2011-12 MLB Offseason Thread: Tigers are really stupid

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No more so than Sabathia.

CC doesnt get the credit he deserves. He has been too good too long.

I have no problems with Verlander as I would have had no problems with CC. They both anchored pretty ordinary pitching staffs and neither team makes the playoffs without them.

EDIT
Well maybe the Tigers still do who knows. Didnt realize they took the division by 15 games. After Verlander though until Fister came over they couldnt get a decent start from anyone else.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why?

At the risk of opening Pandora's Box, I'll give this a shot.

Led league in: Wins, ERA, Ks, WHIP, BAA, OPSA, IP

Threw a no-hitter, nearly threw others. 16-3 after a Tiger loss. Just dominant since April.

It would take a very, very special season to beat that. CC was great, not that special.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

At the risk of opening Pandora's Box, I'll give this a shot.

Led league in: Wins, ERA, Ks, WHIP, BAA, OPSA, IP

Threw a no-hitter, nearly threw others. 16-3 after a Tiger loss. Just dominant since April.

It would take a very, very special season to beat that. CC was great, not that special.

This.

I was too lazy (and working right now believe it or not) to look up all the stats to do a comparison.

CC is a good pitcher, but even as a Yanks fan I can tell you that he is not the pitcher that Verlander is. I rarely saw Verlander have bad innings, while it seemed with CC there was always an inning or two per game where he looked shaky.

*shurg*

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

At the risk of opening Pandora's Box, I'll give this a shot.

Led league in: Wins, ERA, Ks, WHIP, BAA, OPSA, IP

Threw a no-hitter, nearly threw others. 16-3 after a Tiger loss. Just dominant since April.

It would take a very, very special season to beat that. CC was great, not that special.

Addressing these:

- Don't give a shit about pitcher wins, since that's a team stat, not an individual one
- Verlander's K rate was only slightly higher than C.C.'s: 8.96/9 IP vs. 8.72
- WHIP, BAA and OPSA are heavily influenced by the fielding of his teammates

The no-hitter was nice, but those (again) are influenced heavily by team defense.

In the categories of what a pitcher has direct control over, Verlander was slightly better in K rate and walk rate, while C.C. was better at inducing groundballs (which is generally better for a pitcher), which is why their respective xFIP measures are so close (in fact, Sabathia was slightly better).

You want the biggest difference between the two this past year?

Verlander BABIP: .234
Sabathia BABIP: .318

If you're truly looking at which guy pitched "better" last year, i.e. removing as much as possible what their teammates did to help or hurt their numbers, they were essentially even.

Like I said, I have no issues with Verlander winning since it was basically a toss-up. But the idea that he was clearly more "dominant" than Sabathia is simply not supported by the stats that measure what an individual pitcher has control over.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Eh, you asked why Verlander deserved it more not why Verlander "was clearly more dominant". He beat Sabathia in nearly every category (whether heavily, partially, or minimally influenced by his teammates). He pitched more innings.

Does the fact that CC induced more groundballs matter if Verlander's flyballs were outs? I understand that perhaps Verlander's BABIP is unsustainable, but he sustained it for the entire season which the award is for - can you hold that against him? You say WHIP is influenced by defense - how much? To what degree should differences in WHIP be discounted? Do you believe that a pitcher has any control over their BABIP? To what degree? The reason I ask these questions is that we don't know the answer to these questions. People have theories and come up with ways to minimize error, but none are perfect. While I acknowledge your points, I don't acknowledge the certainty with which you discard things.

Are we asking who is the better pitcher? Who will be better next year? Or who had the better 2011 season?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Addressing these:

- Don't give a shit about pitcher wins, since that's a team stat, not an individual one
- Verlander's K rate was only slightly higher than C.C.'s: 8.96/9 IP vs. 8.72
- WHIP, BAA and OPSA are heavily influenced by the fielding of his teammates

The no-hitter was nice, but those (again) are influenced heavily by team defense.

Yes how a pitcher actually pitches is irrelevant in respect to his stats.

[jbergey22]

In other news

Sides close to Major League Baseball labor deal, sources say - ESPN

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I've learned to not get too worked up about award votes.

Change happens slowly, but it is happening. Felix winning the Cy Young for 2010 wouldn't have happened even five years prior IMO, but the relentless continuing education of the baseball fanbase combined with the natural progression of time and a younger generation far more open and accepting of modern baseball stats means voting in another 10 years will likely look a lot more at things like xFIP (and related metrics) and thus calculations like WAR.

Well, you beat me to it. To say they're moronic neanderthals is hyperbole at this point. Hyperbole, but not completely without merit. However, would Felix Hernandez's 2010 and Zack Greinke's 2009 win them Cy Young a decade ago? A generation ago? There have been strides made

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

In other news

Sides close to Major League Baseball labor deal, sources say - ESPN

Mostly good news. I'm curious how the draft slotting changes

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Mostly good news. I'm curious how the draft slotting changes

SI

It would be great if it meant a global draft.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Yes how a pitcher actually pitches is irrelevant in respect to his stats.

The key here Mr. "Rolls-Eyes" is "how a pitcher actually pitches". Whether a pitcher gets credit for the win is about more than just the pitcher; how many hits a pitcher gives up is about more than just the pitcher. The advanced stats we're citing are all about just that - pinpointing the things a pitcher does that he has control over (K's, walks, groundball percentage). Sorry you don't understand baseball stats beyond a very basic level.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Eh, you asked why Verlander deserved it more not why Verlander "was clearly more dominant". He beat Sabathia in nearly every category (whether heavily, partially, or minimally influenced by his teammates). He pitched more innings.

There are three primary categories where pitchers have direct control over outcomes - strikeouts, walks, groundball percentage. Here's how they compared:

K Rate:
Verlander - 8.96
Sabathia - 8.72

BB Rate:
Verlander - 2.04
Sabathia - 2.31

GB %
Verlander - 40.2%
Sabathia - 46.6%

So I guess it depends on how you define "dominant" for a pitcher.

Does the fact that CC induced more groundballs matter if Verlander's flyballs were outs? I understand that perhaps Verlander's BABIP is unsustainable, but he sustained it for the entire season which the award is for - can you hold that against him? You say WHIP is influenced by defense - how much? To what degree should differences in WHIP be discounted? Do you believe that a pitcher has any control over their BABIP? To what degree? The reason I ask these questions is that we don't know the answer to these questions. People have theories and come up with ways to minimize error, but none are perfect. While I acknowledge your points, I don't acknowledge the certainty with which you discard things.

Fair enough. We don't know for sure what percentage defense plays in ball in play outcomes, but the numbers seem to be clear about it. While we can't really know for sure individual defensive ability strictly from the numbers (though we're getting better), team defense is another matter.

I've seen enough evidence on the variability in BABIP to think that major deviations from the norm I feel fully comfortable in judging as some combination of luck/superior team defense.

Are we asking who is the better pitcher? Who will be better next year? Or who had the better 2011 season?

Again, I guess it all depends on your own definitions of these measures. To me, the pitcher that had the best season is the guy that did the best in the categories he has control over - the rest is luck and your surrounding cast.

And I must remind people that I have no issue with Verlander winning - he was a very deserving candidate, and I probably would have voted for him too. I just think it's silly to say he was clearly deserving over Sabathia - they were really a toss-up.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It would be great if it meant a global draft.

I think it would be awful and ultimately DR would break like PR and we'd see many fewer Latin players ultimately.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It would be great if it meant a global draft.

I don't think we're going to get that. But we'll get some modified form of slotting that will actually hurt some of the small market teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City who have been overspending their larger market brethren in the draft. I didn't think I'd be saying that a few years ago

SI

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The key here Mr. "Rolls-Eyes" is "how a pitcher actually pitches". Whether a pitcher gets credit for the win is about more than just the pitcher; how many hits a pitcher gives up is about more than just the pitcher. The advanced stats we're citing are all about just that - pinpointing the things a pitcher does that he has control over (K's, walks, groundball percentage). Sorry you don't understand baseball stats beyond a very basic level.

