1
2011
Last Minute Stuff Before Mets Opening Day
An article by Hojo's Mojo
Today at Digital Domain Park, Jason Bay commented on the injury that led to him going on the Disabled List to start the season.
“It was devastating at first. I took one swing and had a little bit of a sting or a stab in my side. I’ve never had that before. I kind of hoped it was a cramp. With all the side problems that are running rampant in baseball, I kind of had a feeling something was up there. I took another round and it didn’t feel any better. That’s when we just shut it down.”
Bay can be activated from the DL on April 9th, presuming he can swing pain free by then of course.
* * * * * * *
In 2010, our Opening Day lineup looked like this:
Alex Cora SS
Luis Castillo 2B
David Wright 3B
Mike Jacobs 1B
Jason Bay LF
Gary Matthews, Jr. CF
Jeff Francoeur RF
Rod Barajas C
Johan Santana P
In this year’s Opening Day lineup, David Wright will be the “only player” who was also in last year’s Opening Day lineup.
* * * * * * *
I like one of the things Terry Collins said today while talking about his Opening Day lineup. He was a little feisty when asked why Willie Harris was playing tomorrow rather than Lucas Duda.
“I take every game seriously. You me to tell you why Harris is playing tomorrow and batting second? Have you even looked at the numbers?”
Yesterday, Collins also said something I was glad to hear.
“Winning games in April is no less important then winning games in September. There’s no less of a priority to winning in April over any other month of the season. All the games matter and we want to win.”
* * * * * * *
No news yet on if Manny Acosta passed through waivers, but I thought this was an interesting thing to say by the folks at FanGraphs:
One testament to the strength of the Mets bullpen came today, when the team designated Manny Acosta for assignment this morning. Acosta is no great shakes. In his 153.2 MLB innings he has produced a 3.40 ERA and 4.47 FIP. Last year, though, he was one of the Mets best relievers, with a 2.95 ERA and 3.63 FIP. Relievers with those types of results who can strike out more than a batter per inning are normally valuable; it would be surprising to see a second division team claim Acosta on waivers. But the Mets have enough confidence in their other guys that they felt the right move was removing another one of its top relievers from 2010.
* * * * * * *
Edie Coleman of WFAN believes Mike Pelfrey is the big question going into the season. He writes,
The biggest question to me is this – last year, Mike Pelfrey was asked to step up and become a No. 2 behind Johan Santana in the Mets rotation. This year, Pelfrey is tabbed to go from No. 2 to the ace in Santana’s absence. Is it too much too soon for the big fella? Pelfrey had his usual sub-par spring, going 1-2 with a 5.62 ERA. Last season, he broke out of the gate 9-1 and ended up with 15 wins. Can he match that or come close? An awful lot to ask.
* * * * * * *
According to TC Palm, the New York Mets surpassed last year’s spring training attendance total despite playing three fewer home games and having one scheduled game canceled by rain. The Mets wrapped up Grapefruit League play Wednesday with a 6-3 win over the Marlins. The club drew 87,413 fans over 14 games (6,244 fans per game), compared to 84,707 fans in 17 games (4,983 fans per game) last year.
The two highest-attended spring training games in stadium history came this season — 7,413 showing up for the Red Sox game March 6 and 7,393 against the Cardinals on March 13.
About the Author: Rob Johnson
132 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Connor O'Brien: on Mets Need More Time To Get Better Understanding Of Ike Davis?: Dice-K, Lackey, Beckett (extension), Wily Mo Pena,...
- B-Met Fan: on Logan Verrett Talks About His Road To The Show With MMO: That's what I was thinking, too. ...
- Sims: on Team Source On Wheeler: “He’s Ready”: And I stand by my prior response...
- Ojeda's Perm: on Team Source On Wheeler: “He’s Ready”: "A team source." "A high ranking club official" This...
- BadBadLeroyBrown: on Mets Have Opportunity To Soar To New Heights: LOL! You know for a FACT he...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5393 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Can someone explain the concept of FIP to me?
No, I can’t, I have no idea what that is. But 2010′s opening day line-up made me puke.
It was bad because 3 of our stars were hurt. It would have been a good lineup if we had no injuries to our star players.
nope still would have been bad, with Francoeur and Barajas in it.
Nope, would have been good with Frenchy and Barajas in it. I’m just stating something for what it is. You’re only saying that because of an agenda
Have you noticed that EVERYONE apparently has the same “agenda?” If anyone would like to back up Bayonne here and sing the praises of Omar, now’s the time.
not singing the praises, just that we had good teams from 2006 to 2008 and he helped built them, he was the GM. That’s it.
The 2 historic chokes and the injury plagued 2009 was a bad time and the bad times put attention on the bad moves too and then Omar was awful at handling the bad times, just awful.
But we lost on the field, not off.
- Taking a called 3rd strike in 06
- Daniel Murphy still on 3B
- Tom Glavine’s bad start
- Jose Valentin not getting hit w/bases loaded
- Billy Wagner not giving up a couple big HRs
- I’m forgetting something
Take any combo of those things away Omar could still be here.
Not advocating it at all, just saying it could be very true. But it didn’t turn out that way. But not everything he did was bad either.
The Mets had a handful of really good players from 2006-2008. They had very poor teams. If the Mets had good teams, they would have been able to withstand some of the injuries. Teams are 25 guys, not 7. They may have had great on-paper lineups, but they had very poor teams. It’s just how it was.
hey Bayonne, why is it that the Red Sox still managed to win 89 games….in the AL East with the Rays and Yankees….after losing Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Youkilis?
because they are a good team.
a good team run by smart people.
Your forgetting the bullpen. People tend to banish bad memories from their minds. Perhaps that’s why you are still walking around today thinking that Omar “put together a good team.”
Does the phrase 28 blown saves ring a bell?
Omar was originally praised by the Wilpons for having a cost effective combination of seasoned veterans and other players. The vets let Omar and the Mets unexpectedly down with injuries and some over-the-hill play.
