What will Bedard Command if we extend him??? Can we Afford Him?

[square634]

I think you're probably right that he was. But I don't have LB/GB/FB ratios (via Fangraphs) for Palmer OR for other O's pitchers: was McNally a flyball pitcher? Flanagan? This answer only works if each of the Orioles was a flyball pitcher, I guess. And I simply don't know.

That said, Zambrano is NOT a flyball pitcher, so why his BABIP would be lower remains a mystery. Though I still think it worth exploring if a guy who has a low BABIP for three full seasons (nearly 100 starts) should really be written off to luck or not.

Palmer also had very low HR/9 totals (.69 for career), which would be odd for someone who's a flyball pitcher - in that it would correspondingly mean that he's got a low FB/HR ratio -- which is another thing that is typically written off as "luck".

I don't know what the league average FB/HR ratio was back then, but I'm sure due to larger stadiums, different balls, etc. that fewer fly balls became home runs in those days.

[Sports Guy]

I think you're probably right that he was. But I don't have LB/GB/FB ratios (via Fangraphs) for Palmer OR for other O's pitchers: was McNally a flyball pitcher? Flanagan? This answer only works if each of the Orioles was a flyball pitcher, I guess. And I simply don't know.

That said, Zambrano is NOT a flyball pitcher, so why his BABIP would be lower remains a mystery. Though I still think it worth exploring if a guy who has a low BABIP for three full seasons (nearly 100 starts) should really be written off to luck or not.

Palmer also had very low HR/9 totals (.69 for career), which would be odd for someone who's a flyball pitcher - in that it would correspondingly mean that he's got a low FB/HR ratio -- which is another thing that is typically written off as "luck".
None of this really matters...Bottom line is for 3 years, his BABIP was normal...One year he was in the lucky area...Last year he was still lucky but it was close to 270 and this year he is pretty much right at 270.

280-300 is considered average but since different sites use different BABIP stats(ie ways of getting it), i think going to 270 is fair.

So, Z hasn't been that far off and his career BABIP is still 276.

However, Bedard was definitely in the unlucky range in 2005 and 2006 and in the beginning of this year.

When comparing Z and Bedard, this has to be considered IMO.

Bedard had a worse defense behind him, was in the AL and was in a tougher division and yet, with all of that, he was right there in ERA with Z last year.

In other words, he was clearly the better pitcher when using all the factors.

Now, if you want to be blind and not acknowledge the league difference, BABIP difference and things like that, that is fine...You would be wrong but you can still ignore it if you choose.

[davearm]

I think you're probably right that he was. But I don't have LB/GB/FB ratios (via Fangraphs) for Palmer OR for other O's pitchers: was McNally a flyball pitcher? Flanagan? This answer only works if each of the Orioles was a flyball pitcher, I guess. And I simply don't know.

That said, Zambrano is NOT a flyball pitcher, so why his BABIP would be lower remains a mystery. Though I still think it worth exploring if a guy who has a low BABIP for three full seasons (nearly 100 starts) should really be written off to luck or not.

Palmer also had very low HR/9 totals (.69 for career), which would be odd for someone who's a flyball pitcher - in that it would correspondingly mean that he's got a low FB/HR ratio -- which is another thing that is typically written off as "luck".
Here's a theory to consider and then quickly annihilate and discard. ;)

Zambrano gets a tremendous amount of natural movement on his fastball. This has two effects:
a) Low BABIP -- batters don't know where it's headed so they have a hard time squaring it up and hitting it hard.
b) High BB/9 -- Zambrano can't keep it in the strikezone, and hitters have learned to take it because of a).

And I completely agree with the second bolded sentence. It'd be great to get some sort of handle on the luck/skill equation at work here.

[Lucky Jim]

I don't know what the league average FB/HR ratio was back then, but I'm sure due to larger stadiums, different balls, etc. that fewer fly balls became home runs in those days.

Granted. But it still appears that Palmer was generally below the average (often well)...

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1009973_P_season_full_4_20070819.png

[square634]

Even if we disregard BABIP, I think all of the recent signs clearly point to Bedard, especially considering the league effects.

[davearm]

Carefully-designed empirical research cannot overcome missing data. This is a lot like the problem of modeling weather: a zillion variables, many of which are poorly understood.

