|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 18, 2022 10:11:49 GMT -5
Well, you said that all pitchers "have similar results" on balls put into play. That certainly seems to imply that they have no control over anything that happens when the ball is put into play. I'm pointing out that if they have control of the ground/fly ratio, then have control over something that happens once the ball is put into play. I am not sure what's your point? Pitchers have no or very little control on whether there is a a base hit or an out on any balls hit in play. And my point is that this is not what was claimed before. Only after the discussion have you narrowed down the claim to this. In fact, zenstudent was previously claiming they have control over nothing except whether contact is made or not made. Anyway, I still don't see why HRs are some kind of special exemption. If they have no control on the outcome of all other kinds of balls hit fair, why are they to be blamed specifically for HRs?
|
|
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 18, 2022 10:12:43 GMT -5
So basically--because you don't believe the research, it doesn't exist?? Go find Voros McCracken--his work is widely available. You will find NOBODY who disagrees with the assessment that pitchers really only control K, BB, and HR. Indeed, you will find many actual experts who say "Why didn't we realize this 50 years sooner?" Otherwise--what you are doing is no different than Holiday with politics. Don't like the actual numbers/research, so continue to attack the truth regardless. The difference is this is baseball not politics. I will point out the unsubtle difference between you just asserting something and you actually providing a study (which you still haven't) or even a name (which you didn't provide until Blue had already provided it). I still find it very unlikely that somehow HRs are in the control of the pitcher but no other outcomes are. It's one thing to show that no outcomes are in the pitcher's control, but it's another thing entirely to claim that one kind of outcome (the HR) is in their control, but no other kind is. That makes no sense, from a physics standpoint. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. A good analysis needs to show correlation with the data, but it also needs to present at least a hypothesis about the causation. Otherwise you can be chasing statistical flukes, or maybe just throwing too many variables into the mix so that you hide what is significant. So please explain to me how HRs can be in the control of the pitcher but no other batted ball outcomes can be? It is my understanding - I am not literally doing statistical analysis/research - there is some debate on whether or how much control a pitcher has on HRs (particularly HR/FB). Pitcher's HR/FB% can fluctuate from year to year leading to the belief that there is some short term luck involved here. Some of this is intuitive - especially when looking at stat cast these days - A fly ball would be a HR in 12 of the 30 parks based on exit velocity and launch angle. So, playing in the right park at the right time can make a difference, particularly in the short run. This is why there is xFIP - which is similar to FIP, but it assumes that HR's are more random and out of the control of a pitcher. For this - they use league average HR/FB% rates instead of the pitcher's actual one. Here is the definition of xFIP library.fangraphs.com/pitching/xfip/
|
|
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 18, 2022 10:26:21 GMT -5
Another element that my be lost in the discussion. Defense has a role to play in BABIP. This is why FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) is important - it strips out what the pitcher is responsible for and what the defense is responsible for. Prior to McCraken - this was believed to be a near impossible task.
Since FIP strips out the fielding - it is used in the pitcher's WAR. Otherwise - you would including what the defense is doing in both the pitchers and batters WAR - essentially double counting defense. This is an important distinction between fWAR and bWAR.
As for HR's - whether this is in the pitcher's control or not - it is clearly not in the defenses control. It has to be accounted for somewhere and with the Pitcher is the only logical solution. This is why FIP is used for fWAR and not xFIP. And - FIP is more accurate in the long run - as pitchers do have some control in preventing HR's.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 18, 2022 10:30:32 GMT -5
"Home run rates are generally unstable over time and fluctuate around league-average" -- from the link you provided.
This reasonably follows from the idea that pitchers don't control the outcomes of balls batted fair.
This whole argument started not because I think pitchers can control whether a grounder up the middle goes between fielders or is hit right to somebody, but because I see no justification for blaming pitchers specifically for HRs in WAR but not for any other kind of hits or runs scored. Either blame them for all of them (ERA) or none of them, but blaming them specifically for HRs but nothing else makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 18, 2022 10:33:12 GMT -5
As for HR's - whether this is in the pitcher's control or not - it is clearly not in the defenses control. It has to be accounted for somewhere and with the Pitcher is the only logical solution. That doesn't follow. Just because it can't be blamed on the fielding doesn't mean it must be blamed on the pitching. It doesn't have to actually be factored in at all. One might assume that some pitches are simply going to be hit for home runs no matter who is pitching or fielding, and so you just ignore them.
