FAQ and Forum on Advanced Stats

[witesoxfan]

As a caveat, SIERA actually predicts what the ERA should look like with the numbers the pitcher has allowed, and it's incredibly accurate and usually is very close to the pitcher's ERA. It is also a solid predictor of future ERAs as well. However, it should not be used like that simply because those factors which a pitcher can't control - primarily luck and defense - can change drastically in one offseason.

 

As an example, Justin Verlander's SIERA was 3.61 last year with an ERA of 3.46. I expect both of those to actually go down this year. Last year, for much of the year, the Tigers were running with Miguel Cabrera at 3B, Johnny Peralta at SS, and Prince Fielder at 1B, three very good hitters who have limited range in the field. This year, the Tigers should have 3 defensive upgrades in all 3 positions. This is something that SIERA cannot account for, so while we as fans expect Verlander's ERA to go down, SIERA does not because it cannot.

[ptatc]

As a caveat, SIERA actually predicts what the ERA should look like with the numbers the pitcher has allowed, and it's incredibly accurate and usually is very close to the pitcher's ERA. It is also a solid predictor of future ERAs as well. However, it should not be used like that simply because those factors which a pitcher can't control - primarily luck and defense - can change drastically in one offseason.

 

As an example, Justin Verlander's SIERA was 3.61 last year with an ERA of 3.46. I expect both of those to actually go down this year. Last year, for much of the year, the Tigers were running with Miguel Cabrera at 3B, Johnny Peralta at SS, and Prince Fielder at 1B, three very good hitters who have limited range in the field. This year, the Tigers should have 3 defensive upgrades in all 3 positions. This is something that SIERA cannot account for, so while we as fans expect Verlander's ERA to go down, SIERA does not because it cannot.

This is true. However the formula they use with ground balls and line drives and flyballs and such is much more accurate and makes more sense than any others. This formula takes out as much of luck and defense as possible while including more factors than FIP and xFIP.

 

No stat is going to be perfect as we are dealing with humans not numbers but as far as any I've found it comes the closest to really looking at how a pitcher can control runs and thus giving the team a better chance to win.

[witesoxfan]

This is true. However the formula they use with ground balls and line drives and flyballs and such is much more accurate and makes more sense than any others. This formula takes out as much of luck and defense as possible while including more factors than FIP and xFIP.

 

No stat is going to be perfect as we are dealing with humans not numbers but as far as any I've found it comes the closest to really looking at how a pitcher can control runs and thus giving the team a better chance to win.

 

I think this is so perfect and is the primary disconnect between "stat heads" and "baseball purists." I put quotes around those because they are incredibly silly labels. While you will find some people who are use nothing but stats (this guy has an .700 OPS, HE IS A TERRIBLE HITTER), those who utilize statistics properly and incorporate them within the game itself will have a much clearer picture and better understanding of what's going on.

 

I also love that you mention that because it's something that sabermaticians preach constantly, but so often goes unheard by others simply because WAR is cited so often. The reason it is cited so often is that, as a whole, it is the best way to determine overall value. However, we always look at others as well and, if asked, the initial point can be expounded and we can and will further define our point with more numbers.

[Eminor3rd]

Here's something that just came out today and illustrates greatly the effect of context on GB pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/exceptional...uches-everyone/

[witesoxfan]

Here's something that just came out today and illustrates greatly the effect of context on GB pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/exceptional...uches-everyone/

 

Sullivan is the man, and that article shows amazing stuff.

[ptatc]

Here's something that just came out today and illustrates greatly the effect of context on GB pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/exceptional...uches-everyone/

The concepts in the article are really good. I still don't like WAR as a reference to current play but the concepts are undeniable about defense partially because good pitchers will tailor pitching to the strength of the defense.

[Balta1701]

More

While MIT's Sloan Sports Analytics Conference tilts heavily toward the NBA, MLB Advanced Media took center stage on Saturday when CEO Bob Bowman and VP Joe Inzerillo unveiled tracking technology that will be introduced this year and revolutionize the game.

 

The tracking system, which will debut this year at Citi Field, Miller Park and Target Field, uses multiple cameras around the field to capture player movement in multiple dimensions.