It’s possible that Omar was a victim in large part to bad luck with the old vets. But their over-the-hill play was statistically predictable. Few players defy the actuarial curves. Shawn Green, Damion Easley, Marlon Anderson, Brady Clark, and Moises Alou are examples of old or inordinately injured players. Most of these guys had good nights, even a good season, but they all eventually had performance problems.
…..as it turned out.
Your forgot to add that. Was that an actuarial curve?
The New Des with New words and New calculations.
The New Des.
Bayonne, I don’t know whether to feel sorry for you or to be mad at you. You are always challenging concepts and words you don’t understand. Get a dictionary before you write something so backward.
You seem like a smart guy with a chip on his shoulder. I won’t dumb down my responses when you are too lazy to understand some commonplace words and definitions.
Frankly, why don’t you work on yourself rather than trying to limit other folks on MMO. You’ve got what it takes but you reflect a lot of ignorance. C’mon, get with it.
I am not threatened by someone who knows how to express themselves and provide substance to the conversation. I look forward to that. It’s very refreshing to have analysis and opinion backed by a reasonable thought process and a couple of facts as opposed to an opinion stated as if it were a fact and thats it, or an out right misrepresentation of the truth.
Not to get into the slugfest here but I have a question here for you X. (since you are the one guy I believe actually understands these stats)
Where do they get these constants that they use in FIP?
They seem very arbitrary to me.
HR*13?
Why are walks/and HBP worth a *3 accelerator while a K is only accelerated by *2? Shouldn’t both be equal in constants? Should an intentional walk really be worth as much as an earned walk? I can accept that it might just don’t know why a pitcher would be credited with something a Manager could force him to do.
I understand the 3.2 It is the rough average of ERA that is needed because the other calculations don’t really take earned runs into account.
Truth is I have a lot of issues with the stuff TangoTiger comes up with because he bias’ all of his stuff due to his predjudice of baseball philosophy. He is calculating things based on what he wants to look good and not taking the ACTUAL good and bad and weighing it.
And the use of arbitrary constants is a very bad practice in general. If your not using real data to analyse the results will be skewed based on the constants that were haphazardly selected in the equation.
Metsie, those constants are based on the linear weights and linear regressions of the run values of each of those events. When assigning run values to each event, research of the outcomes of such events in game play for each game for over 40 years was applied. Nothing about it was arbitrary. Tango may be biased in that he’s convinced he’s right, but he’s not biased in his calculations because nothing about them is arbitrary.
Well there is an issue with the data if a walk is 1/3rd worse than a K is good!
The problem with the linear weighting is your taking your linears from an aspect and data that can happen more than once and using that MORE LIKELY aspect to create your linear weight despite the fact that the actualy weight is no lighter or heaverier than it’s opposite counterpart!
If you weight an out less than the flip side walk you are skewing the data and the reason Tango did that is his predjudice for OBP being more important than anything else!
“Nope, would have been good with Frenchy and Barajas in it.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Anyone who thinks a lineup is “good” is Frenchy & Barajas need to put the crack pipe down. Barajas turned to being the trash he is when he’s not hitting homeruns after a month and a half and Jeff Francoeur is….Jeff Francoeur. Nuff said. Thanks for the laugh.
Actually it is true,
If in an imaginary lineup of 2009 that Chris put jeff Francoeur & Rod Barajas in a lineup that features Beltran, Bay, Reyes, Wright, Delgado and Castillo it’s a very good lineup and if healthy is a team that is more than good enough to make the post season.
Even take those 2 and put them in the 2010 lineup and replace Delgado w/Ike Davis it’s still a good lineup. But unfortunately in 2010 Reyes & Beltran were hurt and then people expect more from hitters that are not your main starters to begin with.
Those also offer a lot more defensively than most too and depending on the makeup of your team any one of them can fit in quite nicely.
We live in an age where just because there are players who are not the best hitters in a lineup they get viciously torn apart and mocked by bloggers and not only is it unfair and disgraceful, it shows a true lack of understanding of how baseball works.
the line up with the 3 stars in it would have been significantly better, even with the 2 weak guys still in it. just not as good as it could have been.
Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP), is supposedly a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. It is claimed that FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.
I don’t know if the constants (13, 3, 2, 3.2) were empirically derived or conceptual values. It doesn’t discriminate between singles, doubles, and triples, maybe because these kind of hits can be tainted with the quality of the fielding. It does isolate HR’s but doesn’t deal with inside-the-park homers, again maybe because they can also reflect the quality of the fielding.
“The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number”
“I don’t know if the constants (13, 3, 2, 3.2) were empirically derived or conceptual values”
Are you doing this on purpose? I think you are.
Are you nuts? What are you implying?
Look it up, Bayonne. Are you too lazy? It’s on the internet. I’ll give it to you.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#fip
nah, that’s okay, lol
Bayonne, it may please you to know I think FIP sucks. But I was just giving its definition, not my own view. That’s why I used the word “supposedly”.
Whether you like the old math, the new math, BA, OBP, OPS, Fielding Percentage or UZR that has to be one of the worst opening day line ups of all time.
Try again. I can assure you it was worse in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2004 and 2005.
Meant to write 2003 and 2004, NOT 2005.
I don’t know Maniac. Any year would have had to be really bad to beat that line up. I mean your comparing our expansion era teams as being worse? Well OK I guess but at least there were players in the line up you might want to see one more time. The only one in that line up I ever want to see again in a Met uniform is Wright and Johan, I’ll take Bay because I have to but I could think of about 80 million other things I would have spent that money on.
Yeah too bad Reyes, Delgado, & Beltran were hurt. If you want to say it’s the worst lineup of all time with all the Mets regulars that’s one thing, but to say that knowing full well that 3 of their starters were hurt is agenda driven and I think we all know what your back story for this post is.
Okay, i’m gonna brace myself for the entire history of the Mets drafts and signings
You’re right, plus who is to say that Harris and Emaus are any better than Castillo and Francoeur?
