ball has been struck, the pitcher has control?? Is that via telepathy or predictive power? No. Once the ball has contacted bat, the pitcher has near-zero ability to affect the play unless it is a ball hit in the vicinity of the mound.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 17, 2022 8:01:30 GMT -5
Yes - thanks for this. I would agree with Tango and Poz - pitchers don't have either complete control or no control, but it is much farther on the no control side. One other element of bWAR vs. fWAR. This is sort of like saying which team is better: Team A wins 100 games and has a positive 150 run differential. Team B wins 105 games and has a positive 125 win differential. bWAR would say team B was better, fWAR would say team A was better. And the real answer is very much debatable. Regarding run differential, I agree that it's debatable. And the quality of the opponents come into play too, but if the strength of schedule was equal, I'd lean toward Team B. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of thing is the 1960 World Series. Is a team that went 4-3 with a run differential of -28 better than a team that went 3-4 with a run differential of of +28? The win/loss record is close, but of course, winning four games is all that matters in the World Series. I think run differential and similar metrics are better for predictions than they are for analyzing results that have already happened. Now, if we're comparing teams with equal or very close to equal records (like undefeated college football champions), then something needs to be used as a tiebreaker. Interesting on how I believe we have a consistently different view of things. In summary: I put value on teams that make the World Series, Super Bowl, Final Four and then put extra value on teams that win the championship. You put some value on teams that make the WS, SB, FF and then a tremendous amount of value on the team that wins the championship. We have this discussion on many different topics. Brady is the best football player of all-time because of the Super Bowl wins. Jordan is the best basketball player of all-time (I think I remember you are in that camp). Rings are the most important thing. I also think Jordan is the best player of all time, but I put a LOT of stock into Lebron and his ability to consistently get his (different) teams to the NBA finals. I put a lot of value with the Buffalo Bills going to 3 straight super bowls and discount some that they didn't win (wide right). I think much of this difference may center around randomness. I believe I view a considerable amount of randomness is involved in single games and series than you do (this is relative, I don't think games are anything close to 100% random nor I suspect you don't think it is 0%). I also don't buy into 'clutch'. As such, I don't put nearly as much stock into who wins it all as you do. Not saying one is right or wrong, but how we are different and often times come to different conclusions. The role of randomness is a key player in our differences between bWAR and fWAR. Even how we view the game Survivor has a strong element in how we view randomness. In summary - I think the winner at FTC is mostly random (over 50% luck). The skill is getting to FTC (without totally blowing up the game to have not shot of winning - like Russell). I think you view the skill in playing the entire game in a way to win at FTC. I see more randomness - not saying I am right and you are wrong, but just how I believe the role of random plays in how we view sporting events.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 17, 2022 8:49:21 GMT -5
That is an absurd assertion that I could not disagree more with. Obviously, the fielder still needs to make the play, but if you induce a pop-up, it's a lot easier for the fielder to get an out than if you give up a booming double off the wall or even just any kind of line drive. Now, I understand that this effectively is the position that FanGraphs takes. But as I've already said, this is also why I view fWAR for pitchers as less than worthless. Edit: Actually, if you're saying they have no control after the ball has already been contacted, that's probably true unless they're fielding their own position. But if the argument is that they have no control over the type of contact they give up (i.e. what fWAR thinks), I think that's ridiculous. So you are saying--once the ball has been struck, the pitcher has control?? Is that via telepathy or predictive power? No. Once the ball has contacted bat, the pitcher has near-zero ability to affect the play unless it is a ball hit in the vicinity of the mound. No, my edit makes it clear that my objection is to the fWAR belief that the pitcher has no control over the type of contact that they give up. I agree that once the ball has been hit, the pitcher no longer has any control unless he's fielding his own position. I think I initially misinterpreted your comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 8:58:33 GMT -5
So you are saying--once the ball has been struck, the pitcher has control?? Is that via telepathy or predictive power? No. Once the ball has contacted bat, the pitcher has near-zero ability to affect the play unless it is a ball hit in the vicinity of the mound. No, my edit makes it clear that my objection is to the fWAR belief that the pitcher has no control over the type of contact that they give up. I agree that once the ball has been hit, the pitcher no longer has any control unless he's fielding his own position. I think I initially misinterpreted your comment. Fair enough. No worries!
