He still has some innings to go to catch up but they are earily similarOriginally Posted by mth123
He still has some innings to go to catch up but they are earily similar
"Losing feels worse than winning feels good." -Vin Scully
Astute observation:
David Weathers: 2005-2009 (roughly, his time with the Reds)
K/9: 6.04
BB/9: 3.70
HR/9: 0.97
BABIP: .261
Logan Ondrusek: career
K/9: 6.02
BB/9: 3.89
HR/9: 1.04
BABIP: .248
Tidbit: looking up Weathers' stats resulted in an exact duplication of the lower back spasm I felt every time he came in to pitch.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
I feel bludgeoned by intelligence, this is basically a religious experience. We should all be grateful.
I haven't totally rejected the notion, but at this point you could have said that about Ondrusek each of the past three years and yet it still hasn't happened. At what point doe someone accept the possibility that FIP isn't always the best predictor (it's actually not statistically much better a predictor than ERA as I mentioned in post #116)?
My stance all along is that Ondrusek is an average reliever. His OPS, a bottom line metric incorporating everything a pitcher surrenders, continues to support that with some room to spare (as he's technically been above-average for three years running). That allows for some wiggle room if the BABIP does come up a bit. But again... it's been three years and he's still carrying these numbers.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
In general, we are finding out that there are more pitchers than originally expected, who can keep a low BABIP over their career. We are finding through advanced PitchFx that more pitchers than expected can increase the amount of weak contact against them. Not talking GB/FB/LD, but actual velocity and trajectory of the ball. Basically, the notion that pitchers can't control their BABIP isn't as true as we had believed.
And this is one that many have missed, but relievers are able to maintain lower BABIP than starters. This actually makes sense, since they pitch very differently than starters. They only see a few batters an outing, and rarely face the same batter more than two or times a season, as compared to starters who see the same batters two or three times a game. There's a lot more differences, but that's a key one.
This is a crude instrument, but I don't have time to do anything more in depth. However, it is still very telling.
It's the BABIP of each team, broken down by starters and relievers. The first number is the number of teams that had a BABIP .280 or below. The second is the lowest BABIP that a team had that season. Again, broken down by starters and relievers
The take away:
From 2003-2012, teams starters compiled 27 BABIP's .280 and below. Teams relievers compiled 67 BABIP's .280 and below. The average lowest BABIP for starters was .271, the lowest average BABIP for relievers was .262. And not on the chart, team's starters compiled 4 BABIP's below .270, while relievers compiled 19 BABIP's below .270.
Code:Year Start #<.281 Start Lowest Relief #<.281 Relief Lowest 2012 6 0.275 10 0.263 2011 1 0.265 10 0.267 2010 2 0.269 5 0.267 2009 3 0.271 7 0.266 2008 1 0.273 4 0.257 2007 1 0.274 2 0.263 2006 1 0.275 3 0.272 2005 4 0.266 8 0.256 2004 2 0.274 6 0.257 2003 6 0.267 12 0.264 Total 27 0.271 67 0.262
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
In relation to the argument that we have a sufficient sample size for Ondrusek to suggest that he has the ability to outperform his FIP going forward, I would have to disagree with that suggestion. 164 innings of pitching is not a sufficient sample. For example, there are plenty of starting pitchers who have a fluke season, that entails about 180-200 innings. Really, Ondrusek's sample is that of one year's worth of a starting pitcher. There are plenty of examples of a starting pitcher being lucky just for a season.
Secondly, the Reds have had above average defense over the time period that Ondrusek has pitched in the major leagues. Again, considering the relatively small sample size, it would be reasonable to suggest that in front of a good defense, Ondrusek would stand to benefit from that. Mix in some general luck, and there is a clear recipe for how he could outperform his FIP, independent of skill.
Thirdly, I have seen Ondrusek referred to in this thread of being capable of inducing groundballs? He actually has demonstrated no discernable skill to do so.
I think the David Weathers comp (with the Reds) is a good one. And I think over a larger sample size, Weathers would have eventually broke. The fact that there are few other good comps from my original question suggests that these pitchers just don't consistently outperform there peripherals by that much.
In the end, Ondrusek has demonstrated no discernable skills to K players, limit walks, or induce sufficient groundballs to limit home runs. Find me a player with a long term BAPIP of .248, and maybe there is a case here, but there's not.
I'm sticking with my original comp of Gary Majewski. Ondrusek is going to fall apart given enough chances IMO.
I've already given my thoughts on your other points, so I won't beleaguer the point, but I have to question this statement.
