If FIP is an indicator of future success, it appears it needs a bit of fine tuning.

FIP is one of the most overused and overrelied upon new stats out there. There are inherent flaws in the calculation and favoritism towards certain statistics.

If FIP is an indicator of future success, it appears it needs a bit of fine tuning.

 

Like I said I'm not sure if it's meant to be used on a year to year basis. This does show you how fickle bullpen arms can be from a year to year basis.

 

 

I ask you, how is Hahn supposed to predict those guys, who obviously had success last year, would fail?

 

BTW, I've been "against" the FIP stat, notice how I said "People". I could do the same thing with ERA and it still looks good.

Edited August 5, 201411 yr by scs787

Like I said I'm not sure if it's meant to be used on a year to year basis. This does show you how fickle bullpen arms can be from a year to year basis.

 

 

I ask you, how is Hahn supposed to predict those guys, who obviously had success last year, would fail?

 

BTW, I've been "against" the FIP stat, notice how I said "People". I could do the same thing with ERA and it still looks good.

Projection is a FO's job. People on this board project both an increase in production and a decrease.

 

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is if a relief pitcher's performance greatly varies from year to year, why would anyone use the previous season as the indicator for how they will perform in the current season?

 

Regression and breakouts happen all the time. The Sox have a couple of breakouts in Petricka and Putnam. Next year, those guys both could be regressions.

Projection is a FO's job. People on this board project both an increase in production and a decrease.

 

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is if a relief pitcher's performance greatly varies from year to year, why would anyone use the previous season as the indicator for how they will perform in the current season?

 

Regression and breakouts happen all the time. The Sox have a couple of breakouts in Petricka and Putnam. Next year, those guys both could be regressions.

 

Ok so how does the FO project these things? Any idea?

 

What should the use as an indicator?

 

Unless you're going after truly dominate guys, which Downs and Belly aren't, it seems awfully difficult to judge...Almost a crap shoot.

Projection is a FO's job. People on this board project both an increase in production and a decrease.

 

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is if a relief pitcher's performance greatly varies from year to year, why would anyone use the previous season as the indicator for how they will perform in the current season?

 

Regression and breakouts happen all the time. The Sox have a couple of breakouts in Petricka and Putnam. Next year, those guys both could be regressions.

That is why you use scouting. I also think the comment on relievers performance fluctuating is exagerated. I think mediocre relievers performance can fluctuate but the good relievers with quality stuff tend to perform year in year out. Could some years be better then others, certainly, and given the smaller statistical sample sizes for relievers, that can type of variability can happen, but I think the relievers are relievers is a little old. I think that is more you can have a few guys in the back end of the pen that all of a sudden come out and have a great year, etc.

People always say that FIP is "A better indicator of future success", so with that said here is look at the bullpen Hahn built...Kinda. (

 

Closer- Nate Jones- 2.64

Matt Lindstrom- 3.15

Scott Downs- 3.09

Ronald Belisario- 3.64

Daniel Webb- 2.34

Jake Petricka- 3.72

 

Now I'm not sure that the whole future success thing should really be used on a year to to year basis, but this shows you just how "good" the guys he brought together were last year.

 

Those guys duplicate those numbers this year, which I'm sure Hahn was hoping for, then the bullpen is fine.

 

Greg, VA, and whoever else who is arguing otherwise, please, explain how Rick Hahn is supposed to know these guys were gonna fail. Their regular ERA and FIP were good, so what else can he go off of? If you can't can't come up with a reason, then why blame Hahn?

 

 

If FIP is an indicator of future success, it appears it needs a bit of fine tuning.

 

 

FIP is one of the most overused and overrelied upon new stats out there. There are inherent flaws in the calculation and favoritism towards certain statistics.

 

On an aggregate level, FIP is more accurate than ERA when predicting future ERA. That is an indisputable fact. You can run calculations and find it to be true. It is not magic, it is not perfect, but that does not make it useless. It is better than ERA at predicting ERA. That's how you should use it.

Using ERA to value relievers is dumb as dirt. If you're a reliever and you come in with the bases loaded and you give up a grand salami in your inning of work your ERA is 9. If you give up a triple in your inning your ERA is zero. Those things happen all the time.

 

FIP is MUCH better to use for relievers. As Eminor said it's more predictive than ERA, that's a fact you cannot dispute, it's like the Earth revolving around the sun.

 

I am not the world's biggest supporter of DIPS theory but you can't argue that FIP is worse than ERA for relievers, no freaking way.

Using ERA to value relievers is dumb as dirt. If you're a reliever and you come in with the bases loaded and you give up a grand salami in your inning of work your ERA is 9. If you give up a triple in your inning your ERA is zero. Those things happen all the time.

 

FIP is MUCH better to use for relievers. As Eminor said it's more predictive than ERA, that's a fact you cannot dispute, it's like the Earth revolving around the sun.

 

I am not the world's biggest supporter of DIPS theory but you can't argue that FIP is worse than ERA for relievers, no freaking way.

I agree with reliever ERA's. One or two really bad outings can really effect them. But that doesn't mean FIP is accurate .

I agree with reliever ERA's. One or two really bad outings can really effect them. But that doesn't mean FIP is accurate .

 

But it is MORE accurate. As with anything, smaller sample data begets less reliable predictions, and relievers always have small sample data. So if you're saying something along the lines of "yeah, I'm not going to look much into results at all when projecting these guys, I'd rather go with scouting," I think that's a perfectly defensible claim. But if a guy IS going to try to use results to project, the fact that the guy is using FIP instead of something else is nothing to balk at because it is, in fact, among the most reliable indicators we have available to us.

