Semi-Famous Baseball Geek Looking for Info on OOTP

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Which by implication suggests better contact.

I would think that could be attributed to the fact that, when behind in the count, pitchers are more likely to throw a hittable strike in order to avoid the walk.

[AfWapo]

Originally Posted by Voros McCracken

Because you're missing (albeit not by a lot) what type of ball a home run really is. Without outfield fences, many many many home runs are outs. A home run shares much more in common with a fly ball in play than it does with the other two types of hits in play, and as we know flyballs are the least likely of the three to fall in for hits.

I can't remember the study exactly nor do I remember a link, but one study suggested that most of a pitcher's home run rate can be explained by his overall fly ball rate. More fly balls = less hits = more doubles and triples = more home runs. So when you see a pitcher with a high home run total over time, you can assume he gives up lots of flyballs, and from there you can assume that keeps his hits per balls in play lower. Correlation studies tend to confirm this as there seems to be a small inverse correlation between home run rate and hits per balls in play for pitchers.

What Tango's studies suggest is that LD% is the big motivator for hits per balls in play numbers, and for this most pitchers are darn near close to equal over time. There does seem to be differences between hitters in this stat.

I think this gets to the heart of my problems with DIPS: that it views HR's as something similar to a fly-ball out. I understand that fly-ball homeruns are largely dependent upon the distance of outfield fences... but that still seems to be problematic for me in that most homeruns are still VERY hard-hit balls. I don't think it is a given that IF there were no outfield fences, that most HR's would become outs, either.

DIPS seems to assume this -- and so HR's aren't included as a balls "in-play" which seems to give pitcher's a lot more of a break than they deserve.

You mention the following: "So when you see a pitcher with a high home run total over time, you can assume he gives up lots of flyballs, and from there you can assume that keeps his hits per balls in play lower. Correlation studies tend to confirm this as there seems to be a small inverse correlation between home run rate and hits per balls in play for pitchers."

This is problematic to me for this very reason. Isn't it likely that there is an inverse correlation precisely BECAUSE those HR's are not being considered as hits per balls in play?

To use the fact that an outfield fence exists as a way of diminishing the importance of HR's for BABIP (or outright ignoring HR's) has no logical basis in my mind. Doesn't this give an advantage to flyball pitchers that ground-ballers do not have? Why should that be?

Or maybe I'm just missing something... which could be the case.

[Voros McCracken]

Originally Posted by AfWapo

To use the fact that an outfield fence exists as a way of diminishing the importance of HR's for BABIP (or outright ignoring HR's) has no logical basis in my mind. Doesn't this give an advantage to flyball pitchers that ground-ballers do not have? Why should that be?

Or maybe I'm just missing something... which could be the case.

The point of DIPS, originally and to an extent still, was to separate out the effects of fielding from a pitcher's statline. The argument about HBIP came after I set about addressing this initial goal. The idea was to separate out the stats fielders can affect and those they can't (or those they almost can't). When thought of in those terms, Home Runs definitely belong on the opposite side of that ledger, at least in the modern game. Very simply, there are batters faced where the ball is put into the field of play and those where the ball is not, and DIPS groups stats into those category in order to get at the effects of fielding on a pitcher's line.

If you look at something like a DIPS ERA (or FIP or whatever folks want to call it), home run pitchers get punished plenty, it's just they do so independent of however balls in play are treated. Home Runs are always treated as hits, whereas a ball in play (whether it fell in for a hit or not) is treated as a fraction of a hit (this is a bit simplistic but is generally the truth). This is the flipside of the relationship between strikeouts and balls in play: a strikeout is almost always an out, while a ball in play is only sometimes an out.

The idea being is that we can, for example, cast a new look on a pair of pitchers like say Paul Derringer and Carl Hubbell and try and address the effects the quality of their respective teams had on their stats (IE, when it comes to DIPS, Derringer is actually close to Hubbell's equal at least when both were at their best).

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Voros McCracken

The point of DIPS, originally and to an extent still, was to separate out the effects of fielding from a pitcher's statline. The argument about HBIP came after I set about addressing this initial goal. The idea was to separate out the stats fielders can affect and those they can't (or those they almost can't). When thought of in those terms, Home Runs definitely belong on the opposite side of that ledger, at least in the modern game. Very simply, there are batters faced where the ball is put into the field of play and those where the ball is not, and DIPS groups stats into those category in order to get at the effects of fielding on a pitcher's line.

If you look at something like a DIPS ERA (or FIP or whatever folks want to call it), home run pitchers get punished plenty, it's just they do so independent of however balls in play are treated. Home Runs are always treated as hits, whereas a ball in play (whether it fell in for a hit or not) is treated as a fraction of a hit (this is a bit simplistic but is generally the truth). This is the flipside of the relationship between strikeouts and balls in play: a strikeout is almost always an out, while a ball in play is only sometimes an out.

The idea being is that we can, for example, cast a new look on a pair of pitchers like say Paul Derringer and Carl Hubbell and try and address the effects the quality of their respective teams had on their stats (IE, when it comes to DIPS, Derringer is actually close to Hubbell's equal at least when both were at their best).

I gotta admit I agree with MOST of it, just having a hard time grasping that final step of admitting pitchers really have so little control over balls in play that when judging pitchers you simply look at K/IP, HRA, etc. My old bones insist pitchers have a little more to say about it depending on their individual stuff. But I especially like how the theory brings to light the importance of defense to a pitcher, well a whole pitching staff, that goes beyond just unearned runs; a good defense will keep ERA's lower, and many people don't seem to grasp THAT. Oh well, I'm old and you know what they say about teaching an old dog new tricks.

To get back to point though, I'm also totally brand new to OOTP and would love to hear your thoughts on the game so far. I'm struggling with the interface immensely, but I think I'll work through that. Would you mind posting your thoughts to date so far??? Especially love to hear your thoughts on how OOTP measures up in terms of the DIPS theory. I've read elsewhere in these forums that the OOTP designers pretty much subscribe to it. I'll leave it up to individuals to assess whether that's good or bad, but I am interested in hearing how OOTP measures up in that respect, as well as how you found the overall "feel" of the game.

Being "semi-famous" and all, I totally understand if you would rather not give a public critique (no that ant spelt rite ).