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

[Frobby]

Not necessary to quote all of the above, but I work as a professional statistician/data analyst so it's not necessary to explain R-squared. I apologize if anything I said came off as "ridiculous and condescending" as that wasn't my intent.

Every theory is flawed, and always will be, since luck is a variable that cannot be controlled for. Nowhere did I state that FIP wasn't an improvement over ERA; for what it is trying to accomplish, it certainly is. That doesn't preclude us from saying that we can do better. But, much like the problems with evaluating defense, there are a lot of variables and a lot of data is needed. That's why even saber guys suggest taking several seasons of UZR into consideration before making a judgment on a player's defense. Similarly, it might take several seasons for a pitcher to show that they have some skill that isn't adequately captured by FIP or other metrics available; that skill may only be meaningful when combined with other factors, such as good infield defense, leading analysts who are looking at league-wide data to form the conclusion that the effect of such a skill has a negligible impact.

When you look at things like this:

Batted Ball Type: xBABIP, wOBAcon, % of batted balls

Groundball ? Weak: .151, .112, 31.4%

Groundball ? Medium: .461, .416, 9.5%

Groundball ? Well-Hit: .647, .610, 3.8%

Line Drive ? Weak: .622, .579, 2.3%

Line Drive ? Medium: .650, .638, 7.3%

Line Drive ? Well-Hit: .719, .815, 11.1%

Flyball ? Weak: .078, .074, 18.5%

Flyball ? Medium: .069, .081, 8.2%

Flyball ? Well-Hit: .641, 1.168, 7.8%

It's hard for me to stand behind the theoretical underpinnings of FIP, that a pitcher controls 100% of HR, BB, and K rate and 0% of everything else. Maybe those numbers should be 90% and 25% or something like that. I don't personally have the time to run the analysis, but I believe that it's coming, from the people who do, and that it might already be developed by a few teams who are using it to exploit small, yet meaningful, market inefficiencies in the pitching market. It's hard for me to stand behind the results of FIP as a pure projection tool when you have cases like Jim Palmer whose actual results outperformed FIP's expectation for 17 consecutive seasons.

The point is not to bash FIP because, as I said, it IS better than ERA. It's a model, and models necessarily use simplifying assumptions to approximate reality. I'm just saying that a better model is probably possible, and I'm not going to be surprised when it becomes established.

First of all, where do you find this data? That's the first time I've seen breakdowns of weak, medium and well-hit.

Second of all, is there really a stat called wOBAcon? Because that's what I say when I look at a breakfast menu!

[CA-ORIOLE]

Second of all, is there really a stat called wOBAcon? Because that's what I say when I look at a breakfast menu!

FIP now bacon. Lotta hate going on there Frobby.

[malkusm]

First of all, where do you find this data? That's the first time I've seen breakdowns of weak, medium and well-hit.

Second of all, is there really a stat called wOBAcon? Because that's what I say when I look at a breakfast menu!

Pulled this from here, it's apparently Inside Edge data: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/taking-hitter-analysis-to-another-level/

He explained wOBAcon but I agree, I also thought about bacon.

[video=youtube;0k4JS4M-DHs]

[Beef Supreme]

Check out Hughes' BB/9 last year and you'll know why he's at #6.

Oh yeah, I knew the minute I saw him that his exceptional BB/9 in 2014 was much of the reason for his high ranking. I was surprised mostly because of the elite company he is keeping. I remember how tight his curve looked to me in 2009 but my perception of his ability fell since then. Good for him -- he cashed in after a great year.

[Beef Supreme]

First, I want to retract my usage of the word ''flawed'' in regards to FIP. I was repeating the phrasing of Drungo who had originally used the word in regards to ERA. FIP isn't ''flawed.'' It is what it is--an attempt to strip the random variation to predict future ERA (I'm pretty sure this is going to be re-worded by some thoughtful posters but that's my understanding for now). FIP is an excellent predictor of future FIP!

I also misspoke when I said that ERA is flawed. It is not. ERA is a simple ratio that measures past performance.

I ask your opinion about my thought that career ERA is a better predictor of future ERA than the previous year's FIP or career FIP. If that is true, at how many innings does it seem reasonable that career ERA outperforms previous year's FIP as a predictor of the upcoming year's ERA?