Diamondbacks 6, Dodgers 3: Joe Saunders and the Deathly Curveball
by jinnah on Jul 31, 2011 10:04 PM EDT
Email
PrintRecord: 59-49 Pace: 89-73 Change from last year: +19
With the Giants swept out of Cincinnati earlier today, all eyes were on the Diamondbacks, who looked to cut the Giants' NL West lead to two. Did Upton continue his nuclear-heat streak? Did anyone else in the offense step up to help? Would Saunders continue his own run of quality starts? All these questions and more in this Harry Potter-themed recap (it is his birthday, after all), after the jump.
After a single by Willie Bloomquist, I was all set to brag about how awesome he is ... until he was caught stealing. I recommend apparating next time, Willie B, I hear it's faster. Kelly Johnson's subsequent double was for naught, as he was left stranded on second after a grounder by Justin Upton and a swinging strike out from Miguel Montero.
So mark that as the first time this game that Arizona fans wished for a time turner.
Thankfully, the Dodgers feared top of the order was nothing but a weak threat, and the Diamondbacks got on with fulfilling Joe Saunders' pre-game prophecy of batting practice beginning in the top of the 2nd with Ryan Roberts and Gerardo Parra hitting back-to-back home runs. Fun fact: in 56.2 innings pitched prior to this game, Rubby de la Rosa had given up only four home runs. And while we're talking about home runs, Arizona leads the National League in them and are behind only the Red Sox, Yankees, and Rangers overall.
The game moved lazily along, with de la Rosa hitting pitch #79 after putting away the last batter in the 3rd. The Dodgers stretched out their half of the 3rd when a throw by Ryan Roberts went over the head of Xavier Nady at first, resulting in Aaron Miles being called safe instead of being the third out. Andre Ethier (yes, we know he went to ASU) hit a blooper to center field and we went from a 1-2-3 inning to an oh-please-no inning, but faster than you could say "Wingardium Leviosa", Kemp flied out to center and the Snakepit collectively breathed out a sigh of relief.
To what I assume to be the dismay of Dodger fans everywhere, de la Rosa went back out for the 4th and promptly walked Ryan Roberts after throwing the baseball within an inch of his head. Great control, that rookie has. Parra dropped the ball into shallow center and instead of the lead-off walk scoring, he got thrown out at second in a fielder's choice. Not to fear, though, as our good friend de la Rosa threw a pitch so wild to Collin Cowgill that by the time Dioner Navarro found it, Parra had advanced not to second base, but third.
Tell me. What would you do if you had one out, a runner on third, and the guy on deck was the pitcher? Would you throw to the guy at the plate, or would you use the open base and walk him? Because de la Rosa chose the latter, and Cowgill, on a 3-0 count, turned the fastball over the plate into a bloop single over a drawn-in infield and scored Parra. Mark Grace sums up the thoughts of everyone watching this game:
"No one has more respect for Don Mattingly than I, but that was not bright."
Unfortunately, Parra was the only run we got out of that inning.
Dioner Navarro decided that he, at least, was not going down without a fight, and blasted a solo home run off of Saunders in his next at-bat. And by blasted, I mean, he was lucky it hit the foul pole and therefore counted as a home run. But before the Dodgers could think too much about mounting a rally, Saunders got Jamey Carroll to ground out and Dee Gordon to pop-up for the end of the inning.
Onto the fifth, where KJ promptly lined the ball to center for a double. Justin Upton, after a 10 pitch at-bat, popped up, sending KJ to third. This time, the Dodgers thought they would play conservatively and walk Montero to face the less fearsome Nady. But you know what, Dodgers? You should never underestimate a Gryffindor's willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good. And sacrifice himself Nady did, with a fly ball to right field, allowing KJ to score.
The game slowed down considerably then. Dodgers pitchers came and went like Defense Against the Dark Arts professors, and nothing much happened until the top of the 8th, when Parra came to the plate against Hong Chih-Kuo, and with Ryan Roberts waiting on first, hit it out of the park for his first career multi-home run game.
Saunders' second complete game bid in as many starts was crushed when he was pulled with two outs in the bottom of the 8th after giving up a single to Ethier. The Goblet of Fire selected Ryan Cook as his replacement; after he gave up a singles to Matt Kemp and Juan Rivera that scored Ethier, Diamondback fans everywhere started pinning their "Cook sucks" badges to their jerseys. David Hernandez was brought in to face Navarro, who struck out to end the inning.
