2016-2017 Offseason Trade Speculation Thread

Kimmi · December 29, 2016

When it comes to young pitchers, it's a good idea not to let recent "stats" determine a pitcher's "future" performance. Look at their "potential." Rodriguez has "ace like" stuff. I actually think he has better "stuff" than Price does at this point.

He also suffered a pretty serious knee injury and was tipping his pitches due to a glitch in his delivery. My guess is that these are a couple of factors that contributed to his "stats." That and the fact that he's young with less experience.

Ask yourself this. How many baseball executives would trade Rodriguez straight up for Pomeranz or Wright? My guess would be not one. If Rodriguez is not 100% or has an awful spring, by all means, send him to Pawtucket. If not, he's your #4 with the potential to be your future #1.

I agree with you that ERod has a lot of potential. I also think it's possible that he has a breakout year this year. I'm not in any way trying to knock him, though it may seem otherwise. I really like the guy.

The stats I posted were more in defense of Pomeranz not being put in the pen.

That said, my opinion that it's not a bad idea to start ERod in AAA has not changed. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about keeping him down all season or even most of the season.

Kimmi · December 29, 2016

I'm still not convinced, and the proof I asked for is just the creator saying it is the best.

There is no adjustments made for pitchers with low k rates who consistently get hitters to hit into outs.

Again, I respect the attempt to minimize the impact of fielders on a pitcher's success, but by totally removing it from the equation, the low k great pitchers are penalized.

They have Wright as below avg while his ERA- was tremendous. That's a metric that also accounts for several factors.

The proof is not just the creator saying it's the best. He statistically tested it in several ways. He showed that it does not work quite as well as some other stats in terms of describing what has happened but that it correlates the best to predicting RE24. Notice that cFIP and other DIPS stats have a stronger correlation to RE24 than ERA or ERA- do.

The data is out there for anyone to test and/or dispute, and I'm sure that other stat geeks have done so.

In the simplest sense, high strikeout rate is a good indicator of a good pitcher.

moonslav59 · December 29, 2016

In the simplest sense, high strikeout rate is a good indicator of a good pitcher.

This is the false assumption that irks me.

There are countless examples of low K pitchers that had long careers of consistent low ERA- and WHIP.

Blaming that on the fielders behind these types of pitchers is missing a whole group of top quality pitchers.

Any system that ranks Wright;s 2015 season as below average is seriously flawed.

BTW, I saw zero evidence that "proves" this system is a better system than others.

Wright's score proves it can't be.

Kimmi · December 29, 2016

In the simplest sense, high strikeout rate is a good indicator of a good pitcher.

This is the false assumption that irks me.

There are countless examples of low K pitchers that had long careers of consistent low ERA- and WHIP.

Blaming that on the fielders behind these types of pitchers is missing a whole group of top quality pitchers.

Any system that ranks Wright;s 2015 season as below average is seriously flawed.

BTW, I saw zero evidence that "proves" this system is a better system than others.

Wright's score proves it can't be.

It's not a false assumption. That's not to say that there aren't very good pitchers that have low K rates. But as a general rule of thumb, if you see a high K rate and low BB rate, you'll see a very good pitcher, and if you see a very good pitcher, you'll see a high K rate and low BB rate. Again, that's not to say that there aren't exceptions. However, K and BB rates are stable predictors of success.

As far as cFIP being the better predictor of future performance than the other stats, the tables provided in that link support that. One, or even several, counterexamples do not disprove anything. There are always going to be exceptions to the general rule of thumb.

moonslav59 · December 30, 2016

It's not a false assumption. That's not to say that there aren't very good pitchers that have low K rates. But as a general rule of thumb, if you see a high K rate and low BB rate, you'll see a very good pitcher, and if you see a very good pitcher, you'll see a high K rate and low BB rate. Again, that's not to say that there aren't exceptions. However, K and BB rates are stable predictors of success.

As far as cFIP being the better predictor of future performance than the other stats, the tables provided in that link support that. One, or even several, counterexamples do not disprove anything. There are always going to be exceptions to the general rule of thumb.

There are too many exceptions to "the rule" that are too obvious to ignore.

While a strong correlation does exist between high Ks and good pitchers or as a predictor to future good pitching, it continually misses out on accurately valuing great low K pitchers season after season after season. It's not like a fluke outlier season here and there that don't fit into the formula; it is a large group of pitchers that are continuously short-changed, because they force batters to hit the ball weakly for outs instead of striking out more batters.

