FOR THE LOVE OF DOG: IRS% for relievers

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It could be an indicator of defense on some level.

BABIP can also indicate ballpark tendencies. Coors field usually has the highest BABIP, and San Diego the Lowest. We will see if that changes for San Diego this season with their new dimensions.

[professor ape]

I find IRS% to be somewhat similar to RBIs as a situational stat. Before anyone screams about this comparison, note that I said "somewhat" and hear me out.

If you have two relievers with the same exact performance levels, they can have very different IRS% not just because of luck but because of the situations where they a brought in. At an extreme level, say that one pitcher is always brought in with two outs, Prince Fielder on first base and the #9 hitter coming up while the other is always brought in with the bases loaded, no outs, and Fielder at the plate. Who is going to have the higher IRS%?

RBIs are similar in that a batter in a solid lineup is going to have more RBI opportunities with lots of runners on base than the same hitter in a weak lineup where he keeps coming up with the bases empty.

Now, IRS% is subject to wilder swings because the sampling size of IR situations for any pitcher over a season is much lower than the number of plate appearances for a typical batter, but the concept is the same.

[BeancheBlanco]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

BABIP is mostly luck, but it's a useful stat.

How is BABIP luck? If I pitched in the major leagues, I would probably have an extremely high BABIP. Does that mean I was unlucky? What's the difference between Greg Maddux and Blake Beavan? BABIP.

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

That's the exact reason I would like to see IRS%. I want to know which of my pitchers are the best at helping my other pitchers out of jams. Because that's what relievers are for, isn't it?

I am arguing that IRS% is nearly all luck (and completely luck in OOTP) which means you can't conclude one pitcher is better at getting out of a jam than another pitcher.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

How is BABIP luck? If I pitched in the major leagues, I would probably have an extremely high BABIP. Does that mean I was unlucky? What's the difference between Greg Maddux and Blake Beavan? BABIP.

You or I would almost certinly have a crazy high BABIP as batters would key in on our batting practice fastballs and drill line drives all over the place. However, we will never be in the majors. In order to make it to the big leagues you need to be up to a certain skill level. Within that population of major league callibur pitchers the differences in BABIP are largely attributable to luck.

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

I am arguing that IRS% is nearly all luck (and completely luck in OOTP) which means you can't conclude one pitcher is better at getting out of a jam than another pitcher.

All things being equal, stronger relief pitchers will have better IRS% than weaker pitchers. The issue is that the small sampling sizes mean that variances in IR situations and random luck cause greater swings on a season to season basis.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

How is BABIP luck? If I pitched in the major leagues, I would probably have an extremely high BABIP. Does that mean I was unlucky? What's the difference between Greg Maddux and Blake Beavan?

Read the links I posted above, which prove that it's mostly luck.

The fact that BABIP is mostly luck is not subject to opinion.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

I am arguing that IRS% is nearly all luck (and completely luck in OOTP) which means you can't conclude one pitcher is better at getting out of a jam than another pitcher.

Then post your math or cite a study.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

So use BABIP to find who is lucky and who isn't.

Stats that are reflective of luck can be just as valuable as stats which are more directly indicative of skill. For example, if two pitchers have similarly strong seasons (ERA, wins, etc) but one has an unusually low BABIP while the other has an particularly high BABIP then it is highly likely that the second pitcher will have a stronger season in the next year while the first pitcher will probably fall off. If I was choosing between the two for a trade, I would definitely take the second pitcher.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Then post your math or cite a study.

In real life I mostly agree with you. In my experience in OOTP. Teams with the best defense (high ZR numbers) in OOTP have much better BABIP.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Isryion

In real life I mostly agree with you. In my experience in OOTP. Teams with the best defense (high ZR numbers) in OOTP have much better BABIP.

Did you read the studies?

[D-BacksJosh]

Awesome. Mathematicians have finally found a way to measure luck. That makes BABIP even that much more useful as a stat for batters. After all, who wouldn't want one of the all time BABIP (lucky) leaders like Derek Jeter or Tony Gwynn in their lineup?

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

Awesome. Mathematicians have finally found a way to measure luck. That makes BABIP even that much more useful as a stat for batters. After all, who wouldn't want one of the all time BABIP (lucky) leaders like Derek Jeter or Tony Gwynn in their lineup?

While still largely luck, BABIP for batters can reflect certain skills a bit more than for pitchers. Most prominent are line drive hitters and those with good speed to beat out ground balls. Even then it is more luck than skills. For pitchers, they face a variety of batters so the traits of the batters even out over time making the variations in BABIP even more reliant on luck.

Going a step back, most stats have at least some element of luck. It's a matter of recognizing the degree and how to use them in interpreting overall performance.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

Awesome. Mathematicians have finally found a way to measure luck.

Finally? They've been looking seriously at luck since the Renaissance.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Finally? They've been looking seriously at luck since the Renaissance.

They don't have to look anymore, they can use BABIP

[The Wolf]

History of probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[D-BacksJosh]

It probably is luck. A lot of these stats are interesting to look at but when it comes down to it I am more of a traditionalist. Some of the mathematical equations to produce these stats are mind-blowing for the mathematically challenged such as myself.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

It probably is luck. A lot of these stats are interesting to look at but when it comes down to it I am more of a traditionalist. Some of the mathematical equations to produce these stats are mind-blowing for the mathematically challenged such as myself.

I'm the other way: four years of college math and I can't understand why anyone would ever want to use dinosaur stats like ERA to measure pitcher performance (which it doesn't) or RBI to measure hitter performance (it doesn't either).

[bigdgp2]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I'm the other way: four years of college math and I can't understand why anyone would ever want to use dinosaur stats like ERA to measure pitcher performance (which it doesn't) or RBI to measure hitter performance (it doesn't either).

It took a great many years for Kepler himself to drop the Platonic notion that celestial objects orbiting the Earth had perfectly circular orbits, thus explicitly dictating reality to be the final arbiter. Yes, it's not exactly similar; however, there was a time when RsBI and ERA were the best that individuals had available to measure and evaluate hitter/pitcher performance. We live in a time where that is clearly no longer the case.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I'm the other way: four years of college math and I can't understand why anyone would ever want to use dinosaur stats like ERA to measure pitcher performance (which it doesn't) or RBI to measure hitter performance (it doesn't either).

I too love the sabermetric formulas but while not a complex composite-stat, ERA is probably the best traditional stat for evaluating a pitcher. If I could only know one traditional stat for batters it would be OBP (I don't count OPS as a basic stat) and ERA for pitchers.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

I am arguing that IRS% is nearly all luck (and completely luck in OOTP) which means you can't conclude one pitcher is better at getting out of a jam than another pitcher.

Technically, yes you can. Sure, it's always a small sample size. Sure, there's a lot of luck involved. Sure, the stat can swing wildly from season to season. But if I've got the bases loaded, 2 outs, with a 1-run lead, I would feel more comfortable bringing in a pitcher who has allowed, say, 4 of 20 IR to score on the season, as opposed to 10 of 20. It's very similar to bringing in someone who has a 65% ground ball ratio when you need a double play - of course there's no guarantee that he's going to give you a grounder, but you'd rather have that guy in than someone with a 40% ground ball ratio.

Either way, though, the fact that it's a luck-based stat is not a valid argument for opposing its inclusion in OOTP.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I'm the other way: four years of college math and I can't understand why anyone would ever want to use dinosaur stats like ERA to measure pitcher performance (which it doesn't) or RBI to measure hitter performance (it doesn't either).

This just proves that baseball has something for everyone.