Rob Neyer: What Do You Believe About Baseball That You Can Not Prove

[Phantom]

I believe that in ten years people will mock the "advanced" defensive metrics that are publicly available today, which will be shown to have serious inadequacies.

I think they will simply be seen as steps in the right direction, but eclipsed...sort of like VORP or even OPS is seen today. When your alternatives were :shudder: fielding percentage, I will never mock something that tried to replcae it.

[weams]

Pitchers CAN Prevent Hits on Balls in Play.

[DrungoHazewood]

Pitchers CAN Prevent Hits on Balls in Play.

Almost no one disagrees with that. It's just that the spread in talent among MLB pitchers is smaller than the combined effects of defense, luck, park, weather, etc. The most BABIP-suppressing pitchers of all time did so to the tune of maybe 0.015 points of batting average.

[Phantom]

Almost no one disagrees with that. It's just that the spread in talent among MLB pitchers is smaller than the combined effects of defense, luck, park, weather, etc. The most BABIP-suppressing pitchers of all time did so to the tune of maybe 0.015 points of batting average.

Exactly. They can, it just usually doesn't matter statistically that they can, and they certainly can't to the point that 90% of fans think they can.

[Number5]

Didn't Maddux throw 90 mph with pinpoint control, an excellent assortment of pitches, was a keen student of the game, and had extremely good durability? All while throwing to the very small modern strike zone, with the aid of the Braves Annex (i.e. he got strikes called on pitches six inches outside at knee level). Oh, and he threw about 6 2/3rd innings per start, and in a non-DH league.

I think it would be interesting to see Maddux pitch to lineups full of Del Maxvills with a strike zone extending to the shoulders. I'm quite sure he could have thrown 300 innings to a 1.50 like clockwork.

Comparing players from different eras is problematic, especially if they played under different rules.

You are taking the position that pitchers of today would fare much better if they played with the rules of bygone days which included a larger strike zone, yet seem to be saying that hitters of the past would fare no better if they played with today's smaller strike zone. For all we know, Dal Maxvill's particular weakness at the plate may have been the inability to hit the high hard one, which in today's game can be safely taken for a ball. Just maybe he would put up a .375 OBP playing with today's rules. If the book on him at the time was to feed him a steady diet of fastballs at the shoulders, that's what he would have seen until he proved he could catch up to that pitch. I would guess that there were some pitchers from the past that would have loved to have the low end of the strike zone be at the bottom of the knee, rather than the top of the knee.

Today's game seems to favor pitchers that live downstairs, and hitters that like the low pitch. In previous times, the rules favored pitchers that pitched upstairs more so than today's rules do, and favored hitters that hit the high ball with authority on a regular basis. The bottom line is that finding the holes in batters swings has always been the goal of pitchers and pitching coaches. That continues today.

I just don't agree that such comparisons are as easy as you make them out to be, and I certainly don't see a truly objective way to make such a comparison. All we can really do for certain is measure how players of different eras compared to their contemporaries.

[MarylandAaron]

Pitchers CAN Prevent Hits on Balls in Play.

Agree with this. I don't think Miguel Gonzalez is getting lucky.

[Can_of_corn]

Agree with this. I don't think Miguel Gonzalez is getting lucky.

Was Hellickson?

[MarylandAaron]

Was Hellickson?

I'm not sure, but I remember he used to be really tough to face. Just looked up his stats and saw his numbers really inflated the past two years. I don't think that means he was getting lucky beforehand. There are even some sabermetrically-inclined pitchers who take a nosedive, Lincecum for example.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not sure, but I remember he used to be really tough to face. Just looked up his stats and saw his numbers really inflated the past two years. I don't think that means he was getting lucky beforehand. There are even some sabermetrically-inclined pitchers who take a nosedive, Lincecum for example.

I used him as an example for a reason. Below is his BABIP chart. After his first three seasons some folks thought his BABIP was sustainable.

Now here is Miguel's

Which pitcher appeared more capable of inducing weak contact in his first three seasons?

[MarylandAaron]

I used him as an example for a reason. Below is his BABIP chart. After his first three seasons some folks thought his BABIP was sustainable.

Now here is Miguel's

Which pitcher appeared more capable of inducing weak contact in his first three seasons?

I can't see the graphs you posted, but I just checked out the stats:

Hellickson:

2011: .223 BABIP, 2.95 ERA, 4.72 xFIP

2012: .261 BABIP, 3.10 ERA, 4.44 xFIP

2013: .307 BABIP, 5.17 ERA, 4.15 xFIP

2014: .321 BABIP, 4.52 ERA, 4.13 xFIP

Gonzalez:

2012: .260 BABIP, 3.25 ERA, 4.63 xFIP

2013: .260 BABIP, 3.78 ERA, 4.31 xFIP

2014: .273 BABIP, 3.23 ERA, 4.46 xFIP

So Gonzalez's three seasons in the big leagues have been pretty comparable to Hellickson's 2011-12. Low BABIP, low ERA, higher xFIP.

Now, it is definitely a possibility that Gonzalez's BABIP could spike next year, and we would see an elevation in ERA. However, I think it's far from a guarantee that will happen, since he has kept his BABIP at around the same level the past three years. And even if it does happen, it could be because he is pitching worse, not just because his luck ran out. Plus, it's not like he's putting up .210 BABIP's or anything. A jump from .273 to a more league average .300 wouldn't be that huge of a difference.

[Can_of_corn]

Helly was also under league average in 2010, which I point out to show that I was comparing three year samples.

Hey it is very possible that Miguel can keep it going, just don't expect it.

As I said about Johnson, regression is a mother.

[DrungoHazewood]

Comparing players from different eras is problematic, especially if they played under different rules.

You are taking the position that pitchers of today would fare much better if they played with the rules of bygone days which included a larger strike zone, yet seem to be saying that hitters of the past would fare no better if they played with today's smaller strike zone. For all we know, Dal Maxvill's particular weakness at the plate may have been the inability to hit the high hard one, which in today's game can be safely taken for a ball. Just maybe he would put up a .375 OBP playing with today's rules. If the book on him at the time was to feed him a steady diet of fastballs at the shoulders, that's what he would have seen until he proved he could catch up to that pitch. I would guess that there were some pitchers from the past that would have loved to have the low end of the strike zone be at the bottom of the knee, rather than the top of the knee.

Today's game seems to favor pitchers that live downstairs, and hitters that like the low pitch. In previous times, the rules favored pitchers that pitched upstairs more so than today's rules do, and favored hitters that hit the high ball with authority on a regular basis. The bottom line is that finding the holes in batters swings has always been the goal of pitchers and pitching coaches. That continues today.

I just don't agree that such comparisons are as easy as you make them out to be, and I certainly don't see a truly objective way to make such a comparison. All we can really do for certain is measure how players of different eras compared to their contemporaries.

Differences in the game would probably have had varying effects on different types of players. No disagreement. For example, a very strong, physically fit player like Honus Wagner may have kept more of his value in today's game than a very small player like Willie Keeler or John McGraw. But I think there are some generalities that would apply to most cases. Everyone would have trouble adjusting to all max-effort pitchers if they were used to starters pacing themselves to go however long a game might last.