A new way to rate a team's pitching staff

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 08:24 AM

Jon Weisman at SI (with, it seems, some help) has created a new way to rate team pitching. The article is at

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ons/index.html

and here is his base methodology:

"• 0 points: below-average pitcher
• 1 point: mystery pitcher -- wildly inconsistent pitcher or above-average recent track record but with dubious health
• 1 point: young, up-and-coming minor-league pitcher with above-average potential in 2008
• 2 points: average to above-average pitcher
• 3 points: above-average pitcher
• 4 points: super above-average pitcher"

Please check out the article. I'd like to know what you guys think of his method of rating team pitching.

Big Hugg · 12-30-2007, 08:40 AM

Not last!

Scott Olsen should be mystery, not below-average, but beyond that, seems pretty spot on.

MorseMoose · 12-30-2007, 09:21 AM

Meh. Nothing special.

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Meh. Nothing special.

Why do you think that? Do you have or know a better system?

MorseMoose · 12-30-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Why do you think that? Do you have or know a better system?

No, I just think it is bland and kind of arbitrary. What does average mean, is he using ERA, Wins, Strikeouts or is he looking at Sabrestats, or is he just saying, "well, this guy has had a good year and a bad year pitching, but his good year was more recent so he'll be average"?

Just seems a little to opinionated. I guess if it isn't something anyone can put together (and get the exact same results), I question it's validity.

QuestGAV · 12-30-2007, 11:28 AM

That's the second article you've posted today linked to from firejoemorgan.com. KUTGW!

ctorg · 12-30-2007, 11:40 AM

I don't think it's very useful. It really isn't specific enough in its definitions and it feels incredibly arbitrary.

1998 Yankees · 12-30-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

I don't think it's very useful. It really isn't specific enough in its definitions and it feels incredibly arbitrary.

"

From the article:

Quote:

Now, there are certain to be quibbles about the choices I made in assigning point values -- in fact, the entire point system is rather arbitrary. There's a built-in margin for error -- because of how difficult it is to predict future performance, even with the best projections. These are not meant to be scientific.

Just accept what he says and move on, OK?

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

That's the second article you've posted today linked to from firejoemorgan.com. KUTGW!

Actually it's the second article I posted today that involved a link that my brother emailed me. He sent me about a dozen links, and I thought two of them were worth sharing.

Now I'm going to visit firejoemorgan.com.

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

I don't think it's very useful. It really isn't specific enough in its definitions and it feels incredibly arbitrary.

Okay, but here's my question again: do you know of a better way to rate team pitching?

magnet · 12-30-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Okay, but here's my question again: do you know of a better way to rate team pitching?

Yes. Starter's ERA, Bullpen ERA, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9. K/9, HR/9.

ctorg · 12-30-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Yes. Starter's ERA, Bullpen ERA, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9. K/9, HR/9.

"

From there, you can maybe argue about what different kinds of weights should be applied to relievers and starters, or something like that.

Skipaway · 12-30-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Yes. Starter's ERA, Bullpen ERA, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9. K/9, HR/9.

Why the love for WHIP? I think it's pretty useless. As a composite, it's not half as powerful as ERA, and as an individual indicator, it mixed up walks and hits, therefore not very accurate.

CMH · 12-30-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why the love for WHIP? I think it's pretty useless. As a composite, it's not half as powerful as ERA, and as an individual indicator, it mixed up walks and hits, therefore not very accurate.

Even you will say that too much of any stat is useless.

You still can look at WHIP and decide if a pitcher is at least good or bad. Probably not wise to go beyond that but it serves some purpose.

How rare is it that a pitcher with a 1.20 WHIP or lower isn't more effective than a pitcher with a WHIP of let's say 1.60 or higher. You have to agree not rare at all.

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 05:07 PM

I was talking about rating a team pitching *staff*, not rating individual pitchers. We all know how to do that.

Anybody got a suggestion for a team pitching staff rating method that gives results as easy to compare from team to team as his does?

theasfl · 12-30-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Hugg

Not last!

Scott Olsen should be mystery, not below-average, but beyond that, seems pretty spot on.

VandenHurk prolly shouldnt be up-and-coming, but Mitre should probably be mystery...

magnet · 12-30-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I was talking about rating a team pitching *staff*, not rating individual pitchers. We all know how to do that.

Anybody got a suggestion for a team pitching staff rating method that gives results as easy to compare from team to team as his does?

"Ease of use" is WAY further down on the priority list for what stats I like to use. "Accuracy", however, is pretty much tops, and this arbitrary scale doesn't even come close to satisfying my requirement for accuracy.

magnet · 12-30-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why the love for WHIP? I think it's pretty useless. As a composite, it's not half as powerful as ERA, and as an individual indicator, it mixed up walks and hits, therefore not very accurate.

The love? It was in a group of 7 different stats. You don't use multiple stats, skip?

CMH · 12-30-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

The love? It was in a group of 7 different stats. You don't use multiple stats, skip?

That was my point. It's what confuses me the most because skip will be the first to say that you should use multiple stats instead of one. Yet, in a group of stats he picks on one? Out of the ordinary for him.

The Wolf · 12-30-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

"Ease of use" is WAY further down on the priority list for what stats I like to use.

I didn't write "ease of use," I wrote "Anybody got a suggestion for a team pitching staff rating method that gives results as easy to compare from team to team as his does?" You do realize that numbers are valueless in and of themselves unless they are information? Infinitely accurate numbers will do you no good at all unless they are telling you something that you can readily use.

Until someone presents another method of predictive team pitching staff quantification, instead of just sniping, Jon Weisman's method remains the best one I've seen to date.

You think you have a better method? Post it. If you do, I'll use it.

12-30-2007, 09:21 AM	#3
MorseMoose Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,023 Infractions: 1/1 (1)	Meh. Nothing special. Last edited by MorseMoose; 12-30-2007 at 09:23 AM.

12-30-2007, 11:40 AM	#7
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	I don't think it's very useful. It really isn't specific enough in its definitions and it feels incredibly arbitrary. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

12-30-2007, 08:40 AM	#2
Big Hugg All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 933	Not last! Scott Olsen should be mystery, not below-average, but beyond that, seems pretty spot on.

12-30-2007, 11:28 AM	#6
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 2,010	That's the second article you've posted today linked to from firejoemorgan.com. KUTGW!