Printable View
BM used to include WHIP as one of the pitching stats, a very useful, easy to understand, and descriptive measurement. This has been replaced by something called DICE. Can someone please tell me what this is, how it is calculated (and I know I will regret that), and if it has any relation to actual baseball as played by human beings, or is it just another silly Sabermetric abomination?
First off, you can still view WHIP. On the pitching dialog, change the stat dropdown to "Sabermetric."
DICE is Defensive-Independent Component ERA. It estimates a pitcher's ERA based on his home runs allowed, walks and hit batters, and strikeouts. It has relation to actual baseball as played by human beings, just as every other "silly sabermetric abomination" does.
I would like to see WHIP as one of the stats on the Scouting Card. Its a great stat to tell how good a pitcher is performing.
Technically, WHIP, is "sabermetric".Quote:
Originally Posted by gosensgo101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics
Technically, every statistic is "sabermetric" since all "sabermetrics" is is "statistical analysis." But, alas, ignorance will prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
But if every statistic is sabermetric, then there aren't any statistics to analyse are there.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosensgo101
:(
If every statistic is sabermetric, then there wouldn't be any statistics to analyse to create the sabremetrics.
Meh.
All sabermetrics is is statistical analysis. Sometimes, new stats come out of that analysis. All in all, though, all stats are just stats, and they each tell you something different, whether they're a "counting stat" that just tallies the totals of an event, like doubles or home runs, or they're a "rate stat" that tells you the rate at which certain events happen, or a stat that takes into account a bunch of other stats. So, really, whether or not a stat is "sabermetric" means nothing. They're just stats.
I know what you're saying. Sabremetrics tend to build off of the 'components'. But alas, nitpickers will prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosensgo101
OK, I get it now. Defense independent measures those things that defense can't prevent, like HR's, walks, HB. I am still fuzzy on how this predicts a pitcher's ERA for the following season, since that assumes a dynamic that likewise cannot be controlled, but at least I know how to read that stat. Thank you, and, yes, I am a world-renowned nitpicker. Heehee.
It just tends to because the components that make up DICE are less likely to fluctuate, so if you can assume little change in the components, then you can assume next years components will be the same. Thats the meat of it. The gravy is the weighting of the components to coincide with typical ERA's.
No. Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosensgo101
Its already there. Add up his hits and walks and compare that to his innings pitched.
We could leave batting average out as well, as at bats and hits are "already there"Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Just switch to Sabermetric view and it's there. Or eyeball it.
I like DICE because while it may not be a good predictor of next year's ERA (let alone this year's), it seems to be a more reliable measure of a pitcher's worth. Not the only one by any possible stretch, but it tells me if he's losing it but his defense is saving his butt, or he's doing great but I really need to take a closer look at my defenders. In that respect DICE also gives me insight into my entire defense. If ALL the pitchers have DICE < ERA, then I need to find out who can't field for beans.
Yes, you could. As well as ERA. Not a fan at all of a lot of this newfangled sabermetric junk. Some of its helpful, some of its garbage. I guess my overall distaste led me to being a smarta$$ with that post. You properly reminded me of that. Point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellio
As belial said, it's because the pitcher's underlying peripheral stats, the ones he has basically 100% control over - walks, strikeouts, home runs - are more stable from year-to-year. Hit rate plays a huge role in ERA, but it fluctuates a lot more than walks, K's, and HR's, as it is highly affected by the defense behind the pitcher. As Clay indicates in his article on DICE, he ran regressions to figure out the coefficients that would best correlate DICE with ERA, and since DICE is more stable than ERA, it's a better predictor of the futrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaja
Dice is a somewhat helpful stat, but I don't get the argument that they're trying to make(on the SportsMogul link previously posted) that ERA isn't a true indicator of a pitcher's ability.
"The pitcher might have given up several home runs with the bases loaded, causing his ERA to be higher than it would have been if the home runs had been distributed randomly throughout the season"
This IS an indicator of their ability, lack of ability to get through a pressure situation, thus increasing the likelihood of this happenning in the future with every time that it occurs. It's not "random" when they give up a homerun.
"Let it Whip" is a great song.
Oh boy, NOW you've done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewOsborn
It is affected by many things out of the pitcher's control.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewOsborn
So is DICE and so is every stat, because every play involves from 10 to 13 players. DICE is less affected by non pitcher things, though I'll give you that. That being said, with all this push for WPA notoriety around here it must be noted that preventing earned runs is a good thing that I encourage people to take into consideration because of the 'clutchness' of stopping earned runs.
Walk rates, strikeout rates, and home run rates are very stable for pitchers from year-to-year. That is why they are better indicators of skill level than ERA.Quote:
Originally Posted by belial
"All this push"? What "push" are you talking about? There was one thread, posted by one poster, listing the WPA leaders. That's not a "push" for anything.Quote:
That being said, with all this push for WPA notoriety around here it must be noted that preventing earned runs is a good thing that I encourage people to take into consideration because of the 'clutchness' of stopping earned runs.
Also, ERA is fine for assessing what has happened, just like WPA is. Also, there is WPA for pitchers, which tracks exactly what you're talking about.
I understand why it was posted by SirKodiak because of the work Tom Tango did on it and SirKodiak is a Tom Tango promoter. That much is understandable.
The fact that you have proven to be generally anti-clutch and now supporting a stat for evaluating perfomance output that is based on weighting something you have said is non-existant is a little confusing.
Why don't we keep this in the WPA thread? I'll respond there.Quote:
Originally Posted by belial
I'll agree that DICE is a good predictor of ERA, because it just has been and I see no reason why it would stop working.
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)).