Whip - Page 7

Luis_Rivera · 04-13-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I also want to say that using a single player to try and disprove a therory that applies to thousands of other players is not a good way to win a debate.

THIS HAS BEEN OUR POINT

Spielman · 04-13-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Or was your question rhetorical?

Um. Yeah.

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I also want to say that using a single player to try and disprove a therory that applies to thousands of other players is not a good way to win a debate.

I would also like to say coming into a discussion 6 pages in w/o reading the rest of it is not a good way to make a constructive comment

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

THIS HAS BEEN OUR POINT

Roy Halladay
Johan Santana
Carlos Silva on the opposite end
AJ Burnett on the opposite end
have also been mentioned. Maddux is the most extreme example!

Spielman · 04-13-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

so 17 out of 22 years Maddux was under the league average in BABIP?

Seriously, THAT is what you get out of looking at those?

I need a drink. Or 12.

Luis_Rivera · 04-13-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Roy Halladay
Johan Santana
Carlos Silva on the opposite end
AJ Burnett on the opposite end
have also been mentioned. Maddux is the most extreme example!

Dude, did you read ANYTHING I wrote about pitchability and the gray area that currently exists??

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spielman

Seriously, THAT is what you get out of looking at those?

I need a drink. Or 12.

Well we are discussing BABIP and whether or not it is based on actual pitching skill or some other factors. ERA, W/L, and Cy Youngs were NEVER discussed so therefore what the hell do walks and HR;s allowed have to do with a pitchers BABIP? I was never arguing anything about how good or bad x pitcher was simply about this theory that pitchers have no control over balls in play.

The charts you show can be altered BTW to favor your side. I could change the graph to make the BABIP look more impressive like you did with BB/9, and HR/9. It doesnt matter though because its not relevant to the discussion.

DougWyatt · 04-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

I ask because as I was driving to work I gave it some thought (admittedly - still haven't had time to "research").

But the first wave of evidence I would expect to see for this theory to hold water would be :

I'll use a 100+ innings (per year) filter.

-- Pitchers from the same team would historically post very similar BABIP. as they (for the most part) pitch in the same stadiums, conditions, and in front of the same defense. Sure this isn't exactly the case, but more often than not because of the normal 3 game series - this should pretty much balance out.

-- There would be minimal difference between "good" or "bad" pitchers with regard to career BABIP. I say minimal, as the theory "gives in" that "good" pitchers do have minimal control over it.

Bumpin' my own quote. It was overlooked, probably because it is not worded as a question lol.

Should these (the bullets above) be what I find ? If not, is my way of thinking not correct (specific to this topic of course lol) ?

Luis_Rivera · 04-13-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The charts you show can be altered BTW to favor your side. I could change the graph to make the BABIP look more impressive like you did with BB/9, and HR/9. It doesnt matter though because its not relevant to the discussion.

The charts are neutral. They're from www.fangraphs.com... you can access them yourself if you like.

rudel.dietrich · 04-13-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

THIS HAS BEEN OUR POINT

Well it bears repeating

Because quite sadly they run real MLB front offices and give out real US currency in great amounts to pitchers who had real good years primarily from luck.

Spielman · 04-13-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The charts you show can be altered BTW to favor your side. I could change the graph to make the BABIP look more impressive like you did with BB/9, and HR/9. It doesnt matter though because its not relevant to the discussion.

As L_R said, and as I indicted in the first post, the graphs are from Fangraphs.com. They were not altered by me in any way.

But believe me, I appreciate the accusation.

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spielman

As L_R said, and as I indicted in the first post, the graphs are from Fangraphs.com. They were not altered by me in any way.

But believe me, I appreciate the accusation.

My mistake! Sorry!

Luis_Rivera · 04-13-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Bumpin' my own quote. It was overlooked, probably because it is not worded as a question lol.

Should these (the bullets above) be what I find ? If not, is my way of thinking not correct (specific to this topic of course lol) ?

1. Pitchers from the same team should post more similar BABIPs than pitchers from different teams because they're dealing with the same park effects and defense which are two of the largest factors in BABIP.

2. When you look at this one, I'd caution you because there is the issue I discussed above about different defenses and parks (Oakland Coliseum's BABIP is about 15 points below league average IIRC) and fundamental differences in pitchers such as GB% and IFFB% that clearly do affect BABIP. Look at Nolan Ryan... He induced more popups than maybe any other pitcher in major league history (no empirical evidence to back this up, but intuitively and from reading it makes sense) and ended up with a .270-something career BABIP. Also different eras lead to different BABIPs.

rudel.dietrich · 04-13-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Bumpin' my own quote. It was overlooked, probably because it is not worded as a question lol.

