PDA

View Full Version : Are we this bad?



icehole3
01-19-2007, 05:31 PM
Yahoo showing the Reds no love at all, we cant be this bad and this far behind Pittsburgh?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=nlfocusrankingthebullpen&prov=tsn&type=lgns


1. Pirates

LHP Mike Gonzalez, RHP Salomon Torres, LHP John Grabow, RHP Matt Capps, LHP Damaso Marte

Gonzalez excelled in his first season as closer and only will get better. Torres is an underrated workhorse who proved he can close games.



15. Reds

RHP David Weathers, RHP Todd Coffey, LHP Mike Stanton, RHP Gary Majewski, LHP Bill Bray

The unit is deep in the middle and may boast three or four lefthanders, which could provide matchup advantages. The club believes Bray has closer potential.

flyer85
01-19-2007, 05:32 PM
Not anymore, since Gonzo isn't a Pirate.

Tom Servo
01-19-2007, 05:35 PM
Pirates don't have Gonzalez now.

And I'm more offended being stuck behind teams like the Giants, who's bullpen was about as hideous as ours last year and I can't think of one change they've made to their's this offseason.

flyer85
01-19-2007, 05:52 PM
The Reds could have a top notch pen if they drafted Lincecum and woulde put Bailey in there to break him in. Pedro Martinez started his major league career in the pen. I really believe it can allow a team to get effectiveness from a young pitcher while not over stressing a young arm.

icehole3
01-19-2007, 06:05 PM
Are we worse than Houston, Washington and Colorado? Man we have to be better than them, I mean Lidge was horrible last year.

Strikes Out Looking
01-19-2007, 06:08 PM
Remember the National Media picked the Reds dead last in '06. They pay no attention to any small details--that is why when you see the predictions come out in the next 6 weeks, the Cubs and Cards will be overwhelming favorites to win the NL Central. The fact that the Reds have improved their defense and bullpen will be probably not even be mentioned by most when they talk of '07.

noskill27
01-19-2007, 07:12 PM
Most reporters really only look at who the closer is when ranking bullpens...

AdamDunn
01-19-2007, 07:43 PM
I thought relief might be one of the strengths of this club with Bray, Coffey, Majewski... behind starting pitching of course

jmac
01-19-2007, 08:22 PM
Remember the National Media picked the Reds dead last in '06. They pay no attention to any small details--that is why when you see the predictions come out in the next 6 weeks, the Cubs and Cards will be overwhelming favorites to win the NL Central. The fact that the Reds have improved their defense and bullpen will be probably not even be mentioned by most when they talk of '07.

I remember one article where they said reds headed to 100 loss season.
I think it was a NY article.

Unassisted
01-19-2007, 08:25 PM
Keeping expectations low is a good way to avoid disappointment.

I'd rather be a fan of a team that overachieves than one that underperforms.

CRedsLarkin11
01-19-2007, 08:36 PM
Keeping expectations low is a good way to avoid disappointment.

I'd rather be a fan of a team that overachieves than one that underperforms.

:D Well we must always seem to keep the expectations pretty low then

mth123
01-19-2007, 10:50 PM
The Reds are that bad.

Rick White 2006: Age- 37, K/9 - 5.57, HR/9 - 1.11, BB/9 - 2.78, BABIP - .323

David Weathers 2006: Age 36, K/9 - 6.11, HR/9 - 1.47, BB/9 - 4.15, BABIP - .236

Take a way the luck difference and David Weathers looks a lot worse than Rick White. Walks and HR are a bad combo. Projections are an ERA above 5.

It gets worse:

Chris Hammond 2006: Age -40, K/9 - 7.22, BB/9 - 1.57, HR/9 1.43, BABIP - .341.

Rheal Cormier 2006: Age - 39, K/9 - 3.56, BB/9 3.19, HR/9 - 0.94, BABIP - .276.

Cormier walks almost one guy for every one he K's. Was a little lucky in 2006 and given the number of balls in play (due to the low K rate) a normal BABIP means hitters will tee off. Cormier also projects to an ERA above 5.

In 2006, Hammond and White were the poster children for the problems with the Reds pen, yet the component stats say they were better pitchers than 2 of this year's planned mainstays.

So yes, IMO we are this bad.

redsmetz
01-20-2007, 05:37 AM
The Reds are that bad.

