Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Arnold
ERA is a terrible metric to use to gauge player value?
The pitching model is mostly a FIP-based model. So players who beat their FIP will tend to vary a lot more. Someone like Darren O'Day who has a career 2.59 ERA but 3.48 FIP will tend to be rated worse than you might expect, since the game doesn't necessarily quantify why he can beat his FIP.
|
Lol funny you bring this up because I do look at FIP and not ERA, I just brought up ERA because it was the go-to on the B-ref page I looked at. The 19c pitcher has a 94 FIP- career and the modern reliever has a 96. So pretty similar, yet the star difference, the scouting that is, is hugely different which I imagine leads to the individual ratings differences in things like stuff, control, movement, etc. (19c guy is also top of the list in holding runners, defending steals, etc., while 21c. guy is bottom of the list, for who knows why.
Anyhow, I would think pitchers of similar FIPs would have similar outcome probabilities, but I guess the game might mitigate those differences in ways that result in widely disparate ratings such as these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Arnold
The other thing to keep in mind is that relievers generally speaking are expected to be better than starters. 111 ERA+ for a reliever is fine, but arguably is only an average reliever at best. If you combine a few other factors into that, it could easily explain why a guy comes out rated very poorly.
Neutralized stats can also have an impact. I know some people believe they over-compensate for era differences, so that can have a bigger impact. Also as mentioned, star ratings are a composite rating, so if you have scouting enabled, your scout might not like them. Or just the way their ratings are put together might make for bad ratings.
|
Good insights here, thanks.