Author Topic: Around Baseball  (Read 421565 times)

Reb

  • Guest
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #870 on: October 06, 2015, 11:49:02 pm »
You are dense sometimes.

xFIP, SIERA are better PREDICTIVE stats. Being a better PREDICITIVE stat means looking at the FUTURE.

FIP would be a better DESCRIPTIVE stat. DESCRIPTIVE stats tell you what happened THIS year.  DRA would be another DESCRIPTIVE stat with some PREDICITIVE value. RA/9 would be a much better stat than ERA. All of these stats heavily favor Greinke.

I care more about the future when I'm talking about pitchers.  So the stats you are mentioning are better at being PREDICITVE than DESCRIPTIVE.  Hence you don't understand how I use them.

Listen to yourself.  You know that these are all descriptive stats but, when it suits you, you portray them simply as predictive stats. Yes, perhaps they are BETTER predictive stats than ERA and the like but they are not simply predictive stats.  They purport to be better performance measurements too.

Here is what Fangraphs says about x-FIP compared to FIP:

xFIP strips out some of this fluctuation to give you a better view of how well we think a pitcher pitched over a given period of time, while controlling for defense, batted ball luck, and sequencing, and also HR/FB%. In other words, we use xFIP to see how a pitcher might be expected to perform given an average HR/FB% because we do not expect pitchers to have much control over that number. In other words, x-FIP is simply an enhanced version of FIP that adjusts for HR rate.  To quote Fangraphs, xFIP is "how well we think a pitcher pitched over a given period of time." 

Plainlly, that is designed to be descriptive of performance---be a better stat(s) to measure true performance.  Let's call it BETTER predictive, yes, but it purports to measure how well a pitcher pitched over a given period of time. That's what they say. Go to Las Vegas if you are only interested in using these stats as predictive. You need some balance here, let me suggest.

xFIP minus simply adjusts for league average on a 100 scale, like OPS+ does, as you know.  Same deal as above re xFIP.  That is why you cited xFIP minus when you claimed that Fister did not have a career year in 2014.  Allegedly relevant to describing his 2014 season, so you said.

This is the definition of SIERA:   "Skill-Interactive Earned Run Average {SIERA} estimates ERA through walk rate, strikeout rate and ground ball rate, eliminating the effects of park, defense and luck. SIERA accounts for how run prevention improves as ground ball rate increases and declines as more whiffs are accrued, while grounders are of more materiality for those who allow a surplus of runners." In other words, it purports to be a better version of ERA.  Descriptive, not just predictive.

Don't know why you weasel around the obvious.  Cite stuff as black and white when it suits you; ignore when it doesn't. 

You should just say that under these stats Hendricks pitched as well--performed--as Greinke in 2015, as Fangraphs would say, "over a given period of time."  In this case, the 2015 season.  Of course, you are too embarrassed to say that. Doesn't jive with common sense.  Now, you say just predictive, folks.  Baloney.

I know you are not saying that Hendricks is as talented as Greinke nor saying that in PREDICTIVE terms will be as good in 2016. But, you should fess up and admit that these stats claim that their 2015 performance was basically identical in terms of "how well we think a pitcher pitched" {Fangraphs citation again} in 2015.

Yes, ERA has a luck factor.  Baseball has a luck factor. I want to know what luck produced. I want to know how to compensate for luck. That's what newer stats purport to do.  Great idea.

Game on: Very Hard hit groundball directly at the SS--double play. Good luck for the pitcher.  Soft hit grounder-seeing eye 2-RBI single in the hole.  Bad luck for the pitcher.  We don't say, nice job for inducing the soft grounder. No, we say nice job for inducing the DP.  That's baseball.  I use ERA and x-FIP and FIP.  I don't say ERA is unworthy of consideration, as you did when you said you "discount" ERA.  That's just narrow-minded and too dumb for a smart guy like you.   

Reb

  • Guest
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #871 on: October 07, 2015, 03:01:27 am »
Most Defensive Runs Saved in 2015

Includes all positions.

Player           DRS

Kevin Kiermaier   42

Ender Inciarte   29

Andrelton Simmons   25

Starling Marte   24

Jason Heyward   24

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #872 on: October 07, 2015, 10:24:06 am »
Here is what Fangraphs says about x-FIP compared to FIP:

xFIP strips out some of this fluctuation to give you a better view of how well we think a pitcher pitched over a given period of time, while controlling for defense, batted ball luck, and sequencing, and also HR/FB%. In other words, we use xFIP to see how a pitcher might be expected to perform given an average HR/FB% because we do not expect pitchers to have much control over that number. In other words, x-FIP is simply an enhanced version of FIP that adjusts for HR rate.  To quote Fangraphs, xFIP is "how well we think a pitcher pitched over a given period of time." 