 

This will allow us to track every player movement. So, for example, when a fly ball is hit we can see how far the outfielder ran to catch it, his direct route, and his route efficiency, which is his direct route relative to his overall route. In other words, we can now prove which fielders take good routes to batted balls.

 

 

 

This "route" statistic just scratches the surface, but it is a major step toward definitive defensive metrics on par with offensive stats. This tracking technology will also allow teams to measure baserunner speed and angles, and give us another level of batted ball statistics, such as velocity of the bat and trajectory.

 

The plan is for the other 27 parks to have this implemented over the course of the year so that every park has the tracking technology for Opening Day 2015. The future is now.

[ILMOU]

More

Now you talking to me baby...

 

This will be a quantum leap for D metrics. Nice.

[Eminor3rd]

More

 

Game changer for the industry. Unfortunately we peasants will most likely never have access to it.

[Balta1701]

Game changer for the industry. Unfortunately we peasants will most likely never have access to it.

I think we'll get the end products at some point.

[Eminor3rd]

I think we'll get the end products at some point.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I have no idea -- but why? I can't think of any reason for it to be made public. If it's ever public, then the teams wouldn't have to pay for it.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Balta1701]

New study on the value of "Framing pitches" for strike calls finds that catchers who are good at framing pitches is the equivalent fo ~2 WAR per year. Jose Molina, Brian McCann, Jonathan Lucroy, Russell Martin come out as about that good.

[ScottyDo]

New study on the value of "Framing pitches" for strike calls finds that catchers who are good at framing pitches is the equivalent fo ~2 WAR per year. Jose Molina, Brian McCann, Jonathan Lucroy, Russell Martin come out as about that good.

Not sure if this question makes sense or not but:

 

In terms of runs saved accounting, would those ~2 WAR come out of their pitchers' WAR? I mean, their teams didn't suddenly get roughly 2 wins better by virtue of the fact that someone studied framing, and pitch framing isn't built into the catcher's WAR statistic at all.

 

Basically, I guess what I'm asking is do you think there will be an effort to kind of "pull out" these undeserved strikes from the pitcher's stats so they're not getting credit for their catchers' talents?

Edited March 7, 2014 by ScottyDo

[Eminor3rd]

Not sure if this question makes sense or not but:

 

In terms of runs saved accounting, would those ~2 WAR come out of their pitchers' WAR? I mean, their teams didn't suddenly get roughly 2 wins better by virtue of the fact that someone studied framing, and pitch framing isn't built into the catcher's WAR statistic at all.

 

Basically, I guess what I'm asking is do you think there will be an effort to kind of "pull out" these undeserved strikes from the pitcher's stats so they're not getting credit for their catchers' talents?

 

You've hit on one of the biggest controversies with pitch framing research right now. Intuitively, the "runs" should represent a zero sum situation.

 

The top public saber guys are very divided on framing right now because of this type of thing. Everyone agrees that it's important and that it's been overlooked in the community, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus on valuation.

[witesoxfan]

You've hit on one of the biggest controversies with pitch framing research right now. Intuitively, the "runs" should represent a zero sum situation.

 

The top public saber guys are very divided on framing right now because of this type of thing. Everyone agrees that it's important and that it's been overlooked in the community, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus on valuation.

 

I cite this article all the time, but if you start increasing catchers' WAR for that, why not start increasing fielders' WPA for (and against) great (poor) plays?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/venables-winning-defense/

 

It creates a very, very slippery slope. They showed Brandon Crawford's 5 incredible plays the other day. I've never seen those percentages, but it would be nice if they showed them on the FanGraphs site, just the same as they show the pitch framing stuff.

 

It would also end Ryan Doumit's career as a catcher. That dude is the worst.

Edited March 7, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Eminor3rd]

I cite this article all the time, but if you start increasing catchers' WAR for that, why not start increasing fielders' WPA for (and against) great (poor) plays?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/venables-winning-defense/

 

It creates a very, very slippery slope. They showed Brandon Crawford's 5 incredible plays the other day. I've never seen those percentages, but it would be nice if they showed them on the FanGraphs site, just the same as they show the pitch framing stuff.