I appreciate that you jump to conclusions in regards to my perceived "baseball knowledge". Apparently we have met and you know me. No? Ok then.

I actually have a very solid understanding of baseball stats. It isn't that I find them useless or that I don't understand them. I really prefer the eye test over pages of stats that have so many variables that my head wants to explode. Is a pitchers wins, ground ball percentage, and k/9 (amongst others) related to his teammates performance? Of course. But at what point can we just look at a pitchers basic numbers and how he performed as an individual and determine that he deserves a Cy Young? Clearly the choice wasn't always perfect in the past and it probably never will be. Adding more metrics to the process does very little as far as value, since you could argue that each of those metrics is also related to the team as a whole as well. I watched a lot of Verlander this year and a lot of Sabathia, and I have no doubt that Verlander was the better pitcher on a consistent basis. So whether we include every stat that is possibly related to his performance or include noting but wins and strikeouts, Verlander still deserved to win.

[jbergey22]

Not taking a side in this battle because both sides have valid points but

Wins---

While a team has a lot of influence on the stat so does the pitcher. In order to get wins you need to hold the other teams runs below your teams and pitch deep into the game so your BP doesnt get a chance to blow your win.

I feel the win has gone from being far too important in peoples eyes to not important enough.

Verlander earned 24 wins this year by leading both leagues in innings pitched and pitching great in them innings. I dont think wins can be completely ignored when putting the whole body of work together. He took the bullpen out of the game a lot of times by being able to keep himself in the game. Once its in the hands of the bullpen things can get ugly in a hurry.

Thats all.

[RomaGoth]

I just want to add that I can understand the other side of this argument as well. I just believe that people are overthinking these things sometimes. Obviously CC is a good pitcher, I just view Verlander as being better.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Not taking a side in this battle because both sides have valid points but

Wins---

While a team has a lot of influence on the stat so does the pitcher. In order to get wins you need to hold the other teams runs below your teams and pitch deep into the game so your BP doesnt get a chance to blow your win.

I feel the win has gone from being far too important in peoples eyes to not important enough.

Verlander earned 24 wins this year by leading both leagues in innings pitched and pitching great in them innings. I dont think wins can be completely ignored when putting the whole body of work together.

Thats all.

But we're focused on how well the pitcher pitched, and there are a ton of scenarios where a pitcher pitches poorly or lucks into a win or gets a no-decision simply by the timing of when his offense scores the go-ahead runs. On balance, there are plenty of ways to measure the effectiveness of a pitcher without bringing the W/L record into play.

Case in point is Verlander - I think if you look at 2-3 of his last 10 or so starts, he didn't pitch all that well and was let off the hook when he gave up like 4 runs in 6 or 7 innings, left losing, and his team happened to tie or take the lead that next half-inning. What does that measure about Verlander? What if the offense never scored another run, or they waited until the 9th to take the lead? And what if that happens 4 or 5 times during a year? With the same exact underlying stats, Verlander could go from 24-5 to 20-10. And the problem is, there are people who would look at that difference and infer something about Verlander's relative performance because of it.

So yeah, I'd err on the side of wins meaning nothing rather than anything at all.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So yeah, I'd err on the side of wins meaning nothing rather than anything at all.

The team results will influence yes.

But so many times a pitcher is pitching decent but getting his pitch count up that he has to be taken out in the 6th inning allowing the bullpen to screw up his win or not being in the game long enough to collect a win.

A couple years ago all I heard about was how unlucky Francisco Liriano was. Well if he wouldnt get his pitch count at 100 in the 5th inning he could stick around and collect some wins. He is a frikin nutcase on the mound. The stats made him look good a couple years ago while Twins fans just want to see him traded.


Part of the reason Verlander was able to collect 24 wins this year was that he was able to stick around in games even when he may not have had his greatest stuff.

Bullpens seem to blow wins for pitchers so many times that I think a pitcher deserves some credit when he can help control that part of the problem.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The team results will influence yes.

But so many times a pitcher is pitching decent but getting his pitch count up that he has to be taken out in the 6th inning allowing the bullpen to screw up his win or not being in the game long enough to collect a win.

A couple years ago all I heard about was how unlucky Francisco Liriano was. Well if he wouldnt get his pitch count at 100 in the 5th inning he could stick around and collect some wins. He is a frikin nutcase on the mound.

Part of the reason Verlander was able to collect 24 wins this year was that he was able to stick around in games even when he may not have had his greatest stuff.

Bullpens seem to blow wins for pitchers so many times that I think a pitcher deserves some credit when he can help control that part of the problem.

And that's taken into account when looking at innings pitched. Most SABR people I read place great emphasis on total innings pitched, and where you have a 40-50 inning difference between 2 guys, the pitcher who pitched more innings gets the nod, even if the peripherals are slightly worse than the other pitcher. Again, what that has to do with wins, I don't know.

Who would you rather have?

20-4, 2.60 ERA, in 178 innings

or

18-13, 3.25 ERA, in 245 innings

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Who would you rather have?

20-4, 2.60 ERA, in 178 innings

or

18-13, 3.25 ERA, in 245 innings

Id have to know more about their situation.

SABR people dont give much credit to that "warrior" mentality Verlander had this year.

Would you rather have a pitcher give you 5 1/3 innings 1 ER or 8 innings and 2ER in todays game where virtually every team has a shitty pen? Which pitcher do you think will end up with more wins assuming league average runs scored and league average bullpen?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

.

Would you rather have a pitcher give you 5 innings 1 ER or 8 innings and 2ER in todays game where virtually every team has a shitty pen? Which pitcher do you think will end up with more wins assuming league average runs scored and league average bullpen?

Impossible to say - how many wins did Felix Hernandez NOT get a couple of years ago pitching 7 or more innings and giving up less than 2 runs? That's the whole point - without the context of the team and defense, those stats mean nothing when trying to figure wins. Which is why wins are pretty much useless, other than as a familiar stat to look at (which I still enjoy, BTW).

But I think you're dead wrong - any reasonable SABR-minded person would take the guy who pitches 8 quality innings every day of the week over a guy who only gets 15 outs. Verlander's "warrior mentality" is rewarded - it's just not couched in a subjective narrative form that has no basis in reality. It's the argument for Jack Morris "pitching to the score," which has been proven to be false and yet it is still offered as an argument for him as a HoFer, because it fits the narrative of what we want to see/believe, not because it's true.

[ISiddiqui]

I tend to also think that WAR has become too important to some SABR types (I am a SABR member, so that's not a pejorative). I remember when a lot of stat minded folk were saying that it is dangerous to focus on one statistical measure to the detriment of others and it seems as if WAR as become too much like a Theory of Everything rather than a good statistical measure to use.

In addition, you have great differences between people who measure WAR - where the Fangraphs and Baseball-reference measures are far, far different.

Anyways, in saying that, when comparing Verlander and Sabathia, one should also, IMO, look at their ERA+ (btw, when did that fall out of vogue for pitcher evaluation?) which is 170 to 147 and WHIP (0.920 to 1.226) and Innings Pitched (251 to 237.1) in addition to the other statistics when making a determination. I think looking at all of them in conjunction would seem to make this far easier for Verlander than some are making it out to be.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

dawgfan,

I actually agree with you quite a bit and myself am SABR-inclined, I just find arguing against Verlander to be a bit pedantic because of how great his season was, SABR or traditionally.

One serious question though - how do you reconcile your belief that Verlander was helped over CC by team defense (through BABIP, WHIP, etc) when the Yankees outpaced the Tigers considerably in both UZR and UZR/150 this season?

[sterlingice]

It was getting tiring how much the extreme hardcore stats crowd on RR was just dogging on Verlander at the end of the season. Again, I'd like to think I know my way around baseball stats enough to make an argument. But you'd think he was some mediocre pitcher from the way places like that and Fangraphs were just digging on him in every article.

SI

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Impossible to say - how many wins did Felix Hernandez NOT get a couple of years ago pitching 7 or more innings and giving up less than 2 runs?