Maybe that's simply because generalities is all that the existing data can support.
Agree, and agree.

BABIP analysis certainly seems to be in an infancy phase right now.

[square634]

Granted. But it still appears that Palmer was generally below the average (often well)...

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1009973_P_season_full_4_20070819.png

I would be interested to see what his HR/FB numbers were compared to league average. I'm also not sure what the data are that support that HR/FB is not controlled by the pitcher.

[davearm]

Even if we disregard BABIP, I think all of the recent signs clearly point to Bedard, especially considering the league effects.
Nobody's denying that. Bedard's been better in 2007.

The question is, how to weight 2007 production and current peripherals against a half-dozen other factors (production and peripherals prior to 2007, age, durability, etc. etc.).

I hope nobody would ever deny that evaluating a pitcher on just one year's worth of production would be asinine. Lots more hast to go into the equation to get a robust evaluation.

People can throw their hands around about league effects and strikeout rates and on and on, but at the end of the day you're still trying to make people believe that a 28-YO guy with zero seasons of ERA < 3.5, zero seasons of 200+ IP, and two significant injuries is better than a 26-YO guy with 4 straight seasons of ERA < 3.5, 4 straight seasons of 200+ IP, and no significant injuries.

Just take a step back for a minute and think about that.

[Lucky Jim]

I would be interested to see what his HR/FB numbers were compared to league average. I'm also not sure what the data are that support that HR/FB is not controlled by the pitcher.

From a discussion at the BBTF about Jim Palmer's credentials...


Chris Cobb Posted: November 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM (#2238156)
The Yankees' Wang is currently confounding SABRmetricians, because he keeps throwing ground balls at home, except his sorry K ratio goes UP when he needs it - like man on 3rd, one out.

Any evidence available that shows Palmer with an ability to do this? That would be interesting.

WARP's analysis of Palmer's actual hits allowed and runs allowed in comparison to his expected hits and runs allowed rather strongly suggests, actually, that Palmer did have the stuff to take command of a situation when it was warranted. The corrolary to this idea would be that he could, much of the time, pitch to his defense, but could go it alone when the situation required. Other pitchers might not have had that luxury.

That Palmer was "in command" is suggested by a comparison of his career dH (actual hits compared to expected hits) and dR (actual runs allowed compared to expected runs allowed based on his statistics (hits allowed, HR allowed, etc.) to those of his contemporaries on (or recently on) the ballot. Negative numbers are good, in this case, as it shows fewer hits and runs allowed than expected.

Pitcher dH, dR
Palmer -169, -97
Tiant -151, -19
Perry 5, 13
Jenkins -180, 45
------------
Carlton -31, -53
Niekro -170, -86
Seaver -199, -35

Palmer's comination of depressing hits on balls in play _and_ allowing many fewer runs than his component stats would indicate suggest to me a pitcher who could effectively change his style of pitching to succeed in difficult situations. Most of the great pitchers have considerable skill in suppressing hits on balls in play (Seaver, Jenkins, Niekro, and Tiant have really outstanding totals here). Many of these pitchers have some skill in suppressing scoring with clutch pitching. Niekro, Carlton, and Seaver all look pretty good at this particular facet of pitching. Palmer is considerably ahead of this group, however, and this seems to me the most telling evidence that he was "in command."

[square634]

Nobody's denying that. Bedard's been better in 2007.

The question is, how to weight 2007 production and current peripherals against a half-dozen other factors (production and peripherals prior to 2007, age, durability, etc. etc.).

I hope nobody would ever deny that evaluating a pitcher on just one year's worth of production would be asinine. Lots more hast to go into the equation to get a robust evaluation.

People can throw their hands around about league effects and strikeout rates and on and on, but at the end of the day you're still trying to make people believe that a 28-YO guy with zero seasons of ERA < 3.5, zero seasons of 200+ IP, and two significant injuries is better than a 26-YO guy with 4 straight seasons of ERA < 3.5, 4 straight seasons of 200+ IP, and no significant injuries.

Just take a step back for a minute and think about that.

It's two years, not one. You keep ignoring that fact. And before you say that his ERA was better (in a significantly easier league and division!!!), most of his peripherals were not.

