Whip

[CMH]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

What I mean is .. there is NO pitch, ever, NO pitch type, NO pitch location, NO pitch speed -- that is in the strike zone, and completely UNHITTABLE by a major league hitter. Given that, the pitcher doesn't even really control K's (or HRs).

K's are far more consistent, however.

Pitchers that strike out batters always strike out batters, unless they happen to lose velocity or skill.

BABIP isn't consistent, which is likely why it's believed that a pitcher doesn't actually control it.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

You're equating "hit" with "contact". That's the disconnect.

No. The theory equates hit with contact. The theory is that once "contact" is made, a pitcher doesn't control "hit".

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

This theory really does insinuate that the only effect a pitcher has over a game is walks.

No. It doesn't. But every time it gets discussed here, somebody says something like this.

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

What I mean is .. there is NO pitch, ever, NO pitch type, NO pitch location, NO pitch speed -- that is in the strike zone, and completely UNHITTABLE by a major league hitter. Given that, the pitcher doesn't even really control K's (or HRs).

Saying that no pitch is totally and completely unhittable is not the same as saying that the pitcher has no control over whether the ball is hit. I mean, crap, why would you even say that? Saying a hitter has some control over the outcome of an at-bat isn't the same as saying the pitcher has no control over that same outcome.

Look, the whole DIPS discussion has moved past the stage of anyone important saying that pitchers have absolutely no control over BABIP. But the evidence it pretty clear that the pitcher's effect on it is dwarfed by that of the batter and the players playing defense. Can you at least admit that those two things would have an impact on BABIP without trying to make it out that anyone is saying everything is just like Cadaco All-Star Baseball, with no input at all from pitchers?

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

K's are far more consistent, however.

Pitchers that strike out batters always strike out batters, unless they happen to lose velocity or skill.

BABIP isn't consistent, which is likely why it's believed that a pitcher doesn't actually control it.

This I can see. And I'll admit this is brand new to me, so I'll have to do some research on it. A good pitcher not getting a higher % of outs per at bat (excluding K's) goes against everything I've ever thought.

Fortuneately, I love numbers, so it iill be some interesting research !

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Anyone can cherry pick 4 years of numbers to further their argument. That's a poor use of statistics. Here's a similar poor use of statistics to drive that point home:

BABIP for Pedro Martinez (1999-2002)

Pedro Martinez 1999 .344
Pedro Martinez 2000 .253
Pedro Martinez 2001 .322
Pedro Martinez 2002 .288

I wasnt cherry picking I made it quite clear I was using Greg Maddux PRIME years as my example.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

LOL. Kenny Rogers has been pitching like that for 20 years.

Break through in regards to the BABIP stat these guys talk about. Sorry if it wasnt clear.

[lewis31lewis52]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

No. The theory equates hit with contact. The theory is that once "contact" is made, a pitcher doesn't control "hit".

Okay, well let's say the hitter hits a fly ball to center. The ball is in the air, nothing controlling it. How does the pitcher help decide where the ball ends up?

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Spielman

No. It doesn't. But every time it gets discussed here, somebody says something like this.



Saying that no pitch is totally and completely unhittable is not the same as saying that the pitcher has no control over whether the ball is hit. I mean, crap, why would you even say that? Saying a hitter has some control over the outcome of an at-bat isn't the same as saying the pitcher has no control over that same outcome.

Look, the whole DIPS discussion has moved past the stage of anyone important saying that pitchers have absolutely no control over BABIP. But the evidence it pretty clear that the pitcher's effect on it is dwarfed by that of the batter and the players playing defense. Can you at least admit that those two things would have an impact on BABIP without trying to make it out that anyone is saying everything is just like Cadaco All-Star Baseball, with no input at all from pitchers?

Sorry, it's a new theory for me. And, admittingly, I have missed other discussions about it. I find it very interesting.

I may have misunderstood, but I read ALOT of "a pitcher can't control this and that". IMO (as of now), no a pitcher can't control where a ball is hit, but he can control (by raising %s of occurances) whether it's a ground ball, fly ball, weakly hit, etc. Which to me would indicate he does have some control over BABIP. I absolutely agree defense and the batter impact BABIP. 100%. But I also think the pitcher does (which I am getting from this thread that some think is not true).

As I said. This is all just speculation on my part from watching baseball games for 30+ years. I have done no research on the subject, so I am just speaking from what I've always thought was "common sense". I am interested in doing a little research on the subject when I get some time.

(BTW - anyone have some good links to help me get started ?)

