That's because it was designed to correlate with ERA.
Printable View
That's because it was designed to correlate with ERA.
And this was Voros McKracken's major mistake. NOTHING is out of control of the pitcher. He's the one that holds the ball, and starts the play. EVERY play. If he's gifted enough, he can strike out everyone and all he needs is a catcher and a first baseman in case the catcher misses a couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Jim Palmer pitched, I dunno, can't remember how many years. Lots. and Lots. And Jim Palmer NEVER allowed a grand slam. That's random???
Greg Maddux PROVED for years that the pitcher CAN control BABIP because his was ALWAYS lower than MLB avg. If one pitcher CAN control BABIP, then this proves it CAN be done.
ERA isn't perfect. No stat is or ever will be. But its pretty good. And those who are first to point out the variation in a pitcher's ERA from year to year never seem to make the connection between wins and losses. Sure, a pitcher might have an ERA of 3.28 one year and 5.41 the next. And you know what, I'll wager if you compare those two years that pitcher's team LOST way more of his starts in the latter year than the former. And, when all stats are said and done, there is only one that counts, and that's team wins.
Voros' mistake was saying that pitchers have ZERO control over hits.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Right. Voros' original hypothesis has been disproven. However, it's a fact that hit rate fluctuates more than walk, strikeout, and home run rates, and it's also a fact that hits are far more out of the pitcher's control than those stats. It's also completely logical, as hits are very dependent on the fielders.Quote:
Greg Maddux PROVED for years that the pitcher CAN control BABIP because his was ALWAYS lower than MLB avg. If one pitcher CAN control BABIP, then this proves it CAN be done.
Obviously, because he gave up more runs in the latter year. What's the point here?Quote:
ERA isn't perfect. No stat is or ever will be. But its pretty good. And those who are first to point out the variation in a pitcher's ERA from year to year never seem to make the connection between wins and losses. Sure, a pitcher might have an ERA of 3.28 one year and 5.41 the next. And you know what, I'll wager if you compare those two years that pitcher's team LOST way more of his starts in the latter year than the former.
Well, I guess the point was that it was being argued that somehow DICE is a better indicator of a pitcher's performance, and I would argue that ERA does just fine. Not perfect, but good enough. And I really don't see DICE as some major improvement. But, I'm old, and trying to teach an old dog new tricks is tough. Though I will admit to one relatively new stat that I think IS a major improvement. OPS. That one is relatively new, and I'm sold on that one. I think that DOES sum up a hitter's performance about as well as any single stat could. I mean, when I was a young man, I don't remember hearing the term OPS. So, guess an old dog can learn some new tricks. :)
DICE is a better indicator of how the pitcher pitched, seperate from his defense, and thus, is better to predict future performance. ERA is better when discussing the value a pitcher provided in the past.
After reading these posts and checking the wiki link above, DICE is a pretty good indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness, and again I thank you all for explaining it to me. However, consider: a single, stolen base, wild pitch, sacrifice fly equals the same earned run as a solo homerun. The correlation to ERA is not as consistent as the year to year DICE, as a perusal of my rosters bears out. So, I agree it's not "silly", it's actually quite useful, especially when considering player moves. (Never would have moved Joe Gibbon back to the bullpen if I had known how to read that stat.) I also now see why one of my pitcher's ERA has gone from around 5 to 3.66 in 3 years... my defense and catching has improved, so all those grounders are being turned into outs. His DICE has fluctuated less than half a run over that time.
For a real-life example of what I mentioned in the above post, check out Tom Glavine's early career.
Yep. A real-life example is the entire Rays team. Last year, they were near last, if not last (don't have the time to look it up right now), in runs allowed, and this year, they're competing for the AL East, despite only being slightly better offensively. They've done this by vastly improving their defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaja
Glavine is an example of a player who routinely "outperformed" his peripheral numbers, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaja
its under my bed next to the handcuffs :p
Here is a Q&A from 'The Book' blog. The question is answered by MGL, one of the authors. (DICE, DIPS, FIP, etc are component based ERAs)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewOsborn
Quote:
Component v ERA - why the gap?
Q: Why is Carlos Zambrano's era always so much better than his fip?
A: I am no expert on FIP (In fact, it is Tango's invention I think), but for one thing, FIP is NOT an unbiased estimate of a pitcher's true run prevention talent. There is some bias inherent in the stat, by definition. For example, since it doesn't include non-HR hits, and we KNOW that pitcher have SOME control over their BABIP, it will not accurately reflect a pitcher's true BABIP. Maybe Carlos' true BABIP is a little lower than league average. If it is, than we would expect his FIP to overstate his expected ERA. FIP also does not include a pitcher's WP (wild pitch) rate, which is obviously reflected in his ERA. So to for the SB/CS rate that a pitcher is responsible for.
And even if FIP were an exact proxy for ERA (which it isn't), we would expect plenty of pitchers to have ERA's different from their FIP's, by chance alone. So your question does not really have an answer other than, "We expect pitchers' ERAs to be different from their FIPs's by chance AND because FIP is a biased, and not nearly exact, estimate of ERA.
All FIP (or DIPS ERA) does is eliminate the noise (and a little bit of the skill) in BABIP. That allows us to get a better estimate of a pitcher's run prevention skill, in the short run. In the long run, ERA, RA or ERC is MUCH better because it captures the differences in BABIP skill among pitchers, as well as the other things I mentioned above that contribute to a pitcher's run prevention skill but are not addressed at all in FIP (like WP rate)--Mgl 13:39, 2 June 2008 (PDT)).
Hrm, don't know if this is bad form to bump an old thread, but I was searching the board for something else and ran across this and couldn't resist replying.
Well, this example is patently absurd if you ask me. In the quote below, talking about the 1999 season, I think Maddux has a BABIP of something like .333, which was so far above his career average it's unbelievable. There's also a quote from Maddux himself on this year which I couldn't find on Google, but he basically says it felt like every time batter hit the ball that season it dropped into a gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Quote:
The pitchers who are the best at preventing hits on balls in play one year are often the worst at it the next. In 1998, Greg Maddux had one of the best rates in baseball, then in 1999 he had one of the worst. In 2000, he had one of the better ones again. In 1999, Pedro Martinez had one of the worst; in 2000, he had the best. This happens a lot.
DICE may be a good stat in real life, but I think it's somehow horribly flawed in Mogul simulation engine to the point where I don't even look at it anymore. I can find dozens of examples of pitchers whose career ERAs will be at least a half run lower or higher than their DICE, and its easy to look at the ratings and determine who those will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Of course, that .334 BABIP sticks out like a sore thumb in his career, which features a .289 career number. Pitchers do have some degree of control over BABIP. Certain types of pitchers have more control. Knuckleball pitchers, for example. Also, flyball pitchers, because flyballs fall for hits less than groundballs. Chris Young has a .266 career BABIP. He's also one of the most extreme flyball pitchers there is, routinely posting flyball percentages over 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfeedback
This is because of the sim engine not modeling real life when it comes to pitchers, with an abundance of power pitchers that gave up tons of hits, and high movement/low power pitchers that did great. This has been changed for BM2010.Quote:
DICE may be a good stat in real life, but I think it's somehow horribly flawed in Mogul simulation engine to the point where I don't even look at it anymore. I can find dozens of examples of pitchers whose career ERAs will be at least a half run lower or higher than their DICE, and its easy to look at the ratings and determine who those will be.
Yeah, DICE was absolute garbage in 2k9. Also, BABIP and all BABIP-related conversations make me happy.
I read something that lefty extreme flyball pitchers tend to have lower career BABIPs also. They give up more homers though, so that's the tradeoff.
I'm extremely happy with Clay's tweaking to BABIP overall in 2010. The pitching problems have been much more in line with real life.