Washburn "turning a corner" etc
I was going to put this as a comment in the recap thread, but understandably the comments closed.
Regarding whether Jarrod has "figured something out" or "turned a corner" or the always-entertaining and mythical "tweaked his mechanics and is doing something different now." Clearly he is the beneficiary of our new amazing outfield defense, but he's also posting some better peripherals.
He's posting a swinging strike rate of 7.5%, compared to last year's 6.0%, which is a career high from the years available on StatCorner. His K/9 is up to 5.90 which is also a career high. His groundballs are slightly up from career average (38.0% compared to 36.2%) and his flyballs are slightly down (40.2% / 43.5%). LD% is pretty much right in with his career norms. His HR/FB% is at 8.5% which is only slightly lower than his career norms, which makes it seem unlikely he's going to start allowing tons of bombs.
Maybe the percentages I'm quoting here are too small to be relevant, but all this combined amounts to his tRA this year of 5.16, which is silghtly down from his past years in Seattle. I know the basics of tRA but not the intimate details, I'm guessing the slight improvement in the above peripherals accounts for the slight dip.
So all that being said, I think it's possible in Washubrn's case he actually has figured something out with the new 2-seamer, and while I think he's getting way more credit in the MSM due to the shiny ERA (mostly defense, .248 BABIP), it seems like around these parts he's getting very little credit for some legit improvements.
Last night was fun but obviously that was way beyond his ability - let's give him some credit for actually improving a bit so far this year, though. Maybe that improvement is too small to warrant a fanpost of this magnitude, but I felt like saying it after the repeated "he's the exact same crappy pitcher with good defense" comments. He seems to be a slightly less-crappy pitcher with good defense.
2 recs |
118 comments
Comments
Agreed
I think most people can see that he’s doing something differently. Washburn claims his two-seamer has been getting a bit of sinking movement on it. If this is true, it’s certainly a departure from his high fastball approach of years past. It can also help to explain why his FB% has taken a slight downturn and his GB% has gone up (although this could just be random variance). Also, Matthew pointed out in his Fangraphs article that his BABIP of fly balls is lower this year, which I think would make sense if his two-seamer had some sink to it.
by Fuckmikereilly on Jul 7, 2009 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He gets credit.
It’s just that the improvements do not make him anything more than slightly below average instead of the well below average he was heading toward before.
by Matthew on Jul 7, 2009 2:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There have been several posts by the authors about this here and on Fangraphs
which isn’t to say your post isn’t excellent.
If you want to see where his real improvement lies, look at how he’s treating lefties this year (not well). It also helps explain his success about lefty-heavy lineups like Baltimore. I shudder to think of what Detroit will do to him.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 2:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
I should have referenced Matthew’s posts here and here.
Good stuff, and notably Washburn has been able to keep it up through a few more starts since those were written.
by appleshampoo on Jul 7, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Russell Branyan?
I know there’s a lot of talk about Washburn regressing. Should we also expect Branyan to have a mediocre 2nd half with his .365 BABIP?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Washburn is not pitching that much over his head right now
he is merely benefitting from his environment (ie great D, large park, mostly lefty opposition in his last start). Joe Saunders could give you about what Washburn’s been giving you (actually, I’m making that comp on the fly here but those who pay more attention and are better at this: Saunders/Washburn – two cheeks of the same ass?)
Branyan has been making a lot more contact than ever before, which suggests he’s made an adjustment to his swing. Playing regularly also tends to improve hitting. Furthermore, BABIP for hitters does not regress to the league mean, rather it regresses to the career mean barring a change in batted ball profile. You’re somewhat right in that Branyan cannot be expected to replicate this, but the way he’s generating his slash line is mostly repeatable.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, I'm one of the less knowledgeable people here
and get owned on a regular basis by the mods and oother commenters, But I try to pay a lot of attention and remember what Andrew Sullivan (no relation, and sorry to bring up politics) says about blogging: “if someone’s saying nasty shit about you and it’s not true, it doesn’t matter. If its true, learn from it.” that last bit it important for not getting laughed off the site.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hah!
a solid lesson from Sullivan. Hadn’t heard it before, but pretty apt to trying to post here. I have been lurking here for years, and following game threads. The recaps are clutch for me because I moved away from town and can’t catch nearly as many games as I’d like. I decided to start commenting a few days ago, and feel like I’m walking on eggshells a bit out of respect for the amount of stuff these guys know. My friends consider me a baseball freak—I’m always like, with appropriate geek composure, "you should really read this blog…
by SeattExPat on Jul 7, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was looking at Branyans career BABIP's (not his total career average) and he only had one season that was near this BABIP, so that's why I assume it will go down.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To get expected BABIP for hitters try LD%+0.12
Branyan’s expected BABIP from batted ball profile is around .329, so he’s not overperforming by that much, and his LD% isn’t crazy high. His contact rate has spiked since the start of 2008, which coincides with him starting an eye exercise regimen.
