Yankees deal for Vazquez

[Dipre]

You know what I mean. Regardless' date=' the point is, you essentially tried to point out that Vazquez is a homerun/flyball pitcher. You could have stated as such and nobody would have denied it.[/quote']

 

No. I don't know what your point is. Enlighten me. I pointed out his four years on the AL, but i didn't use them exclusively for the argument. That is a lie.

 

The point wasn't that he's a flyball pitcher. That just means you either skimmed through the posts, or didn't read them at all. I stated that he's a flyball pitcher who's flyball tendencies are magnified with men on base, and he's a significantly weaker pitcher in such situations, his K% drops, his walks raise dramatically, as does his XBH%, and i'm pretty sure that's not all homeruns.

 

Read the argument thoroughly and then make a retort, or don't reply at all.

[jacksonianmarch]

Dipre, I know you are proud of your work, but the only thing you proved is that Vazquez allows more homers. That is it. I know it requires a bit more advanced logic than I should expect from you, but when you look at his HR/IP, they are incredibly high over his career. When you look at his GO/AO ratio, it is incredibly low. Guys with high GO/AO have higher BAAs but lower OPSA's because they give up more hits, but they are usually singles. Vazquez is an extreme flyball pitcher. Therefore, he allows a lot more homeruns and EBHs based upon the types of pitches he throws. That gets magnified in the stretch. Most starters see a significant increase in their BAA when they go to the stretch. For Burnett or for Lackey, that increase in BAA is more likely to be singles since they are even or groundball type pitchers. But for Vazquez, those have a higher likelihood of being extra base hits.

 

My point is, that you are trying to use Vazquez vs Lackey and Burnett as a comparison since they have similar career FIPs. The problem is, you are making assumptions off of the FIP that are incorrect since you are not comparing like players.

[Dipre]

Dipre, I know you are proud of your work, but the only thing you proved is that Vazquez allows more homers. That is it. I know it requires a bit more advanced logic than I should expect from you, but when you look at his HR/IP, they are incredibly high over his career. When you look at his GO/AO ratio, it is incredibly low. Guys with high GO/AO have higher BAAs but lower OPSA's because they give up more hits, but they are usually singles. Vazquez is an extreme flyball pitcher. Therefore, he allows a lot more homeruns and EBHs based upon the types of pitches he throws. That gets magnified in the stretch. Most starters see a significant increase in their BAA when they go to the stretch. For Burnett or for Lackey, that increase in BAA is more likely to be singles since they are even or groundball type pitchers. But for Vazquez, those have a higher likelihood of being extra base hits.

 

My point is, that you are trying to use Vazquez vs Lackey and Burnett as a comparison since they have similar career FIPs. The problem is, you are making assumptions off of the FIP that are incorrect since you are not comparing like players.

 

 

This is:

 

A) A cop-out.

 

B ) Not a convincing argument. My point was that he gives up a lot more XBH than the two similar pitchers, which you just said in the above post, essentially agreeing with me. However, it doesn't explain the meteoric drop-off in K's, and of course, the rise of walks.

 

I tried to establish two things: A) He's XBH prone. B ) He's more XBH prone, and has a noted drop-off in peripherals with men on base. Discount either.

[jacksonianmarch]

DIpre, if you dont want to listen to my retort, that's your prerogative. You are an interesting specimen, I will tell you. You come up with a theory. You blatantly ask others to discount it. When it gets discounted or explained in any other light aside from your own, you throw it out and ask people to try again.

[Dipre]

DIpre' date=' if you dont want to listen to my retort, that's your prerogative. You are an interesting specimen, I will tell you. You come up with a theory. You blatantly ask others to discount it. When it gets discounted or explained in any other light aside from your own, you throw it out and ask people to try again.[/quote']

 

I'm not as interesting as cop-outs and strawmen though.

[italstallianion]

DIpre' date=' if you dont want to listen to my retort, that's your prerogative. You are an interesting specimen, I will tell you. You come up with a theory. You blatantly ask others to discount it. [b']When it gets discounted or explained in any other light aside from your own,[/b] you throw it out and ask people to try again.

 

 

Only if you're counting your repetitive, biased and irrelevant responses as "discounting" Dipre's argument. That's like a 12 year old plugging his ears yelling "I'm beating you, I'm beating you, I win, I win" regardless of what actually transpires on the board.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'm not as interesting as cop-outs and strawmen though.

 

Once again, you dont know what strawman means

[Dipre]

Once again' date=' you dont know what strawman means[/quote']

 

You're the master of it, so you know very well.

 

And excellent dissection of the argument, by the way. Stuff of legend.

[jacksonianmarch]

I have already showed you my counter argument. You refuse to dissect that since it goes against your theory here. Your theory, as usual, being to downplay our pitching acquisition.

[Dipre]

I have already showed you my counter argument. You refuse to dissect that since it goes against your theory here. Your theory' date=' as usual, being to downplay our pitching acquisition.[/quote']

 

If you were a wrestler, a "Mr. Cop-out" gimmick would suit you perfectly.

[jacksonianmarch]

Have you noticed how many people have gone away since you started posting with a fury here? I honestly think that some of the best posters on this site have gone into hiding because of your ridiculous act. Your way or the highway and anyone who disagrees gets ridiculed rather than debated. Honestly, you must have made it through law school by the skin of your teeth. Cause your debate skills flat out suck.

[Dipre]

Have you noticed how many people have gone away since you started posting with a fury here? I honestly think that some of the best posters on this site have gone into hiding because of your ridiculous act. Your way or the highway and anyone who disagrees gets ridiculed rather than debated. Honestly' date=' you must have made it through law school by the skin of your teeth. Cause your debate skills flat out suck.[/quote']

 

Bla bla bla bla.

 

Have you noticed how many people have gone away and started tuning you out at the same time?

 

That's because you're a troll.

 

You were a troll as The Rivernator, and you're one now. An annoying troll, to boot.

[jacksonianmarch]

Regardless, remember the posts around the time you tucked tail. They were of relief because your act is offensive. It's okay to have a differing opinion, but to blatantly call out anyone who doesnt agree with you and then start a fight is ridiculous. It's your calling card. You'll be gone soon enough. The mods were happy when you were gone and you have come back and pulled the same s***. By midseason, you'll be banned. I was right with Dutch, I was right with Gom, and I'll be right with you.

[Dipre]

Regardless' date=' remember the posts around the time you tucked tail. They were of relief because your act is offensive. It's okay to have a differing opinion, but to blatantly call out anyone who doesnt agree with you and then start a fight is ridiculous. It's your calling card. You'll be gone soon enough. The mods were happy when you were gone and you have come back and pulled the same s***. By midseason, you'll be banned. I was right with Dutch, I was right with Gom, and I'll be right with you.[/quote']

 

Blablablabla.

 

Oh noez, when i have no grounds on which to counter-argument, let me resort to obvious trolling and attacking the poster, then being a hypocrite and bitching about the other person doing the same thing.

 

The irony is delicious.

[jacksonianmarch]

It is ironic that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing in your post.

[Dipre]

It is ironic that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing in your post.

 

I don't bitch. I point and laugh. You get pissed. I keep attacking you and laughing. You're a troll, and i'm trolling you back. Get it now, troll?

[Imperial59]

Not to beat a dead horse, but just to prove how overeliant on strikeouts FIP is, here are the pitchers with the top 10 strikeout ratings last year. I've listed their ERA and their FIP.

 

Lincecum - 2.48 ERA, 2.34 FIP

Verlander - 3.45 ERA, 2.80 FIP

Lester - 3.41 ERA, 3.15, FIP

Gallardo - 3.73 ERA, 3.97FIP

Vazquez - 2.87 ERA, 2.77 FIP

Kershaw - 3.08 ERA, 2.79 FIP

Greinke - 2.33 ERA, 2.16 FIP

Nolasco - 5.06 ERA, 3.35 FIP

De La Rosa - 4.38 ERA, 3.91 FIP

 

Notice a trend here?

 

And then poor Jack Lannan who had the worst strikeout rate last year was given a 4.70 FIP when he had a 3.88 ERA. FIP is essientially a glorified K/BB which also factors in home runs.

[jacksonianmarch]

Imperial, there is a reason for this. Its all based on BABIP. And strikeouts are not counted in it. If you assume that a pitcher with pitch to a .300BAA without any homer or K's then you get that FIP. I think BABIP is good at times, but overall, its flawed.