I disagree here. Its not impossible to say. Giving what I had given you the pitcher going 8 innings is going to win far more games. And well Felix didnt play on a league average offense.

I guess I agree that wins arent that important when comparing a bunch of 12-16 game winners with similar peripherals but when someone comes out and leads the league in wins, innings pitched, while being 3rd in MLB ERA I feel the wins are worth looking at.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

And well Felix didnt play on a league average offense.

And if you can show me where this is reflected in his pitching stats as a measure of how well he pitched, I'd appreciate it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It was getting tiring how much the extreme hardcore stats crowd on RR was just dogging on Verlander at the end of the season. Again, I'd like to think I know my way around baseball stats enough to make an argument. But you'd think he was some mediocre pitcher from the way places like that and Fangraphs were just digging on him in every article.

SI

It is what hardcore stat guys seem to get off on. They try to prove the most ridiculous positions, and mock any that don't agree with them. There is a lot of merit to advanced stats, but it is the a-hole that live and die by them that turn me off.

[Ksyrup]

I think a lot of it is being conditioned to the contrarian position, given the years of abuse and having to overcome decades-old beliefs that have turned some guys into what you are talking about. With Verlander, I sense the backlash wasn't due to them believing he wasn't having a great year, but in the idea that he should win the CYA going away, as if no one else was close to him. So that was the contrarian position taken. And maybe it got out of hand (I don't know, I didn't really read much of that stuff).

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And if you can show me where this is reflected in his pitching stats as a measure of how well he pitched, I'd appreciate it.

It was a comment in regards to the question I asked you about which pitcher would get more wins(8ip vs 5ip) based on a league average offense and bullpen. You brought up Felix in your "impossible to know" statement which didnt really make sense to me because Seattle was a far below league average offense that year.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You brought up Felix in your "impossible to know" statement which didnt really make sense to me because Seattle was a far below league average offense that year.

AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

You've totally added context to a particular pitcher to figure out why he didn't win as many games as he should have. It's because of things he didn't control as a pitcher.

Yes, on average you'd expect someone who pitches 8 innings/2 runs to win a lot of games, more than a 5 innings/1 run guy. But (a) that's taken into account by SABR when considering the value of the extra innings, and (b) the win totals for any pitcher fitting either of those scenarios is going to be totally dependent (since their stat lines are theoretical identical) on the team around them. And the issue is, why credit the pitcher for something they only partially have control over? And why use that as a primary measure of a pitcher's worth or effectiveness?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think a lot of it is being conditioned to the contrarian position, given the years of abuse and having to overcome decades-old beliefs that have turned some guys into what you are talking about. With Verlander, I sense the backlash wasn't due to them believing he wasn't having a great year, but in the idea that he should win the CYA going away, as if no one else was close to him. So that was the contrarian position taken. And maybe it got out of hand (I don't know, I didn't really read much of that stuff).

There is probably some of that, but a lot of asshats are too young to have that kind of old animosity. Really, I just think internet trolls are attracted to advanced stats like moths to a flame.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

You've totally added context to a particular pitcher to figure out why he didn't win as many games as he should have. It's because of things he didn't control as a pitcher.

Yes, on average you'd expect someone who pitches 8 innings/2 runs to win a lot of games, more than a 5 innings/1 run guy. But (a) that's taken into account by SABR when considering the value of the extra innings, and (b) the win totals for any pitcher fitting either of those scenarios is going to be totally dependent (since their stat lines are theoretical identical) on the team around them. And the issue is, why credit the pitcher for something they only partially have control over? And why use that as a primary measure of a pitcher's worth or effectiveness?

Honestly, on the wins thing....

It should never be the primary/secondary/third tier consideration. It really only should enter into the discussion when it is an overwhelming number (someone who won 8-10+ games over the same number of starts as someone else is generally going to be a much more dominate pitcher. Other factors are going to prove it, but you can short hand it by wins).

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And the issue is, why credit the pitcher for something they only partially have control over? And why use that as a primary measure of a pitcher's worth or effectiveness?

Because some people care more about ACTUAL results more than they do about comparing what players would have done in similar environments.

