A Comparison
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 4:25 PM PDT
in The More You Know
108 comments
Do you like tables? I hope you like tables.
| Washburn | Vargas^ | |
| tRA | 5.10 | 5.76 |
| tRA* | 5.21 | 5.05 |
| Strike% | 62.4 | 61.0 |
| SwS% | 7.5 | 7.7 |
| GB% | 37.6 | 38.3 |
| LD% | 22.5 | 20.4 |
| ^ as a starter | ||
By the way, RRS is getting better down in Tacoma. Over his last six starts, he's thrown 35.2 innings, striking out 25 while walking six. His velocity the other day was 89-92 on the stadium gun, which - according to Ryan Divish - manager Daren Brown calls his best of the year. Last time we saw RRS in the Mariner rotation on a consistent basis, he was throwing 64% strikes with a 7.2% whiff rate.
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I want Wash gone yesterday, but I still feel cheated by the Bedard trade and want to keep him to the bitter end in the forlorn hope he will pitch five consecutive perfect games in the postseason in order to make the trade justifiable.
Realistically, is there any package we could make for Hardy that does not involve Bedard?
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Jul 14, 2009 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What are you, a Vorlon?
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Jul 14, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AKA what kind of packages are we talking about then?
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Jul 14, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One that would make me both happy and incredibly annoyed at the same time
by Graham on Jul 14, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to close this subthread before it devolves into annoying speculation
Let’s just leave it at “Hardy could end up a Mariner, but he will not do so at a low price.”
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Before people misconstrue what I'm insinuating
I don’t think that Vargas will be Washburn’s equal for the rest of the year, because his command is a little worse, and he’s more likely to get fatigued after not throwing at all in 2008. The point of this is that, hey, Washburn hasn’t been that great himself, and RRS may very likely be able to replace him if he’s dealt.
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm still confused as to how Washburn's LD rate is so high
it seems like he hasn’t been hit all that hard. Oh well, thank goodness for advanced stats, I guess
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a bunch of fliners. I don't know
I don’t even think LD% over three months is that meaningful. I just included it because people would ask.
By the way, I think Washburn has a slightly better ability to turn missed bats into strikeouts than Vargas, and also a better ability to avoid walks, but once again, I’m not trying to call them equals; I’m just trying to call them similar.
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it's not as if fliners are particularly good for a pitcher anyway
yeah, they’re not great contact, but that type of hit is pretty likely to turn into a blooper.
I’d say this is a situation where Washburn has more “pitchability” or whatever the hell you want to call it, so yeah, he’s probably a bit better, but he also costs 20x what Vargas costs.
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, RRS!
I love that his velocity is getting better. For a few months he was practically a forgotten man.
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
89-92 on the TAC gun is probably around 88-91 from what I'm told at least.
You got slurved!
Hehehe Mark Reynolds is so awesome.
by Slurvey on Jul 14, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But 88-91 starting is where he's always been
it would be weird if he came up and suddenly was throwing 2 mph harder
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I seem to remember liner after liner getting snared in the OF in NY and against Texas. Maybe Baltimore too…
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 14, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pardon the stupid
but what’s the difference between tRA and tRA*? And which is better for evaluating a player?
Fuck Anaheim.
by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth on Jul 14, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
tRA* (or any stat with *, typically) is regressed
Essentially it tries to eliminate luck. From what I understand, tRA* regresses everything, but the one that has the biggest effect is HR/FB rate.
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
that’s been bugging me for a while.
Fuck Anaheim.
by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth on Jul 14, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note that they're both regressed pretty heavily, since they only have a half season's worth of starts
but Vargas’ straight tRA is influenced by a fluky home run rate.
by Jeff on Jul 14, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you say it in conversation?
tRA asterisk?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 14, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA star?
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jul 14, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
x
from SC
The regressed version of tRA. tRA* takes each of the pitcher’s major component stats and regresses them back to league average, the magnitude of regression being based on the amount of batters the pitcher faces. tRA* is not a measurement of a pitcher’s results per se, but should be seen as the system’s best estimate of a pitcher’s true talent level based on his stats in any given year at any given level. tRA* does not consider a pitcher’s statistics from other years and leagues.
by appleshampoo on Jul 14, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, how large does the sample size need to be before tRA* is useful? Are there varying scales or usefulness or predictive value for varying sizes of sample...size (yeah...)?