Upton, after teasing us all day with near-hits, led off the 9th with a single to right. Bam, hitting streak extended to twelve. Montero worked the count during the next at bat and ultimately ground out to short, but not before a pick-off attempt went horribly wrong and Upton ended up on second. Unfortunately, Nady couldn't get him in for an insurance run, and the inning ended with Upton left on base.
All hopes for a 1-2-3 bottom of the 9th went out the window when Hernandez came out and walked Carroll before giving up a single to Dee Gordon. James Loney came out to hit for Mike MacDougal and flied out, advancing Carroll to third. That brought JJ Putz out from the bullpen to show the first years how it's done ... not counting Tony Gwynn Jr, of course, who singled to right. Parra was playing shallow but just barely missed it (someone has forgotten his summoning spells, Mr. Parra, so that'll be five point from Gryffindor), and Carroll took advantage and scored.
Drat.
Fortunately, JJ was just kidding around, and the next two batters, Aaron Miles and Ethier, flied out. It wasn't quite the sweep we were hoping for this series, but hey, I told you guys we'd take it two games to one. You should all start listening to me.
Click to enlarge, at fangraphs.com
Harry Potter: Joe Saunders, 26%
Hermione Granger: Ryan Roberts, 15%
Ron Weasley: Gerardo Parra, 14%
Argus Filch: Willie Bloomquist, -6%
A rather chatty GDT for a Sunday game, with 33 people and 878 comments. BulldogsNotZags was the only one to pass 100, with hotclaws and Rockkstar12 right behind him. Also showing up for class was andrewryno, NASCARbernet, azshadowwalker, txzona, bcawz, njjohn, Jim McLennan, snakecharmer, sonic barracuda, 4 Corners Fan, rfffr, jinnah, blue bulldog, blank_38, The so-called Beautiful, Dallas D'Back Fan, C. Wesley Baier, iheartdbacks, DeDxDBacKxJroK, marionette, dbacks25, frienetic, since_98, Clefo, soco, Craig from Az, kishi, YoungCardsFanatic, emilylovesthedbacks, Sabean's_Folly.
Comment of the night goes to Jim, with no explanation necessary.
Be vewy vewy qwiet…
We’re hunting Giants….
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."by Jim McLennan on Jul 31, 2011 3:49 PM MST reply actions 3 recs
The Diamondbacks head off to lovely San Francisco tomorrow to battle the Giants for first place in the NL West. Can they come out victorious? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
132 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sounds like Jenny
is already in the process of promoting this, so I’ll just hang on. :)
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Because everyone knows
that I’m faster than you ;)
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Jul 31, 2011 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it officially official
Goldy is on his way?
He wasn't in the lineup
He’s definitely on a plane. But no official word because two pitchers also need to be sent down/released. Cook, sure, and somebody else.
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Jul 31, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I saw that, but I'm more concerned
about the pitching decisions.
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Jul 31, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh sure
No one writes Neville Longbottom a recap on his birthday, but Harry Potter gets one…
"Never ignore a coincidence. Unless you're busy, in which case always ignore a coincidence."
Haha....
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Jul 31, 2011 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I knew
someone would bring this up. Should have known it would be you :) He can have one next year.
I don't let facts get in the way of my opinion.
Hey, Neville is awesome
He does most of the interesting stuff in the last book.
Besides, next year, it’ll be a Monday. Stupid Leap Year…
"Never ignore a coincidence. Unless you're busy, in which case always ignore a coincidence."
So, maybe YOU'LL be on Mondays next year
and YOU can do it. :)
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Jul 31, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Did Neville marry Luna?
It's the stuff that dreams are made of
It's the slow and steady fire
by 4 Corners Fan on Jul 31, 2011 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
No
Luna ended up marrying the grandson of the guy who wrote Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them while Neville married a girl who ended up running the Leaky Cauldron.
"Never ignore a coincidence. Unless you're busy, in which case always ignore a coincidence."
good recap, me!
hahaha. Philips and I are off to see Deathly Hallows pt2 now! HOORAY!
I don't let facts get in the way of my opinion.
Great recap, Jinnah :)
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
by Rockkstarr12 on Jul 31, 2011 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
and now
"When I get sad, I stop getting sad and be AWESOME instead. TRUE STORY."
by txzona on Jul 31, 2011 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
There's the classic
(h/t soco)
Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
"I'm like if it fits in the oven, play ball." - soco
Promised Colin Cowgill fifteen sandwiches on 7/6/2011
by Clefo on Jul 31, 2011 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
So creepy.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
by DbacksSkins on Jul 31, 2011 10:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah I know
Why would someone in a Giants sweater buy a copy of Street Fighter IV? WEIRD MAN, WEIRD
Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
"I'm like if it fits in the oven, play ball." - soco
Promised Colin Cowgill fifteen sandwiches on 7/6/2011
Well Giants fans do love terrible things
"When Life gives you Lemons give the lemons BACK!"
by BattleMoses on Jul 31, 2011 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Joe Saunders has been our second best pitcher this year
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON
by CaptainCanuck on Jul 31, 2011 10:38 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Third best.
Why do people under rate King Huddy?
"When Life gives you Lemons give the lemons BACK!"
by BattleMoses on Jul 31, 2011 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm taking from a strictly results POV
by CaptainCanuck on Jul 31, 2011 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Dan Hudson is worth 3.8 fangraphs War while Joe Saunders is only worth 0.5
Hudson has been the better pitcher.
"When Life gives you Lemons give the lemons BACK!"
by BattleMoses on Jul 31, 2011 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
results
Saunders has been lucky, and I’m not saying I expect him to be better than Hudson going forward, but I’d rather have Joe’s performance to date.
by CaptainCanuck on Jul 31, 2011 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
How is netting your team 3 more wins not a result?
"When Life gives you Lemons give the lemons BACK!"
by BattleMoses on Jul 31, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
That's not how FanGraphs WAR works
it doesn’t measure what actually happened, but what likely would have based on the things pitchers have the most control over.
By “results” I mean runs, because that’s what ultimately matters, and while Saunders has been lucky, he’s given us the better chance to win.
by CaptainCanuck on Jul 31, 2011 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a misunderstanding of Fangraphs WAR
it measures what actually happens but subtracts defense and plays that required defense.
Basically, Fangraphs pins the runs that were attributable to Hudson surplus ERA (basically ERA – FIP) to the defense, and likewise for Saunders.
So in some respects, Fangraphs is saying that overall in Hudson’s starts the defense has not been as up to snuff, whereas in Saunders’s starts, the defense has been monstrous.
One point in Saunders favor. He will always have a lower ERA than FIP because of his propensity to generate DP. Because DP is actually only one batter faced, but counts as two outs, his strikeout rate will appear lower than it actually should, which means his FIP will appear higher than it actually should.
by blue bulldog on Jul 31, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That's Not All FanGraphs WAR leaves out
My biggest issue with FIP for evaluating past performance is that it ignores sequencing. That is, the two following sequences produce the same FIP:
K, K, BB, BB, HR, K
HR, BB, BB, K, K, K
But the first case costs the team three runs, and the second only one run. Saunders has pitched much better with RISP (.200 AVG) and in High Leverage situations in general (.230 AVG), and he should get credit for that. FIP ignores these effects, because they are often non-sustainable. But if you want to evaluate past performance, I think ERA is better than FIP. It’s not only that the defense has played well behind Saunders, but that Saunders has pitched better with runners on base, hence his very high 80% LOB rate.
this is a good point
i had not considered that….sequencing does have an important effect on pitching WAR and evaluating past performances that FIP doesn’t take into account
which seems weird right? like, you’d imagine it’s not that hard to incorporate sequencing into the equation. weight each BB or K or HR differently based on runners on base, using a run expectancy matrix or something similar. i dunno.
by blue bulldog on Aug 1, 2011 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions
That Would Make it Too Complicated
Then it couldn’t be evaluated from a box score or stat line, since you would need to look up the base/out situation for each event.
Sabrs
wouldn’t want to do this with a rate stat like FIP, because performance like that doesn’t tend to be repeatable. I suspect that players like Bengie Molina, who consistently buck the trend and DO perform better w/ RISP, are underrated as well.
You’d expect FG to switch to something more comprehensive like SIERA in the future, which simulates batted balls in play as well. While Saunders’ FIP this year of 4.80 isn’t very good, his SIERA of 4.58 would be the best of his career. (And closer to his 3.56 ERA than his FIP)
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
but it's like Amit says
pitching WAR isn’t supposed to reflect the future, it’s supposed to reflect the past.
and sequencing matters for past events.
It's
supposed to isolate a pitcher’s value to the team. That’s what WAR’s supposed to do — isolate the value of a single player to one easily-comparable and quantifiable metric. The question isn’t about being predictive or not. It’s about how best to isolate a pitcher from his defense and ballpark. Using FIP is a little extreme, but certainly isolates his performance from the team.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
right
but i think sequencing would definitely make pitching WAR more valuable
that being said, maybe Amit’s right. could be way too difficult to calculate.
Give a guy
more “credit” for a ground ball with a runner on base than with the bases empty?
