An example of why I don't think DIPS will reflect pre-1960 pitchers accurately

[rwd59]

I got out of the DIPS debate a long time ago ( but I'm back albeit briefly). DIPS is to me an oversimplification. Sure, once contact is made the pitcher has no more control, with that I'll agree. But DIPS seems to imply (IMHO) that it is more important to strike people out than jus get them out cause that is the only type out he gets credit for. Got to disagree there. Keeping the ball down in the zone does more than just prevent Homeruns. It gets groundballs that lead to double plays which is known as "the pitchers best friend". The pitcher caused that possibility not the defense. It is only their job to produce the result (6-4-3 or whatever). No one can make me believe that a pitcher who can put the ball where he wants it has no control of how it is hit at least part of the time. Pitching ahead in the count gives the pitcher great control of the game as well. Newer is not always better. I teach school and I've seen all kind of theories come and go through my 20 years. They had gobs of research and books written on them. Many of those theories are gathering as much dust as the books are. DIPS may or may not follow their path but to me there is much more than that to being a good pitcher. Oh, and my game still doesn't work. Knew you would read this post Henry

[Henry]

Originally posted by rwd59
Oh, and my game still doesn't work. Knew you would read this post Henry

ROFL !! Here I am already formulating how I was going to answer the DIPS comment and you throw that last sentence at me... reminded me of that scene in "Xanadu" where Sonny is reading out loud the definition of a Muse out of the dictionary, and says "and do you believe me now Sonny?"

Back to your game one of the posters suggested turning off all the various options in the game setup screens and trying it. It worked for him - which makes it sounds like a game issue... just need to find out which option, or combination of options is causing it.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by IatricSB
BigTrain,

I agree with you 100%. The whole DIPS thing has left a bad . I would love to be able to use the OOTP5 engine in v6, but that's not possible. The conversion was done in a way to try to adjust a pitchers ratings to fit better into the DIPS system. So you end up with players rated based on one system while trying to play using another system (in addition to the fact that some fields like Avoiding Hits are no longer there).

Just to reiterate, I started this thread in the hope that this exact problem would be fixed. I didn't intend to start a long debate. Since there are clearly some people who don't believe in the DIPS system and the game has the "partial" ability to use both engines allready it would seem to make sense to patch it to allow it the OOTP5 engine to be used without the editor having to be on and without seeing the DIPS ratings when the OOTP5 engine is on. I think most people have made up their mind on this allready so allowing the OOTP5 engine to function fully while still keeping the new engine would make both sides happy.

[rcbuss]

"major-league pitchers don't appear to have the ability to prevent hits on balls in play"

from Tippett's article (emphasis mine).

So, it appears that you or I (non-ML pitchers, most of us) would have a much higher BABIP than the average major league pitcher.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that there might be a continuum of BABIP skill (previously alluded to by Markus as "poise") distributed amongst pitchers, where the best pitchers with the longest careers turned out (for the most part) to have the most skill in preventing hits on balls in play, and the worst are those that end up having very short careers (or not even getting to the major leagues)?

Perhaps major league pitchers represent the extreme right end of the continuum, so that there doesn't appear to be a great difference between the worst and the best of major league pitchers in this regard.

That, essentially, is what Tippett proposes in his article:

The following table shows how eleven groups of pitchers compared with the overall averages. The first row includes all pitchers who faced less than 1,000 batters in their careers. The second row includes all pitchers who faced at least 1,000 batters but less than 2,000 batters during their careers. And so on.

Career BF BF HBP BB K HR vsLg vsTm
0001 - 0999 401,138 .002 .027 -.017 .002 .017 .015
1000 - 1999 931,981 .001 .013 -.009 .001 .006 .004
2000 - 2999 1,105,712 .001 .007 -.005 .000 .002 .001
3000 - 3999 1,179,916 .000 .006 -.003 .000 .000 .000
4000 - 4999 906,271 .000 .002 -.002 .000 .000 .001
5000 - 5999 920,680 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
6000 - 6999 647,553 .000 -.004 -.002 .001 -.001 -.001
7000 - 7999 843,937 .000 -.003 .000 .000 -.002 -.001
8000 - 8999 716,200 -.001 -.005 .005 .000 -.002 -.002
9000 - 9999 788,532 .000 -.008 -.001 -.001 -.002 -.001
10000+ 2,589,409 -.001 -.010 .008 -.001 -.004 -.003
Let's walk through the first row so it's clear how to read this table. Those pitchers, as a group:

faced a total of 401,138 batters in their careers

hit batters at a rate that was .002 above the league average. In other words, they hit two more batters per 1000 BF than did the average pitcher.

walked 27 more batters per 1000 BF

struck out 17 fewer batters per 1000 BF

gave up 2 more homers per 1000 BF

gave up 17 more hits per 1000 balls in play when compared with the league-average pitcher

gave up 15 more hits per 1000 balls in play when compared with the in-play averages of their teammates
As you can see from the table, the pitchers with longer careers were progressively better than their shorter-career counterparts in every respect. They walked fewer batters, struck out more hitters, gave up fewer homeruns, and gave up fewer hits on balls in play. The ability to prevent hits on balls in play appears to be as much of a skill as anything else.

Yes, I agree with everyone who says that the OOTP6/DIPS system represents a marked improvement over OOTP5, but I still think that the ability of a pitcher (or lack, thereof) to prevent hits on balls in play is important, and should also be part of a pitcher's skill set in OOTP. And it's not just knuckleballers (e.g., Walter Johnson). There seems to be a strong correlation between career length and ability to prevent hits on balls in play. This is definitely of importance to historical replayers, but would also be of value to fictional league fans, as well.

I've seen references on the boards to Markus having said that there would be a provision within the game allowing for extreme statistical outliers (in terms of BABIP), but I've not seen this myself. If someone could provide that reference, I'd really appreciate it. Also, if anyone has conducted a 50- or 100-year test league for the same purpose, I'd love to find out if this is the case.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by rcbuss
[B]"

from Tippett's article (emphasis mine).

So, it appears that you or I (non-ML pitchers, most of us) would have a much higher BABIP than the average major league pitcher.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that there might be a continuum of BABIP skill (previously alluded to by Markus as "poise") distributed amongst pitchers, where the best pitchers with the longest careers turned out (for the most part) to have the most skill in preventing hits on balls in play, and the worst are those that end up having very short careers (or not even getting to the major leagues)?

Sorry to post on this again but I'm glad you brought this up and it's another element I find illogical in DIPS extreme theory "Major League pitchers have an equal ability to prevent balls in play."

There are two logical flaws in that kind of statement. An ABILITY by definition varies from person to person. If you concede that there is an ability to prevent balls in play you can't turn around and say that a group of 600 people all have that ability equally. Ability or talent by definition doesn't work that way.

Secondly, how do you define a Major League pitcher? Are only starters included? what about guys who get called up from AAA, do they magically acquire this "Major League ability" when they step off the bus? Then you have guys in some team's farm system (like Oakland for example) who are good enough to pitch for another team in the majors.

So I agree with you, iif there is an ability to prevent balls in play (and I think there is) it *must* vary from pitcher to pitcher. I think if only Markus had chosen a more sabrmetrically correct term than "poise" this would have been included and made the game a lot better...

[rcbuss]

Another quick point regarding BABIP, DIPS and the deadball era:

Low HR totals from the deadball era might be due to a combination of small-ball tactics, ball makeup, and large parks. 3B+HR against (or perhaps 2B+3B+HR against) deadball era pitchers might be more analogous to the HR rating for the pitchers of today. In the same way that the number of triples a modernday hitter gets is a function of gap power+speed, perhaps deadball gap power+speed=2B+3B, and deadball HR power=3B+HR. This would, of course, make it harder to evaluate deadball pitchers; finding doubles- and triples-against data for pitchers from the deadball era would be well-near impossible (Retrosheet PBP data only goes back to 1963 for AL teams, and 1969 for the NL).

[Henry]

Yeah BT, but I think your overlooking what RC was saying. If MLB pitchers represent the top 5% of all professional ballplayers, it stands to reason that the difference between them would be significantly less than the difference beween them and Single A pitchers. The question becomes "is the difference between MLB pitchers enough to get excited about.

In my post above, I showed that Charlie Hough - the guy with the most ability in this area - made a total season difference of 12 singles, 2 doubles, and 1 triple over 44 games. Thats 15 hits less than the "average" MLB pitcher. At one hit every three games, it does raise the question of whether the games other variances can easily drown out that difference. I believe it does.

