Brewer Patience = Wins, and a Capuano Stat

[Oldcity]

How can someone say pitcher B had the better game?

 

I don't think you can fairly dismiss David's analysis based on sample size, because he's simply looking more precisely at the sample on which Ennder relied for his point.

But that's Ennder's entire point... That the sample size is too small to draw any conclusion from ERA or bullpen support.

[TooLiveBrew]

Last year Brad Penny put up a 3.03 ERA yet he pitched worse than in 2006. He just happened to barely let in any HR's. You'll say that was just good pitching but when only 2% of your fly balls leave the park for half the season it is just small sample variance, not skill, it is something that won't last long term.

 

2% HR/FB rate?! Holy goofy numbers, Batman!

 

Joe Morgan sez itz cuz Pennyz awesomz at not giving up homerz!

[Thurston Fluff]

"Is there a single stat anywhere that is completely independant of outside forces? I doubt it."

 

No, but there are others that are less dependent on outside forces than ERA is.

 

FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.)

 

But it doens't help you determine if the catcher called a good game. I think that is the single most overlooked factor in regard to pitching. A catcher who doesn't know the hitters and calls for the wrong pitch in the wrong circumstance could have a huge effect. Estrada basically got fired for failing to call games correctly. Obviously theres outside factors to all stats and in a very real sense all stats are in fact team stats. We can debate degrees but there are no absolute one person alone stats.

[homer]

True, but pitchers' can shake off a catcher's call too which minimizes that effect a little. My point is only that most stats are flawed - some are more flawed than others. I think Ennder has shown why ERA is more flawed than FIP.

[logan82]

But it doens't help you determine if the catcher called a good game. I think that is the single most overlooked factor in regard to pitching. A catcher who doesn't know the hitters and calls for the wrong pitch in the wrong circumstance could have a huge effect. Estrada basically got fired for failing to call games correctly. Obviously theres outside factors to all stats and in a very real sense all stats are in fact team stats. We can debate degrees but there are no absolute one person alone stats.

I would argue that Estrada got fired not for calling a bad game, but not calling the game Maddux wanted(although I agree he called a bad game).

 

Yeah a pitcher can shake off a pitch, but they aren't going to shake off every pitch. You also don't want your pitcher to be thinking to much out on the mound.

[Thurston Fluff]

True, but pitchers' can shake off a catcher's call too which minimizes that effect a little. My point is only that most stats are flawed - some are more flawed than others. I think Ennder has shown why ERA is more flawed than FIP.

 

More flawed maybe but to say ERA is a team stat or to say it shows nothing more about a pitcher than wins is arbitrary. Exactly where is the line drawn for team vs individual stat? For pitchers I would think the two most influential factors other than the pitcher himself is the umpire and the catcher. They both have a direct effect on every pitch thrown. They effect every pitching stat. If they effect every stat for a pitcher and we are throwing out all stats that are dependant on factors outside the pitcher's control then we have to throw out all stats. Looking at pitching stats as either team or individual is the wrong way to look at them. Pitching stats are progressively dependant, not absolute. If you think of it this way then the question isn't is it team or individual. The question becomes is it independant enough to tell you something about the particular subject at hand. In this instance of Cappy's past season I believe it is independant enough to say something about last year.

To dismiss ERA out of hand because somehow someone determined it crossed some magical line into team stat without giving proper clarification on why it is too dependant on outside factors for the particular instance it's being used is wrong. I believe ERA has far more value in showing something about a pitcher than wins do. What Ennder did was treat them the same and dismissed them out of hand. It would be wrong in any true statistical sense to treat them with the same weight. Honestly when it comes to evaluating Cappy's season last year it looks to me like some people (not necessarily Ennder and I don't want to single him out) are dismissing the stats that don't fit their arguement by finding reasons why they don't count. That isn't how stats should be used. Is ERA somewhat team dependant? Yes. Is it in the same catergory as wins that is so dependant on outside factors as to be virtually useless in determining what type of year he had? Absolutely not.

[endaround]

People aren't dismissing ERA out of hand because its as team dependent as wins but because there are better measures. ERA is really noisy and has been shown to be a bad way to measure how well a pitcher pitched. Suppan had one of the best years of his career last season but it didn't show up in his ERA.