Look, I get that a guy who Ks a lot of batters compared to the norm is usually a better pitcher than one that Ks less than the norm, but some high K pitchers also let up a lot of hits, HRs or BBs, but their high K totals make them better pitchers using this formula than someone who lets up less hits and BBs per nine, but Ks way less. Just because the fielding portion of a pitcher's performance is removed from the equation, doesn't automatically make it a better formula than one that accounts for pitchers getting more outs and allowing less extra base hits than high K pitchers.

Since 1986, these are the top starters by ERA- (2500+ IP) with K/9 rates:

67 Pedro 10.0

69 Clemens 8.6

75 Randy J 10.6

76 Maddux 6.1

76 Halladay 7.0

78 Brown 6.6

78 Oswalt 7.4

79 Felix 8.4

79 Schilling 8.6

80 Saberhagen 6.2

xFIP (K/9)

3.17 Schilling 8.6

3.23 Randy J 10.6

3.23 Halladay 7.0

3.24 Felix H 8.4

3.41 C Carpernter 6.9

3.42 Hammels 8.6

3.44 Pedro 10.0

3.45 J Smoltz 7.9

3.50 Greinke 8.1

3.50 Clemens 8.6

Greg Maddux is 23rd at 3.73 all because of his relatively low K rate. His 1.14 WHIP is third best, but according to this formula, that's secondary to getting Ks instead of ground outs or pop outs.

Sorry, I can't drink that kool aid.

The worst pitchers in this era according to FIP are:

4.88 Suppan 4.9 K/9 (104 ERA-)

4.82 Trachel 5.74 (101)

4.77 Wakefield 5.9 (97)

4.70 Garland 4.8 (98)

4.65 Williams 5.9 (98)

4.52 B Arroyo 5.8 (98)

4.48 J Moyer 5.4 (97)

4.44 K Rogers 5.1 (94)

Really? Wake is the 76th best pitcher out of 79 in this era?

All these guys have low K rates, yet they are ranked behind of these guys in FIP:

4.43 B Witt 7.2 (112) 112 for God's sake!!!!

4.38 Astacio 6.8 (105)

4.38 Dempster 7.8 (104)

4.27 Harang 7.1 (104)

4.24 R Wolf 7.0 (101)

4.11 E Santana 7.2 (99)

These guys are really better than Wake and Rogers? Bobby Witt had a freakin 1.57 WHIP career!

These sample sizes are too large to be outliers or some freaky fluke. They are examples of serious flaws in any system that places too much value on K rates and not on getting hitters to make outs.

Edited December 30, 2016 by moonslav59

notin · December 30, 2016

It's not a false assumption. That's not to say that there aren't very good pitchers that have low K rates. But as a general rule of thumb, if you see a high K rate and low BB rate, you'll see a very good pitcher, and if you see a very good pitcher, you'll see a high K rate and low BB rate. Again, that's not to say that there aren't exceptions. However, K and BB rates are stable predictors of success.

As far as cFIP being the better predictor of future performance than the other stats, the tables provided in that link support that. One, or even several, counterexamples do not disprove anything. There are always going to be exceptions to the general rule of thumb.

I do think there is a very big difference between"high strikeout rate" and "high strikeout rate and low walk rate."

And that difference puts us squarely in JoeBrady Country. I don't think he ever cited a pitching stat except K/BB...

moonslav59 · December 30, 2016

I do think there is a very big difference between"high strikeout rate" and "high strikeout rate and low walk rate."

And that difference puts us squarely in JoeBrady Country. I don't think he ever cited a pitching stat except K/BB...

Some very good K/BB rate pitchers with lower than 7.00 K/9 rates still fair badly with FIP related metrics.

To me, low WHIP and low OPS against is way more important than K% or K/9.

Kimmi · December 30, 2016

There are too many exceptions to "the rule" that are too obvious to ignore.

While a strong correlation does exist between high Ks and good pitchers or as a predictor to future good pitching, it continually misses out on accurately valuing great low K pitchers season after season after season. It's not like a fluke outlier season here and there that don't fit into the formula; it is a large group of pitchers that are continuously short-changed, because they force batters to hit the ball weakly for outs instead of striking out more batters.

