Joe Saunders, Zach Duke, ERA and FIP: Is there a compromise?
by DbacksSkins on Aug 1, 2011 9:30 PM EDT
Email
PrintIn case you've had your head under a rock lately, there's a raging debate going on right now at this site about pitcher performance and how to measure it.
Let's start with an assumption. At the end of the day, "performance" for a pitcher is measured in runs allowed. That's the only stat that actually affects the team. Nobody would give a crap about Yusmeiro Petit's outrageous HR rate if it didn't affect runs.
ERA is better at measuring the runs a pitcher has allowed in the past than FIP. Is there a correlation between runs and FIP? Of course. FIP is easily calculated, better at isolating a pitcher's performance in the things he can directly control, and has decent run prevention correlation, which is why it's used. But ERA is better at conveying his "performance". FanGraphs has taken the opinion that defense behind a pitcher is irrelevant, as are balls in play, since there are so many other factors that affect them, most of which are well outside the pitcher's direct control.
You can't quantify "feel", but FIP just doesn't always feel right. Zach Duke's 3.65 FIP doesn't "feel" as accurate a measurement of his performance as his 5.28 ERA. And, let's be honest -- Joe Saunders' 4.80 FIP doesn't "feel" as accurate as his 3.56 ERA.
But why is it that we (meaning, the more Sabr-oriented folks) are more quick to dismiss Duke's outlier performance than Saunders'?
On the other hand, just because some guys, like Joe Saunders and Matt Cain, always seem to outperform their peripherals in the "runs prevented" department, isn't reason to reject the entire study of underlying peripherals. Just because Duke always underperforms his FIP doesn't make FIP, or any other complex sabermetric stat, irrelevant. However, a trend like that does seem to suggest that there are problems with looking entirely at the parts of a pitcher's performance that FIP examines.
I think everyone here can admit that FIP has plenty of flaws, as does ERA, especially in the uneven rules regarding what constitutes an "earned run", and especially as it regards different parks and leagues. ERA+ attempts to fix the latter, while FIP attempts to fix both.
All this means is that we need to find a BETTER way to quantify performance. It doesn't rule out the value of so-called statistical analysis. NOBODY rates guys by their gut anymore without some kind of number to back it up, and I don't think anybody here has tried to defend Joe Saunders' performance to date without conjuring his impressive ERA. The thing we're debating is, what's the best way to quantify a pitcher's ACTUAL performance?
Let's pretend that Joe Saunders works as a waiter and makes $5 an hour. If he's checking his checking account balance, he doesn't completely ignore tips, even though tips are largely luck-dependent. Getting a $200 tip from one wealthy customer who's in town for a convention one night shouldn't be predictive that he'll get an extra $200 tip on this day next week. He should budget for next week based on what he typically makes between tips and salary. At the same time, that $200 is money in the bank.
FIP, on the other hand, is like taking ONLY his salary next week into account, and assuming he'll make whatever an average waiter, across the entire Major League of waiters, makes in tips. Is tip money entirely within his control? Of course not. But let's say that Joe Saunders is a young, attractive female, who's able to flirt with the hitter and convince him to offer at a pitch out of the zo- errr, able to charm a customer into leaving a slightly better tip. Zach Duke, on the other hand, goes about his job fairly well. He gets food out to his customers immediately, he's always on time, and he never gets an order wrong. He's also surly, lacks a personality, and has trouble connecting with his customers. Duke typically earns less than the average waiter in tips, despite his excellent underlying waiter peripherals.
That difference between "tips" isn't taken into account by FIP, which assumes that all customers are the same, and ignores other important waiter attributes like charisma. Joe Saunders may have heavily outperformed his FIP so far this year, and it's not unreasonable to expect his ERA to go up over the rest of the season.
But the run prevention he's performed so far is money in the bank. He's not giving that $200 back.
50 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I did
It was excellent.
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 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Dumb question.......
How do you calculate FIP?
three independent variables
- of K, # of BB, # of HR
K’s are good, BB and HR are bad
the denominator is innings pitched.
that’s the short version.
There are
different multipliers for each. There’s also a constant added to make league average FIP equal to league average ERA.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Formula
((13*HR)+(3*(BB + HBP- IBB))-(2*K))/IP + constant, where the constant is around 3.20.
The constant is determined by taking the difference between the league-average FIP and the league-average ERA.
Dangit.
If I had known that this was going to end up on the front page anyway, I would’ve written it as a story, rather than a FanPost.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Great analogy
My major point is this:
the $200 tip should not be calculated into the waiter’s value. it should be calculated into the “customers” value. in baseball analogy, it would be the defense. in other words, Joe Saunders didn’t do anything special to earn an extra $200 in your analogy. Zach Duke could have been the waiter and still gotten $200, or whatever remains after you subtract the difference between Joe Saunders’ “charisma” and Duke’s “surliness.”
in baseball, it’s the same. if Chris Young makes an awesome play in CF and saves Joe Saunders from a bases-clearing double, his ERA gains the benefit of that defensive play. something like BR WAR would marginalize Chris Young, and say Joe Saunders just gained a ton of value. but that doesn’t make much sense right? isn’t it intuitive that Chris Young just gained a ton of value from that play, and the pitcher’s performance should be marginalized? what’s the difference between Joe Saunders leaving a meatball to get smoked to Chris Young versus Zach Duke leaving a meatball to get smoked to Chris Young?
this is why i really like Fangraphs pitching WAR more than BR WAR. it helps isolate (imperfectly, albeit) the effects of defense and pitching, and properly assigns that value to Chris Young.
then there’s the second issue, recognized the effect of the difference between “charisma” and “surliness” on a pitcher’s value. basically, i posit that while Fangraphs pitching WAR doesn’t take into account, it’s pretty obvious when one pitcher is “charismatic” and one pitcher is “surly.” and once you recognize it, you can just do a qualitative adjustment in your head. like….we all know Joe Saunders is underrated by FIP. so just adjust it down.
on the other hand, if you use runs allowed as the basis of pitching value, it’s very very difficult to recognize when a defensive player helped his pitcher out, or when the pitcher was being awesome, over the course of a season, simply because we don’t have the time to watch every defensive play.
But...
Many people do take the time to watch every defensive play. And the idea that Saunders’ FIP is low because the defense has played better for him than average doesn’t necessarily hold true. For whatever reason, maybe luck or maybe skill, perhaps Saunders has had a higher rate of easy ground ball and fly balls this season. It may not be sustainable, but maybe he has done it. But I have seen no evidence that Saunders’ low BABIP and high strand rate occurred because the defense has played great behind him.
Zach Duke could have been the waiter and still gotten $200, or whatever remains after you subtract the difference between Joe Saunders’ "charisma" and Duke’s "surliness."
But fWAR doesn’t allow for any difference in “charisma” and “surliness”?
in baseball, it’s the same. if Chris Young makes an awesome play in CF and saves Joe Saunders from a bases-clearing double, his ERA gains the benefit of that defensive play. something like BR WAR would marginalize Chris Young, and say Joe Saunders just gained a ton of value. but that doesn’t make much sense right? isn’t it intuitive that Chris Young just gained a ton of value from that play, and the pitcher’s performance should be marginalized? what’s the difference between Joe Saunders leaving a meatball to get smoked to Chris Young versus Zach Duke leaving a meatball to get smoked to Chris Young?
If it’s a REALLY fantastic play, sure. But using FIP for fWAR just gives ALL credit to Chris Young. It doesn’t distinguish between the fact that the flyball from Zach Duke tends to be smoked, while Joe Saunders’ may just be poor contact.
this is why i really like Fangraphs pitching WAR more than BR WAR. it helps isolate (imperfectly, albeit) the effects of defense and pitching, and properly assigns that value to Chris Young.
“Properly”?
Ian Kennedy is a flyball pitcher. With Ian Kennedy pitching, CY’s UZR will go up. With Brandon Webb pitching, CY’s UZR will go down.
How is that “proper” any more than crediting the pitcher?
then there’s the second issue, recognized the effect of the difference between "charisma" and "surliness" on a pitcher’s value. basically, i posit that while Fangraphs pitching WAR doesn’t take into account, it’s pretty obvious when one pitcher is "charismatic" and one pitcher is "surly." and once you recognize it, you can just do a qualitative adjustment in your head. like….we all know Joe Saunders is underrated by FIP. so just adjust it down.
That’s what I meant by “feel”, if you will, but numbers don’t do that on their own. Just yesterday, I read on FanGraphs that, “The Diamondbacks rank in the middle of the pack in the NL in pitching WAR, so their rotation is fine with Hudson, Kennedy, Collmenter, Duke, and Saunders.” If you think Zach Duke being in the rotation is “fine” because of his nice FIP, then you haven’t seen the Dbacks play. (And I said as much to the author)
on the other hand, if you use runs allowed as the basis of pitching value, it’s very very difficult to recognize when a defensive player helped his pitcher out, or when the pitcher was being awesome, over the course of a season, simply because we don’t have the time to watch every defensive play.