[Lucky Jim]

Nobody's denying that. Bedard's been better in 2007.

The question is, how to weight 2007 production and current peripherals against a half-dozen other factors (production and peripherals prior to 2007, age, durability, etc. etc.).

I hope nobody would ever deny that evaluating a pitcher on just one year's worth of production would be asinine. Lots more hast to go into the equation to get a robust evaluation.

People can throw their hands around about league effects and strikeout rates and on and on, but at the end of the day you're still trying to make people believe that a 28-YO guy with zero seasons of ERA < 3.5, zero seasons of 200+ IP, and two significant injuries is better than a 26-YO guy with 4 straight seasons of ERA < 3.5, 4 straight seasons of 200+ IP, and no significant injuries.

Just take a step back for a minute and think about that.

I'm not trying to say Bedard is better. Just trying to chart the next few years. I ran into this re-reading BMoron's post about pitchers and age...


There's no real aging "curve" with pitchers until the strikeout rates start eroding too quickly or the pitcher gets injured. But this happens at young ages, too - pitchers in the late 20s with scary drops in K rate age just as poorly as those in the late 30s with similar drops in K rate.

Pitcher aging is kinda like log rolling - as long as you're stable, you're OK, but once you start slipping, you're probably going to fall off.

I think that K rate is probably just one metric to look at (LD data might be another) but it's just a fear I have with CZ that this slip in numbers is foreshadowing a bigger fall. Perhaps I'm letting instinct dictate too much, of course.

[davearm]

It's two years, not one. You keep ignoring that fact. And before you say that his ERA was better (in a significantly easier league and division!!!), most of his peripherals were not.
Because it's not a fact. It's an opinion. And my opinion's different.

And it doesn't really change the final analysis much either way.

[Sports Guy]

It's two years, not one. You keep ignoring that fact. And before you say that his ERA was better (in a significantly easier league and division!!!), most of his peripherals were not.

Dave only cares about the worthless stats and even that one is greatly influenced by league, division, BABIP and the defense behind him.

Really, the only things Zambrano did last year better than Bedard is throw 18 more innings and he had a higher K rate and even that K rate is influenced by league.

[square634]

Because it's not a fact. It's an opinion. And my opinion's different.

And it doesn't really change the final analysis much either way.

Sorry, I should have said you keep ignoring that opinion :)

Anyway, I think it does change the final analysis:

through 2005: Zambrano >> Bedard
2006: Bedard > Zambrano (a slight edge, it could be argued that they are essentially equal, but I'd disagree)
2007: Bedard >> Zambrano

It seems like a trend to me. it might not be, but if I were a betting man, and I saw Bedard improving every year and Zambrano recently declining, I'd bet on Bedard for the next 3-5 years.

[davearm]

I'm not trying to say Bedard is better. Just trying to chart the next few years. I ran into this re-reading BMoron's post about pitchers and age...



I think that K rate is probably just one metric to look at (LD data might be another) but it's just a fear I have with CZ that this slip in numbers is foreshadowing a bigger fall. Perhaps I'm letting instinct dictate too much, of course.
Well Z threw a no-hitter last night, so maybe that will alleviate some fears. ;)

[square634]

Well Z threw a no-hitter last night, so maybe that will alleviate some fears. ;)

Yeah, but his WHIP and ERA were indeterminable. ;)

[davearm]

Sorry, I should have said you keep ignoring that opinion :)

Anyway, I think it does change the final analysis:

through 2005: Zambrano >> Bedard
2006: Bedard > Zambrano (a slight edge, it could be argued that they are essentially equal, but I'd disagree)
2007: Bedard >> Zambrano

It seems like a trend to me. it might not be, but if I were a betting man, and I saw Bedard improving every year and Zambrano recently declining, I'd bet on Bedard for the next 3-5 years.
FWIW, VORP and WARP say Zambrano was better than Bedard in 2006. It's not as though my opinion is out of leftfield here.

VORP: CZ 53.8; EB 40.2
WARP3: CZ 8.4; EB 7.1

[Lucky Jim]

FWIW, VORP and WARP say Zambrano was better than Bedard in 2006. It's not as though my opinion is out of leftfield here.

