 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Measuring Pitcher Effectiveness
tysonlowery
Does anyone know more about this area of research? Has there been formulas created that show this (like Runs Created for hitters)?
I'm curious because I wanted to look at Jose Jimenez last season (just signed by the Indians). He sucked last year, but was pretty good the 3 previous years. Wanted to see how these kind of numbers compared last year to the previous 2-3.
Measuring Pitcher Effectiveness
January 09, 2004 at 04:41PM View BBCode
I finished reading MoneyBall and there was a section where they were talking about how to measure MLB pitcher effectiveness. Basically it said the only thing pitchers have control over is walks, strikeouts, and home runs.Does anyone know more about this area of research? Has there been formulas created that show this (like Runs Created for hitters)?
I'm curious because I wanted to look at Jose Jimenez last season (just signed by the Indians). He sucked last year, but was pretty good the 3 previous years. Wanted to see how these kind of numbers compared last year to the previous 2-3.
Duff77
January 09, 2004 at 04:44PM View BBCode
I always sort of thought pitchers had control over line-drives too, and doubles, and triples. WHat's the reasoning?
Bob
Another thing to look at is Bill James' Win Shares. While it's still a new analysis tool and will certainly be refined in coming years, I think it provides a very good look at a player's effectiveness.
January 09, 2004 at 04:59PM View BBCode
There's something called Component ERA, which is a formula that looks at what you'd expect a pitcher's ERA to be given his stats. It's an attempt to somewhat compensate for things out of his control. I'm not sure of the formula or who invented it, but I've heard Bill James refer to it a number of times, so it may be him.Another thing to look at is Bill James' Win Shares. While it's still a new analysis tool and will certainly be refined in coming years, I think it provides a very good look at a player's effectiveness.
tysonlowery
You can put some reasoning to it, but basically they used math to back it up. The best pitchers usually have control over these events. They used the pitcher from the White Sox as an example (James Baldwin in 2000 I think it was). He started off red hot and made the allstar team. But they found that his stats in the things he had control over were about the same as they had always been. It was the things that he didn't have control over that were suddenly going in his favor. And as luck usually goes, it wore off after a while and he was eventually back to the old James Baldwin.
January 09, 2004 at 05:08PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
A pitcher definitely has control over BB, SO, and HR. And to a slightly lesser degree over doubles and triples.
You can put some reasoning to it, but basically they used math to back it up. The best pitchers usually have control over these events. They used the pitcher from the White Sox as an example (James Baldwin in 2000 I think it was). He started off red hot and made the allstar team. But they found that his stats in the things he had control over were about the same as they had always been. It was the things that he didn't have control over that were suddenly going in his favor. And as luck usually goes, it wore off after a while and he was eventually back to the old James Baldwin.
Duff77
I see the idea though...has some merit.
January 09, 2004 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Okay, I see the logic now: HRs, SOs, and BBs are the only thing a pitcher has--in theory--direct control over. A double in one outfield is an out in another...a grounder is a double play sometimes, sometimes not... But if that's the reasoning, then isn't this still a little vauge? The pitcher is still in control of line drives and scorching ground balls. True, he shares the end result with his fielders, but when somebody ropes a double into the corner, it's kind of hard to blame the guys behind him.I see the idea though...has some merit.
ME
January 09, 2004 at 08:01PM View BBCode
A pitcher's style will get him more groundballs or flyballs, so he has to have some control over that. Also if you're pitching to Juan Pierre, nothing will be a HR (if he hits one off you you should leave the mound and hide for shame in the dugout), while an ok hitter will punich your mistakes, and a good hitter will always punich your mistakes and can go deep on good pitches.
sycophantman
Strikeout to Walk to Hit Ratio = (K*K/H*BB)*0.75
Pretty useful, and it uses most of the stats you mentioned.
above 1.00 with this stat is decent, and above 2.00 is elite...
January 09, 2004 at 09:36PM View BBCode
I use KWH for pitchers sometimes...Strikeout to Walk to Hit Ratio = (K*K/H*BB)*0.75
Pretty useful, and it uses most of the stats you mentioned.
above 1.00 with this stat is decent, and above 2.00 is elite...
tysok
Take (Hits - Homeruns) and Multiply by 1.255, add that to 4 times Home Runs. Multiply the sum by .89.
(((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89
Take Walks plus Intentional Walks plus Hit Batsmen and multiply by .56, add to the figure above.
((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)
Multiply the figure above by (Hit Batsmen + Hits + Walks).
(((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)
Divide the result by Total Batters Faced Pitcher ... this is estimate of Total Runs Allowed
((((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)) / BF
Multiply the result by 9 and divide by innings pitched then subtract .56
(((((((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)) / BF) * 9) / IP) - 0.56
I like it, but since I studied the win shares system I kinda like the Zero value level better... which is a step in the Win Shares process... but Win Shares are a pain in the ass to figure so I ain't gonna give the formula which might take 15 or so pages. :)
January 09, 2004 at 10:42PM View BBCode
Component ERA is a bitch... like most formulas. :)Take (Hits - Homeruns) and Multiply by 1.255, add that to 4 times Home Runs. Multiply the sum by .89.
(((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89
Take Walks plus Intentional Walks plus Hit Batsmen and multiply by .56, add to the figure above.
((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)
Multiply the figure above by (Hit Batsmen + Hits + Walks).
(((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)
Divide the result by Total Batters Faced Pitcher ... this is estimate of Total Runs Allowed
((((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)) / BF
Multiply the result by 9 and divide by innings pitched then subtract .56
(((((((((H - HR) * 1.255) + (HR * 4)) *.89) + ((BB + IBB + HBP) * .56)) * (HBP + H + BB)) / BF) * 9) / IP) - 0.56
I like it, but since I studied the win shares system I kinda like the Zero value level better... which is a step in the Win Shares process... but Win Shares are a pain in the ass to figure so I ain't gonna give the formula which might take 15 or so pages. :)
tysonlowery
January 09, 2004 at 10:56PM View BBCode
Thanks tysok, that's exactly what I was looking for. Let me see if I can find numbers on the web for it.
happy
anyway, that means that Moneyball would take a good control, ground ball pitcher over a flyball pitcher.
i just recently read an article that said that some hitters are "ground ball" hitters, in otherwords hit more ground balls, and some are "fly ball hitters" and they hit more fly balls. same goes for pitchers. well the stats show that pitching a ground ball pitcher against a fly ball hitter and vice versa is MUCH more important than lefty righty matchups.
January 10, 2004 at 07:40PM View BBCode
crazy formulas:rolleyes:anyway, that means that Moneyball would take a good control, ground ball pitcher over a flyball pitcher.
i just recently read an article that said that some hitters are "ground ball" hitters, in otherwords hit more ground balls, and some are "fly ball hitters" and they hit more fly balls. same goes for pitchers. well the stats show that pitching a ground ball pitcher against a fly ball hitter and vice versa is MUCH more important than lefty righty matchups.
sycophantman
But alas, that describes a great deal of sabermetrics...
It's harder to measure pitchers as effectively as hitters, if only because there are less statistics to work with.
I usually do a compliation of stats rated against a league average myself...
January 11, 2004 at 02:35PM View BBCode
I have to agree, that formula you put up is insane!But alas, that describes a great deal of sabermetrics...
It's harder to measure pitchers as effectively as hitters, if only because there are less statistics to work with.
I usually do a compliation of stats rated against a league average myself...
happy
January 13, 2004 at 10:59PM View BBCode
fortunately there is nothing in Tyson's code that makes certain ball parks hitter friendly or pitcher friendly, or hitter or pitcher to lefties or righties. then it would be REALLY confusing
FuriousGiorge
[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20010123mccracken.html]DIPS[/url]
The theory says that a pitcher has no control in his hits allowed, and that pitchers who are "hit lucky" or "hit unlucky" well tend to progress towards the mean the next year, and thus will see their ERA either rise or fall based on hits in play. This has been THE source of discussion in sabermetrics over the last few years. While most people think "no control over hits allowed" is somewhat overstating the matter, the fact is that hits allowed are largely a matter of luck and defense, and so Peripheral ERA is usually a better indicator of future success than regular ERA is.
January 13, 2004 at 11:08PM View BBCode
For those who are curious, this is the article that really got the ball rolling:[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20010123mccracken.html]DIPS[/url]
The theory says that a pitcher has no control in his hits allowed, and that pitchers who are "hit lucky" or "hit unlucky" well tend to progress towards the mean the next year, and thus will see their ERA either rise or fall based on hits in play. This has been THE source of discussion in sabermetrics over the last few years. While most people think "no control over hits allowed" is somewhat overstating the matter, the fact is that hits allowed are largely a matter of luck and defense, and so Peripheral ERA is usually a better indicator of future success than regular ERA is.
tysonlowery
January 13, 2004 at 11:24PM View BBCode
Thanks for the link. I believe the guy that wrote that is working for the Red Sox now.
Bob
January 13, 2004 at 11:37PM View BBCode
Thanks for posting. I've got to admit that I was ready to ridicule this, but after reading the article it is pretty convincing. It's definitely given me something to think about....
happy
January 14, 2004 at 02:48AM View BBCode
i would read it, but despite my high level of math knowledge, i would probably not have one clue what they were talking about.
JulioF
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!! :lol:
More Evidence That Jose Jimenez' Stats Skyrocketed Last Season!
January 14, 2004 at 04:41AM View BBCode
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!! :lol:
sycophantman
January 14, 2004 at 02:09PM View BBCode
Ah, the sound of a thread topic screeching to a thudding halt...
tysonlowery
January 19, 2004 at 06:25PM View BBCode
I started thinking about this some more yesterday. I doubt that Vegas odds makers take this kind of stuff into account - but it could make for some good betting opportunities. If there is a guy that is off to a "lucky" or "unlucky" start to the season, his team's odds may be swayed the wrong way.
happy
January 19, 2004 at 10:56PM View BBCode
but wait, a pitcher who is off to a "lucky" start may be "lucky" because of a good defense, or a good pitcher's park.
tysonlowery
January 19, 2004 at 11:14PM View BBCode
That's true. Any calc to the adjusted ERA would have to account for park effects if he was traded, or defensive changes if the team had significant defensive changes from one season to the next.
happy
January 19, 2004 at 11:40PM View BBCode
this is definately too hard. i would be more than happy to do it for millions a year though;)Pages: 1