There is still a lot about WAR that ISNT fact. Its one of the best stats we have for comparing seasons between different players but it still doesnt tell us for sure if CC was better than Verlander this year or if Halladay was better than Kershaw.

From watching them 4 pichers this year(5+ starts) Id say based on what I saw Verlander and Kershaw were the best pitchers in their respective leagues.

CC being 1-4 against Boston sure doesnt work in his favor for me.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Because some people care more about ACTUAL results more than they do about comparing what players would have done in similar environments.

Then maybe those people should come up with a stat that gives the pitcher his ACTUAL portion of the credit for a team win or loss.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Then maybe those people should come up with a stat that gives the pitcher his ACTUAL portion of the credit for a team win or loss.

Until that day comes could you atleast try to understand the side of the people that still want to look at actual results to determine their award winners?

I dont think anyone disagrees with what the SABR community brings. I just think they are a bit bullheaded on what they think people are looking for. Any idea that doesnt fall into their line of thinking is completely ignorant.

This coming from a person that was reading Bill James material in 92 while playing stratomatic. It was very interesting then and is now. Certain people just act like its law and that ruins this entire body of work Bill James did. WAR doesnt need to decide awards. Bill James can create his own set of awards if hed like. SABR isnt a new concept anymore so people dont have to defend it constantly and disagree with everything that SABR doesnt agree with.

[Ksyrup]

We are looking at actual stats, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Just not the stats you want us to look at.

Pitcher win/loss was developed when there were like 6 pitchers on a staff and nearly every pitcher pitched the entire game, so it made some sense to credit the pitcher with a win or loss, because it almost exactly mirrored the team's win/loss in games the pitcher pitched. We are no longer in the 20s, or even the 60s. It makes little sense to place much, if any, importance on a stat that no longer is indicative of what it meant decades ago.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We are looking at actual stats, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Just not the stats you want us to look at.

No. You are comparing two pitchers playing in a park they didnt play in(neutralized) on a team they didnt play on(neutralized) with fielders they didnt play with(neutralized).

Its great for deciding who will be the better pitcher next year but it doesnt do much justice on who actually had a better year. If you judge a season off of actual results.

I dont care either way. You can vote how you see things as you want. I just get sick of having to explain why I feel a certain way to SABR people. I fully get what sabermetrics is/does but some people still would prefer to see things as they actually were instead of how they were after formulas and assumptions.

The assumption was that A-Gone would hit more home runs in Boston than he did at Petco and that just didnt happen. We cant always assume everything happens exactly how SABR stats tells us it should.

[DanGarion]

I think we should just stop voting and let a computer spit out the winner.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Honestly, on the wins thing....

It should never be the primary/secondary/third tier consideration. It really only should enter into the discussion when it is an overwhelming number (someone who won 8-10+ games over the same number of starts as someone else is generally going to be a much more dominate pitcher. Other factors are going to prove it, but you can short hand it by wins).

So, I was talking to my manager yesterday and used the phrase "all other things being equal, I'd choose X over Y" (I forget what X and Y were). But then I quickly followed up with, I guess it's pretty much never that all things are equal.

In this case, we have a pair whose DIPS are almost identical but the difference between the two ends up being circumstance, for the most part. BABIP and W/L pretty much are the two main differences. So, if we have to pick between one or the other- should we, as a rule, factor in circumstance? Isn't this pretty much a perfect test case? It's nearly identical stats with 5 more wins. If not now, then when (realizing that "never" is a perfectly good answer)?

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The key here Mr. "Rolls-Eyes" is "how a pitcher actually pitches". Whether a pitcher gets credit for the win is about more than just the pitcher; how many hits a pitcher gives up is about more than just the pitcher. The advanced stats we're citing are all about just that - pinpointing the things a pitcher does that he has control over (K's, walks, groundball percentage).