|
|
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 18, 2022 11:54:55 GMT -5
As for HR's - whether this is in the pitcher's control or not - it is clearly not in the defenses control. It has to be accounted for somewhere and with the Pitcher is the only logical solution. That doesn't follow. Just because it can't be blamed on the fielding doesn't mean it must be blamed on the pitching. It doesn't have to actually be factored in at all. One might assume that some pitches are simply going to be hit for home runs no matter who is pitching or fielding, and so you just ignore them. In terms of fWAR - it is not a matter of whether the pitcher has complete control over home runs - but where this event needs to be tagged to? There are two choices - pitcher or defense. It clearly doesn't belong to the defense so it has to go the pitcher. To just ignore HR's in terms of run prevention would be a mistake. BABIP - the impact of the defense is much greater than the impact of the pitcher - so that is where it goes.
|
|
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 18, 2022 12:02:48 GMT -5
"Home run rates are generally unstable over time and fluctuate around league-average" -- from the link you provided. This reasonably follows from the idea that pitchers don't control the outcomes of balls batted fair. This whole argument started not because I think pitchers can control whether a grounder up the middle goes between fielders or is hit right to somebody, but because I see no justification for blaming pitchers specifically for HRs in WAR but not for any other kind of hits or runs scored. Either blame them for all of them (ERA) or none of them, but blaming them specifically for HRs but nothing else makes no sense. Okay - the article explains their reasoning. And your claim makes sense. xFIP (Pitchers don't have control over HRs) is a better predictor of a pitchers ERA since there can be year to year fluctuations in HR/FB%. However, over the long run - some pitchers are able to reduce HR's. WAR isn't about assigning blame/reward - it is about assigning baseball actions to specific players. I don't think you can just ignore HR's when factoring in the run prevention element of WAR - it will not work. BABIP isn't ignored because it isn't included in the pitchers WAR - it is included in the batters/pitchers defensive element of WAR. There is no other place to put HR's than with the pitcher - whether this is fair or not.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 18, 2022 12:33:55 GMT -5
That doesn't follow. Just because it can't be blamed on the fielding doesn't mean it must be blamed on the pitching. It doesn't have to actually be factored in at all. One might assume that some pitches are simply going to be hit for home runs no matter who is pitching or fielding, and so you just ignore them. In terms of fWAR - it is not a matter of whether the pitcher has complete control over home runs - but where this event needs to be tagged to? There are two choices - pitcher or defense. It clearly doesn't belong to the defense so it has to go the pitcher. To just ignore HR's in terms of run prevention would be a mistake. BABIP - the impact of the defense is much greater than the impact of the pitcher - so that is where it goes. Why does it need to be "tagged" to anything? If you assume that Home Runs are not the fault of the defense at all (whether pitching or fielding), then they don't play into "Wins Above Replacement" because the replacement would have the exact same HRs. The idea of using ERA is just that the pitcher is responsible for all the runs (except fielding errors). But assigning HRs to them and no other runs implies that they are responsible for HRs and no other runs. And that's the part that makes no sense to me. If they really are not responsible for what happens after contact is made on a fair ball, why blame them for HRs? And if they really are responsible for HRs, why claim they aren't responsible for any other outcomes? The claim is that the data shows that pitchers can't consistently control the outcome of any non-HR batted balls, but where is the data that says they can control HRs? And what possible physical explanation would justify the distinction? A ball hit 10 feet farther (or in a little bit of wind) might go over the fence, and a ball hit 10 feet shorter might be an out. If a pitcher really has no control over the rest of the results of balls batted fairly, why would they have control of that 10 feet of flight difference?
|
|
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 18, 2022 13:22:31 GMT -5
Here is my take.
WAR is a flawed statistic - while still being very valuable. Both fWAR and bWAR aren't perfect. I prefer fWAR while still thinking bWAR has value. And I don't claim bWAR to be 'wrong'.
Before FIP came around - I preferred RA for pitchers over ERA. I like FIP better than ERA - just my preference. I am unsure about xFIP vs. FIP, I usually look at both (along with ERA). I always look at BABIP and usually HR/FB%, BB%, and K%. And now with Stat cast, I am looking at exit velocity and other tools.
I don't think any of these stats individually tell the whole story - and most stats have value (and I don't place the same value on all these stats).
When I constructed my all-time all-star game based on a player's 10-year peak (project I did for 7 full months this year) - I based the pitcher's rate stats on 2/3 -FIP (which is essentially FIP+) and 1/3 ERA+. Nothing scientific about this - it was just me splitting the difference while giving FIP twice the weight of ERA.
I do disagree with the idea that fWAR is fundamentally wrong compared to bWAR.
