Buck: "part of developing pitching is having guys who can defend"

[DrungoHazewood]

No. Pitching to your defensive strengths is a skill. Yes, the Kershaws of the world are helped by a better defensive team behind them, but to a lesser degree. A strong defense, at learning to pitch to that strength, narrows the gap between the Kershaws and the Chens. Chen will never be Kershaw, but the way he pitches with the Orioles' defense behind him makes Chen a formidable pitcher. I agree with Buck on this.

It probably is a skill. But how much of a differentiator is it among major league pitchers? I think the best available information indicates it's a small part of a MLB pitcher's overall skill set. Obviously it's more important to (relatively) low-K pitchers. Even there it's probably a few points of batting average.

[DrungoHazewood]

As you've seen, I already backed off my "garbage" description. I think the larger point here is that pitchers who try to strike everybody out may lose movement and location at the expense of velocity, and may be too intent on trying to make the perfect borderline pitch rather than throwing a pitch that will put them ahead in the count and trusting that the defense will catch the ball if it's hit. There is a line between feeling like you have to strike everybody out and "pitching to contact," and effective pitchers learn where that line is. The quality of the defense, at the extreme ends, probably affects where you draw the line if you're a pitcher.

I think that successful MLB pitchers quickly figure out that trying to throw every pitch through the backstop isn't even the best way to get strikeouts.

[Beef Supreme]

Why do you think this? Couldn't you just as easily and truthfully say that ERA overvalues good defense, by assigning credit to pitchers for things that are largely out of their control?

I could.

But that doesn't in any way relate to my comment about FIP

[Number5]

I'm not a big fan of FIP and the like, BUT I thought it's main advantage is its predictive power (along with k/9, etc.)? I thought one of the main ideas was to give you an idea of how Chen et al. would perform on a team with an average defense or in a year where the pitcher was not lucky or unlucky in terms of balls being hit to defenders, etc. I know some of the bloggers and web sites use it to predict performance on the same team/same defense and that's what a lot of O's fans find irritating, but I don't think that's what it's really supposed to do. Is my interpretation of its utility on or off?

Yes. The F and the I stand for "fielding independent. FIP is an individual measure, not a team measure. That is the flaw in these team projections that use FIP as the basis for ERA prediction. When projecting for a team, the fielding is not an independent variable. The defense is predictable. Therefore, a good defensive team should be projected to have an ERA that is better than the pitchers' FIPs would suggest, and a worse ERA for a weak defensive team.

[weams]

I'm not a big fan of FIP and the like, BUT I thought it's main advantage is its predictive power (along with k/9, etc.)? I thought one of the main ideas was to give you an idea of how Chen et al. would perform on a team with an average defense or in a year where the pitcher was not lucky or unlucky in terms of balls being hit to defenders, etc. I know some of the bloggers and web sites use it to predict performance on the same team/same defense and that's what a lot of O's fans find irritating, but I don't think that's what it's really supposed to do. Is my interpretation of its utility on or off?

I do think it is predictive. As are many of the metrics.

[Stotle]

I found this comment by Buck fascinating. He was talking about bringing in good defenders like Paul Janish instead of more offensive-minded players. He gave Mike Wright as an example of a guy who was trying to strike everyone out last year because his defense was bad, and having better success when he stopped trying to dial it up to max velocity. And then he said "part of developing pitchers is having guys who can defend."

I think that's a revolutionary statement that supports those of us who think FIP and xFIP are garbage. Buck WANTS his young pitchers to LEARN to trust the fielders before they even reach the majors. He believes that pitchers shouldn't be trying to strike everybody out. Get good fielders and teach your pitchers to USE THEM!

That approach hasn't been in fashion since Moneyball popularized Vorys von Cracken's theory, but Earl Weaver believed it, Buck believes it, and therefore I believe it. I spent my childhood watching that work for the Orioles, and it's working fir them now. Let people belittle our pitching staff because FIP or xFIP says their ERA's are propped up by the defense. The point is, they're being trained to let the defenders do their job, and they're doing it well. And Buck wants the younger guys to learn to do the same thing.

http://m.masn.mobi/school-of-roch/2015/02/showalter-on-wieters-janish-facility-improvements-and-more.html

I think the point is slightly more nuanced. I don't know that he's saying using your defense is preferable to striking people out. I think the crux of the matter is young arms need to be comfortable working on the entirety of their game without fear that the production side (ERA, hits, etc.) is going to prevent them from being advanced.

In other words, you can't effectively develop a pitcher who isn't able to pitch without reservation. I can't say this with certainty, but I believe Buck would prefer the strikeout pitcher to the ball-in-play pitcher, all things equal.

[DrungoHazewood]

I could.