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting. What is the +0.12 if you don't mind me asking.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just an empirical relationship between line drives and BABIP
No theoretical underpinnings apart from ‘if you hit the ball harder it becomes more difficult to catch’
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait really? I thought that applied to pitchers not hitters
since there are very fast groundball hitters like Figgins and Ichiro whose overall BABIP is better than what’s predicted by LD rate, and it seems like high power guys whose flies tend to go to the wall do better on those than, say, Griffey. I know there’s been some work on this recently but I’ve stopped trying to keep up, I just wait for someone here to correct me.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a decent yardstick for hitters in lieu of a more thorough analysis
For pitchers it doesn’t work as well.
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matthew and Dave Cameron have written about this when Branyan was hitting .330
his BABIP for the last few months has been pretty close to normal, but he’s hitting for more power and walking more as well so he hasn’t been that hurt by it. Also, he’s had nearly no platoon split this year which is all kinds of awesome.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like if his HR% is down and his K/BB is up, that he's at least improved his own game somewhat independent of defense. Yes?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Home runs per ball in air, especially over this short a sample, are probably not the result of pitcher talent one way or the other
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what are we really getting at here?
Do we want Jarrod Washburn or do we want to trade him? Or either way, it doesn’t matter, the point is just that he’s not as good as his initial numbers make him out to be?
It seems like any team you trade him to will also be aware of his peripheral numbers and his price hasn’t really gone up at all.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to trade him and you're overestimating the ability of the average front office to evaluate pitchers
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take Charlie Manual picking Jason Marquis for the all star game or the Rangers praising Kevin Millwood's revival for topical examples.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Gammons, who's not a fool
thinks that Millwood is better on account of Nolan Ryan. I mean it’s funny that the team president can improve a pitcher, but the real joke is Millwood is not any better than at any other point in his Rangers career.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But!! Pitch counts!!! They have no pitch counts!!!!
It’s making ALL the difference!!!!!
by msb on Jul 7, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I don’t mind Marquis pick for the All Star game. And I fucking hate Marquis… he was awful with the Cards and was below replacement level in 06. Still, even if it’s smoke in mirrors, it still pays to reward a guy who’s had a productive first half. Although guys like Vasquez and Wainwright should definitely be in instead.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's only "productive" because he has been lucky.
Reward good pitching.
by abender20 on Jul 8, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lucky productive is still productive
but yeah, Ubaldo Jimenez should probably be there ahead of him.
by seattlebruin on Jul 8, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually he's been better
He’s throwing more strikes and walking fewer guys while maintaining around the same swinging strike rate he’s usually had.
He’s probably not deserving of an all-star appearance but he’s been above average this season so far.
by OlSalty on Jul 8, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I probably am. It's just the money-thing that's a sticking point for me.
I don’t think any other teams want to turn into the Texas Rangers outside of the safe-bets like New York and Boston, which don’t appear to be looking for pitching.
This is all just assumptions on my part, that owners are very wary of taking on new salaries without in turn giving us bad contracts.
i want to say that Washburn for Jack Wilson seems like a reasonable deal, but what would the Pirates get out of it. They don’t want anything like that, they want young players under club control. So who do we turn to? The Phillies? The Rays? Rays take on a big contract? Not too likely. Phillies trading Jason Donaldson (crap, I may have messed that name up big time?) Not while Rollins is sucking.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn's contract is over at the end of the year
Any team in a close race that’s low on pitching is an easy target, and the Mariners would eat the salary to get prospects back.
Phillies, Dodgers, Brewers all seem like easy picks, and only one of those teams has a particularly bright FO
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't wait to get the entire Phillie's farm system.
You got slurved!
Hehehe Mark Reynolds is so awesome.
by Slurvey on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, eating the contract makes sense.
But even then, you aren’t going to get Alcides Escobar or Mat Gamel, even for Bedard and an eaten contract.
I really don’t know what type of players Jack has talked about in terms of Washburn, Bedard and who they would be able to fetch for them.
As far as the Brewers go, is JJ Hardy someone we want? Is Blake DeWitt for Washburn a reasonable deal?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to speculate about individual trades without knowing what teams are talking about
But essentially yes, a Blake DeWitt type would be ideal, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Mariners are vigourously pursuing that sort of trade.
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would want JJ Hardy very much
You just wouldn’t get him.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with his ~ .300 wOBA this year, he's still above average due to his defense
And in previous years he was a good hitter. There is no way the Brewers suck that hard at talent evaluation.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's also a a free agent after next year and has a talented player behind him in Escobar.
It could happen.
by Teej on Jul 8, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be pretty cool
If you did get him, you should hope that his BABIP stays ~.250, then you might be able to extend him and get some cheap 4-5 WAR seasons.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn is a somewhat valuable commodity
He’s basically a league average starter, maybe a little worse, who’s contract expires after next year. For a team like the Brewers, who are rolling 4 replacement level pitchers in their rotation, he would provide a nice ~1 win upgrade, which might help them make the playoffs.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand
Washburn was coming off a 3.20 ERA season when he was a free agent, and the Angels laughed him off when he asked for an extension. I think we were the only team to really consider him valuable.
by Jeff on Jul 7, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I garauntee *most* front offices do look at peripherals
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think so, but probably not until very recently.
Perhaps that is what lead to the devaluing (rightfully so) of players like Bobby Abreu. I still think there are many organizations who use the same 19th century statistics to evaluate player performance, even while teams that changed the way they evaluated talent experienced more success.
by greg briley on Jul 8, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bobby Abreu??
Bobby Abreu is the poster child for the first wave of offensively undervalued players.
Saying Bobby Abreu was devalued because of the statistical analysis trend is like saying Simple Plan isn’t an emo band.
If you’re talking about the defensive revolution then yes, this would be mostly correct.
by seattlebruin on Jul 8, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was OK defensively when he was young
by Poochie on Jul 8, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're right
which would make the comment make even less sense, since Abreu has long been the poster child for super high walk rates and taking lots of pitches, while maintaining very good contact rates.
by seattlebruin on Jul 8, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wash's "peripherals" are solid to good.
Really, the only teams that would dislike him are the ones that evaluate pitchers like tRA does.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade him.
We are paying him a lot of money to be below average, money we could use to sign better people. And his value is inflated at the moment.
Also there’s no guarantee that every GM understands the importance of or puts proper emphasis on those peripherals or you wouldn’t see teams like the Giants giving Barry Zito 10 years/$150 million or the Tigers putting their eggs in the Dontrelle Willis basket. A lot of teams have made mistakes of a Washburn nature before.
by OlSalty on Jul 7, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think Miguel Cabrera had something to do with it. And maybe it was just a money thing to throw Dontrelle in there?
As for Zito, yeah, I think those were different times then.
For the same reason Abreu and Dunn couldn’t get contracts, GM’s started caring about Defense all of a sudden. And $$. From everything else I’ve heard, very few GM’s are willing to spend even $4-5 million more this season.
I’m sure that there is a GM out there willing to take him and pay him, but what will we get in return? Probably not ML-ready talent is my assumption, but I could be wrong.
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They gave Willis a multi-year extension for a tonne of money so they actually thought he could pitch
You’d be surprised at how many teams think Washburn is one of the best pitchers available right now
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I forgot about that.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous.
As far as teams loving Washburn, he’s not going to be a type A free agent or a type B, am I right? So teams won’t consider the M’s to be looking for type-B type compensation in any deal, correct?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No team would be crazy enough to offer arbitration to Washburn so Elias's rankings won't play a part
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You sure about that?
He posts a 3.24 ERA and I’m sure he’d get offered arbitration
by seattlebruin on Jul 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be shocked if a team wanted to risk paying him $12M next year
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean I doubt it would be us, but I could see someone like Philly at least offering arbitration if he finishes with a 3.20 ERA or whatever
Like you said, most FOs really do a poor job evaluating pitching, and with a shiny ERA, he’d be the kind of guy a lot of GMs would want around on a one-year deal.
by seattlebruin on Jul 7, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The crazy thing
Is that Washburn might actually be one of the best pitchers available right now (at least in terms of tradeability). I don’t think there are that many league average pitchers available, at least at this juncture.
by greg briley on Jul 8, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd be surprised by how unaware teams can be about things like repeatable performance
the argument for trading Washburn is that Vargas can give you at least 80% of what you get with Jarrod, plus a bonus of whatever you get back in trade.
Given that we have Olsen and RRS stowed away in AAA to fill out the rotation (Silva’s got to get back to being his normal average self at some point too) we can afford to trade away a slightly better than average starter provided we get the kind of help this team really really needs – lefty bats, patience, power, infield defense.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we have Olsen in AAA?
I heard Wak didn’t want to move out a pitcher and that Sweeney was likely to hit the DL? Is the relative transaction for Bedard official yet?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What Graham said,
and his improved K/BB numbers are mostly on account of doing very well against lefties. Washburn IS better this season than any other in a Mariner uniform. Still, too little too late.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A .365 BABIP is too high
Regardless, his career BABIP .312, so he should regress in that category.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It won't be mediocre but his batting average will probably come down
by OlSalty on Jul 7, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like there is a very good chance he will maintain this type of power production
And will probably end up hitting between 35-45 home runs this year, which would not be a mediocre second half by any means. Just not as good as his first half.
by OlSalty on Jul 7, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just like Ichiro should be expected to hit .333 in the second half
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect Ichiro to cure cancer in the second half
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 7, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect Ichiro to pitch every game in the second half and bat .500/.650/.900
And then rapture us all to heaven afterward.
by I Lick Squirrels on Jul 7, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect Ichiro to get fat
and be lazier than he already is. And more selfish.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jul 7, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what's the number we want to look at when determing how good a pitcher is?
I’m sure the answer will be “lots of them”
but the first number would be what? tRA? And is that on fangraphs?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cool thanks
So based on that. Shouldn’t we worry about Jason Vargas replacing Jarrod Washburn in the rotation?
by Kenny Knows Sports on Jul 7, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't lose very much production
It’s a loss, but an acceptable one
by Graham on Jul 7, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there's RRS.
Felix-Bedard-Morrow-RRS-Jaku/Olson/Vargas/Silva and you’re fine.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That rotation strikes me as significantly less than fine
Everything after 1-2 is long relief. But I’m still ok with trading Wash in a good deal.
by lemonverbena on Jul 8, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well everything beyond 1-2 are guys who are passable back-end starters
and since they’re all flyballers, they look really good in front of our outfield defense.
by seattlebruin on Jul 8, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but those 3-4-5 guys are one early-exit start away from completely blowing up the bullpen.
We may be discounting the “pressure” that Z (and Armstrong/Lincoln) feel to have a successful, competitive ‘09. Pressure coming from the last few years of losing, of waning fan support and ticket sales. I think the longer we’re within 4 games of the lead, the more it takes a screaming deal to move Wash or Bedard. Also not sure the M’s would be anxious to eat salary so a contender can take one of those legit starters off our hands.
How the hell the FO looks at that rotation and projects Aumont as a reliever, I have no idea.
by lemonverbena on Jul 8, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the same damn rotation as now
except it’s minus Wash and added RRS, which is not a meaningful drop off. It also has Bedard in it, which the real one hasn’t for the past month. Also, it takes more than one early exit to “completely blow up the bullpen”
Christ.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think the dropoff from RRS to Washburn is?
5 runs over the course of the season? Less?
by seattlebruin on Jul 8, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, 2008 RRS tRA* beats 2009 Wash tRA*.
Give Wash some added benefit for doing it this year, but realistically, and even ZiPS agrees, the difference between the two going forward is negligible.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Christ?
Wash – RRS could very well be a significant dropoff. Have whatever opinion of Washburn’s “real” talent/ability you want, but he has performed and eaten innings this year while Hyphen was on the shelf. No way to know what we will get out of RRS.
by lemonverbena on Jul 8, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference between Washburn and one of his potential replacements is very small over half of a season
I wouldn’t want to just give him away, but if someone’s offering some value, we’d be foolish not to take it back.
by Jeff on Jul 8, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salary relief alone would be enough value, provided that money could rolled into signing picks/IFAs
Everything else is gravy.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matthew
You mentioned this on an earlier thread when I brought up Colin’s article on testing the predictiveness of tRA/FIP:
I will be quite happy the day people realize that you do not test metrics like FIP or tRA based on how well they predict y+1 ERA.
I agree that an ability test isn’t necessarily the best route to go, but given the applicable purposes of the metrics in question it certainly seems relevant. Regarding Washburn and his FIP/tRA splits; how do we know which one is a better indicator of how he will pitch the rest of the year. Obviously tRA takes more into account, but it is also more complicated and some of the batted ball data can be fishy. And as Colin showed, there isn’t much of a difference in the predictiveness of both of those measures.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
On a related note, I’m looking at Washburn’s 2004/2005 stats, which was the only time he ran a tRA+ over 100, and his numbers for those seasons actually look worse than this year’s. His K/BB in 05, for instance, was 1.8 compared to 2.6 this year. The batted ball profile is absolutely identical… I’m at a loss. The overall tRA difference is small (0.35) so I could be park factors, although I thought Angels stadium played fairly similarly to Safeco. The other possibility is that 04-05 was a bad pitching year league-wide so Washburn looked good by comparison but that seems unlikely.
If I could take a stab at your question, I would guess that Washburn’s LD rate is hurting him (it’s a tad over average, and those liners are coming out of his very consistent career ~9% IF rate) and that tRA adjusts for Safeco’s favorable K and BB factors while FIP does not. I might be totally wrong on that last point.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 8, 2009 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK just checked out the park factors for Anaheim
and turns out they’re pretty much neutral for K/BB while Safeco helps the pitcher, which I guess would be why 05 Washburn had a better FIP with a 1.8K/BB than 09 Washburn.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 8, 2009 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus 2004/2005 might've been better offensive years.
I don’t know for sure, just speculating.
by Mariner John on Jul 8, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Much difference in predicting ERA.
STOP TRYING TO PREDICT ERA.
Seriously, just flat out ignore anyone who mentions ERA. Stop reading that second you see it.
by Matthew on Jul 8, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's asking which of tRA and FIP is more predictive of itself
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 8, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA is by a fair bit
Would like someone independent to do the work to back up my quick checks though
by Graham on Jul 8, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this based on year-to-year correlation?
I just took a look at 2007-2008 and it looks like FIP has a slightly higher correlation value year to year than tRA or tRA*. Admittedly this could have been due to small sample size or a foulup on my part, just curious what the standard for “more predictive” is.
by pmc47 on Jul 8, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yty correlation for pitcher pairings between 2002-2008
by Graham on Jul 8, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that would explain it.
I might go back and look at a larger sample size later.
Out of curiosity, what kind of correlation coefficients come from the 02-08 pairing data? Something in the 0.60-0.65 range?
by pmc47 on Jul 8, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure how that is
Batted ball rates generally have a low year to year correlation.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I have absolutely no basis for saying that, as I didn't test it myself
Could I see your spreadsheet?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GB% is r of 0.83, popups and line drives per ball in air both have a correlation of higher than 0.5
by Graham on Jul 8, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All the same, tRA must be less predictive
since it has all the same factors and then some. tRA* might be better than xFIP though.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 8, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except this is apparently not true
FIP assumes that batted ball profiles all stay average. 100% regression is worse than zero regression when all correlations are over 0.5.
by Graham on Jul 9, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would you test tRA and FIP then?
ERA is useless in a small sample size, but if your using it as the “answer”, both tRA and FIP would be affect by it’s flaws equally.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I am really asking a simple question: how would you test the two metrics? If the point of them is to see how much they reflect pitchers skill, would a year to year correlation test be best way?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 9, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, if you wanted to know whether, let's say a Porsche or a Buick Sebring, was going to perform well in the future
would you look at sales figures (while ignoring things like economic climate, gas prices, and advertising) or would you look at factory test results? Sales figures are a decent proxy, and bad cars don’t sell. But why would you trust a result that is influenced by so many factors when you have clean, hard data that tells you exactly what you want to know?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 8, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dolphin huh?
Definitely one less pitch he is needing.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 7, 2009 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs















