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

[weams]

You're going to need to explain that. That's like claiming the data doesn't account for Aroldis Chapman throwing the ball so hard. Maddux's "ability to make a ball a strike" is absolutely reflected in his strikeout/walk rates, and is ignored inasmuch as it produces balls in play. Ditto the ability for Pedro to throw crazy pitches because of long fingers. All of that is taken into account because it manifests in the production.

All FIP does is isolate the portion of the production that the pitcher most controls, which is what allows it to more accurately predict future performance (because this aspect of production is less likely to be subject to external variables that can vary widely year-to-year).

When you explain it that way, I need to give it more thought before responding. I think we would both agree that pitchers who can throw pitches that go down in the zone with unusual break benefit from having guys behind them who catch and throw well.

[Can_of_corn]

So did you screw up his name to mock him or just because you didn't care enough to look it up and get it right?

[Stotle]

When you explain it that way, I need to give it more thought before responding. I think we would both agree that pitchers who can throw pitches that go down in the zone with unusual break benefit from having guys behind them who catch and throw well.

Absolutely, but only to the extent that the ball is put in play.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

If you put a 30-year-old Jim Palmer in 2015 he would have very different numbers. As would 2015's Scherzer in 1975. And Palmer would have had very different numbers playing in front of a defense that didn't include Brooks, Belanger, Blair, Grich, etc. Much of the credit that belongs to those players' gloves is traditionally assigned to Jim Palmer.

[Frobby]

All FIP does is isolate the portion of the production that the pitcher most controls, which is what allows it to more accurately predict future performance (because this aspect of production is less likely to be subject to external variables that can vary widely year-to-year).

I think this statement is fair enough, but I've bolded the words "most" and "more" because they are important. A pitcher doesn't completely control strikeouts, walks and homers, and doesn't have zero control of the outcomes of batted balls. And while research showed that FIP is a better predictor of future ERA than actual ERA is over a large group of pitchers, that doesn't mean that FIP is a very good predictor of future ERA, particularly for any specific pitcher. I'm sure there are many pitchers for whom actual ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than FIP is. That's why I don't like to get too devoted to FIP or xFIP.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this statement is fair enough, but I've bolded the words "most" and "more" because they are important. A pitcher doesn't completely control strikeouts, walks and homers, and doesn't have zero control of the outcomes of batted balls. And while research showed that FIP is a better predictor of future ERA than actual ERA is over a large group of pitchers, that doesn't mean that FIP is a very good predictor of future ERA, particularly for any specific pitcher. I'm sure there are many pitchers for whom actual ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than FIP is. That's why I don't like to get too devoted to FIP or xFIP.

I don't know this to be true, but I'd guess that FIP or xFIP predicts individual ERAs better than past ERAs among pitchers who change teams.

[Stotle]

I think this statement is fair enough, but I've bolded the words "most" and "more" because they are important. A pitcher doesn't completely control strikeouts, walks and homers, and doesn't have zero control of the outcomes of batted balls. And while research showed that FIP is a better predictor of future ERA than actual ERA is over a large group of pitchers, that doesn't mean that FIP is a very good predictor of future ERA, particularly for any specific pitcher. I'm sure there are many pitchers for whom actual ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than FIP is. That's why I don't like to get too devoted to FIP or xFIP.

I think this might be a slight overstatement. In order for ERA to be a better predictor we need uniformity across the non-FIP variables. So it really only works if the pitcher has such a large impact on batted balls in play that it minimizes the external variables (effective with good and bad defenses alike) or he has a lesser but still more than typical impact on batted balls in play and the external variables remain consistent across the years (e.g. plays with similar defenses behind him).

At least, that is my understanding.

I do agree FIP shouldn't be treated as a panacea -- but I'd think we would generally only want to disregard it when we are given a reason to believe there is a reason for it being unreliable (e.g. an entire staff is outperforming its FIP -- good defense; a particular pitcher routinely registers below-average BABIP -- ability to produce more soft contact as a repeatable skill.

[Can_of_corn]

When you explain it that way, I need to give it more thought before responding. I think we would both agree that pitchers who can throw pitches that go down in the zone with unusual break benefit from having guys behind them who catch and throw well.

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/are-groundball-pitchers-overrated/

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/are-groundball-pitchers-overrated/

Really great article Corn. The only thing I'd like to know is how those 2103 GB rates compare to pre-shift data.

[Beef Supreme]

Not sure I like that analogy. Complete games and shutouts are a function of how the game is played now. Even Palmer would tell you that -- he has made the point during broadcasts many times. So, while I might prefer 1975 Jim Palmer to 2013 Max Scherzer, that wouldn't be my reason.

Not sure I like it much, either. I was trying to say that relying solely on FIP, while ignoring other stats such as WHIP and ERA, is probably going to warp one's perception to the point of making bad analysis.

I know the approach to IPs and CGs has changed. But other pitchers throw CGs and shutouts. Scherzer finally had his first CG of his career last season! That's uncommon for an elite starter.

Further, the game has changed when it comes to batters striking out, which is the foundation of a pitchers value in FIP. If we only consider the changes in pitcher usage while ignoring skyrocketing strikeout rates, we're not being honest with ourselves.

Regardless of the CGs, if we judge the two pitchers by FIP, Scherzer rocks, Palmer rots (exaggerating). This one stat has effectively rewritten history as it has been misused by many authors to claim 'Palmer was the luckiest pitcher in history' and 'doesn't deserve the Hall' type of nonsense. The types of distortions don't help anyone recognize the true value of players.

[Beef Supreme]

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing over half of the fielding outs would be considered ''routine,'' to varying degrees. How could anyone possibly say the pitcher had ''no control'' over these outcomes? We're analyzing in a vacuum if we only use BBs, Ks and HRs while ignoring other outs registered and the quality of the hits allowed.

[Can_of_corn]

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing over half of the fielding outs would be considered ''routine,'' to varying degrees. How could anyone possibly say the pitcher had ''no control'' over these outcomes? We're analyzing in a vacuum if we only use BBs, Ks and HRs while ignoring other outs registered and the quality of the hits allowed.

No one is saying "no control". It is much more in the vein of: The majority of pitchers do not show an ability to consistently influence the quality of contact.

[weams]

No one is saying "no control". It is much more in the vein of: The majority of pitchers do not show an ability to consistently influence the quality of contact.

I believe that. I also believe that guys with big arms were always better than soft tossers.

[Beef Supreme]

No one is saying "no control"

We're mincing words when people are saying the variables are ''largely out of the pitcher's control'' and ''performance based on the variables the pitcher can control.'' There's no meaningful difference. Semantics aside, the way FIP measures success is to assume the pitcher has no control over outs not generated by strikeout. And I believe this is untrue and short-sighted.

[Frobby]

No one is saying "no control". It is much more in the vein of: The majority of pitchers do not show an ability to consistently influence the quality of contact.

Based on what analysis? I am waiting for the day -- not far off, in my opinion -- when someone comes up with a flavor of FIP that factors in how hard the ball was hit using hit f/x data or something similar. That's going to be very educational on both sides of the FIP debate.