An example of why I don't think DIPS will reflect pre-1960 pitchers accurately

[rwd59]

Originally posted by Henry
Back to your game one of the posters suggested turning off all the various options in the game setup screens and trying it. It worked for him - which makes it sounds like a game issue... just need to find out which option, or combination of options is causing it.

Henry, I've tried everything anyone has suggested without any luck. The thing that gets me is that when trying to play a game, you never know how long you can go before you get an error. You just know it's coming soon. Hell, I'd sit on the computer like an old laying chicken trying to hatch it if I thought it would help. No suggestion goes untested. As I said in my original thread, I bought Puresim last night and it pales in comparison, especially for a historical simmer. Maybe I can learn to like it a little cause it's all I got right now. I know you have tried to help and I appreciate it. Maybe after the patch I'll hear from Marcus one way or another.

[IatricSB]

Originally posted by Henry
Here's a ton of stuff. I know it's not exactly fair to dump you to a ton of links, but I've explained DIPS so many times I'm a bit burned out LOL. You can also follow the two previous threads on the subject (enter "DIPS" and "Henry" in the search engine).

What it comes down to is the proof is all there, no matter how you twist it, it comes up to the same answer.

I started off not wanting to believe it - and doing everything I could to fins a hole in the thesis, but eventually I had to admit it worked

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips03.html

On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it. To me it seems more useful when looking at pitchers as a whole rather than the individual. I find the arguments similar to the old runs created arguments. They used to say that runs created was accurate on a league wide level, somewhat accurate on a team level, and only moderately accurate on a player by player level. But its not worth arguing over, what is done is done. I understand what your trying to say Henry, I just don't buy into it totally. As for Carlton's arguments, I'll stay away since they never seem to make any sense at all.

[gmo]

Originally posted by IatricSB
On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it.

Out of curiosity, to what extent do those of you not very much behind DIPS believe in it? Is it just a matter of thinking there needs to be a modifier, another variable to explain the variability among pitchers? Or do you feel that the flaws or shortcomings are enough to make the whole system "broken"?

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Tippet did not consider park/defense profile vs. pitcher profile. Sharing the same defense/park does not prove anything, since different pitching profile would benefit from the same defense/park in different ways.

Without that part figured out, adding a BABIP rating would only reduce the significance of parks and defense.

The ideal system would be much closer to the work MGL did than what Tippet did.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._2004-02-29_0/

Great link there, Skipaway.

-Spielman

[DAL 9000]

Originally Posted by Big Train

I also found the same type of walk/strikeout ratios with pitchers who to my knowledge weren't knuckleballers:

Tom Zachary 1920-1936 [season average] 225.3 IP 258H 65 BB 51K 3.73 ERA

Hugh McQuillan [9 years] 219.7 IP 239H 68BB 62K 3.83

Slim Hariss [8 years] 206IP 231H 74K 75BB 4.25

I don't feel like listing them all but nearly every pitcher from this year has a 2 rating for strikeout
[Betts,Vangilder, Dixie Davis and Rip Collins are some others you can look up]. It's not only knuckleballers though.

None of these were great pitchers but remember the 20s and 30s was a great hitters era so their numbers are probalbly a little inflated.

Actually, I have a spreadsheet covering league-average BB, K, and HR per 9 IP for the entire live-ball era-- which means I also have K/BB ratios, and the lines you give above aren't uncommon for the era. In fact, they're pretty close to league average. The NL's K/BB ratio didn't climb above 1 to stay until 1930, and the AL's K/BB ratio varied around .9 (more or less) in the years you mention above. So I'm not sure what you were saying there, but then again I'm easily confused.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it. To me it seems more useful when looking at pitchers as a whole rather than the individual.

Yes, Iantric, that is precisely true. But, read the quote from MGL's article that Skipaway posted above (and which, iirc, an OotP poster responded). I will reproduce what is for me the important part:

Originally Posted by MGL

As I explained before, no matter how small the sample correlation is for x number of BIP, as long as there is any true correlation at all, given a large enough sample size, the correlation will eventually be 1 (assuming that whatever talent a pitcher does have for preventing hits is fairly constant over time). However, given a true correlation of .036 for 500 BIP samples, it would take more than a 13,000 BIP sample (4,200 innings or around 20 years of pitching) to have a correlation of .500. In other words, of you wanted to estimate a pitcher?s true $H from a year?s worth of his sample data (~500 BIP), you would regress his sample $H over 96% towards the league average; if you wanted to estimate a pitcher?s true $H from his 20-year history (~13,000 BIP), you would regress his sample $H only 50% toward the mean (the regression amount always equals 1-r).

So, as been pointed out before, if you agree DIPS works wholesale, then you agree that DIPS means you get 95%+ there individually. Afterall, what OotP really is doing is esimating -- or stating -- the pitcher's "true H$" -- his actual talent. What Rob and others want is to go that extra 5%. But, that sounds good to me, but just remember it is that extra 5%, not a wholesale revision.

[rcbuss]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

So, as been pointed out before, if you agree DIPS works wholesale, then you agree that DIPS means you get 95%+ there individually. Afterall, what OotP really is doing is esimating -- or stating -- the pitcher's "true H$" -- his actual talent. What Rob and others want is to go that extra 5%. But, that sounds good to me, but just remember it is that extra 5%, not a wholesale revision.

Great post, Josh. I couldn't have said this better, or more succinctly, myself.