Plus the guys who replace Barajas, Jacobs, and Matthews Jr. are all Minaya players Thole, Davis, Pagan.
I mention this because I’m sure his comment was intended as a knock on Minaya.
Of course it was.
Met Maniac, Claiming to read the mind and intent of anyone else is fraught with peril. What makes you certain you know anyone’s intent?
The lineup was weak regardless of any views of Omar. But he can use only the players he has on the roster. To me, the more pertinent question is why did the Mets have a pretty mediocre roster? What did Omar and Bernazard (earlier) do and not do to stock the team?
Des for a team with a 140 million dollar payroll to trot out a lineup like this in year 5 is just inexcusable.
This opening day lineup belongs on an expansion team, not a team expecting to play into October. I don’t care who the GM is.
Jacobs cut by the Royals. GMJ given away with the Angels eating how many millions? Castillo, Please. Cora, with a 2M vesting option, whoa boy. Barajas with a lifetime .239/.284/.412 and Francouer with a .265/.310/.425 as a RIGHTFIELDER. How can you expect to win games with a lineup like this?
Just imagine 4 days later it included Maine and 5 days later it had Perez.
Whew.
To think that the Wilpons, though admittedly they are not really baseball people, fell for Omar’s shtick for several years, is amazing.
Well the Cubs spent even more and lost even more. It’s not so much inexcusable as it is proof that money doesn’t buy success or happiness.
You can spend 300 Mil but your still limited by the 25 spots you can spend that money on.
Our problems were Injuries more than Skill. The problem is the problem really hasn’t gone away.
All T Agee said was “that has to be one of the worst opening day line ups of all time.”
Emphasis on “one of the worst”. I don’t think he said it was “The Worst” but I could be wrong.
How many years have the Mets been around? 50 years this year right? So last years lineup is among the 15 worst All-time?
Sounds like “one of the worst” to me/
Agenda driven? Wow, Hey Pot meet kettle.
Hey Judge Joe Brown, weren’t you due in court over an hour ago?
Hmm no reply to what I said?
Chalk it up to another point made.
Delgado wasn’t even on that team.
Delgado had hip surgery again in Feb 2010 and the Mets were still interested. It just goes back to my original post that the Mets had to field that lineup ONLY because of injuries to Reyes, Beltran, & Delgado. If those 3 were never injured all 3 would have been in that lineup.
Delgaso was hurt and out early in 2009. He wasn’t resigned, only monitored during the winter between 2009 and 2010. He DH’d a few times in PR winter ball and then shut it down for good well before ST.
Minaya signed Jacobs as insurance on Murphy, GMJ as a replacement for Beltran, backed Reyes and Castillo with Cora and signed Barajas and Blanco to catch.
The year before Minaya traded Church to Atlanta for Francouer because Atlanta was either trading him or non tendering him due to having an all around stud RFer coming up in 2010.
It was also Minaya’s 6th year here. By that time you would think we would have had some capable reserves ready to fill in. We didn’t.
Murphy was the plan at 1B, GMJ in CF (with 3 months to work on it, not to mention 6 years), Francouer was the plan in RF and Barajas/Blanco at catcher and Cora was very likely to play quite a bit given Reyes and Castillo’s last couple of seasons and who was backing up Bay? Cattalonotto?
as suspected TAG’s original post was a shot at Minaya
Well you’ve stated on many occasions that Omar “put together a good team.” This is the opening day lineup in year six. One of the players you claim was hurt wasn’t even on the team and was hurt 9 months before. Another one had surgery 3 months before and was originally injured 9 months before this opening day lineup. One of the backups that started was backing up two guys who had been hurt in alternating years. So you have your opinion and everyone else has theirs.
I think the opening day lineup speaks for itself especially considering it was year six.
Again you seem to have a problem with comprehension. The opening day lineup was what it was due to injuries. And yes, Omar did build good teams and if it wasn’t because of the chokes ON THE FIELD, of 07 & 08 he may still be here today
And the team today is his too.
knock off your bias, you’re not fooling anyone here no matter how many novellas and manifestos you write.
No. bayonne, It’s you who’s reading comprehension is flawed.
Two of those injuries your speaking of occurred 9 months before opening day, in year six of Minaya’s run as Met GM.
It would be one thing if they happened 2 weeks before opening day in year 2 but they didn’t, they happened 9 months before in year six.
And those were Minaya’s teams out there that choked. He selected the players, the bench, the bullpen, the rotation, the AAA “depth”, everything.
He even got two of the best players off the Marlins in a fire sale when they took themselves out of competition for the pennant. Even at that we were just marginally better than them during the season, but when it counted…..Omar’s team choked.
Mota, Schowenweiss, Sosa, Vargas, Munoz, Kunz. Even the 44 Million dollar man couldn’t get on the mound, or the 15 M LFer, or the 24 million dollar second basemen.
All chokers, all hand picked by Minaya.
You are the epitome of hypocrisy. Calling people Sandy’s Soldiers and slamming him every chance you get, and now you calling people out because you “think” they are slamming Omar? How can anyone, with even on ounce of baseball knowledge defend him as a GM?
You keep talking about “ifs” and if this one wasn’t hurt and that one wasn’t hurt. Well they were hurt and he never did anything to help. What moves did he make at deadlines ANY year to help this team? He only made a trade in 06 because Sanchez got hurt, if he hadn’t he would have sat on his hands like he did every other year.
Every time you defend Omar, call others out that bad mouth Omar and pontificate negatively about Sandy and his soldiers you lose what every shred of credibility you may have had at one time.
baloney,
Everybody knew Omar had to go, he dealt out some bad contracts and all that but if the Mets didn’t choke on the field in 07 & 08 he would be here today. Winning cures everything and covers up all things bad. Once you lose than all bets are off. If we won those 2 years everybody would have acknowledged the bad things but they would’ve been overlooked if he won.
All agee does is monday morning quarterback to the upteenth degree. His answer for everything is “well if we drafted better” things would be different.