But that doesn't in any way relate to my comment about FIP

My issue is that, in general, people dismiss FIP or xFIP and then immediately fall back on other equally flawed, or more flawed metrics like ERA. "We'll just keep using bad methods until we find a new method that's almost perfect."

[Beef Supreme]

Why do you think this? Couldn't you just as easily and truthfully say that ERA overvalues good defense, by assigning credit to pitchers for things that are largely out of their control?

However, I disagree with notion that "things are largely out of (pitchers) control" just because the batter did not strikeout. What is the percentage of fair infield popups caught? 99.89%. I think pitchers are much more in control creating that kind of out than are fielders and that they should get most of the credit. I would say the same thing about other types of outs created, though to varying degrees.

[weams]

My issue is that, in general, people dismiss FIP or xFIP and then immediately fall back on other equally flawed, or more flawed metrics like ERA. "We'll just keep using bad methods until we find a new method that's almost perfect."

I admit that I fall back on ERA as a bellwether.

[weams]

I think the point is slightly more nuanced. I don't know that he's saying using your defense is preferable to striking people out. I think the crux of the matter is young arms need to be comfortable working on the entirety of their game without fear that the production side (ERA, hits, etc.) is going to prevent them from being advanced.

In other words, you can't effectively develop a pitcher who isn't able to pitch without reservation. I can't say this with certainty, but I believe Buck would prefer the strikeout pitcher to the ball-in-play pitcher, all things equal.

I believe that Buck likes strikeouts. I believe he knows we will never pay for them. We would need to grow them.

[Number5]

My issue is that, in general, people dismiss FIP or xFIP and then immediately fall back on other equally flawed, or more flawed metrics like ERA. "We'll just keep using bad methods until we find a new method that's almost perfect."

In my mind, it would make sense to use FIP and adjust it to the defense of the team the pitcher is playing on. To ignore the team's defense makes these projections obviously faulty. The proof is in the pudding. For example, the Orioles pitching consistently outperforms the projections, and for very obvious reasons. To leave the projection models unchanged simply makes no sense. To claim that sense it evens out over the entire league, so it is OK, is ridiculous, IMO. Of course you will have some teams outperform the projections due to having a good defense and some teams underperform their projections due to a weak defnse. How is that a good thing? What is it that you are trying to do, have it all average out, or actually have reasonable projections for all the teams?

[Frobby]

However, I disagree with notion that "things are largely out of (pitchers) control" just because the batter did not strikeout. What is the percentage of fair infield popups caught? 99.89%. I think pitchers are much more in control creating that kind of out than are fielders and that they should get most of the credit. I would say the same thing about other types of outs created, though to varying degrees.

I think quality of contact is very difficult to measure, and some of it is under the control of the pitcher and some of it isn't. But frankly, the same is true of strikeouts -- Felix Hernandez isn't going to strike out Nick Markakis as frequently as he strikes out Mark Reynolds. Therefore, I find FIP and xFIP to be useful stats to consider, but I don't think they actually measure what they theoretically attempt to measure.

[Stotle]

I believe that Buck likes strikeouts. I believe he knows we will never pay for them. We would need to grow them.

I 100% believe that.

[SteveA]

Maybe you think it's revolutionary because you think FIP and xFIP are garbage. Of course it's better to develop pitchers when they have a support system around them that includes a great defense. There's a gigantic difference between benefiting from a strong defense and intentionally trying to pitch to contact. Yes, Chen and Norris and Tillman look better with a great defense behind them. But so would Kershaw and Felix.

But Kershaw and Felix wouldn't see as MUCH improvement with a good defense behind them because not as many balls would be in play.

So improving the defense can in fact narrow the difference between a staff of Verlanders and a staff of Chen's. And can probably be done alot more cheaply than going out and paying for high K pitchers.

[Beef Supreme]

My issue is that, in general, people dismiss FIP or xFIP and then immediately fall back on other equally flawed, or more flawed metrics like ERA. "We'll just keep using bad methods until we find a new method that's almost perfect."

My comment did not dismiss FIP. Nor was I comparing it to ERA or any other metric.

But since you brought it up, though ERA is flawed, I think FIP is as flawed or more flawed than ERA. Just because FIP is newer doesn't make it better. To make an analogy, FIP is putting blinders on a race horse: maybe helpful to the horse while on the course, but would mean death for the horse in the wild.

For example, I would choose to have 1975 Jim Palmer, with his 2.96 FIP, 5.24 K/9, 25 complete games and 10 shutouts with a 2.09 ERA, on my squad over 2013 Max Scherzer, with his 2.74 FIP, 10.9 K/9 and zero complete games with a 2.90 ERA. With Scherzer, he and the team are much more reliant on the bullpen to secure a win. I'd take Palmer; FIP declares Scherzer more valuable.