[rluzinski]

To dismiss ERA out of hand because somehow someone determined it crossed some magical line into team stat without giving proper clarification on why it is too dependant on outside factors for the particular instance it's being used is wrong.

It really hasn't been explained here very well but the dismissal of ERA over a small sample (200 IP is small) isn't an arbitrary decision. When we see any stat that fluctuates widely from year to year, we are tempted to assume that the stat in question isn't doing a good job of measuring a particular skill of the player for the given sample. That tells us that either the sample isn't large enough to reduce the statistical uncertainty to sufficient levels (drowning out the skill component) and/or that the metric isn't measuring something that's soley based on the skill of the player. On the other hand, when we see certain metrics stay fairly consistent from year to year, we are more confident that it's a reflection of a particular skill the player has. Maybe it's a batter's walk rate or a pitcher's strikeout rate.

ERA is very dependant on things like BABIP and left on base percentage; two stats that can fluctuate wildy from year to year for a pitcher. That suggests that either the sample isn't large enought to reduce the uncertainty of the values or that other factors beyond the pitcher skill play a significant part in determining its value. Now, if we are talking about a career ERA for a 15 year vet, the sample size is so huge that we aren't much concerned about uncertainty. Also, other factors also tend to balance themselves out over a longer period (good and bad defense, for one). In that situation (provided the pitcher didn't play in an extreme pitcher's or batter's park his whole career), ERA does a nice job of reflecting the skill of the pitcher. I'm not saying you should completely ignore ERA over a 200 IP season but its value is limited. In that case, you are better off looking deeper at some of the stats that measure pitcher skill better.

On a side note, ERA is just a goofy stat to begin with. The whole "earned" part is pretty crazy for one. The inherited runners part is also pretty silly. Th eonly reason we accept it as much as we do is because we were presented with it when we became fans. When you start critiquing it, it holds up pretty poorly, IMO.

[TooLiveBrew]

Baseball is always going to be 'stuck' with the baseball card stats, imho. They're so ingrained in the culture of the game at this point, it's really up to the newer gen of sportswriters & reporters to do their best to present new way to analyze & evaluate. Some people will just never be able to tear themselves away from things they 'understand' (or think they understand - have a comfort level with).

[Thurston Fluff]

People aren't dismissing ERA out of hand because its as team dependent as wins but because there are better measures. ERA is really noisy and has been shown to be a bad way to measure how well a pitcher pitched. Suppan had one of the best years of his career last season but it didn't show up in his ERA.

 

I felt this part kind of dismissed it out of hand.

 

Only if you use the wrong tools to evaluate pitching. W's and ERA are team stats.

Further explainations by you have made what you meant clearer.

 

On the other hand, when we see certain metrics stay fairly consistent from year to year, we are more confident that it's a reflection of a particular skill the player has. Maybe it's a batter's walk rate or a pitcher's strikeout rate.

True but since the luck of what umpire a player gets is largely a small sample size over a period of years other factors may be relatively consistant but not for the same reasons. One year a pitcher has realtively large number of big strike zone umps and his numbers look the same as a year when he has the opposite. The numbers may show him being the same pitcher but one year he may have been much better. Thus it may not be telling anything about the players skillset. A starting pitcher has roughly 30 chances a year to get a good or bad ump. How long does it take to weed out that luck factor?

I'll concede this is not overly likely but unlikely happens with small samples.

 

This part is slightly off point, since it has more to do with luck than directly to ERA but since it's pretty quiet why not talk about it?

Luck does not effect everyone the same. ERA over a 200 inning season may fluctuate due to luck and an ERA may not fall into line with the other admittedly better stats on telling the whole story. To tell the whole story though ERA has to be included even if it is an anomoly compared to the other stats. It can be telling us something about the players skill set that some other stats may be missing. For the sake of communication let's call it the skill/luck ratio. If two players have an equal amount of luck there is still a likely differant result due to one's talent level in relationship to the luck factor.

Take for example the hypothetical circumstance of Sheets and Cappy both having the same ump the same batter the same everything. The ump is squeezing the zone and the count is 3-2 and a runner on 2nd. Cappy makes the pitch and the batter hits a seeing eye single past Weeks that goes for a base hit and rbi. Weeks took a wrong path to it and it should have been an out. That would look like bad luck and it was. It should have been an out. Sheets has the same thing happen to him but his superior stuff gives him the opportunity to throw a 96mph fastball down the middle and the batter swings and misses. Furthermore at games end both had the identical numbers, k/bb wise same everything else except for that one instance yet the ERA is differant. In that senario ERA tells something about the players skillset other stats didn't. Both had the bad luck of a small strike zone but one's superior skill set made the result differant. Over a period of time if luck is the same more of these things happen but one guy has less negative effect on his ERA than the other. The point of the example is the variance luck has to stats is relative to skill level.

