Travis Wood and Mike Leake

[dougdirt]

Your basis of proof is 436 innings... barely two full Major League seasons. That's hardly enough to suggest he's "shown" anything.

Nonetheless, in that time, his career BABIP is still nearly 50 points higher than it is currently. So he's in for major regression no matter how you slice it. Even if you are extremely generous and split the difference between his FIP and SIERA, you're still looking at a 4 ERA... about 30% higher than it is now. Point is, which has been stated repeatedly, in every single context, he's vastly outperforming expectations for any established baseline in the history of the game. And you've already admitted that, so it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm arguing because you are making points based on something that is trying to compare him to people that he isn't comparable to. It would be like saying Votto is going to regress plenty because his BABIP is at .365 because the league BABIP is .300. It ignores the context.

Now, of course Wood is going to regress some. But throwing around his FIP/xFIP/SIERRA doesn't do much for the conversation since we have a lot of evidence suggesting he isn't a guy that works so much with those normal baselines.

[DocRed]

I would feel alot better about things if Marshall would just friggin stay healthy....

[Brutus]

I'm arguing because you are making points based on something that is trying to compare him to people that he isn't comparable to. It would be like saying Votto is going to regress plenty because his BABIP is at .365 because the league BABIP is .300. It ignores the context.

Now, of course Wood is going to regress some. But throwing around his FIP/xFIP/SIERRA doesn't do much for the conversation since we have a lot of evidence suggesting he isn't a guy that works so much with those normal baselines.

Good grief, Doug. You've already admitted that he's 50 points below his career average. That's going to be a huge amount of regression even if he *only* reverts back to his career. But what's worse is that you're now trying to say the decades of empirical evidence doesn't apply to him, and assuming, based only one two seasons of data, that he's going to be a historical outlier that comes around extremely rarely rather than more likely be a player that winds up closer to the middle of the bell curve.

Here are the facts: Leake has a better groundball/flyball rate, a better strikeout rate and a better walk rate. My initial comment said that you could argue Leake is likely to be just as productive or more productive when the BABIP normalizes a bit for Wood (which you admit will happen). Which of these things do you disagree with? None of them? Didn't think so.

Which means you keep trying to argue something I haven't argued. I never once said Wood would end up being at .300. Not once. Yet here you are still trying to argue something I haven't said. All I ever said was that almost all of Leake's peripherals right now are better than Wood's and some of Wood's glaring ERA/WHIP combo is coming from an unsustainable BABIP. You agree with that, but again for some reason, you're trying to change the argument.

Wood's BABIP is unsustainable. You agree. Leake is having a better year in terms of peripherals. I haven't heard you disagree.

Continue bringing up this random .260 number and paint Wood as a historical outlier if you wish. But it's honestly reverting back to an argument that doesn't exist. The point is that .220 isn't happening. Whether it's .260 or .280, he's in for regression. Leake's numbers will look just as good or better if his peripherals stay where they are.

[757690]

Both have same ERA as of today: 2.75

Who saw that coming?

[Brutus]

Both have same ERA as of today: 2.75

Who saw that coming?

I've been as big a Leake supporter as there is on this board. I certainly wouldn't have anticipated a 2.75. I doubt it will stay this low, as it goes without saying. But if he winds up at 3.50 at the end of the season, there will be a lot of happy campers (I would hope/suspect).

[RiverRat13]

Both have same ERA as of today: 2.75

Who saw that coming?

Their FIPs are almost exactly the same as well. Leake has a 3.61, Wood has a 3.62.

[dougdirt]

Good grief, Doug. You've already admitted that he's 50 points below his career average. That's going to be a huge amount of regression even if he *only* reverts back to his career. But what's worse is that you're now trying to say the decades of empirical evidence doesn't apply to him, and assuming, based only one two seasons of data, that he's going to be a historical outlier that comes around extremely rarely rather than more likely be a player that winds up closer to the middle of the bell curve.

Here are the facts: Leake has a better groundball/flyball rate, a better strikeout rate and a better walk rate. My initial comment said that you could argue Leake is likely to be just as productive or more productive when the BABIP normalizes a bit for Wood (which you admit will happen). Which of these things do you disagree with? None of them? Didn't think so.