That’s no answer. Bottom line is the Mets lost it on the field, not off.
Bayonne has stated repeatedly that in his opinion “Omar built a very good team.” That’s his position.
Because HE DID – that’s the bottom line. And if healthy all his players are here today. It would be the first time since 2008 that all HIS players are healthy.
KNOCK IF OFF! I’m getting tired of arguing with a dummy. You have a lot of knowledge READING about the minors but your interpretation of things is so off mark it’s embarrassing…for you, not me.
Mota, Schowenweiss, Vargas, Kunz, Castillo, Alou, Schneider, Bay, Francouer, Santos, Barajas, Sullivan, Carter, Williams, Lawrence, Redding, Nieve, Sosa, Armas, Sele, Cattalonotto, Berroa, Arias, Reed, Cora, Ramon Martinez, GMJ, Perez, Livan, Chan Ho, Igarashi.
OK.
cherry pick any names you want to support your biased point of view because that’s exactly what it is. I’m not gonna bore the readers anymore with a stupid back and forth because I have a feeling the people reading my words, like me or not..know EXACTLY where you’re coming from.
What a huge dope. Lots of words does not equate to knowledge or even being honest. You’re not honest at all.
hey Bayonne, why is it that Red Sox still managed to win 89 games….in the AL East with the Rays and Yankees….after losing Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Youkilis?
because they are a good team.
a good team run by smart people.
Maybe because they still had Beltre, Ortiz, Martinez, Lester, Bucholz, and Papelbon? You can easily win 89 games with those guys.
Delgado was NOT on the team, and just because you think they were still “interested” does NOT mean he was on the TEAM.
Talk about grasping at straws.
t agee – I really enjoy talking baseball with you particularly in the chat room because you know you’re stuff and seen the Mets a lot longer than many of the others that comment here. But your bias against Minaya really holds you back and I dont know why you say such unobjective things intended to slight him. We’ve won 2 world series in 49 years, an attrocious record no doubt, there was more than one GM to blame for all of that. Spread the wealth.
I think I have Maniac. And for the record I appreciate your knowledge of the game and team. I have pointed out where Minaya, Phillips and Duquette have gone wrong. I believe Minaya was the best of the three, by far. He is just the most relevant of them all since his decisions are still and will be effecting the team for quite a while, no different than Phillips and Duquette’s decisions harming Minaya’s chances.
In Baseball frequently what happens 5-10 years down the road, does effect you to a great degree.
Think about how many of those starting pitchers we went through in 2006, 2007 and 2008. I am of the firm belief that Minaya gets a World Series in 2006 if Duquette doesn’t trade Kazmir. I also has the pressure off like Theo did and then doesn’t make so many high risk, win now moves later. I know Kazmir helps us win 5 more games in 2007 and 2008 so we’re talking a totally different ballgame even with all the mismanagement of the Minaya era, some of which I am sure would not have occurred.
..also Mets 2011 spring training record was 17-15, finishing in 7th place 4 1/2 behind SF Giants who had the best Grapefruit league record of 23-12
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/exhibition.jsp
Who finished ahead of the Mets? In this order Giants, Rockies, Brewers, Phillies, Braves, & Reds
The concept of FIP is to take out things that the pitcher “can’t control.” Like Feilding. It counts BB’s K’s HR’s and HBP, not hits and runs because that’s something a pitcher “can’t control.” They say those stats are dependant on other things.
It’s a bad stat because a pithchers CAN control how many hits and runs they give up. If a pitcher gives up a lot of hits it’s not always because of bad fielding. MOST of the time, if the pitcher gives up a lot hits and runs (or not many hits and not many runs) it’s because of his PITCHING, not because of his fielding. FIP makes you think that ALL hits and ALL runs are dependant of fielding, which everyone knows isn’t true.
Thanks VInnie,
I never looked it up myself even though it would take a few seconds to do so and as I suspected. It’s a USELESS stat. Not only is it useless it’s downright false. Thanks
Wait a minute, so if a pitcher pitches a no-hitter, in bizarro world no credit or honor is due because he couldn’t control that?
Oh I see… So in other words FIP is just another useless stat solely intended to glorify it’s creator (no doubt Bill James or one of his disciples) but has no real basis in the game of baseball.
As martin likes to say, what does FIP have to do with real baseball?
Pretty much Maniac. I remeber them saying Lincencums’s high strikeout game in playoffs was better than Halladay’s no hitter.
the logic makes sense, even if it is questionable if you can make a valid stat out of it.
Of course a no hitter is a good game, but you can have a situation where a guy gives up a bunch of smoked balls that got turned into outs, and he gets a NH, while another absolutely dominates but gives up 2 squib hits.
Not exactly better, but certainly in the same league.
That’s a good description Vinny. I never knew that either. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.
One pitcher gives up rockets and another gives up lollipops. Not the same thing.
Yes, but the pitcher who gives up lollipops, tends to be better and the long term numbers reflect that. And the guys that give up a lot of screaming line drives also tend to give up a lot of HR.
Go read a book, you 1950′s retreads. Satish, pay no attention to them, Vinnie’s definition is a half-truth. The half he left out was convenient in that it allowed the three falseketeers to infer things based on their warped, fact-less ideas.
What FIP actually is doesn’t take out things the pitcher “can’t control.” That’s abysmal commentary from that guy. FIP concentrates on the things the pitcher has SOLE control over. No one ever said the pitcher can’t control hits and runs. I can’t even think what station that train of thought left from.
FIP is calculated by using walks (intentional and non-intentional), HPB, K’s and home runs. It doesn’t factor in hits because other aspects of the game can determine what’s a hit or not, like defense, field dimensions, bad hops, etc. And yes, obviously pitchers. I’m saddened that their ignorance stooped to even that level.
FIP is a good stat because is measures what a pitcher is solely responsible for, but I would advise looking at other things, too.