I'm not argueing that ERA isn't flawed or even that it is equal to other stats. I do think it cannot be dismissed simply because it doesn't jive with other factors that say something else.

[rluzinski]

Sheets has the same thing happen to him but his superior stuff gives him the opportunity to throw a 96mph fastball down the middle and the batter swings and misses.

 

Certainly, which is why statheads focus on strikeout rates so much. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif A strikeout pitcher relies less on his defenders to do their job. Using a metric like FIP would capture the fact that Sheets is expected to have a better ERA, since his Ks are more valuable. I also agree that a strikeout pitcher is also more valuable because he relies on a skillset that results in more consistent results as well. I think the league recognizes that as well, however.

 

The luck I'm really talking about is a little different. Sometimes, a pitcher makes a great pitch that still gets rocked. The best pitch is still creamed over the wall some of the time. And sometimes, those great pitchers are creamed when there's a lot of men on base. Sometimes a guy can make a terrible pitch with the bases loaded and the hitter screws up. Over the course of 200 IP, that stuff doesn't necessarily even out. Over 20,000 IP, it usually does.

[Ennder]

Well sample size refers to the amount of data you are using. Capuano threw 2504 pitches last season, if you move 1 or 2 from a strike to a ball it has almost no difference in the overall percentage of strikes he threw. Even if you move 10 or 20 it isn't a huge difference.

 

Capuano let in 85 ER's last year. If you move just 2 of those to unearned or not scored his ERA drops by 0.12. This is why ERA is so sensitive to sample size.

 

Now even if you have a decent sample of ERA it contains a lot of noise.

 

For balls and strikes you have the Pitcher and the hitter playing a major role in whether it is a ball or a strike. The umpire plays a medium sized role in it as well and the catcher plays a small role in it.

 

For ERA all the same people play a role, but so does the person who the ball is hit to, the person he throws to, other runners on base at the time, one or two RP's that come in after you are out etc.

 

So not only is ERA subject to sample size issues it is affected by almost every single player in a given baseball game for a starting pitcher.

 

As was already mentioned it also shows almost no correlation from year to year, yet the other peripherals we use do show good correlation year to year. So is it more likely that things like K/9, BB/9 etc stay the same year after year but have nothing to do with how good of a pticher you are.. or that ERA varies year to year and just has too much noise over 1 year to be trusted?

 

I pick option B.

[Thurston Fluff]

And sometimes, those great pitchers are creamed when there's a lot of men on base. Sometimes a guy can make a terrible pitch with the bases loaded and the hitter screws up. Over the course of 200 IP, that stuff doesn't necessarily even out. Over 20,000 IP, it usually does.

 

Gotcha on the luck thing. Sometimes differances of opinion are more diffrant definitions than anything

Actually I think we are very close to agreeing with the small exception that I think it takes a smaller sample to determine past results vs predicting future ones. To me Cappy's ERA last season was as telling as his other stats which said he pitched roughly the same as he had before. I think his ERA last season was telling us maybe he had better luck in the past and when the luck changed he wasn't good enough to compensate. His skill simply wasn't as good enough to compensate for his unusually bad luck like a better pitcher could have. In a way even Soup's ERA showed that. As Ennder said earlier his other stats showed him to have been above his norm yet his ERA wasn't. Both of them relied on luck to help compensate in circumstances guys like Sheets or YoGa can succeed at with a rate closer to their norm. Then agian I'm usually wrong so this shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

I hope you and Ennder can tolerate the rambling and obstinance but I need my baseball fix and there is precious little else to talk about.

[MessiahRp]

You're right to frame the question that way, but I think we have to state that question more precisely. Will Capuano "turn it around" such that he'll be a #2 starter again? That would seem to me like not such a good bet. Will he "turn it around" such that he'll be one of our five best starting pitchers, worth what we pay him, and not easily replaceable by someone better? That seems to me like a very good bet, and that's the modest -- but, IMHO, important and correct -- point that we "patience preachers" are making about him.

