Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Tiger Woods, Tony Romo Grouped Together At Pebble Beach

In a Perfect World.......WAR Revisited

Watching tantalizing performances from our youngsters Hudson, Enright, and IPK is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives me hope for next year and years to come. On the other hand, it oftentimes leads me to unreasonable expectations.

As some have argued on the site, projections are merely just that, a guess towards the future. While I agree that actual outcomes can vary a lot from projections, some outcomes are clearly more likely than others, and projections exist to try to give us a reasonable framework for our expectations. With that said, I'd like to take another shot at projecting what next year holds for the Diamondbacks, and how they would perform in my perfect world.

Star-divide

Let's take a look at what we might expect the WAR, wins above replacement, for the Dbacks will be next year. According to Dave Cameron at Fangraphs, statisticians use 48 wins as the replacement level team, in order to calculate individual WAR. I think 90 wins in a season is a reasonable estimate to make the playoffs, so the magic number for us is 42 wins above replacement from the team collectively.

 

Batting/Fielding

The biggest problem I've noticed in my past projections of WAR is that I don't include negative WAR, which occurs for every team. With regard to batting/fielding, the bench and pitchers tend to generate -4 WAR over the course of the year, which must be discounted from the estimates of the regular position players.

Based on the xBABIP calculations of Jdub220, most of our position players are not due for much regression. That being said, even line drive rates are subject to some amount of luck, so I'm inclined to underestimate and regress their performances a little. KJ, CY, and Drew are on pace for a combined 13 WAR this year. Despite that their xBABIP are in line with their BABIP, I think it might be safer to regress them to 11 WAR next year. A full year of Miggy should be 3 WAR, as he's at 1.6 WAR this year for only a half year, and he's not due for much regression. A full year of Brandon Allen (complete guesstimate) should be 2 WAR. If we resign LaRoche, he has consistently put up 2-2.5 WAR each year of his career. This puts us at 18 WAR.

That leaves Mark Reynolds and Justin Upton, the two hardest players to project. Reynolds is on pace for almost 4 WAR. Yet, much of that is due to the fact that he no longer plays below average defense. Will that hold up? He is getting older, and in my eyes, rounder. On the other hand, his BABIP is far below his xBABIP, which is also even farther below his career xBABIP. Regression should improve his offensive numbers next year, and if he starts hitting more line drives (terrible line drive rates could be a result from that hip injury he had earlier this year) Reynolds could be an offensive monster next year. I say 4 WAR is a reasonable estimate for him, via some combination of that offense and defense. Upton is even more frustrating to project. If he plays like he did this year, he's still a 4 WAR lock. However, there's always the feeling that he should be a 6 WAR star. Can he cut down on his strikeout rates? Can he regain some of his lost power from last year? Will his defense improve even more, given an extra year of experience in the outfield? Can he hit more line drives, to sustain that insane xBABIP of his? Let's cut it down the middle and say Upton gets 5 WAR next year.

That puts us at at 27 total WAR, minus the 4 WAR mentioned earlier, gives us a net 23 WAR from batting/hitting.

 

Pitching

We need 19 WAR to reach our magic number for pitching. Can we make it?

Pitching is incredibly difficult to project, because for one, the sabermetricians don't even have a consensus as to how pitching WAR should be defined. Moreover, because of how little data there exists for our current pitchers, there could be huge variability in how they perform next year. I will be using Fangraph's WAR data for projections, as they use FIP to calculate their pitching WAR, which correlates better to future performance than runs allowed.

Over 200 innings, Hudson currently projects to be a 5 WAR pitcher. However, I think it's safer to regress that to 4 WAR given that we've seen Hudson only at his best, and there's bound to be hiccups along the way. Enright projects to be a 3 WAR pitcher, and for similar reasons, I regress that to 2 WAR. IPK is already at 2 WAR this year, so it seems safe to project him at 2 WAR next year (when he could pitch 40 more innings). In my perfect world, we would follow IHSB's plan of using Saunders until Jarrod Parker is ready to make it to the majors, and then trade Saunders away. In that perfect world, the combined Saunders/Parker caterpillar turned butterfly would be good for 3 WAR over the course of the season (complete guesstimate). As Jim pointed out earlier, the median bullpen in the NL is good for around 2 WAR. This puts the current total at 13 WAR.

We're still 6 WAR short from the magic number. Is there anyway of remedying this?

