Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: They are both trying to measure earned runs per nine innings (one actual, the other theoretical) and are 100% intended to be compared!?! But home runs plus walks minus strikeouts doesn’t actually measure that. Doesn’t matter what they’re trying to do. If it was labeled properly the unit would be HR+Bb-K/IP ratio. Nowhere in that is an equation actually equivalent to runs or expected runs. It’s an interesting inversion of stats similar to whip. Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Dick Allen said: The las time they were all in the had Dioner Navarro, Brett Lawrie, 100 year old Jimmy Rollins, and Austin Jackson up the middle. It’s just incredible how excited I was for the 2015 team that accurately looks like trash to me now. We basically expected Jose Abreu to be the greatest offensive force in history for that offense to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Dick Allen said: The las time they were all in the had Dioner Navarro, Brett Lawrie, 100 year old Jimmy Rollins, and Austin Jackson up the middle. Which is terrifying. At least our existing core is pretty damn good and Lynn & Hendriks should be quality additions. Any frustration I have is more around a lack of killer instinct from Jerry when he already has a cheap core in place and could really make a statement with a small amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Vulture said: But home runs plus walks minus strikeouts doesn’t actually measure that. Doesn’t matter what they’re trying to do. If it was labeled properly the unit would be HR+Bb-K/IP ratio. Nowhere in that is an equation actually equivalent to runs or expected runs. It’s an interesting inversion of stats similar to whip. Clearly you’re punking me at this point, so I’ll simply say you’re wrong and leave it at that to avoid me further disrupting the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Clearly you’re punking me at this point, so I’ll simply say you’re wrong and leave it at that to avoid me further disrupting the thread. How can I be wrong. Is your claim it’s not a ratio of hr,bb and strikeouts? You’ve accepted the spurious claim, i.e. opinion, that this results in a measure of fielding independent expected runs allowed, while I am claiming what is actually factual. It is in fact a separate unit measurement not involving runs but rather a ratio of HR, BB, K to IP. Therefore it can’t be higher or lower than ERA since they aren’t the same unit measurements. Just like if I multiplied whip by a constant resulting in a number that looks like era I couldn’t then say his adjusted whip is higher or lower than his ERA with validity. Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejoesox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/fip/ it doesnt use their ERA as a variable in the FIP formula, it creates it's own "era" as a result of the formula 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, joesaiditstrue said: it doesnt use their ERA as a variable in the FIP formula, it creates it's own "era" as a result of the formula It doesn’t though.As I’ve clearly shown. The idea that walks home runs and strikeouts is a measure of expected runs in fielding neutral environment is conjectural opinion. Even if it’s true, one number can’t be said to be higher than another because they are not using the same units. Any more than an on base percentage can said to be lower than a slugging percentage, even if you used a constant multiplier to even the scales of the two. Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 13 minutes ago, Vulture said: How can I be wrong. Is your claim it’s not a ratio of hr,bb and strikeouts? You’ve accepted the spurious claim, i.e. opinion, that this results in a measure of fielding independent expected runs allowed, while I am claiming what is actually factual. It is in fact a separate unit measurement not involving runs but rather a ratio of HR, BB, K to IP. Therefore it can’t be higher or lower than ERA since they aren’t the same unit measurements. Just like if I multiplied whip by a constant resulting in a number that looks like era I couldn’t then say his adjusted whip is higher or lower than his ERA with validity. Appreciate the back & forth, but I’m done going down this rabbit hole and highly recommend you spend more time thinking through this and how multi-variable equations in general work. Like just read the link I sent you and hopefully it will all click at some point, because right now you’re completely off-base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 15 minutes ago, joesaiditstrue said: it doesnt use their ERA as a variable in the FIP formula, it creates it's own "era" as a result of the formula Exactly...FIP is literally a theoretical ERA independent of fielding and luck. HRs, BBs, & Ks are simply the drivers / inputs used to generate a theoretical ERA given their correlation with run prevention. It’s really pretty straight forward and I can’t believe it’s even be debated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 “ assuming short-term fluctuations in BABIP are attributable to the pitcher is likely incorrect.” Actual quote from fangraphs article. Use of terms ‘assuming’ and ‘likely incorrect’ show that the convoluted statistic is not an actually valid representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Vulture said: “ assuming short-term fluctuations in BABIP are attributable to the pitcher is likely incorrect.” Actual quote from fangraphs article. Use of terms ‘assuming’ and ‘likely incorrect’ show that the convoluted statistic is not an actually valid representation. Which is why balls in play are excluded from the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 Moving on from FIP, what’s your breaking point on a Joe Musgrove trade? Who’s willing to do something Thompson + Beard + Adolfo? If yes, how much further would you be willing to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Appreciate the back & forth, but I’m done going down this rabbit hole and highly recommend you spend more time thinking through this and how multi-variable equations in general work. Like just read the link I sent you and hopefully it will all click at some point, because right now you’re completely off-base. If you are on base then you should be able to show how an ratio of hr bb and k actually directly shows valid fielding independent pitching results related to runs allowed. You can’t because it doesn’t. You can make all the multi variable equations you want but if the variables don’t equate directly to a unit, then they can’t be reduced to that unit. You can’t prove the hr, bb, k ratio can be reduced to runs and neither can fangraphs. Therefore it can’t be called a measure of runs allowed. That’s why they use terms like assuming and most likely. Comparing two measures of different units is like saying there is a higher lbs/square inch than mph. Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Which is why balls in play are excluded from the equation. Assuming and most likely aren’t terms used in valid statistics is my point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam8610 Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 39 minutes ago, Vulture said: Assuming and most likely aren’t terms used in valid statistics is my point. What? Assumptions have to be made in any statistical analysis. To say otherwise represents a lack of understanding of how mathematical modeling works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominikk85 Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 Btw I wonder how sustainable the uptick in quintana's k rate is. His era wasn't great last year but FIP and k/9 were career bests. His contact rate also was among the lowest in his career so maybe it was not a total fluke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Dominikk85 said: Btw I wonder how sustainable the uptick in quintana's k rate is. His era wasn't great last year but FIP and k/9 were career bests. His contact rate also was among the lowest in his career so maybe it was not a total fluke. Seems like he started working high fastball + curve vs him previously working low and away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dam8610 said: What? Assumptions have to be made in any statistical analysis. To say otherwise represents a lack of understanding of how mathematical modeling works. Not if it can’t be demonstrated or backed by a logical presumption. To accept that fluctuations in babip are entirely random, as is necessary to accept that fip measures expected runs with fielding removed, it is necessary to accept that an infield pop up is no different that a ball lined off an outfield wall at 115 mph, in addition to presuming runs can be derived from hr bb and k. Unless you are willing to do that then fip is only what it actually is, a ratio of hr+bb-k against IP. It’s nonsensical to include strikeouts because a pitcher can record every out by strikeout and still allow an infinite amount of runs. No way anyone can demonstrate HR+BB-K equals runs so either way it is invalid to say a fip is higher or lower than era since they aren’t the same units or equated to same units. For example suppose a pitcher in an inning allows ten line drives off an outfield wall, walks none and strikes out the side. What’s his fip compared to how many runs you’d actually expect him to allow? Edited January 2, 2021 by Vulture 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smellysox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) Wow this argument is still going on?!? I'm starting to forget what this thread is even about. That's right Musgrove. So are we trading for him? Edited January 2, 2021 by smellysox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 1 minute ago, smellysox said: Wow this argument is still going on?!? I'm starting to forget what this thread is even about. That's right Musgrove. So are we trading for him? Peyou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Vulture said: Not if it can’t be demonstrated or backed by a logical presumption. To accept that fluctuations in babip are entirely random, as is necessary to accept that fip measures expected runs with fielding removed, it is necessary to accept that an infield pop up is no different that a ball lined off an outfield wall at 115 mph. Unless you are willing to do that then fip is only what it actually is, a ratio of hr+bb-k t against IP. No way anyone can demonstrate HR+BB-K equals runs so either way it is invalid to say a fip is higher or lower than era since they aren’t the same units. FIP is only designed to be used as a stat to determine how the pitcher is performing. It has nothing to do with ERA. It uses HR+BB-K because theoretically those are the only things pitchers can control. It's not meant to equal runs because runs also include other players doing their job. I happen to disagree that those are the only things they can control but thats a different discussion. I think SIERA is a better stat because it at least uses a model of fielding that attempts to see how pitchers use the fielders. Edited January 2, 2021 by ptatc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 That was my point. It can’t be said that a pitchers fip is a run better than his era when it’s not measuring runs or the equivalent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Vulture said: That was my point. It can’t be said that a pitchers fip is a run better than his era when it’s not measuring runs or the equivalent. I was agreeing with you by providing the explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 14 minutes ago, smellysox said: Wow this argument is still going on?!? I'm starting to forget what this thread is even about. That's right Musgrove. So are we trading for him? If the price is right...hopefully! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 2, 2021 Share Posted January 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Moving on from FIP, what’s your breaking point on a Joe Musgrove trade? Who’s willing to do something Thompson + Beard + Adolfo? If yes, how much further would you be willing to go? Just curious about something...if you had to pick between Drew Smyly and Joe Musgrove, for next year alone to cover the White Sox's needs, can you make a strong argument for Musgrove? (and yes I know Smyly isn't available). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts