Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
Please explain to me why FIP correlating better on what the FIP will be for a particular player the following year has anything to do with actually measuring the player's ability at pitching.
The article you linked also said that K/9 correlates the best of all statistics. However there are plenty of pitchers with low K/9 ratios that pitch well in the major leagues.
FB% correlates higher than FIP also. Does that mean that if a pitcher has a higher FB% that he is a better pitcher? Because I can almost guarantee without looking it up that Chris Young's FB% was much greater than Jeremy Hefner's. (Note, I am not advocating FB% shows pitcher skill, I'm just illustrating a point that stats correlating year-to-year more accurately than other stats means nothing in terms of their value in analyzing talent).
Wow. This is ugly.
Was I comparing FIP or xFIP to FB% or K/9? No. Didn't think so. I was comparing it to ERA, which has one of the lowest correlations year-to-year of any pitching metric.
If it was in any way reflective of a pitcher's skill, wouldn't it have some semblance of correlation rather than fluctuating wildly every year? The skills of the athletes stay relatively the same on a yearly basis, so when comparing two stats that are trying to accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you want the one that does the same? If FIP is so arbitrary and made-up, how does it correlate so well every year?
Also I like how you conveniently ignored the fact that xFIP is the greatest indicator of future ERA and that Hefner more than doubled Young's WAR in 30 less innings.
I'd rather they give Rogers a shot over Narveson, but I'm not really sure what they'll do. I've paid like 0 attention to baseball since last season, but I'm about to try to figure out all my keepers for this hardcore auction league. Pretty hot Friday night if I do say so myself.
Wanna talk experience? The Mets starting outfield doesn't have one guy who has started a full season before. And they make about as much as Bobby Bonilla this year. Combined.
At least I have my fantasy dynasty team to keep me sane again this summer.
Please explain to me why FIP correlating better on what the FIP will be for a particular player the following year has anything to do with actually measuring the player's ability at pitching.
The article you linked also said that K/9 correlates the best of all statistics. However there are plenty of pitchers with low K/9 ratios that pitch well in the major leagues.
FB% correlates higher than FIP also. Does that mean that if a pitcher has a higher FB%P that he is a better pitcher? Because I can almost guarantee without looking it up that Chris Young's FB% was much greater than Jeremy Hefner's. (Note, I am not advocating FB% shows pitcher skill, I'm just illustrating a point that stats correlating year-to-year more accurately than other stats means nothing in terms of their value in analyzing talent).
Wow. This is ugly.
Was I comparing FIP or xFIP to FB% or K/9? No. Didn't think so. I was comparing it to ERA, which has one of the lowest correlations year-to-year of any pitching metric.
If it was in any way reflective of a pitcher's skill, wouldn't it have some semblance of correlation rather than fluctuating wildly every year? The skills of the athletes stay relatively the same on a yearly basis, so when comparing two stats that are trying to accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you want the one that does the same? If FIP is so arbitrary and made-up, how does it correlate so well every year?
Also I like how you conveniently ignored the fact that xFIP is the greatest indicator of future ERA and that Hefner more than doubled Young's WAR in 30 less innings.
I'll get back to you tomorrow when I'm sober. Peace and lover brother.
Gotcha. Which still baffles me. Do you think Braves fans realize they ruined Chipper's last game, yet?
Such an embarrassing moment to be a Braves fan. No curtain call.
I mean I just think of it as the Braves get more fans to the park later in the year/playoffs, no? So all of those people aren't necessarily the most "die-hard" fans around and don't quite grasp those intricacies. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Obviously the Braves do have good fans, I'm not doubting that, there just seemed to be more on the late season bandwagon than decent ones at that game.
If (a statistic) was in any way reflective of a pitcher's skill, wouldn't it have some semblance of correlation rather than fluctuating wildly every year? The skills of the athletes stay relatively the same on a yearly basis, so when comparing two stats that are trying to accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you want the one that does the same?
FIP and xFIP are more likely (than ERA) to stay the same from one year to the next. Based on this fact, you believe those statistics are more reliable indicators of a pitcher's performance. However, there is a major flaw with your premise.
You are comparing FIP and xFIP to ERA (which admittedly fluctuates more from year-to-year). Based on your premise, that would make FIP and xFIP a "better" statistic to predict performance. However, what I am doing is comparing FIP and xFIP to two statistics that your article says correlate even higher than FIP and xFIP from year to year. Those statistics are K/9 and FB%.
Despite K/9 being a useful statistic to measure a pitcher's ability to strike out batters, it would be absurd to suggest that K/9 (the most correlative stat from year to year), is the "best" statistic in analyzing a pitcher's performance. There are plenty of pitchers who successfully pitch to contact, and there are plenty of All-Star caliber pitchers on a yearly basis with less than eye-popping K/9 ratios.
Similarly, FB% has a more stable correlation year-to-year than FIP and xFIP. But all this stat shows is whether someone is a fly ball pitcher, and not whether he is a successful one or not. No one would say a pitcher is better than another merely because he has a lower FB%. Plenty of fly-ball pitchers succeed in the MLB.
My point is that some statistics like FIP and xFIP might correlate higher from year-to-year than others, but that might not necessarily make them better statistics for evaluating a pitcher's performance.
If FIP is so arbitrary and made-up, how does it correlate so well every year?
Perhaps the creator of the FIP formula [[(13*HR+3*BB-2*K)/IP]*3.2] wanted to make a statistic that correlates well from year-to-year. The rationale being that statistics that do not fluctuate wildly from year-to-year make it easier to evaluate a pitcher from an objective perspective. But it still matters what statistics you use and how you use them. For FIP, I'm not really sure what to understand. Why did the creator weigh HR by 13 or BB by 3? Because he has empirical data showing these statistics, when compared to each other, have inherent value according to these proportions? Or did he try to make a formula that merely correlates well from year to year?
and that Hefner more than doubled Young's WAR in 30 less innings.
I think this might be the first time you are bringing up WAR, so I'm not sure I was avoiding anything. Either way, this statistic is not true. Hefner's WAR was in the negative last year, meaning he was actually below a replacement level player last year (hence why he's in triple-a) and Chris Young was in the positive (hence why I am arguing he is better).
I'm down to settle the Young/Hefner dilemma with the gun-to-the-head test. IF Flanzo will indulge us...
You are in a 1-game tiebreaker to clinch the wildcard. The only two pitchers available are Chris Young and Jeremy Hefner. Flanzo - GUN TO THE HEAD - who do you trot out there?
I'm not humoring you by answer such a ridiculous question. Any team in baseball would send a better pitcher out on short rest and use their bullpen in that scenario.
Jimmy, use Fangraphs. Hefner had a WAR of 1.2, Young had a WAR of 0.5.
Such an embarrassing moment to be a Braves fan. No curtain call.
I mean I just think of it as the Braves get more fans to the park later in the year/playoffs, no? So all of those people aren't necessarily the most "die-hard" fans around and don't quite grasp those intricacies. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Obviously the Braves do have good fans, I'm not doubting that, there just seemed to be more on the late season bandwagon than decent ones at that game.
No this is totally accurate. Atlanta isn't a good sports city in general. I don't know what it is, really, but the games are usually relegated to being a tourist attraction during the season and there just isn't a good, strong sports identity in Atlanta. I think it's too much of a hub for people to come from their real hometowns and they don't end up identifying with the city.
Mar 14 Sheepdogs/Fitz & The Tantrums/City & Colour (Austin)
Mar 15 Jim James (Austin)
Apr 26 Jim James (Boston)
May 4 Clutch & The Sword (Portland ME)
Jun 8 DMB (Hartford)
Jun 21 Jim James (Northampton MA)
Jul 27-28 Newport Folk
Aug 6 Death Grips (Boston)
Oct 25-27 MOEMS
I mean I just think of it as the Braves get more fans to the park later in the year/playoffs, no? So all of those people aren't necessarily the most "die-hard" fans around and don't quite grasp those intricacies. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Obviously the Braves do have good fans, I'm not doubting that, there just seemed to be more on the late season bandwagon than decent ones at that game.
No this is totally accurate. Atlanta isn't a good sports city in general. I don't know what it is, really, but the games are usually relegated to being a tourist attraction during the season and there just isn't a good, strong sports identity in Atlanta. I think it's too much of a hub for people to come from their real hometowns and they don't end up identifying with the city.
This is exactly it and is true of a lot of warm weather cities. Atlanta, Phoenix, pretty much anywhere in Florida. I went to a Brewers game in Arizona in August of the 2007 season. The Diamondbacks were leading their division, the Brewers were only a couple games out of first in theirs, and the announced attendance was like 26,000. On a Saturday night. I'd guess 30-40% of the crowed were Brewers fans, including over half our section in the bleachers.
I think another part of it is that there's just more to do in warm weather cities in general. Winter in San Diego? Oh no it's 60 degrees. Winter in Green Bay? I'm not leaving the house for 2 months. People are always all "Oh man, the Packers have the best fan base in the NFL" and while that certainly may be true, have you ever been to Green Bay? Boring as f*ck. If I lived there I'd probably camp out in -4 degree weather to see Donald Driver give his retirement speech on a weekday morning, too.
Post by awolfthedoor on Feb 24, 2013 20:30:30 GMT -5
I ended up watching six innings of the Mets Nats spring training game on MLB Network yesterday and pretending like it was spring. I'm seriously jonesing, you guys.
I ended up watching six innings of the Mets Nats spring training game on MLB Network yesterday and pretending like it was spring. I'm seriously jonesing, you guys.
Me too dude. Spent like an hour just watching interviews with all of the new Indians signees. Just got my opening day tickets vs. the Yanks today too. Already sold out, first time that's happened in Cleveland for a while. So excited
