Could Chen graduate from "good pitcher" to "ace?"

[waroriole]

They're tools. You use them correctly, you keep things in context, and they can help you. If you use your hammer to try to fix your plate glass window, you'll probably have some issues.

ERA assumes that all defenses are the same. All parks are the same. All opponents are the same. All weather is the same. All times of the year are the same. ERA doesn't care if you're facing Daniel Cabrera as a batter, or Miguel Cabrera. But we're used to those flaws, we deal with them.

I get that, I just don't see xFIP as a very useful tool. I think it can tell you what kind of pitcher a guy is, but I can look at K rate, HR/FB rate etc. and get the same picture. When I hear people say someone is "outpitching their peripherals, and they are referring to a fielding independent ERA, it just annoys the bejesus out of me. That's my pet peeve though.

If someone is looking at other things, like BABIP, Stranded rate, LD%, GB/FB ratio etc., I think they make a more convincing case.

[waroriole]

rWAR utilizes BIS/Total Zone data to account for specific defensive contributions/subtractions. The next step up would be UZR or DRS data. I think SIERA is probably a sufficient DIPS approach.

That would explain why Baseball Reference is light years ahead of Fangraphs when it comes to evaluating P.

[CA-ORIOLE]

That would explain why Baseball Reference is light years ahead of Fangraphs when it comes to evaluating P.

I like their approach better for SP's, but both approaches are valuable imo.

[waroriole]

I like their approach better for SP's, but both approaches are valuable imo.

I just don't see what FIP, or xFIP tells you that K:BB, or HR/FB% doesn't. I think it's pretty far down on the list of useful information.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I just don't see what FIP, or xFIP tells you that K:BB, or HR/FB% doesn't. I think it's pretty far down on the list of useful information.

It just puts the peripherals into an easy to understand and relatable format. It's a descriptive stat based on the analysis of their value in ERA format. If you didn't have FIP/xFIP/SIERA, then how would you relate their value?

[Redskins Rick]

It just puts the peripherals into an easy to understand and relatable format. It's a descriptive stat based on the analysis of their value in ERA format. If you didn't have FIP/xFIP/SIERA, then how would you relate their value?

By the W-L column, of course, that's old school.

[waroriole]

It just puts the peripherals into an easy to understand and relatable format. It's a descriptive stat based on the analysis of their value in ERA format. If you didn't have FIP/xFIP/SIERA, then how would you relate their value?

I don't think it needs to be put into an ERA format. People should be able to look at K:BB and HR/FB% and make judgments based solely on those numbers. I think, if anything, it misleads people.

[DrungoHazewood]

It just puts the peripherals into an easy to understand and relatable format. It's a descriptive stat based on the analysis of their value in ERA format. If you didn't have FIP/xFIP/SIERA, then how would you relate their value?

Eyeballing it. Eyeballing has the advantage of taking any two reasonably similar players and making a case for the one you like better.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't think it needs to be put into an ERA format. People should be able to look at K:BB and HR/FB% and make judgments based solely on those numbers. I think, if anything, it misleads people.

Well, you're capable of doing that and I'm not trying to hard sell you on DIPS theory. Translating the underlying peripherals into a common value and relatable statistic is the very basis of DIPS theory. Otherwise, everybody just has their own opinion of what the underlying peripherals are worth or not worth.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Eyeballing it. Eyeballing has the advantage of taking any two reasonably similar players and making a case for the one you like better.

Let's be nice. Waroriole is a good guy and even I have issues with this one myself.

[DrungoHazewood]

Let's be nice. Waroriole is a good guy and even I have issues with this one myself.

Not specifically digging him, but I have a real problem with the idea that it's better to take a bunch of metrics and subjectively evaluate them than to carefully put them all on a common baseline and combine them in a systematic way. It's the anti-WAR argument, which often boils down to not liking some component.

[waroriole]

Eyeballing it. Eyeballing has the advantage of taking any two reasonably similar players and making a case for the one you like better.

I don't know why you're playing dumb here, or trying to paint me as being dumb. Where would you rank FIP and the like in terms of usefulness? I don't think they're very useful and I explained why.

If two guys are reasonably similar, doesn't it come down to who is the better fit for a team. If they're similar, then is a full season of data going to separate the two?

[Hallas]

Not specifically digging him, but I have a real problem with the idea that it's better to take a bunch of metrics and subjectively evaluate them than to carefully put them all on a common baseline and combine them in a systematic way. It's the anti-WAR argument, which often boils down to not liking some component.

It sounds like waroriole isn't so much against the B-R version of WAR, because it does all the things you say (put stats on a common baseline and combine them in a systematic way) but it does so in a way that he agrees with more, at least with regard to pitchers. The validity of a stat is always going to be subjective, albeit with objective supporting data points.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It sounds like waroriole isn't so much against the B-R version of WAR, because it does all the things you say (put stats on a common baseline and combine them in a systematic way) but it does so in a way that he agrees with more, at least with regard to pitchers. The validity of a stat is always going to be subjective, albeit with objective supporting data points.

Yeah, I think we get that he doesn't like DIPS theory, I'm just confused about his objection with seeing it in a common/relatable format (whether he agrees with it or not) and that everybody should just make up their own mind about what the underlying peripherals mean (which anybody can do as they want).

Don't like the system fine, but there's nothing wrong with the format/presentation. It does what it's supposed to do.

[waroriole]

It sounds like waroriole isn't so much against the B-R version of WAR, because it does all the things you say (put stats on a common baseline and combine them in a systematic way) but it does so in a way that he agrees with more, at least with regard to pitchers. The validity of a stat is always going to be subjective, albeit with objective supporting data points.

Yeah, I think we get that he doesn't like DIPS theory, I'm just confused about his objection with seeing it in a common/relatable format (whether he agrees with it or not) and that everybody should just make up their own mind about what the underlying peripherals mean (which anybody can do as they want).

Don't like the system fine, but there's nothing wrong with the format/presentation. It does what it's supposed to do.

I'm not against any WAR except fWAR for P, due to my previously stated disdain for FIP.

My problem with displaying it in ERA format is that I think it gives off the impression that this is what "a P ERA should be." I think some people take it that way, and you see arguments that "Arrieta's FIP is X, so it's just a matter of time before his ERA is X." I think there are plenty of guys who over and under perform their FIP, so when I see it put in that manner (which I know is my personal pet peeve) it aggravates the crap out of me. I understand the reasoning for putting it in ERA format (tidy little number), but I think that causes it to try to be something it's not.