Should these (the bullets above) be what I find ? If not, is my way of thinking not correct (specific to this topic of course lol) ?

Your first point would be partialy correct.
Defense and park factors play some role, but luck plays the biggest role.

Your second point is spot on.
As I said a few minutes ago, baseball is litered with examples of front offices giving big money to bad pitchers who had really good years because they got 'hit lucky' and had BABIP that was very low.

But as I said back on the first page, something IS NOT a skill if you cannot reproduce it over and over again.
BABIP is something pitchers had shown to have very very little control over.

So as I said a few minutes ago, its really quite amazing how reall baseball teams using real money can give out big contracts to bad pitchers when 10 minutes of research would show that their big seasons were only good due to being lucky through BABIP
Their HR/9, BB/9 and K/9 did not significantly change in those seasons and they were still the game pitcher.
They after a few seasons that same front office is wondering what in the hell happened

Makes your head hurt if you think about it too often

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Well it bears repeating

Because quite sadly thickheads like jbergey22 run real MLB front offices and give out real US currency in great amounts to pitchers who had real good years primarily from luck.

Or the fact that MLB offices have many years of experience in baseball, scouting, teaching, etc... and would seem to have a better idea of what it takes to be a good pitcher rather than some statistical theorists opinion. I'd love for anyone of you to actually talk to a scout about this, they would call you insane and ask you if you have ever watched a good pitcher pitch. I understand that you may be able to turn numbers and get favorable results on your side but explain to me how Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Greg Maddux can seemingly get more easy outs than guys with electric stuff like Matt Clement, Edwin Jackson, and Josh Beckett. It has to be more to it than these guys walk more and give up a few more hr's people so give up 2 more runs per game more.

Luis_Rivera · 04-13-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Greg Maddux
...
Matt Clement, Edwin Jackson, Josh and Josh Beckett.

Josh Beckett career BABIP: .290

Kenny Rogers career BABIP: .297

???

Dude, you really need to re-read what I said about pitchability and gray area, too.

QuestGAV · 04-13-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spielman

Seriously, THAT is what you get out of looking at those?

I need a drink. Or 12.

I think it would probably be easier to teach my cat to play soccer than to teach someone about DIPS who is actively resistant to the concept.

jbergey22 · 04-13-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Dude, did you read ANYTHING I wrote about pitchability and the gray area that currently exists??

I have read it and that is specifically why I am not quoting you. I think you are somewhat on the same page as me even though you dont think so. I do think that certain pitchers(GB% being one of them) have a big advantage in this speciic category we are debating.

CMH · 04-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Well it bears repeating

Because quite sadly thickheads like jbergey22 run real MLB front offices and give out real US currency in great amounts to pitchers who had real good years primarily from luck.

Dude, the discussion was going well. You're a good guy, but no need to call him names.

rudel.dietrich · 04-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Or the fact that MLB offices have many years of experience in baseball, scouting, teaching, etc... and would seem to have a better idea of what it takes to be a good pitcher rather than some statistical theorists opinion. I'd love for anyone of you to actually talk to a scout about this, they would call you insane and ask you if you have ever watched a good pitcher pitch. I understand that you may be able to turn numbers and get favorable results on your side but explain to me how Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Greg Maddux can seemingly get more easy outs than guys with electric stuff like Matt Clement, Edwin Jackson, and Josh Beckett. It has to be more to it than these guys walk more and give up a few more hr's people so give up 2 more runs per game more.

A scout is about the last person I would go to for baseball advice.
About the only thing a scout is good for is a link to a player and to tell you if he has any hidden injuries and what his personality is like.
Anything more than that and it is just luck and chance at that point.

Just because someone has experience on their side does not make them right if they have been doing things the wrong way for the entire time they have been doing it.

And the three front offices who think like we do have been pretty successful (Oakland and Boston and Toronto is improving)

Baseball as it exsists for most teams is a crap shoot. Alot of reading chicken bones and tossing out money and hoping it sticks.
Some teams are better than other but most pretty much pay and pray and hope for the best.

If a team had middle of the pack financial resources and a front office and owner who completly believed in sabremetrics then the game would forever be changed.
A WS every year is a longshot since the playoffs is such a crapshoot.
But the team would be rattling off 90 win seasons right and left and making the rest of the league look like it was playing a completly different game.