 

It would also end Ryan Doumit's career as a catcher. That dude is the worst.

 

Well, defenders DO get extra credit for making difficult plays in DRS/UZR, but it doesn't include WPA because WPA is 100% context. A routine grounder can have higher WPA than a diving catch, for example, depending upon what is at stake in the game situation.

 

Pitch framing does seem to straddle a line between context-neutral and context-dependent, though I can't really put my finger on where it falls apart. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why the valuation numbers aren't adding up.

 

 

[harfman77]

So...lineup protection...some stat heads say that is a myth, but how can you know that? You can not correlate two unrelated situations as evidence, and since baseball is so situational, there are very few situations that are replicated for various players. I would agree that is has very little effect for elite players, but for marginal players I feel it is a very real thing. As a pitcher, there are certain players you want to beat you by putting the ball in play and others that you want to pitch around. If you have Beckham and Abreu coming up back to back, you are going to be more aggressive with Beckham as the result of contact is not as dangerous as if Abreu (theoretically) were to make contact.

[Eminor3rd]

So...lineup protection...some stat heads say that is a myth, but how can you know that? You can not correlate two unrelated situations as evidence, and since baseball is so situational, there are very few situations that are replicated for various players. I would agree that is has very little effect for elite players, but for marginal players I feel it is a very real thing. As a pitcher, there are certain players you want to beat you by putting the ball in play and others that you want to pitch around. If you have Beckham and Abreu coming up back to back, you are going to be more aggressive with Beckham as the result of contact is not as dangerous as if Abreu (theoretically) were to make contact.

 

The research that has been done on this that debunks it has been centered on observing Pitch F/X data for players who have had large discrepancies in their "lineup protection" over short periods of time, typically in situations where a player is traded or lost to free agency. No one has been able to find any difference in the types of pitches that these players see.

 

Here's a Dave Cameron article examining pitch types to McCutchen over four years: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lb/refresh/true

 

The general conclusion is that scary hitters are scary regardless -- that even with a good hitter behind him, you don't want to serve it up to a guy that can hurt you. Guys like Abreu don't see intentional gopher balls no matter who is behind them, because one swing can affect the scoreboard in every situation. HR hitters don't get fewer strikes with no protection because they are already getting the fewest strikes possible.

 

Lineup protection is just another one of those things that makes sense intuitively, but for which no actual evidence exists. If you can show an effect for it, you'd be discovering something new. But for now, there's no evidence of anyone actually being pitched to differently based on who hits behind him (pitchers excluded). Seems like it should be there, but it just isn't.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Balta1701]

The research that has been done on this that debunks it has been centered on observing Pitch F/X data for players who have had large discrepancies in their "lineup protection" over short periods of time, typically in situations where a player is traded or lost to free agency. No one has been able to find any difference in the types of pitches that these players see.

 

Here's a Dave Cameron article examining pitch types to McCutchen over four years: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lb/refresh/true

 

The general conclusion is that scary hitters are scary regardless -- that even with a good hitter behind him, you don't want to serve it up to a guy that can hurt you. Guys like Abreu don't see intentional gopher balls no matter who is behind them, because one swing can affect the scoreboard in every situation. HR hitters don't get fewer strikes with no protection because they are already getting the fewest strikes possible.

 

Lineup protection is just another one of those things that makes sense intuitively, but for which no actual evidence exists. If you can show an effect for it, you'd be discovering something new. But for now, there's no evidence of anyone actually being pitched to differently based on who hits behind him (pitchers excluded). Seems like it should be there, but it just isn't.

Not even a tangible difference in the number of walks a guy gets?

[witesoxfan]

Not even a tangible difference in the number of walks a guy gets?

 

Not particularly. The only way you will see it is if there is an extreme difference - I am talking something like a top 20-30 hitter hitting in front of a bottom 60-90 hitter. Otherwise, you just won't pitch that differently and guys won't hit that differently.

 

There is only one guy I can think of in the last 20 years who you really saw make a difference for the guy in front of him, and that guy broke some record or records or something.