I’d say I’ve seen the vast majority of defensive plays, and I also think this is only an issue when comparing pitchers leaguewide. Claiming this is an issue when comparing Joe Saunders to, say, Zach Duke, is silly — unless Gibson turns over the entire lineup when Duke pitches from when Saunders pitches.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
i still don't think you quite understand my argument
the Fangraphs author didn’t do his due diligence. otherwise, he’d have noted that Duke’s stuff has been dropping the past few years (velo drops) which is going to naturally increase your BABIP. in addition, differences between your FIP and ERA can be attributed to command to. just watching a selection of Duke games would be able to show you that his command has not been very good this year.
however, just because one Fangraphs author was incapable of realizing how bad Duke is, doesn’t mean that it’s categorically “difficult” to realize. it’s pretty easy imo to realize when FIP is overvaluing or undervaluing a pitcher. and it’s not about “feel”. it’s about quantifiable data, and tons of other hints elsewhere that you can pick up if you choose to look (the author just didn’t choose to do so).
on the other hand, defense is different. sure you might have seen the vast majority of defensive plays. but at which angles did you view the play from. do you know where the fielders have positioned themselves to start? do you know how quick he was to read the ball off the bat? do you know which path he took to the ball? how can you compare Upton’s speed to Young’s to Parra’s to other fielders around the league. it’s just very very difficult.
as for the flyball versus groundball pitching, yeah it affects CY’s UZR. but it doesn’t affect the pitcher’s evaluation. if you think IPK’s flyballs magnifies CY’s UZR (it could potentially decrease it also, if CY were a bad defender) then Webb’s groundballs magnifies Drew’s UZR. it balances out, because they are all balls in play. what i meant by “properly” is that the defense actually gets credit for it, instead of the pitcher getting credit.
also, i still think people have misunderstandings of fWAR calculation and its base premises. i also don’t think i’m an expert on how it’s calculated, or its base premises. but my understanding is that it’s not so much fWAR gives all credit to CY for the defensive play, but that it just assumes that a pitcher with better FIP will in turn have better results on balls in play than a pitcher who doesn’t have a good FIP, because the FIP is a good proxy for “stuff + command” and at the end of the day, those are the two basic “tools” that determines what the pitcher is doing.
so essentially what you have to do as a reader of Fangraphs WAR, is figure out when that assumption above is not true. and again, it seems really intuitive to me that figuring out when a guys “stuff” is not good, despite a good FIP, is a lot easier, than figuring out when defenders are actually doing a good job over the course of a season for a given starter, and when they aren’t.
Hold on...
“it just assumes that a pitcher with better FIP will in turn have better results on balls in play than a pitcher who doesn’t have a good FIP”
I don’t think this is correct at all. fWAR essentially regresses BABIP and LOB% to league average, because it ignores them completely. It definitely does not imply that pitchers with a better FIP have better results on Balls in Play.
In short...
Stats are right, unless they’re not.
They're neither "right"
nor “wrong”. They’re ALL technically “correct”, unless there’s a math error.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
I still use Saunders as a punchline
by CaptainCanuck on Aug 2, 2011 12:16 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
You sure went to a lot of trouble
to say “Saunders has been lucky” and it’s not going to continue. I’m not surprised at all that Dan loved it. When I saw the headline I figured he wrote it, haha. Did you ghost-write this Dan?
I get both sides of the argument. I’d just rather have a pitcher with low era and high FIP than high ERA and low FIP. So I’ll take Saunders over Duke now and into the future thank you.
I also
went on to say (not in so many words) that, for some pitchers, the peripherals AREN’T always reliable predictors. Zach Duke is like that. Joe Saunders and Matt Cain are like that in the opposite manner.
This isn’t a “Joe Saunders has been lucky and it’s not going to continue” piece — at least, that isn’t the point. That’s been said plenty of times elsewhere by Dan and blue bulldog. Did you read it? Main points here:
1. Run prevention is the most important job for a pitcher. ERA almost directly shows how well it’s been done.
2. FIP historically hasn’t been a good way to predict Joe Saunders’ ERA, showing it has flaws galore.
3. There are plenty of reasons for that that we’re not seeing.
4. On the other hand, that doesn’t make FIP worthless.
I’d rather have a pitcher with low ERA and high FIP, too.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Actually
I loved it because it was NOT that. I thought all sides were adequately outlined.
You say that you rather have a consistently low-ERA/high-FIP guy rather than a consistently high-ERA/low-FIP guy as if that’s some sort of unique position. If that were actually anything resembling the debate going on here, only a lunatic would disagree with that stance.
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 2, 2011 12:42 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not sure I understand
“You say that you rather have a consistently low-ERA/high-FIP guy rather than a consistently high-ERA/low-FIP guy … only a lunatic would disagree with that stance.”
Not an expert on FIP, but based on what I have read here, I would agree with the previous statement only in hindsight. That is, at the end of the season if I looked back and measured my pitchers, I would rather have had the low-ERA/high-FIP guy for that year, than vice versa. However, if I am picking pitchers for next year, based on the previous year ERA or FIP, that would not necessarily be true – correct? Isn’t that the crux of this whole disagreement – which stat is the better predictor of future performance?
by Craig from Az on Aug 2, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
The point was consistency in an ERA/FIP split. FIP is a fantastic predictor for some, and less reliable – more of a trend predictor, perhaps – for others.
If there isn’t an established, consistent trend of under/over-performing the FIP, then yes, I’d rather bank on the guy with the better FIP going forward.
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 2, 2011 3:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What Dan said.
Generally speaking, over a given sample, if pitcher A has a FIP of 4.00 and ERA of 3.50, and pitcher B has a FIP of 3.50 and ERA of 4.00, all else being equal, you’d rather the 3.50 FIP guy be on your team next year.
That having been said, when Joe Saunders’ ERA is lower than his FIP every year, you have to note it as a trend.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Stats are just numbers you can spin into
a basis for your argument for or against a player, example: Burroughs has a low strike out percentage. I feel like there is always another stat that can counter another stat but doesnt fully cover what really goes on the field that can be perceived by the eye not by some formula
There is probably a better example out there
but that was the first one that popped into my head
They're not
“just” that, but that’s certainly one of their purposes.
And yes, Burroughs’ low K rate is something I’ve mentioned before. He’s good at putting the ball in play. (Usually, with shitty results) The ONLY time he should be pinch hitting is against a RHP with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs.
Then again, that happened a few days ago, and he STILL managed to find a way to strike out.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
SO let me get this straight...
Based on the numbers, Joe Saunders has bigger boobs and is much prettier than Duke? Sorry, I was never good at statistics.
He has bigger boobs
But may or may not be prettier going forward. ;-)
Daron "...the D. Baxter fan-club"
Mark: "A non-profit organization."
Or maybe
Joe Saunders has bigger boobs and is much prettier, but you shouldn’t necessarily expect him to be better in the sack.
by Craig from Az on Aug 2, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Huh?
If a pitcher wins 18 games, then he is good….if he loses 18 games then he is bad. 5-15 with a 2.09 era does the team no good….15-5 with a 5.50 era is much better….kinda like they measured a pitcher in the “old school”.
Oh, good heavens.
You would really have a guy with an ERA three runs higher because his offense gave him more run support?
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 2, 2011 2:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
so with this logic you would rather have daniel hudson or ian kennedy anyday over tim lincecum...
not sure I agree with that sentiment. There is more to winning than simply the pitcher. Armando Galarraga had more wins than Joe Saunders who started 0-5 in his first five decisions, but he was not the one moved down… Why? because he didn’t suck. If I remember correctly, Armando got a win after giving up 8 or so runs because the offense lit up the opposing pitcher. That doesn’t happen often. I’d rather take my chances on a pitcher that gives up far less runs. And I think towers agrees with that since Saunders is still with the team and Gallaraga was sent down, even with a better record at the time…
So, basically,
“If a pitcher pitches for a poor team, then he is poor. If he pitches for a good team, then he is good.”
Man, Russ Ortiz must’ve been the GREATEST PITCHER EVAR when he won 100+ games with an ERA north of 4. Wonder how he simply forgot how to win?
And Brandon Webb must’ve been pretty shitty when he only won 16 games en route to the Cy Young.
HEY, FRENCHY! STAR TREK OR STAR WARS?
Double Plays is the answer for Saunders
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
Yeppers.
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 4, 2011 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Great Article.
I love when a writer writes something that encourages people to ask questions as opposed to writing something that they think gives everyone “the answer”. Loved it. Great job man
It's not enough to just live, you gotta live for something.
by Dallas D'Back Fan on Aug 2, 2011 8:55 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on AZ Snake Pit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
