Steve Trachsel Traded

[davearm]

But, but, but...

if you multiply everything like Dave says to do...

you end up with a pitcher with 240 Ks, 0 BBs, and 0 HRs allowed in 240 IP. Yep, that guy will certainly be charged with 150 runs.

Meanwhile FIP tells us that guy will give up ZERO earned runs all season (despite allowing 1.6 hits per IP).

Now you tell me which number strikes you as more laughable: 150 or zero.

[davearm]

Sounds to me like policy debates involving statistical lives. lol.

You're not going to convince Dave to change his position. He's pretty much decided on this point. For him...

...a walk that does not lead to a run is a fact that is incontrovertible. In other words, a walk may be related to a run hypothetically, but until that run crosses the plate it is irrelevant. In his eye, I think, a pitcher can control the number of walks (or other base-runners) who cross the plate.

Am I wrong, Dave?

You're just against constructing hypothetical runs when you have actual runs at your disposal?

I don't agree with him. But I can't see you changing his mind.

This is basically it.

Why do we need to guesstimate how many runs a guy might allow, given a whole slew of assumptions, when we already know how many he *did* allow?

And once again, I know there are flaws in ERA. But throwing out runs altogether is not the answer, IMO. As I've illustrated, that method's severely flawed, too.

[Hallas]

Meanwhile FIP tells us that guy will give up ZERO earned runs all season (despite allowing 1.6 hits per IP).

Now you tell me which number strikes you as more laughable: 150 or zero.

Incorrect. The 240 Ks accounts for only 1/3 of the total outs he generates while pitching 240 innings. FIP projects runs allowed based on the balls in play assuming a league-average defense. A rough back-of-napkin calculation says he would allow 206 hits on the balls in play. I'm fairly certain that FIP would say that he'd allow more than 0 runs during those innings pitched based on the projected hits total.

[Hallas]

This is basically it.

Why do we need to guesstimate how many runs a guy might allow, given a whole slew of assumptions, when we already know how many he *did* allow?

And once again, I know there are flaws in ERA. But throwing out runs altogether is not the answer, IMO. As I've illustrated, that method's severely flawed, too.

You're making the assumption that the number of runs and hits allowed by a pitcher is an accurate reflection of both past and future performance. Hits and earned runs don't account for gift doubles on balls lost in the sun. They don't account for swinging bunts that score a runner from 3rd. They don't account for bad hops on Fenway's horrendous infield.

Meanwhile, we know that a pitcher has near absolute control over the number of strikeouts he racks up. He has quite a bit of control over the number of walks he allows. He has some (not a ton, but a significant amount) of control over how many home runs he allows. We also know that striking out a lot of batters is beneficial to a pitcher's performance, while walking batters and allowing a lot of HRs is bad.

So it would make sense to judge a pitcher's skill over aspects of the game he has direct control over, rather than aspects where his influence is much smaller.

Maybe if you weren't tied to the concept that it's "fixing" regular ERA it would make more sense for you to believe in it. Don't use it to guess how many runs he'll allow - just use the numbers to rank the pitchers and ignore the "runs" thing completely.

[Mashed Potatoes]

This is basically it.

Why do we need to guesstimate how many runs a guy might allow, given a whole slew of assumptions, when we already know how many he *did* allow?

But isn't the whole point that it's not just him who is responsible for the runs allowed.

How exactly does FIP deal with runners left on base after a pitcher leaves? No one can argue that a pitcher has no control over how his bullpen performs. For the sake of example lets say that players A and B pitch identically all season.

-Pitcher A has the worst bullpen in the league. 80% of his runners LOB score. He finishes with a 4.50 ERA.

-Pitcher B has the best bullpen in the league. 30% of his runners LOB score. He finishes with a 3.50 ERA.

But what if we took the league average for % of runners LOB who score and apply that to the pitcher and he finishes with a 4.00 ERA (does FIP do this?).

Isn't this a situation where the hypothetical numbers are a more valuable tool for analyzing past performance than the real numbers? If you accept this and FIP actually does what I say, then the crux of your argument is shot. Furthermore, these hypothetical numbers are developed based on the real numbers year to year, they're not conjured up out of nowhere.

