Comments on: Another chance to bash my arch-enemy: FIP http://baybridgebaseball.com/2011/05/another-chance-to-bash-my-arch-enemy-fip/ An A's-Giants blog Sat, 18 May 2013 11:46:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: obsessivegiantscompulsive http://baybridgebaseball.com/2011/05/another-chance-to-bash-my-arch-enemy-fip/comment-page-1/#comment-4117 obsessivegiantscompulsive Fri, 20 May 2011 17:55:23 +0000 http://baybridgebaseball.com/?p=2478#comment-4117 The problem is exactly as Jeff notes, there are these people who have a rudimentary understanding of DIPS and YES, they do give pitchers ZERO credit for their low BABIP. Because, you know, DIPS sez so, no pitcher can control their BABIP, which is as Sharp says, gives the pitcher zero credit for balls in play. They never moved on from DIPS to read, for example, Tom Tippett's excellent study of DIPS THROUGHOUT the HISTORY of baseball, not just one or two years as was originally done with DIPS. Tippett found that while DIPS do indeed apply to most pitchers, there were numerous classifications of pitchers who did not fit under that generalization, in other words, there were exceptions to the rule. Most of the people arguing against Cain and Cahill just do not understand this. And Tippett only wrote this, oh, 7-9 years ago. If one hasn't guessed, this is a pet peeve of mine as well that I've beaten up all over the internet, anytime I've seen an article about how lucky Matt Cain has been, makes me cringe... I think the next step in the evolution of this is as the above commenter noted, one that takes into account the type of hits off the bat. However, I don't think that will take flight until this new system the MLB installed which measures each batted ball as to speed, direction, etc., has generated at least 2-3 years worth of batted ball data to analyze. The problem is exactly as Jeff notes, there are these people who have a rudimentary understanding of DIPS and YES, they do give pitchers ZERO credit for their low BABIP. Because, you know, DIPS sez so, no pitcher can control their BABIP, which is as Sharp says, gives the pitcher zero credit for balls in play.

They never moved on from DIPS to read, for example, Tom Tippett’s excellent study of DIPS THROUGHOUT the HISTORY of baseball, not just one or two years as was originally done with DIPS. Tippett found that while DIPS do indeed apply to most pitchers, there were numerous classifications of pitchers who did not fit under that generalization, in other words, there were exceptions to the rule. Most of the people arguing against Cain and Cahill just do not understand this. And Tippett only wrote this, oh, 7-9 years ago.

If one hasn’t guessed, this is a pet peeve of mine as well that I’ve beaten up all over the internet, anytime I’ve seen an article about how lucky Matt Cain has been, makes me cringe…

I think the next step in the evolution of this is as the above commenter noted, one that takes into account the type of hits off the bat. However, I don’t think that will take flight until this new system the MLB installed which measures each batted ball as to speed, direction, etc., has generated at least 2-3 years worth of batted ball data to analyze.

]]> By: Sharp http://baybridgebaseball.com/2011/05/another-chance-to-bash-my-arch-enemy-fip/comment-page-1/#comment-4108 Sharp Sun, 15 May 2011 23:33:37 +0000 http://baybridgebaseball.com/?p=2478#comment-4108 I don't think anyone has said that a pitcher should get ZERO credit for their low BABIP, but history has shown very clearly that a player's BABIP going forward has a MUCH higher correlation with the league average BABIP than it does with his past BABIP. It's also shown that FIP is easily a better predictor of future performance than ERA is. If you want to make an argument on this subject you've got to deal with stuff like that, the actual facts of the situation. An anecdote about Verlander inducing some weak contact does not an argument make. I don’t think anyone has said that a pitcher should get ZERO credit for their low BABIP, but history has shown very clearly that a player’s BABIP going forward has a MUCH higher correlation with the league average BABIP than it does with his past BABIP.

It’s also shown that FIP is easily a better predictor of future performance than ERA is.

If you want to make an argument on this subject you’ve got to deal with stuff like that, the actual facts of the situation. An anecdote about Verlander inducing some weak contact does not an argument make.

]]> By: Jason http://baybridgebaseball.com/2011/05/another-chance-to-bash-my-arch-enemy-fip/comment-page-1/#comment-4083 Jason Sun, 08 May 2011 19:01:03 +0000 http://baybridgebaseball.com/?p=2478#comment-4083 FIP fails to account for the fact that pitchers do have some control over the type of contact that they induce. I'd like to see a stat that takes into account line drive percentage (some estimates have line drives falling in about 70% of the time), groundballs (about 26%), and fly balls (about 14%). Not all non-home run hits are equal. FIP fails in that it assumes otherwise. FIP fails to account for the fact that pitchers do have some control over the type of contact that they induce. I’d like to see a stat that takes into account line drive percentage (some estimates have line drives falling in about 70% of the time), groundballs (about 26%), and fly balls (about 14%).
Not all non-home run hits are equal. FIP fails in that it assumes otherwise.

]]> By: Henry http://baybridgebaseball.com/2011/05/another-chance-to-bash-my-arch-enemy-fip/comment-page-1/#comment-4082 Henry Sun, 08 May 2011 18:12:24 +0000 http://baybridgebaseball.com/?p=2478#comment-4082 Agreed. If anything, Cain is unlucky, not lucky. Agreed. If anything, Cain is unlucky, not lucky.

]]>