Look, I get that a guy who Ks a lot of batters compared to the norm is usually a better pitcher than one that Ks less than the norm, but some high K pitchers also let up a lot of hits, HRs or BBs, but their high K totals make them better pitchers using this formula than someone who lets up less hits and BBs per nine, but Ks way less. Just because the fielding portion of a pitcher's performance is removed from the equation, doesn't automatically make it a better formula than one that accounts for pitchers getting more outs and allowing less extra base hits than high K pitchers.

Since 1986, these are the top starters by ERA- (2500+ IP) with K/9 rates:

67 Pedro 10.0
69 Clemens 8.6
75 Randy J 10.6
76 Maddux 6.1
76 Halladay 7.0
78 Brown 6.6
78 Oswalt 7.4
79 Felix 8.4
79 Schilling 8.6
80 Saberhagen 6.2

xFIP (K/9)
3.17 Schilling 8.6
3.23 Randy J 10.6
3.23 Halladay 7.0
3.24 Felix H 8.4
3.41 C Carpernter 6.9
3.42 Hammels 8.6
3.44 Pedro 10.0
3.45 J Smoltz 7.9
3.50 Greinke 8.1
3.50 Clemens 8.6

Greg Maddux is 23rd at 3.73 all because of his relatively low K rate. His 1.14 WHIP is third best, but according to this formula, that's secondary to getting Ks instead of ground outs or pop outs.

Sorry, I can't drink that kool aid.

The worst pitchers in this era according to FIP are:
4.88 Suppan 4.9 K/9 (104 ERA-)
4.82 Trachel 5.74 (101)
4.77 Wakefield 5.9 (97)
4.70 Garland 4.8 (98)
4.65 Williams 5.9 (98)
4.52 B Arroyo 5.8 (98)
4.48 J Moyer 5.4 (97)
4.44 K Rogers 5.1 (94)
Really? Wake is the 76th best pitcher out of 79 in this era?
All these guys have low K rates, yet they are ranked behind of these guys in FIP:

4.43 B Witt 7.2 (112) 112 for God's sake!!!!
4.38 Astacio 6.8 (105)
4.38 Dempster 7.8 (104)
4.27 Harang 7.1 (104)
4.24 R Wolf 7.0 (101)
4.11 E Santana 7.2 (99)

These guys are really better than Wake and Rogers? Bobby Witt had a freakin 1.57 WHIP career!

These sample sizes are too large to be outliers or some freaky fluke. They are examples of serious flaws in any system that places too much value on K rates and not on getting hitters to make outs.

First off, we both know and agree that you can never get a complete assessment of any player based off of one stat. I would never try to determine who the best pitchers are based on FIP only.

However, the fact remains (and it is a proven fact) that DIP stats (FIP and all its cousins, SIERA, etc.) are better predictors of a pitcher's future performance than ERA stats are. None of the stats are that great, just by the very nature of how difficult it is to predict future performance, but stats that rely mostly on Ks and BBs do the best job.

I do agree that there are several pitchers who are very good without high strike out rates. But listing example after example is anecdotal evidence. It does not prove or disprove anything.

Kimmi · December 30, 2016

I do think there is a very big difference between"high strikeout rate" and "high strikeout rate and low walk rate."

And that difference puts us squarely in JoeBrady Country. I don't think he ever cited a pitching stat except K/BB...

That is a valid point.

LOL about JoeBrady Country. Joe remains one of my favorite posters. You are absolutely right about him always citing K/BB. There is a reason for that. It's a very simple stat, yet very effective.

moonslav59 · December 31, 2016

First off, we both know and agree that you can never get a complete assessment of any player based off of one stat. I would never try to determine who the best pitchers are based on FIP only.

However, the fact remains (and it is a proven fact) that DIP stats (FIP and all its cousins, SIERA, etc.) are better predictors of a pitcher's future performance than ERA stats are. None of the stats are that great, just by the very nature of how difficult it is to predict future performance, but stats that rely mostly on Ks and BBs do the best job.

I do agree that there are several pitchers who are very good without high strike out rates. But listing example after example is anecdotal evidence. It does not prove or disprove anything.

I've never argued ERA is a better measure. I will argue a pitcher with a consistently low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP will continue to do so, regardless of K%.

Show me the evidence that high K% projects a better ERA- the following season than previous ERA-, OPS against or WHIP does.

Just because there are more good ERA- pitchers with higher K%s than lower K%s does not mean it is an accurate predictor of individual pitcher projections. If a low K pitcher continuously puts up low ERA- numbers, I'd reject K% projections. Same with high K guys with higher ERA- histories. I'll project continued higher ERA-s based on his career trend.

I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show some pitcher's previous low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP did not lead to continued success, and maybe higher K% guys in this category fared better than low K% guys, but to me the hole in the fielding independent metrics is too large to respect its outcomes.

Take Hideo Nomo; the guy has the 13th best K%(22.7%) since 1986, yet his ERA- (which adjusts for park and other factors) is 101. From 1996 to 2003 he had over 150 IP every year. His best ERA- (77) season after his rookie year came after one of his worst K% seasons (20.8%). His 2003 season with his lowest ERA- since his rookie year was also his worst K% season (19.7%).

His worst two ERA- seasons (1997 & 1998) were both seasons that saw his K% 3% higher than his career norm. BTW, 5 of his first 9 seasons saw his ERA- above 99.

jacksonianmarch · December 31, 2016

The high K rate pitchers leave less up to chance. Thing is, BABIP is effectively an average across all players. There will always be guys below and above that mean. There are some truly special pitchers able to induce hitters into weak contact and hence command a lower BABIP on a yearly basis. For a guy like Wright, you don't have a track record to cling to and say he's a guy whose always below the mean. And he's the most chance determined pitcher of all, as he flutters a ball up there at BP speeds and hopes the lack of rotation induces weak contact.

Bellhorn04 · December 31, 2016

The high K rate pitchers leave less up to chance. Thing is, BABIP is effectively an average across all players. There will always be guys below and above that mean. There are some truly special pitchers able to induce hitters into weak contact and hence command a lower BABIP on a yearly basis. For a guy like Wright, you don't have a track record to cling to and say he's a guy whose always below the mean. And he's the most chance determined pitcher of all, as he flutters a ball up there at BP speeds and hopes the lack of rotation induces weak contact.

What about groundball specialists? They may not necessarily induce weak contact, but they throw mostly sinkers that induce hitters to beat the ball into the ground.

notin · December 31, 2016

Some very good K/BB rate pitchers with lower than 7.00 K/9 rates still fair badly with FIP related metrics.

To me, low WHIP and low OPS against is way more important than K% or K/9.

The worst stat ever to evaluate a pitcher is ERA. Too much of it is dependant on other players, and its universal acceptance as the ultimate evaluator pitchers is simply due to laziness. (I use it myself a lot. It's easy, accepted and understood.)

I like FIP and K/BB because at least these are things the pitcher can control. Fangraphs has some excellent stats like Zone% and Contact% which, when combined properly, can show you some real hidden gem pitchers ready to break out. Toying around with those was when I found Danny Salazar was surprisingly good after last season, like really surprisingly good. Like one of the best pitchers in baseball good. And he started out that way this year before getting hurt.

oldtimer · December 31, 2016

Some very good K/BB rate pitchers with lower than 7.00 K/9 rates still fair badly with FIP related metrics.

To me, low WHIP and low OPS against is way more important than K% or K/9.

Maddux was one of the great pitchers baseball has produced with 22+ seasons of pitching. He had great control and movement. I believe his SO/BB rate for his entire career was 3.37 but for his best year was more than double that. Ryan on the other hand was an example of a flamethrower who was effectively wild. Different styles work at the highest levels.

moonslav59 · December 31, 2016

The worst stat ever to evaluate a pitcher is ERA. Too much of it is dependant on other players, and its universal acceptance as the ultimate evaluator pitchers is simply due to laziness. (I use it myself a lot. It's easy, accepted and understood.)

I like FIP and K/BB because at least these are things the pitcher can control. Fangraphs has some excellent stats like Zone% and Contact% which, when combined properly, can show you some real hidden gem pitchers ready to break out. Toying around with those was when I found Danny Salazar was surprisingly good after last season, like really surprisingly good. Like one of the best pitchers in baseball good. And he started out that way this year before getting hurt.

I respect the stats and metrics that try to take the fielding of the team behind the pitcher out of consideration, but there is a systemic flaw as it pertains to how they value low K rate pitchers who continuously get batters to hit into outs--even on poor fielding teams. I realize those types of pitchers are not too common, so that's probably the reason high K% rate is easier (or better) to project how pitchers will do going forward.

While low K% pitchers who do very well might not be too common, there's a big enough subset of pitchers in this group that rated too lowly due to poorer FIP related numbers due to lower Ks.

,

I agree that ERA is flawed, and so is ERA- and ERA+, and since just the labeling of an error is so subjective, these numbers are bound to be flawed as well, but the bottom line for a pitcher is ultimately not to allow runs. Extremely low BAbip or high LOB% can skew the numbers based on luck, so I see the reasoning behind trying to lessen their influence on a metric trying to determine how well a pitcher did over a given period, but to me, it should not be totally eliminated.

moonslav59 · December 31, 2016

Maddux was one of the great pitchers baseball has produced with 22+ seasons of pitching. He had great control and movement. I believe his SO/BB rate for his entire career was 3.37 but for his best year was more than double that. Ryan on the other hand was an example of a flamethrower who was effectively wild. Different styles work at the highest levels.

I like Nolan Ryan, but he was not better than Maddux. Although I believe Ryan had the best H/9 rate SINCE 1966, his 4.7 BB/9 rate was horrible.

FIP has him as the best pitcher with over 4000 IP since 1966- significantly ahead of Maddux(2.97 to 3.26) .

WHIP

Maddux 1.14 (.281 BAbip)

N Ryan 1.25 (.265 BAbip)

ERA-

Maddux 76

N Ryan 90

To be fair, FIP- has Maddux ahead of Ryan (76 to 83),b ut with an ERA- difference that large over two huge sample sizes, Maddux should be clearly the better pitcerh, and FIP related metrics short change him (and others with low K% rates).

Kimmi · December 31, 2016

I've never argued ERA is a better measure. I will argue a pitcher with a consistently low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP will continue to do so, regardless of K%.

Show me the evidence that high K% projects a better ERA- the following season than previous ERA-, OPS against or WHIP does.

Just because there are more good ERA- pitchers with higher K%s than lower K%s does not mean it is an accurate predictor of individual pitcher projections. If a low K pitcher continuously puts up low ERA- numbers, I'd reject K% projections. Same with high K guys with higher ERA- histories. I'll project continued higher ERA-s based on his career trend.

I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show some pitcher's previous low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP did not lead to continued success, and maybe higher K% guys in this category fared better than low K% guys, but to me the hole in the fielding independent metrics is too large to respect its outcomes.

Take Hideo Nomo; the guy has the 13th best K%(22.7%) since 1986, yet his ERA- (which adjusts for park and other factors) is 101. From 1996 to 2003 he had over 150 IP every year. His best ERA- (77) season after his rookie year came after one of his worst K% seasons (20.8%). His 2003 season with his lowest ERA- since his rookie year was also his worst K% season (19.7%).

His worst two ERA- seasons (1997 & 1998) were both seasons that saw his K% 3% higher than his career norm. BTW, 5 of his first 9 seasons saw his ERA- above 99.

The evidence I have read is not anecdotal. It is statistical evidence. Listing a bunch of examples is anecdotal evidence. It does not prove or disprove anything. It is widely accepted in the sabermetric community that Ks for pitchers are very good and that SIERA, FIP, etc. are better predictors of future ERA than ERA or ERA- are.

I am pretty sure that I've provided links to you before showing the statistical evidence.

Fangraphs has a very cool tool that allows you to find the correlation between any two pitching stats. (There is a separate tool for hitting stats for anyone interested.)

Here is how different stats correlate to ERA- the following year:

K% -.361

K/9 -.341

ERA- .301

WHIP .260

wOBA against (They don't have OPS against, but wOBA is better anyway) .301

SIERA .390

FIP .331

xFIP .341

Surprisingly, simple K% does a better job in this study than FIP or xFIP does. I've seen other studies where FIP and xFIP are better, but that was comparing to future ERA, not ERA-. But you can see that any of the DIPS stats, which rely heavily on Ks, do better than the 3 stats that you mentioned.

I'm not saying that ERA-, WHIP, or wOBA are bad stats. They aren't.

Here is the link if you want to play around with it yourself.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tool-basically-every-pitching-stat-correlation/

Hugh2 · December 31, 2016

The thing about baseball is you can find ancedotal evidence everywhere. There will always be examples to disprove what is otherwise generally correct. For example I can say there's good evidence that the more swing and miss in a players game the less value that player will have. Yet some players such as Chris Davis, Mark Trumbo and Kris Bryant seem to be just fine in spite.

moonslav59 · December 31, 2016

The evidence I have read is not anecdotal. It is statistical evidence. Listing a bunch of examples is anecdotal evidence. It does not prove or disprove anything. It is widely accepted in the sabermetric community that Ks for pitchers are very good and that SIERA, FIP, etc. are better predictors of future ERA than ERA or ERA- are.