Add to that the fact that OOTP "changes" Houghs abilities as the days progress, and I'm not convinced the 15 hit variance is going to make any difference over a career. If his abilities are halved by OOTP before his 24 year career is half over (due to OOTP career changes) then his "advantage is now halved as well (1 hit every 6 games).

[rcbuss]

Originally posted by Big Train
So I agree with you, iif there is an ability to prevent balls in play (and I think there is) it *must* vary from pitcher to pitcher. I think if only Markus had chosen a more sabrmetrically correct term than "poise" this would have been included and made the game a lot better...

for lack of a better term, yes.

Hopefully in time for OOTP7. I don't expect that we'll see it before then.

[gmo]

Originally posted by rcbuss
I've seen references on the boards to Markus having said that there would be a provision within the game allowing for extreme statistical outliers (in terms of BABIP), but I've not seen this myself. If someone could provide that reference, I'd really appreciate it. Also, if anyone has conducted a 50- or 100-year test league for the same purpose, I'd love to find out if this is the case.

I ran a bunch of replay seasons for another purpose but looked at the pitcher data from them...

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...047#post680047

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...559#post680559

This data does not speak to the issue of capturing real historical outliers. But I think it shows that outliers are possible and that defense and GB/FB ratio matter and can influence how pitchers' stats turn out in a career in the game.

[Henry]

Actually, maybe "confidence" is the term your looking for - something that should come with experience - but not necessarily.

[Hank Greenberg]

How come everyone always looks at the top of the spectrum? Nobody every studies how many hits some pitchers give up vs what they should.

Most DIPS studies are trash, they dont measure what they say their measuring. There are quite a few good ones, but you cannot measure the stat in a two or three year vacum. DIPS has not shown any real results (the few articles that actually meassure things have semi-mixed results) and people like Skipaway who defend it too the end make me wonder if they just read the analysis, and if they even bother to look at the #s they have in front of them.

If I see a 2, if someone makes an analysis its a 3, its still a 2.

[IatricSB]

Originally posted by jbmagic
you can change the engine in ootp 6 to traditional and it wont have dips..if that what you prefer...it will use the old engine...

I'm guessing you didn't read my entire post.

[IatricSB]

BigTrain and I had a private message conversation about DIPS where I explained why I don't think it works well for the past. Here's a bit of it...

I'm confident in getting realistic results as a whole for the league with the help of era settings. But the variance between pitchers seems to be less now than in past version of OOTP5. With OOTP5, it was important in the deadball era to look at Avoiding Hits and Avoiding Walks. Homerun ratings were valued to a lesser extent since there weren't many being given up as a whole anyway.

With OOTP6 and DIPS, Stuff (Avoiding K's) is an important rating. With present day pitchers, you see a wide range of stuff with guys getting ratings for the most part between 3 and 10. In the deadball era, the majority of the pitchers import with stuff ratings of 3 or 4, so there isn't a lot of variety. So you end up with only two of the ratings (Control and Movement) to distinguish between two pitchers. So you see a lot of pitchers with ratings of 4/7/7 or 3/7/6, or 4/6/7 for example and as a result, there is not as big a difference between the elite pitchers like Addie Joss and some of the mediocre pitchers. The end result seems (at least in my experience) to be that I get historically accurate league results with career ERAs falling in a much tighter range than they used to.

[Henry]

Originally posted by IatricSB
BigTrain and I had a private message conversation about DIPS where I explained why I don't think it works well for the past. Here's a bit of it...

I'm confident in getting realistic results as a whole for the league with the help of era settings. But the variance between pitchers seems to be less now than in past version of OOTP5. With OOTP5, it was important in the deadball era to look at Avoiding Hits and Avoiding Walks. Homerun ratings were valued to a lesser extent since there weren't many being given up as a whole anyway.

With OOTP6 and DIPS, Stuff (Avoiding K's) is an important rating. With present day pitchers, you see a wide range of stuff with guys getting ratings for the most part between 3 and 10. In the deadball era, the majority of the pitchers import with stuff ratings of 3 or 4, so there isn't a lot of variety. So you end up with only two of the ratings (Control and Movement) to distinguish between two pitchers. So you see a lot of pitchers with ratings of 4/7/7 or 3/7/6, or 4/6/7 for example and as a result, there is not as big a difference between the elite pitchers like Addie Joss and some of the mediocre pitchers. The end result seems (at least in my experience) to be that I get historically accurate league results with career ERAs falling in a much tighter range than they used to.

Hummm.. THAT makes some sense. I think the DIPS studies only went back to 1913... wondered why they stopped there - maybe because the correlation fell off at that point ?

I guess to feel confident enough to agree 100% though, I'd have to see a detailed study confirming this.

[Big Train]

All the good pitchers like Johnson and Alexander had BABIP significantly lower than the league average. It's interesting that the person who actually went back and looked that far didn't totally support DIPS. As for why not before 1913 there was some stat they need to calculate the formula that they only started keeping track of then (sacrifice hits maybe?)

I would bet a lot of money that if it could be calculated though you'd find guys like Young and Joss with BABIP much lower than the league average.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Big Train
I would bet a lot of money that if it could be calculated though you'd find guys like Young and Joss with BABIP much lower than the league average.

Very possible, but we also have to consider the fact that the old system did something more incorrect. It calculated the raw statistics of a career with no regard to what Voris found... that 90% of a pitcher's ability is in HRs, Ks and BBs. Instead, it simply averaged what he did over a career - (here's the BIG issue) - taking his results and comparing them equally with all other pitchers, basically assuming defense was average across the board.

With DIPS, it really DOES matter who is in the field behind you now... and for a game, this is critical.

Oh... and I already proved that "significant" is a relative terms. 15 hits difference per season isn't THAT significant.

[Henry]

Here's a ton of stuff. I know it's not exactly fair to dump you to a ton of links, but I've explained DIPS so many times I'm a bit burned out LOL. You can also follow the two previous threads on the subject (enter "DIPS" and "Henry" in the search engine).

What it comes down to is the proof is all there, no matter how you twist it, it comes up to the same answer.

I started off not wanting to believe it - and doing everything I could to fins a hole in the thesis, but eventually I had to admit it worked

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

[Carlton]

Big Train,

The thing is with programming which is based purely on numbers and various formulas...DIPS is probably the best way to evaluate pitchers so that various "variables" come into play and that all players are not static carbon copies. Same pitcher, same ratings but put on two different teams might have two very distinct careers.

Now as an evaluation of pitchers in general...I believe DIPS is BS, but there is no way in OOTP, a statistical program to have someone such Estaban Loaiza learn the cutter and revive his career, A pitcher getting surgery and pitching with a new arm basically or even a 3 fingered coal miner being able to pitch a sinker because of his deformity, thus gaining an advantage over batters.

There is ALOT more to pitching than DIPS...various grips on the same pitch so the spin is over or under emphasized, tipping off the changeup...etc IMO

However, for a program, I really believe a DIPS based system is much more realistic and shows more variance then the old engine. I want to see Chief Bender and Eddie Plank struggle w/o a 100,000 IF, or Alex Pearson have a better shoot than his ratings suggest with Tinkers-Evers and Chance behind him.

Point is, with DIPS, OOTP is more of a challenge, and a puzzle than with the old engine.

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by Big Train
All the good pitchers like Johnson and Alexander had BABIP significantly lower than the league average. It's interesting that the person who actually went back and looked that far didn't totally support DIPS. As for why not before 1913 there was some stat they need to calculate the formula that they only started keeping track of then (sacrifice hits maybe?)

I would bet a lot of money that if it could be calculated though you'd find guys like Young and Joss with BABIP much lower than the league average.

I think we mustn't miss the point of Tippett. The ability exists, but is virtually irrelevant in comparison with BB/K/HR.

We musn't miss the point of OOTP either. Markus and Craig have said that BABIP is affected by a hidden modifier. As no-one has yet to show any examples of OOTP6 not generating exceptions, then what are we worried about?

Unless you can prove McCracken/Tippett not to be the rule, or it can be proved their's no exceptions, then what are we arguing about?

[Carlton]

One thing I was looking into the pitchers you named and was wondering one thing Big Train

Do you have it set up to base their talent on their whole career?

If so I can see why these guys might not fare so well, they came in strong and had a enlongated decline period...moreso than most players

So statiscally speaking they have a greater chance of not living up to their career value. Because they will decline eventually...and from a lower plateau then when they came in. Now if you imported them from their first year...they have a better chance of coming close to their peak value.

However, either some players will falter who succeeded (fast start long decline) using career value and some might never be if using first year (Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson)

Sort of a catch 22

Anyway just a thought that maybe that could be while these individuals might be underachieving...check batters that had a long decline like Johnny Evers, or George McBride see if they ever amounted to anything