balls in play and how they pertain to the statistics BABIP, FIP, and ERA

From Statistically Speaking by Eric J. Seidman
http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/07/05/recapping-the-bip/

I stopped after the first four paragraphs, where he duplicates the errors of Voros McCracken. When are these people going to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I stopped after the first four paragraphs, where he duplicates the errors of Voros McCracken. When are these people going to learn.

---

Then you stopped before you got to where he goes beyond Voros.

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

Once you create a stat or theory on a false premise (pitchers have no control over balls in play), then anything after that is flawed. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

---

:confused:
from the article:

Quote:

---

This was just a recap of the three statistics and explanations pertaining to their usage. Based on this, if we see someone like Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA consistently beats his FIP, based on consistently posting lower BABIPs, we could somewhat safely assume that he might not be controlling anything persay but rather taking advantage of all the aspects proven to result in lower BABIPs. His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest but movement, velocity, and location may have combined to greatly aid his efforts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirKodiak

:confused:
from the article:

---

Notice the word MAY in your bolded quote. As though he's still clinging to the theory pitchers have no control, then look at these quotes, and I'll find some more in that article if you want me to. Also, notice the entire quote you used. He calls all of those you just cited as he says about Zambrano, right before the bolded part, "he might not be controlling anything persay"

Quote:

---

There are plenty of other variables as well but what should be clear is that the pitcher has no control over them. He may have control over sustaining a certain percentage of balls in play each year but the hits that result are almost entirely out of his hand. In fact, the only aspects of pitching over which he has any type of control are walks, strikeouts, and home runs allowed. Everything else is dependant on the fielding and luck.
.....
The end result explains what a pitcher’s skillset suggests his ERA should be around. Someone with an ERA much lower than their FIP is usually considered to be lucky while the inverse is also true.
.....
Earned runs are also a direct result of hits, which have been proven to be largely accrued through chance via the DIPS theory.
....
Therefore the FIP is more indicative of performance level because it only measures the three aspects of pitching he has control over ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

Once you create a stat or theory on a false premise (pitchers have no control over balls in play), then anything after that is flawed. Period.

---

Pretty much.

Heh - it's all luck. I guess if a pitcher gave up no line drives, it was because he was lucky... lol - this study is fricken joke - thanks for giving me something to laugh at.

I guess you two are skipping over where he says things like "almost entirely", "usually considered", "largely accrued", and "more indicative". You're also quoting largely from the section where he is explaining what Voros' premises were and what BABIP itself is. Do you both not realize that the rest of the article was explaining ways that a pitcher can control his BABIP? Instead of getting all up in arms and defensive at the first mention of fielding-independent statistics, try opening up your mind and actually reading what it has to say. This article is simply explaining the concept of BABIP. It is emphatically not saying that BABIP is entirely out of the control of pitchers. In fact, it details the ways that a pitcher CAN control his BABIP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

lol - this study is fricken joke - thanks for giving me something to laugh at.

---

There was a study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I guess you two are skipping over where he says things like "almost entirely", "usually considered", "largely accrued", and "more indicative". You're also quoting largely from the section where he is explaining what Voros' premises were and what BABIP itself is. Do you both not realize that the rest of the article was explaining ways that a pitcher can control his BABIP? Instead of getting all up in arms and defensive at the first mention of fielding-independent statistics, try opening up your mind and actually reading what it has to say. This article is simply explaining the concept of BABIP. It is emphatically not saying that BABIP is entirely out of the control of pitchers. In fact, it details the ways that a pitcher CAN control his BABIP.


There was a study?

---

Fair enough critique, HGM. But I'm wondering if you read the same article. Yes, he hemmed and hawwed his way through explaining the various stats, but if you read his words closely, the entire article is almost like saying "OK, maybe pitchers DO have more control than we thought, but I'm still not sure, and its still not much." For example, his closing paragraph.

