Joe Musgrove Thread

[Dam8610]

On 1/1/2021 at 11:26 AM, bmags said:

As you’ve gone through his game log so often did you ever think “huh maybe that awful game he had that drove his ERA up so high right before he went on the DL for a month could be injury related?” or naw

But Joe Musgrove is not Lance Lynn. As we all know, bad starts only don't count when they're made by Lance Lynn, and good starts only don't count when they're made by Joe Musgrove. I'd love to argue against it, but this is just scientifically proven fact.

[Vulture]

10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I didn’t say that, but FIP basically measures ERA so of course it can be compared to it.  A guy with a 4.00 ERA & 3.50 FIP would have an ERA a half run worse than his FIP.  I feel like I’m missing something painfully obvious here, because this is just basic math.

It doesn’t measure era. That’s apparently what youre missing. It’s a ratio of home runs, walks, hbp and strikeouts. Basic math would say two equations with no variables in common are not directly related.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture

[Chicago White Sox]

8 minutes ago, Vulture said:

It doesn’t measure era. That’s apparently what youre missing. It’s a ratio of home runs, walks, hbp and strikeouts. Basic math would say two equations with no variables in common are not directly related.

Quote

Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) measures what a player’s ERA would look like over a given period of time if the pitcher were to have experienced league average results on balls in play and league average timing

https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/fip/

[Dam8610]

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/fip/

That's the description of it, not the calculation. FIP aims to strip the factor of fielding from the pitcher's performance, and the biggest reason it's a relevant measurement is that overall it correlates better to future pitching performance than ERA does. If it did nothing but measure ERA, it would be useless and not calculated. That's also why there can be gaps between ERA and FIP.

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

That's the description of it, not the calculation. FIP aims to strip the factor of fielding from the pitcher's performance, and the biggest reason it's a relevant measurement is that overall it correlates better to future pitching performance than ERA does. If it did nothing but measure ERA, it would be useless and not calculated. That's also why there can be gaps between ERA and FIP.

Well of course it doesn’t measure actual ERA itself, but it’s output is an ERA equivalent and can most definitely be compared to ERA (in fact that’s the point!).  I literally have no idea what people are actually arguing here...lol.

[bmags]

Yeah I gotta say I find the idea that we can’t act like FIP measures runs unconvincing. They fit FIP to ERA. If they didn’t do that then well we wouldn’t use “runs”. But as soon as they fixed fip to ERA then they created that.

 

[Vulture]

11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Well of course it doesn’t measure actual ERA itself, but it’s output is an ERA equivalent and can most definitely be compared to ERA (in fact that’s the point!).  I literally have no idea what people are actually arguing here...lol.

It’s not an ERA equivalent any more than WHIP is. In fact it is more akin to an advanced form of WHIP than to ERA if you compare the equations. You can’t say a players FIP is better or worse than his ERA because they are two distinct measurements. It’s like saying a batters OPS is worse than his strikeout rate. It’s mathematically nonsensical. The most you can say is the lower the FIP the lower the expected ERA would be although that isn’t really valid since it includes strikeouts which don’t prevent runs any more than any other out. Since runs allowed or any derivation thereof is not part of FIP equation other than to form a constant using only league average, it can’t be said to measure runs.  If you added a constant based on league era to the divisor of the whip calculation it wouldn’t magically turn it into a measurement of runs. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture

[bmags]

3 minutes ago, Vulture said:

It’s not an ERA equivalent any more than WHIP is. In fact it is more akin to WHIP than to ERA if you compare the equations.

The why didn’t the peg it to whip

[fathom]

This thread gives me a headache

[fathom]

Also, on the radio today, Stoney made it sound like the Lynn trade wasn’t the only high prospect for Major League piece the Sox would make.

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also, on the radio today, Stoney made it sound like the Lynn trade wasn’t the only high prospect for Major League piece the Sox would make.

I’m kinda ready for a new SP to get on about. We’ve had Marquez, Woodruff, Gray, Castillo, Musgrove. Maybe we’ll do another round on Gallen. 

[Pal]

10 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also, on the radio today, Stoney made it sound like the Lynn trade wasn’t the only high prospect for Major League piece the Sox would make.

Interesting. Seems like trade chatter has picked up last 2 days.

[Chicago White Sox]

14 minutes ago, Vulture said:

It’s not an ERA equivalent any more than WHIP is. In fact it is more akin to WHIP than to ERA if you compare the equations.

What in the world are you talking about?  FIP is an estimate of what a pitcher’s ERA would be if you stripped out fielding.  It’s 100% meant to be compared to ERA to see how much fielding and/or luck played a role in a pitcher’s season and give you a better indicator of what a pitcher’s ERA would be all else being equal.  WHIP is simply a measure of how many base runners a pitcher puts on-base per inning.  I have no idea how you think any of what you just said is true.

