Fangraphs: The Orioles Don't Care About Our Expectations

[awannabegeek]

I am kind of old fashioned and don't pay attention to these modern stats. I watch just about every game and use the eyeball test. I catell is a hitter is hitting the ball hard but having bad luck and so on. I know what obp is. Somebody tell me why I need to pay attention to these modern stats? I would really like to know

There is nothing wrong with the eyeball test, but it is susceptible to bias. The real value of sabermetrics (IMO) is the predictive value. For example its easy to see what Steve Pearce is doing and think "hey he must have improved" when it could be a case where he's just having a string of good fortune. Delve deep enough into the numbers and there might be a narrative there that the raw numbers don't tell.

Note: I actually haven't looked into Pearce's advamced metrics...

As in all sciences, it shouldn't be taken as gospel, but it is the best we have currently. Ten years from now we'll probably look back and say "we jad no idea what we were talking about".

[Phantom]

There is nothing wrong with the eyeball test, but it is susceptible to bias. The real value of sabermetrics (IMO) is the predictive value. For example its easy to see what Steve Pearce is doing and think "hey he must have improved" when it could be a case where he's just having a string of good fortune. Delve deep enough into the numbers and there might be a narrative there that the raw numbers don't tell.

Note: I actually haven't looked into Pearce's advamced metrics...

Steve Pearce has a higher WAR than Nelson Cruz, so you're not wrong...

[malkusm]

Does "stranding baserunners" incorporate/consider things like turning double plays and preventing baserunners from taking extra bases (e.g., Joseph's ability to hold down opponents' running games, or batters not turning singles into doubles thanks to good arms in the OF)? If so, isn't that, in a way, a product of the defense, as opposed to some kind of intangible ability to "strand" people on the bases?

It seems that they would concede that they don't fully know the answer to that by virtue of providing something called "FDP-Wins" (Fielding-Dependent Pitching) which is simply BIP WAR + LOB WAR. In other words, handling balls in play and leaving runners on base are both acknowledged as being fielding-dependent (and thus, inter-related).

Looking at the Orioles:

2010: -1.0 FDP (16th)

2011: -5.4 FDP (27th)

----

2012: +4.6 FDP (8th)

2013: +3.6 FDP (6th)

2014: +5.8 FDP (3rd)

I think we can assume that they are outperforming to some extent, but to assume that they will regress all the way to zero here is probably not a good assumption.

[SilentJames]

I don't put an insane amount of stock in FIP, but when someone is really beating that number then there is usually a reason for it. The question then becomes, what is the reason?

Is it a likely unsustainable luck factor and this pitcher is doomed to come crashing down eventually?

Is this pitcher backed by a fantastic defense and would likely be "worse" if not for the collection of players around him?

Is this pitcher Mark Buehrle?

FIP is a fine stat to use as a starting point for player evaluation and analysis.

[Frobby]

I don't put an insane amount of stock in FIP, but when someone is really beating that number then there is usually a reason for it. The question then becomes, what is the reason?

Is it a likely unsustainable luck factor and this pitcher is doomed to come crashing down eventually?

Is this pitcher backed by a fantastic defense and would likely be "worse" if not for the collection of players around him?

Is this pitcher Mark Buehrle?

FIP is a fine stat to use as a starting point for player evaluation and analysis.

I think of FIP as being more of an indicator or warning sign, rather than a statistic to be used in isolation to evaluate a pitcher. If I see a pitcher whose ERA was 4.00 but his FIP was 3.50 or below and typically has been in that range, I'll at least appreciate the possibility that he is likely to do better the next season. Conversely, if his FIP was and usually is 4.50 or above, I'll probably consider that he is likely to do worse than 4.00 the next year. But, you do have to consider whether there are reasons that underlie the differential other than "luck" or "random variation."

[DrungoHazewood]

I think of FIP as being more of an indicator or warning sign, rather than a statistic to be used in isolation to evaluate a pitcher. If I see a pitcher whose ERA was 4.00 but his FIP was 3.50 or below and typically has been in that range, I'll at least appreciate the possibility that he is likely to do better the next season. Conversely, if his FIP was and usually is 4.50 or above, I'll probably consider that he is likely to do worse than 4.00 the next year. But, you do have to consider whether there are reasons that underlie the differential other than "luck" or "random variation."

FIP is just another way to frame a pitcher's performance. ERA, often used as an individual statistic, assumes that the pitcher is in control of everything that causes his team to allow X.XX runs per nine innings while he's on the mound. FIP just says that we know BB, K, HRs are much more the responsibility of the pitcher than of others, so how does he do in that area?

If there are significant differences between the two that should just trigger you go figure out why. Was the defense great? Was the guy subject to a ton of balls that fell in that year? Was his HR/FB rate abnormally low? If Miguel Gonzalez has a 2.90-something ERA that should immediately set off some alarm bells, and trigger you to go look at other information. Players who bounced around the minors for years then have a very good ERA despite stuff and peripherials that aren't great don't usually keep that great ERA. Any time a number doesn't match the narrative you should be going out to figure out why, whether that's because his FIP is far different from his ERA, or because his ERA doesn't match his prior record, or whatever.

[hoosiers]

I think it's primarily due to its (relatively) high correlation with future performance. However, it's worth noting that the reasons for this correlation are (as far I as know) not well understood. It's not supposed to tell you how a pitcher is performing right here and now. ERA does that, but ERA also is very context dependent, which makes it a bad predictor of future performance (parks, defense, etc.)

I am a numbers guy (former CPA) and I just don't believe in FIP. I can accept that it might be considered correlated in judging future performance, but I don't believe that a pitcher has little to do with outcomes other than what it measures. Maybe hidden in FIPs simplicity is an assumption of an average defense.

While I understand the difference in the statistics and the difference in correlation, I can see that a pitcher with a high WHIP should have a higher ERA.

I guess the bottom line for me is that (acknowledging FIP may be a decent predictor of future performance), I am not a believer that the inputs for FIP are an appropriate basis to reach its conclusions.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess the bottom line for me is that (acknowledging FIP may be a decent predictor of future performance), I am not a believer that the inputs for FIP are an appropriate basis to reach its conclusions.

The question FIP asks is "among the parts of a pitcher's record, how does this guy do on the stuff he really has a lot of individual control over?"

And I'd say walks, strikeouts, and homers is a pretty good place to start.

If you don't believe that, then you really must be skeptical of ERA. ERA is fed by any number of components and assumptions that have little or nothing to do with how that individual pitched. ERA is really a team stat disguised as an individual stat.

[El Gordo]

You're 100% right. Dave Cameron, the life blood of FanGraphs (and Felix Hernandez advisor) should really brush up on his statistics.

It's almost like hitters have more control over where the ball goes off the bat. Imagine that.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Are some pitchers able to get more in play outs as a skill? Probably, but let's not outliers ruin the whole statistic set.

I think it's mostly a myth. I doubt that a pitcher (or a statistically significant amount of pitchers) can confuse hitters enough to miss their barrels, but not enough to miss the bat entirely. Generally, if you are keeping hitters off balance, even with slower stuff, it will show in Ks. These pitchers also tend to lower their walk and HR rates, which are counted in FIP.

A pitcher with a K/9 of 9 is only getting 6 outs by SO in the average 6 IP start. The rest of the 18 outs come on BIP. Unless they're Kershaw they must be living a myth. Giving FIP that much value is to ignore 2/3 or more of most pitchers' games, simply because they can't determine how much control he has over those outs. To say he has no control, in order to make FIP more significant, is foolish :rolleyestf:

[BohKnowsBmore]

The question FIP asks is "among the parts of a pitcher's record, how does this guy do on the stuff he really has a lot of individual control over?"

And I'd say walks, strikeouts, and homers is a pretty good place to start.

If you don't believe that, then you really must be skeptical of ERA. ERA is fed by any number of components and assumptions that have little or nothing to do with how that individual pitched. ERA is really a team stat disguised as an individual stat.

Big difference, though, is that one works from the direction of runs scored on the field, the actual result, while one is using individual components of scoring (or lack of scoring). Analogizing them to this degree is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

Big difference, though, is that one works from the direction of runs scored on the field, the actual result, while one is using individual components of scoring (or lack of scoring). Analogizing them to this degree is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

That's fine, if your goal is to catalog how many runs scored against your team. It's not nearly as good if you're using it to tell you how the pitcher for that team pitched.

It's been so ingrained in our minds that ERA is a measure of an individual pitcher that it's very difficult to step back and internalize that much of what is thought of as pitching is, in fact, defense or park or luck or weather or something else.

[BohKnowsBmore]

That's fine, if your goal is to catalog how many runs scored against your team. It's not nearly as good if you're using it to tell you how the pitcher for that team pitched.

It's been so ingrained in our minds that ERA is a measure of an individual pitcher that it's very difficult to step back and internalize that much of what is thought of as pitching is, in fact, defense or park or luck or weather or something else.

I wasn't speaking to the use of either measure individually. For the record, I like FIP and believe it is a great question asker and point of reference. I also think ERA is a flawed yet useful tool. One problem I have is that the further one gets from what actually occurred on the field, with all of the unexplainable nuances, into the world of what should have happened or would

Have happened in a controlled environment, I think the analysis loses some level of merit.

Again, I like both and they are both useful tools.

That all being said as far the quoted, I was making the point that not liking one does not mean you cannot like the other. If he's comfortable with ERA, he's not automatically misguided. They're not created the same way. They do not really come from the same direction.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

One problem I have is that the further one gets from what actually occurred on the field, with all of the unexplainable nuances, into the world of what should have happened or would Have happened in a controlled environment, I think the analysis loses some level of merit.

We're not getting away from what happened, we're trying to figure out why. If you've convinced yourself that what happened is a controlled environment then you've started off on the wrong foot. There are nearly infinite outcomes from each set of starting conditions. No one was predestined for a certain number of earned runs. If you don't ask the why, if you don't isolate the defense from the park from the pitcher, then you're doomed to say that Kevin Brown and Steve Stone were the same pitcher, since they had the same ERA for the Orioles. Or BJ Ryan and Mike Mussina. Or Mike Flanagan, TJ McFarland, and Ben McDonald.

[BohKnowsBmore]

We're not getting away from what happened, we're trying to figure out why. If you've convinced yourself that what happened is a controlled environment then you've started off on the wrong foot. There are nearly infinite outcomes from each set of starting conditions. No one was predestined for a certain number of earned runs. If you don't ask the why, if you don't isolate the defense from the park from the pitcher, then you're doomed to say that Kevin Brown and Steve Stone were the same pitcher, since they had the same ERA for the Orioles. Or BJ Ryan and Mike Mussina. Or Mike Flanagan, TJ McFarland, and Ben McDonald.

I literally said in my post that one of the best things about FIP is the questions that it gives us regarding the pitchers performance on the field. I also said the opposite of ERA being a controlled environment, simply that it's the facts of what happened on the field on total, with minor adjustment.

My original comment was solely that hesitation regarding FIP doesn't make that other poster some sort of hypocrite regarding his comfort with ERA. I feel that you're looking for a debate that was not really there to be had.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hoosiers]

The question FIP asks is "among the parts of a pitcher's record, how does this guy do on the stuff he really has a lot of individual control over?"

And I'd say walks, strikeouts, and homers is a pretty good place to start.

I don't think that is a good place to start. I disagree with the concept that those are the outcomes that a pitcher "has control over".