Yeah, tough to do, especially when you’re using FIP, which ignores all balls in play. Or counts them the same. But even the aforementioned SIERA doesn’t do that, while it IS an improvement on FIP.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
The reason, though
Is how repeatable is the ability to perfectly sequence a series of occurrences like that in the way that best allows for a pitcher to be effective? Honestly, I don’t think it’s repeatable. I think Saunders may try to pitch a bit differently with a man on first to generate ground balls, which will result in those extra GIDPs, but I think the 80% LIB and absurd numbers in leverage situations is a load of smoke and mirrors.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 12:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
see response above
pitching WAR shouldn’t care about how repeatable it is.
it’s like batting WAR. BABIP isn’t supposed to be repeatable (or at least, it fluctuates heavily year to year) but batting WAR still reflects BABIP.
I think it's the other way around
If we knew a way to hypothetically adjust wRC+ for BABIP, I think we would. That way we’d have an accurate way to measure the hitter’s skill rather than his luck. We really can’t make that adjustment, though. Which hits do you take away (singles or XBH)? Do you regress to xBABIP – which has a plethora of issues – or a pre-determined mark? It could be feasible by doing BABIP calculations for each batted ball type. Also, maybe this is just me, but I feel like BABIP has a generally greater number of serious outliers (Justin Upton/Matt Diaz types) than FIP does (Saunders and his scattered ilk).
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 1:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Perhaps.
But, on the other hand, can you imagine if fWAR only took a hitter’s walks, home runs, and Ks into account? People would be up in arms.
Granted, the assumption is also that the hitter has more to do with BABIP than the pitcher.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
I disagree
fWAR doesn’t “measure what actually happens,” because FIP only considers HR, K and BB. It thus ignores entirely probably the majority of “what actually happens”.
Yes, ground-balls, fly-balls, double-plays and hits are somewhat dependent on the defense – but they are also dependent on the pitcher.
If you looked at today’s game, for example, you’d be hard pushed to call the defense “monstrous”. Outside of Cowgill’s catch in the first, there was a steady procession of weak groundballs and easy fly-balls. Which FIP, and so fWAR, pretend didn’t happen at all. Thus, claims that it measures actuality seem very dubious, even if it may in general be a better predictor than ERA of results going forward.
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."
by Jim McLennan on Aug 1, 2011 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
yes
but if you use Runs Allowed it completely marginalizes the effects of defense on pitching RA
i do like the idea of using pitching independent metrics as a measurement of the pitcher’s actual worth during a year. i think it just needs to be modified a bit. use percentages instead of K/9, BB/9 type stats. figure out how to incorporate sequencing. i think that type of alternative is better than just using RA.
Wouldn't a pitcher's worth be connected with the fit with defense?
Isn’t Joe Saunders worth a whole lot more with Parra patrolling the outfield than with Wily Mo? For some pitchers like Verlander and Masterson (and Randy Johnson) it might not matter, but aren’t there some pitchers who are poor with poor defense behind them but good with solid defense?
no
that’s just the defense generating value, not the pitcher generating value. and it will be reflected in the fact that the position players generate WAR from their good defense (like Parra, a crap ton of his WAR is from defense) instead of saying it’s the pitcher.
what Fangraphs WAR is trying to measure is this. Parra, given an average pitcher, can create above replacement defensive value in X amount. Saunders, given an average defense, can create above replacement pitching value in Y amount.
well, technically it’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it. the whole point of the exercise is that they are trying to separate the worth of the defense and the pitcher.
if you mean fit with defense though, to mean infield vs. outfield balance, there’s an argument to be made there. like….defenses aren’t perfectly balanced. for instance on our team, our outfield defense is a hell of a lot better than our infield defense. which means we should be getting flyball pitchers (like IPK and Kennedy). they fit more, and thus have more value pitching for us, than a team with an elite infield defense.
As a one time pitcher
I can tell you that it’s an error to separate the pitcher from the defense. The two are isomorphic, not divisible.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
by NASCARbernet on Aug 1, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
this doesn't make sense
if this were true, no pitcher would ever leave a team…you’re saying he doesn’t have an identity outside of the defense he pitches in front of
if a set of defensive players can improve a pitcher’s numbers by X amount, you want to measure that value
if a pitcher can make any given defense look better by Y amount, you want to measure that value
that’s all any type of WAR is trying to reflect
If a very simple observation doesn't make sense
then perhaps your grip on the sensible world is tangential.