“It doesn’t factor in hits because other aspects of the game can determine what’s a hit or not, like defense, field dimensions, bad hops, etc”
How the hell can you not factor hits! I don’t care what the reason is! If a pitcher doesn’t have his stuff he’s gonna get hit and it’s HIS fault nobody else’s.
This stat is as looney as it gets. Talk about over thinking!
It’s a stat that doesn’t factor hits. There are other stats that do. That’s why you need to expand on research. Don’t take FIP as gospel.
And that’s why it’s a terrible stat. Because it doesn’t factor in hits or runs. Which is something the pitcher has a LOT of control over.
Except for the 7 guys behind them
The pitcher has a LOT more control over the hits and runs he gives up than the feilders. Most of the time If a guy gives up a lot of runs and hits (or not many runs and not many hits) it’s because of HIS pitching not because of fielding. And I’m sure you know this too.
Know or assume?
Because one side has a lot of trouble when questioning assumptions and seems to get very angry when it happens.
Yes I know the pitcher has a lot of conrtol over the hits and runs he gives up.
How do you know? Some old guy told you?
Or is it “common sense”? The same thing that tells us the Earth is flat and black guys can’t play baseball?
If the pitcher can’t control the outcome of the AB, then wouldn’t it be the same thing for the hitter? Does the hitter have control of the outcome? Or is it feilding an random luck? Maybe Jeff Francoeur isn’t that bad after all? I mean he could just be unlucky, or everyone makes great defensive plays on the balls he hits.
If the pitcher can’t control the outcome, then the hitter can’t either. Right?
Which is why we use BABIP.
Okay.
Jeff Francoeur had .270 BABIP last year. I was right, he isn’t bad just unlucky.
Hey Mariano riveria’s BABIP is .261, and I thought he was good? No, he just has good fielding and is VERY lucky.
You gotta love all these new stats lol.
Except, Vinnie, you’ve been told multiple times that you compare them to their career BABIP. Frenchy’s BABIP has been all over the place for his career, so maybe he has had some bad luck.
Granted, striking out 20% of the time doesn’t help him much either.
Its never one thing. You need to see the whole picture.
I see the whole picture donal, but you don’t. You said that the pitcher can’t control how many hits and runs he gives up. that’s ridiculous. The pitcher can’t control how many runs and hits he gives up! LOL. Come on!
and why does Riveria have low BABIP? Maybe because he’s an amazing pitcher and is really tough to hit? So if that’s true(and it is) then doesn’t that prove my point that the pitcher CAN control how many hits he gives up?
And if you look BABIP, most of the time, the bad pitchers have HIGH BABIP’s and good pitchers have low BABIP’s. Which proves my point that the pitcher CAN control the amount of hits he gives up. Good pitchers are tough to hit, and that’s why they have low BABIP’s. and bad pitchers are easy to hit, which is why they have high BABIP’s
The pitcher has a lot of control over the hits and runs he gives up, Donal.
Like what X? What do you pair up with FIP to get a full picture?
T Agee, I use it for reference and comparison, then make my decision based on the whole shebang. If you had to make a decision based on one stat and one alone, I’d use tERA because it uses the run expectancy of each type of batted ball, which includes each type of hit and each type of out, going as detailed into differentiating between FB and IFFBs. But I wouldn’t make a decision on one stat alone, and I would suggest no one should, either.
If a pitcher has a low FIP and xFIP and a higher ERA, it means he had a bad defense playing behind him. See Yovani Gallardo. If he has a great ERA, but a higher FIP or xFIP, he has a great defense behind him. See Mat Latos (Latos still had a real good FIP and xFIP, but it was higher than his ERA).
Take the Yankees, for example. You see Phil Hughes’ stats and how mediocre they are and then wonder how he got 17 wins. So you look at his run support. Ah, there you have it. FIP is merely a comparison stat. Look at ERA, FIP, xFIP and tERA. You’ll be able to determine why the numbers differ, if they do. And I’ll bet when you do, you’ll find the reason for the disparity lends itself to the veracity of FIP, xFIP and tERA, not so much the standard ERA.
ExtreemIcon:
“One metric often used is FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching). One’s ERA can suffer if there’s a poor defense backing him up. Research by a young man named Voros McCracken learned that year after year, there was no consistency between the number of balls that fell in for hits. He concluded from this evidence that once the ball is hit, the pitcher is removed from the equation, and thus has no control over the outcome”
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2010/12/dips-defense-independent-pitching-statistics.html
So Voros McCracken concluded that once the ball is hit the pitcher NO CONTROL over the outcome. Which isn’t true, because against some guys it’s harder to make soild contact against than other pitchers.
Read what I wrote again, then read what you wrote. You’re a smart kid, you can figure out where you went wrong.
OK.
Voros McCracken conclued that the once th ball is hit the pitcher has NO CONTROL over the outcome. That’s exactly what you said, and that’s what I was talking about earlier. The whole concept of it is, that once the guy makes contact with the ball it’s dependant on fielding and sometimes luck, and not the pitcher. Tell me where I’m going wrong ok?
I think it’s ridiculous. Most of the time the pitcher DOES control the outcome once the guy hits it, because one pitch can be a hanging curveball from Ricky Nolasco and another pitch can be a hard sinker down and in from Tim Hudson. Which is more likely to fall in for a hit? Some pitchers are easier to make soild contact against than others – FIP doesn’t account for that which is why it’s flawed.
The pitcher has a lot of control over how the ball is hit. But once it’s hit, the pitcher is out of the equation. You said it yourself, just didn’t understand it. Or maybe you did and still do everything you can to try and disparage everything sabermetrics. The pitcher has no control over the outcome. Because HOW the ball is hit is not the outcome.
Wrong again Exteem,
I don’t try disparage everything sabermetrics. I learned what they are, and I found that most of them aren’t useful. Like FIP, WAR, and UZR. I like WHIP, and a few others are okay.
Right, the pitcher does have a lot control on how the ball is hit, which would also mean he has a lot control of the outcome too. One guy gives up weakly hit ground balls, the other gives up line drives – the weakly hit balls usually will result in outs, the hard hit balls will usually result in hits – the pitcher has a lot of control over the outcome.
He has a lot of control of what the outcome should be. How many cracked bats result in hits? Hell, some result in home runs. Once the ball is hit, the pitcher is done. He did his best to make the ball miss the bat, or induce weak contact, but when the ball enters the field of play, the pitcher is out of the equation. Simple to understand.
Weakly hit balls are less likely to result hits than hard hit balls. simple to understand.
Tremendous analysis. Thanks. But whether they do or not have nothing to do with the pitcher. He can’t will the ball into a mitt. He can just make it easier for the fielders.
Yes it does because most of time the weakly hit balls will be outs and the hard hit balls are hits – the pitcher has a LOT of control over the outcome.
And what I’m saying isn’t analysis, it’s common sense. Everyone knows that some pitchers are harder to hit than others. FIP takes out hits, so that’s why it’s flawed – if you know the game of baseball, you know FIP is a flawed stat.
How more often?
You can’t really say something like that without a number to back it up.
Vinne has a point in that you are again discarding data.
No the pitcher can’t will the ball into the glove but if you really just want to take the fielding out of it you have to add a metric to account for the fielding behind him not entirely dismiss a major part of what the Pitcher allowed.
FIP’s ignorance of Hits will make a pitcher who walks few but gives up a ton of hits look better than a guy who walks a few more but doesn’t give up those hits!
If you want to even the playing field to account for fielding then the stat should try to do so!
Pitcher A – 20IP 20BB 30H 10HR
Is not as good as a pitcher with
Pitcher B – 20IP 25BB 15H 10HR
They guy with the worse FIP would most likely give up fewer runs than the guy with the better FIP.
You could try to argue that one had better defense than the other but your not ANALYZING that just using supposition with no impiracle proof!
A GUESS!
If your going to make decisions by guessing then why even bother with the analysis in the first place!
Hey, Metsie, can you cite a few examples of that happening?
How many guys who give up a lot of hits have really good FIP when compared to guys who walked more than them but gave up a lot less hits?
“FIP’s ignorance of Hits will make a pitcher who walks few but gives up a ton of hits look better than a guy who walks a few more but doesn’t give up those hits!”
How often does that happen? Can you give speciffic examples, or are you just pulling things out of thin air?
A) There are ways to measure defense, and B) WHIP has to be considered in ALL analysis of pitchers anyway, which would be the way to tell A isn’t as good a B, and C) I would also look at tERA, which DOES account for each type of batted ball (good contact vs. weak contact). By the way, both pitchers are terrible.
The problem that people against sabermetrics have is they think, for some unfounded reason, that whatever stat is the topic of conversation is held in high and SOLE regard. That couldn’t be further than the truth. The silly notion that because I think FIP is very useful and telling means that I ONLY look at FIP, or because OBP is the most important offense attribute a player can have means it’s the ONLY good stat to have is ridiculous.
Vinny, you said you like WHIP. Good, you should. But what would you say to the person that argues with you that it’s a flawed stat because it completely disregards strikeouts? I mean, they have a point, right? It DOES ignore strikeouts.
The basic truth is there’s not one stat that’s telling of EVERY ATTRIBUTE a player, pitcher or hitter, has. So you have to take the stat that best quantifies EACH attribute and use them together. FIP is a great stat because it accounts for everything a pitcher does that he has sole control over. There are other stats, like WHIP, which account for hits, which are also influenced by the fielders. Your initial absurd “definition” that pitchers have no control over hits is well……..absurd. But you can’t argue that fielders have control over that, too.
Well Donal to answer your question simply look at the total runs each COULD allow with the numbers I gave.
the most Pitcher A could possibly give up is 50 Runs
Pitcher B could at most give up only 40.
The comprising stats I picked are irrelevant as they are quite plausible and capable of happening. The key here is if the calculations can always give the right answer no matter what numbers you might plug in.
Since the data will vary from player to player as long as the data plugged into the calculation is a reasonable number in those circumstances they are acceptable to be used to prove if the equation is correct or not.
FIP works as it does because it ignores the HIT data.
But the hit data IS relevant in judging how good a pitcher is no matter how much you want to weight it it will never be a weight of ZERO. ZERO=IGNORE.
For any metric to be useful it should always come up with the correct answer. And I tried to show that by ignoring hits FIP will NOT in all cases come up with the right answer!
If you can plug in numbers to thwart the equation then the problem is the equation not the numbers.
Xtreem – I think know I don’t have a particular problem with Sabers or the ideas behind them but you have to admit that if a particular metric can come up with the WRONG ANSWER because it ignored some aspect it didn’t take into account then there is an inherent problem with that metric that can mislead you into making the WRONG decision!
But you have to ignore the fact that some metrics exclude certain things because EVERY metric excludes something, no matter how traditional or new-age it is. FIP ignores hits. WHIP ignore strikeouts. BA ignores a good chunk of plate appearances. SLG% ignores how many hits you got. OBP ignores what type of hit you got. And so on and so forth. If you can come up with one complete and comprehensive stat for pitching and hitting, call Elias. You’ll be rich. But until then, no matter what stat you want to use, you’ll be ignoring some very critical piece of data.
Metsie, I’m asking for specific examples. Show me a group of pitchers that your idea applies to.
“But you have to ignore the fact that some metrics exclude certain things because EVERY metric excludes something”
WHich is why everyone who has ever tried to predict results using just stats and metrics have always been wrong and came up with results that never happened!
As trivial is the gravitational pull of Merceury and Pluto may be if you don’t take them into account when trying to calculate a trajectory you will wind up lost in space!
To deem them unworthy or to be ignored will lead you to the wrong answer!
Probability might make it seem like it is the correct calculation but that doesn’t mean the metric is CORRECT or without flaw!
If you really want to get the correct answer EVERY TIME (which is what analysis is all about) then you should not ignore aspects simply on the basis that other ignore them!
Cause then all your doing is making a metric thats as useless as all the others!
And it usually happens because you KNOW what result you want and fudge the equation to get it instead of taking all the relevent data you have and seeing what the calculation SHOULD so that the equation is always true!
I did show how FIP can always get the correct answer while ignoring hits.
I gave you specific examples. Unless you can say they can NOT occurr those examples are valid!
You want to apply it to real pitchers go ahead!
But do it for ALL pitchers and you will see where some pitcher has a higher FIP despite him being clearly a worse pitcher than someone else.
All because you ignored a big part of what happens while a pitcher is out there!
If a pitcher walks NO ONE (granted unlikely) but gives up all the walks someone else would give up as HITS, his FIP will be decent despite the fact he pitches batting practice!
Well the problem as I see it is the smeantical interpretation of what the Pitcher is responsible for.
How many times has a Manager called for an intentional walk?
How many HRs are the product of fielding like an Inside the Park HR?
These may be rare but the concept of only showing what you DEEM worth showing is the tacit act of throwing away data, and we all know when you throw away data you are basically throwing away facts!
A proper analysis would find a way to include as many facts as possible.
Tango is one of thoe saber guys with a REAL BIAS in his calculations.
Anyone who uses a constant that is not tied to REAL DATA is manipulating the result to his liking.
HRs*13 BB*3 K*2
Why is a BB 1/3rd worse than a K is Good?
Read above, sir. And also, an IBB is included as well as regular walks because no matter how you slice it, the pitcher is putting a guy on base. An inside the park home run is negligible because it happens what, four or five times a year? In about 2,500 games?
Your theory is right, though. “The concept of only showing what you DEEM worth showing is the tacit act of throwing away data, and we all know when you throw away data you are basically throwing away facts!” That’s why batting average is so low on the totem poll of useful statistics.
Tango’s calculations are not baised, they’re based on many, many years of research. Don’t fall into the trap those other three are so deep in, where you comment with certainty things you’re not sure of. I know you’re better than that.
Well if he isn’t placing bias why is a HR wieghted 13 times (More than 4 times) what a Walk is?
Where did he get those constants from if he didn’t just decide them arbitrarily?
As for the BA you can tell more about what the PLAYER did (isn’t that what FIP is all about?) than OBP does.
As FIP suggests the WALK is a product of the pitcher not the batter. So why is the walk deemed more important and relevant than the hit.
Use both then FINE but thats not always what is going one with some of these guy who believe in Sabers. (I excluse you and the Pro Teams from that as I suspect even the pros don’t undervalue BA as much as you are.)
Would it not be better to take the average of OBP and BA as a combined metric and come up with a number that will truly weight the ON BASE by taking into account how much is the Batter’s doing and how much is merely the Pitcher?
Like I proposed to you before a guy with a high OBP but low BA can lose that OBP you used to select merely by throwing that guy strikes!
If his OBP is a product of walks alone then the pitcher is in control of the batter’s result not the Batter himself.
Pitcher throws strikes then all that OB you selected goes away! Because his BA will drive the numbers not the pitcher missing the plate!
Here is an example of what I proposed above.
BMcann .375 OBP .269 BA
NCruz .374 OBP .318 BA
Lets call the new stat eOBP (Earned OBP)
Mcann has an eOBP of .327
NCruz has an eOBP of .346
Isn’t that much better than OBP? Isn’t BA relevent and accounted for in that Metric much better than OBP?
Isn’t OBP as incomplete as you claim BA is since it counts as good the bad the Pitcher contributed and not just the good of the player you are evaluating?
You can do a similar thing with SLG and come up with a much better metric than SLG or OPS alone.
Take the eOBP and multiply it (instead of adding) SLG to get what his potential base per PA is?
Cruz would have a .199 bPA
Mcann would have a .148 bPA
The problem I have always had with OBP is it gives the batter credit where the Pitcher gave him something. Walks are not earned yet the Philosophy of SABER tries on one hand to remove data the player isn’t credited with on some aspects give credit in another because it has a bias to ON BASE as opposed to ACTUAL CREDIT of accomplishment!
Just a note I called the above bPA but it would probably be better called eOPS.
It really doesn’t show a percentage of Bases per at bat but more is a metric like OPS which relates to no physical action just a wegthed comparison of components of two players.
Oh and as far as Tango’s research his is statistical research not physical realities.
If you calculate 2+2=5 and always stick to that calculation then the reasearch gets the wrong answer consistently.
It doesn’t prove it is correct just that you were consistent in your error during research!
Great. Find the error.
Right, because 2+2=5 is factually wrong. None of Tango’s research is factually wrong. Did the single result in a run? Yes or no? It’s there in black and white. Nothing is arbitrary.
Well he invented FIP and I pretty much just showed how FIP can give the wrong answer now didn’t I?
If he research is saying it is the right answer and in fact he is wrong how reliable is that research?
You can do a ton of research that says murderers are products of a broken home and show a statistical proof that shows this but it doesn’t mean that ALL MURDERERS are a product of a broken home it just means that maybe MOST are.
While Most Pitchers with a good FIP may give up fewer runs it can not prove that ALL pitchers with a good FIP will give up fewer runs than those with a less accompished FIP.
If the Metric can lead to the WRONG answer then the Metric being used is IN ERROR!
And if you use that in your research that research is also in ERROR!
Nothing can prove anything all the time. I can find problems with whatever stat you love, too. And you didn’t prove anything. You gave arbitrary numbers that are entirely unreasonable.
No, you showed nopthing. You invented a scenerio with a pitifully small sample size.
Prove him factually worng. Show us the exact error.
No I plugged REASONABLE and ACHIEVABLE stats into an equation and the equation failed to get the right answer because it ignored data that is available!
The only way you can prove my example wrong is to prove those numbers can NEVER occurr in real life.
So knock yourself out!
No, you invented a scenerio with a microscopic sample size.
“The only way you can prove my example wrong is to prove those numbers can NEVER occurr in real life.”
Thats not how logic works. You have to prove your premise. Asking someone to prove a negative is dishonest.