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 17, 2022 9:13:29 GMT -5
Regarding run differential, I agree that it's debatable. And the quality of the opponents come into play too, but if the strength of schedule was equal, I'd lean toward Team B. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of thing is the 1960 World Series. Is a team that went 4-3 with a run differential of -28 better than a team that went 3-4 with a run differential of of +28? The win/loss record is close, but of course, winning four games is all that matters in the World Series. I think run differential and similar metrics are better for predictions than they are for analyzing results that have already happened. Now, if we're comparing teams with equal or very close to equal records (like undefeated college football champions), then something needs to be used as a tiebreaker. Interesting on how I believe we have a consistently different view of things. In summary: I put value on teams that make the World Series, Super Bowl, Final Four and then put extra value on teams that win the championship. You put some value on teams that make the WS, SB, FF and then a tremendous amount of value on the team that wins the championship. We have this discussion on many different topics. Brady is the best football player of all-time because of the Super Bowl wins. Jordan is the best basketball player of all-time (I think I remember you are in that camp). Rings are the most important thing. I also think Jordan is the best player of all time, but I put a LOT of stock into Lebron and his ability to consistently get his (different) teams to the NBA finals. I put a lot of value with the Buffalo Bills going to 3 straight super bowls and discount some that they didn't win (wide right). I think much of this difference may center around randomness. I believe I view a considerable amount of randomness is involved in single games and series than you do (this is relative, I don't think games are anything close to 100% random nor I suspect you don't think it is 0%). I also don't buy into 'clutch'. As such, I don't put nearly as much stock into who wins it all as you do. Not saying one is right or wrong, but how we are different and often times come to different conclusions. The role of randomness is a key player in our differences between bWAR and fWAR. Even how we view the game Survivor has a strong element in how we view randomness. In summary - I think the winner at FTC is mostly random (over 50% luck). The skill is getting to FTC (without totally blowing up the game to have not shot of winning - like Russell). I think you view the skill in playing the entire game in a way to win at FTC. I see more randomness - not saying I am right and you are wrong, but just how I believe the role of random plays in how we view sporting events. Very interesting thoughts. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'll clarify a couple things. Rings matter a lot to me, but you also need to be the best player (or maybe co-best player) on your team and one of the very best in your league. I'm not sure Robert Horry would be a top 100 NBA player even though he was an important role player on seven championship teams. Similarly, if Trent Dilfer had game managed his way to seven rings instead of just one, I doubt I'd rate him alongside Brady. I agree that there is randomness in a seven-game series and a lot of randomness in a single game. That said, the name of the game is to win those series or those playoff games, so I do put a lot of value on players and teams who consistently find a way to do that. I also make allowances for truly extraordinarily players who I think didn't win titles due to factors beyond their control. I rate Barry Sanders as the best running back ever, for example. Your comment on Survivor is particularly interesting. I agree that there is a lot of randomness in Survivor. However, we have completely different views on where that randomness is. I think there is an enormous amount of randomness in who gets to the end of the game and very little randomness on who wins Final Tribal Council. Random factors that affect whether you get to the end of the game include how strong your starting tribe is, what the makeup of your swap tribe is, what kind of individual immunity challenges there are, who the other players are (especially players who make illogical decisions), how many idols and other advantages are in play, among others. At FTC, though, I think it always comes down to how well you managed the jury and how strong your arguments are. Some votes may be a bit surprising, so I wouldn't say there's no randomness there (maybe 10%). But it's a lot less randomness than it takes to make it there.
|
|