How in the world do you get “This doesn’t make sense if it were true, no pitcher would ever leave a team…”
What the hell does that mean? Pitching is a defense position. How do you get ‘a pitcher will never leave a team’ from that simple but obvious observation? Dude, I really think you need to take a deep breath and put the book down.
Yes, the sabermetrics is exciting for some, but sadly, like all ontological attempts to define a dynamic system, even a purportedly closed one like baseball, it can’t possibly characterize the entire set of classifications and possibilities.
I’ve said it before, if you’re basing your (ahem) financial decisions on this foundation of sand, rather than display a marginal trend toward positive predictive ground, your returns will eventually bifurcate into negative ground, much like the Oakland A’s record has.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
thanks for simply ignoring the main argument
if a set of defensive players can improve a pitcher’s numbers by X amount, you want to measure that value
if a pitcher can make any given defense look better by Y amount, you want to measure that value
that’s all any type of WAR is trying to reflect
here, i tried again, this time without the ridiculous entry statement to draw your ire
as for financial decisions….let’s just say i’m not too worried about my future. i take a lot of pride that i’m going to be a pretty rich bastard in the future. i’m fairly certain my discount future cash flow is something you can only dream and wish of.
"Like all ontological attempts to define a dynamic system"
Guess what? That is the EXACT reason sabermetrics exist. Because a ton of people thought that the historical ontological method of defining performance, ERA, was seriously flawed and failed to take into consideration the value a defense can impart on a pitcher’s results. You espousing Saunders’ ability to produce a shiny ERA while choosing to utterly ignore his FIP is simply your own bias at work, rather than some empirical evidence that ERA is better than FIP at measuring performance. Those biases define our thoughts and feelings about players and their valuations.
At the end of the day, after all the bickering and debating… that’s what makes this game so damn much fun. :-)
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 2:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
And that's the problem
“the whole point of the exercise is that they are trying to separate the worth of the defense and the pitcher.”
It’s just not possible. All FIP can do is reduce a pitcher to HR, BB and K. If you take any set of data and willfully ignore the majority of it, as FIP does, any results you get are inevitably going to be less useful.
To me, the aim of pitching is to stop the opposition scoring, and the measure of a good pitcher is one who does that, by whatever means. Most runs don’t score on homers, but FIP discards all those. And if you believe a strikeout is no worse than any other out on offense (as I hope you do), then in terms of run prevention, a K must logically be no better. Yet K’s are the only positive component of FIP.
Again, just to stress: FIP has value as a predictive stat. But as a value of actual “worth”, I’m unconvinced.
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."
by Jim McLennan on Aug 1, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The reason K's are an important input
Isn’t that they’re worth more than any other average out. It’s that they’re more valuable than the average batted ball, which, of course, is the alternative to striking someone out (or walking them, which is also accounted for).
Saying that FIP disregards all runs not scored by home runs is incorrect, because K Rate inversely implies contact rate, which leads to those remining runs scored, plus the additional outs you mentioned.
Then the HR input notes the variation in value of the average batted ball from pitcher to pitcher.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 1:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
However...
Any out is more valuable than the average batted-ball. FIP ignores entirely all outs which aren’t K’s – roughly three-quarters of them.
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."
see below response
to your above comment
FIP doesn’t ignore all outs which aren’t K’s. What FIP does, is assume that a pitcher who is very good at getting K’s and limiting walks and HR is better at getting outs on balls in play than a pitcher who is bad at the three true outcomes.
As was mentioned previously in a post of mine, FIP will always underrate pitchers who generate more outs than pitchers who generate less outs. In particular, FIP underrates pitchers who are good at generating double plays. For whatever reason, Saunders has been very good at generating double plays. And as shoewizard points out, it’s not a selection bias because Saunders allows more baserunners.
This is why FIP has severely underrated Saunders this year.
Whether Saunders can keep that up is debatable, but I can fully agree with you that FIP underrates Saunders when it comes to past performance. However, it doesn’t mean FIP is worse than RA at calculating WAR. It just means you have to understand its limitations and compensate for them
On the other hand, even though I know the limitations of RA for calculating WAR, I have no clue as to how to compensate for them.
This, in essence, is why I prefer Fangraphs WAR.
My guess
is that Saunders draws a ton of double plays because he misses bats at a lesser rate than most pitchers. More balls in play, more double plays. I’d look into it, if I knew how the hell to work BBRef.
His GB% actually goes down when runners are on, though.
"We're concentrating on fallin' apart
We were contenders, now throwin' the fight
I just wanna believe, I just wanna believe in us."