I am pretty sure that I've provided links to you before showing the statistical evidence.

Fangraphs has a very cool tool that allows you to find the correlation between any two pitching stats. (There is a separate tool for hitting stats for anyone interested.)

Here is how different stats correlate to ERA- the following year:

K% -.361
K/9 -.341
ERA- .301
WHIP .260
wOBA against (They don't have OPS against, but wOBA is better anyway) .301
SIERA .390
FIP .331
xFIP .341

Surprisingly, simple K% does a better job in this study than FIP or xFIP does. I've seen other studies where FIP and xFIP are better, but that was comparing to future ERA, not ERA-. But you can see that any of the DIPS stats, which rely heavily on Ks, do better than the 3 stats that you mentioned.

I'm not saying that ERA-, WHIP, or wOBA are bad stats. They aren't.

Here is the link if you want to play around with it yourself.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tool-basically-every-pitching-stat-correlation/

I've accepted that K% is a better predictor for most pitchers and the league as a whole. The stats show this. Anecdotal evidence is not meaningless, however, as a whole (large) class of pitchers are short-changed. It's not an outlier when you're talking 4000 IP sample sizes. Pitchers like Maddux should not be rated poorly for not getting K outs instead of GB outs.

My point is about evaluating a pitcher's performance in the past. To me, a combination of ERA-, WHIP and OPS against or wOBA show how well a pitcher did more than FIP, xFIP or other metrics that discount value due to low K%.

I do value xFIP and use it as part of my evaluation of how good a pitcher is. I do think Ks matter and K/BB as well.

moonslav59 · December 31, 2016

The thing about baseball is you can find ancedotal evidence everywhere. There will always be examples to disprove what is otherwise generally correct. For example I can say there's good evidence that the more swing and miss in a players game the less value that player will have. Yet some players such as Chris Davis, Mark Trumbo and Kris Bryant seem to be just fine in spite.

I realize that high K rates correlate closely with good pitching, but that's not the same as saying a player should be judged significantly by high K rates at the expense of lower wOBA, WHIP and ERA-..

jacksonianmarch · January 1, 2017

I wouldn't say ERA is the worst stat ever. It's the most important stat, but it has many variables and lots of luck involved. How many runs you allow per 9 is the ultimate stat because the game is decided by runs. The problem is, the stat can be influenced by luck, fielders, ballpark etc. that's what the secondary stats are for. Those help reaffirm the ERA or cast doubt on it. If you have a low K rate pitcher on the market with a low ERA but a much higher FIP or xFIP, you'd be leery about giving that player money. Guys with better peripherals seem to get paid better than guys with low ERA, but there are a lot of pitcher who continually put up s***** ERA's with great peripherals and secondary stats. Those guys aren't worth money either

Dojji · January 1, 2017

I like Nolan Ryan, but he was not better than Maddux. Although I believe Ryan had the best H/9 rate SINCE 1966, his 4.7 BB/9 rate was horrible.

FIP has him as the best pitcher with over 4000 IP since 1966- significantly ahead of Maddux(2.97 to 3.26) .

WHIP
Maddux 1.14 (.281 BAbip)
N Ryan 1.25 (.265 BAbip)

ERA-
Maddux 76
N Ryan 90

To be fair, FIP- has Maddux ahead of Ryan (76 to 83),b ut with an ERA- difference that large over two huge sample sizes, Maddux should be clearly the better pitcerh, and FIP related metrics short change him (and others with low K% rates).

Of course FIP favors Ryan, he was a true outcomes pitcher who threw a lot more strikeouts. FIP ignores balls in play, and Maddux was a master at pitching to contact. Pitchers like Maddux are why FIP stats are manipulated with FIP- and xFIP

Kimmi · January 1, 2017

I've accepted that K% is a better predictor for most pitchers and the league as a whole. The stats show this. Anecdotal evidence is not meaningless, however, as a whole (large) class of pitchers are short-changed. It's not an outlier when you're talking 4000 IP sample sizes. Pitchers like Maddux should not be rated poorly for not getting K outs instead of GB outs.

My point is about evaluating a pitcher's performance in the past. To me, a combination of ERA-, WHIP and OPS against or wOBA show how well a pitcher did more than FIP, xFIP or other metrics that discount value due to low K%.

I do value xFIP and use it as part of my evaluation of how good a pitcher is. I do think Ks matter and K/BB as well.

Fair enough. I do agree that there are pitchers who can be very effective with low K rates.

I think the point that both of us agree on is to use as many tools as possible to get the best overall assessment.

Kimmi · January 1, 2017

I wouldn't say ERA is the worst stat ever. It's the most important stat, but it has many variables and lots of luck involved. How many runs you allow per 9 is the ultimate stat because the game is decided by runs. The problem is, the stat can be influenced by luck, fielders, ballpark etc. that's what the secondary stats are for. Those help reaffirm the ERA or cast doubt on it. If you have a low K rate pitcher on the market with a low ERA but a much higher FIP or xFIP, you'd be leery about giving that player money. Guys with better peripherals seem to get paid better than guys with low ERA, but there are a lot of pitcher who continually put up s***** ERA's with great peripherals and secondary stats. Those guys aren't worth money either

I agree that ERA is not the worst stat ever. That would go to Wins, Saves, and Holds, not necessarily in that order. However, judging a pitcher by ERA alone would be a huge, huge mistake. I don't think anyone here does that, but there are still plenty of people who do.

moonslav59 · January 1, 2017

Of course FIP favors Ryan, he was a true outcomes pitcher who threw a lot more strikeouts. FIP ignores balls in play, and Maddux was a master at pitching to contact. Pitchers like Maddux are why FIP stats are manipulated with FIP- and xFIP

But, even those stats rely heavily on high Ks. They might bring Maddux up, but still short changes a large group of great low K% pitchers.66

moonslav59 · January 1, 2017

I agree that ERA is not the worst stat ever. That would go to Wins, Saves, and Holds, not necessarily in that order. However, judging a pitcher by ERA alone would be a huge, huge mistake. I don't think anyone here does that, but there are still plenty of people who do.

ERA- and ERA+ are both "better" or "more important" stats than ERA.

Since most of us use OPS or wOBA to judge hitters' effectiveness, I feel OPS against and wOBA against should be a major tool used to judge a pitcher's skill level. Of course, some pitchers face much tougher opponents and play in different parks, so OPS- or wOBA- should be used to help adjust for those factors.

notin · January 1, 2017

I agree that ERA is not the worst stat ever. That would go to Wins, Saves, and Holds, not necessarily in that order. However, judging a pitcher by ERA alone would be a huge, huge mistake. I don't think anyone here does that, but there are still plenty of people who do.

I have to agree wins and saves are worse. My bad. But ERA in my opinion is overused, relied on heavily and often misunderstood. It might be the least reliable stat for evaluating a pitcher after wins, etc.

Yet I'll probably continue using it, because it's relatable. ..

Kimmi · January 1, 2017

ERA- and ERA+ are both "better" or "more important" stats than ERA.

Since most of us use OPS or wOBA to judge hitters' effectiveness, I feel OPS against and wOBA against should be a major tool used to judge a pitcher's skill level. Of course, some pitchers face much tougher opponents and play in different parks, so OPS- or wOBA- should be used to help adjust for those factors.

I like ERA- better than both ERA and ERA+.

Which stats you look at depends on exactly what it is you're trying to assess with in a pitcher. Again, the more you look at, the better the overall assessment will be.

Kimmi · January 1, 2017

I have to agree wins and saves are worse. My bad. But ERA in my opinion is overused, relied on heavily and often misunderstood. It might be the least reliable stat for evaluating a pitcher after wins, etc.

Yet I'll probably continue using it, because it's relatable. ..

Yeah, I understood your point, and I completely agree about ERA.

And like you, I will probably continue to use it as well.

moonslav59 · January 1, 2017

I like ERA- better than both ERA and ERA+.

Which stats you look at depends on exactly what it is you're trying to assess with in a pitcher. Again, the more you look at, the better the overall assessment will be.

For years, I have mostly used just these stats/metrics to value SP'ers past performance (in order of importance):

1) ERA-

2) OPS against

3) WHIP

4) WAR

5) xFIP-

It's not easy to find the league leaders in OPS against or wOBA against or better yet OPS+ against/wOBAplus or minus against.

Sign In

2016-2017 Offseason Trade Speculation Thread

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates