Whip

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

I WIN AGAIN.

OH YEA WELL IN LIKE 2 YEARS ILL HAVE A LAW DEGREE LETS SEE YOU BEAT THAT

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by andymac

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.

:BOOM!:

[jbergey22]

My conclusion is that some of the better pitchers can control BABIP and that is what makes them better. The average to below average bitchers in essence DO have limited control over this same stat because as many of you have said their numbers are all over the place from year to year. I'm not sure if that makes any of us right or wrong IMO. I do think that certain pitchers do have more than limited control over BABIP otherwise Maddux would not have had 4 dominate BABIP years just like Santana and Halladay have had recently. I also admit from the initial argument that ballpark and defense seem to play a bigger than I had realized.

[Joshv02]

Maddux could certainly have had a greater ability to control BIP than others during that period of time. (Though, in his first year in Atl he was middle of his team's pack for pitchers with 50+ IP.)

But, merely having had a few good seasons does not mean much. Ever flip a coin and get heads four times in a row? Doesn't mean the coin is stacked.

(That said, this isn't that -- this is 900+ BF in each of 4 seasons, or more than 3500 coin flips with an uneven distribution given the expected numbers ---- but, one would have to draw out the argument more, and you've not done so.)

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

My conclusion is that some of the better pitchers can control BABIP and that is what makes them better. The average to below average bitchers in essence DO have limited control over this same stat because as many of you have said their numbers are all over the place from year to year. I'm not sure if that makes any of us right or wrong IMO. I do think that certain pitchers do have more than limited control over BABIP otherwise Maddux would not have had 4 dominate BABIP years just like Santana and Halladay have had recently. I also admit from the initial argument that ballpark and defense seem to play a bigger than I had realized.

That's fine... you can believe whatever you want to believe but there is empirical data that suggests that it's further toward the DIPS theory, and it's data that should not be ignored.

I think there's a lot to be discovered at this point with regards to pitchability and it's relationship to BABIP. Young guys like Manny Delcarmen and pitchers that are coming off injury and just aren't right like Schilling in '05 are evidence of that. However, given the information available at this point, the best assumption to make is that things like IFFB% and FB% affect BABIP with pitchers controlling it over a VERY narrow band other than that. Therefore, when dealing with pitchers that don't have years and years of data available, it's best to assume at this point that their BABIP will regress to the mean.

[jbergey22]

Yeah I suppose we are not sure if Joe Mauer is a good hitter either because by flipping a coin 500 times the outcome can become out of whack. Please dont argue statistically possibilities and claim it as any sort of fact. 4 years in top 10 is as factual as you will find in baseball.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Please dont argue statistically possibilities and claim it as any sort of fact. 4 years in top 10 is as factual as you will find in baseball.

I'd argue that in baseball because there's so many outside factors that there's no such thing as fact, only statistical probabilities. That statement only furthers that argument.

[jbergey22]

If you really want to argue this point, you have to agree then also that.

*A hitter making contact on a 3-0 count is just as likely to get out as a hitter on an 0-2 count if the ball is in play. Same with any other count in baseball whether the pitcher is ahead or behind in the count* Some pitchers obviously have better control meaning they would control circumstances by pitching ahead in the count

*Hitters red zones and blue zones in essence mean nothing as well because no matter wherever the ball contacted it has just as likely of a chance to be a hit*

*Certain pitchers that dont strike out a lot of batters or walk many batters however are capable of inducing ground balls are REALLY lucky or play behind a great defense*

*Any pitcher with comparable SO/9, BB/9, HR/9 should have appx the same career numbers.

Are you willing to assume all of these factors?

[andymac]

I thought it would be intersting to see how some of Maddux' teamates ranked in the four years that were brought up earlier in terms of BABIP.

1992: Maddux (3rd in NL), Mike Morgan (4th), Frank Castillo (5th)
1993: Maddux (11th), John Smoltz (10th), Tom Glavine (16th)
1994: Maddux (2nd), Steve Avery (3rd), John Smoltz (9th)
1995: Maddux (1st), Tom Glavine (14th), Steve Avery (20th)

In 3 out of those 4 years, Maddux had 2 teamates who put up extremely similar BABIP numbers to what he did. Only in '95 was there a significant difference (which could have just been luck).

[marc]

So are you guys just saying that Maddux is like the luckiest pitcher to ever live or something??

I'm not following this at all.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yeah I suppose we are not sure if Joe Mauer is a good hitter either because by flipping a coin 500 times the outcome can become out of whack.

That isn't what I said. You aren't reading closely.

Please dont argue statistically possibilities and claim it as any sort of fact. 4 years in top 10 is as factual as you will find in baseball.

As I already posted, in one of your years, Maddux was #5 on his own team.

#	YEAR	NAME		TEAM	LG	IP	PA	AB	H	BB	SO	HBP	HR	ROE	DEF_EFF
1.	1993	Jay Howell	ATL	NL	58.3	233	210	48	16	37	0	3	3	0.735
2.	1993	Greg Mcmichael	ATL	NL	91.7	365	330	68	29	89	0	3	2	0.727
3.	1993	John Smoltz	ATL	NL	243.7	1,028	905	208	100	208	6	23	10	0.726
4.	1993	Kent Mercker	ATL	NL	66.0	283	243	52	36	59	2	2	3	0.725
5.	1993	Greg Maddux	ATL	NL	267.0	1,064	984	228	52	197	6	14	16	0.723

That year, 1992, Maddux was #65 in Def Efficiency for all pitchers with greater than 50 IP. http://baseballprospectus.com/statis...php?cid=207316

#	YEAR	NAME		TEAM	LG	IP	PA	AB	H	BB	SO	HBP	HR	ROE	DEF_EFF
1.	1993	Sid Fernandez	NYN	NL	119.7	469	426	82	36	81	3	17	3	0.802
2.	1993	Jim Poole	BAL	AL	50.3	197	171	30	21	29	0	2	3	0.800
3.	1993	Joel Johnston	PIT	NL	53.3	210	187	38	19	31	0	7	1	0.792
4.	1993	Danny Darwin	BOS	AL	229.3	919	852	196	49	130	3	31	9	0.761
5.	1993	Alan Mills	BAL	AL	100.3	421	356	80	51	68	4	14	5	0.759
6.	1993	Rod Beck	SFN	NL	79.3	309	284	57	13	86	3	11	3	0.754
7.	1993	Mike Jackson	SFN	NL	77.3	317	284	58	24	70	3	7	6	0.754
8.	1993	Bryan Harvey	FLO	NL	69.0	264	242	45	13	73	0	4	3	0.752
9.	1993	David West	PHI	NL	86.3	375	309	60	51	87	5	6	10	0.750
10.	1993	Jeff Montgomery	KCA	AL	87.3	347	316	65	23	66	2	3	2	0.749
...
65.	1993	Greg Maddux	ATL	NL	267.0	1,064	984	228	52	197	6	14	16	0.723

In 1992, Maddux was #38.
In 1994, Maddux was #20.
In 1995, Maddux was #16.


But, more to the point, predict Maddux's BABIP was during these years and tell me how many hits away from #100 on this list that was for each year (which would be about the middle of the road). Then, figure out what the chances of that happening assuming your expected BABIP is correct. Assuming you can show this last chance is small, perhaps -- perhaps -- he demonstrated a skill that was greater than others to a significant degree. As I've already written, Tom Tippet tried to do that. Just crib off him if you can't figure this out yourself.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

If you really want to argue this point, you have to agree then also that.

*A hitter making contact on a 3-0 count is just as likely to get out as a hitter on an 0-2 count if the ball is in play. Same with any other count in baseball whether the pitcher is ahead or behind in the count* Some pitchers obviously have better control meaning they would control circumstances by pitching ahead in the count

*Hitters red zones and blue zones in essence mean nothing as well because no matter wherever the ball contacted it has just as likely of a chance to be a hit*

*Certain pitchers that dont strike out a lot of batters or walk many batters however are capable of inducing ground balls are REALLY lucky or play behind a great defense*

*Any pitcher with comparable SO/9, BB/9, HR/9 should have appx the same career numbers.

Are you willing to assume all of these factors?

I don't think you understand the concept of probability and as such you are incapable of grasping LR's arguments and/or the mechanics underlying DIPS theory.

[CMH]

Originally Posted by marc

So are you guys just saying that Maddux is like the luckiest pitcher to ever live or something??

I'm not following this at all.

No, they are not.

No one has said it is based entirely on luck. They've only said that the effect is limited.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by andymac

I thought it would be intersting to see how some of Maddux' teamates ranked in the four years that were brought up earlier in terms of BABIP.

1992: Maddux (3rd in NL), Mike Morgan (4th), Frank Castillo (5th)
1993: Maddux (11th), John Smoltz (10th), Tom Glavine (16th)
1994: Maddux (2nd), Steve Avery (3rd), John Smoltz (9th)
1995: Maddux (1st), Tom Glavine (14th), Steve Avery (20th)

In 3 out of those 4 years, Maddux had 2 teamates who put up extremely similar BABIP numbers to what he did. Only in '95 was there a significant difference (which could have just been luck).

I'm assuming most people are using ESPN numbers. I'd not, fwiw I don't think they are well scrubbed. But, I agree with you point, obviously.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by marc

So are you guys just saying that Maddux is like the luckiest pitcher to ever live or something??

I'm not following this at all.

No...we are saying that he pitched in environments conducive to low BABIP (he had teammates with similar BABIP numbers in most of his peak years).

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

I'm assuming most people are using ESPN numbers. I'd not, fwiw I don't think they are well scrubbed. But, I agree with you point, obviously.

Those numbers came from BP.

[marc]

Originally Posted by andymac

No...we are saying that he pitched in environments conducive to low BABIP (he had teammates with similar BABIP numbers in most of his peak years).

You don't think superior control has anything to do with that though? I mean he DID play with another sniper in Tom Glavine.

[Joshv02]

(This is all a sidenote, for people reading.)

Originally Posted by andymac

Those numbers came from BP.

Is the difference in our numbers mainly due to the population we are looking at? I'm looking at all pitchers > 50 IP (IOW, they stuck with a team). You are looking at... all SPs?

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

(This is all a sidenote, for people reading.)
Is the difference in our numbers mainly due to the population we are looking at? I'm looking at all pitchers > 50 IP (IOW, they stuck with a team). You are looking at... all SPs?

I was looking at all NL pitchers with > 100 IP.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

I don't think you understand the concept of probability and as such you are incapable of grasping LR's arguments and/or the mechanics underlying DIPS theory.

I do understand the concept of probability. If the players were out on the field rolling dice I would agree with what everyone is saying. You might find that interesting however I actually think there is some strategy involved in the game. You guys are probably coming up with some great ideas on recreating accurate numbers but it does little to explain simple baseball theory of why pitchers pitch ahead in the count or pitch to a spot.

Maybe I dont understand this theory because I was a pitcher and felt perfectly comfortable knowing where the ball could end up by making good pitches. I never felt limited in my control. Good pitches=outs, Bad pitches=Runs.