-Brand New, probably singing about the Diamondbacks
I promise you
Nothing is being ignored. The formula contains a constant value regardless of the three main inputs. If you assume zero strikeouts, FIP does not equal infinity. That would be ignoring any outs on balls in play. The HR and K inputs imply value from outs on balls in play.
You’re taking a subdivision of balls in play (plus strikeouts, an entirely different set) and saying it’s more valuable than a ball in play. It’s possible to do that with any subset of a valued set, and simply looking at the over-arching set does not mean that the subset is ignored.
Looking at all outs as separate from hits is identical to looking at all balls in play plus strikeouts. The latter doesn’t ignore anything from the former, it’s just limping in the interlapping section of outs and balls in play to opposing subsets.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 2:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
When its at the point
where in non-crucial situations, one out has a substantially different value (or flavor) than another out, you wind up with weird situations like suggesting that one pitcher’s superb performance is somehow less valuable than another pitcher’s mediocre but ‘high out-value’ performance. This result would be absurd, and thus the metric producing this untenable situation would have to be a candidate for rejection.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
FIP uses K/IP, not K/BFP
As Jim says above, FIP does ignore a lot of outs and a lot of hits. FIP uses K/IP, not K/Batters Faced. Therefore, a pitcher who comes in and gives up 4 straight singles will not see any change in his FIP. It’s not directly a function of K-Rate or Contact Rate, unless you (incorrectly) define K-Rate as K/IP.
The point of FIP is that it assumes a league average BABIP, a league average LOB%, and uniform sequencing. But if a pitcher outperforms in those areas, FIP does not give him credit.
This was covered earlier in the year in a post by bb
And the subsequent comments on that post. BABIP fluctuations have an effect on FIP, but they have to be extreme in order to make a significant impact. BABIP fluctuations to that extent over this long of a sample are nearly impossible to find.
Again, are BABIP, LOB%, and sequencing repeatable skills? In most cases, no.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I Don't Follow
I’m not talking about future performance, but evaluating the past. A big reason why Saunders’ ERA is lower than his FIP is because his BABIP is .266 and his LOB% is 80.3%.
What do you mean that “BABIP fluctuations to that extent over this long of a sample are nearly impossible to find”? Isn’t that exactly what Saunders has done this year?
It's not necessarily about future performance.
It’s about finding what’s genuinely due to the pitcher.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Yes
but luck is part of that.
Fangraphs actually has a long explanation of this, about how they are not attempting to remove luck from calculating the WAR values of players.
Partially true
It’s just not possible. All FIP can do is reduce a pitcher to HR, BB and K. If you take any set of data and willfully ignore the majority of it, as FIP does, any results you get are inevitably going to be less useful.
Yes, this is perfectly true. But it’s a non-unique problem to all WAR calculations. In other words, using RA to calculate WAR, has the same problem, because you are also taking a set of data and willfully ignoring it. Using RA means you essentially assign all of the value of run prevention to the pitching, and then normalizing it to team average defense over that time period.
On the other hand, if you use FIP, you’re assuming that a pitcher with good rate statistics would also over time, be better than a pitcher with bad rate statistics, in terms of performance on balls put in play, because FIP is being used as a proxy for stuff/command, which are the determining factors for a pitcher’s performance that he can control (I’m referring to the stuff/command being controllable).
At the end of the day, both calculations have serious flaws. That’s why no one should really read into pitching WAR as an end all be all of value. It’s unfortunate, but in the present day, pitching is just a ton hard to measure than hitting in terms of WAR, which is incredibly accurate nowadays.
Do you really think
that all variations in balls in play is entirely defense? I really, really doubt that. My point was that Saunders has given us the better chance to win.
by CaptainCanuck on Aug 1, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't
King Huddy is awesome ;)
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
by Rockkstarr12 on Jul 31, 2011 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Well done, Jinnah.
Professor McGonnagal would be proud of you.
It's the stuff that dreams are made of
It's the slow and steady fire
To all Joe Saunders Haters
Quit hating. The guy is pitching lights out!
by DiamondbacksWIn on Jul 31, 2011 10:48 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Joe Saunders
is doing the job down the stretch. Its up to the others to match up. All the stats and expectations be damned, Joe has emerged.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
by NASCARbernet on Jul 31, 2011 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
This
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
by Rockkstarr12 on Aug 1, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
"Stats be damned"
Pretty dangerous phrase there.
I get it. Saunders has gotten results, and did so again yesterday. However, if Saunders consistently refused to walk people like he did yesterday, I would be infatuated with him. He pitched excellently by all accounts, both by your measures and mine. If he does that for the rest of the year, i’ll be immensely satisfied, because the remaining results will indicate his refusal to give out damaging free passes.