Rick White 2006: Age- 37, K/9 - 5.57, HR/9 - 1.11, BB/9 - 2.78, BABIP - .323

David Weathers 2006: Age 36, K/9 - 6.11, HR/9 - 1.47, BB/9 - 4.15, BABIP - .236

Take a way the luck difference and David Weathers looks a lot worse than Rick White. Walks and HR are a bad combo. Projections are an ERA above 5.

It gets worse:

Chris Hammond 2006: Age -40, K/9 - 7.22, BB/9 - 1.57, HR/9 1.43, BABIP - .341.

Rheal Cormier 2006: Age - 39, K/9 - 3.56, BB/9 3.19, HR/9 - 0.94, BABIP - .276.

Cormier walks almost one guy for every one he K's. Was a little lucky in 2006 and given the number of balls in play (due to the low K rate) a normal BABIP means hitters will tee off. Cormier also projects to an ERA above 5.

In 2006, Hammond and White were the poster children for the problems with the Reds pen, yet the component stats say they were better pitchers than 2 of this year's planned mainstays.

So yes, IMO we are this bad.

This is a serious question... How do you empiracally determine a pitcher was lucky or not. I understand that one walk to every K is not a good thing and certainly putting runners on regularly is going to put you in a world of hurt, but does pitching out of the bad place you put yourself in mean you're lucky? And yes, I get it that if you're putting runners on alot, sooner or later you're not going to always (or even regularly) work your way out of it. Will an improved defense (which we allegedly have this year) help with that luck or is that just the skill you expect of your ballclub?

mth123
01-20-2007, 08:00 AM
This is a serious question... How do you empiracally determine a pitcher was lucky or not. I understand that one walk to every K is not a good thing and certainly putting runners on regularly is going to put you in a world of hurt, but does pitching out of the bad place you put yourself in mean you're lucky? And yes, I get it that if you're putting runners on alot, sooner or later you're not going to always (or even regularly) work your way out of it. Will an improved defense (which we allegedly have this year) help with that luck or is that just the skill you expect of your ballclub?

I should let one of the stat experts answer this but since I brought it up, Batting Average Balls in Play (BABIP) measures the hit frequency of balls that are hit into the field of play. It is the average on all AB against a pitcher that do not result in a HR, Walk or K. Research has shown that over a career most pitchers of all types be they studs or duds average around .290 to .300. The basic theory is that the pitcher can't control whether a ball put into the field of play will be turned into an out or not (hence the luck reference). All the pitcher can do personally is rack up K's, allow Walks or allow HRs. The rest is up to the defense behind him and the luck of where it goes.

It took me a while to buy into this until I saw some research that shows that most pitchers fall in somewhere between .280 and .310 and it is the results of the other events that differentiates the good from the bad. (This is measured in a stat called DIPS ERA which I have yet to fully comprehend). I still am not completely sold that a pitcher doesn't have some control over the stat ( a crummy pitcher giving up rope after rope is going to have a higher BABIP IMO) but the research that shows that the low-end guys and hall of famers mostly end-up in the .290 to .300 range is overwhelming. So even though its against my years of learning, I can not argue with the overwhelming evidence.

Once the stat is at least somewhat accepted, its pretty easy to apply.

1.) We all know that Walks and HR are bad and giving those up at high rates (say over 3 per nine for walks and over 1 per nine for HR) is going to lead to more runs allowed.

2.) We also know the value of a K in a big situation but just thinking about the formula, the importance becomes more evident. If we accept that the pitcher is going to give-up a BABIP of .290 to .300, then obviously pitchers who K more batters will be allowing less balls in play. So we can logically conclude that 30% of of a smaller number of balls in play will lead to less baserunners than a pitcher who doesn't K as many guys (i.e. 30% of a larger number of balls in play).

3.) Finally, and most obviously that BABIP stat itself is very telling. If a pitcher has a really good year (like Weathers last year and Cormier during his Philly stay in 2006) you have to look to his BABIP and see how much was attributable to good pitching and how much was due to good fortune of an unusually high number of balls in play turned into outs (although I still think the pitcher has some control but not enough to move the number way below the statistically proven averages).

So how do I apply that to Weathers and Cormier? In Weathers case his BABIP of .236 from 2006 is probably not going to be repeated. If that goes up to a still decent .290 it is going to lead to a number of added baserunners, fewer outs acquired and the need to face more hitters to get those outs. Now add-in the fact that he walks a lot of guys (over 4 per nine) and gives-up a lot of HR (almost 1.5 per nine) and an increase in BABIP will be very harmful (amplified) in his case. I know that logically, but depend on some one else to do the actual calcualtion. The ZIPS projection system at Baseball Think Factory has determined that Weathers projects to an ERA of 5.35 in 2007.

For Cormier, he was leading the league in ERA when the Reds acquired him. His BABIP at the time was .238. When he came to the Reds his BABIP "normalized" to a season average .276 (His BABIP in Cincy was .353 so he may not be as bad as he showed here last year, but overall stats in 2006 are still somewhat "lucky."). In his case the low K rate is the issue. Lower K's mean more balls in play and an increase in BABIP is more harmful than it would be to a guy who K's more hitters. ZIPS projects 4.89 for Cormier in 2007 ( I mis-spoke when I said over 5 in my earlier post).

I'm certain the stats guys can provide more detail and data (and correct any of my mis-statements), but that is my layman's approach.

redsmetz
01-20-2007, 08:09 AM
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I still wonder though if an improved defense will help. I'm not sold that we're as awful as the pundits predict. I'm not saying we're going to win it or even, necessarily, make the play-offs, but I don't think we're going to stink it up quite so badly. I don't think alot of Cormier, but I'm comfortable with Weathers and Stanton. Clearly we have to have the younger guys step up - Bray, Coffey, a hopefully recovered and healthy Majewski. I don't think we're looking at the same bullpen as last year's opening had - it's a marginally better crew.

mth123
01-20-2007, 08:29 AM
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I still wonder though if an improved defense will help. I'm not sold that we're as awful as the pundits predict. I'm not saying we're going to win it or even, necessarily, make the play-offs, but I don't think we're going to stink it up quite so badly. I don't think alot of Cormier, but I'm comfortable with Weathers and Stanton. Clearly we have to have the younger guys step up - Bray, Coffey, a hopefully recovered and healthy Majewski. I don't think we're looking at the same bullpen as last year's opening had - it's a marginally better crew.

I think the defense will help (especially if JR moves from CF), but even with good defense Weathers won't have a BABIP of .236 again.

I like Coffey and hope for Bray. Stanton may have one good year left (I hope) but could decline quickly due to his age. The rest of the pen is pretty bad IMO and the younger guys who have a chance to change the dynamic are blocked by all the chaff. A Cormier trade could help in a number of ways IMO.

jojo
01-20-2007, 09:36 AM
I should let one of the stat experts answer this but since I brought it up, Batting Average Balls in Play (BABIP) measures the hit frequency of balls that are hit into the field of play. It is the average on all AB against a pitcher that do not result in a HR, Walk or K. Research has shown that over a career most pitchers of all types be they studs or duds average around .290 to .300. The basic theory is that the pitcher can't control whether a ball put into the field of play will be turned into an out or not (hence the luck reference). All the pitcher can do personally is rack up K's, allow Walks or allow HRs. The rest is up to the defense behind him and the luck of where it goes.

It took me a while to buy into this until I saw some research that shows that most pitchers fall in somewhere between .280 and .310 and it is the results of the other events that differentiates the good from the bad. (This is measured in a stat called DIPS ERA which I have yet to fully comprehend). I still am not completely sold that a pitcher doesn't have some control over the stat ( a crummy pitcher giving up rope after rope is going to have a higher BABIP IMO) but the research that shows that the low-end guys and hall of famers mostly end-up in the .290 to .300 range is overwhelming. So even though its against my years of learning, I can not argue with the overwhelming evidence.

Once the stat is at least somewhat accepted, its pretty easy to apply.

1.) We all know that Walks and HR are bad and giving those up at high rates (say over 3 per nine for walks and over 1 per nine for HR) is going to lead to more runs allowed.

2.) We also know the value of a K in a big situation but just thinking about the formula, the importance becomes more evident. If we accept that the pitcher is going to give-up a BABIP of .290 to .300, then obviously pitchers who K more batters will be allowing less balls in play. So we can logically conclude that 30% of of a smaller number of balls in play will lead to less baserunners than a pitcher who doesn't K as many guys (i.e. 30% of a larger number of balls in play).

3.) Finally, and most obviously that BABIP stat itself is very telling. If a pitcher has a really good year (like Weathers last year and Cormier during his Philly stay in 2006) you have to look to his BABIP and see how much was attributable to good pitching and how much was due to good fortune of an unusually high number of balls in play turned into outs (although I still think the pitcher has some control but not enough to move the number way below the statistically proven averages).

So how do I apply that to Weathers and Cormier? In Weathers case his BABIP of .236 from 2006 is probably not going to be repeated. If that goes up to a still decent .290 it is going to lead to a number of added baserunners, fewer outs acquired and the need to face more hitters to get those outs. Now add-in the fact that he walks a lot of guys (over 4 per nine) and gives-up a lot of HR (almost 1.5 per nine) and an increase in BABIP will be very harmful (amplified) in his case. I know that logically, but depend on some one else to do the actual calcualtion. The ZIPS projection system at Baseball Think Factory has determined that Weathers projects to an ERA of 5.35 in 2007.

For Cormier, he was leading the league in ERA when the Reds acquired him. His BABIP at the time was .238. When he came to the Reds his BABIP "normalized" to a season average .276 (His BABIP in Cincy was .353 so he may not be as bad as he showed here last year, but overall stats in 2006 are still somewhat "lucky."). In his case the low K rate is the issue. Lower K's mean more balls in play and an increase in BABIP is more harmful than it would be to a guy who K's more hitters. ZIPS projects 4.89 for Cormier in 2007 ( I mis-spoke when I said over 5 in my earlier post).

I'm certain the stats guys can provide more detail and data (and correct any of my mis-statements), but that is my layman's approach.

Good post. I'd add this to the discussion too:

When looking at how *lucky* a pitcher was i'd look at any metric that is basically out of control of the pitcher. Along with BABIP, i'd look at LOB% (ave: about 70%)-also called strand rate, and HR/FB% (ave:11%). Remember, though, it's important to examine these in context of the pitchers other peripherals etc.... i.e. Danny Graves' 58% LOB and 19% HR/FB in '06 weren't because he was unlucky. Taken in the context of things like his k/g of 1.8 and his xFIP (adjusted for HR rate and park) of 5.46, he wasn't unlucky-he was just bad. Incidentally, his BABIP was .283 in '06 (not an eye popper). You'll get a good feel for guys the more you break them down. A couple great examples would be to compare the difference between '05 and '06 Jarrod Washburn. I recently posted some numbers for R. Lopez in this thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53716&highlight=jojo+lopez) that seem on target for this discussion. You could look at '06 F. Hernandez to see how one of the more dominating pitchers in the majors had his ERA skewed by an unusually high HR/FB% or how a below average season by Zito was masked a bit by a high LOB%. King Felix's BABIP was .315 in '06-a little high but doesn't really suggest being all that unlucky. Zito's BABIP was .286 in '06.

So basically look at several metrics that are out of the control of the pitcher and view them within the context of his peripherals. Finally, be open to an alternative explanation for *unluck* if there can be a tanglible reason. For example, Felix began the year missing a few mph from his hard stuff and there was talk he was tipping his curve ball-both things that could've contributed to giving up more homers. BABIP can also be examined for hitters too. Dunn is a good example. He had a BABIP that would suggest he was unlucky. But in his case, the defensive shift employed against him likely contributed to his low BABIP given that he's mostly a pull hitter and essentially hit into the teeth of the shift most of the season. Also, look at Matthews Jr to see how being *lucky* in a contract year can translate into $50M. Finally, and importantly, this approach can be used to find undervalued guys whose numbers were skewed lo by being unlucky rather than their true skillset.

jojo
01-20-2007, 10:08 AM
Also as the example by mth123 pointed out, ERA is probably one of the least compelling metrics for evaluating a pitcher if for no other reason than the dramatic impact luck alone has on it....

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-20-2007, 10:39 AM
The Reds are that bad.

Rick White 2006: Age- 37, K/9 - 5.57, HR/9 - 1.11, BB/9 - 2.78, BABIP - .323

David Weathers 2006: Age 36, K/9 - 6.11, HR/9 - 1.47, BB/9 - 4.15, BABIP - .236

Take a way the luck difference and David Weathers looks a lot worse than Rick White. Walks and HR are a bad combo. Projections are an ERA above 5.

It gets worse:

Chris Hammond 2006: Age -40, K/9 - 7.22, BB/9 - 1.57, HR/9 1.43, BABIP - .341.

Rheal Cormier 2006: Age - 39, K/9 - 3.56, BB/9 3.19, HR/9 - 0.94, BABIP - .276.

Cormier walks almost one guy for every one he K's. Was a little lucky in 2006 and given the number of balls in play (due to the low K rate) a normal BABIP means hitters will tee off. Cormier also projects to an ERA above 5.

In 2006, Hammond and White were the poster children for the problems with the Reds pen, yet the component stats say they were better pitchers than 2 of this year's planned mainstays.

So yes, IMO we are this bad.

Wow, did you watch Rick White pitch last year, talk about a gas can. I don't see any way that you can compare him to Weathers no matter what projection formula you run em through. Hammond had a pretty good stretch last year that made his numbers look better than they actually were, he throws so slow that it is hard for hitters to adjust and or make solid contact. I can't say I believe in the luck factor, it justy doesn't make since to me, maybe you could explain it. I pitched for a while back in the day, up to American Legion ball, no college, and good pitchers get lucky all of the time. Sometimes what appears to be luck is not luck at all. For example, a pitcher walks a guy not intentionally but because he hits him well, the next guy bunts him over to second with one out. You walk the next guy, and the following hitter grounds into a double play. Seems lucky to me, and on paper but in reality it was mere strategy. If im way off please explain the lucky idea.

mth123
01-20-2007, 11:14 AM
Wow, did you watch Rick White pitch last year, talk about a gas can. I don't see any way that you can compare him to Weathers no matter what projection formula you run em through. Hammond had a pretty good stretch last year that made his numbers look better than they actually were, he throws so slow that it is hard for hitters to adjust and or make solid contact. I can't say I believe in the luck factor, it justy doesn't make since to me, maybe you could explain it. I pitched for a while back in the day, up to American Legion ball, no college, and good pitchers get lucky all of the time. Sometimes what appears to be luck is not luck at all. For example, a pitcher walks a guy not intentionally but because he hits him well, the next guy bunts him over to second with one out. You walk the next guy, and the following hitter grounds into a double play. Seems lucky to me, and on paper but in reality it was mere strategy. If im way off please explain the lucky idea.

I agree that White was a gas can. Weathers had the good fortune of a lot of at 'em balls. I assume you replied to my post before reading on in the thread. Hopefully my subsequent post and JoJo's post explain what was meant.

jojo
01-20-2007, 11:49 AM
Seems lucky to me, and on paper but in reality it was mere strategy. If im way off please explain the lucky idea.
Pitchers can control batted ball type to a degree (i.e. fly ball or ground ball) based upon their stuff so pitchers will have noticeable tendencies that are repeatable (i.e. within their control). They can even somewhat influence where a pitch might be hit based upon location/command (i.e. whether the pitch is in or away to the hitter). However pitchers generally have no ability to control whether the ball is a hit or an out once it is put into play regardless of type.

Revisit myth's comparison of Weathers and White from '06. Despite having significantly worse peripherals (BB/9 and HR/9 for instance) than White, Weathers had a dramatically lower ERA (3.54 vs 6.26). Closer look reveals Weathers had an extremely low BABIP and White had a pretty high one. So despite White being at the very least just as effective as Weathers as a Red in '06 (White's xFIP as a Red in '06=3.86 while Weathers' xFIP= 3.89), White gets the boot and Weathers gets a new contract. Once again the biggest difference in their performances was something that was completely out of their control-when put into play, more balls fell for hits against White than against Weathers. In other words, Weathers was lucky and White was unlucky. For '07, Pecota pretty much projects White and Weathers to be roughly twins. White, if he pitches this year, will do so for probably $500K while Weathers will make $2.25M.

Now returning to the hypothetical above, it WAS lucky in this sense-the pitcher had no control over whether the batted ball was a hit or whether it got turned into a double play. The strategy worked in this case because, 1) there is a greater chance of turning two with runners on first and second than if there is only a runner on second and, 2) the hitter *cooperated* by hitting a convert able ground ball. So the highest percentage would be to set up the double play and bring in a pitcher with extreme ground ball tendencies. In the end though, youre still hoping that the resulting ground ball is hit at someone rather than in a hole for a single or down the line for extra bases.

Anyway, thats how I think about pitcher evaluation and this issue in particular....

:beerme:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-20-2007, 05:14 PM
Pitchers can control batted ball type to a degree (i.e. fly ball or ground ball) based upon their stuff so pitchers will have noticeable tendencies that are repeatable (i.e. within their control). They can even somewhat influence where a pitch might be hit based upon location/command (i.e. whether the pitch is in or away to the hitter). However pitchers generally have no ability to control whether the ball is a hit or an out once it is put into play regardless of type.

Revisit myth's comparison of Weathers and White from '06. Despite having significantly worse peripherals (BB/9 and HR/9 for instance) than White, Weathers had a dramatically lower ERA (3.54 vs 6.26). Closer look reveals Weathers had an extremely low BABIP and White had a pretty high one. So despite White being at the very least just as effective as Weathers as a Red in '06 (White's xFIP as a Red in '06=3.86 while Weathers' xFIP= 3.89), White gets the boot and Weathers gets a new contract. Once again the biggest difference in their performances was something that was completely out of their control-when put into play, more balls fell for hits against White than against Weathers. In other words, Weathers was lucky and White was unlucky. For '07, Pecota pretty much projects White and Weathers to be roughly twins. White, if he pitches this year, will do so for probably $500K while Weathers will make $2.25M.

Now returning to the hypothetical above, it WAS lucky in this sense-the pitcher had no control over whether the batted ball was a hit or whether it got turned into a double play. The strategy worked in this case because, 1) there is a greater chance of turning two with runners on first and second than if there is only a runner on second and, 2) the hitter *cooperated* by hitting a convert able ground ball. So the highest percentage would be to set up the double play and bring in a pitcher with extreme ground ball tendencies. In the end though, youre still hoping that the resulting ground ball is hit at someone rather than in a hole for a single or down the line for extra bases.

Anyway, thats how I think about pitcher evaluation and this issue in particular....

:beerme:
Great post, thanks for clearing that up for me.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-20-2007, 05:20 PM
Pitchers can control batted ball type to a degree (i.e. fly ball or ground ball) based upon their stuff so pitchers will have noticeable tendencies that are repeatable (i.e. within their control). They can even somewhat influence where a pitch might be hit based upon location/command (i.e. whether the pitch is in or away to the hitter). However pitchers generally have no ability to control whether the ball is a hit or an out once it is put into play regardless of type.

Revisit myth's comparison of Weathers and White from '06. Despite having significantly worse peripherals (BB/9 and HR/9 for instance) than White, Weathers had a dramatically lower ERA (3.54 vs 6.26). Closer look reveals Weathers had an extremely low BABIP and White had a pretty high one. So despite White being at the very least just as effective as Weathers as a Red in '06 (White's xFIP as a Red in '06=3.86 while Weathers' xFIP= 3.89), White gets the boot and Weathers gets a new contract. Once again the biggest difference in their performances was something that was completely out of their control-when put into play, more balls fell for hits against White than against Weathers. In other words, Weathers was lucky and White was unlucky. For '07, Pecota pretty much projects White and Weathers to be roughly twins. White, if he pitches this year, will do so for probably $500K while Weathers will make $2.25M.

Now returning to the hypothetical above, it WAS lucky in this sense-the pitcher had no control over whether the batted ball was a hit or whether it got turned into a double play. The strategy worked in this case because, 1) there is a greater chance of turning two with runners on first and second than if there is only a runner on second and, 2) the hitter *cooperated* by hitting a convert able ground ball. So the highest percentage would be to set up the double play and bring in a pitcher with extreme ground ball tendencies. In the end though, youre still hoping that the resulting ground ball is hit at someone rather than in a hole for a single or down the line for extra bases.

Anyway, thats how I think about pitcher evaluation and this issue in particular....

:beerme:
I know it's asking alot seing that my rep is too low to give you some points but if you get the time I would like to see how a couple top level pitchers compare using this type of formula. Possibly Harrang and Carpenter.

jojo
01-20-2007, 07:49 PM
I know it's asking alot seing that my rep is too low to give you some points but if you get the time I would like to see how a couple top level pitchers compare using this type of formula. Possibly Harrang and Carpenter.

You don't need me inorder to do this type of comparison. Anyway, I've listed the top 20 starters in the majors during '06 as ranked by their xFIP below. Both Harang and Carpenter are on the list.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3170/pitchersxfip16ds.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Interestingly, Webb (top of the list) had the same BABIP as Lowe (middle of list) and Haren (second to last). BABIP ranged from .273 to .333 in this group of players with no strong relationship to xFIP (correlation=.28). Interstingly (and probably not surprisingly), the three strongest relationships were between LOB% and ERA (correlation=-.67), BABIP and ERA (correlation=.58), and HR/FBand ERA (correlation=.43). The usual caveats apply-this is an extremely small sample size comprised of an arbitrary group of players (i.e. the top twenty qualifying starters in '06 as judged by xFIP) so this isn't meant to be exhaustive but I think it illustrates a few points discussed in this thread.