Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Ole Miss-Alabama: "Let's Go Eat.Wait. What Happened?"

tRA and ROA, a new pitching metric.

ED 1/5/08: It's been brought to my attention that Ducksnorts has just linked to this diary. Since comments on it are now closed, if you're reading this and have any questions, drop me an email: gym21(at)cam.ac.uk

Introduction

We like putting run values on performance. By converting what a player does on the field to one universal currency, we can measure batting against fielding against pitching, or convert an entire team's roster into projected wins. Fantastic.

However, we don't really have a widely available coherent metric for pitchers which tells us how good a pitcher is, independent of his home park and defence (and if anyone's tempted to say 'ERA' here, read Dave Cameron’s article on pitcher evaluation first). FIP and xFIP are really the most commonly used general pitching stats we have, and they're not really good enough, as they only look at 3 possible outcomes of an at-bat: K, BB, HR.

There is therefore a distinct motivation for construction of a metric which takes into account every action a pitcher is responsible for, and turns those numbers into runs, based around a highly logical and transparent mathematical framework.

Theory and Background

There are essentially only eight possibilities for the state of a baseball at the instant the contest between batter and pitcher has resolved itself. The batter may walk, strike out, or be hit by a pitch. He may also hit a line drive, a ground ball, an outfield fly, a popup, or a home run. Others, such as bunts and intentional walks, are essentially subsets of the more important outcomes.

The past few years have seen individual-play run values enter the statistical field. By making use of a combination of Dave Studenmund's 'Batted Balls Redux' in the 2007 Hardball Times Annual and Tom Tango's run values we can assemble a table of run values for each of the eight outcomes mentioned above:

If these are combined with the frequency with which a pitcher gives up each outcome (HR is modified according to park) and multiplied by total batters faced (TBF), we can determine how many runs that pitcher would have given up in a neutral park in front of an average defence. From there it is a simple exercise to convert these numbers into a R/9 analogue or runs saved/lost above average (called tRA and ROA respectively).

Another point worth considering is regression towards average. Certain pitching stats are known to fluctuate quite wildly from year to year, and in order to correct for this every outcome is regressed towards the mean based on their year-by-year r values and the total batters that a pitcher has faced on the season, with less regression applied the larger the sample size. The actual values which regression is applied to are as follows:

K%, BB%, HBP%, GB per ball in play%, IFF per ball in air%, LD per ball in air%, and HR per FB%

The order is extremely important, as influencing GB% will have an effect on LD% later, and so on, sometimes causing regression away from the mean in unusual situations.

Once a pitcher’s line has been regressed, the same algorithms used to generate tRA and ROA are applied again to give tRA* and ROA*. It is hoped, although not yet tested, that tRA* will prove superior in predicting future R/9 than xFIP is at ERA.

Method

HR correction: HR/FB is subjected to a park effect correction. Park factors specifically for home runs were taken from THT (Thanks, Matthew!)

tRA: Pitcher runs per batter faced, multiplied by TBF, divided by innings pitched (IP), then multiplied by 9. Analogous to runs given up per 9 innings.

ROA: Pitcher runs per batter faced minus league average runs per batter faced, multiplied by TBF. Analogous to runs created above average.

xRuns: Pitcher runs per batter faced multiplied by TBF, then corrected for park (park run values taken from averaging 3 years of data from Baseball Prospectus 2007).

All data were gathered by hand from fangraphs. Averages from different leagues and different classes (i.e. starter and reliever) were kept separately for ROA and regression purposes. A starter was defined as pitcher who had started in 50% or more of their appearances; a reliever was anyone who had thrown a pitch in major league baseball who didn’t get classed as a starter

Assumptions

Run values will be appropriate for both starting pitchers and relievers in each league.

Errors caused by failure to include intentional walks and bunts are unimportant compared to the level of accuracy enjoyed over metrics such as xFIP and ERA.

