Eminor3rd

I'm not aware of any method/study that solves that. You've actually hit on the central point of the great debate between fWAR and bWAR. fWAR (which is FIP-based) is generally considered more accurate, but less complete. This is because it includes on the factors that we're can statistically "prove" are under the pitcher's (nearly) sole control. FanGraphs decided they would rather accept that there are performance factors missing in the model -- and leave it up to the reader to decide how much of an influence these factors have -- than to make a gut-based guess as to how much credit to assign to different components. bWAR (which is ERA-based) is generally considered vastly less accurate, but totally complete. It's less accurate because it gives the pitcher all the blame/credit for things the pitcher cannot control (defense, conditions, luck, etc.), which everyone knows is incorrect, but ultimately includes every descriptive aspect of run scoring. Which one is better, as with all of these stats, depends upon the context in which it is being used. In a Cy Young contest, for example, those who feelthe definition of "valuable" should be more closely related to what actually happened during the season, regardless of whether luck or teammates affected it, would much prefer the complete story that bWAR tells. Those looking to evaluate a pitcher for his "true talent," however, are incentivized to reduce error and strip extraneous and non-repeatable factors out of the equation entirely. If pitcher X had a great ERA simply because he played in front of a great defense, you may not want him if your defense isn't that good.

Park factor is in xFIP

Further down in the same article: "Essentially, FIP is an attempt to measure how well a pitcher actually performed independent of factors outside of his control that contribute to runs allowed based statistics."

Park, league, and era factors are all baked into FIP. The difference between FIP and xFIP is that the latter regresses homerun rate to current league average -- making it more of a "predictor" than normal FIP, which is , as you said, descriptive. Like I said to turnin' two -- FIP is useful specifically because it combines those things in a way that can be compared apples to apples with ERA. It isn't more or less valuable than its components, it's a specialized expression of those components.

Yes -- that's a bit of an oversimplification, but not much, you basically have it. And that's extremely useful, because you assume that over the long run, those things all even out. So now imagine you are trying to acquire a pitcher. You have two options, both of whom have produced good ERAs. Do you want the one whose peripherals are in line with his ERA, or the one whose peripherals suggest that his ERA is a result of external factors? A pitcher can't control the defense, weather, or luck -- and all those factors might ultimately screw him in the end -- but you'd rather start with a guy who is controlling the things he CAN control well.

Pretend there's a pitcher with the following stats: 2.81 ERA, 9.5 K/9, 4.1 BB/9, 0.9 HR/9, 9.5% HR/FB If I asked you, "How likely is it that that pitcher's ERA is sustainable?" How would you answer? How confident would you be in your answer? According to DIPS, there IS an answer that can be derived from those numbers; you have enough information, technically. You might think, ok, that ERA is pretty low so the bar for sustainability is probably kind of high. That K rate seems alright. Would have been above average a few years ago but with the way strikeouts are up now, I guess it isn't super high. Not terrible. I wonder what average is, maybe around 8? Probably a good sign, then, if I have it right. Okay that definitely seems like more walks than you want, but maybe not egregious -- do the strikeouts cancel out the walks? Are the walks a bigger problem than the strikeouts are a benefit? The homerun rate is a bit low but not crazy low. I imagine that will probably go up and affect his ERA a bit. But how much? Is it a run here or there? Or, you could look at FIP, which takes all of those factors, weighs them mathematically based on how they've been related to rates historically, adjusts for offensive environment, adjusts for league, and then gives you a number than can be compared directly to ERA. Then, it's simply a matter of saying either "Okay, that's relatively close," or "Whoa, that's WAY off. There's reason to believe that that performance will produce a different result." The purpose of FIP is to put those underlying (K/BB/HR) numbers into context so that they can most precisely (and as objectively as possible) answer the question "is this pitcher's performance likely to continue?" This doesn't make the counting stats obsolete or useless -- this isn't a matter of whether or not a stat is "better" or "worse" -- it's just a matter of a stat being derived to take the guesswork out of a specific question in which those stats are applied.

