A MLB batters view of DIPS - Ridiculous!

[JamesOOTP]

B]"Ok, did you come here to argue DIPS or to use the Old system.[/B].You now know how to use the old system so you shouldn't have any reason to respond to this thread anymore.Thank you."

Good for you. You understood both reasons I posted.

Originally posted by clarnzz


Ask 100 people with one ounce of common sense if they think strikeouts reduce the hitters chance of getting a hit. In the method you seem to prefer, they don't.

Not true. A strikeout by definition is an at bat without a hit. We both agree anyone with sense would know that but there are other intangibles

[Cyclone792]

Originally posted by JamesOOTP
At least tell me the reason why you think what I said was spouting off. You assume I don't read and that I'm spouting off.
At least give an intelligent argument back. Maybe I'm wrong?
If so, give me something good in return. What does Bill James think about DIPS?

Voros McCracken was hired by the Boston Red Sox shortly after publishing his theory of DIPS. It's those same Boston Red Sox that also recently hired Bill James and of the few comments I've read from James himself, he endorses DIPS.

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by JamesOOTP
Not true. A strikeout by definition is an at bat without a hit. We both agree anyone with sense would know that but there are other intangibles.

Then take a look at the MLB leaders in K/9 and H/9, you will see that it's strikeouts that is the key dynamic for a pitcher preventing hits and not these "intangibles".

[Another Mike D]

If you polled 100 pitchers on how they prevent doubles and triples, how would they respond?

[BarryZito75]

Originally posted by BleedDodgerBlue
I don't claim to completely understand DIPS, but there does appear to be a fundamental flaw in the logic from where I sit.

One factor of DIPS, if I'm understanding it correctly, is the pitcher's ability to strike a hitter out.

At the same time, however, DIPS apparently argues that a pitcher has no control over how "solid" a hit is, and I'm not sure I buy that. If part of the theory is predicated on the pitcher's ability to make the hitter miss, then why does that same theory assume that the pitcher's placement isn't such that the hitter has a reduced chance of solid contact?

I'm not suggesting that a hitter's strikeout totals should affect his chances of getting a hit, don't get me wrong, but it does seem to me that a pitcher's ability to strike a hitter out and his ability to avoid hits are correlated, even if only to a small degree.

So, if somebody with more understanding of DIPS than I have would care to explain to me why the opposite is true, I'd be more than glad to listen. I'm skeptical of the theory, I'll admit that, but I'm more than willing to listen to a logical, understandable explanation of the mechanics of DIPS if somebody wants to explain them to me.

I don't think DIPS is out there to just take away the pitcher's ability to prevent some hits from occuring. DIPS is intended to show that pitchers have MUCH LESS ability than previously thought to avoid the batter from getting a hit. Even the most hard-lined believer in DIPS will tell you that a lot of pitchers can make an impact on BABIP be it good or bad. The fact is that it is a minute number that would equate to about 20 ABs per season MAX (maybe mORe depending if you are a knuckler).


The system that OOTP uses is obviously different because the pitcher has no control over BABIP. It is hard to presume which pitcher would have more or less control over BABIP each and every AB, let alone career, because lets face it, the OOTP engine is just a bunch of numbers in a computer program. If people want to play baseball with pitchers effecting BABIP, then they should play the real game.


You're asking for too much if you want every factor to be presented in its true to life form.

[BleedDodgerBlue]

Originally posted by Henry
Over the course of this discussion we have provided multiple links to the documentation. If your not at least open to the idea after reading that, then I have to assume you simply don't want to believe it.

Please don't assume I've been here for the entire discussion. I came to this board today looking for something else, and this particular thread caught my eye since I'd been tinkering with the league setup options, and noticed mention of DIPS in there.

I've already admitted that I know relatively little about the theory, that what I DO know confuses me, and all I'm doing is asking for some enlightenment.

Of course, there's always the possibility that you've mixed me up with another poster in this thread, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

[Henry]

Originally posted by JamesOOTP
Not true. A strikeout by definition is an at bat without a hit. We both agree anyone with sense would know that but there are other intangibles.

You say you understand the theory, yet you make a comment like this ?

Henry

[Cyclone792]

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips03.html

There's another interesting read...

[Henry]

Originally posted by BleedDodgerBlue
Please don't assume I've been here for the entire discussion. I came to this board today looking for something else, and this particular thread caught my eye since I'd been tinkering with the league setup options, and noticed mention of DIPS in there.

I've already admitted that I know relatively little about the theory, that what I DO know confuses me, and all I'm doing is asking for some enlightenment.

Of course, there's always the possibility that you've mixed me up with another poster in this thread, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

Your right. I did assume, and I shouldn't have. As long as this discussion has been going on you start to believe everyone has read what you have

Take a look at futility-infielder.com (I don't have the exact link handy) for more info. You'll find dozens of links there that go over the details

PS; Cyclone listed the link above !!

Henry

[BleedDodgerBlue]

Thanks, Henry and Cyclone. Much appreciated.

[mgadfly]

Originally posted by Henry
I suppose your now the reigning expert on baseball sabermetrics?

If you've read, as you claim, you would already know that most of the leaders in this field have already commented on and for the most part embraced what Voros found. In fact, James said "I don't understand how I didn't see it".

Henry

If this was aimed at my post, I never claimed to be an expert, only that I understood the argument. As much as I respect James, that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with him, you or Voros.

I said (and this is assuming you were replying to my post) MY ideal engine for a reason. And about Sabermetrics, how many teams have hired Voros and James? There are some teams that still haven't bought into the idea completely (I'm not in their front offices, so I wouldn't claim to know how many).

And also, I generally agree with the direction DIPS takes us, and only posted to suggest that just because it is the most current theory does not mean that it is completely, 100% correct.

[JamesOOTP]

Originally posted by Henry
You say you understand the theory, yet you make a comment like this ?

Henry

What I meant to say is a strikeout is not a hit. I know what a strikeout is.

[skkrrt]

An atbat without a hit could be a walk as well.

I believe in most of DIPS, just wonder about doubles and the roll a defence should have in a DIPS system (since it HAS been proven some pitchers give up more solid contact, like line drives, defence should help those pitchers less then a guy who gives up a bunch of tappers).

DIPS is hardly a complete theory, anyone who tries too say it is perfect has not read ANY of the counterarticles. Its a good system, better then the old one, but harldy a completeted theory (or why would they hire Voros instead of just reaidng his paper?)

[BleedDodgerBlue]

Quick question, what does BABIP stand for?

[BleedDodgerBlue]

Whoops, never mind, found the definition in the article just as I asked that.

[JamesOOTP]

Originally posted by Cyclone792
http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips03.html

There's another interesting read...

Thanks!

[Cyclone792]

Originally posted by Henry
Your right. I did assume, and I shouldn't have. As long as this discussion has been going on you start to believe everyone has read what you have

Take a look at futility-infielder.com (I don't have the exact link handy) for more info. You'll find dozens of links there that go over the details

PS; Cyclone listed the link above !!

Henry

Also, for anybody with a copy of Bill James' New Historical Baseball Abstract, James goes into some detail on his opinions of DIPS on pages 885-888. While I'm not going to retype all of what James stated, he did offer four key points of which he later dived into more detail. Those four points:

1. Like most things, McCracken's argument can be taken too literally. A pitcher does have *some* input into the hits/innings ratio behind him, other than that which is reflected in the home run and strikeout columns.
2. With that qualification, I am quite certain that McCracken is correct.
3. This knowledge is significant, very useful.
4. I feel stupid for not having realized this 30 years ago.
- Bill James in The New Bill James Historical Abstract, Page 885.

[Henry]

Originally posted by mgadfly
If this was aimed at my post, I never claimed to be an expert, only that I understood the argument. As much as I respect James, that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with him, you or Voros.

I said (and this is assuming you were replying to my post) MY ideal engine for a reason. And about Sabermetrics, how many teams have hired Voros and James? There are some teams that still haven't bought into the idea completely (I'm not in their front offices, so I wouldn't claim to know how many).

And also, I generally agree with the direction DIPS takes us, and only posted to suggest that just because it is the most current theory does not mean that it is completely, 100% correct.

No, I wasn't aiming this at you (I should use quotes more). It was in response to JamesOOTP opening volly of DIPS being "ridiculous". As a side note, I'm not saying DIPS is perfect. I certainly think the exceptions can eventually be coded into the mix for more accuracy - but it's certainly better than the old engine.

Henry

[JamesOOTP]

I realize my argument against DIPS isn't the most logical one you could read. I did read something by Tippett that suggested that pitchers do have more influence that DIPS states. Are there any good arguments againt DIPS published?

I just have a difficult time believing that pitchers are less important to the game or to the ball in play.

[Cyclone792]

Originally posted by mgadfly
If this was aimed at my post, I never claimed to be an expert, only that I understood the argument. As much as I respect James, that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with him, you or Voros.

I said (and this is assuming you were replying to my post) MY ideal engine for a reason. And about Sabermetrics, how many teams have hired Voros and James? There are some teams that still haven't bought into the idea completely (I'm not in their front offices, so I wouldn't claim to know how many).

And also, I generally agree with the direction DIPS takes us, and only posted to suggest that just because it is the most current theory does not mean that it is completely, 100% correct.

Italics emphasis is mine.

I'm an advocate of DIPS, but that also doesn't mean that I agree with it 100%. The major sticking point for me, however, is that A) it's taking a significant leap forward in the analysis of pitchers and B) to this date, it's the most accurate way of analysis for pitchers. Neither of those points, however, maintain that the theory is 100% correct - I don't know if it's 100% correct and I'm not sure if anybody knows it's 100% correct. But what I do know is at the very least it's a vital stepping stone into providing an accurate and important means of pitcher analysis. Whether or not it becomes "the" preferred method of pitcher evaluation for the next 20 years or is merely used as a building block for a more accurate method has yet to be determined.