[Chicago White Sox]

13 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also, on the radio today, Stoney made it sound like the Lynn trade wasn’t the only high prospect for Major League piece the Sox would make.

I can’t see them moving Cease or Kopech, which means Madrigal would have to be the prospect in question.  Did he suggest what position they’d be targeting?  Has to be starting pitching right?

[Vulture]

20 minutes ago, bmags said:

The why didn’t the peg it to whip

I don’t know. I’m just looking at the equations. It’s a measure of humeruns plus walks minus strikeouts divided by innings plus a constant. That looks a lot like hits plus walks divided by innings pitched to me

[Vulture]

10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

What in the world are you talking about?  FIP is an estimate of what a pitcher’s ERA would be if you stripped out fielding.  

No it isn’t. It’s a measure of home runs plus walks minus strikeouts divided by innings pitched plus a constant. Like whip is a measure of walks and hits per inning. Those are the facts. That the result of that equation is equivalent of a pitchers era stripped of fielding is just a spurious claim that is mathematically unsupported. Just because it results in a number that looks like era doesn’t mean it does what it purports to do. The units are not the same. It’s apples and oranges. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture

[Balta1701]

22 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also, on the radio today, Stoney made it sound like the Lynn trade wasn’t the only high prospect for Major League piece the Sox would make.

i know I've said this before...but a team operating with a stringent payroll limit like the White Sox...needs to be way more insistent on hoarding years of control. 

[fathom]

10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I can’t see them moving Cease or Kopech, which means Madrigal would have to be the prospect in question.  Did he suggest what position they’d be targeting?  Has to be starting pitching right?

No, but he mentioned closer, starter, back up catcher and lefty hitter. He stressed a few times they’re all in.

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Vulture said:

No it isn’t. It’s a measure of home runs plus walks minus strikeouts divided by innings pitched plus a constant

Those are the inputs in a multi-variable equation to predict ERA.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

No, but he mentioned closer, starter, back up catcher and lefty hitter. He stressed a few times they’re all in.

Nothing like going “all-in” on a tight budget!

[MiddleCoastBias]

3 minutes ago, fathom said:

No, but he mentioned closer, starter, back up catcher and lefty hitter. He stressed a few times they’re all in.

This is so insulting how the org continues to peddle their definition of what "all in" means and refuses to actually spend the money that would SHOW that they're all in, instead choosing to leverage years of controllable pieces.

[thxfrthmmrs]

9 minutes ago, Vulture said:

I don’t know. I’m just looking at the equations. It’s a measure of humeruns plus walks minus strikeouts divided by innings plus a constant. That looks a lot like hits plus walks divided by innings pitched to me

No. FIP is an ERA equivalent metrics. Fangraphs even have metrics that compare ERA to FIP called E-F.

FIP is meant to take out the components of the ERA that are attributed to balls in play, because hitters and pitchers do not have control over that, and only measures the HR, BB, K, and HBP  aspect where the pitchers do have control over, then applying a constant to bring it to the ERA scale. There is another version of this called xFIP, which substitutes the HR pitchers give up with a HR/FB% because HR% should be normalized over time.

[Vulture]

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Those are the inputs in a multi-variable equation to predict ERA.

 

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Those are the inputs in a multi-variable equation to predict ERA.

Purportedly. But you can’t say FIP is higher or lower than era because they aren’t measuring the same thing. I could just as easily apply a constant to whip to make it look like a number similar to era and say the same thing. Doesn’t mean it would be valid to say the new stat was half a run better than era. Because there is no way it actually measures that. Just like fip. it’s literally a measure of home runs walks and strikeouts. Like whip those aren’t the only variables that are actually relevant so it is equally invalid to conclude an actual direct relationship. 

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, Vulture said:

 

Purportedly. But you can’t say FIP is higher or lower than era because they aren’t measuring the same thing. I could just as easily apply a constant to whip to make it look like a number similar to era and say the same thing. Doesn’t mean it would be valid to say the new stat was half a run better than era. Because there is no way it actually measures that. Just like fip. it’s literally a measure of home runs walks and strikeouts. Like whip those aren’t the only variables that are actually relevant so it is equally invalid to conclude an actual direct relationship. 

They are both trying to measure earned runs per nine innings (one actual, the other theoretical) and are 100% intended to be compared!?!

[Dick Allen]

14 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Nothing like going “all-in” on a tight budget!

The las time they were all in the had Dioner Navarro, Brett Lawrie, 100 year old Jimmy Rollins, and Austin Jackson up the middle.