Dave Bush's peripherals

[milwaukeesportsfan]

I was bored at work and checking out the stats, and I noticed that Dave Bush has a better WHIP, 1.12 to 1.14, Batting Average Against, .235 to .242, Pitches per Inning Pitched, 14.97 to 15.42, and Hits per 9 innings pitched, 8.01 to 8.25, than Ben Sheets. And, his ERA has been steadily dropping, down to a very respectable 4.26. In short, he is very quietly putting up a pretty decent year.

 

Basically, I just wanted to give him some props for pitching well since being recalled from AAA. That's all.

[BrewCrewForever]

Yeah, Bush has always had a good WHIP. And his other stats look quite good save for his win/loss record which at 7-9 isn't awful. He has a lot of talent, just been way to up and down in his young career thus far. Been mostly up since coming up from AAA earlier this season though. Hopefully he continues to improve. I would say he could be our 3 or 4 again next season.

[endaround]

You are focueing on the wrong stats. Bush's K/9 is 5.81, BB/9 is 2.07 and HR/9 is 1.36 for a FIP of 4.62. Sheets has a K/9 of 7.5, BB/9 of 2.04 and a HR/9 of 0.75 for a FIP of 3.19. They aren't close. Bush is solid but he is getting lucky with a BABIP of .254. He's average which is far from a bad thing but he really isn't comparable to Sheets.

[BrewCrewForever]

Yeah I don't think he is close to as good as Sheets. But he is a solid number 3 or 4 starter.

[Roscoe Chill]

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's a "solid" #3. But he is a pretty good back end of the rotation guy.

[Postseason2006]

If Dave Bush would not have those few walks that he has bite him like they do, he would be a solid 3 guy. He has no hit stuff at times.

[TheCrew07]

You are focueing on the wrong stats. Bush's K/9 is 5.81, BB/9 is 2.07 and HR/9 is 1.36 for a FIP of 4.62. Sheets has a K/9 of 7.5, BB/9 of 2.04 and a HR/9 of 0.75 for a FIP of 3.19. They aren't close. Bush is solid but he is getting lucky with a BABIP of .254. He's average which is far from a bad thing but he really isn't comparable to Sheets.

I hesitate to post this, because I don't want to get into another circular debate about the subject, I don't want to take this thread off it's track, nor do I want to go round and round again with endaround. However this is exactly what I was trying to say in the Cub fan board thread. What does it matter what peripheral stat someone uses to make their point? Dave Bush has had a pretty decent season, especially when you take into consideration how poorly he started it. The orginal poster didn't say that Bush was a better pitcher than Sheets, he just pointed out that some of his numbers are actually better than Sheets. Instead of blindly defending Sheets and nitpicking statistical preferrences why not just respond to the spirit of the post, which I read to be that Bush has had a pretty decent year?

 

I prefer K/9, K:BB, and WHIP personally, doesn't make me anymore right or wrong than anyone else...

 

I like Bush as a back of the rotation starter, I always have, as I like his mound presence (I know it's meaningless to many) but that doesn't mean I'm not for upgrading his rotation slot. This should be a pretty interesting off season between 2B, 3B, the rotation, and the changes in the pen.

[homer]

Is it just me, or is Dave Bush throwing harder this year? I thought he topped out at 91 - 92 and I've seen him hit 94+ this year....at least on the gun they use in MP.

[Gobias Industries]

It sure seems he has thrown harder than usual.

 

During the beginning of the year, he was topping out at 86 and walking a ton of batters. Since about May, he's been damn good.

[dadofandrew]

Very few teams have 4 better starters than Bush, so thinking he's a 5th starter is just odd.

[milwaukeesportsfan]

Dave Bush has had a pretty decent season, especially when you take into consideration how poorly he started it. The orginal poster didn't say that Bush was a better pitcher than Sheets, he just pointed out that some of his numbers are actually better than Sheets. Instead of blindly defending Sheets and nitpicking statistical preferrences why not just respond to the spirit of the post, which I read to be that Bush has had a pretty decent year?

That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. I feel like fans have been hard on Bush after his slow start. I seem to remember a thread on this very message board earlier this season entitled something to the effect of "Dave Bush has got to go," and I thought he deserved some recognition for turning his season around. It's players like Bush that go largely unnoticed, but if we make the playoffs, it will be because of, not in spite of, guys like him.

[endaround]

What does it matter what peripheral stat someone uses to make their point?

Because some stats are far superior to others. Focusing on stats that are based highly on luck like H/9 or a lot on luck like WHIP doesn't tell you hpw a pitcher pitched.Its about using evidence thats meaningful instead of noise.

[JJHardy7]

Because some stats are far superior to others. Focusing on stats that are based highly on luck like H/9 or a lot on luck like WHIP doesn't tell you hpw a pitcher pitched.Its about using evidence thats meaningful instead of noise.

 

So is your opinion far superior than others since the previous posts were just 'noise'? I don't think the original post meant that Bush was better than Sheets. Just that's he's having a solid season and I'd agree with that.

[lukevan]

To be fair, the thread title is 'Dave Bush's peripherals'. Nothing wrong with endaround bringing all the peripherals into the picture.

