Continued discussion of Jimmy Anderson and BABIP

[PuffyPig]

Victories aren't given to the team whose pitcher strikes out the most opposing batters, it's given to the team that scores more runs than their opponent. Strikeouts are exciting and sexy, but you guys really do put too much emphasis on them.

More strikeouts mean less hits and less hits mean less runs. Less runs will correlate to more wins.

[REDREAD]

So, you think Bailey is going to pitch 200 innings in 2012? What would you base that on? Luck?

Bum

I think it's a toss up on who will pitch more innings next year (Oswalt or Homer).. I would give a slight edge to Homer, as he's got youth and a healthy back on his side.

I'm all for going for it this year, but I can understand why the Reds can't spend 10 million on Oswalt for depth. If Homer and Masset have to be traded to make space in the payroll, it could be a net loss. Trading Homer also leaves a big hole on the roster for 2013.

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't think anyone did that, although that's what people seem to want to make it appear as what I'm doing. I'm looking at the full package, end results and not just cherry picking stats here and there to make an argument that Bailey has been the better pitcher when the full body of their work shows Arroyo to have been more valuable to his team. Others are saying, yes, but Bailey could be better or that he should be better, while I'm pointing out that he hasn't been, yet no one seems to want to concede that fact.

Who's saying he's had a better career than Arroyo? That's cherry picking quotes that don't even exist........

Homer has not been a terrible major league pitcher the last 2 years, at least no less terrible than Arroyo. It's about projecting the future, and I think you are missing the cart with Homer if you are basing him on his previous 5 years, 2.5 of which he probably shouldn't have been in the majors.

[savafan]

More strikeouts mean less hits and less hits mean less runs. Less runs will correlate to more wins.

This is not an absolute statement.

Pitcher X could give up 9 hits in an inning and allow 7 runs while striking out 3 batters. Heck, he could strike out 4 batters if someone swings on strike 3 and the ball goes to the backstop with the batter making it to first base before the catcher retrieves the ball. In theory, Pitcher X could give up a large number of hits and allow a large number of runs to score per inning every time out while still striking out 3 batters per inning to eventually get out of the inning. In no way does more strikeouts equal less hits or runs given up.

[savafan]

Who's saying he's had a better career than Arroyo? That's cherry picking quotes that don't even exist........

Many are saying that Bailey is the better pitcher of the two. Outside of 2011, that's not been the case.

[PuffyPig]

This is not an absolute statement.

Pitcher X could give up 9 hits in an inning and allow 7 runs while striking out 3 batters. Heck, he could strike out 4 batters if someone swings on strike 3 and the ball goes to the backstop with the batter making it to first base before the catcher retrieves the ball. In theory, Pitcher X could give up a large number of hits and allow a large number of runs to score per inning every time out while still striking out 3 batters per inning to eventually get out of the inning. In no way does more strikeouts equal less hits or runs given up.

Assuming equal luck, more K's means less hits means less runs. It is an absolute statement, other than randomness.

[savafan]

Assuming equal luck, more K's means less hits means less runs. It is an absolute statement, other than randomness.

But baseball is random, you can't discount that. In the same situation as Pitcher X giving up 9 hits and 7 runs, let's throw in Pitcher Y.

Pitcher Y allows 3 consecutive singles to start the first inning. He should go for the strikeout on batter # 4 according to your theory to best keep his team in the game. However, on the very first pitch to batter # 4, he gives up a sharply hit ground ball. 4-6-3 double play, runner on 3rd scores. Now there are 2 outs and you're down 1-0. Of course, Pitcher Y could press and try to force the strikeout and overthrow, leading to wild pitch, or worse, a passed ball by the catcher which is out of his control. If that happens, then you have a run in with men on 2nd and 3rd and 0 outs. Of course, it's all random.

You can't say something is an absolute statement other than randomness, because it's all randomness which means that it can't be absolute.

[Patrick Bateman]

Many are saying that Bailey is the better pitcher of the two. Outside of 2011, that's not been the case.

Those are two completely different statements.