That would depend on your definition of "lots." There may (or may not) be hundreds over the course of baseball history, but it isn't "most," which is the whole point. They're not superfluous. If I asked you, "does pitcher X's ERA seem sustainable?" you wouldn't be able to answer accurately by telling me whether or not his K's were high. The reason it exists in the from it does is so that it can combine predictive factors and scale it to be on par with ERA. A guy could have high strikeouts but still suck because he walks too many batters. How could you tell if the walks were high enough to cancel out the strikeouts? You use FIP (or something similar). Also, flyball rate has nothing to do with FIP or xFIP. You might be thinking of HR/FB%, which does.

Pointing out a couple exceptions to a rule doesn't invalidate the rule. It's possible that Lopez may turn out to be another exception, but if you were going to make that case, the burden would be on you to provide evidence. Until there's a reason to believe a guy is abnormal, it's much more likely that he is normal.

There are related studies in Baseball Between the Numbers and The Book, two awesome books that broke a lot of OG sabermetric studies that form the basis of much that's still used today. Unfortunately, the articles from both books aren't available for free online. I own and have read both of these --they're fascinating reads to this day, even though many of the concepts have been improved on since their release. In short, the basis for the use of walks/strikeouts/homeruns came from studies performed by Voros McCracken that showed those rates as stable predictors of their own future values in later years, whereas ERA (and most other commonly used stats) were not. I don't remember off the top of my head how they accurately scaled FIP to ERA, but the end result was the FIP predicts future ERA better than ERA predicts future ERA. Now, the important distinction here is that this is only going to hold true if the relevant rates (walks/strikeouts/homeruns) hold steady. So the statement "his performance suggests he will regress" is less accurate than the statement "if he continues to pitch as he has been pitching, his performance suggests he will regress." In other words, if you think that Reynaldo Lopez will improve/refine his command and thus strike more guys out/walk fewer guys/continue to repress homeruns going forward, you may not believe that will regress. But it IS accurate to suggest that he has not shown the characteristics of a sub-3 ERA pitcher so far.

Well, not if the claim being made is that he will need to improve those things in order to continue to see success. It isn't an SSS issue to say that the way he's been pitching is not in line with his current ERA.

It is hyperbole to say he's among the worst SPs in baseball, but based on his peripherals, it isn't as far off as you might think. You don't have to think of it as "because of his xFIP," but the guy is has only struck out 6 batters per nine, while walking nearly 4 batters per nine, both numbers which are significantly below average for starters in today's game. Add that to the fact that just 9% of his flyballs have been homers (despite being in a park that generally boosts homers), and it's easy to see that his results need to improve if he's going to contuine to see a low ERA. He has a low ERA, but he hasn't pitched particularly well.

The shade being tossed at Lopez is because his 2.44 ERA is against a 4.54 FIP and a 5.28 xFIP. What this means, essentially, is that (1) his K/BB ratio suggests he does not deserve an ERA that low, and (2) he has given up far fewer homeruns than would be expected given his ballpark and the current offensive environment of the league. This makes him, on paper, a prime candidate for regression, because if he keeps performing the same as he has been, you'd expect him to give up more homers and for more of his balls in play to become hits going forward. He needs to strike more dudes out (and walk a few less) to avoid this.

I'm still high on Lopez. The stuff is unbelievable, and I think his command of it will improve.

Right -- this is "the process."

Have fun at the ballpark, mang.

Leadership. Intangibles. Even when his performance is off, he finds a way to get the L.

Tank Commander James Shields on the top of his game yet again. When will this guy decline?

You can add any type of talent in free agency. You can trade any type of player for any other type of player. It makes zero sense to draft for need in baseball. You take the best talent you see and figure out how he fits in later.

Again, literally the the point of the entire thread. Strange thing, to get angry at people for discussing the topic of a thread.

Taking a step back, I don't see how you can say no to a current plus hit tool with above average athleticism and work ethic.

The worst part of this post is that Chris Volstad is currently on our team.

This may be the single tankiest moment of this entire rebuild.

Wait, are you serious? No one, in this thread that is titled "Eloy Jimenez," where in the original post, the poster says "Why not bring Eloy Jimenez up now?" is suggesting that Eloy should be called up now?

What I've read is that the only thing holding back from being a SS is his arm, but that he'd probably be playing there anyway except that OSU has some other younger future draft prospect with a slick glove.

And those coaches are saying he isn't ready yet. That's the whole point. We don't want to disrupt the process just because this team is hard to watch on TV right now.