Apparently - and I'm just paraphrasing internet chatter - there's some disagreement about the value of VORP and WARP re: pitchers. Which makes SOME sense.

But I think most people would call CZ's and EB's 2006 years essentially even, with whatever minor differences being impossible to quantify precisely enough due to league and park differences.

I'm not even sure what this argument is about anymore.

[square634]

FWIW, VORP and WARP say Zambrano was better than Bedard in 2006. It's not as though my opinion is out of leftfield here.

VORP: CZ 53.8; EB 40.2
WARP3: CZ 8.4; EB 7.1

Just curious, do the pitchers' offensive stats count toward their VORP and WARP3 in the NL? If so, Bedard, who is our best hitter this year, would win this category if he pitched in the NL ;)

On a serious note, I have rarely if ever seen VORP and WARP used for pitchers. And, again, there are league, division, and park differences. Either way, even if Zambrano was better last year, there still seems to be a trend.

[davearm]

Apparently - and I'm just paraphrasing internet chatter - there's some disagreement about the value of VORP and WARP re: pitchers. Which makes SOME sense.

But I think most people would call CZ's and EB's 2006 years essentially even, with whatever minor differences being impossible to quantify precisely enough due to league and park differences.

I'm not even sure what this argument is about anymore.
Naturally.

Whatever evidence I bring to the table belongs in the worthless bin. Just ask SG.

Best just to focus on command rate and xFIP, and forget all the rest.

[Sports Guy]

K rate
Command rate
BB rate
HR Rate

Those are 4 best stats to look at for pitchers...Bedard won 3 of the 4 and probably has a clean sweep if he was in the NL or Z was in the AL.

All of the predictive stats pointed towards Bedard being better last year and long term.

[square634]

What we need to do is get one of the ESPN chats to answer "Independent of salary, who would you rather have for the next 5 years, Bedard or C. Zambrano?" That would be less biased, and might actually be an interesting answer.

[davearm]

K rate
Command rate
BB rate
HR Rate

Those are 4 best stats to look at for pitchers...Bedard won 3 of the 4 and probably has a clean sweep if he was in the NL or Z was in the AL.

All of the predictive stats pointed towards Bedard being better last year and long term.
Here you go again.

Age is variable with predictive value. Or at least it's something you shove down our throats whenever it's in your favor.

[Flosman]

You know they are both pretty darn good pitchers. In the past CZ has been more valuable because he has been a horse. Think of the innings he pitched that EB let the pen pitch. There is alot of value in that alone. Now EB has continued to develop and this does not seem to be nearly has big an issue anymore. I think EB's ceiling is higher and I would likely take him over CZ because of cost and the number of innings CZ has pitched without major injury. But at the end of the day either is a GREAT starting point for a rotation.

[Lucky Jim]

Naturally.

Whatever evidence I bring to the table belongs in the worthless bin. Just ask SG.

lol.

I could be wrong. I'm not trying to discount anything - just trying to make sure we apply the best statistics in the most useful way.

[davearm]

lol.

I could be wrong. I'm not trying to discount anything - just trying to make sure we apply the best statistics in the most useful way.
Well in my mind at least, there's a sizeable disconnect between the stats one should look at to evaluate past performance, and the stats one should look at to forecast future performance.

As best I can tell, many here think peripherals are all that matter in every situation. I've attempted at various times to illuminate the absurdity of this, but apparently to no avail.

[Lucky Jim]

Well in my mind at least, there's a sizeable disconnect between the stats one should look at to characterize past performance, and the stats one should look at to forecast future performance.

As best I can tell, many here think peripherals are all that count in every situation.

Shockingly, we're actually in agreement on this (no, really!). I think Zambrano has been the better, more effective pitcher for most of his career. That doesn't, in my mind, necessarily warrant the contract he received. But the Cubs are better positioned than I to know the risks attendant with CZ.

I'd build my expectations and then forge a contract out of predictive stats from past performance. Which is one of the reasons I like Bedard in this case down the line. You don't, which is fine.

The argument against you re:2006 is, I think, based on your repeated attempts to devalue Bedard's improvements. Perhaps they protest too much, I don't know.

But you do this pretty consistently.

The fact is, that Bedard is only coming into his own now - but he's an anomaly -

1. Started pitching competitively VERY late.
2. His entry into MLB was on the heels of major surgery.
3. Every major stat has, essentially, improved every year.
4. This year has provided a kind-of punctuated equilibrium-like improvement.

Now, #4 is the wildcard - is this simply an outlier, or does it have legitimate predictive value? I think it's the latter, but we won't know until two years down the road.

Zambrano's been one heckuva pitcher for the Cubs, though. His past performance has been fantastic. I'll confess that I probably devalue him too much - mostly due to the fact that I wouldn't buy a used car (or pitcher) after Dusty Baker had owned it.

[davearm]

Shockingly, we're actually in agreement on this (no, really!). I think Zambrano has been the better, more effective pitcher for most of his career. That doesn't, in my mind, necessarily warrant the contract he received. But the Cubs are better positioned than I to know the risks attendant with CZ.

I'd build my expectations and then forge a contract out of predictive stats from past performance. Which is one of the reasons I like Bedard in this case down the line. You don't, which is fine.

The argument against you re:2006 is, I think, based on your repeated attempts to devalue Bedard's improvements. Perhaps they protest too much, I don't know.

But you do this pretty consistently.

The fact is, that Bedard is only coming into his own now - but he's an anomaly -

1. Started pitching competitively VERY late.
2. His entry into MLB was on the heels of major surgery.
3. Every major stat has, essentially, improved every year.
4. This year has provided a kind-of punctuated equilibrium-like improvement.

Now, #4 is the wildcard - is this simply an outlier, or does it have legitimate predictive value? I think it's the latter, but we won't know until two years down the road.

Zambrano's been one heckuva pitcher for the Cubs, though. His past performance has been fantastic. I'll confess that I probably devalue him too much - mostly due to the fact that I wouldn't buy a used car (or pitcher) after Dusty Baker had owned it.
Here's the thing LJ. I've grown so accustomed to shooting down unrealistic expectations that it's just become reflexive.

Remember back when Luis Matos was portrayed here as a league-average CF, right up until the time he fizzled out of baseball?
Or Roddy Lopez was a league-average starter?
Or Bruce Chen was a solid #3 starter?
Or DCab was the next Randy Johnson?
Or Chris Ray was baseball's best young closer?
The list goes on and on.

Now obviously Bedard has to be evaluated on his own merits. Yet that said, there's a natural predisposition to poo-pooh the hype mongers that are quick to crown the guy "elite" or "ace" or whatever after one great season, since the OH's track record for fairly and objectively evaluating O's players is pretty suspect.

Now Bedard may very well live up to that hype, and admittedly, he's looking great right now. And maybe I've gone too far in the other direction, and given too little credit. But I've been right to be pessimistic, and go against the herd, far more often than I've been wrong to be.

[Baltimoron]

If that guy wasn't comfortable/confident enough in the research to express the degree of control a pitcher can exert over BABIP in quantified, percentage terms, then you can be sure that I'm not either.

People make honest attempts to present informative information to clear up people's mis-understandings and mis-statements. You either are being exceptionally dense or you understand what MGL wrote and are trying to be deceptive. The article does not support the conclusion a bound can't be drawn or that MGL, the author, could not express a bound. Instead, the article discussions these ideas:

Pitcher's have some control. The point of the MGL article is that there is more control than originally postulated by Voros, and this level of control differs from pitcher to pitcher, but that BABIP is still largely out of a pitchers control.

Largely, pitchers control/influence their BABIP by being flyball or groundball pitchers, and in their ability to induce pop-ups (a subset of flyballs). This is because we know groundballs, flyballs and pop-ups tend to be recorded as outs at different percentages.

However, some pitchers may have some ability beyond this to induce weaker groundballs and/or flyballs and/or line drives than other pitchers.

------

The yearly spread in BABIP of qualifying starters is roughly .250-.340. This is a much more informative range than the one you proposed earlier as to what a never hit hard pitcher's BABIP would be around and an always hit hard pitcher would be around.

Hopefully you would agree that the spread in natural talent is at most somewhat similar to the yearly spread we see in BABIP. In fact, its actually a little less than that but we will take it slow.

Go to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2007) and sort by BABIP for a couple of years. This is what MLB guys are doing.

[Lucky Jim]

People make honest attempts to present informative information to clear up people's mis-understandings and mis-statements. You either are being exceptionally dense or you understand what MGL wrote and are trying to be deceptive. The article does not support the conclusion a bound can't be drawn or that MGL, the author, could not express a bound. Instead, the article discussions these ideas:

Pitcher's have some control. The point of the MGL article is that there is more control than originally postulated by Voros, and this level of control differs from pitcher to pitcher, but that BABIP is still largely out of a pitchers control.

Largely, pitchers control/influence their BABIP by being flyball or groundball pitchers, and in their ability to induce pop-ups (a subset of flyballs). This is because we know groundballs, flyballs and pop-ups tend to be recorded as outs at different percentages.

However, some pitchers may have some ability beyond this to induce weaker groundballs and/or flyballs and/or line drives than other pitchers.

------

The yearly spread in BABIP of qualifying starters is roughly .250-.340. This is a much more informative range than the one you proposed earlier as to what a never hit hard pitcher's BABIP would be around and an always hit hard pitcher would be around.

Hopefully you would agree that the spread in natural talent is at most somewhat similar to the yearly spread we see in BABIP. In fact, its actually a little less than that but we will take it slow.

Go to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2007) and sort by BABIP for a couple of years. This is what MLB guys are doing.

Funny, that was exactly my point before BMoron went ballistic and then put me on ignore (via a classic PM).

[Fairfax Bird]

Refer back to post #203, if you still care.

2006 was the only year the NLC didn't have at least 2 above average offensive teams, and at least 1 team better than the ALE's third-best.

So you will simply ignore the fact that the Orioles, BJs, and DRs had more top 12 finishes in runs scored than the entire NLC over the last 4 years.

Your division is poor. Our bottom three teams would be among the top offenses in your division. Poor. I am done with you ... you simply ignoring facts.

[Baltimoron]

A study on the spread in pitcher talent (http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/spread_in_talent_pitching/)

Basically, Tom Tango finds that pitchers' abilities (plus their fielders and parks) to get outs on balls in play has a standard deviation of .010. Knocking out fielders and park effects, a standard deviation is .008


Nonetheless, if we give pitchers a spread of .008, that gives us about 1 standard deviation is 4 hits per 500 BIP, or that 95% of pitchers give up hits +/- 8 from the league mean.

Alot of that spread is based on the GB and FB tendency of pitchers.

[davearm]

So you will simply ignore the fact that the Orioles, BJs, and DRs had more top 12 finishes in runs scored than the entire NLC over the last 4 years.

Your division is poor. Our bottom three teams would be among the top offenses in your division. Poor. I am done with you ... you simply ignoring facts.
Considering that 12 is a completely arbitrary number chosen purely because it best suits your argument, yes, I'm ignoring it. If the debate had been defined by each division's count of top 12 finishes, then your post would be on point.

But the debate (silly and pointless as it now is) has long ago been defined by the NLC's count of finishes above the MLB average, and the NLC's count of finishes ahead of the ALE #3.

Fortunately for all of us, you're done with me, so we won't have to rehash this yet again.

[davearm]

People make honest attempts to present informative information to clear up people's mis-understandings and mis-statements. You either are being exceptionally dense or you understand what MGL wrote and are trying to be deceptive. The article does not support the conclusion a bound can't be drawn or that MGL, the author, could not express a bound. Instead, the article discussions these ideas:

Pitcher's have some control. The point of the MGL article is that there is more control than originally postulated by Voros, and this level of control differs from pitcher to pitcher, but that BABIP is still largely out of a pitchers control.

Largely, pitchers control/influence their BABIP by being flyball or groundball pitchers, and in their ability to induce pop-ups (a subset of flyballs). This is because we know groundballs, flyballs and pop-ups tend to be recorded as outs at different percentages.

However, some pitchers may have some ability beyond this to induce weaker groundballs and/or flyballs and/or line drives than other pitchers.
Your message would be much better received if you would dial back the attitude and quit bending over backward to belittle at every opportunity.

Anyway, earlier you asked me to assign some percentage value to the amount of control a pitcher has over BABIP.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

There is no doubt some pitcher control. Maybe we only differ in what we think of as "very much under a pitcher's control"? Can you quantify this comment? 20% of .300 is +/- .06, more or less?
I responded by pointing out that considering the author of the article can't (or chooses not to) provide a hard-and-fast number to quantify the phenomenon at issue, it only stands to reason that I'd be in no position to do so either. So I have no clue whether pitcher control over BABIP is greater than, less than, or exactly 20%.

In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that I'm in the same boat as he is: there seems to be some evidence to support the common sense view that the pitcher's control is somewhere north of zero, but how much is unclear, so the best we can do is offer generalizations, such as the ones you quoted from the article.

Now if you have a number in mind that quantifies the exact degree of control a pitcher has over BABIP, then by all means do share it, and your analytical method for arriving at it. I'm certain I wouldn't be the only one interested in having this question answered.

[Fairfax Bird]

This is completely not intended for anyone.:D

Average Total Runs Scored 2004-2007:

2004:

ALE (minus RS & Yanks) = 758.3
NLC = 751.8

2005:

ALE = 751.3
NLC = 737.8

2006:

ALE = 755.3
NLC = 733.3

2007:

ALE = 561.7
NLC = 564.8

One may say that the DH plays a big part, which it does, however, the three bottom teams have scored more runs on average then the NLC on average.

In total Bedard has much harder competetion that Zambrano.

Top 10 finishes (denoting an above average offense) over that time period:

Reds 4th (2005)
Cards 6th (2004)
Cards 6th (2005)
Orioles 8th (2004)
Blue Jays 8th (2006)

For a division that supposedly has 2 superior offensive teams (as denoted by the National League Board Expert:rolleyes: ) per season, they seem to lack that many top 10 finishes.

Again, this is to no one in particular.;)

[Baltimoron]

Allow me to refresh your memory:

I responded by pointing out that considering the author of the article can't (or chooses not to) provide a hard-and-fast number to quantify the phenomenon at issue, it only stands to reason that I'd be in no position to do so either. So I have no clue whether pitcher control over BABIP is greater than, less than, or exactly 20%.

And my point is still the same. That a person sets out to do A has no bearing on his ability to do B, yet you suggest because he only does A he can't do B. That does not follow. Moreover, the suggestion that something can be made of the failure to B does not follow either, since he set out to do A.

If you have not clue, why have you made assertions about a pitcher's ability to control hits allowed on balls in play? Certainly you must have some sense to assert your belief in its significance, no?

Go here (http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1022682#post1022682) for the rest.

[davearm]

And my point is still the same. That a person sets out to do A has no bearing on his ability to do B, yet you suggest because he only does A he can't do B. That does not follow. Moreover, the suggestion that something can be made of the failure to B does not follow either, since he set out to do A.
If you read more carefully, what I said was, "the author of the article can't (or chooses not to) provide a hard-and-fast number to quantify the phenomenon at issue."

It seems to me that if Lichtman went to all the trouble to compile the data and run the analysis necessary to speak to A, then he might as well have gone the extra step to tackle B, if he was able to. The fact that he didn't tackle B tends to make me think that he wasn't able to, although as I point out, I left that possiblity open nevertheless.


If you have not clue, why have you made assertions about a pitcher's ability to control hits allowed on balls in play? Certainly you must have some sense to assert your belief in its significance, no?
I was quite clear in saying that what I have no clue on is the precise magnitude of control a pitcher can exert over BIP -- the numerical, percentage value of it. You threw out 20%, and my response was that I have no way of knowing if it's greater than or less than that figure.

Nevertheless, I've got no problem asserting that that percentage value is nonzero, even absent the ability to pinpoint precisely what it is -- just as Lichtman does.

[Frobby]

Let me just weigh in here, as I've missed this whole debate.

I think the issue here is longevity and risk. Erik Bedard is having a season that Carlos Zambrano probably will never match. But Zambrano is working on his 5th straight 200 IP, sub-4.00 ERA season, and he is two years younger than Bedard. He's much larger and goes deeper in games. If I had to place bets on who is better from 2008-2012, my bet is on Zambrano. Not by much, but by enough to make the choice clear.

[davearm]

Let me just weigh in here, as I've missed this whole debate.

I think the issue here is longevity and risk. Erik Bedard is having a season that Carlos Zambrano probably will never match. But Zambrano is working on his 5th straight 200 IP, sub-4.00 ERA season, and he is two years younger than Bedard. He's much larger and goes deeper in games. If I had to place bets on who is better from 2008-2012, my bet is on Zambrano. Not by much, but by enough to make the choice clear.
Heretic! Heretic!

Even though you're taking Zambrano's side here, you still left me with a nit to pick with the "never match" stuff. Z had this dominant of a season in 2004, so technically Bedard is now matching Z. ;)

And considering how Z has pitched since his little dustup with Barrett back on June 1 (2.42 ERA in 14 starts), I wouldn't bet against him being that good again.

[Baltimoron]

If you read more carefully, what I said was, "the author of the article can't (or chooses not to) provide a hard-and-fast number to quantify the phenomenon at issue."

What in the world are you talking about? You said this:


I responded by pointing out that considering the author of the article can't (or chooses not to) provide a hard-and-fast number to quantify the phenomenon at issue, it only stands to reason that I'd be in no position to do so either

What else do you think this: "Moreover, the suggestion that something can be made of the failure to B does not follow either, since he set out to do A" is in reference to?

You suggest that because "he chooses not to" to draw an inference that "it only stands to reason that I'd be in no position to do so either". That is beyond stupid.


It seems to me that if Lichtman went to all the trouble to compile the data and run the analysis necessary to speak to A, then he might as well have gone the extra step to tackle B, if he was able to.

Why do you persist in this nonesense. B is a different question than A. Answering A does not give one all that is need to answer B. To answer B you need to undertake a separate endeavor than is required to answer A.

Why didn't he just answer every issue that could come in pitcher analysis? Oh he didn't, so he can't, and further I can't either. huh?


-----------------------------------------------------------


I was quite clear in saying that what I have no clue on is the precise magnitude of control a pitcher can exert over BIP -- the numerical, percentage value of it. You threw out 20%, and my response was that I have no way of knowing if it's greater than or less than that figure.

But you have commented on when BABIP numbers are significant:


So when does BABIP stop being a measure of luck, and start being a measure of how difficult it is to hit the ball hard off of a particular pitcher?

Seems like 3 years with very little variation would be sufficient.
link (http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1021583&postcount=218)

and attempted to talk about the bounds of a pitcher's skill in preventing hits on balls in play.


Here's what I found most compelling in that article:

At the extremes, this seems to imply that:
a) A pitcher that is so skillful as never to allow a hard-hit ball will have an expected BABIP of .190.
b) A really really lousy pitcher that everyone tees off on, all the time, will have an expected BABIP of .590.

This seems to leave all sorts of room for pitchers to exert influence over their BABIP, based strictly on their ability to prevent hard-hit balls using velocity, movement, location, deception, variety, etc.

It also seems completely consistent with common sense: better pitchers will tend to have lower BABIPs simply because it's more difficult to make solid contact against them.

Now there are certainly many other factors to be considered here. But a big one seems to be very much under the pitcher's control.
link (http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1021605&postcount=228)

In response to this last post, I wrote:


There is no such thing as a pitcher never giving up a hard hit ball. In real life, batters hit good pitches, and miss easy pitches. The hitter matters too. And pitchers aren't perfect, they are human.

I'm not sure how your statement that something is consistent with your conception of common sense is very instructive or meaningful, especially when the data suggests otherwise.

There is no doubt some pitcher control. Maybe we only differ in what we think of as "very much under a pitcher's control"? Can you quantify this comment? 20% of .300 is +/- .06, more or less?

I try to steer you away from a much weaker argument (the one about always and never hard hit balls) and indicate I think I agree with you but I want to be sure we're on the same page.

You respond with the drivel that is continued above about debunking "the earlier research done by McCracken that suggests no pitcher control over BABIP" (there is no such thing), and that MGL "wasn't comfortable/confident enough in the research to express the degree of control a pitcher can exert over BABIP in quantified, percentage terms." WTF? Not only is this commentary wrong but it is irrelevant to my post.

A simple I don't know how large the spread is would do yourself lots of good. Hopefully now you know about the spread and more.

You get into enough dumb fights on here, why would you want to pick more, especially when someone comes to support a point you have made that seems to be at odds with the current collective wisdom of many OH members?