But it is MORE accurate. As with anything, smaller sample data begets less reliable predictions, and relievers always have small sample data. So if you're saying something along the lines of "yeah, I'm not going to look much into results at all when projecting these guys, I'd rather go with scouting," I think that's a perfectly defensible claim. But if a guy IS going to try to use results to project, the fact that the guy is using FIP instead of something else is nothing to balk at because it is, in fact, among the most reliable indicators we have available to us.

Who cares if it is MORE accurate if it isn't accurate?

Who cares if it is MORE accurate if it isn't accurate?

 

So how do you build a bullpen?

So how do you build a bullpen?

Not by looking at their FIP. If FIP is a more accurate predictor of the future, exactly what period is it predicting? It is always changing.

 

Another way is not trading your young cheap good relievers away for .198 hitting, weak fielding AAA strikeout machines.

Edited August 5, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

Not by looking at their FIP. If FIP is a more accurate predictor of the future, exactly what period is it predicting? It is always changing.

So, how?

So, how?

Why don't you tell me. The only thing I am blaming Hahn for is the Reed trade. I admitted I like the Beli signing. But many gang up on me and start making things up, how I think the Sox should max the payroll out... all I said was Hahn made a bad trade and keeping a $538k reliever would have had this team in contention.

Edited August 5, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

Who cares if it is MORE accurate if it isn't accurate?

 

So should we stop treating people for cancer until we find a cure that works every time?

 

No, you use all of the best info you can, Dick. Why wouldn't you? All the poster did was cite some low FIPs to try to find an indicator of what Hahn might have seen in these guys. Does finding guys with high strikeouts, low walks, and low homeruns sound like a bad starting point for building a bullpen?

Why don't you tell me.

 

Lame.

 

Past success tells you nothing? If a pitcher is successful the previous years, how do you decipher or scout them to tell you that that same success isn't going to translate?

So should we stop treating people for cancer until we find a cure that works every time?

 

No, you use all of the best info you can, Dick. Why wouldn't you? All the poster did was cite some low FIPs to try to find an indicator of what Hahn might have seen in these guys. Does finding guys with high strikeouts, low walks, and low homeruns sound like a bad starting point for building a bullpen?

As someone who lost his mom to cancer, I have some thoughts on cancer treatments in the US.

 

I read the Sox shouldn't spend a lot of money on relievers because their performance varies from year to year, so why would FIP apply?

 

 

Why don't you tell me. The only thing I am blaming Hahn for is the Reed trade. I admitted I like the Beli signing. But many gang up on me and start making things up, how I think the Sox should max the payroll out... all I said was Hahn made a bad trade and keeping a $538k reliever would have had this team in contention.

 

So basically you don't want to say anything except other people have no idea what they are talking about? I'm still curious as to how you know what is a good bullpen without hindsight?

So basically you don't want to say anything except other people have no idea what they are talking about? I'm still curious as to how you know what is a good bullpen without hindsight?

Why don't you give us the correct answer?

So should we stop treating people for cancer until we find a cure that works every time?

 

No, you use all of the best info you can, Dick. Why wouldn't you? All the poster did was cite some low FIPs to try to find an indicator of what Hahn might have seen in these guys. Does finding guys with high strikeouts, low walks, and low homeruns sound like a bad starting point for building a bullpen?

I think he's saying you shouldn't go all in on one methodology if one can't particularly trust the results.

Why don't you give us the correct answer?

 

You keep telling everyone else that everything they use doesn't work. I am genuinely curious what you believe in here.

So basically you don't want to say anything except other people have no idea what they are talking about? I'm still curious as to how you know what is a good bullpen without hindsight?

I looked at the FIP numbers, and then I looked at the White Sox current ERAs. It was pretty simple it wasn't accurate. How come you don't give Chisoxfn any grief for what he posted about FIP?

 

I also doubt Hahn used FIP as the key to building his bullpen.

Edited August 5, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

I looked at the FIP numbers, and then I looked at the White Sox current ERAs. It was pretty simple it wasn't accurate. How come you don't give Chisoxfn any grief for what he posted about FIP?

 

I also doubt Hahn used FIP as the key to building his bullpen.

 

So what is accurate?

As someone who lost his mom to cancer, I have some thoughts on cancer treatments in the US.

 

I read the Sox shouldn't spend a lot of money on relievers because their performance varies from year to year, so why would FIP apply?

 

As someone who lost his dad to cancer, I'm right there with you regarding the state of treatment options for those of us without much money, but I sure as hell wouldn't have advocated "not trying because the outcome is uncertain." Because we simply never had a better option.

 

FIP applies as one indicator of potential regression candidates. In Hahn's case (build passable bullpen for rebuild, don't spend a ton of money), he'd want to identify guys who may come cheaply because of bad ERAs but may have lower FIPs, thus indicating it's more likely they'll perform to their FIP than their ERA going forward.

 

Now, if Hahn just auto-sorted an Excel sheet on FIP and doled out contract offers to the top ten, he should be fired, but looking at FIP is a good starting point and could be a descriptive indicator of the types of guys the FO was targeting.

I think he's saying you shouldn't go all in on one methodology if one can't particularly trust the results.

 

Yeah, but literally no one has made an argument that you should. Not the posters here, not the media pundits, not the general managers.