Unfortunately, his history suggests a tendency to give up a good number of walks per start. If he can buck that trend, i’ll be sold. But I have no reason to believe he can until I see it consistently.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 1:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's
not a dangerous phrase. It’s not like NASCAR holds the keys to the Diamondbacks car. If he, or anyone else, doesn’t care about stats in this case, what does it really matter? It’s not doing any harm, it’s not any danger to anything.
Tomorrow is another day.
Shortsighted?
You gotta’ be kidding. Its about wins, son, not “oh gosh, I wish, I wish, I wish!”
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
Yes.
But claiming, “stats be damned, Joe has emerged” certainly sounds like a prediction of future performance.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
That's true
I don’t hold the keys to the car. I’m just an ordinary fan, hopefully like everyone else here.
I would be very disappointed to learn though that people who have access to the keys are sandbagging here.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
Of course
You know what I mean when I say that… making decisions and assessments with that theory would be unwise. C’mon, that’s a bit of a nitpick, no?
Or do I just take myself way too seriously here? :-)
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 2:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
the walk rate
has hit about its stabilizing sample size (550 BF)
so we can probably expect a 3 BB/9 going forward
that being said, his walk rate has trended downwards each month. if he could maintain the incredibly low levels in the past couple of months, then he’ll be very very good down the stretch.
Walks do not equal failure
As Jim pointed out yesterday, Nolan Ryan over his career walked more batters than most veteran pitchers accumulated innings. Would you consider him a failure?
A walk can be an extraneous event, a hazardous one, or even in some situations a sound defensive move. Had Ryan made the decision to pitch to avoid walks, batters may have been able to key off his pitches better, thus making him more vulnerable. He actually pitched to the black, rather than try to throw over the plate and give in to batters.
He came off pretty well in this pitching thing.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
dude
please take a look at this link
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1011348&position=P
Nolan Ryan was hella good at striking people out
Yeah, I saw him pitch about 20 times live
he was a good one.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
And he would have been one of the very best of all time if he would have walked fewer players.
"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." Robert S. Wieder
You make it sound like he wasn't?
"Never ignore a coincidence. Unless you're busy, in which case always ignore a coincidence."
I don’t think he was one of the very best of all time (in other words, I think he’s outside of the top ten).
"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." Robert S. Wieder
Wow...
dude owns the all-time K record, and he’s “outside the top ten” for you?
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
yep
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-all-time-best-pitchers/
No matter what advanced metric you use, there’s no way you can really make an argument for Nolan Ryan in the top ten. But I’m happy to hear you try.
"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." Robert S. Wieder
Well okay
but man thats an impressive list. I wouldnt take anything away from Ryan having him there.
I got nothin'.
Of course it’s an impressive list. We’re talking about the very best of all time. I’m not knocking Ryan. Not at all. Guy was terrific. Just not Mount Rushmore of pitching terrific.
"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." Robert S. Wieder
Agreed
the problem with these kind of discussions is that the history of baseball is long enough that you can be outside a Top 5 or 10 and still be one hell of a great player.
Tomorrow is another day.
exactly
My only point was that his control was a legitimate flaw. And basically if you’re in the top ten to fifteen you essentially don’t have a flaw. Without that flaw, he could be near the very top of the list.
"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." Robert S. Wieder
Only Since 1980, and not Park/Era Adjusted
FanGraphs pitching leaders only start in 1980, so that eliminates a lot of great pitchers.
Ryan’s career ERA was 3.19 (FIP = 2.96), but for that time period, it was a very good, but not super-fantastic ERA. His career ERA+ is only 112, which is pretty low for a Hall-of-Famer.
If Joe Saunders were Nolan Ryan
You’d have never heard a peep from me complaining about him. Unfortunately, that comparison is quite absurd.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 1, 2011 2:14 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
...
As noted above, if Joe Saunders had the 3rd best K rate of all time, nobody would mind the walks.
Curt Schilling and Dan Haren gave up a lot of home runs, but they also avoided walks like the plague, mitigating that.
I don’t think anybody’s saying that all pitchers should run from walks, which are the root of all evil. Zach Duke has the second lowest walk rate on the staff (2.02/9IP), and his ERA sits at 5.28. Josh Collmenter has the lowest (1.69/9IP), yet his ERA is at 3.10.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
But...
What else are haters gonna do?
Wear your own fur.
by Marc Fournier on Aug 1, 2011 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Go post on azcentral.com
DROOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! WHHYYYYYYYYY!!!!
by imstillhungry95 on Aug 1, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Hell no
THIS is the place to be…where all the cool kids hang out ;)
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
by Rockkstarr12 on Aug 1, 2011 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
That
was my advice for the haters. In other words, not the cool kids ;)
DROOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! WHHYYYYYYYYY!!!!
by imstillhungry95 on Aug 1, 2011 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I know that, ya silly!
Just sayin’ :)
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
They gonna HATE
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
by Rockkstarr12 on Aug 1, 2011 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I just want to say
if Xavier Nady is a member of Gryffindor House…
then…well….Gryffindor House kinda sucks
by blue bulldog on Jul 31, 2011 10:56 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Personally
I’d place him more as a Hufflepuff…
"Never ignore a coincidence. Unless you're busy, in which case always ignore a coincidence."
i thought about Hufflepuff
but it was such a brave and daring sac fly that I had to sort him into Gryffindor ;)
I don't let facts get in the way of my opinion.
by jinnah on Jul 31, 2011 11:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yay!
I’m a Hufflepuff, I’m pretty sure.
It's the stuff that dreams are made of
It's the slow and steady fire
by 4 Corners Fan on Jul 31, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I certainly don't hate Joe
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
Awesome recap.
I'm sure I'll think of something clever to put here eventually...
Yes it was
and the COT is a classic.
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
by NASCARbernet on Jul 31, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Gerardo Parra
Those two HR say a lot. I’ve never understood why he doesn’t try pulling the ball more. As noted today from the HR, he’s got plenty of pull power, that it just doesn’t look like he’s using much.
If he consistently tries to pull, I feel like he’s got 15 HR power in him. Those were pretty deep, and at Chavez Ravine no less.
I can sense Dan’s smugness from here, that Parra is turning himself into a legit everyday starting corner outfielder.
At least we left Chavez Latrine and are out of cruddy LA
"I didn't mean to hit the umpire with the dirt, but I did mean to hit that bastard in the stands." -Babe Ruth
In other news
Goldschmidt didn’t play in the game at Mobile today while Miranda has gone 1-3 with the Aces so far tonight.
I think it’s as close to official as it gets.
Wear your own fur.
Yeah, we know that
It was mentioned during the game. I’m sure he was on a plane by then. But we’re waiting on the two corresponding pitching moves. Story’s ready to go..
I stopped reading. Now I just write sarcastic, angry comments.. -- soco
They're not even cooking the ice! -- kishi
by snakecharmer on Aug 1, 2011 3:12 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Cos he's leaving ,on a jet plane
don’t know when he’ll be back again
☣ "I like to keep a bottle of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy." ☣
DO IT FOR DREW
by hotclaws on Aug 1, 2011 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ahhh
the sweet sounds of Winning baseball for Arizona, and struggles for San Fransisco
DROOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! WHHYYYYYYYYY!!!!
by imstillhungry95 on Aug 1, 2011 12:54 AM EDT reply actions
The last two games weren’t too much fun for Dodger fans, but whatever hurts the Giants, I’m for. I’m rooting for the Dbacks to take the division. Good luck guys.
"If we hit that bull's eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"
Great write up.
Loved it. Neville will get his due some day. He was not the chosen one, after all.
I got nothin'.
by Bcawz on Aug 1, 2011 9:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Meanwhile....
si.com reports that a sixth-run 8th inning lead the padres over theDiamondbacks. It took me until midway through the article to realize that was wrong.
If this seemed like a very long series, it was.
We’ve had five non extra-inning games go 3:20 or longer in 2011. This series had three of them. At 3:36, today’s game tied for the longest nine-inning game played by AZ this year, with the 12-9 slugfest over Florida in June. Friday’s 3:33 was third, and Saturday’s 3:22 ranks fifth.
The last time every game in a series lasted that long was April 13-15 last year…against the Dodgers…in LA. Actually, all three games lasted 3:40+, but two of went into extras. The time before that was a May 2003 series against Atlanta, but two included free baseball there as well. You have to go back almost a decade, to September 2001 in San Francisco, when the games went 3:20, 3:36 and 3:39, to find anything comparable to this series.
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."
Does this mean the Dodgers are trying to move
over to the American League?
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble."
Caesar Augustus
by NASCARbernet on Aug 1, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Grace
was commenting yesterday that the Dodgers hitters take a LONG time to get set at the plate — take awhile listening to their own walkup music and stuff.
Symptom of playing in Hollywood? Or is it Nomar Garciaparra’s veteran example living on?
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on AZ Snake Pit
Related FanShots on AZ Snake Pit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