Here's what you left out from the top of the article.  "WHILE IT IS NOT A COMPLETE ACCOUTING OF PITCHER PERFORMANCE"  "They gave up the home runs so they count against them, but xFIP suggests they probably won’t continue to do so in the future."  Under the title how to use xFIP  " You can think of it as a very basic forecast,"  "In a very simple sense, FIP tells you how a pitcher has performed (value) independent of their defense while xFIP tells you about how well he has pitched (ability, talent) independent of their defense."" While xFIP is usually more predictive of future performance, there are reasons why a pitcher might not be expected to pitch to that particular xFIP."

That doesn't sound like a very good descriptive stat.

SIERA "In and of itself, SIERA works as well as many projection systems in terms of predicting a player’s future ERA"  "Like it’s predecessors FIP and xFIP, SIERA attempts to answer the question: what is the underlying skill level of this pitcher? How well did they actually pitch over the past year? Should their ERA have been higher, lower, or was it about right?"

jacey1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #873 on: October 07, 2015, 01:23:23 pm »
Mets probably aren't going to be interested in all prospects in a Harvey deal...but since we don't have a stud pitching prospect that is ready to contribute on the ML level, I guess thats why I was more prospect heavy on my earlier post. Maybe toss Hendricks in the deal???

Reb

  • Guest
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #874 on: October 07, 2015, 02:14:15 pm »
How many times do I have to say that these purport to be stats better predictive of the future.

But, primarily they purport to be better descriptive of present performance. Didn't leave anything out in my citations. You know that.

You try to say not descriptive in first place, which is flat wrong.

I think it's useful to have stats that purport to take out the luck element of baseball. But, we have to use them side-by-side with stats that measure performance results with the luck included. Using luck-free stats exclusively is too much fantasy. Treating ERA as entirely unworthy of consideration is fantasy time. WAR /RA-9 have flaws too. rWAR and fWAR, generally, can get you very different results.

Greinke and Hendricks were not virtually identical performers in 2015. Stats discussed preciously, such as xFIP, say they were. That is fantasy. We all know that. Better to look at the big picture.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 02:23:36 pm by Reb »

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #875 on: October 07, 2015, 03:44:28 pm »
You asked how I use them.  Can you give me 1 single post where I claimed X pitcher is better because their xFIP is lower.  EVERYTIME I bring up xFIP it is in relation to FUTURE performance.

rWAR and fWAR have different results because they look at different things.  I think I've mentioned this multiple times.  In case you forgot, rWAR relates better to actual WIN totals for pitchers.  fWAR is better for future performance.  Every stat has flaws.  Some have less flaws than others.

I NEVER, EVER SAID Greinke and Hendricks are identical performers.  I don't think a SINGLE PERSON except you has suggested such a thing.

I don't just look at one stat.  I never have.  I look at whole range of things, like stats, velocities, pitches, GB%, and actual games.  You just can't seem to wrap you head around that fact.  I even do look at ERA.  I understand the flaws that it entails and give it its appropriate weight. 


Reb

  • Guest
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #876 on: October 07, 2015, 03:56:37 pm »
No, you never said Greinke and Hendricks were similar performers.  Only the stats that you often rely on say that.  When that kind of thing happens, you claim those stats are merely predictive, not descriptive of present performance. Seems like you now have abandoned that view.

You used x-FIP- to argue that Fister did not have a career year in 2014, as one example. You can couch that in futuro if you want but know what you are actually doing.  Not a matter of who's "better" but of actual performance.  You distorted purposes of these stats in above posts. If using them as predictive only, maybe just stick with them during off-season.  Fine with that. Go predict the future.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #877 on: October 07, 2015, 04:51:23 pm »
You have serious reading comprehension issues.

The thread starts at 1194 in the Cubs 15 topic.  I never use xFIP or FIP when discussing why I didn't like Fister's 2014 season.  The only time I discuss xFIP- is when you are using xFIP incorrectly.  The entire discussion was about signing Fister in the future.............sigh.

Enjoy the playoff game, I'm done.

Reb

  • Guest
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #878 on: October 07, 2015, 05:24:23 pm »
The revisionism continues from you.

Only about the Fister future?  This is what you said about Fister 2014:  "he outperformed his peripherals a lot in 2014. That is when the decline started."  Then, I chimed in and said 2014 was probably his career season.  Regarding 2014, you then responded "there was nothing to like about his 2014 season except for his ERA." And, there was xFIP- from you later, as you just conceded.

So, obviously, you were talking about his 2014 season too.  Not just about predictive stuff.  Yes, you are obsessed with predicting the future. Get that. But, I was pointing out your silliness about Fister 2014. You drop this kind of foolishness all the time and I responded to that particular foolishness. Never said that I wanted Cubs to sign Fister in the future--only that some clubs would be interested in him and then discussed Fister 2014.  We already had Fister 2015 data for future projection.  Obviously, 2014 not all that significant anymore for predictive purposes. Talking about what 2014 meant for 2014.

Keep hoping you will find some kind of balance in your approach. A losing proposition.

Go Cubs in 2015.


CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #879 on: October 07, 2015, 07:34:39 pm »
The revisionism continues from you.

Only about the Fister future?  This is what you said about Fister 2014:  "he outperformed his peripherals a lot in 2014. That is when the decline started."  Then, I chimed in and said 2014 was probably his career season.  Regarding 2014, you then responded "there was nothing to like about his 2014 season except for his ERA." And, there was xFIP- from you later, as you just conceded.


When you go looking for a decline, your looking for future performance no?  Peripherals include more than FIP/xFIP. In the second post you reference I mentioned the peripherals I was talking about and xFIP wasn't included. Just put me on ignore if I bug you that much. I'm not going to change the way I post or what I'm interested to please you.

method

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #880 on: October 07, 2015, 10:43:51 pm »
1) Castro's contract is paying for about 1 1/2 WAR for the next 4 years. Plenty of surplus value in there, depending on how a ream views him. He has 3 3 fWAR seasons before age of 25. It isn't impossible he does it.

2) Harvey isn't a lock to average 6 WAR for the next 3 years. Even if he does it will be his most expensive 3 years, decreasing the value.  He could cost $32 million over that time. Schwarber/Russell may cost the same or less over 6 years.

3) Just for the sake of your point, lets grant that Harvey will produce 18 WAR. Russell with below average offense produces that for 6 years and everyone is projecting his offense to improve. Schwarber would be a roughly 5 WAR player this year over full year. Are you suggesting the Cubs should trade between 18-36 WAR over 6 years for Harvey?  No team would do it.

18 to 36 war??? wow... you are nuts. So Russel is going to be better then barry larkin over the next 6 years? and Schwarber is going to out produce Posey?

Maybe both turn into Starlin Castro... fantastic for a year and then show no ability to adjust. No team is crazy for trading for Harvey... Elite players cost a lot... there is something to be said for being able to get a player with 7+ war potential... and apparently you are drastically discounting it.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #881 on: October 07, 2015, 11:16:39 pm »
Russell at his current offense is would be 18 WAR over 6 years.  I think there is a lot more in his bat.  Schwarber prorated over a full year is worth 5 WAR or 30 over 6. He might get better.

He is now a 7 WAR pitcher?  Last time the Cubs traded for one of those they gave up Scott Feldman. Young prearb hitters don't get traded, unless you are Billy Beane. Harvey is very talented, but he is currently destroying value, has had a TJS and is about to get expensive in 1 year.  If Harvey gets you gets you 18 WAR OVER 3 years you are likely paying him $32 million.  At $8/WAR that is a surplus value of 14 WAR. I think there is a pretty decent chance that Russell or Schwarber will blow past for a total of $1.5 million. 

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #882 on: October 07, 2015, 11:31:39 pm »
You are dense sometimes.

xFIP, SIERA are better PREDICTIVE stats. Being a better PREDICITIVE stat means looking at the FUTURE.

FIP would be a better DESCRIPTIVE stat. DESCRIPTIVE stats tell you what happened THIS year.  DRA would be another DESCRIPTIVE stat with some PREDICITIVE value. RA/9 would be a much better stat than ERA. All of these stats heavily favor Greinke.

I care more about the future when I'm talking about pitchers.  So the stats you are mentioning are better at being PREDICITVE than DESCRIPTIVE.  Hence you don't understand how I use them.

Boy this looks familiar....

buff

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #883 on: October 08, 2015, 06:10:57 am »
Why does everything said on this site anymore have to be backed up with undisputed evidence and stats?  I miss the old days when it was just a bunch of guys and a couple ladies talking baseball and we didnt have to have everything backed up by 3 sources.  Im going back into scroll and lurk mode I dont have time to write a thesis on a potential trade or anything else.

Oh and my post isaid I would start with Soler and Castro I never said that is all it would take good bye

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #884 on: October 08, 2015, 07:57:00 am »
Boy this looks familiar....

Didn't you lose a bet? 

My name is Jes Beard and I know nothing.