For example, I also think Homer Bailey is a better pitcher than Tom Seaver, but at the same time, Seaver has clearly had the better career.

It's a current statement, not one to suggest that Arroyo hasn't had a productive career.

[REDREAD]

This is not an absolute statement.

Pitcher X could give up 9 hits in an inning and allow 7 runs while striking out 3 batters. Heck, he could strike out 4 batters if someone swings on strike 3 and the ball goes to the backstop with the batter making it to first base before the catcher retrieves the ball. In theory, Pitcher X could give up a large number of hits and allow a large number of runs to score per inning every time out while still striking out 3 batters per inning to eventually get out of the inning. In no way does more strikeouts equal less hits or runs given up.

Yep, we've all seen Edwin Volquez. K/9 is not the entire story.

[nate]

Yep, we've all seen Edwin Volquez. K/9 is not the entire story.

No one is saying it is. It's one component of individual pitching skill.

We all saw Arroyo last year. Poor peripherals and no extraordinary "look over here" BABIP to cover it up with a shiny ERA.

[REDREAD]

Assuming equal luck, more K's means less hits means less runs. It is an absolute statement, other than randomness.

But you are assuming that any ball put into play has an equal chance of becoming a hit. That is simply not true.

When we had Jimmy Anderson, I bet his balls in play turned out to be hits more often than average, because he stunk. Likewise, if I took the mound, I'd have a much higher BABIP against, and it wouldn't be due to bad luck.

[Bumstead]

No one is saying it is. It's one component of individual pitching skill.

We all saw Arroyo last year. Poor peripherals and no extraordinary "look over here" BABIP to cover it up with a shiny ERA.

Arroyo has operated outside normal parameters for most of his career. Last year he didn't. He doesn't fit into the box that those type of metrics want to lock him into. That's why there is more to it than just reading the metrics.

Bum

[REDREAD]

No one is saying it is. It's one component of individual pitching skill.

We all saw Arroyo last year. Poor peripherals and no extraordinary "look over here" BABIP to cover it up with a shiny ERA.

Yep, Arroyo was bad last year.
But the other extreme is that people have been claiming Arroyo has been "lucky" ever since he came to Cincy, and "things are finally evening out".
That's just silly.
Arroyo was bad last year, but he was very good until then.

The reason why there's generally small variation in BABIP when you average all major leauge pitchers is because you have to be good to stay in the major leagues. If a pitcher has a good BABIP year, it's not necessarily due to luck.
He had a good year. How come he can't repeat it? Well no matter how many K's Cueto has next year, it's going to be difficult for him to repeat last year's performance, because he had an awesome year last year.

I've seen too many posts that trot out BABIP for pitchers and hitters as the sole explanation for everything. BABIP isn't worthless, but it's overrated.
Likewise with FIP. It's useful, but not the end all.

At this point, I think it's hard to say whether Bailey or Arroyo will be more valuable next year. Bailey has age on his side, but injury concerns and has generally been an enigma. Arroyo is getting older, but was sick last year.
I value Arroyo's ability to pile up a lot of innings, but I agree they have to be quality innings in order to help us next year.

[Patrick Bateman]

But you are assuming that any ball put into play has an equal chance of becoming a hit. That is simply not true.

When we had Jimmy Anderson, I bet his balls in play turned out to be hits more often than average, because he stunk. Likewise, if I took the mound, I'd have a much higher BABIP against, and it wouldn't be due to bad luck.

Jimmy had a BAPIP in his career right around league average.

He stunk because he stunk. We don't need to make up fictional reasons for him sucking. He did it all on his own.

[dougdirt]

Yep, we've all seen Edwin Volquez. K/9 is not the entire story.

Edinson Volquez also walked 5 guys per 9 innings. Strikeouts and walks ARE most of the story. Not all of it, but about 80% of it. Guys with good K/BB ratios tend to have success. Guys without them, tend not to. There are always outliers, but the better a pitchers K/BB ratio is, the better pitcher they tend to be. History shows us that, especially in more recent era's where hitters don't range from AA scrub with a glove to Hall of Famer in the same line up.