Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain King
What statistics do you prefer?
|
Generally position-dependent statistics. We don't have metrics to properly compare the contributions of pitchers vs position players, so I don't pretend to try. In my OOTP leagues, for example, Pitchers don't win the MVP -- that's an award for position players. (also, relievers don't win the Cy, they have their own award but that's really just b/c I play historical where relievers never compete for the Cy)
With regards to pitcher evaluation, I really do appreciate the value of FIP. I remember the real excitement I felt when Voros made his initial DIPS post on rec.sport.baseball, and I immediately modified my software to incorporate that concept.
The DIPS vs ERA argument is not related to my objections about using WAR. To me, there are two things that we measure in the sport: what we think will happen, and what actually did happen. FIP is a great measure of what we think will happen because it isolates pitcher performance from defense. Not perfectly, but pretty good. ERA is a great measure of what actually happened because there is always a significant difference between what we predict will happen vs what did happen, and it's not just the effects of defense. It's mostly real-world RNG, whatever you want to call that.
So when it comes to rewarding pitchers for performance, I use stats like ERA or ERA+ combined with innings pitched. Baseball is still a team sport and no one pitches in a vacuum. Is it biased towards pitchers with great defenses? Yes. But that's preferable (to me) than giving awards instead based on what should have happened but didn't.
Pitchers who do well with ERA & ERA+ get awards. Pitchers who do well with FIP get bigger contracts. That's the bottom line for me.