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

[weams]

And you really think he was being literal? Or are you just trying to defend a losing position?

As Drungo already stated there are stats that show that some pitchers can reliably suppress BABIP. I find it extremely hard to believe that Keri doesn't know that.

It was cold. He was in Canada. Who knows what he meant.

[Beef Supreme]

And you really think he was being literal? Or are you just trying to defend a losing position?

As Drungo already stated there are stats that show that some pitchers can reliably suppress BABIP. I find it extremely hard to believe that Keri doesn't know that.

He wrote it. Interpret it as you wish.

I understand you are trying to demean me with the comment about defending a losing position, but what position are you claiming I am losing?

''No one is saying it's pure luck''? I showed your claim to be incorrect. And it's not just Keri who says it. This is the sentiment of many.

Or that the foundation of the FIP formula doesn't follow that same line of thinking? All we need to do is look at the formula to see that there is no losing position I am defending. The formula is what it is, as they say. FIP throws out all other outcomes on the premise that BABIP is nothing but luck.

[Can_of_corn]

He wrote it. Interpret it as you wish.

I understand you are trying to demean me with the comment about defending a losing position, but what position are you claiming I am losing?

''No one is saying it's pure luck''? I showed your claim to be incorrect. And it's not just Keri who says it. This is the sentiment of many.

Or that the foundation of the FIP formula doesn't follow that same line of thinking? All we need to do is look at the formula to see that there is no losing position I am defending. The formula is what it is, as they say. FIP throws out all other outcomes on the premise that BABIP is nothing but luck.

Sigh, just because I say your position is a losing one does not mean I am trying to demean you. Geez folks are so sensitive these days.

So you think that when deciding on if a pitcher is good, anyone with any common sense looks solely at FIP? Of course they don't.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating myself, but it is a tool.

You, for whatever reason, are reading way too much into one tool.

FIP does a very limited thing.

Are you saying it is better to not know what FIP tells us? That somehow this knowledge is bad?

[weams]

He wrote it. Interpret it as you wish.

I understand you are trying to demean me with the comment about defending a losing position, but what position are you claiming I am losing?

''No one is saying it's pure luck''? I showed your claim to be incorrect. And it's not just Keri who says it. This is the sentiment of many.

Or that the foundation of the FIP formula doesn't follow that same line of thinking? All we need to do is look at the formula to see that there is no losing position I am defending. The formula is what it is, as they say. FIP throws out all other outcomes on the premise that BABIP is nothing but luck.

I think what others may be saying is that FIP does not tell you who is a good pitcher. Or a successful pitcher. Just one who suppresses walks and home runs. And strikes many people out. It is you and I who take that leap of faith to say those are desirable things for our pitchers.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I think what others may be saying is that FIP does not tell you who is a good pitcher. Or a successful pitcher. Just one who suppresses walks and home runs. And strikes many people out. It is you and I who take that leap of faith to say those are desirable things for our pitchers.

But isn't this implied (rather than inferred) when it is used as the backbone of an argument as to who is or isn't a good pitcher. It is certainly a valuable data point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

But isn't this implied (rather than inferred) when it is used as the backbone of an argument as to who is or isn't a good pitcher. It is certainly a valuable data point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can absolutely agree.

[Beef Supreme]

Sigh, just because I say your position is a losing one does not mean I am trying to demean you. Geez folks are so sensitive these days.

So you think that when deciding on if a pitcher is good, anyone with any common sense looks solely at FIP? Of course they don't.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating myself, but it is a tool.

You, for whatever reason, are reading way too much into one tool.

FIP does a very limited thing.

Are you saying it is better to not know what FIP tells us? That somehow this knowledge is bad?

No and no. If you check post #71, you will see that I say, ''I'm also on board with it being of some use.''

[Can_of_corn]

[/b]

No and no. If you check post #71, you will see that I say, ''I'm also on board with it being of some use.''

Then what is the problem? That you think some folks put too much weight in what FIP tells us?

That isn't any more valid then when I get my knickers in a twist over someone talking about pitching wins.

I strongly disagree with them but I should probably just keep my mouth shut about it.

[Beef Supreme]

I think what others may be saying is that FIP does not tell you who is a good pitcher. Or a successful pitcher. Just one who suppresses walks and home runs. And strikes many people out. It is you and I who take that leap of faith to say those are desirable things for our pitchers.

Very, very desirable!

There are many exceptionally talented pitchers topping the FIP leaderboard. A little surprised to see Phil Hughes so high (#6).

[CA-ORIOLE]

If someone wants to show me some data that suggests there are pitchers with a consistent ability to induce soft contact or significantly lower BABIP I'm all ears. But everything I've seen says the most extreme BABIP-limiting pitchers of all time cut maybe .010 or .015 points off their BABIP over a long career. Yes, there's an ability there. And that ability might mean a few tenths of a run a game in the extreme cases.

I'd be curious for one of the FIP haters to address this question myself.

[Beef Supreme]

Then what is the problem? That you think some folks put too much weight in what FIP tells us?

That isn't any more valid then when I get my knickers in a twist over someone talking about pitching wins.

I strongly disagree with them but I should probably just keep my mouth shut about it.

The most controversial thing I have said is that I agree with Buck that strong defense is good. I don't have my knickers in a twist about FIP. But I shouldn't be expected to keep my mouth shut when some people are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor intended.

[weams]

The most controversial thing I have said is that I agree with Buck that strong defense is good. I don't have my knickers in a twist about FIP. But I shouldn't be expected to keep my mouth shut when some people are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor intended.

When you go anti stats around here, expect that some very learned folks will ask you to defend. And that they will not take a half baked defense. I know. Glad to have your take on some issues. New blood always stirs long term debates with no idea that they have.

[Can_of_corn]

The most controversial thing I have said is that I agree with Buck that strong defense is good. I don't have my knickers in a twist about FIP. But I shouldn't be expected to keep my mouth shut when some people are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor intended.

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.

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.

Saying that a strong defense is good is in no way controversial. Saying that FIP is as or more flawed then ERA and saying that pitchers have more control then fielders over outs are controversial, and in my opinion, incorrect. Your specific mention of pop ups excepted.

[Can_of_corn]

When you go anti stats around here, expect that some very learned folks will ask you to defend. And that they will not take a half baked defense. I know. Glad to have your take on some issues. New blood always stirs long term debates with no idea that they have.

You see what happened to Steve Melewski when he decided to take a random shot at stat guys today?

I would think he wouldn't decide to tick off a sizable portion of his audience.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The most controversial thing I have said is that I agree with Buck that strong defense is good. I don't have my knickers in a twist about FIP. But I shouldn't be expected to keep my mouth shut when some people are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor intended.

Probably digging too much into semantics here. There is a difference between "pure luck" and pretty compelling evidence of randomness. The statistical beat FIP outliars are interesting but aren't that compelling imo. If ERA beats FIP because of a defensive contribution then FIP has done its job. If its other reasons then, yes, by all means lets explore them. Most Orioles starters were actually more valuable by FIP based WAR (fWAR) then ERA based war (rWAR) last year after rWAR was done extracting the defense, more exact Park Factor considerations, and BP leverage performance with respect to inherited runners.

Do I believe Buck and the Orioles organization have found ways to leverage "less valuable" (i.e. lower K rate pitch-to-contact) pitchers to integrate with the defense and organizational shifts strategies? Yes. That said, I don't think that takes away from the value if FIP/DIPS theory. Also, COC referenced a pretty good study on DIPS that is pretty compelling as to why FIP has held up as well as it does despite attempts at more exact profiles.