Heads22 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Dude isn't even an All Star. I don't see the obsession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 According to this stat, he gives up the least amount of hard hit balls out of any starter in the majors https://twitter.com/msimonespn/status/48617...6259712/photo/1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 fWAR for pitchers is definitely going to be better to evaluate pitchers in a small sample (like a partial or single season) because FIP is much less influenced by luck and is otherwise more stable. Over the long run, a runs allowed-based statistic might be better for evaluating the careers of pitchers. For position players, fWAR is always better but the differences aren't always so glaring like they are with pitchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 fWAR uses FIP, so it strips the influence of defense on a pitcher's success. Everyone, including FanGraphs, believe that FIP probably goes too far in it's culling, and may underrate pitchers that are uncommonly good at inducing weak contact or preventing homeruns. bWAR uses ERA, so it assumes that a pitcher is responsible for the entirety of a teams defensive effort when he is on the mound. This is inherently unstable and non-predictive because a pitcher is given credit or harmed if (1) his defense is or is performing above or below average, if the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky through BABIP fluctuations, and (3) the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky in terms of run or hit sequencing. The argument fWAR is accuracy over completeness; the argument for bWAR is completeness over accuracy. The truth is somewhere between the two, but most pundits believe it is closer to fWAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 05:29 PM) fWAR uses FIP, so it strips the influence of defense on a pitcher's success. Everyone, including FanGraphs, believe that FIP probably goes too far in it's culling, and may underrate pitchers that are uncommonly good at inducing weak contact or preventing homeruns. bWAR uses ERA, so it assumes that a pitcher is responsible for the entirety of a teams defensive effort when he is on the mound. This is inherently unstable and non-predictive because a pitcher is given credit or harmed if (1) his defense is or is performing above or below average, if the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky through BABIP fluctuations, and (3) the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky in terms of run or hit sequencing. The argument fWAR is accuracy over completeness; the argument for bWAR is completeness over accuracy. The truth is somewhere between the two, but most pundits believe it is closer to fWAR. If the truth lies somewhere between then why not average them out? aWar = (bWar+fWar)/2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 07:00 PM) If the truth lies somewhere between then why not average them out? aWar = (bWar+fWar)/2 There was talk last year about a unified number that they would adjust their formula's to agree on, but I haven't seen it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 If the truth lies somewhere between then why not average them out? aWar = (bWar+fWar)/2 Wouldn't the average of bWar and fWar be dWar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 06:29 PM) fWAR uses FIP, so it strips the influence of defense on a pitcher's success. Everyone, including FanGraphs, believe that FIP probably goes too far in it's culling, and may underrate pitchers that are uncommonly good at inducing weak contact or preventing homeruns. bWAR uses ERA, so it assumes that a pitcher is responsible for the entirety of a teams defensive effort when he is on the mound. This is inherently unstable and non-predictive because a pitcher is given credit or harmed if (1) his defense is or is performing above or below average, if the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky through BABIP fluctuations, and (3) the pitcher has been lucky or unlucky in terms of run or hit sequencing. The argument fWAR is accuracy over completeness; the argument for bWAR is completeness over accuracy. The truth is somewhere between the two, but most pundits believe it is closer to fWAR. DIPS theory is certainly evolving and I think even Voros would tell you he was wrong about a few things. I personally prefer fWAR for the majority of pitchers. There are some pitchers fWAR over and underrates, sometimes quite badly, but for most guys it works fine and for Sale it really underpins his greatness, in case the .86 WHIP and 2.16 ERA already didn't. Edited July 8, 2014 by chitownsportsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 06:00 PM) If the truth lies somewhere between then why not average them out? aWar = (bWar+fWar)/2 I've seen it done before -- FanGraphs has a bWAR-like metric called RA9-WAR (runs-allowed per 9) and for specific articles, sometimes they've averaged them (though mostly they just present both independently). I think the reason they haven't created an official "averaged" metric is because they believe that the FIP-based metric is much closer to correct in most instances. So while the averaged metric may be more accurate in the aggregate, it would be more inaccurate for most individual instances, and I think we'd all agree that it's more useful to be right about specific pitchers than it is to be right about the league or a team as a whole. Dave Cameron's philosophy (or what his philosophy seems to be IMO) on these things is one I like: in the face of incomplete information, one should cite additional information to make the analysis complete, rather than water down the initial information for the sake of summary. FWIW, I think the "official" line on the difference between FIP-based WAR and RA9-based WAR is that the larger the sample of performance gets (assuming stable conditions like velocity and stuff), the more accurate RA9-WAR becomes as a predictor of future performance and, by extension, as a proxy for "true talent." It's pretty rare, though, that a pitcher accumulates enough innings WITHOUT significant physiological or circumstantial changes that we would feel better looking to RA9-WAR as the "primary" tool. When it does turn out that way, it's usually a sign of a pretty extreme case, such as someone who is abnormally good at homerun prevention over a very long time without suffering any major injuries that would diminish velocity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted July 14, 2014 Author Share Posted July 14, 2014 Felix named starter tomorrow. It says he has the lowest ERA in the AL. I checked, and Sale has a lower ERA. To qualify, he must have 1 IP for every Sox game. He has 95 IP in 94 games. Someone explain this to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Felix named starter tomorrow. It says he has the lowest ERA in the AL. I checked, and Sale has a lower ERA. To qualify, he must have 1 IP for every Sox game. He has 95 IP in 94 games. Someone explain this to me? Yesterday was the Sox' 96th game, so Sale was the AL ERA leader up until the 5th inning was completed. Now he isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 12:15 PM) Felix named starter tomorrow. It says he has the lowest ERA in the AL. I checked, and Sale has a lower ERA. To qualify, he must have 1 IP for every Sox game. He has 95 IP in 94 games. Someone explain this to me? The Dodgers have played 97 games. I believe that's the most in the league. Thus, to technically be qualified for the ERA title right now, a pitcher must have throw 97 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted July 14, 2014 Author Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) Yesterday was the Sox' 96th game, so Sale was the AL ERA leader up until the 5th inning was completed. Now he isn't. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) The Dodgers have played 97 games. I believe that's the most in the league. Thus, to technically be qualified for the ERA title right now, a pitcher must have throw 97 innings. My bad Hickory, and I didn't know that wite, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 The Dodgers have played 97 games. I believe that's the most in the league. Thus, to technically be qualified for the ERA title right now, a pitcher must have throw 97 innings. No, it's just based on your own team's games, but the Sox have played 96 so Sale is one inning short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted July 14, 2014 Author Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) No, it's just based on your own team's games, but the Sox have played 96 so Sale is one inning short. I glanced at the Sox record and it said 44-50. Didn't realize that was 2 days old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) No, it's just based on your own team's games, but the Sox have played 96 so Sale is one inning short. I'm an idiot and a smellface Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 01:26 PM) I'm an idiot and a smellface I disagree. You are a beautiful man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) I disagree. You are a beautiful man. Beautiful men can be smellfaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 14, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) Beautiful men can be smellfaces. Is a smellface someone who smells faces or has a smelly face? Is a smellface anything like a stinkfist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jul 15, 2014 -> 07:38 AM) Is a smellface someone who smells faces or has a smelly face? Is a smellface anything like a stinkfist? You've hit upon one of the greater philosophical questions of our generation. I think you can take a course on this topic at your nearest college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejoedairy Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Sale won't pitch this weekend. Think this is due to his one inning in the ASG or just additional rest? Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (joejoedairy @ Jul 16, 2014 -> 04:19 PM) Sale won't pitch this weekend. Think this is due to his one inning in the ASG or just additional rest? Link No, its so simple. 1) They want to break up Sale-Quintana-Danks 2) They would rather have Sale face KC then Astros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 03:40 AM) No, its so simple. 1) They want to break up Sale-Quintana-Danks 2) They would rather have Sale face KC then Astros Good call. Hopefully Sox are sick of getting swept by KC. Pitching Sale would be a start to actually beating KC in the Cell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GamesToLove Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Anyone think they skip Carroll and have Sale start on Monday? I'm going on Monday and crossing my fingers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 QUOTE (OsweGo-Go Sox @ Jul 16, 2014 -> 11:34 PM) Anyone think they skip Carroll and have Sale start on Monday? I'm going on Monday and crossing my fingers... I would assume Sale starts Monday So the rotation would be: Quintana-Noesi-Danks-Sale-Carroll But they haven't said for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.