PDA

View Full Version : Estymetrics


batmanZoSo
10-31-2003, 03:26 PM
Someone recently posted that one of the stat hot-shots says that Brian Anderson's 2003 season was a fluke and the guy used sabermetrics to come to that conclusion. Has anyone come across anything like this regarding Loaiza? His season was such a surprise, I can't imagine how there couldn't be anything out there like that. Other than general doubt and his history, is there any reason Loaiza can't win a comparable amount of games next year? What was the one thing Loaiza did last year that he never has before? A lot of times, pitchers just don't give up as many home runs one year and they'll go from a 4.50 era to a 3.20 era just like that. I'm wondering if there's any tangible fluke evidence here, or is it just that he attained command of his cutter?

MRKARNO
10-31-2003, 03:42 PM
With esteban adding the cutter, all bets are off as to sabermetric stats regarding Loaiza. only time will tell. Who knows? Maybe next year he will be BETTER and gain even more command of his pitches.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2003, 03:47 PM
I see him winning at least 14 games and being solidly over .500. Just don't make him the number one starter and put any unnecessary pressure on him. It's just a continuation of 2003, with a six month break in between, lol.

wsgdf
10-31-2003, 04:12 PM
All bets are not off sabermetrically speaking. New poster here by the way.

Baseball Prospectus did the Loaiza analysis already and frankly they're confounded.

Loaiza's season does NOT look like a fluke sabermetrically because his K rate went way up this season. Anderson's looks like a fluke because his did not.

The theory is that a pitcher 'in general' cannot control which balls hit in play result in hits and which ones result in outs. Therefore, when a pitcher has a low ERA but not a good K rate - that pitcher was lucky according to the theory. A lot of K's means not as many balls put in play, which goes to explain why there probably was no luck involved in Loaiza's breakout.

What confused them though is this kind of dramatic improvement usually happens to a pitcher like Garland and not a 30 something that has already established his normal success level in the majors. I'll post a link as soon as I can find it.

voodoochile
10-31-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by wsgdf
All bets are not off sabermetrically speaking. New poster here by the way.

Baseball Prospectus did the Loaiza analysis already and frankly they're confounded.

Loaiza's season does NOT look like a fluke sabermetrically because his K rate went way up this season. Anderson's looks like a fluke because his did not.

The theory is that a pitcher 'in general' cannot control which balls hit in play result in hits and which ones result in outs. Therefore, when a pitcher has a low ERA but not a good K rate - that pitcher was lucky according to the theory. A lot of K's means not as many balls put in play, which goes to explain why there probably was no luck involved in Loaiza's breakout.

What confused them though is this kind of dramatic improvement usually happens to a pitcher like Garland and not a 30 something that has already established his normal success level in the majors. I'll post a link as soon as I can find it.

Welcome Aboard! :D:

MarkEdward
10-31-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Someone recently posted that one of the stat hot-shots says that Brian Anderson's 2003 season was a fluke and the guy used sabermetrics to come to that conclusion. Has anyone come across anything like this regarding Loaiza? His season was such a surprise, I can't imagine how there couldn't be anything out there like that. Other than general doubt and his history, is there any reason Loaiza can't win a comparable amount of games next year? What was the one thing Loaiza did last year that he never has before? A lot of times, pitchers just don't give up as many home runs one year and they'll go from a 4.50 era to a 3.20 era just like that. I'm wondering if there's any tangible fluke evidence here, or is it just that he attained command of his cutter?

Well, I think I'd attribute Loaiza's 2003 success to his *major* increase in strikeouts per nine innings (up three from 2002) and his decrease in home runs (2003: .7/9 IP; 2002: 1.2/9 IP) . His BB/9 also went down (but only down .1 from 2002).

As for Brian Anderson, I wouldn't really say 2003 was a fluke. Aside from his ERA, most of his other stats were in line with his career. His strikeouts remained dangerously low and he continued to serve up a fair amount of gopher balls, but he did keep the walks down. Anderson is very risky; with that low K rate, he could implode at any time. According to Bill James, pitchers with low K rates don't have very successful careers. I'm not a big fan of Anderson; I'd probably rather have Rauch in the fifth spot.

wsgdf
10-31-2003, 04:34 PM
Thanks voodoo - I can't find the link!

Grrrrr....

AsInWreck
10-31-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by wsgdf
.

The theory is that a pitcher 'in general' cannot control which balls hit in play result in hits and which ones result in outs. Therefore, when a pitcher has a low ERA but not a good K rate - that pitcher was lucky according to the theory. A lot of K's means not as many balls put in play, which goes to explain why there probably was no luck involved in Loaiza's breakout.



If that's the theory, then I don't buy it. A pitcher may not have control where the ball goes, but he does have control over whether the ball is scorched or if it's a broken bat or harmless pop-up. And if a pitcher has no control over where a ball goes, then how come a sinker ball pitcher like Brandon Webb has about 90% of his balls hit into play on the ground?

That theory also suggest the only good pitcher is a strikeout pitcher, which I don't buy either

Dadawg_77
10-31-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck
If that's the theory, then I don't buy it. A pitcher may not have control where the ball goes, but he does have control over whether the ball is scorched or if it's a broken bat or harmless pop-up. And if a pitcher has no control over where a ball goes, then how come a sinker ball pitcher like Brandon Webb has about 90% of his balls hit into play on the ground?

That theory also suggest the only good pitcher is a strikeout pitcher, which I don't buy either

This is McCracken DIPS Theory. The theory is still being look at in every which way you can think of, now is thought a pitcher has some control how hard a ball is hit but not as much as people believe. Movement on your pitch definitely helps as one type of pitcher who does control where and how a pitch is hit is a knuckleballer.

McCracken isn't publishing as much stuff as he used to since he on the Red Sox payroll now but you can find his web site which explains his theory out there.

Dadawg_77
10-31-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Someone recently posted that one of the stat hot-shots says that Brian Anderson's 2003 season was a fluke and the guy used sabermetrics to come to that conclusion. Has anyone come across anything like this regarding Loaiza? His season was such a surprise, I can't imagine how there couldn't be anything out there like that. Other than general doubt and his history, is there any reason Loaiza can't win a comparable amount of games next year? What was the one thing Loaiza did last year that he never has before? A lot of times, pitchers just don't give up as many home runs one year and they'll go from a 4.50 era to a 3.20 era just like that. I'm wondering if there's any tangible fluke evidence here, or is it just that he attained command of his cutter?

As has been mention E Lo added a new weapon, cutter, and work on his delivery coming into last year (2003). His K totals and HR allowed went down are they related probally but not sure. If I see pitch by pitch stats I could tell you.

pudge
10-31-2003, 05:27 PM
For what it's worth, I've heard a few "experts" say Loaiza should continue to be a strong pitcher thanks to the cutter. It's supposedly similar to Rivera's and doesn't require a lot of stress on the arm, hence there's no reason he shouldn't stay healthy.

The theory stuff is usually pretty accurate, and it's no surprise Brian Anderson's season was considered a fluke.

poorme
10-31-2003, 06:22 PM
Anderson gave up like 800 unearned runs, which made his ERA ok.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2003, 07:18 PM
pudge,

In September, we saw the cutter get taken for balls and they hit the fastball. I was worried for a moment, but he came back and won his last two starts handily.

RichH55
11-01-2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
pudge,

In September, we saw the cutter get taken for balls and they hit the fastball. I was worried for a moment, but he came back and won his last two starts handily.

He's only making 4 million...even if his numbers drop off to some extent(not completely off the table)...he will be a cost-efficient pitcher at the very very least

batmanZoSo
11-01-2003, 09:52 AM
Yeah he's one player I would definitely say he makes a reasonable salary.

jeremyb1
11-02-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
This is McCracken DIPS Theory. The theory is still being look at in every which way you can think of, now is thought a pitcher has some control how hard a ball is hit but not as much as people believe. Movement on your pitch definitely helps as one type of pitcher who does control where and how a pitch is hit is a knuckleballer.

McCracken isn't publishing as much stuff as he used to since he on the Red Sox payroll now but you can find his web site which explains his theory out there.

Yeah that argument regarding a sinker ball pitcher would be that in the long run he can't limit his hits by forcing hitters to pound the ball into the ground since sinkers can be hit hard and find holes in the infield but by forcing hitters to hit the ball on the ground, he can limit extra base hits which will increase his effectiveness substantially.