Results

The following links lead to spreadsheets with results from every pitcher in the 2007 season (ED: they're slightly out of date. Contact me if you want the newest versions):

    AL Starters
    AL Relievers
    NL Starters
    NL Relievers

Leaderboard

I imagine this is what you all want to see at this point. Top ten and bottom five in ROA from all four categories…


Thanks

Thanks to everyone who helped me with this, but especially plunkage and DCMariner, who gathered most of the NL data for me. Cheers, guys.

Other stuff

Feedback is welcome, whether in the comments below or via email, which may be found in my profile. Go crazy, guys.

Poll
Would you use this to evaluate pitchers?
Yes
26 votes
No
3 votes
Maybe
13 votes
I hate limeys
11 votes

53 votes | Poll has closed

2 recs  |  Comment 52 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This made my eyes glaze over
and I mean that as a compliment.  I'm continually impressed with the work that serious stat guys do, and this is no exception.  I may not understand the recipe, but I like seeing results I can make sense of.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 21, 2007 10:13 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Graham,
send me the data you have on HR/FB correction and I should be able to find it from the THT archives.

by Matthew on Dec 21, 2007 10:14 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

The Crow Flies At Noon!
Seriously...Who the FUCK steals another mans bobblehead?

by RED29 on Dec 21, 2007 10:18 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Curiosity...
If Scott Olsen, according to this fine measurement, was the second-worst SP in the NL last season, why are folks so interested in him?  
"I restore a sense of childlike wonder to people's lives; you give them Zunes and Vista." -- Fake Steve Jobs to Borg employees

by PositivePaul on Dec 21, 2007 10:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

He's 23 and a leftie
Other than that... beats me. Even his regressed numbers suck.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

At least he's coachable
and has the right attitude . . .

by Teej on Dec 21, 2007 12:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It is.
I'm not very good at it. For some reason I think adding an ellipses will convey sarcasm, but it often doesn't work.

by Teej on Dec 22, 2007 1:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That made my brain hurt.
You stats guys are amazing, and probably lonely if you have time to figure all this stuff out! (just kidding!).
I overvalue prospects

by Thingray on Dec 21, 2007 10:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Christmas break: 7 weeks on my own
You're more right than you know...

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

7 weeks?! yeesh
come back over here.

by Matthew on Dec 21, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

a) Money
b) I'd get no work done in Seattle.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ouch.
Sorry, I didn't actually mean to hit close to home.
I overvalue prospects

by Thingray on Dec 21, 2007 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hah
Don't worry about it. It's relaxing and gives me time to get things done. And it's an alcohol break, which I need after last term.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you in Cambridge that whole time
or is home somewhere else?
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 21, 2007 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In college the whole time,
Apart from the week of christmas, when I visit my grandparents and family.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It wouldn't let me access the spreadsheets
Maybe it's just my computer?  Or something weird with the permissions, perhaps.

Could you post the tRA leaders?

by patsfan on Dec 21, 2007 11:40 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Think the links work now
tRA leaders will be up in a few minutes.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok
100 IP cutoff for starting pitchers, 40 for RP. Here you go:


by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 12:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Another curiosity...
tRA: Pitcher runs per batter faced, multiplied by TBF, divided by innings pitched (IP), then multiplied by 9. Analogous to runs given up per 9 innings.

I'm curious what the average # of innings a SP pitches is, and if there's any value of extracting a runs/average-sp-innings rather than runs/9IP.  I mean, really, how many pitchers throw 9 innings nowadays???

"I restore a sense of childlike wonder to people's lives; you give them Zunes and Vista." -- Fake Steve Jobs to Borg employees

by PositivePaul on Dec 21, 2007 1:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I needed a R/9 analogue, is the thing
These two stats fall on very familiar number scales, which is the main motivation for them looking the way they do. We're all very used to ERA, R/9, FIP, etc, so I thought that I should follow the same pattern.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 1:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, I agree...
Indeed we're fixated to compare everything to ERA/FIP/Runs-per-9, etc.  I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't do that...

I'm just curious if there's any merit to take things a step further and looking at the # of average IP for each starter, and finding a comparison value for something like "runs per start" (or whatever you statistically/mathematically savvy people would like to use).  Reason I ask?  Well, one reason is that I wonder if starting rotations can be adjusted so that we don't have any more of these Ho-Ram vs. Santana starts where you might as well not even play the game.  Give a guy an extra day's rest, use a spot starter, etc...  

Not, of course, that the M's would ever pay attention to something like that.  

"I restore a sense of childlike wonder to people's lives; you give them Zunes and Vista." -- Fake Steve Jobs to Borg employees

by PositivePaul on Dec 21, 2007 1:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You really can't predict runs/specific start
That's when you start running into horrible SSS problems, and I don't think you'd be able to see the data through all the noise you'd get.

So you could repackage tRA to look at runs/start, yeah, but I think the numbers would be a little misleading.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What's Xruns?
Also, what did you regress to for relief pitchers?

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2007 2:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

xRuns is the runs I'd expect a pitcher to give up
in their home park but in front of a neutral defense. I used it to make sure everything was adding up right, and to get a quick and dirty defensive evaluation for teams.

And I regressed everything to that year's averages (weighted by TBF), so AL starters got regressed towards AL starter averages, etc...

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok that makes sense for SP/RP
I'm gonna say that the xRuns is probably a really dirty eval technique.  -65 runs for the M's is probably a little rough on the defense.  Probalby hurts them that Weaver and HoRam weren't really MLB quality pitchers that don't deserve the generosity your method gives them by regressing to the average.  When you take out Weaver and HoRam, the -29 runs figure sounds more believable.  Including the IP of Weaver/HoRam and applying the -29 runs figure to the IP from those SP be come up with a figure that is -34 runs.  -34 runs is probably right about where it should be in my mind.  Maybe a little more because Weaver and HoRam probably got screwed a little by people not fielding many of the balls that were hit against them so maybe that'd push it up to -40 runs.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2007 2:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

xRuns is unregressed
And it's not really that unfair - Weaver and Ho were giving up lots of line drives which xRuns doesn't really expect to be fielded.

Note that THT has us at -63.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 2:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It might be interesting to look at averages
of different subsets and regress to those.  Since you have all the info in your spreadsheet already it might not be too tough to do. Just use some nifty If statements and it wouldn't take too much work.

Some interesting subsets to look at would be:
LHSP vs RHSP
LHRP vs RHRP
<30 yrs old vs >30 yrs old
closers (SV > 5)vs other RP (i guess you don't have that in the spreadsheet so that'd require more work)
High K% vs Mid K% vs Low K%
High BB% vs Mid BB% vs Low BB%
High GB % vs Mid GB% vs Low GB%

Just thoughts since all this different subsets might have different averages to regress to.  I know, there is some elegance to having something simple but it doesn't make a lot of sense to regress Putz to the same average as Chris Reitsma.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2007 2:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure I'm up for something that big right now
That looks like at least a few days's worth of work to figure out and implement the new regression algorithms, and I've spent a tonne of time on this recently - so I'm going to leave the actual slogging work to one side for a while.

Maybe in a month or two... or, if you want to play with it, I can send you the full spreadsheet.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 2:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would also like to see people make
park factors for LHB/RHB and LHP/RHP.  Not really that important to your stuff but it'd be very interesting.  Might have already been done too.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I did that for Safeco with PBP data
It was

a) soul destroying, due to having to go through 162 games to get it
b) on my old computer :(

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 2:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sad
Well somebody should do it for all the ballparks because it'd be interesting.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

As it turns out, manual data entry = typos
Let me know if you find any and I'll fix them, eventually.

by Graham on Dec 21, 2007 3:11 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I've been looking it over a little
seems like your regression is too nice.  It seems like tRA* < tRA more than you'd expect.  Looks like its .2 less.  Basically no pitchers are hurt by regression to the mean.  It also appears that tRA* is very linear to tRA so if a pitcher does poorly tRA* is reduced by a linear amount [tRA = 2.944 + 0.314*(tRA*) r^2=0.66]

Another thing question I have is why is ROA = tRA*IP/9 - 1.  I get the tRA*IP/9 but why do you subtract 1 from it.  The same thing is done with ROA*.

