McGowan

[Caper]

Wilner thinks he knows everything about baseball and then proceeds to state that Litsch was a great pitcher and that Cecil can be an ace lol. When I was 14 and listening to him I thought he was smart for using stats like FIP and BABIP but I've realized he doesn't know much about that stuff at all.

 

 

This is baseball. You look like a fool if you think showing someone was wrong on one or 2 players.

[Caper]

The people that make fun of Wilner are the same people who call up and state we should trade Ricky Romero for Mike Trout... and then get laughed off the phone.

[KSaw]

WHIP is not a good stat. It's marginally better than ERA, and a dubious stat at best.

 

It's not an advanced stat. I still believe that it is a telling stat. It's certainly better than ERA, K/9, Wins and most traditional stats.

[Caper]

WHIP is not a good stat. It's marginally better than ERA, and a dubious stat at best.

 

Why is it a bad stat? I just looked up this years leaders in WHIP..... and guess what.... The leaders are all very good pitchers. Darvish, Hernandez, Sale.

 

 

In fact.... ERA, same thing.... I'm seeing no bad pitchers on the qualifying top 10 list in ERA.

[dineke]

This is baseball. You look like a fool if you think showing someone was wrong on one or 2 players.

 

Yeah I'm not going to take someone seriously when they think Cecil has the same stuff as Cole Hamels. Sorry.

[KSaw]

Why is it a bad stat? I just looked up this years leaders in WHIP..... and guess what.... The leaders are all very good pitchers. Darvish, Hernandez, Sale.

 

 

In fact.... ERA, same thing.... I'm seeing no bad pitchers on the qualifying top 10 list in ERA.

 

They are not necessarily bad stats, there are just deeper stats available. However, when it comes to relievers they can be very misleading due to sample size. A reliever can have 30 appearances, pitch 35 innings and be solid 27 times but with just a couple blow ups with no outs recorded and 4-5 runs scored, he can look like a scrub on paper.

[Caper]

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/dips/

 

Thanks.

 

 

But my point is this. People say ERA or WHIP or whatever is a terrible stat.

 

My point is this..... You give me a rotation with the 5 best ERA guys in the league... you take the 5 worst and we will see what happens.

[oakville69]

Yeah I'm not going to take someone seriously when they think Cecil has the same stuff as Cole Hamels. Sorry.

 

I remember that Wilnerism. Wilner was wrong about that.

[Caper]

I remember that Wilnerism. Wilner was wrong about that.

 

Who hasn't been wrong about guys?

[Laika]

Why is it a bad stat? I just looked up this years leaders in WHIP..... and guess what.... The leaders are all very good pitchers. Darvish, Hernandez, Sale.

In fact.... ERA, same thing.... I'm seeing no bad pitchers on the qualifying top 10 list in ERA.

 

They are relatively bad stats, because much better approximations of true talent based past performance are readily available.

 

If you just want to use ERA as a measurement of past earned runs given up, then it's a perfect stat. If you just want to use WHIP as a measurement of the past rate of given up Walks+Hits, then it's a perfect stat. It just depends on the context in which they are used.

The problem is that people use past ERA and WHIP as a measurement of talent. They aren't very good at that, compared to other available metrics.

 

DIPS are better at predicting future ERA than ERA itself. One of the major "flaws" in ERA is that it reflects batted ball luck. WHIP is subject to this same flaw. People try to use WHIP as some sort of talent indicator that is better than ERA... but it's only marginally better. It's rather dubious to use WHIP the way that some people do. It's not much better than simply looking at ERA - some people think it is though. It's not really a separate dip stick. It enters some of the same sludge as ERA.

[KSaw]

That all makes sense.

 

In fairness though, WHIP and ERA aren't horrible stats to use during a single season. The defense is the same, the home park is the same, the groove or lack thereof of the pitcher is the same. Once you get a few months in and have a sample size, it's a fair predictor of the future of that year and is a somewhat fair way to measure success.

[Laika]

In fairness though, WHIP and ERA aren't horrible stats to use during a single season. The defense is the same, the home park is the same, the groove or lack thereof of the pitcher is the same. Once you get a few months in and have a sample size, it's a fair predictor of the future of that year and is a somewhat fair way to measure success.

 

No, that's not true at all. You actually have this kind of backwards. In a single season, ERA and WHIP will contain a lot of noise. Batted ball luck, HR rate luck, LOB% luck (for ERA). It's just a small sample size problem, basically.

 

And as the sample size gets larger (I'm talking multiple connected seasons spanning thousands of innings), then ERA starts to capture subtle nuances that the blunt force of DIPS misses. Things like pitcher's defense, plus pick off moves, and mystical forces like "hittability". This is why Mark Buehrle's career ERA is more meaningful than his career FIP. Or why Joe Blanton's career ERA is more meaningful than his career FIP (in a different direction than Buehrle).

[KSaw]

Ok but doesn't that disclude age factors and pitching in different home parks? Buehrle for example has been awful the first 5 weeks of each season since he turned 31. Prior to that he was solid early in the year. Things like that. Somehow you have to factor in recent trends or the plain and simple in a groove confidence factor that makes guys simply better. Don't you?

[KSaw]

And what about guys like Bret Saberhagen who would rotate years being a Cy Young ace quality pitcher and a bum the next? His high innings, followed by lower innings from being pulled from bad games semi-annually had to play in, no?

[Laika]

Ok but doesn't that disclude age factors and pitching in different home parks?

 

Uh, no. Age and park factors will affect DIPS.

 

I'm not even 100% sure what you're trying to say with this and the Saberhagen thing. Not sure if you have a sound enough understanding of what DIPS even is.

[KSaw]

Shorter right handed pitchers, generally relievers have also had a lot of history rotating good and bad seasons. The scouting/ coaching opinion has always been that these pitchers have to use more arm and less leg than taller pitchers to get a higher release point and downward plain and therefore have sore arms during rotating years. Wouldn't current in season ERA be more meaningful than career in this case? If you buy into it that is.

 

I'm not playing dumb or arguing. I'm really asking.

[KSaw]

Uh, no. Age and park factors will affect DIPS.

 

I'm not even 100% sure what you're trying to say with this and the Saberhagen thing. Not sure if you have a sound enough understanding of what DIPS even is.

 

It's fairly new to me but I have a pretty decent understanding of it. It's the whole career ERA means more than in season ERA for predicting results that threw me. It would just seem that in season ERA would be a good indicator of how the rest of that season would go. Once a pitcher was 2-2.5 months into it that is. And that any 1 season's ERA would be a bad predictor of say the next year.

[Laika]

Shorter right handed pitchers, generally relievers have also had a lot of history rotating good and bad seasons. The scouting/ coaching opinion has always been that these pitchers have to use more arm and less leg than taller pitchers to get a higher release point and downward plain and therefore have sore arms during rotating years. Wouldn't current in season ERA be more meaningful than career in this case? If you buy into it that is.

 

I'm not playing dumb or arguing. I'm really asking.

 

Relievers will show lots of ERA variation because they only pitch 60, 70 innings in a full year. That's why they seem to rotate good and bad seasons at a higher rate than starting pitchers. It's just small sample size induced variation, not much more than that. (Injuries can also be a factor though since relievers can be max effort more often, which would obviously lead to more arm explosions).

 

That scouting/coaching explanation is kind of hilarious. It's just an example of people not understanding the instability of the statistic that they're looking at, and flailing away trying to explain the instability with a largely nonsense piece of reasoning.

[KSaw]

Well it is true that they do use more arm and don't bend as much. Training has gotten better but as recent as the mid 90s, shorter right handed pitchers would generally have a short shelf life due to arm problems. There are exceptions. Pedro being a glaring one. Then there were guys like Flash Gordon who blew his arm and came back as a reliever.

[Arkadium]

I'm really looking forward to the 5 +/- IP from McGowan this year where he blows everyone away and proceeds to get injured again!

[Laika]

Well it is true that they do use more arm and don't bend as much. Training has gotten better but as recent as the mid 90s, shorter right handed pitchers would generally have a short shelf life due to arm problems. There are exceptions. Pedro being a glaring one. Then there were guys like Flash Gordon who blew his arm and came back as a reliever.

 

Rigorous studies show that pitcher height does not have the significant effect on productiveness or injury proneness that the traditional baseball people seem to think it does.

 

The most significant effect that pitcher height has is on opportunities given. Taller pitchers are drafted higher, and given more opportunities to fail. That's about it.

 

Don't be mislead by anecdotes.

 

I'm thinking of one big study in particular that I'll have to dig up later. Late for work.

[Abomination]

Rigorous studies show that pitcher height does not have the significant effect on productiveness or injury proneness that the traditional baseball people seem to think it does.

 

The most significant effect that pitcher height has is on opportunities given. Taller pitchers are drafted higher, and given more opportunities to fail. That's about it.

 

Don't be mislead by anecdotes.

 

I'm thinking of one big study in particular that I'll have to dig up later. Late for work.

 

I'd be interested in reading that too. It seems to me that pitchers who are a little (but not grossly) on the heavy side tend to hold up better than guys who are skinny as a rail. Smaller pitchers feel like they don't have as long an effective shelf life, but injury wise are about the same.

[Laika]

I'd be interested in reading that too. It seems to me that pitchers who are a little (but not grossly) on the heavy side tend to hold up better than guys who are skinny as a rail. Smaller pitchers feel like they don't have as long an effective shelf life, but injury wise are about the same.

 

I think this is it. It's lengthy, but it's a decent read. Not exactly elegant (FTMP just a bunch of correlations, regressions, Chi Squareds), but it is very thorough.

 

http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter

 

If anyone just wants the TL;DR conclusion version:

 

"The data speak for themselves. Baseball organizations have been scouting, signing, and developing players based on a fallacious assumption. Shorter pitchers are just as effective and durable as taller pitchers. If a player has the ability to get drafted, then he should be drafted in the round that fits his talent.

 

The opportunity for major-league clubs is currently at its greatest potential. Clubs that value short pitchers with talent have an opportunity similar to those of clubs that, a decade or more ago, valued on-base percentage at a time when many of their competitors did not."

 

It's certainly a good omen for Marcus Stroman and his chances as a starter. Not that I think the Blue Jays were even aware that they were exploiting a potential inefficiency when drafting him or giving him a chance to start.

[Abomination]

Thanks. Interesting article. It would be interesting to see the effects of weight on durability, but I don't know if there is a lot of data available for that.

[Angrioter]

McGowan gets through the 7th without surrendering a hit. Walks Twins top prospect M. Sano on a 3-2 pitch, but gets 1 K and two air-outs.

[GD]

McGowan gets through the 7th without surrendering a hit. Walks Twins top prospect M. Sano on a 3-2 pitch, but gets 1 K and two air-outs.

 

Sano's great so that's fine, I like the K but he better not let the fly outs continue.

[saskjayfan]

McGowan gets through the 7th without surrendering a hit. Walks Twins top prospect M. Sano on a 3-2 pitch, but gets 1 K and two air-outs.

 

just send dustin to Buffalo already....

[G-Snarls]

McGowan gets through the 7th without surrendering a hit. Walks Twins top prospect M. Sano on a 3-2 pitch, but gets 1 K and two air-outs.

 

Sweet

[saskjayfan]

I'm really looking forward to the 5 +/- IP from McGowan this year where he blows everyone away and proceeds to get injured again!

 

I highly doubt Mcgowan will ever pitch 5+ innings in one game out of the bulllpen....and besides..he's on the miracle delabar program...no more injuries!

[kgm1]

there is going to be some 40 man roster problems coming up with all these guys coming back off the 60 day DL . McGowan IF!!! IF !!!!he stays healthy thru his rehab comes off it in what 30 days ? I guess Santos can go on the 60 day DL