[southsider2k5]

Not particularly. The only way you will see it is if there is an extreme difference - I am talking something like a top 20-30 hitter hitting in front of a bottom 60-90 hitter. Otherwise, you just won't pitch that differently and guys won't hit that differently.

 

There is only one guy I can think of in the last 20 years who you really saw make a difference for the guy in front of him, and that guy broke some record or records or something.

 

Miguel Cabrera had a really nice pop with Prince there. His walks dropped, his doubles turned to homers, and his SLG went up.

[witesoxfan]

Miguel Cabrera had a really nice pop with Prince there. His walks dropped, his doubles turned to homers, and his SLG went up.

 

He walked 90 times last year, 2nd most in his career. Also had the fewest doubles in a season of any full year in his career. He also had by far the best offensive season of his career.

 

I think he had a case of "best hitter in the league in the prime of his career" last year.

Edited March 11, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Eminor3rd]

Not even a tangible difference in the number of walks a guy gets?

 

It believe -- don't hold me to it -- that in Baseball Between the Numbers they showed a significant difference in walks that a guy gets when they bat in front of a pitcher, but that was it. Look that up, wite! I'll forget when I get home.

[harfman77]

The research that has been done on this that debunks it has been centered on observing Pitch F/X data for players who have had large discrepancies in their "lineup protection" over short periods of time, typically in situations where a player is traded or lost to free agency. No one has been able to find any difference in the types of pitches that these players see.

 

Here's a Dave Cameron article examining pitch types to McCutchen over four years: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lb/refresh/true

 

The general conclusion is that scary hitters are scary regardless -- that even with a good hitter behind him, you don't want to serve it up to a guy that can hurt you. Guys like Abreu don't see intentional gopher balls no matter who is behind them, because one swing can affect the scoreboard in every situation. HR hitters don't get fewer strikes with no protection because they are already getting the fewest strikes possible.

 

Lineup protection is just another one of those things that makes sense intuitively, but for which no actual evidence exists. If you can show an effect for it, you'd be discovering something new. But for now, there's no evidence of anyone actually being pitched to differently based on who hits behind him (pitchers excluded). Seems like it should be there, but it just isn't.

 

Sure, I agree with the scary hitter thing, but I think the effects go to the non-scary hitters. I am going to go out and get Donovan Solano cause I want there to be as little damage as possible done when Stanton comes to the dish. If Solano puts it in play, I have a pretty good shot at getting him out, if he doubles, I get to pitch around Stanton.

[witesoxfan]

It believe -- don't hold me to it -- that in Baseball Between the Numbers they showed a significant difference in walks that a guy gets when they bat in front of a pitcher, but that was it. Look that up, wite! I'll forget when I get home.

 

I was close to citing it, but this year the difference was negligible.

 

In the NL, the AVG/OBP splits by batting order go as:

 

7- .249/.307

8- .238/.302

9- .173/.218

 

In the AL, the AVG/OBP splits by batting order go as:

 

7- .248/.310

8- .243/.304

9- .235/.290

 

For all intents and purposes, these are the same. I think the main 2 factors are this:

 

#1) The MLB average OPS this year was .714. Not even 6 years ago, you were BENCHED for putting up a .714 OPS, and now it's considered league average. Just as a general rule, if you have lesser chance of being hurt by whatever it is you're dealing with, you're more likely to attack it rather than be careful with it.

#2) Pitchers are far more athletic and managers are far more aggressive in removing pitchers for pinch hitters now a days. With deeper bullpens (some managers even use 13 pitchers at times, which is absurd since 11 was the standard just 10 years ago), managers will dip in to that well as much and as quickly as possible.

 

 

I can look up more later (or others can as well, just look up league splits at b-r.com), but you will see that this was far more well defined in the early to mid 2000s. At one point in time, 8th place hitters in the NL averaged an IsoOBP of like 80+ simply because teams were walking guys that put up .725-.750 OPSs to get to the pitcher. Now, with the difference between 8th and 9th place hitters diminishing at a rapidly increasing rate, there's less advantage towards walking the 8th place guy.