The Dodgers and Bedard--part 100

[Baltimoron]

I get what you're saying here, and I don't necessarily think you're wrong.

But what you're saying is inconsistent with how FIP is being presented by its creators and advocates.

Nowhere on THT's glossary page does it say anything like, "FIP nets out the luck factor", or "FIP nets out the effects of random variance".

What the THT folks will have us believe is that FIP nets out the effects of fielding.



Now they may well be mischaracterizing their own statistic, but this is what they're saying about it.

Tangotiger invented FIP, not THT.

I agree their glossary definiion is imprecise, but perhaps that is to be expected.


FYI: ERA = FIP + FDP + Fielding + luck

FDP is fielding dependent pitching, or the notion that pitchers do have some control over the balls in play they allow (primarily GB/FB)

[mweb]

This is a great point Mweb.

Thanks. Although that point basically goes against the way you've been ranking Bedard.

I'm curious what the big time stat guys think about what I said.

[Sports Guy]

Thanks. Although that point basically goes against the way you've been ranking Bedard.

I'm curious what the big time stat guys think about what I said.

Well, Bedard does have(in "reality") a great K rate and command rate. His HR rate is too high but he has been unlucky and his BABIP is higher than average.

His ERA is very good and he is going into the 7th inning on most nights.

So, looking at those things, even his "real" stats are very good...His "theoretical" stats say that he has actually pitched better than his numbers show and shows that his future should be good.

[Sports Guy]

Johan Santana
C.C. Sabathia
Roy Halladay
John Lackey
Roy Oswalt
Jake Peavy
Brandon Webb
Ben Sheets
Justin Verlander
Chris Young

Those are all pitchers who are 30 and under. There are others 30 and under who might be better, though perhaps not "clearly" better, like Haren, Buehrle, Beckett, Bonderman and Wang.

The question is, how good are these guys in the AL?

BTW, i am not agreeing or disagreeing with this list as i haven't looked at the stats but i would much prefer Bedard over the next 5 years compared to Halladay. Also, he has been better this year as well...Not sure about last year.

I am also not sure if anyone on that list, besides Santana and Peavy, are CLEARLY better than Bedard is right now.

Most of the names have been better than Bedard for a longer period of time though.

[Tony-OH]

I ignored it? Either you can't read or just aren't very bright.

I said that he was league average in 2004..Never did i say he was anything more than that but you can't expect much more than that from a guy one year removed from TJ surgery and in his first full season.

And i said that you had to take the first 2 months of 2005 with a grain of salt because he was inconsistent after that and needed to prove it again.

How that ignores what he did in 2004 and 2005 is beyond me.

CUT OUT YOUR CRAP ROB!!!!! NOW!!! Dave has done nothing but bring an outstanding non-Orioles fan view and has backed up his opinions with stats. I'm getting a little sick and tired of reading through this thread and seeing you tirelessly using derogatory terms while discussing this with him.

I ignore a lot of what you do around here because you've been here a long time, but I'm about to give you a little vacation if you don't cut out this kind of stuff. Either grow up, or you will be taking a vacation from the Hangout.

[Tony-OH]

What is this? A calculus class?

The topic at hand is whether Bedard should be traded to the Dodgers.

For ANYONE to think Bedard can't make a difference to a contending team is utterly ridiculous.

#1, #2, or spectacular #3, the man has proven he can pitch.

The Tigers, Mets, Dodgers, and Angels are all aware that Bedard can get them a WS title.

An astute gm would be contacting these clubs in order to see who could put the best package on the table. He'd also be quite familiar with their prospects.

Given our past history with contract extensions, Bedard's future as an Oriole is clearly in doubt.

I'm with the 'trade Bedard now' crowd here. Assuming (and it's a big assumption) we can sign Wieters, we won't really be competitve until 2009, at the earliest. Hopefully, Erbe and/or Beato will have taken a big step forward by then and Olson or Loewen will have stepped it up as well. If those instances occur, we won't miss Bedard.

Now here's a post that most people can sink their teeth into. Great post...

[mweb]

Well, Bedard does have(in "reality") a great K rate and command rate. His HR rate is too high but he has been unlucky and his BABIP is higher than average.

His ERA is very good and he is going into the 7th inning on most nights.

So, looking at those things, even his "real" stats are very good...His "theoretical" stats say that he has actually pitched better than his numbers show and shows that his future should be good.

Yes his "real" stats are very good, but if those are what we're basing ranking Bedard on, he's not a top 15 pitcher or so, especially if we are considering the past on this. Now his future indicators do show that his "real" stats should improve.

[mweb]

The question is, how good are these guys in the AL?

BTW, i am not agreeing or disagreeing with this list as i haven't looked at the stats but i would much prefer Bedard over the next 5 years compared to Halladay. Also, he has been better this year as well...Not sure about last year.

I am also not sure if anyone on that list, besides Santana and Peavy, are CLEARLY better than Bedard is right now.

Most of the names have been better than Bedard for a longer period of time though.

Unless we're going to take away some of the hr's he's given up because he's been "unlucky", I think there are plenty of guys who have been clearly better than him this year. Plus, when naming the top pitchers in baseball, I think more than half a season should be considered.

[Baltimoron]

Ok, was mixing it up with another one of these stats. However, I still think the placement of the balls is where the difference lies more so than the defense.

BTW, here's something it says on THT about the stat: "Theoretically, this should be a better predicter of a pitcher's future ERA." I think people sometimes forget that these stats are here more to predict the future than they're to evaluate the present.

If a pitcher was "lucky" in only allowing 17 hr's compared to 25 in a given year, well a stat like this one will help you predict an actual decline in performance the next year. However, the pitchers performance in the current year was still allowing 17 hr's. I'm sorry if I'd rather not just add 8 hr's given up to his total when judging how he pitched that year.

One more thing, Bedard is only 10th in FIP in the AL.

The idea is that FIP better demonstrates a pitcher's skill than ERA. FIP is all about now and what the pitcher has done.

The reason it has greater predicitve worth is that it is the pitcher's skill, and not his recent results (which are influenced by a lot more than just the pitcher's skill) that will carry him in the future. In other words, we don't know if he'll continue to be lucky/unlucky/luck neutral, but we can more confidently assess the likely state of his skills.

I am also leary about HR/FB regressing to 10-11%, which is why i don't like xFIP. There is some skill, but its bounded. But I get the idea that Peavy has been lucky this year to only be at 1.8% HR/FB, but don't agree he has not been any better (other than park) than DCab in 07 or Rodrigo last year.

Here's a quote from mgl about pitcher's control over BABIP (he refers to as BIP) which I think also sorta applies to HR/FB:

The bottom line is that there is no "yes" or "no" when it comes to the question of pitchers having control over their BIP. It is like platoon ratios, clutch hitting, stretch pitching, etc. There is "some" control or spread of talent in the population, whatever "some" means. In this case, some means a lot less than K;s, HR's, and BB's. And when you have some but not a lot of control, and again, that "some" probably has some endpoints that are wide apart, that pretty much means that you can ignore differences among players when you have small samples of data (and what constitutes "small?"), you can attach some importance to it with medium-sized samples of data, and you can attach a large importance with large samples of data (which usually means it is too late to use it for any predictive purposes except towards the end of a player's career). If you forget about this idea of little, some, a lot, etc. of skill or spread of skill or control or whatever you want to call it and simply use the right regressions, you are much better off of course. But most lay people don't understand that concept...

[Baltimoron]

Unless we're going to take away some of the hr's he's given up because he's been "unlucky", I think there are plenty of guys who have been clearly better than him this year. Plus, when naming the top pitchers in baseball, I think more than half a season should be considered.

Bedard has been seriously dominating since June of 2006.

I don't get this. EB pwns.

PS: EB's HR/FB in 04-06 7.1, 6.7, 9.0. This year 13.2.
link

A lot of people might say he was "due" for a bad run. He's also obviously walking fewer and striking out more this year, so its not like its an obvious stuff or control issue.

[mweb]

The idea is that FIP better demonstrates a pitcher's skill than ERA. FIP is all about now and what the pitcher has done.

The reason it has greater predicitve worth is that it is the pitcher's skill, and not his recent results (which are influenced by a lot more than just the pitcher's skill) that will carry him in the future. In other words, we don't know if he'll continue to be lucky/unlucky/luck neutral, but we can more confidently assess the likely state of his skills.

I am also leary about HR/FB regressing to 10-11%, which is why i don't like xFIP. There is some skill, but its bounded. But I get the idea that Peavy has been lucky this year to only be at 1.8% HR/FB, but don't agree he has not been any better (other than park) than DCab in 07 or Rodrigo last year.

Here's a quote from mgl about pitcher's control over BABIP (he refers to as BIP) which I think also sorta applies to HR/FB:

Yeah, I agree with much of what you say. I don't really like using xFIP to compare how pitchers are currently doing because like you, I'm leary about HR/FB regressing to 10-11%. I'm not going to say pitcher X is as good as pitcher Y this year by way of taking away 6 hr's from pitcher X while adding 4 hr's to pitcher Y's total.

My problem with using FIP to determine who is best is that it doesn't factor in GB%, FB%, IFB%, and LD%. I also think, like that quote says, that pitcher do have some control over their BABIP. When I say some, I don't mean that much, just to make that clear.

So I think stats like FIP and DIPS are good for predicting future stats, they should not solely be used for determining who is best now. They should be factored in with quite a few other stats, and yes, I would put ERA+ high on that list.

[mweb]

Bedard has been seriously dominating since June of 2006.

I don't get this. EB pwns.

PS: EB's HR/FB in 04-06 7.1, 6.7, 9.0. This year 13.2.
link

A lot of people might say he was "due" for a bad run. He's also obviously walking fewer and striking out more this year, so its not like its an obvious stuff or control issue.

So when comparing pitchers, I guess we should just use the time frame that makes Bedard look the best? Yeah, he's been very good since last June, I'm not denying that. I'm not putting down Bedard by saying he's not among the top 15 pitchers in baseball in my opinion. If we were just to consider what's happened since last June, sure, he'd probably make the top 15, but it makes no sense to use that start date.

And as far as his HR/FB% this year, like I've said, I'm not going to take away hr's that he's given up(I don't think there's that much luck in that) while judging his performance this year. Now, I do think he'll likely bring that % down in the future. And just because his k's are higher and walks are lower doesn't mean he hasn't made more mistakes to guys capable of hitting it over the fence.

[mweb]

BTW, I know people say hitters are also lucky/unlucky with their stats, which has merit, however when evaluating who is having the best season or who is the best player, I don't recall seeing anyone use anything but the stats based on the actual results.

[Baltimoron]

So when comparing pitchers, I guess we should just use the time frame that makes Bedard look the best? Yeah, he's been very good since last June, I'm not denying that.

I responded to this:

Unless we're going to take away some of the hr's he's given up because he's been "unlucky", I think there are plenty of guys who have been clearly better than him this year. Plus, when naming the top pitchers in baseball, I think more than half a season should be considered.

[Baltimoron]

BTW, I know people say hitters are also lucky/unlucky with their stats, which has merit, however when evaluating who is having the best season or who is the best player, I don't recall seeing anyone use anything but the stats based on the actual results.

??? "It can't be right, I've never seen (or heard) of it"

That said, RBIs have value in considering an MVP. The best season/best player presents two different labels which should be assessed differently.