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

By the way, where did you get these figures?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I wasnt cherry picking I made it quite clear I was using Greg Maddux PRIME years as my example.

Those are Pedro's PRIME years as well, and his BABIPs are aaaaaaaallllllllllllll over the place.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by lewis31lewis52

Okay, well let's say the hitter hits a fly ball to center. The ball is in the air, nothing controlling it. How does the pitcher help decide where the ball ends up?

I've always thought ..

On any given at bat, anything can happen. Buuutt.

I've always thought ... Over the long haul, a pitcher can control whether a batter "gets good wood". Professional hitters can put a ball "close" to where they want to. A good pitcher can take this away with his pitching, and make that more difficult, resulting in weak fly balls.

So, for your example .. he's already effected it. If it was a bad pitch, or one more manageable to a hitter, he could've slapped a line shot back up the middle.

Again. I'm new to this theory, and am just speaking what I've always "thought" about baseball. And will do a little research on this interesting subject.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

(BTW - anyone have some good links to help me get started ?)

Today, read anything by David Gassko ("DSG" on various boards). He has a habit of linking to many of the prior studies anyway

Here is one to start, but there are more recent ones working off Bradburry's work, etc. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...alls-and-dips/

People to make sure to read: Voros M.'s original few articles, Tippett's article linked above, MGL's article on the old BaseballPrimer ( still available, I think, on Tom Tango's website), and all the Glasko articles recently on Hardballtimes. Mike Emleigh has a number of posts at all BaseballPrimer that are must reads, and Tango's old Sabr blog is still accessible from his website (www.tangotiger.net) and contains most of the old discussions, or links to them at least.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Those are Pedro's PRIME years as well, and his BABIPs are aaaaaaaallllllllllllll over the place.

Cool, What exactly is your point?

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Fortuneately, I love numbers, so it iill be some interesting research !

Ok, this is better than poo-pooing the whole idea like you were at the beginning. I know it seems counterintuitive, but here's some reading you can do.

Starting with this article that links to all previous work:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...alls-and-dips/

If you're still interested after that there's plenty of research done in the last year and a half since that article happened that I'll be happy to dig up for you.

[Joshv02]

I WIN

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Today, read anything by David Glasko ("DSG" on various boards). He has a habit of linking to many of the prior studies anyway

Here is one to start, but there are more recent ones working of Bradburry's work, etc. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...alls-and-dips/

People to make sure to read: Voros M.'s original few articles, Tippett's article linked above, MGL's article on the old BaseballPrimer ( still available, I think, on Tom Tango's website), and all the Glasko articles recently on Hardballtimes. Mike Emleigh has a number of posts at all BaseballPrimer that are must reads, and Tango's old Sabr blog is still accessible from his website (www.tangotiger.net) and contains most of the old discussions, or links to them at least.

This is all good too... but it's actually David Gassko (edit: I WIN ). He made a great advancement in a study that was published in THT's 2006 annual, but has plenty of work available to read on the internet.

[Joshv02]

I WIN AGAIN.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Today, read anything by David Gassko ("DSG" on various boards). He has a habit of linking to many of the prior studies anyway

Here is one to start, but there are more recent ones working off Bradburry's work, etc. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...alls-and-dips/

People to make sure to read: Voros M.'s original few articles, Tippett's article linked above, MGL's article on the old BaseballPrimer ( still available, I think, on Tom Tango's website), and all the Glasko articles recently on Hardballtimes. Mike Emleigh has a number of posts at all BaseballPrimer that are must reads, and Tango's old Sabr blog is still accessible from his website (www.tangotiger.net) and contains most of the old discussions, or links to them at least.

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Ok, this is better than poo-pooing the whole idea like you were at the beginning. I know it seems counterintuitive, but here's some reading you can do.

Starting with this article that links to all previous work:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...alls-and-dips/

If you're still interested after that there's plenty of research done in the last year and a half since that article happened that I'll be happy to dig up for you.

Thanks guys, I'm off to work for now .. but I'll check back and check these out.

Sorry to come across as poo-pooing ... but, well, as I said .. this theory goes against everything I've "believed" my whole life.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Cool, What exactly is your point?

My point is that posting those numbers proves nothing. You can cherry pick stats all you want, which is what people who are against using stats to further arguments complain about all the time. The problem isn't in the stats, it's being able to recognize when they're being used improperly.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Cool, What exactly is your point?

Maybe that one example doesn't go very far in proving any kind of point. You posted an example, he posted an example and the two examples contradicted each other. Usually a contradiction means that you don't have enough information.