One possibility is to obtain a 6 WAR ace. Go on a spending spree and get Cliff Lee (not likely). Pay Webb 8 million and hope to God he reverts to 6 WAR ace form (maybe?). Trade away four pretty decent prospects to get an underpaid ace (possibility? Greinke?). I would say the chance of getting a 6 WAR ace is pretty slim though.

We could also spend money to upgrade the bullpen. We are 6 WAR short with a salary of $45 million. I think this year has psychologically damaged me into wanting to make our bullpen better than median. A top five bullpen sounds like it'd prolong my life, so a 4 WAR bullpen sounds good. Let's say that takes $10 million. We're at $55 million and still 4 WAR short. The best bet we may have at this point, is to try to sign a 3 WAR pitching free agent, who has a shot at making 4 WAR. Three such options, in order of likability, are Carl Pavano, Hiroki Kuroda, and Ted Lilly. Since we don't really like ex-Dodgers (except Gibson???) and we REALLY REALLY don't like ex-Cubbie-turned-Dodgers, I highly suggest we try to get Carl Pavano.

 

Conclusion

All of this puts us at 41 WAR, which has a Pythagorean expectation of 89 wins. However, as you may have noticed, I tried to keep my estimates of WAR on the low side of projections, and hopefully that pays off by getting us an extra win or two. Granted, a lot of things still have to work out for us. Freak injuries are still going to mess with our WAR production. But we aren't as far away from contending as we might think.

Comment 45 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I agree that contention is possible in 2011

This is basically the same team that was projected to win 83-88 games by most experts and projection systems. Since then, the team has lost Haren and EJackson from the rotation, and added Hudson, Saunders, and Enright. For position players, CJackson is replaced by Allen.

The bullpen has obviously been a disaster, but bullpens can be really volatile, and assembling a decent bullpen doesn’t have to be that expensive. Some work needs to be done there, and adding another starting pitcher or two is probably needed. Clearly, Webb and Parker are huge unknowns at this time. But it certainly shouldn’t be a shock if this team is in the race next year.

There’s a good chance that the NL will see 4 new playoff teams this year compared to last. I think it’s very possible to turn things around in just one season.

by Amit on Sep 2, 2010 12:56 PM EDT reply actions  

First question

I assume you’re using Fangraphs WAR here? Because BR War certainly puts CY, Drew and KJ at a combined 7.6 WAR, rather than 13.

The weird thing about fangraphs WAR is, it gives Arizona currently 6.8 pitching WAR and 20.7 hitting WAR = 27.5 WAR total. That pro-rates out for the full season at 33.2 WAR: if the base-line for replacement level is 48 wins, doesn’t that mean we “should” be winning 81 games? Similarly, the figures for last year give us 32.2 WAR → 80 wins, again appearing serious to over-estimate the team.

BR.com gives us 2.1 pitching WAR and 11.9 hitting WAR = 14 WAR total or 16.9 pro-rated. Assuming the same 48-win baseline for replacement, that would be a 65-97 record, which seems to pass the “smell test” a lot better! Again, is this the difference between measuring production and projection?

"It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." -- Brian Stimpson

by Jim McLennan on Sep 2, 2010 12:58 PM EDT reply actions  

It's probably because

UZR likes CY, Drew, and KJ’s fielding more than TZ.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 37

by Jdub220 on Sep 2, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

here's the thing about WAR

WAR is basically trying to tell you what the talent level of the team is, based on that how many runs it SHOULD generate, and using that information using pythag to figure out an expected win number

this is why I don’t trust BR’s WAR, especially when it comes to hitting. Based on your pro-rated BR WAR, we’d have 65 wins. However, based on our current pythag, we’re on pace for 68 wins. So what BR WAR is telling us is that based on our run production/run prevention, we’ve actually outperformed our talent level. that just intuitively doesn’t make sense to me. i feel, as most analysts feel, our talent level should equate to more runs and thus more wins than what we’re currently performing at.

81 wins is not too far off what some analysts were predicting we’d be, without webb this year. Fangraphs uses FIP to calculate their pitching stats (not necessarily the best, but probably still better than runs allowed as a predictor for future WAR), which means that it tries to remove the luck that has hurt our pitching. this is why it still gives edwin jackson and dan haren reasonably high WAR for the innings they pitched, as opposed to what BR assigned them. this is also why BR gives Enright more WAR than Fangraphs does. while i will agree that Fangraphs probably does not give an accurate representation of the actual production of our pitchers, it’s probably more reliable in predicting how our pitchers will do next year.

so how do we get from fangraphs projecting us at 7 WAR to me saying we could potentially make 18 WAR next year? well, it’s important to see that hudson and enright’s innings comprise a fraction of what the other pitchers have gone through. if you extrapolate hudson/enright’s production from their current innings, to their expected 200 innings next year, you’d get 5 WAR and 3 WAR respectively. i think they will probably stumble some their sophomore year, so i’ve regressed that back to 4 and 2 WAR respectively. moreover, our bullpen is seriously a vortex of suck, posting a negative WAR. getting that back up to positive, median bullpen territory is a huge swing. it’s not going to be that easy though, because remember, fangraphs WAR is a projection of the future based on FIP, so it already takes into account regression of BABIP and LOB%. that means based on regression, we have two solid relievers (demel and carrasco) based on their WAR generation per innings pitched. the rest of our relievers, have been pretty terrible even with regression.

by blue bulldog on Sep 2, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

65 vs 68 Wins is Negligible

The fact that BR projects us for 65 wins, while we’re on pace for 68, is not mathematically significant. That’s basically as close as you should expect a WAR or Pythag approximation to get. I would say that the BR WAR is NOT a talent level estimator, but more of a production metric, and it’s agreeing quite well with our actual production.

The Fangraphs version of WAR in my mind is closer to a talent estimator, since it is based on FIP rather than ERA. But the people at Fangraphs would not agree with that statement either.

by Amit on Sep 2, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fangraphs WAR

For pitchers is a “should be” projection rather than a “what is” summary. Its use of FIP likely is much kinder to our bullpen.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 3, 2010 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

that's the saddest part....

it isn’t

http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&&type=6&season=2010&month=0

according to fangraphs, our bullpen has generated negative runs above replacement (and thus negative wins above replacement…..)

our bullpen as a whole has pitched below replacement level, even when you use FIP projection as the criteria

according to FIP projection, the only two pitchers who are really going to be worth anything next year are demel and dj carrasco

boyer and heilman would be above replacement level too…..but not really by that much. everyone else……well that’s why we have a negative replacement level….

by blue bulldog on Sep 3, 2010 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ouch.

Just… ouch.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 3, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty dubious about putting faith

In a system which projected us to win 10-15 more games than we did, both this year and last. I’m not sure why it would think we are a .500 team: we’ve been outscored by a hundred runs, and if anything, our hitters have been luckier than our pitchers have been unlucky (hitting BABIP: 312, pitching .306). I would want to know why fangraphs WAR over-estimates us so much, before I can rely on it for 2011.

For this just doesn’t feel at all like a .500 team which couldn’t get a break. Outside of Montero, we’ve had good health, with six of eight starters playing in 125 or more games to date, and no DL stints for any of our starters (save Webb). Speaking of whom, we should take into account that most of the pre-season projections had him contributing significant wins to the team total – take him out, and the pre-season projections are probably 80-85, and that’s also with a full season of Haren.

As was mentioned above, while it’s easy to assume an average bullpen, it’s quite another thing to put one together, with only a couple of pieces in our possession which currently qualify. I am fairly optimistic Gutierrez will bounce back, but I don’t have a lot of faith in our evaluation processes after the disasters which were Bob Howry and Chad Qualls’ rehab this year.

The good news is, the trading of Haren and Jackson, and their replacement by minimum wage labor does free up some cash – though what we decide to do with Joe Saunders may play in to the amount we have to spend. From what DHall said in his last online chat, the top priority is

“definitely the bullpen and pitching in general. We would like to beef up the back-end of the bullpen by trading for a closer or signing one in the off-season. A few more solid arms in the pen, including another lefty would really help.”
So, we’ll see…

"It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." -- Brian Stimpson

by Jim McLennan on Sep 3, 2010 5:29 PM EDT reply actions  

Strange Offense Stats

“For this just doesn’t feel at all like a .500 team which couldn’t get a break. Outside of Montero, we’ve had good health, with six of eight starters playing in 125 or more games to date.”

It’s been a very strange offensive team. As a whole, the team has a below average OPS+ of 93. Yet each of the eight starters right now (Allen, Young, Upton, Reynolds, Drew, KJ, LaRoche, Montero) has an OPS+ of 104 or higher. It’s amazing how much the overall offense was dragged down by LF and the rest of the team. It almost seems impossible to have a team OPS+ of 93 with so many key contributors over 100.

by Amit on Sep 3, 2010 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've been wondering about that before

As you say, the team page lists our OPS+ as 93… But then this page gives us an sOPS+ [which is supposed to be park-adjusted OPS as well] of 105.

"It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." -- Brian Stimpson

by Jim McLennan on Sep 3, 2010 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

FG_WAR vs. BR_WAR

“I’m pretty dubious about putting faith in a system which projected us to win 10-15 more games than we did, both this year and last”

It looks like the problem with FanGraphs WAR is that there is not enough spread in their values. Here are the total team WAR from FanGraphs for 2010 (sorry for the formatting)
Team FG_WAR
Cincinnati 38.4
Atlanta 37.9
Colorado 36.4
San Francisco 36.0
San Diego 35.7
St. Louis 32.7
Philadelphia 31.3
Florida 30.4
LA Dodgers 29.6
Milwaukee 29.6
Chicago 28.4
Washington 28.1
Arizona 27.3
NY Mets 26.0
Houston 20.6
Pittsburgh 6.3

So the top 14 teams only differ by 12 Wins in Team WAR, when in reality they should have a spread of over 20 Wins. Baseball-Reference’s WAR totals have a much more realistic spread of WAR totals.

Team BR_WAR
Atlanta 36.0
San Diego 33.1
Cincinnati 31.0
San Francisco 30.7
St. Louis 30.7
Philadelphia 29.3
Colorado 26.3
NY Mets 24.5
LA Dodgers 23.0
Florida 21.3
Washington 16.0
Chicago 15.5
Arizona 14.0
Milwaukee 14.0
Houston 11.3
Pittsburgh -0.9

by Amit on Sep 3, 2010 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

What an awesome comment.

Seriously. Super-rec’d. I had never even bothered to look into this. It’s a little scary to see something like this, but it’s also scary to use BR’s because it’s so luck-dependent. Ugh.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think part of the problem

Is the question of what are you trying to evaluate: a player’s skill, or a player’s performance? Some people make such a big deal about how a player “is just lucky” and is outplaying their skills, and that’s probably true. But does it really make a difference when evaluating how a player has played? Do we discount a home run just because it got knocked over the fence by Randy Winn? If statisticians would acknowledge that they’re looking to evaluate two different things at the same time, I would start to find it easier to take them seriously.

"Robin, some people die of old age. Some people get crushed by a tank shaped like a giant Rubber Ducky. That's life."

by kishi on Sep 7, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh

Also, if they could find a way to agree on things, I’d also find it easier to take them seriously. I’m tired of every new stat having two other new stats that say the exact opposite.

"Robin, some people die of old age. Some people get crushed by a tank shaped like a giant Rubber Ducky. That's life."

by kishi on Sep 7, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Both claim to measure performance

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but both FanGraphs and BR claim their WAR stat measures actual performance, not just the player’s skill or talent. FanGraphs’ argument is that the pitcher only has control over three things – K, BB, and HR. Therefore, any differences in results due to BABIP variations are not due to the performance of the pitcher, but to the defense behind him or luck. Their claim is that FIP is better than ERA even for past performance, if you want to isolate the performance of the pitcher.

by Amit on Sep 7, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is because

FIP doesn’t predict the future, because nothing can. It’s one of those stupid “similar yet different” debates.

For instance, a question: Has Barry Enright pitched like an ace since coming up to the major leagues? The answer, unfortunately, is both yes and no. He has an ERA well below 3, which would indicate that the team has received production equal to that of an ace since Enright has joined the team. On the other hand, his FIP, which is a measure of what he has actually been able to control, suggests that he has actually performed around league-average-ish, which is certainly not ace level.

It’s… weird and subtle.

Here’s how I’d explain it. BR’s WAR is a straight measurement of what has happened in the past. It’s blind to everything except for innings and earned runs allowed. End of story. So, of course, it’s a measure of performance.

FanGraphs’ WAR, on the other hand, is trying to get an idea of how a pitcher will perform in the future. But, in order to get that idea, the only thing we can look at is how that pitcher has performed in the past, so it looks at key factors from any pitcher’s past performance and leaves it up to us to determine what they mean about that pitcher’s future. So it’s only measuring past performance, but with the intent of looking into future performance.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another Viewpoint

Here’s a slightly different way to look at it. How many runs a team allows is obviously a function of both pitching and defense. But how do we separate which part is pitching and which part is defense?

ERA doesn’t care. It gives all of the value to the pitcher. If the defense makes great plays behind him, his ERA goes down. If the defense has poor range, and doesn’t make as many plays, his ERA goes up. His pitching may have been exactly the same in both cases, but the quality of the defense has a major effect on ERA.

FIP attempts to remove the defense entirely. By looking only at HR, K, and BB, the quality of the defense has no direct effect on FIP.

In reality, the truth may be somewhere between the two. Sometimes pitchers with low BABIP have been bailed out by great defense, and sometimes they have really managed to produce weakly hit balls (even if this is not a reproducible skill).

As to predicting the future, clearly nothing is perfect, but FIP is a better predictor of future ERA than actual ERA (as I’m sure you know).
.

by Amit on Sep 7, 2010 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here's a suppliment to your viewpoint

Whether or not balls are hit weakly may or may not be a repeatable skill. But the hit distribution of balls put in play may be. Now, I don’t mean ground-ball vs. fly-ball pitchers, because that’s factored into the HR totals. But, independent of fly-balls allowed, which would go into determining HR totals due to the static nature of HR/FB rates, what about the distribution of ground-balls vs. line drives? Surely, line drives produce a greater amount of run value compared to ground balls, but since neither has any affect on HR, K, or BB, so FIP simply ignores this.

Now, I have no proof that this is any sort of explanation for some pitchers outperforming FIP consistently or vice-versa. Adam Wainwright, for instance, who has always out-performed his by a solid .5 runs on a shockingly consistent basis, has a career LD% of 18.1% – certainly not the reason he’s being so successful in duping FIP.

It’s a theory that seems to make sense, though the proof does not appear to be in the pudding.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah...

i’ve been curious about this too. if we care about hit distribution of balls put in play, then we just have to assign linear weights to various outcomes like they do for offense (wOBA)

in fact, sabermetricians already have that stat. it’s tERA. but fangraphs doesn’t use tERA as its primary determinant of WAR and instead uses FIP

again, like you, i think the theory makes sense, but the proof isn’t there. wainwright also consistently outperforms his tERA

another thing is that FIP uses a weird baseline (like, you add a number, around 3.20, to scale the number to the league average). i’m not sure what the point of this is, and i wonder if this means that good pitchers will always be slightly undervalued by FIP

in any case, i think sometimes it just makes sense to look directly at the peripherals rather than FIP. we know K rate matters. we know BB rate matters even more. that’s what i tend to look at when evaluating pitchers.

by blue bulldog on Sep 8, 2010 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

The 3.2 is added as a product of the linear regression

For how they first derived the formula. It’s just… there. Because a pitcher who never strikes anybody out, never allowed a walk, and never gives up a home run should sport a 3.20 ERA. It’s strange, but meh.

And, yes, I haven’t really used tERA that much though I did know that it factored in hit distribution. Why can’t everyone just agree on something? : P

What’s strange though, is that outside of the absurd anomalies like Wainwright, FIP and tERA both are pretty shockingly accurate. If a pitcher can maintain a certain career FIP, his career ERA, while seeing regular fluctuations due to the inevitability of ups and down in luck, usually is right in line.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 8, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not due to LD%

As you point out, the pitchers who consistently outperform their FIP usually do not have an exceptionally low line drive rate.

What do they have in common? Looking at pitchers like Glavine, Buehrle, Washburn. etc. who often out-do their FIP:
1) They are left-handed – not sure why that should matter
2) Control the running game well
3) Get a lot of a GIDPs
4) Seem to sequence their hits/walks/HR well (more solo HR, fewer 3-run HR)
5) Pitch well from the stretch (high LOB% rate)
6) Play good defense

I’m not sure if our young pitchers fit near that profile. Maybe they will manage to consistently exceed their FIP, but it would be quite unusual.

by Amit on Sep 8, 2010 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is an interesting case,

1 relates to 2, perhaps. There really isn’t anything to be said for holding base-runners on within the FIP formula. Unfortunately, though, I almost instantly thought of a counter-point to this: Rodrigo Lopez. Out-performing his FIP by .2 (and by about a half a run as recent as a couple of weeks ago) and is genuinely horrible and holding base-runners on – thus you would expect him to underperform his FIP if this was indeed a true indicator. So while this again makes sense, in theory, there’s an example that would seem to put a dent in that idea.

With 3, GIDP’s, I always thought, were sort of “factored in” within the HR part of FIP. After all, a pitcher who allows more fly balls and thus more home runs will record fewer double-plays, and vice-versa. So while the HR part of FIP doesn’t explicitly state that it involves a lot more than sheer home-run allowance, there is some ability to read between the lines and see what else could be affected.

Here, perhaps, is a fundamental question, that many have battled over. Can a pitcher control when BABIP strikes and hits are allowed? I don’t think so. As for the walks, certainly, there are times when a pitcher can open up the strike zone a little, say with two outs and the bases empty, and be a little more wiling to walk somebody in order to try to induce bad contact on a swing out of the zone. But if a pitcher is opening up the strike zone in situations where there are no base-runners and walking a batter is not a huge issue, wouldn’t that pitcher give up fewer solo home runs? After all, that pitcher is not throwing as many strikes in situations when the bases are empty, trying to induce strikeouts. So I don’t quite know how these skills can all coexist without sheer luck.

5 seems like a legitimate factor. Some pitchers can maintain their velocity/command/stuff from the stretch, others cannot. If you’re a moderate-to-high-strikeout pitcher overall, but a can’t miss a bat out of the stretch, you would seemingly under-perform your FIP, and have a low strand rate. And this seems to me to be a legitimate skill. If you’re a high-strikeout pitcher and can pitch just as well from the stretch as you can from the windup, it seems basic and intuitive that you would have a high strand rate.

6 is the argument often used for Wainwright. Not only is he a good ground-ball pitcher, but his infield defense behind him is good, which would imply that he can feast on forcing ground-balls since one would think that they would have a lower BABIP with a better infield defense. Anybody know where I can check the BABIP on Wainwright’s ground-balls? I feel like that would tell a lot about whether or not this is a true indicator.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 8, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

i feel like

BR SHOULD be closer to current standings than Fangraphs though. i believe that’s the point

like, if you only look at runs allowed, and extrapolate WAR from that, it’s basically just looking at pythag, so your projection is just one step removed from the actual current standings

on the other hand, if you remove luck to extrapolate runs, and then use that extrapolated runs to extrapolate WAR, then your projection is two steps removed from the actual current standings

what i mean is, fangraphs might not be less accurate (my personal belief…), it could just be showing that statistical variation (due to luck) matters a lot more in baseball than we care to believe

by blue bulldog on Sep 8, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

case in point

BR’s WAR has us at one win below our current record

maybe i just want to believe our team to be more talented, but do we REALLY think luck did not affect us at all, detrimentally, this year?

by blue bulldog on Sep 8, 2010 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

I would tend to be on board with this thought

If Chad Qualls’ BABIP was where you would expect it to be instead of the freak crap that went on this year, we’d have an awesome closer instead of having jettisoned him. He would have been very valuable, rather than negatively valued.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 8, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Every person who has ever mathematically modeled

can tell you that the built in assumptions always produce heavily conditionalized outcomes. “Given it happens EXACTLY as it is predicted, we should win this many games”.

I always find it funny that every team’s projections have them winning the division. The Cubs actually had Zambrano projecting out to 18-19 wins. When you can use tools like WAR to have a worse Cubs team winning a division, you know the tools aren’t great.

I'm feeling fiery, fiery, I tells ya! Who cares if I lose 10 in a row?

by Reynolds rapper on Sep 8, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

In fairness to the Cubs,

they couldn’t really predict that Derrick Lee and Aramis Ramirez would turn into crap. Also, they were only second in the division in WAR last year, behind the Cards, and they were probably thinking that adding Nady, Byrd, and Castro could make up the 5 WAR gap in between them.

And who projected Zambrano to be worth 18-19 WAR? They should be banned from ever talking about baseball. Unless you mean pitchers’ wins…?

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 38

by Jdub220 on Sep 8, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

And if they mean pitcher's wins

They should be banned from ever talking about baseball.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 8, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

BCB predicted

18-19 wins. I shouldn’t be allowed to post here because I make these stupid mistakes all the time.

I'm feeling fiery, fiery, I tells ya! Who cares if I lose 10 in a row?

by Reynolds rapper on Sep 8, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've been thinking about how to respond to this for a few days

and I really can’t say much other than I thoroughly enjoyed this post. Rec’d.

My value over a replacement poster is approximately 10.5 runs.

by Wailord on Sep 5, 2010 12:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Turn the Page

I went to San Diego to watch the D’Backs play there, just like past years. What I observed was the lack of team colors this year, Sure some of that is the economy, but those fans that were there had black, white, purple d’back shirts and hats that make the D’back overlords money, but rips the heart out of the fan base.