I also looked at how age and LH/RH effects periferals a little.  I just looked at AL starters and it didn't look like it was a huge effect.  The biggest effect I saw was as pitchers age, K% drop and BB% drop.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 12:44 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Are you just doing a straight average of tRA/tRA*?
If you are it's because there are a lot more really, really high tRAs to regress back to the mean than really low ones. I think if you applied an innings limit you'd see some different results.

And the ROA thing is multiplied by -1, not subtracted by -1, because the sign's the wrong way round otherwise...

by Graham on Dec 22, 2007 3:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I weighted it by IP
maybe I should have weighted it by TBF.  I'll take a look at that and see how it changes.

Whoops.  That makes sense for the ROA.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok something got messed up with the spreadsheet
I was looking at.  Wierd, whatever.  Looks fine now.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Something I thought was interesting to see
was when you plot the absolute value of tRA-tRA* vs IP (or TBF) the range of values decrease exponentially as the IP increase which means that as you get more data, the amount of regression decreases.  Just thought it was nice looking.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's something new with this version
Glad to see it's working as planned :D.

So what do you actually think of this as a metric? Useful? Not useful?

by Graham on Dec 22, 2007 12:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I like it
Its nice and easy to use.  I really like the ROA stat because thats a number that I find very useful.  I also like that its runs with respect to average compared to most people who use runs with respect to replacement level.  I will probably use it in the future.  Its too bad that its such a pain entering in all the data because it'd be interesting to see how well the regression works.  The unregressed stuff is still pretty useful by itself.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just checked tRA vs tRA*, weighted by TBF
AL(s): 4.87, 4.87
AL(r): 4.81, 4.76
NL(s): 5.09, 5.02
NL(r): 4.71, 4.63

What's really bugging me is how much higher total ROA* is than ROA. I'll get on that...

by Graham on Dec 22, 2007 3:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Aaaand I've decided that doesn't really matter
But while i was looking at it, an interesting discovery: NL managers gave innings to good players at a much better clip than their AL counterparts did.

by Graham on Dec 22, 2007 4:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Another thing you might want to look into is
trying to make another version that would be more predictive.  Maybe something really simple with some aging algorithm that would tweak peripherals.  I guess it probably wouldn't help much though unless you made it complicated which would probably be too much work.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2007 12:16 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I could do that, and eventually plan to
The main problem here is data input. I need 3 years worth to predict things correctly and I estimate that this project was something like 10 hours design and presentation, and 60 of navigating fangraphs and typing numbers into the spreadsheets.

Also, having minor league ball in play numbers would make me far more inclined to undertake a project like this, because then I could get into quite good predictions.

by Graham on Dec 22, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So...
Going solely by this tRA*, am I right that Silva would be the #2 SP on the Mariners? And that Silva is better than Josh Towers by the same magnitude that (for example) Curt Schilling is better than Silva?

by GoddardTP on Dec 22, 2007 5:50 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yes and yes
The spread between Schilling, Silva, and Towers isn't really all that large though.

by Graham on Dec 23, 2007 2:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A different way of looking at the offseason - Impact on Playoff Hopes
Small
My Favorite Player: Rob Johnson
Clement_small
The Effect of Chemistry in MLB and the Yuniesky Betancourt Exception
Small
On the Shoulders of Giants: A Compilation

Recent FanPosts

Clemente_small
OT cooking thoughts, and oh yeah, there's that football game, Feb 7
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Small
A Case For Felipe Lopez
Small
First Thursday in February (and Superbowl!) OT
12839274_l_small
Optimism thread... Give your thoughts about what you predict in '10
Small
Bargain Bin Rumor/Transaction Thread
Small
ALL CAPS OFFTOP 2010-02-02
Siam1367_small
Now Warming-Up in the Matador Pen...Ryan Garko!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Hms_surprise_small Graham

Small Matthew

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan