Quote:
Originally Posted by Argonaut
EDIT: Disregard the following post's conclusions about FIP being arbitrary in some cases. There's a follow-up post below by me that offers explanation. The relevant data in this post pertains to a catcher's affect on strikeouts and walks.
NEW TESTING: FIP & CATCHERS
In doing some unrelated testing on something else, I seem to have come to the conclusion that FIP may have some element of arbitrariness, calling into question how I view FIP in OOTP.
It started by my opening the Pandora's Box that is Catcher Defense. I was looking at Ivan Rodriguez on the 1997 Texas Rangers, and simulated a bunch of games against the Milwaukee Brewers with and without his elite defense.
It was actually kind of eerie, as Texas had a mirror image record:
Normal Pudge: 5093-4907
Crippled Pudge: 4907-5093
There is some more detail in the attached results. A great catcher increases K/9 and decreases BB/9, and also definitely contributes positively to ERA and FIP.
But wait, I thought FIP was fielding independent? Well, normally it's pretty close as shown in my Braves testing. But catchers are a different story, and if their pitch framing increases K's and reduces BB's, that should be a net benefit to FIP because BABIP isn't involved. It's cool that this is in OOTP, and it reinforces my attraction to defensive catchers.
And then we get to the puzzling part... the Rangers with the normal Pudge gave up more home runs? I tested this over and over to make sure what I saw was real. It's true, having a better Catcher Defense actually increases home runs against. This doesn't make any logical sense -- if there's more strikeouts and fewer walks, then innings should be shorter and there should be fewer opportunities for home runs.
The only reasoning I can think of for the additional home runs is that there is some arbitrary invisible hand at play to keep FIP within a range. More strikeouts + fewer walks = more home runs. Having a great catcher is still a net benefit, but it looks like there's an illogical drawback.
In all of my previous testing I've come away more appreciative of OOTP, but this is the first time I've been disappointed. (EDIT: Disappointment not needed!)
|
Argonaut your post has helped me a lot but....I disagree about your statement of: Having a great catcher is still a net benefit, but it looks like there's an illogical drawback. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS MUCH WORSE THEN I SUSPECTED AND A CATCHER WITH BETTER CATCHING ABILITY is even WORSE then a catcher with a lower ability rating.
Thanks to your post I may understand why.
I am amazed at how many times I witness say Catcher X with a 100 plus ability and say a 90 plus arm HAVE a much higher CERA over Catcher Z with a 20 ability and 40 arm.
TOP That off with if the lower ability Catcher is a better hitter and the WAR stat is a huge difference. Heck, I have repeatedly seen comparable hitting catchers end result being the catcher with the lower ability/arm have a much better WAR.
I actually have recently been studying the same thing and Pudge was just one of many reasons I studied this.
I may now understand what is going on thanks to your post. The only thing we disagree on is that I feel based off of 100's of PT observations and dozens of single player seasons (looking at every team catcher stats) that a catcher with a better ability is even WORSE then the one with lower ability.
This will change how I play both single and PT from now on. I'll mainly just go for a pure hitter with a total disregard for catcher ability or even choose the lower ability on purpose. I do notice a decent difference in throwing out runners so I'll still try to get a guy with a good arm.
Have a great day Argonaut and love the screen name. I actually have a dog named Argos.