PDA

View Full Version : The Reds Starters' DIPS ERA's



PuffyPig
04-30-2007, 04:16 PM
Harang 3.03
Belisle 2.27
Arroyo 3.03
Lohse 3.17
Milton 4.53

One thing is clear, the Reds' starters certainly have not been doing it with mirrors.

Each of Harang and Belisle have DIPS quite a bit lower than their actual ERA's.

Milton's is a little bit lower.

Arroyo's and Lohse's area bit higher.

The main improvement is less walks and way less HR's. The warmer weather in Cincy should allow for more HR's. But that should help the offense just as much.

knuckler
04-30-2007, 04:30 PM
Stupid question time: for a large sample of pitchers, how does DIPS ERA compare to traditional ERA? In other words, is the league average DIPS ERA lower than the league average ERA by about the same amount as the Reds' staff?

One thing I noticed when I looked a few days ago is that the Reds' staff is middle of the pack on ERA, but leading the league in WHIP. That would be consistent with playing half your games in a park where ball carries well, but bodes VERY well for continued success going forward. In particular, this staff has a walk rate that is exceedingly good relative to the league, and is not based on being lucky on BABIP.:beerme:

Johnny Footstool
04-30-2007, 04:52 PM
They're also fifth in the league in Ks, first in K/BB, and eighth in K/9.

Looks like "pitch to contact" has finally been replaced with the far superior "throw strikes."

harangatang
04-30-2007, 04:57 PM
If Milton can pitch like this the rest of the year (which isn't totally awesome by any stretch) I would have to say the Reds will end up having one of the best starting pitching corps in the league.

PuffyPig
04-30-2007, 04:58 PM
Stupid question time: for a large sample of pitchers, how does DIPS ERA compare to traditional ERA? In other words, is the league average DIPS ERA lower than the league average ERA by about the same amount as the Reds' staff?



I don't know the answer for sure, but it seems that the 2 should equal out. It assumes normal luck in terms of BABIP, distribution of hits, % of runners who score, % of runners who your relief pitchers let score etc.

When you look at a number of pitchers, it seems more DIPS are higher than actual ERA than lower.

If your ERA is low, it's almost immpossible for the DIPS to be lower. Looper's ERA is less than 2, but his DIPS is close to 4.

MartyFan
04-30-2007, 05:21 PM
ok...dumber question...what are DIPS?

PuffyPig
04-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Looks like "pitch to contact" has finally been replaced with the far superior "throw strikes."


I think those mean the same. You throw strikes to get players to hit the ball.

You throw more balls in attempts to strike out batters by having them swing at bad pitches. But you also increase the amount of walks and bad counts.

Ltlabner
04-30-2007, 05:52 PM
They're also fifth in the league in Ks, first in K/BB, and eighth in K/9.

Looks like "pitch to contact" has finally been replaced with the far superior "throw strikes."

I'm with you Johnny. Amoungst the pantheon of bizzare baseball catch phases, "pitch to contact" ranks right up there with "love to lose" and "bash your skull against the wall".

dougdirt
04-30-2007, 06:41 PM
ok...dumber question...what are DIPS?

Dips = Defensive independent ERA. It basically normalizes what a pitcher theoretically would do if they all had the exact same average defense behind them. Its fairly accurate.

knuckler
04-30-2007, 07:28 PM
Dips = Defensive independent ERA. It basically normalizes what a pitcher theoretically would do if they all had the exact same average defense behind them. Its fairly accurate.

Thanks for making me smarter guys. I just don't have the time to keep up with all the latest fads any more! I was thinking it was just a formula based on home runs and walks, kind of a pitcher's version of the hitter's Three True Outcomes.

Does DIPS also normalize for home ballpark effects?

Spitball
04-30-2007, 07:43 PM
I think those mean the same. You throw strikes to get players to hit the ball.

You throw more balls in attempts to strike out batters by having them swing at bad pitches. But you also increase the amount of walks and bad counts.

I could go into more depth on this topic, but basically, if a pitcher gets ahead in the count by throwing strikes, he can then get the batter out by forcing him to expand the zone. If he gets behind, he has to come to the batter. Simple pitcher logic. Cyclone has posted an interesting study of first strike percentages.

dougdirt
04-30-2007, 09:25 PM
Thanks for making me smarter guys. I just don't have the time to keep up with all the latest fads any more! I was thinking it was just a formula based on home runs and walks, kind of a pitcher's version of the hitter's Three True Outcomes.

Does DIPS also normalize for home ballpark effects?

It can if you know the ballpark factor. The major factors involved are, walks, hits, HBP, IBB, HR, SO and Batters faced.

IslandRed
04-30-2007, 09:59 PM
I don't know the answer for sure, but it seems that the 2 should equal out. It assumes normal luck in terms of BABIP, distribution of hits, % of runners who score, % of runners who your relief pitchers let score etc.

When you look at a number of pitchers, it seems more DIPS are higher than actual ERA than lower.

If your ERA is low, it's almost immpossible for the DIPS to be lower. Looper's ERA is less than 2, but his DIPS is close to 4.

If I understand it correctly, DIPS "ERA" is a bit of a misnomer because it's really DIPS RA, i.e. Run Average. The DIPS ERA will be slightly higher than real ERA on average because the stat is normalized relative to actual runs scored, so pitchers don't get the unearned-runs discount.

jmac
05-01-2007, 12:01 AM
ok...dumber question...what are DIPS?

Thanks for asking. I was always the kid that was to chicken to raise his hand to ask.;)

Johnny Footstool
05-01-2007, 09:39 AM
I think those mean the same. You throw strikes to get players to hit the ball.

You throw more balls in attempts to strike out batters by having them swing at bad pitches. But you also increase the amount of walks and bad counts.

The difference is subtle, but important.

Pitch to contact means specifically trying to induce contact -- a bad idea in the big leagues.

Throwing strikes means making good pitches in the strike zone -- using your stuff to get ahead in the count and making the batter swing at your pitch. The Reds have been doing this very well this year, as their good K/9 and excellent K/BB show.

PuffyPig
05-01-2007, 10:21 AM
The difference is subtle, but important.

Pitch to contact means specifically trying to induce contact -- a bad idea in the big leagues.



And how do you induce contact? By throwing strikes.

"Pitch to contact" does not mean throwing up grapefruit to be clobbered. It means throwing strikes and not letting walks kill you, even if it means allowing the hitter to put it into play. It means making your best pitches, but in the strike zone.

Johnny Footstool
05-01-2007, 10:57 AM
And how do you induce contact? By throwing strikes.

"Pitch to contact" does not mean throwing up grapefruit to be clobbered. It means throwing strikes and not letting walks kill you, even if it means allowing the hitter to put it into play. It means making your best pitches, but in the strike zone.

Unfortunately, "pitch to contact" does mean throw grapefruits. At least that was DanO's philosophy. "Don't nibble, keep pitch counts low, let your defense do the work." Basically, it's "don't try to strike everyone out." Unfortunately, allowing the hitter to put the ball in play is a bad idea in the major leagues, unless you've got a nasty sinker or cutter, or pinpoint location.

If you're making your best pitches in the strike zone, you certainly don't want the batter to be able to make contact with them. "Throwing strikes" means nibbling occasionally and forcing the hitter to swing *and miss* as often as possible.

klw
05-01-2007, 11:27 AM
At this point in the season, what do peolpe view as the most important or best indicator stat for the long term performance of the staff. ERA can be skiewed by the still relatively small sample size. Is it WHIP, k/9, k/bb or a measure which combines these? Just curious to see what people here are using the most when evaluating how things look for this staff.

Johnny Footstool
05-01-2007, 11:38 AM
At this point, I'd say K/9 and K/BB are better than WHIP, because those two are independent of balls in play. Still, we're looking at a small sample size for all of these, so it's probably too early to tell.

PuffyPig
05-01-2007, 12:23 PM
At this point, I'd say K/9 and K/BB are better than WHIP, because those two are independent of balls in play. Still, we're looking at a small sample size for all of these, so it's probably too early to tell.


I agree.

At the end of the season, teams with K/W ratios of greater than 2;1 are generally in the top half of the ERA's, teams with them below 2:1 in the bottom half.

In fact, since 2001 in the NL, teams with K/W ratios of 2:1 or better placed in the top half of ERA 75% of the time.

Teams below the 2:1 mark, placed in the bottom half about 80% of the time.

So, if the ratio holds up (and ours is better than 3:1 right now), we're a good bet to have a better than average ERA at the end of the year.

Dunner44
05-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Quick bit of trivia: How many times in the past 5 seasons (2003-2007) has Aaron Harang walked more than three batters in a start?

Bonus points if you can name the last start without using the baseball cube or similar.

Dunner44
05-01-2007, 05:13 PM
The answer is three times. He last walked four batters 7/19/04 vs. the Brewers.

He walked 4 batters on 4/21/04 vs. the Braves and 8/14/03 vs. the D-Backs.

He has not walked more than three batters in the past three seasons. I'd say thats a good way to set yourself up for success as a major league pitcher.