I disagree with this, at least a little bit. If there are two pitchers who have the exact same K/9, BB/9, GB/FB, HR/FB and IP (or even Swinging Strike and Line Drive %, etc if we want to go to the next level), but Pitcher A has a BABIPa .080 points lower, I'm quite comfortable saying that Pitcher A had the better season. I think FIP and xFIP are great predictive measures - and I'd argue both players should be signed to equal contracts going forward, and we should expect equal performance the next year, but at a certain point luck comes into play and having good luck vs. bad luck was a part of that players past performance. And when we're giving awards based on a players past performance, I think his ERA and BA matter much, much, more than the underlying indicators.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

No. You are comparing two pitchers playing in a park they didnt play in(neutralized) on a team they didnt play on(neutralized) with fielders they didnt play with(neutralized).

Its great for deciding who will be the better pitcher next year but it doesnt do much justice on who actually had a better year. If you judge a season off of actual results.

I dont care either way. You can vote how you see things as you want. I just get sick of having to explain why I feel a certain way to SABR people. I fully get what sabermetrics is/does but some people still would prefer to see things as they actually were instead of how they were after formulas and assumptions.

There are plenty of "actual statistics" that can be used to determine who is better without having to factor in the 30th best stat (wins/losses) that can give you a more accurate picture. I guess where I scratch my head is if you don't acknowledge that ballpark, league, offense, defense, and era have an effect on the stats you are looking at, and that they aren't important when comparing players, then I give up.

If all you want to do is look at 2 guys' numbers in a vaccuum and pick one over the other based on that, and you don't recognize that one set of numbers in the "actual context" of how those numbers were compiled may not compare in any way with the other guy's, then you've lost me.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I think we should just stop voting and let a computer spit out the winner.

Paging Quiksand...

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There are plenty of "actual statistics" that can be used to determine who is better without having to factor in the 30th best stat (wins/losses) that can give you a more accurate picture. I guess where I scratch my head is if you don't acknowledge that ballpark, league, offense, defense, and era have an effect on the stats you are looking at, and that they aren't important when comparing players, then I give up.

If all you want to do is look at 2 guys' numbers in a vaccuum and pick one over the other based on that, and you don't recognize that one set of numbers in the "actual context" of how those numbers were compiled may not compare in any way with the other guy's, then you've lost me.

I know damn well what you are talking about like I have told you. If you dont understand that these numbers are assumed based on variable results I have no idea how to get anything across to you.

Is it that hard for you to figure out that because ballpark factors say that Kershaw would do worse in Philly that it would actually happen? Maybe Kershaw doesnt pitch to contract as much in Philly if he pitched there. Who knows.

You act like we can know exactly how a player will perform based on assumptions. Well everyone assumed A-Gone would hit more homers in Boston this year than he did playing in San Diego and that wasnt the case. Is it so bad the some people would prefer to take caution that not every assumption sabermetrics puts into their formulas may not be completely accurate with every type of player?

If you dont want to assume everything by a bunch of formulas it is really so bad to look at REAL stats?

Are we predicting the future or trying to figure out who had the best season?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I disagree with this, at least a little bit. If there are two pitchers who have the exact same K/9, BB/9, GB/FB, HR/FB and IP (or even Swinging Strike and Line Drive %, etc if we want to go to the next level), but Pitcher A has a BABIPa .080 points lower, I'm quite comfortable saying that Pitcher A had the better season. I think FIP and xFIP are great predictive measures - and I'd argue both players should be signed to equal contracts going forward, and we should expect equal performance the next year, but at a certain point luck comes into play and having good luck vs. bad luck was a part of that players past performance. And when we're giving awards based on a players past performance, I think his ERA and BA matter much, much, more than the underlying indicators.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, although I'd did a little deeper than ERA and BA (total runs allowed and OPS, for starters).

OTOH, what I'm talking about with jbergey is stuff that puts the actual stats in a proper context. It doesn't change what happened, it puts it context. If you think a .900 OPS in AT&T Park is the same as a .900 OPS in Arlington, that's just being hardheaded and refusing to acknowledge the obvious. And it does matter in the context of comparing players, whether for an award or otherwise. It doesn't mean you eliminate a pitcher simply because they pitch in SF or a hitter with TEX, but you should factor in the differences, IMO, because the actual stats you are comparing aren't apples to apples.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I know damn well what you are talking about like I have told you. If you dont understand that these numbers are assumed based on variable results I have no idea how to get anything across to you.

Is it that hard for you to figure out that because ballpark factors say that Kershaw would do worse in Philly that it would actually happen? Maybe Kershaw doesnt pitch to contract as much in Philly if he pitched there. Who knows.

You act like we can know exactly how a player will perform based on assumptions. Well everyone assumed A-Gone would hit more homers in Boston this year than he did playing in San Diego and that wasnt the case. Is it so bad the some people would prefer to take caution that not every assumption sabermetrics puts into their formulas may not be completely accurate with every type of player?

If you dont want to assume everything by a bunch of formulas it is really so bad to look at REAL stats?

I don't think you understand what those stats mean and/or how to interpret them. Sorry. I've gone about as far as I want to go without running into the same wall.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think you understand what those stats mean and/or how to interpret them. Sorry. I've gone about as far as I want to go without running into the same wall.

I am glad we agree that you realize that actual stats and presumed stats are completely different.

A-Gone as a case in point.

I am sorry that you had to completely get off topic by bringing up wins over and over which was not on point about 10 posts ago.

And that we also agree that over a large sample size ballpark factors are going to paint a nice pitcher.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I am glad we agree that you realize that actual stats and presumed stats are completely different.

And if I was talking about whatever "presumed stats" are, I guess I'd understand your point. But I'm not talking about presumed stats, I'm talking about interpreting and comparing what actually occurred. In order to compare things, it is appropriate to have a comparable baseline. Otherwise, the comparison is largely ineffective or invalid, and serves little purpose. It isn't changing stats, or making up stats, it's creating a consistent basis for interpreting the actual stats of one or more players. That is the distinction you are not getting, or refuse to get - which is why people like Pete Vuckovich and LaMarr Hoyt win CYAs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Not taking a side in this battle because both sides have valid points but

Wins---

While a team has a lot of influence on the stat so does the pitcher. In order to get wins you need to hold the other teams runs below your teams and pitch deep into the game so your BP doesnt get a chance to blow your win.

I feel the win has gone from being far too important in peoples eyes to not important enough.

Verlander earned 24 wins this year by leading both leagues in innings pitched and pitching great in them innings. I dont think wins can be completely ignored when putting the whole body of work together. He took the bullpen out of the game a lot of times by being able to keep himself in the game. Once its in the hands of the bullpen things can get ugly in a hurry.

Thats all.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I am sorry that you had to completely get off topic by bringing up wins over and over which was not on point about 10 posts ago.

My first post in this whole thing was in response to an entire post by you about why wins matter.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And if I was talking about whatever "presumed stats" are, I guess I'd understand your point. But I'm not talking about presumed stats, I'm talking about interpreting and comparing what actually occurred. In order to compare things, it is appropriate to have a comparable baseline. Otherwise, the comparison is largely ineffective or invalid, and serves little purpose. It isn't changing stats, or making up stats, it's creating a consistent basis for interpreting the actual stats of one or more players. That is the distinction you are not getting, or refuse to get - which is why people like Pete Vuckovich and LaMarr Hoyt win CYAs.

I get this all of this probably better than you. I could probably give you ballpark factors for every stadium in the league without looking.

My point is some people want to debate actual stats. Do you really think Joe Blow cares that Josh Hamiltons stats are inflated by playing in Arlington? Is it really that important that saber people have to be right on everything? Who cares if Josh Hamilton would hit 270 with 20 homers in Petco. He doesnt play at Petco.

Cant saber people just be happy that they can predict the future much better than Joe Blow without taking away Joe Blows moment?

I dont see the need for SABR people to have to be right on everything. It was Bill James that created "outside the box" thinking so I think its wrong that traditionalist are shunned because they dont take sabermetrics as gospel.

Im done with it. Should have never started in. I enjoy sabermetrics and "get them" as much as anyone. I just get sick of the "we know everything" attitude. Its fun to debate this stuff and not have someone throw 1 stat out there and say you are wrong because of this. Every person has the right to see things how they want.