[Imperial59]

Imperial' date=' there is a reason for this. Its all based on BABIP. And strikeouts are not counted in it. If you assume that a pitcher with pitch to a .300BAA without any homer or K's then you get that FIP. I think BABIP is good at times, but overall, its flawed.[/quote']

 

 

Have you even seen the formula for FIP? It has nothing to do with BABIP and in no way resembles the formula for BABIP. Besides, Vazquez has the better career FIP even though Lackey has the higher career BABIP.

 

Like I said, FIP is a glorified K/BB that factors in home runs. The only results of a pitch that it measures are walks, strikeouts and home runs. Someone could get up 8 hits every inning and still have a pristine FIP.

[diony]

The difference between ERA and FIP is related to BABIP. Take John Lannan for example he had a 3.88 ERA with a .276 BABIP (we still dont know if he can sustain that). His bad peripherals shows you he was a mediocre pitcher last year with a 3.88 K/9 and a 2.97 BB/9. FIP can show that, ERA cant.

 

Look at Ricky Nolasco, 5.06 ERA with a 3.35 FIP. His BABIP was .336. Unlucky, but his amazing peripherals (9.49 K/9 and a 2.14 K/9), gives him a decent 3.35 FIP. ERA doesnt tells the whole story of how well he performed last year.

 

If you could trade for one of them which one would you choose? Lannan and his 3.88 ERA last year .

 

Maybe you understand the formula after googling it, but you have no idea of what the stat really means.

 

Is like saying .SLG is a flawed stat to measure power hitters because they hit a lot of homers and the formula overvalues homers.

[Imperial59]

The difference between ERA and FIP is related to BABIP. Take John Lannan for example he had a 3.88 ERA with a .276 BABIP (we still dont know if he can sustain that). His bad peripherals shows you he was a mediocre pitcher last year with a 3.88 K/9 and a 2.97 BB/9. FIP can show that, ERA cant.

 

Look at Ricky Nolasco, 5.06 ERA with a 3.35 FIP. His BABIP was .336. Unlucky, but his amazing peripherals (9.49 K/9 and a 2.14 K/9), gives him a decent 3.35 FIP. ERA doesnt tells the whole story of how well he performed last year.

 

If you could trade for one of them which one would you choose? Lannan and his 3.88 ERA last year .

 

Maybe you understand the formula after googling it, but you have no idea of what the stat really means.

 

Is like saying .SLG is a flawed stat to measure power hitters because they hit a lot of homers and the formula overvalues homers.

 

No, the difference between FIP and ERA is NOT related to BABIP. FIP only measures strikeouts, walks and home runs. So in effect, FIP measures the opposite of BABIP which measures all hits BUT home runs.

 

There may be a correlation between the BABIP and FIP of some players, but the two stats are completely unrelated. There's a larger correlation between strikeout rates and FIP because FIP actually measures strikeouts.

 

Any correlation between FIP and BABIP is merely coincidental and if you actually looked at the formula rather than trying to act like I didn't know what I was talking about, you'd know that.

 

As I already pointed out, Lackey has the better career ERA by a significant margin and a slightly higher career BABIP than Vazquez, yet Vazquez has the better career FIP. Explain that one if FIP is based on BABIP.

 

Lincecum, Gallardo, Vazquez and Kershaw all had a BABIP below .300, yet they saw major benefits to their FIP because the stat overvalues strikeouts and they had some of the highest strikeout rates in baseball.

[ORS]

They aren't unrelated. BABIP measures what FIP ignores, just on a different scale. When one thing measures something and something else measures what it excludes, specifically what it excludes, I'd call that relationship noncoincidental.

 

The reason FIP ignores the hits that don't leave the park is due to the fact that the stats suggest pitchers do not have complete control over these outcomes. The defense plays a significant role in how often a ball in play gets converted to an out.

 

You may be right that it overvalues K's, but I'd suggest some more consideration before jumping to that conclusion. BABIP is essentially the pitcher's BAA once you eliminate HR and K. The important thing about K's is that 100% (or 99.999%, with the occaissional runner reaching on a passed ball) get converted to outs. The more 100% outs you can produce before relying on the defense, which only averages 70% outs, is important.

[Plumpamania]

You guys are all arguing over a moot point, the point is VAZQUEZ SUCKS IN THE AL.

[Imperial59]

You may be right that it overvalues K's' date=' but I'd suggest some more consideration before jumping to that conclusion. BABIP is essentially the pitcher's BAA once you eliminate HR and K. The important thing about K's is that 100% (or 99.999%, with the occaissional runner reaching on a passed ball) get converted to outs. The more 100% outs you can produce before relying on the defense, which only averages 70% outs, is important.[/quote']

 

How much more consideration do you need? I've demonstrated how the formula for FIP overvalues strikeouts and I've demonstrated how the best strikeout pitchers in the AL have better FIPS than ERA's even though many of them had a BABIP below .300, pitched in pitcher friendly parks and had good defenses behind them.

 

In theory, you're correct that a 99% chance of an out is better than a 70% chance of an out, but it's a weighting issue. Formulas like FIP overvalue strikeouts because they don't take into account the fact that balls put into play and walks outnumber strikeouts by a HUGE margin.

[ORS]

How much more consideration do you need? I've demonstrated how the formula for FIP overvalues strikeouts and I've demonstrated how the best strikeout pitchers in the AL have better FIPS than ERA's even though many of them had a BABIP below .300, pitched in pitcher friendly parks and had good defenses behind them.

 

In theory, you're correct that a 99% chance of an out is better than a 70% chance of an out, but it's a weighting issue. Formulas like FIP overvalue strikeouts because they don't take into account the fact that balls put into play and walks outnumber strikeouts by a HUGE margin.

All of them, or just the anecdotal ones that support your argument?

 

If you look at the top-20 qualified pitchers in K/9 at fangraphs, under the advanced pitching statistics heading, 10 of them had a positive ERA-FIP (supporting your point) and 10 of them had a negative ERA-FIP (countering your point).

 

Correlation? Zero.

[Emmz]

I'm not sure, but I figured I'd ask anyways, of the ten that do have a positive ERA-FIP, and supporting Imperial's point, where are they? Do they have better K/9 than the ones with a negative ERA-FIP, or is it pretty scattered, or is it the other way around?

 

I don't know a lot about advanced stats, I'm just curious.

[Emmz]

You guys are all arguing over a moot point' date=' the point is VAZQUEZ SUCKS IN THE AL.

 

Agreed, and everyone else has agreed on this aside from a few. Vasquez sucks ass in the AL, and last year, as good as it was, and as successful as he's been in the NL, is still a pretty flukey year when compared to his other NL seasons.

[ORS]

I'm not sure, but I figured I'd ask anyways, of the ten that do have a positive ERA-FIP, and supporting Imperial's point, where are they? Do they have better K/9 than the ones with a negative ERA-FIP, or is it pretty scattered, or is it the other way around?

 

I don't know a lot about advanced stats, I'm just curious.

It's scattered.

[Imperial59]

All of them, or just the anecdotal ones that support your argument?

 

If you look at the top-20 qualified pitchers in K/9 at fangraphs, under the advanced pitching statistics heading, 10 of them had a positive ERA-FIP (supporting your point) and 10 of them had a negative ERA-FIP (countering your point).

 

Correlation? Zero.

 

I'm not sure what stats you're looking at, but of the top 20 pitchers in K/9 last year, Lincecum, Verlander, Lester, Vazqeuz, Kershaw, Greinke, Nolasco, De La Rosa, Sherzer, Beckett, Johnson and Billingsley had a better FIP than they did an ERA. And of the top 10 pitchers in K/9 last year, 9 of them had a better FIP than ERA.

 

I wouldn't call that correlation zero.

[Imperial59]

I'm not sure, but I figured I'd ask anyways, of the ten that do have a positive ERA-FIP, and supporting Imperial's point, where are they? Do they have better K/9 than the ones with a negative ERA-FIP, or is it pretty scattered, or is it the other way around?

 

I don't know a lot about advanced stats, I'm just curious.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. I listed the top 10 pitchers in K/9 last year and 9 of the top 10 had a lower FIP than they did an ERA.

 

I don't know of any way to look up the top 10 pitchers with the largest difference between their ERA and FIP.