RED ONLY PLEASE….

I was so mad at Hinch and Burns over the draft. not one ASU player taken until the 600th pick. They also ignored the lack of left hand pitching and over loaded on right handers.

I hope the new masters of the team are smarter. We have not had a good team since Jerry Colangelo sold the team.

by Fred Ricardo on Sep 7, 2010 2:46 PM EDT reply actions  

good call

lets draft local players early whether they’re any good or not.

by JustAJ on Sep 7, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

What?

A UofA player? That guy must suck! We should trade him to Detroit or something for some scrub pitcher that we can then pawn off for some kid from, I don’t know, the White Sox.

You know, hypothetically.

"Robin, some people die of old age. Some people get crushed by a tank shaped like a giant Rubber Ducky. That's life."

by kishi on Sep 7, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Except that EJax isn't a scrub

And is tearing it up in Chicago. But this sounds pretty much valid to me.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

You sure? The T-I-C was obvious

It seemed unnecessary to degrade EJax in this particular evidence of tongue-in-cheek-ness.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

In my mind

It seemed roughly as necessary as dismissing (or lauding) a player solely due to the geographical proximity of the college they attended.

"Robin, some people die of old age. Some people get crushed by a tank shaped like a giant Rubber Ducky. That's life."

by kishi on Sep 7, 2010 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

C'mon

We don’t have to agree, but spell Josh Byrnes’ name right…

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

I was going to google him but was too lazy…

Still the draft sucked and we have a depleted farm system thanks to the brain trust.

by Fred Ricardo on Sep 7, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, as someone who avidly follows the minor leagues

Our system has gone from being a bottom-dweller at the end of ‘09 due to moves like the Dan Haren trade (when we got him from the A’s, not sending him to the Angels) to being a mid-level system that will be one of the best in baseball in two or three years.

Our Low-A and Hi-A rosters can stack up with just about anyone in baseball’s when it comes to prospects.

So, again, you have a few facts wrong.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 7, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

it's still too tough to say

our low A prospects haven’t been as good as initially expected

i do think we have a good farm, and i’m pretty high on some of our prospects, but a lot of our top notch prospects prior to the year (pollock, borchering, owings) haven’t exactly lit up the world the same way a mike trout or brandon belt have

by blue bulldog on Sep 8, 2010 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Pollock got hurt

With the sheer number of guys, it was going to happen. And Owings actually did light the world on fire – for a shortstop, his offensive production was phenomenal and the reports on his defense were glowing.

And I’m not worried about Borchering at all. It’s Low-A ball, expecting consistency is perhaps a bit too much to ask for from a 19-year-old, eh? He had his flashes of brilliance and was a batting practice show, which shows that there are phenomenal tools that simply need refining. Now, I’m not saying that Mike Trout isn’t a better prospect, but he’s a better prospect because he both produced phenomenally and demonstrated some absurd tool sets.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=343580&title=spoiler-alert-human-centipede - Warning: NSFW... sorta

by Dan Strittmatter on Sep 8, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the AZ SnakePit, the SB Nation blog about the Arizona Diamondbacks. "When you think about the past all the time, when you get to the present day you are thinking about the past so it becomes your future again." -- Kirk Gibson.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Hl_small
New Primary Logo in 2012
Small
Free D-backs autograph session this Friday
Tmottbg_small
Exclusive Behind the Scene Tour of CHASE
Tmottbg_small
March 10 Spring Training Opportunity
Syd-barrett_small
Diamondbacks Claim Craig Tatum Off Waivers; 40 man roster full
Shoewizard-baby-72x72_small
Whats the deal with Josh Collmenter ?
Ryro_hangten_small
A Sad Day In The World Of Scrappy-ness: David Eckstein Retires
Ryro_hangten_small
Former Diamondback Craig Counsell Retires
Small
DBacks Fantasy Camp Autographs
Small
Salary Cap Dynasty League Openings

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Lucha_small Jim McLennan

Bench coaches

Madmen_icon_small snakecharmer

My-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-not-the-element-of-efficiency_small kishi

Scarlett_small soco

Us1jack_small DbacksSkins

Players

Wailord_by_xous54_small Wailord

Hl_small Marc Fournier

Golden_dome_small Dan Strittmatter

Avogadro_small Zavada's Moustache

Small blue bulldog