(I remember at the beginning of the year that Graham and Matthew told us to ignore tRA* for at least a few months).
by Decatur on Jul 14, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks again
I probably should have checked StatCorner before asking, really. That glossary looks pretty darn helpful.
Fuck Anaheim.
by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth on Jul 14, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Hardball Times' xFIP stat does a similar regression, I believe (hopefully this is relevant).
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#xfip
Expected Fielding Independent Pitching. This is an experimental stat that adjusts FIP and “normalizes” the home run component. Research has shown that home runs allowed are pretty much a function of flyballs allowed and home park, so xFIP is based on the average number of home runs allowed per outfield fly. Theoretically, this should be a better predicter of a pitcher’s future ERA.
by Decatur on Jul 14, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't looked into FIP yet.
I’m trying to get to grips with tRA as best I can as it seems to be the preferred stat around here.
Fuck Anaheim.
by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth on Jul 14, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is definitely better
FIP considers all contact equal, even though we know that a pitcher that gives up more line drives sucks more. tRA makes up for that – it’s why Carlos Silva’s pitching effectiveness was in question – some referred to him as an average pitcher with bad defense, but tRA showed he gave up line drives like a pitching machine, and that implied he was just as bad as we thought he was. But it’s a good idea to learn FIP because you will currently see that in more places, like Fangraphs.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a quick and dirty, both tRA and FIP roughly scale to ERA
so anything under 4 is good, 4-4.5 is mediocre and 5 and up is bad.
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, I thought tRA was scaled to TOTAL runs against, while FIP was scaled to EARNED runs agains.
by Decatur on Jul 14, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the benefit of scaling unearned runs?
I thought the point of tRA was to eliminate things that the pitcher can’t control and errors would seem to be the top of that list.
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 14, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Errors are subjective, and errors are included as a natural part of defense.
wOBA considers reaching on an error a positive value for the hitter for a similar reason. All outcomes that are not a walk, strikeout or homerun have a defensive aspect. Why should a player get punished when a fast third baseman drops a ball but rewarded when a slow third baseman can’t get to a ball?
But with regards to tRA, I am not positive that actual runs scored (earned or not) matters as much in the equation, because if I am not mistaken it gives “arbitrary” (sort of) run values that are derived from the overall run values of every event in baseball each year. Not really arbitrary, I guess, but not necessarily related to the actual result of the line drive itself.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So a pitcher's tRA
is only minimally affected by runs allowed and most affected by what types of hits that he gives up (line drives, ground balls, etc…). This is how it shows the difference between a pitcher who gives up a lot of runs because of the bad defence behind him and pitcher is just bad. Is that right?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 14, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is exactly my understanding, yes.
But before you assume that’s right, wait for confirmation by Matthew, Graham or Jeff.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Follow up question for the trio that agrees on everything:
Though tRA may be doing its best to be defense independent, doesn’t defense still affect it slightly due to the number of plate appearances a pitcher experiences due to bad defense?
For example, though a ground ball isn’t worth a whole lot in terms of run value, if 11 ground balls in a row go for hits due to a shitty shortstop, won’t that affect their tRA simply because there have been far more plate appearances for those ball in play opportunities to occur?
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good question.
I’d also like to know how tRA* assembled? I understand that it has something to do with projecting the regression of HR/FB rate but what is used to make this sort of prediction? League average? Or do I have the definition of tRA misconstrued?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 14, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It regresses everything toward league average year to year (and by league), HR, GB, LD and more.
I do not remember if it addresses career norms, but all of the old fanposts I have say it does not.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, ignore tRA during most of the season, as small sample sizes are often regressed too much.
I think a little over half a year’s data was when it starts to be more reliable, and it is best at the end of a full year.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOAH, sorry. Ignore tRA*.
I swear I had the * in there before.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, it is technically over half the season, so you can probably start looking at it now with some reliability.
But if you were looking at these tRA* numbers, say, over a month ago, then they would have been less accurate.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 14, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hoping that eventually tRA* would regress from a larger sample size on a weighted scale
this would help it be more useful in the early season, if I’m understanding correctly that the run values of batted balls and HR/FB rates don’t fluctuate much from year to year.
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But wouldn't regression toward league norms
defeat the purpose of tRA* as a means of finding determining who was actually good at pitching and who wasn’t? For example, isn’t the fact that Roy Halladay or Aaron Cook have such high GB/FB ratios what makes them good? Isn’t it exactly what makes the above league average?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 15, 2009 1:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
League averages vary from year to year.
If GB% is up league wide and Halladay’s GB% increases by around the same amount, he’s not pitching any better.
by acblue on Jul 15, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes more sense.
Thanks everybody for the help. I appreciate your patience with me, I’m still trying to get a grasp of a lot of these terms.
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 15, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The theoretical answer would be no
because tRA is a rate stat, not a counting one. Even though yeah, he gives up two more grounders because his shortstop was Yuniesky Betancourt, those two grounders contribute both an expected run value as well as an expected out value, leaving the overall ratio, and thus the tRA the same.
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The practical answer is probably, since pitchers pitch worse when they are fatigued
and shitty defense causes them to get fatigued faster, as they need to face more batters and throw more pitches
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seperate topic, slightly related. Don't strikeouts have a slight negative value in tRA?
There was a comment about that recently. Is that due to the number of pitches required for a strikeout? Every time I think I have a layman’s grasp of tRA I realize I don’t.
by Kermit. on Jul 15, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To use two quotes written by other members:
Certain events (strikeout, infield fly) have negative run values
-Essby
tRA is not a dynamic model and therefore doesn’t account for the fact that if you strikeout 100% of the batters you face each K is worth less
- Graham
I do not know if these are the run values that Graham uses (there may be more than one type of calculation), but run values look, in essence, like this:
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 15, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what is it, all these numbers added per 9 innings?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 15, 2009 6:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just realized I was reading the term negative value in the wrong light
You crazy stat geeks and your crazy math, stay out of my yard!
by Kermit. on Jul 15, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm out of your yard, OK?
I’M JUST YELLING FROM THE SIDEWALK NOW
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It took me a while to figure out who essby was
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theoretically a HBP isn't a batted ball but...
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Home run isn't in there for some reason too.
But I didn’t make the chart and couldn’t find Tango’s data.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 15, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A question on how the run values are calculated
so is the run value of each event the average of [(run_value_start – run_value_end) + runs_scored] for each play?
For example, a ground ball with a runner on second and no out becomes a run-scoring single. The run value of that event would be [(1.189-.953)+1] = 1.236 runs?
And then you just add up the values of each play and divide by the total number of occurrences?
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except it should be rv_end - rv_start + runs
by Matthew on Jul 15, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, got it.
That makes more sense.
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not affected at all by runs allowed
Each event has an expected run outcome and an expected out … outcome, which can be calculated by looking at league averages and poking them with a big algebra stick repeatedly. Once that’s done there’s no need to look at runs or actual innings pitched.
by Graham on Jul 15, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minimally affected =).
Runs scoring on a play does affect average year by year data, at a very very minimal level.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Jul 15, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, I think I finally get it.
What about a foul out? That has to have a 0 expected run outcome, except for sacrafice flies, how is that calculated?
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 15, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since we're talking about a pitcher that has defied his component stats
Is there any early Hit/fx information on if some pitchers are capable of reducing the hit-speed of opposing hitters?
by John Morgan on Jul 14, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Way too small a sample.
You’d need thousands of batted balls in your database to do a good W/WY comparison.
by Matthew on Jul 14, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and it seems like you'd need to control for pitch velocity too
otherwise you just get the obvious stuff like ‘speed off bat vs. Wakefield is lower than league average!’
by marc w on Jul 15, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I'm curious about as far as comparing pitcher to pitcher
Is how those pitchers fare against AL West opponents and possible playoff opponents. Did Vargas get a healthy dose of crappy lineups when he started? Has Washburn dominated the Angels? Is RR-S great on the road?
These are the types of questions I’m going to start looking into based on information already given.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 14, 2009 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It appears that Vargas' worst 3 starts came at Col, at LAD, and at NYY. And duh, Washburn sucks against the Angels. Im liking Vargas over Washburn more and more.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 14, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generalizing from a small sample size is always a bad idea
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vargas had the flu in NY
Chicks dig the long ball.
by LauraBu on Jul 14, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can talk about trades all we want
but I can’t see Z being able to do shit with us still in the race and Wash having such a shiny ERA. The common fans would riot.
by IceStormV1 on Jul 14, 2009 5:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jason Vargas has a kick-ass changeup
A pleasant surprise:
According to Harry Pavlidis (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/10/944659/expanding-on-harrys-whiff-rate), Jason Vargas has the 4th best changeup whiff rate in MLB. 45.9%, in the 75-149 swing category.
Chicks dig the long ball.
by LauraBu on Jul 14, 2009 7:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Interestingly enough Fangraphs pitch data hates it until this season.
by acblue on Jul 15, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I reading the data wrong?
1.42 in ’05, -1.75 in ’06, -5.69 in ’07.
I’ll admit that looking at the pitch type run values is new to me, but aside from ‘05 and this season it has produced below average results. I still thinks it’s an awesome pitch.
by acblue on Jul 15, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 05 number is the largest sample.
He threw 10 innings in 07, so I’m not sure that figure means anything. The ’06 number is interesting, though.
by marc w on Jul 15, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Changeups in general or Vargas'?
What kind does he throw anyway? I know there’s a few but the only one I’m familiar with in any fashion is the circle change. Due to Moyer, he did a little clip showing the grip and discussing its action and why he liked it, had some slow motion video
by Kermit. on Jul 15, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, both, but I love Vargas' in particular
I don’t know what kind he throws, but it has a lot more tail than his fastball does, so it’s not a straight change.
by Jeff on Jul 15, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The general idea behind most changeups is the same - you want to get the ball as far back in your hand as possible, grip-wise
which increases the friction as it leaves your hand and adds additional backspin with the same delivery as a fastball. From my understanding and experience, the advantage to the circle change is that it tails much more to the pitcher’s arm side, which is why it’s pretty popular as well as effective against opposite handed batters
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, it should be noted that it's also a more difficult pitch to throw because the grip is pretty unnatural
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got a book with Branch Rickey describing the mechanics of a "window shade" or "shutter" change.
I never know when to use quotes properly. The description alone gave me sympathy pains in my elbow
by Kermit. on Jul 15, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you guys think it's so good (if it is)?
Is it that he doesn’t have any tell, he does exactly the same set of things as when he throws his fastball?
Is it the velocity difference compared to his fastball? (Note his fastball isn’t the super fast kind)
Is it that he throws it infrequently enough to surprise hitters?
Is it that he’s bold enough to throw it in situations that go against the conventional pitch wisdom?
Chicks dig the long ball.
by LauraBu on Jul 15, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The grip/tail idea is interesting
Because that reminds me of this piece by Shannon Drayer (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?sid=177631&nid=374) where she mentions that Taka is explaining Uehara’s pitching to Vargas.
Cool that Jason is open to learning new stuff.
Chicks dig the long ball.
by LauraBu on Jul 15, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My real question is will he be able to sustain these stats?
Or will opposing hitters figure him out?
Chicks dig the long ball.
by LauraBu on Jul 15, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs won't load on my computer at work but I suspect it does all of these things.
Most importantly, however, it produces high swingning strike rates. Which is the most telling sign, as well as good control, of a good pitch. I could be wrong here and I would wait for someone better at this to confirm it.
Thug Life
by Slow Country on Jul 15, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
8 mph difference, 19.4% thrown
You’d have to ask someone like Matthew what the pitch is doing, but I suspect that since Vargas doesn’t go all the way over the top anyway, his change probably has some vicious arm-side run which helps it be more effective against opposite-handed batters
by seattlebruin on Jul 15, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still not convinced Jack and Wak will send out one of their veteran clubhouse leaders
while we’re in the thick of the race. Both guys have shown they value statistical analysis, but we’ve also heard them praise the clubhouse factor several times in laying out why this team has been successful. I just don’t see them moving Washburn.
by Rudy4three on Jul 14, 2009 8:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