Sample size doesn’t matter. Times everything by 10 to increase sample the results FIP will give will still be wrong!
Sample size is only important when your GUESSING based on percentages not statistical analysis unless that analysis is INCOMPLETE as is the case with FIP because it ignores data and therefore needs a large sample to hide the fact it is flawed!
Basically because FIP is guessing due to the fact it ignored data. It’s analysis is incomplete!
And (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP
Is also factually wrong.
Because if the guy with the fewer walks and same HRs has more hits than a guy with less hits than he has more walks when compared FIP gives you the wrong answer!
2+2=5 Because FIP ignored the +1 of one player!
“Would it not be better to take the average of OBP and BA as a combined metric and come up with a number that will truly weight the ON BASE by taking into account how much is the Batter’s doing and how much is merely the Pitcher?”
You mean like wOBA or weight On Base Average?
And who says walks aren’t earned?
That’s why wOBA exists.
Damn. Second.
Then why is OBP used at all?
Why is that more important than wOBA?
My issues with wOBA are much fewer. It does attempt to weight but again the weights seem to be arbitrary and counter to the pure logic of what you are trying to dicern.
Why is NIBB weighted less than HBP? Isn’t HBP way more a product of a bad pitch than anything the batter did?
Isn’t a non Intentional at least PARTLY due to the batter taking a ball therefore he should get more credit for that than he gets for the HBP?
Why is a Batter givenless credit for a TRUE single than he gets for reaching base on an Error? Did the batter do more to get that 1OB in the case of the error than he did in the case of the pure hit?
Why isn’t a double weighted twice as much as a single? Why isn’t a Triple even weighted more than a single? Hell even a HR does not get weighted twice what a single is!
This means that singles are FAVORED (BIAS) and weighted almost as heavily as an act the batter makes that is ultimatly 4 times better! Yet wOBA weights these things this way.
Is it because a single is truly only half as good as a HR?
Or is it because the BIAS to prove OBP and OB being more important than anything else that it weights these acts in such an unfair and un proportional way?
because it wants to make OB more important than what KIND of OB is the true result!
“Then why is OBP used at all?”
Its a starting point.
“Why is that more important than wOBA?”
Who said that?
“It does attempt to weight but again the weights seem to be arbitrary and counter to the pure logic of what you are trying to dicern.”
Its not arbitrary. He looked up how often each event led to a run. For whatever reason, reaching on an error (which is an issue on its own) is more likely to lead to a run than a true single.
It has nothing to do with how much Tango likes a certain event, it is how often it resulted in a run.
I noticed you ignored my comments of the arbitrary and seemingly illogical weights used which tells me you really are just arguing based on your beliefs and not facts.
In such cases I will ignore you!
Why is a single only worth a little under HALF what a HR is?
Is it because you want OB and WALKS to have more value so you weight them a disproportionate amount compared to things which are much more valuable in the real world?
Meaning….BIASED!
I didn’t ignore them, they were based on a false premise I already addressed. I choose not to be redundant.
Tango addressed why he assigned each event the value he did, and its not because he likes certain ones better than others.
Well he didn’t say why a single is almost half as good as a HR is. Just that he DECIDED it was.
For reasons and by criteria that had nothing to do with the actual act but based on some other PROBABILITY that a single will score half as much as a HR which in REAL LIFE scores EVERY TIME!
Not true for Singles!
As for sample size. If a metric is a correct and INFALLIBLE metric then sample size is irrelevant. Times them all by 10 and do the math. Same result!
Larger sample size still the wrong answer.
Stats that are used to create metrics are not STATIC!
They change! Unless it is impossible to create those numbers in real life any number used is valid when testing an equation or metric associated with one!
“Well he didn’t say why a single is almost half as good as a HR is.”
So, you have no idea of his work.
Is there a reason to continue this discussion?
Oh wait, more stupidity from you
“As for sample size. If a metric is a correct and INFALLIBLE metric then sample size is irrelevant. Times them all by 10 and do the math. Same result!
Larger sample size still the wrong answer.”
I really can’t help you. This is beyond assinine.
I have a greatdeal of experience with his work.
And most of it is biased towards OBP being more important than anything else!
His Metrics are filled with ASSUMPTIONS and CONSTANTS that were pretty much picked out of thin air using other metrics he favors as important over another!
His concept that singles lead to more runs therefore are more important is wrong merely on the fact that importance is not the reason they score more but because they occurr more often than a HR!
So in his eyes since sinlges are involved in more runs produced he feels they have more important than something that ALWAYS produces a run.
BIAS!
And no there is no reason to continue this discussion unless you can prove that my numbers in the FIP example are IMPOSSIBLE in reality or you are willing to think for yourself and stop listening to some guy who has a philosophy about baseball he is slanting metrics by cherry picking data in an attempt to prove that philosophy is true!
“I have a great deal of experience with his work.”
And yet everything you say is factually wrong.
huh.
Odd coming from someone who has not posted any facts at all!
So why don’t you tell us HOW he came up with his weights and stop arguing for the validity of something you yourself don’t even understand!
Hurry get that google out genius!
For the last time. He “came up” with the weights by tallying each time the event occurred. It’s black and white. It did or it didn’t. I happened or it didn’t happen. Nothing about it is arbitrary. Nothing about is “decided.” Nothing about it “assumption.”
And what does occurance have to do with how good the act is compared to another?
Your basing weights on something that is not proportional to the PLUS created but based on how many times something happened, not how good it is!
So because a single happens more often it is weighted as much as a HR which happens less often…
TOTALLY ignoring the significance of the act based on frequency and not worth!
So a guy who hits a lot of HRs gets less credit for what he does because the rest of the league hits mostly singles!
It is a very bad way to weight performance.
Let me ask you this…
If lets say this year NO ONE hits a single will HRs be multiplied by an even lower number than a single will?
Will their importance all of a sudden be diminished because they are not as rare as they were last year?
Not a very good way to calculate linear weights if you ask me!