 

But still, Dave Bush has had a nice year so far. If he had performed like last season, we're probably 1-2 wins worse.

[joepepsi]

That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. I feel like fans have been hard on Bush after his slow start.

As they have on Rickie Weeks even though he's be all right since June. Conversely Kendall gets a pass because he was so hot in April. For some reason Bill Hall is immune to all perceptions.

 

Bush is a wonderful mid rotation guy. He's better at his age than Suppan was and is going to make a lot of money someday.

[endaround]

Because some stats are far superior to others. Focusing on stats that are based highly on luck like H/9 or a lot on luck like WHIP doesn't tell you hpw a pitcher pitched.Its about using evidence thats meaningful instead of noise.

 

So is your opinion far superior than others since the previous posts were just 'noise'? I don't think the original post meant that Bush was better than Sheets. Just that's he's having a solid season and I'd agree with that.

The point is when evaluating pitchers, three stats are far superior to all others with K/9 the most important. This isn't my opinion, is the result of tons of research. You can look at GB/FB or LD% and bring more into it, but singles are highly a luck dependent event and the amount of hits just isn't a very vaulable piece of information for the vast majority of pitchers.

[olliegjw]

The point is when evaluating pitchers, three stats are far superior to all others with K/9 the most important. This isn't my opinion, is the result of tons of research. You can look at GB/FB or LD% and bring more into it, but singles are highly a luck dependent event and the amount of hits just isn't a very vaulable piece of information for the vast majority of pitchers.

Why are K/9 rates so important for pitchers, but hitters K rates aren't very important to SABR people?

[BillScottCanRake]

Here is an article explaining why K's aren't so important for hitters but are for pitchers.

Baseball Prospectus Basics - Just Another Out?

[olliegjw]

Here is an article explaining why K's aren't so important for hitters but are for pitchers.

Baseball Prospectus Basics - Just Another Out?

Thanks for the article BSCR. It is an interesting read, but seems pretty flawed to me. It is comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing offensive team strikeout totals and individual pitching strikeout totals. I think a better comparison would be the teams' pitching K totals related to team ERA.

[BillScottCanRake]

Thanks for the article BSCR. It is an interesting read, but seems pretty flawed to me. It is comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing offensive team strikeout totals and individual pitching strikeout totals. I think a better comparison would be the teams' pitching K totals related to team ERA.

 

While that comparison might be useful, I suspect the overall findings would remain the same.

 

Pitchers and teams that strike out hitters are successful at preventing teams from scoring runs, while pitchers and teams that strike out fewer hitters are less successful.

 

Hitters and teams that strike out a lot can be good, average and bad offensively, because simply measuring how many times they strike out doesn't correlate to how many runs they create/score.

[Ennder]

For pitchers the most important stats are generally K/9, BB/9 and GB% and then you have to look at career trends for the more luck based stats. The biggest difference between Dave Bush of last yaer and Dave Bush of this year is BABIP, last year it was unlucky and this year it has been lucky. This is the same pitcher that everyone said was useless last year pretty much. The truth is probably around his career rates, he is a 4.50 ERA pitcher or so because he struggles with runners on base and gives up a lot of extra base hits.

[joepepsi]

K/9and BB/9 are important, but I'm just as partial to K:BB ratio. K:BB ratio highlights pitchers like Maddux and Moyer and sinker types that may not get a hug number of K's but are quite successful for a long time. Maddux averages around 6K/9IP, but his K:BB ratio is an excellent 3.4:1.

 

I know K:BB ratio is just using the same numbers as K/9 and BB/9, but it puts the emphasis more on a pitcher's control and command. Either K/9ip or BB/9ip can mislead. For example Daniel Cabrera had a nifty 7K/9ip rate last year. Better than Maddux' career rate! The guy must be a stud, right? Well, since he also walked 108 batters in 204 innings, his K:BB ratio is a disgusting and embarrassing 1.54:1.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Dave Bush continues to be a statistical anomoly. His WHIP is among the same as Brandon Webb and John Lackey, but his ERA is well over a run higher than both. A 4.26 ERA is nothing to be ashamed of because it leads to a park adjusted ERA+ of 101. If Bush only could put together a full season of effectiveness and not blow up for month stretches, we'd have a nice #3 starter in our hands.

[1992casey]

For pitchers the most important stats are generally K/9, BB/9 and GB%...

 

Actually, K/AB and BB/AB would be even better, but they're not made very convenient to look up. Comparing to nine innings rather than ABs ignores the fact that during the nine innings, some pitchers will naturally allow more baserunners than others.

 

The flaw isn't fatal. K/9, BB/9 are OK substitutes. The flaw should be kept in mind, though.

[BillScottCanRake]

K/9and BB/9 are important, but I'm just as partial to K:BB ratio. K:BB ratio highlights pitchers like Maddux and Moyer and sinker types that may not get a hug number of K's but are quite successful for a long time. Maddux averages around 6K/9IP, but his K:BB ratio is an excellent 3.4:1.

 

I prefer using K/9 and BB/9 rather than K:BB because those raw numbers tell you more than a simple ratio. I can't tell the difference between two guys who have a 3:1 K:BB simply by looking at that number. But I can tell the different between a 9K/3BB and a 4.5K/1.5BB guy.