Which means you keep trying to argue something I haven't argued. I never once said Wood would end up being at .300. Not once. Yet here you are still trying to argue something I haven't said. All I ever said was that almost all of Leake's peripherals right now are better than Wood's and some of Wood's glaring ERA/WHIP combo is coming from an unsustainable BABIP. You agree with that, but again for some reason, you're trying to change the argument.

Wood's BABIP is unsustainable. You agree. Leake is having a better year in terms of peripherals. I haven't heard you disagree.

Continue bringing up this random .260 number and paint Wood as a historical outlier if you wish. But it's honestly reverting back to an argument that doesn't exist. The point is that .220 isn't happening. Whether it's .260 or .280, he's in for regression. Leake's numbers will look just as good or better if his peripherals stay where they are.

When you bring up stats that assume his BABIP is normal, you are essentially bringing it up. Yeah, you didn't say it specifically, you just used stats that say it.

I am not addressing the rest of your post, because frankly I just don't care to continue with it because you can't grasp what I am trying to say and I don't care to explain it anymore.

[Tom Servo]

Leake definitely seems on pace to be at least as good as he was in 2011, and hopefully set a new career high in innings pitched.

[Brutus]

When you bring up stats that assume his BABIP is normal, you are essentially bringing it up. Yeah, you didn't say it specifically, you just used stats that say it.

I am not addressing the rest of your post, because frankly I just don't care to continue with it because you can't grasp what I am trying to say and I don't care to explain it anymore.

I perfectly grasp it. You're putting words in my mouth. You know as well as I do that empirical evidence shows players generally fall within +/- 20 points of .290-.300. There are exceptions, sure, but they are very rare. In fact, in the last 25 years of all pitchers that have thrown at least 500 innings (650 of them), the line of two standard deviations is .023 of .292, which means 95% of all pitchers are between .269 and .315.

So truly, Wood sustaining even a .265 mark, let alone a .220 BABIP, is expecting him to be one of the extreme outliers in the bell curve. Like I said, it's prudent for now to expect more likely .270-.280, which is still well below the average but allows for one of the exceptions.

You're always one of the first ones to cite BABIP when it's unsustainable, Doug. You know full well that pitchers simply don't have a ton of influence (some, but not much). There are certainly exceptions and guys that do have some influence over it. And I nor anyone has said Wood can't be one of those.If you wish to expect him to be three standard deviations from the center (the 1%) and a .260 BABIP, that's quite a gamble you're taking but it still doesn't go against my original point: Wood's BABIP is flukily low right now. If he were any other pitcher that had a .245 BABIP and an "average" .290 career, you'd be leading the charge at how lucky he is. But if it's .220 vs. .265 and Travis Wood, for whatever reason you're re-framing the debate to something that was never said. I didn't state that Wood would wind up at .300 because I didn't think it was necessary but also because I know there is some flexibility. I figured common sense could see .220 and know it's a far, far way from .270-.300. It's generally understood that most pitchers wind up somewhere in the +/- 20 point range I referred to in this post. And like I said: the numbers back that up since the 2xSD (95%) mark is .023 of .292.

[VR]

WAR

Leake 1.1(2.75/1.31 WHIP/5-2)
Wood 1.9 (2.75/ 1.01 WHIP/5-3)

[dougdirt]

You're always one of the first ones to cite BABIP when it's unsustainable, Doug. You know full well that pitchers simply don't have a ton of influence (some, but not much). There are certainly exceptions and guys that do have some influence over it. And I nor anyone has said Wood can't be one of those.If you wish to expect him to be three standard deviations from the center (the 1%) and a .260 BABIP, that's quite a gamble you're taking but it still doesn't go against my original point: Wood's BABIP is flukily low right now. If he were any other pitcher that had a .245 BABIP and an "average" .290 career, you'd be leading the charge at how lucky he is. But if it's .220 vs. .265 and Travis Wood, for whatever reason you're re-framing the debate to something that was never said. I didn't state that Wood would wind up at .300 because I didn't think it was necessary but also because I know there is some flexibility. I figured common sense could see .220 and know it's a far, far way from .270-.300. It's generally understood that most pitchers wind up somewhere in the +/- 20 point range I referred to in this post. And like I said: the numbers back that up since the 2xSD (95%) mark is .023 of .292.