They are both directionally correct the same.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 18, 2022 13:41:48 GMT -5
I will point out the unsubtle difference between you just asserting something and you actually providing a study (which you still haven't) or even a name (which you didn't provide until Blue had already provided it). I still find it very unlikely that somehow HRs are in the control of the pitcher but no other outcomes are. It's one thing to show that no outcomes are in the pitcher's control, but it's another thing entirely to claim that one kind of outcome (the HR) is in their control, but no other kind is. That makes no sense, from a physics standpoint. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. A good analysis needs to show correlation with the data, but it also needs to present at least a hypothesis about the causation. Otherwise you can be chasing statistical flukes, or maybe just throwing too many variables into the mix so that you hide what is significant. So please explain to me how HRs can be in the control of the pitcher but no other batted ball outcomes can be? It is my understanding - I am not literally doing statistical analysis/research - there is some debate on whether or how much control a pitcher has on HRs (particularly HR/FB). Pitcher's HR/FB% can fluctuate from year to year leading to the belief that there is some short term luck involved here. Some of this is intuitive - especially when looking at stat cast these days - A fly ball would be a HR in 12 of the 30 parks based on exit velocity and launch angle. So, playing in the right park at the right time can make a difference, particularly in the short run. This is why there is xFIP - which is similar to FIP, but it assumes that HR's are more random and out of the control of a pitcher. For this - they use league average HR/FB% rates instead of the pitcher's actual one. Here is the definition of xFIP library.fangraphs.com/pitching/xfip/I think the fact that xFIP exists is a bit of an acknowledgement of the problems with FIP to begin with. And I don't necessarily have a problem with FIP per se. It's a perfectly fine stat for what it is. My issue is using it as the way to determine WAR for pitchers, which is why I reject fWAR. That said, I do agree with your other comment that WAR is a bit flawed in general, and I think baseball writers rely on it too much. Unfortunately, I haven't found a better catch-all stat.
|
|
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 18, 2022 13:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 18, 2022 14:25:35 GMT -5
Like I said, I can get on board with using runs instead of earned runs. But I'm not on board with not using runs at all or only using them for home runs.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 21, 2022 23:46:08 GMT -5
OK I forgot who exactly said Dave Parker does not belong in the HOf but then one could make the case that al kaline and Willie Stargell don't exactly deserve plaques either. Kaline is a member of the 3000 hit club but he won only one batting title and had three 100 RBI seasons, and not once did he reach 30 home runs in a season stargell's numbers don't exactly jump out at anyone either. . Bottom line is you could probably nitpick a ton of reasons why guys with plaques don't deserve one.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2022 2:46:01 GMT -5
OK I forgot who exactly said Dave Parker does not belong in the HOf but then one could make the case that al kaline and Willie Stargell don't exactly deserve plaques either. Kaline is a member of the 3000 hit club but he won only one batting title and had three 100 RBI seasons, and not once did he reach 30 home runs in a season stargell's numbers don't exactly jump out at anyone either. . Bottom line is you could probably nitpick a ton of reasons why guys with plaques don't deserve one. Either there are a lot of people in the HOF that don't "deserve" it, or the standards are not so tight as people imagine they are, or both. This has been obvious for a long time. Many of the most egregious examples came early, before "Hall Of Fame Standards" had fully defined themselves. A bunch of them were just former New York players (and to a lesser extent Boston and Chicago players) who played on well-supported teams with better players. And over the years the various veteran committees were well known for voting their own favorite teammates into the HOF. For example, Tinker, Evers, and Chance are all in the HOF mainly because somebody wrote a poem about them (and because they played in Chicago). Unless we are going to establish strict standards and kick out everyone who doesn't meet them, it's always going to be fuzzy who gets in and who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 22, 2022 15:03:45 GMT -5
OK I forgot who exactly said Dave Parker does not belong in the HOf but then one could make the case that al kaline and Willie Stargell don't exactly deserve plaques either. Kaline is a member of the 3000 hit club but he won only one batting title and had three 100 RBI seasons, and not once did he reach 30 home runs in a season stargell's numbers don't exactly jump out at anyone either. . Bottom line is you could probably nitpick a ton of reasons why guys with plaques don't deserve one. In Kaline's era, if you got 3000 hits, you were a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame. That's just the way it is. Also, Kaline has 92.9 WAR, which is 42nd all time and 28th among position players. That's a no-doubter. As far Stargell (57.5 WAR), he's not on Kaline's level, but he's still well ahead of Parker.
|
|