Quote:

---

This was just a recap of the three statistics and explanations pertaining to their usage. Based on this, if we see someone like Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA consistently beats his FIP, based on consistently posting lower BABIPs, we could somewhat safely assume that he might not be controlling anything persay but rather taking advantage of all the aspects proven to result in lower BABIPs. His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest but movement, velocity, and location may have combined to greatly aid his efforts.

---

Notice "he might not(emphasis added) be controlling anything persay" and then "His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest."

It's like he's finding somone (Zambrano) who is the exception to his beliefs, and is somehow trying to fit him into those beliefs without changing them. At least, that's how I read it.

And this is, summarily, what gets me about so-called SABR heads. They make matter of fact statements; they base them strictly on stats; and then they DARE anyone to question the conclusions. In fact, they demand PROOF if someone makes a different claim.

STATS ARE FLAWED. Why that is so hard to grasp, I don't know. There is NO stat ever invented that can take into account all of the variables of a baseball game. There is no way possible to come up with a control group to prove or disprove these theories. So, when they ask for PROOF, they are expecting stats. But stats are flawed. So around and around in this big circle we go.

Which would be fine with me. You (or others) base your trust in stats, I (and others) base ours in the experience of folks around the game, and we could co-exist in peace. But everytime I mention something that to me is as easy to see as the sky is blue (like pitcher's do have control; like there is such a thing as clutch; like some catcher's DO handle pitchers better) some stathead immediately responds YOU'RE WRONG (implying YOU'RE AN IDIOT), look at the stats. They don't show clutch (or catcher ERA, or whatever). This is, for me, what has caused the defensiveness you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Notice "he might not(emphasis added) be controlling anything persay" and then "His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest."

It's like he's finding somone (Zambrano) who is the exception to his beliefs, and is somehow trying to fit him into those beliefs without changing them. At least, that's how I read it.

---

I don't see what's wrong with this. Pitchers DON'T have any control of balls that are in play, unless it is hit to them. They just don't. Once the ball is in play, it's up to the fielders. He's saying that while pitchers can't control a ball once it is in play, they CAN control the types of balls that they let into play, and thus , they CAN control their BABIP, which contradicts the original DIPS theory laid out by Voros.

A ball that is already in play cannot be controlled by the pitcher (except if it's hit to him). There is no way around that. It's just a simple fact. This does not mean, as Voros originally hypothesized, that the pitcher has no control over his Batting Average on Balls in Play, though, because more goes into BABIP than simple luck, as you've said here, and as the author of this article said and detailed explicitly.

His last paragraph is saying the Carlos Zambrano isn't controlling balls that are in play. If Zambrano could do that, he'd be a superhuman pitcher capable of fielding each and every position on the field at once. He's not controlling the balls that are already in play. He's taking advantage of the factors that lead to a lower BABIP. The "original" DIPS theory said that pitchers had zero control over BABIP. It said that BABIP was entirely the result of the fielders and luck. As this article says, that theory has since been proven wrong. There ARE many factors that go into BABIP, and some of those factors CAN be controlled by the pitcher.

Hahaha. Give me link the article you read that wasn't slanted please. And imagine that, hard hit line drives are more often base hits - wow, that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't see what's wrong with this. Pitchers DON'T have any control of balls that are in play, unless it is hit to them. They just don't. Once the ball is in play, it's up to the fielders. He's saying that while pitchers can't control a ball once it is in play, they CAN control the types of balls that they let into play, and thus , they CAN control their BABIP, which contradicts the original DIPS theory laid out by Voros.

A ball that is already in play cannot be controlled by the pitcher (except if it's hit to him). There is no way around that. It's just a simple fact. This does not mean, as Voros originally hypothesized, that the pitcher has no control over his Batting Average on Balls in Play, though, because more goes into BABIP than simple luck, as you've said here, and as the author of this article said and detailed explicitly.

His last paragraph is saying the Carlos Zambrano isn't controlling balls that are in play. If Zambrano could do that, he'd be a superhuman pitcher capable of fielding each and every position on the field at once. He's not controlling the balls that are already in play. He's taking advantage of the factors that lead to a lower BABIP. The "original" DIPS theory said that pitchers had zero control over BABIP. It said that BABIP was entirely the result of the fielders and luck. As this article says, that theory has since been proven wrong. There ARE many factors that go into BABIP, and some of those factors CAN be controlled by the pitcher.

---

OK, fair enough. Perhaps the defensiveness I described above is causing me to read the article through skewed lens. I did just read it again (for the fifth time), and it is entitled "Statistically Speaking" after all.

I certainly don't want to close my mind to learning something new, but it does still read to me like instead of changing his mind about FIP when someone proves FIP's weakness (Zambrano), he's instead trying to imply the theory is fine and Zambrano is just the exception, when in my mind the theory is wrong and therefore the stat is wrong, or useless. But, like I said, I might be getting the wrong conclusions from his article because of looking at it through a defensive lens. I'll accept that criticisim, especially since it may well be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

---

Only after 1888.
;)

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

Hahaha. Give me link the article you read that wasn't slanted please. And imagine that, hard hit line drives are more often base hits - wow, that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

---

THIS WASN'T A STUDY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I certainly don't want to close my mind to learning something new, but it does still read to me like instead of changing his mind about FIP when someone proves FIP's weakness (Zambrano), he's instead trying to imply the theory is fine and Zambrano is just the exception, when in my mind the theory is wrong and therefore the stat is wrong, or useless. But, like I said, I might be getting the wrong conclusions from his article because of looking at it through a defensive lens. I'll accept that criticisim, especially since it may well be true.

---

Yeah, I'm not getting the same thing out of it as you are. I got it as him saying Carlos Zambrano is a player that has taken advantage of some of the things that lower BABIP, and thus, that is why he routinely beats his FIP score, and that's why you have to look beyond FIP when evaluating pitchers. You have to see if there's something about the pitcher that allows him to sustain a lower BABIP

More by Eric Seidman on "The Zambrano/Bonderman Conundrum":
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...rman-conundrum

Here is the mailbag answer by MGL that Seidman refers to in the article:
http://tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php...why_the_gap.3F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I certainly don't want to close my mind to learning something new, but it does still read to me like instead of changing his mind about FIP when someone proves FIP's weakness (Zambrano), he's instead trying to imply the theory is fine and Zambrano is just the exception, when in my mind the theory is wrong and therefore the stat is wrong, or useless.

---

The thing is, as you have said, stats ARE flawed, and as both you and HGM have pointed out, McCracken's original theory (that pitchers have no ability to control factors that influence the batting average against them on balls in play) is wrong--they do have some ability to influence BABIP, even if it's less than many people think. But that doesn't make the stat totally useless IMO. It's sort of like with Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's Theory of Relativity--we now know that Newton didn't have it exactly right about how gravity works, because in close proximity to a really massive object, the energy of the graivity field itself acts as an additional mass. Einstein showed how it actually works--relativity introduces an adjustment to Newton's equation--but for normal, everyday matters, Newton's theory works just fine.

That's just the simplified Intro to Physics version--I don't want to get into physics debate here--but my point is that a theory can be flawed, but still be close enough to being right that it can produce usable data.

Quote:

---

The thing is, as you have said, stats ARE flawed,

---

The statistics aren't flawed though. How can a statistic be flawed, unless you count the events incorrectly or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

The statistics aren't flawed though. How can a statistic be flawed, unless you count the events incorrectly or something?

---

Ok misleading, based on very poor premises, etc. They are wrong if you try to use them for what the creators intended them to be used.

The problem is ohms, pitcher don't totally control walks k and hr's and they do have some control to everything else. A stat that attempts to tell the whole story using just the three things a pitcher can't control anyway is bound to have some results that just aren't worth looking at. Sorry, but it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

Ok misleading, based on very poor premises, etc. They are wrong if you try to use them for what the creators intended them to be used.

---

No, they are wrong if you try to use them incorrectly. FIP is intended to estimate a pitcher's ERA based on the three factors that he has near total control over, and the three factors that are the most stable from year-to-year - strikeouts, walks, homers. Using it for what is intended for is not wrong. You just seem to be making up some other intention to it, which it was never intended for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

The problem is ohms, pitcher don't totally control walks k and hr's and they do have some control to everything else. A stat that attempts to tell the whole story using just the three things a pitcher can't control anyway is bound to have some results that just aren't worth looking at. Sorry, but it's true.

---

And this is where you're wrong, because FIP is not meant to "tell the whole story." Are you even reading what SirKodiak has linked to? You know, the parts where they say...FIP can't tell the whole story? No stat can. Stop acting like people are proclaiming FIP and other defense-independent stats as the be-all and end-all of pitching stats, because nobody except yourself is. You're fighting a strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

The statistics aren't flawed though. How can a statistic be flawed, unless you count the events incorrectly or something?

---

How can a statistic be flawed??? Are you serious???

OK, let's say I want to use statistical analysis to gather American voters preference in the upcoming presidential race. So, I go to EVERY single golf and tennis country club in America, and ask their preference for president. I add them up, and not surprisingly find McCain leading Obama 68%-30%.

Now, I know what you're going to say. The stat isn't flawed in that it correctly shows the preference for president at golf and country clubs. But the stat IS flawed when suggesting it represents American voters. We may be getting crossed up in semantics here, where 1 + 1 always equals 2. So, maybe it is more correct to say how you USE a stat is flawed.

But, the above example is a GIGO effect. For the purpose of monitoring American voters, this was garbage in, garbage out. And the same can be said for stats that start out with flawed premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

How can a statistic be flawed??? Are you serious???

OK, let's say I want to use statistical analysis to gather American voters preference in the upcoming presidential race. So, I go to EVERY single golf and tennis country club in America, and ask their preference for president. I add them up, and not surprisingly find McCain leading Obama 68%-30%.

Now, I know what you're going to say. The stat isn't flawed in that it correctly shows the preference for president at golf and country clubs. But the stat IS flawed when suggesting it represents American voters. We may be getting crossed up in semantics here, where 1 + 1 always equals 2. So, maybe it is more correct to say how you USE a stat is flawed.

But, the above example is a GIGO effect. For the purpose of monitoring American voters, this was garbage in, garbage out. And the same can be said for stats that start out with flawed premises.

---

Well, you just said it yourself. The statistic isn't flawed, how you're using it is. Statistics themselves can't be flawed unless they are calculated incorrectly. The way statistics are used can be flawed, though. Your poll calculating the preference for president among country clubs in America is perfectly fine, and the result is not flawed. When you prescribe meaning to it that it is not meant to show - what Americans as a whole want - your usage of the statistic is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And this is where you're wrong, because FIP is not meant to "tell the whole story." Are you even reading what SirKodiak has linked to? You know, the parts where they say...FIP can't tell the whole story? No stat can. Stop acting like people are proclaiming FIP and other defense-independent stats as the be-all and end-all of pitching stats, because nobody except yourself is. You're fighting a strawman.

---

I believe I wasn't talking to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No, they are wrong if you try to use them incorrectly. FIP is intended to estimate a pitcher's ERA based on the three factors that he has near total control over, and the three factors that are the most stable from year-to-year - strikeouts, walks, homers. Using it for what is intended for is not wrong. You just seem to be making up some other intention to it, which it was never intended for.

---

Except he doesn't have near control over them and he has more control than he is given credit for over the other outcomes. It's basically worthless to draw any conclusion over. To use only those 3 at all is using them incorrectly.

This is a public conversation. If you want to talk directly to somebody with no input from anybody else, use private messages.

Yeah I guess when i addressed ohms I really meant for someone else to answer. How ignorant of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

Except he doesn't have near control over them and he has more control than he is given credit for over the other outcomes.

---

What do pitchers have vastly more control over - walks/strikeouts/homers or hits? The correct answer is walks/strikeouts/homers, and every statistical study done in the history of the sport will back that up. The simple fact of the matter is that walk rate, K rate, and HR rate are very stable, while hit rate fluctuates a lot. Walk rate, K rate, and HR rate are exclusively between the batter and the pitcher. Hit rate is between the batter, the pitcher, and the fielders. It's simple common sense that a pitcher has a huge amount more control over those peripheral stats as compared to hits.

Quote:

---

It's basically worthless to draw any conclusion over. To use only those 3 at all is using them incorrectly.

---

And once again, I suppose you're overlooking the multiple times in this thread and the articles linked from this thread where everybody is saying that you CANNOT EXCLUSIVELY USE THEM. You're arguing against something nobody is saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Well, you just said it yourself. The statistic isn't flawed, how you're using it is. Statistics themselves can't be flawed unless they are calculated incorrectly. The way statistics are used can be flawed, though. Your poll calculating the preference for president among country clubs in America is perfectly fine, and the result is not flawed. When you prescribe meaning to it that it is not meant to show - what Americans as a whole want - your usage of the statistic is flawed.

---

All right, I guess it is a matter of semantics, and my defensiveness. My apologies to Ohms, I guess my initial sentence in that post was a bit defensive, but I won't edit it out even though I'd like to.

But, speaking of semantics, would you agree or disagree with the following.

"Based on the example above, that stat is flawed for determining American voters attitudes in the upcoming Presidential election."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

But, speaking of semantics, would you agree or disagree with the following.

"Based on the example above, that stat is flawed for determining American voters attitudes in the upcoming Presidential election."

---

I'd agree with that, for the most part. But, it's the usage of the stat that makes it flawed. Using batting average to determine a player's power is a flawed usage of batting average. It doesn't make the stat itself flawed though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'd agree with that, for the most part. But, it's the usage of the stat that makes it flawed. Using batting average to determine a player's power is a flawed usage of batting average. It doesn't make the stat itself flawed though.

---

OK, that's all I was trying to say earlier when I said all stats are flawed. Like my example above, all baseball stats don't include all the variables. So, to make a statement like "Pitcher's have little or no control" or "Catcher's have little or no effect on pitchers" or "The data shows clutch doesn't exist or perhaps only negative clutch exists". To make any of those statements based and any stats is the exact same thing I was saying above. The stats are flawed to draw those conclusions.

Again, this is where the defenseness comes from. I was in a discussion the other day talking about catchers. Within two posts of my opine that Nieves of the Nationals really handles pitchers well, TWO posted proclaiming this is a myth and the stats bear this out. Implying all along that I'm an idiot. I responded, and one them demanded proof. They want proof in the form of stats, but the stats don't tell the whole story (there, I didn't say flawed, that better?), and therein lies the conundrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

I believe I wasn't talking to you.

---

HGM took the words right out of my mouth.

Imagine that. Doesn't mean either one of you are correct though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belial

Imagine that. Doesn't mean either one of you are correct though.

---

We're incorrect that anything posted on a public message board is fair game to be replied to by anybody? Gee.

That's what I think ohms was referring to when he said I took the words out of his mouth.

Duh? I know what he meant. Doesn't make him any less wrong than when he said you can't get more than 3 k's in an inning.

Normally, when someone addresses someone else, it is quite obvious to those with an IQ above room temperature who is requested to respond. You two people sharing the same view is not suprising, nor does it mean you're any less wrong.

Now please stop hassling me.

If you want to direct something to somebody and ONLY that person, and you do not want any other people to respond to it, PRIVATE MESSAGE IT. Anything posted publically is perfectly fine for ANYBODY to reply to, even if it was not directed at them.

What has ohms said here that was wrong? What you're arguing against is something that is wrong, but it's something nobody has said in this thread or in any of the linked articles. In fact, what you're saying is exactly what the linked articles say. You are arguing against strawmen.

Uh.