No discernable skill to induce grounders? Patrick, his career GB/FB ratio is 1.24. NL league average this year is 0.85.
How is that not discernable? He's been above league average at inducing grounders in three consecutive seasons. Forty six percent above league average for his career. That seems rather distinguishable to me.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
To me (not "we" or "us"), my understanding of BABIP hasn't changed from this:
Some pitchers have some influence on their BABIP.
Nice analysis but I would want to see how that compares to the league BABIP and mean BABIP. Or compare that to some multi-season rolling average.And this is one that many have missed, but relievers are able to maintain lower BABIP than starters. This actually makes sense, since they pitch very differently than starters. They only see a few batters an outing, and rarely face the same batter more than two or times a season, as compared to starters who see the same batters two or three times a game. There's a lot more differences, but that's a key one.
This is a crude instrument, but I don't have time to do anything more in depth. However, it is still very telling.
It's the BABIP of each team, broken down by starters and relievers. The first number is the number of teams that had a BABIP .280 or below. The second is the lowest BABIP that a team had that season. Again, broken down by starters and relievers
The take away:
From 2003-2012, teams starters compiled 27 BABIP's .280 and below. Teams relievers compiled 67 BABIP's .280 and below. The average lowest BABIP for starters was .271, the lowest average BABIP for relievers was .262. And not on the chart, team's starters compiled 4 BABIP's below .270, while relievers compiled 19 BABIP's below .270.
Code:Year Start #<.281 Start Lowest Relief #<.281 Relief Lowest 2012 6 0.275 10 0.263 2011 1 0.265 10 0.267 2010 2 0.269 5 0.267 2009 3 0.271 7 0.266 2008 1 0.273 4 0.257 2007 1 0.274 2 0.263 2006 1 0.275 3 0.272 2005 4 0.266 8 0.256 2004 2 0.274 6 0.257 2003 6 0.267 12 0.264 Total 27 0.271 67 0.262
Or not. I don't think it would really change my opinion of Ondrusek.
He sure is tall!
That's my best superlative for him at the moment.
Dd I totally reject anything?
Sorry to have misspoke, I guess what I have seen is a rejection (in a broad sense) as to how we evaluate relievers. Don't take that the wrong way. I see ERA and OPS-against being used to evaluate (in support of) Logan. Since when are those top tier stats used to evaluate relievers, especially one with 164 or so total innings in his career.
I don't care for ERA, but I think OPS is a much better stat to be used than FIP or xFIP which ignore everything in the field of play. In fact, it's been shown now that ERA predictors such as tERA and SIERA have a much higher predictive value to future ERA than the fielding-independent metrics.
I liked FIP for a few years, but as research has evolved, I'm now of the opinion it is too narrow.
Now, I will add, I think an adjusted OPS is better than raw, but I think a raw OPS is better than FIP.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Ondrusek has a career groundball perentage of 46.8%. The current year NL average is roughly 45%. He might be marginally above average, but it's certainly not something to hang your hat on (and I would say is not a "discernable" skill of his).
And where was it addressed that 160 innings is an appropriate sample, and the consideration for the impact of an above average defense over that time period?
I don't know of any situations where someone with a 1.24 GB:FB ratio is not considered a groundball pitcher. And what's more is that in addition to his GB:FB ratio, which is nearly 50 percent above league average, he's also induced a very healthy 14% IFFB rate in his career. He's keeping the ball down and getting more grounders than flyballs, he's inducing fewer line drives than most players and is getting a high number of infield pop-ups. That's why his OPS continues to be better than average relievers despite his mediocre K:BB rate.
As far as the sample issue, I don't think there's any comparison to 160 innings over the course of 160 appearances and 160 innings over the course of 27 appearances. Whether 160 innings is enough to gauge a reliever or not is debatable, but to suggest that 160 innings is "like" one season as a starter is disingenuous. If a pitcher has a good outing as a starter, that usually carries over for 6-7 innings. But if you have a good outing as a reliever, you have to come right back the next night and do it again and you're still only a third of the number of innings a starter pitched on one night. There's no comparison in sample size between the two because of the dynamics of an appearance.
Last edited by Brutus; 08-19-2012 at 07:12 PM.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
A few points:
1) Any pitcher whose effectiveness depends upon maintaining a significantly lower than average BABIP will not be as effective in the future as they have been in the past independent of environment or their teammates.
2) Things like tERA and Sierra are second generation versions of FIP, i.e. they aren't a move away from DIPs theory but rather they are metrics that try to do an even better job of removing factors that are out of the pitcher's control. FIP, tERA, and SIERRA are defense independent metrics.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote