The Swamp

16% of Pedro's FPs were HBPs.


(edit: calculated that the wrong way. still, I'll be calling this stat the Pedro.)

IBB should be categorized by "teh fear" and "situational".

LHB batting average / isoP on pulled balls ...

2010: 0.399 / 0.323
2011: 0.378 / 0.308
2012: 0.364 / 0.313
2013: 0.373 / 0.313
2014: 0.353 / 0.297

5 Yr Change: -12% / -8%

Even newer solution - wider field

Or regulate defensive alignments???????

mister d wrote:Do this with PA result too ... hit, FP*, ground out, fly out, line out, strike out, other



* Some day this will catch on and "free pass" will replace "walk" in terms of WHIP and SO/BB and all that. HBP matter, motherfuckers!

If FP were used as a stat, Carlos Zambrano would have retired with an even 1,000. 898 BB + 102 HBP.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

mister d wrote:Do this with PA result too ... hit, FP*, ground out, fly out, line out, strike out, other



* Some day this will catch on and "free pass" will replace "walk" in terms of WHIP and SO/BB and all that. HBP matter, motherfuckers!

If FP were used as a stat, Carlos Zambrano would have retired with an even 1,000. 898 BB + 102 HBP.

What a stat to email to your brother!

The Atlantic, which I like to read in the supermarket checkout aisle, has a pretty good summary of the research that folks have been doing into PitchFX and the possible impact that the low strike is having on hitting. Well possible is the wrong word, it's pretty much probable, though the research can't tell us very much about how strikes used to be called pre-2008.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... ra/379443/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's definitely not what I would have guessed; out of the 4 possible expansions, I would expect the low strike be the easiest to cover.

Ryan wrote:Even newer solution - wider field

Or smaller in-play foul territory.

I always liked the ball around the knees/thighs. It seems like batter will adjust, no? If they're calling it, swing at it.

ETA: Of course, get better at swinging at it, as well, and not just K a bunch.

Right? If you "need" to expand the zone somewhere, that's the most fair because its the most hittable. As it stands (or stood in my head), the extension seemed outer half which is the toughest zone to cover and least fair. I don't know. Data is weird.

Alright, I haven't gone long and pointless for a while ...

There's some "heated" WAR debates going on right now and, for the first time I can remember, I'm on the "ignore it" side. Right now, the D numbers are probably the best we can get, but that doesn't necessarily make them good. It very much doesn't make them something that should decide an MVP race. My issues are two-fold ...

1. It poorly measures the positions not dependent on fielding the ball, C and 1B. How do you objectively quantify a 1Bs ability to save his IFs errors? Scopes, stretches, etc are all almost impossible to put a number on without someone looking at it and saying "that was tough, that wasn't tough". C is a little better w/ pitch framing metrics but the same issue applies on saving / creating wild pitches. Using a general denominator doesn't properly credit the guy catching Burnett versus the guy catching Buerhle.

2. Bigger issue is the variances at every position. Minimum 500 innings in the field, here are fangraphs high and low range by position, with the 162 game rate adjustment in parenthesis ...

C: 15.3 (Lucroy), -1.2 (Grandal) (+12.5)
1B: 0 (Reynolds), -14.1 (Howard) (-12.5)
2B: 20.1 (Pedroia), -9.1 (Altuve) (+2.5)
SS: 19.3 (Cozart), -11.0 (Escobar) (+7.5)
3B: 18.2 (Headley), -13.7 (Castellanos) (+2.5)
LF: 16.1 (Gordon), -14.1 (D. Brown) (-7.5)
CF: 21.1 (Lagares), -15.0 (Fowler) (+2.5)
RF: 19.4 (Heyward), -20.5 (Hunter) (-7.5)
DH: (-17.5)

The ranges are all over the place, from 14 top to bottom at 1B to almost 40 in RF. The lower the low goes, the higher the high goes and especially in the corner OF, that's a major problem. Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward are both great corner OFs. They aren't CFs for a reason. Andrew McCutchen draws bad CF ratings, but he can play CF. If you move him to a corner, he's just as good or better than the current leaders. If/when OF ratings get recalculated strictly by OF range versus plays-relative-to-positional-comps, the top corners will likely drop and the mid-to-low CFs will bounce up. So when the argument against Gordon and Heyward is made, its not "these guys are bad defenders" or even "these guys are being overrated defensively", and its definitely not "no way, my eyes tell me X is better than Y", its "the win shares being assigned simply aren't right". Look no further than the top of RF versus 2nd in CF (because he's a better innings comp); Heyward is at 19.4 after factoring in -7.5 for position while Billy Hamilton is a 17.3 with a +2.5 included. That means the unadjusted numbers have the top RF around 27 and the 2nd CF around 15. Is the because Heyward is tracking down almost double what a top CF does or because Heyward is being compared to an overall group that's vastly inferior to the one Hamilton is? By using a flat positional adjustment and drawing similar top numbers, you're understating the gap between CF and a corner, right? Its almost similar to RBI where you're crediting managerial placement and opportunity more than the strict inputs. The good thing is this is fixable when SportsVision data, which is simply point A to point B + time, becomes more available and commonly used. The bad thing is these fixes will seriously mess up the current numbers that some really smart people are touting as near fact.

(I get the whole "you can't measure what didn't happen" aspect of it when making a pro-Gordon or Heyward argument, but what makes baseball offensive stats work so well is opportunities are equal. You can hit more if you're a good hitter, its still just one every nine turns. Allowing for defensive metrics to be so skewed that you'd say "of course Gordon would lose 10 runs and any MVP consideration if he moved to CF ... but he didn't move to CF" undercuts the comparative value of defensive WAR in my mind.)

The arguments that started it are here ...

Anti-WAR: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees ... 33203.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pro-WAR retort: http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... ive-stats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still find it a basically useless stat at this point in time.

I support what they are trying to do, but the huge differences between bWAR and fWAR and the other WARs look give it the feel of gymnastics or figure skating scores.

Also, I have no idea how you can measure the defensive component for like 80% of the guys who have ever played ball in the majors.

Rex wrote:I support what they are trying to do, but the huge differences between bWAR and fWAR and the other WARs look give it the feel of gymnastics or figure skating scores.

Defense, I think, is different systems altogether. Pitching is easier, BR uses ERA and FG uses FIP. I'm kind of torn on that one; FIP is a better number in terms of what the pitcher himself did, but ERA is his actual contributions. Almost feels like using xOBP versus actual OBP or something.

Rex wrote:Also, I have no idea how you can measure the defensive component for like 80% of the guys who have ever played ball in the majors.

I have a theory here that (1) could be totally wrong and (2) certainly looks biased, but it revolves around the inception of the numbers and the need for baselines. Basically, you've got some guys you know were great (Ozzie) and some guys who know weren't (Jeter) and if your system doesn't put them near the fringes, you're probably not trusting your system to leave the testing phase, right?

tennbengal wrote:I still find it a basically useless stat at this point in time.

Its definitely not useless, it just can't be used as a factual ranking any more than your pretend Cy Young ballot should list the ERA leaders in order.

Through six innings tonight, Corey Kluber has two strikeouts in each inning against the Astros.

ETA: Make it seven innings.

Sabo wrote:Through six innings tonight, Corey Kluber has two strikeouts in each inning against the Astros.

ETA: Make it seven innings.

But he gave up two hits to Altuve making him the all-time Astros leader for hits in a season. Then struck him out in the 9th to ensure he K'd everyone in the lineup.

Giff wrote:

Sabo wrote:Through six innings tonight, Corey Kluber has two strikeouts in each inning against the Astros.

ETA: Make it seven innings.

But he gave up two hits to Altuve making him the all-time Astros leader for hits in a season. Then struck him out in the 9th to ensure he K'd everyone in the lineup.

That was Cody Allen in the 9th. But yeah, the Astros seem to strike out a lot.

There's a 66-year-old man who pitched for the Marlins. (Charlie Hough, but you knew that)

This seems insane.

Ryan wrote:There's a 66-year-old man who pitched for the Marlins. (Charlie Hough, but you knew that)

This seems insane.

It took me a second to decipher and thought that they had signed him as some kind of publicity thing.

I'd watch.

They're bringing him in to hit Mike Fiers in the face without causing too much of a thing.

Yesterday's shellacking of the cubs was not as much of an outlier as one might expect. The Dodgers have a really good offense as noted by Jon Weisman yesterday:

Here’s where the Dodgers rank [among NL teams], according to Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference.com:

WAR: first
Offense: second, behind Pittsburgh
Weighted runs created plus (wRC+): tied for first with Pittsburgh
Runs per game: fourth, behind Colorado, Pittsburgh and Washington
Adjusted OPS: tied for first with Pittsburgh
OBP and OPS with runners in scoring position: first

Shouldn't be a surprise given their record, but it kind of is. They haven't really had a guy this year who stood out offensively. They have platooned almost every position other than first base. They have started at least 6 outfielders over the course of the season and moved guys all over the field. This isn't something that teams with good offenses do, is it?

Also, let me just say how excited I am that Adrian Gonzalez is a Dodger. I was so covetous of him when he was with the Padres. I still can't believe he is our first baseman.

I am getting excited about the playoffs.

Adrian Gonzalez is basically a reboot of Rafael Palmeiro where some power was subbed out for a glove.

mister d wrote:Adrian Gonzalez is basically a reboot of Rafael Palmeiro where some power was subbed out for a glove.

I'll take it!

Sabo wrote:Through six innings tonight, Corey Kluber has two strikeouts in each inning against the Astros.

ETA: Make it seven innings.

This streak has been extended to 13 innings.

Reggie Sanders played 7 consecutive seasons with different teams, and 8 of 9 overall, each as a full- or near-full-time player, and without changing teams mid-season.

Did he have a reputation as a bad guy? I don't think he did. Maybe it was just a case of being in that zone where he was always good enough that some team could use him, but never so good that he was considered indispensable.

Allen Craig: He hit .128 for the Red Sox. John Lackey hit .133 for the Cardinals.

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_a ... mp_em.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The demise of Allen Craig is a real puzzle to me.

I can only point to me drafting him as a cagey centerpiece to the OBP driven fantasy plan I had this year as the reason.

Foot injuries are a dick.

Let's just hope that dick injuries aren't afoot

Clayton Kershaw got 9 runs and 16 hits of support and lost. Fuck sports.

Mike Trout would need to get a hit in each of his next 35 at bats to match Adam Kennedy's performance in 2002.

Hey, remember this thread?

At age 40, Davey Lopes stole 47 bases in 51 attempts.