I am framing the debate that Wood has been in his career one of the lowest BABIP pitchers in the game and he has had multiple seasons with a decent amount of innings, in two different ballparks with different defenses behind him and he has posted three seasons of really low BABIP's and one season where he got lit up. The one season he got lit up he notably struggled with his cutter. We also know that the guys who can throw a good cutter tend to be able to control their BABIP a little bit more than "the rest". All I am saying is that using fielding independent numbers for a guy like Wood, that has been able to beat the .300 BABIP in his career by a significant margin probably isn't the best way to frame your argument about his value.

[757690]

In fact, in the last 25 years of all pitchers that have thrown at least 500 innings (650 of them

This is the key stat on this issue for me.

This year alone, there will be close to 500 different guys who pitched in the majors. And there are only 650 in the last 25 years who pitched at least 500 innings.

That means these stats in BABIP are missing a large majority of the guys who pitched in the majors. THere is good reason, as they didn't produce enough data to be reliable, but that means that we really can't apply what we know to be true for a very select group of pitchers (those who lasted at least 500 innings) to everyone else.

Besides, why can't Wood be part of that 5%? It seems Johnny Cueto is. 5% of all pitchers would be around 20-25 each year. It's not like we're talking about 1 evey decade.

[Brutus]

I am framing the debate that Wood has been in his career one of the lowest BABIP pitchers in the game and he has had multiple seasons with a decent amount of innings, in two different ballparks with different defenses behind him and he has posted three seasons of really low BABIP's and one season where he got lit up. The one season he got lit up he notably struggled with his cutter. We also know that the guys who can throw a good cutter tend to be able to control their BABIP a little bit more than "the rest". All I am saying is that using fielding independent numbers for a guy like Wood, that has been able to beat the .300 BABIP in his career by a significant margin probably isn't the best way to frame your argument about his value.

And again, no one said anything about .300. You tried to put that in my mouth. I was generalizing, not drawing a specific line in the sand and suggesting he will revert back to exactly that.

Even if you draw the line at the ridiculously unlikely .260, you're still a long way from Kansas, Toto. That's still 40 points lower than the most optimistic projection one could conceive for him.

[Brutus]

This is the key stat on this issue for me.

This year alone, there will be close to 500 different guys who pitched in the majors. And there are only 650 in the last 25 years who pitched at least 500 innings.

That means these stats in BABIP are missing a large majority of the guys who pitched in the majors. THere is good reason, as they didn't produce enough data to be reliable, but that means that we really can't apply what we know to be true for a very select group of pitchers (those who lasted at least 500 innings) to everyone else.

Besides, why can't Wood be part of that 5%? It seems Johnny Cueto is. 5% of all pitchers would be around 20-25 each year. It's not like we're talking about 1 evey decade.

No one said he couldn't be part of that 5% (or to be more accurate, 2.5% since the 5% encompasses both high and low extremes). But if you have money and you're betting on what's more likely, do you want to put it on the 95% outcome or 5%?

As far as the "majority" of the guys that didn't make it to 500 innings, they are irrelevant to this discussion. The idea is that Wood is going to be successful, so we have to look at what's likely to happen with guys going forward as they are established and have a large sample behind them. If we are going to accept Wood as being successful, then it's fair to look at a bigger sample size and see what others that have made it typically do after establishing a meaningful baseline. The low-sample guys that flame out didn't built up a big enough sample to be worth studying.

Bottom line is that it's highly unlikely he'll stay at his career .264. Even if he does, and he's part of that 2.5% that maintains a historically low BABIP, he's still 45 points away from that mark right now. So again for the umpteenth time... he's still due for a huge amount of regression in even the most optimistic scenario. Even if he's part of the 2.5% that stay below 2xSD, he's probably going to see his ERA balloon at some point.

For the record, it's also highly worth noting that in 723 minor league innings, anyone want to guess Wood's BABIP? How about .290. Kind of suggestive that his current sample is more likely an outlier than a trend.

[Big Klu]

And again, no one said anything about .300. You tried to put that in my mouth. I was generalizing, not drawing a specific line in the sand and suggesting he will revert back to exactly that.

Even if you draw the line at the ridiculously unlikely .260, you're still a long way from Kansas, Toto. That's still 40 points lower than the most optimistic projection one could conceive for him.

Ahh, Kansas and Toto! I think I'd buy tickets to see that.

Carry on, my wayward son...