I agree here. I don't even care if Cappy is ever a #2 quality pitcher again. As I see it we have pretty darn solid options at #2 and #3 with Gallardo and Villy. If Cappy comes back and is a strong #4 or #5 pitcher, this rotation will be much, much improved.

 

Rp

[TooLiveBrew]

And all Cappy really has to do to 'come back' is pitch the same as he did in 2007. There's no way his luck will be as off as it was in 2007, even if our INF defense isn't improved.

[Thurston Fluff]

Unless his luck was average last year and unusually good the previous two. I don't think anyone posted how his other stats coorelated success wise to other pitchers with similar stats.

[Ennder]

Capuano was lucky in 2005, he displayed better skills in 2006 (his BB's were way down) and he was unlucky in 2007. Overall I think his career 4.39 ERA pretty much tells his story. That is about what I'd expect out of him next year, a 4.40ish ERA unless he gains back those BB/9 improvements from 2006 which probably isn't likely.

[Thurston Fluff]

Well sample size refers to the amount of data you are using. Capuano threw 2504 pitches last season, if you move 1 or 2 from a strike to a ball it has almost no difference in the overall percentage of strikes he threw. Even if you move 10 or 20 it isn't a huge difference.

 

 

I think having an ump with a small strike zone would effect more than just the couple pitches though. It changes the count makes him pitch from behind and very well could be way more than 10 or so pitches that are in question. When considering the effect of umps on a guy like Cappy who relies on control and hitting the corners it's probably more accurate to consider the number of starts vs the number of actual pitches called wrong.

 

Capuano let in 85 ER's last year. If you move just 2 of those to unearned or not scored his ERA drops by 0.12. This is why ERA is so sensitive to sample size.

 

He couldn't get to the 6th inning in 15 of his 25 starts. Presumably if he had been able to pitch well enough to get to the 6th on a regular basis his ERA would have gone down as well. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing in which lead to which. It's all sort of related. Though as you very astutely pointed out some are of higher significance than others. ERA isn't as high as some but it still has some use.

 

Overall I think his career 4.39 ERA pretty much tells his story. That is about what I'd expect out of him next year, a 4.40ish ERA unless he gains back those BB/9 improvements from 2006 which probably isn't likely.

 

Totally agree. See even morons such as myslef can see the light once in a while. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[logan82]

For ERA all the same people play a role, but so does the person who the ball is hit to, the person he throws to, other runners on base at the time, one or two RP's that come in after you are out etc.

I am sure you didn't forget it, but I didn't see it mentioned. ERA is also affected by the scorer at the ballpark at the time. As we know they can vary wildly from park to park also.

[logan82]

I think having an ump with a small strike zone would effect more than just the couple pitches though. It changes the count makes him pitch from behind and very well could be way more than 10 or so pitches that are in question. When considering the effect of umps on a guy like Cappy who relies on control and hitting the corners it's probably more accurate to consider the number of starts vs the number of actual pitches called wrong.

But in every game you have to make adjustments to the umpire. Every umpire has a slightly different zone and where you might get one with a small zone one time you will get one with a larger zone next time.

[Thurston Fluff]

But in every game you have to make adjustments to the umpire. Every umpire has a slightly different zone and where you might get one with a small zone one time you will get one with a larger zone next time.

 

True and the more skilled the pitcher the more likely it won't cause as many problems. Maddux probably has less problems with that than someone with less control. Sheets has the pure stuff to counteract that. Cappy maybe not so much. That was the point. Certain pitchers talent level makes luck factors like that more or less significant.

[logan82]

True and the more skilled the pitcher the more likely it won't cause as many problems. Maddux probably has less problems with that than someone with less control. Sheets has the pure stuff to counteract that. Cappy maybe not so much. That was the point. Certain pitchers talent level makes luck factors like that more or less significant.

Iwould say in Maddux's case the umpires adjusted to him for a long time. Veteran respect and all.

[Thurston Fluff]

Iwould say in Maddux's case the umpires adjusted to him for a long time. Veteran respect and all.

 

True but you get the point. Luck is relative to skill level to a degree.

[TooLiveBrew]

If GSP is "Chief Cynic"... at this point, Ennder should be "Chief Capuano Correspondent"