[davearm]

Get a clue about what you're talking about before making posts like this.

According to FIP ERA this pitcher would end up with a 1.20 ERA.

Now what's more laughable?

A guy with 240 Ks, 0 BBs, 0 HRs and 1.20 ERA?

OR

A guy with 240 Ks, 0 BBs, 0 HRs and a 5.63 ERA?

Bob (1.12 ERA in 1968) Gibson and Pedro (1.74 ERA in an almost extreme hitter's era) Martinez are definitive examples that a 1.20 ERA is within the realm of possiblities.

I've got all of my clues, thank you very much.

FIP = (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2)

Source: Hardball Time Glossary

Thus in our hypothetical, we get:

FIP = (0*13+(0+0)*3-240*2)/150 + 3.2

FIP = 0.00

FIP says, zero earned runs in 150 IP.

A simple, "you were right, and I was wrong" will suffice, 1970.

Of course if you really want to be honest about the situation, you'd affix "again" to the end there.

[davearm]

Incorrect. The 240 Ks accounts for only 1/3 of the total outs he generates while pitching 240 innings. FIP projects runs allowed based on the balls in play assuming a league-average defense. A rough back-of-napkin calculation says he would allow 206 hits on the balls in play. I'm fairly certain that FIP would say that he'd allow more than 0 runs during those innings pitched based on the projected hits total.

Well regardless of what you're fairly certain about, you're wrong. See the above post.

[davearm]

But isn't the whole point that it's not just him who is responsible for the runs allowed.

How exactly does FIP deals with runners left on base after a pitcher leaves? No one can argue that a pitcher has no control over how his bullpen performs. For the sake of example lets say that players A and B pitch identically all season.

-Pitcher A has the worst bullpen in the league. 80% of his runners LOB score. He finishes with a 4.50 ERA.

-Pitcher B has the best bullpen in the league. 30% of his runners LOB score. He finishes with a 3.50 ERA.

But what if we took the league average for % of runners LOB who score and apply that to the pitcher and he finishes with a 4.00 ERA (does FIP do this?).

Isn't this a situation where the hypothetical numbers are a more valuable tool for analyzing past performance than the real numbers? If you accept this and FIP actually does what I say, then the crux of your argument is shot. Furthermore, these hypothetical numbers are developed based on the real numbers year to year, they're not conjured up out of nowhere.

As I've already stated, ideally we would apply some adjustments to ER to account for these vagaries.

But to throw out runs allowed entirely because they're not perfect is to overcorrect significantly.

So even absent those ER adjustments, ERA is still the lesser of two evils, IMO.

[davearm]

You're making the assumption that the number of runs and hits allowed by a pitcher is an accurate reflection of both past and future performance. Hits and earned runs don't account for gift doubles on balls lost in the sun. They don't account for swinging bunts that score a runner from 3rd. They don't account for bad hops on Fenway's horrendous infield.

Meanwhile, we know that a pitcher has near absolute control over the number of strikeouts he racks up. He has quite a bit of control over the number of walks he allows. He has some (not a ton, but a significant amount) of control over how many home runs he allows. We also know that striking out a lot of batters is beneficial to a pitcher's performance, while walking batters and allowing a lot of HRs is bad.

So it would make sense to judge a pitcher's skill over aspects of the game he has direct control over, rather than aspects where his influence is much smaller.

Maybe if you weren't tied to the concept that it's "fixing" regular ERA it would make more sense for you to believe in it. Don't use it to guess how many runs he'll allow - just use the numbers to rank the pitchers and ignore the "runs" thing completely.

I've said right from the beginning that various peripherals are better predictors of future performance than ERA.

We're dealing with how best to assess past performance here. In that regard, placing zero weight on runs allowed is asinine. What I want my pitcher to do, above all else, is limit runs. So, no, I'm not likely to "ignore the runs thing completely". That'd be absurd.

[Sports Guy]

HAs Dave addressed the posts Witchy or I made?

The ones where he said Trax had no value, that Moore was good enough to be part of a package for Bedard or straight up for a valuable reliever?

What about the idea that he jumped on me for not wanting to trade Walker for Moore because i felt we could get more?

[Mashed Potatoes]

As I've already stated, ideally we would apply some adjustments to ER to account for these vagaries.

But to throw out runs allowed entirely because they're not perfect is to overcorrect significantly.

So even absent those ER adjustments, ERA is still the lesser of two evils, IMO.

I guess Lucky Jim already identified the uncrossable divide here but I'm enjoying the discussion and would like to keep it going.

I'm not sure if you really addressed the example I made up and the thesis of my post. Do you agree that hypothetical numbers can be more useful than "real" numbers in analyzing past performance? If not could you talk about your beef with my specific example?

I put real in quotation marks because this is all a game, and our statistics are used to measure particular facets of the game. Runs that actually cross the plate are the most important stat in terms of which team wins and which team loses in an individual game. However I do not believe that it is the most important measure for how a pitcher performs over an individual game or the course of the season.

IMO you're mistake (and ERAs mistake) is taking a statistic geared towards team wins and losses and attempting to adjust it to individual performance. (This may be the heart of many sabermatricians beef, an overemphasis on runs that cross the plate for measuring a single ballplayer. Future hangout article by me???).

You admit that ERA is flawed because, "The pitcher isn't solely responsible for the number of runs he allows." Yet your own intuitive stat begins with this flawed base. If ERA is flawed than so is earned runs, as ERA is simply an average of the former.

I personally don't mind throwing out earned runs altogether because that is what we use to see who wins ballgames, not what we use to measure individual performance.

[Mashed Potatoes]

What I want my pitcher to do, above all else, is limit runs. So, no, I'm not likely to "ignore the runs thing completely". That'd be absurd.

What I want my pitcher to do is everything in his power to limit runs. However, if runs cross the plate due to a teammate's fault I will not penalize my pitcher for that. You will.

[davearm]

Actually, we're both wrong.

I mistakenly ran the formula with 240 IP, not 150. For that I apologize.

Now, however, go back to your original post. You said 1 BB, which would be 30 BB in your hypothetical - which gives him a 0.60 FIP ERA. Which is exactly in the middle of where we each ended up.

Either way, your line of thinking is still skewed because there is almost no way that a pitcher will have 240 Ks, 30 BBs, and 0 HRAs in 150 IP.

But, and this is a big but, if a pitcher ever did post numbers like those he is much, much more likely to post an ERA in the vicinity of 0.60 than he is to post an ERA in the vicinity of 9.00.

At least come up with a realistic possibility.

The bottom line is that you'll never convince me that I'm wrong (because I'm not), and I'll never convince you that you're wrong (even though you are).

The bottom, bottom line is that the truth actually lies somewhere in between our arguments.

Correction noted.

It is curious, however, that in one breath you're crowing "I'm right and you're wrong," yet in the next breath your common sense and objectivity returns, and you concede that "the truth actually lies somewhere in between our arguments." That would suggest that either we're both wrong, or we're both partly right.

[davearm]

What I want my pitcher to do is everything in his power to limit runs. However, if runs cross the plate due to a teammate's fault I will not penalize my pitcher for that. You will.

We want the same thing.

We just differ on how we measure how successful a pitcher has been in doing everything in his power to limit runs.

My position is that my method has flaws, but yours has even bigger flaws.

[davearm]

I know exactly where you're coming from when you say this, but I don't necessarily agree with you. No, R is not part of the formula, but the purpose of the formula is to essentially tell us what R should be.

And what I'm saying is that if we want to grasp what R should have been, then let's start with what R actually was, and make some adjustments to it until we get back something we're satisfied is sufficiently normalized for things like defense, league, etc.

Then multiply by 9 and divide by IP, and we've got our normalized ERA.

As I'm sure you know, the difference between FIP and xFIP is that xFIP adjusts HRs from what they were to what they should have been under "normal" conditions.

I'm saying, find a way to do the same thing to ERA: adjust runs from what they were to what they should have been under "normal" conditions to get xERA.