And NZF, no, hit rate won't tell you that Oliver Perez will break out, or that Jake Peavy will have an extremely high strand rate, or that Pedro will allow a ton of HR. But neither will BAA, or any other for that matter, so I don't get your point.
Straight up, I'm reasonably interested in hearing more about this. I'm still trying to ascertain exactly what this formula will tell you that BAA won't, why hardly anyone uses it (at least to my knowledge) and if we did use it on those particular pitchers at the end of 2003 (or any pitcher for that matter) what it projected for them in 2004.
When you're right no one remembers, when you're wrong no one forgets - NZF
NZF
General Manager
Posts: 4795
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Sitting in the Cake Tin enjoying a cold Speights
The formula takes out the luck of hits per balls in play. BAA doesn't do anything like that at all. The formula for hit rate is: (H-HR)/(BFP-HR-BB-K-HBP). BFP is batters facing pitcher. You really don't need the second part of the equation to do a projection, only the numerator. Multiply the numerator by the league average hit rate (around .300), add that to the pitchers HRA, and divide by (BFP-BB-HBP). That would you give the pitcher's true BAA, luck independant. I also have a formula for finding team-specific ERA & WHIP based on the team's park and defense, which basically takes the team's projected hit rate (based on historic hit rates) and has linear weights for BB/9, K/9, HR/9, and Team Hit Rate. Some pitchers do tend to have ERA's that stray from the expected ERA given by the formula, and those pitchers are usually extreme flyball pitchers or groundball pitchers (like Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, etc).
In Bonderman's case, his Hit Rate was .313 in 2003, and .278 in 2004. It's not a skill-related stat (RJ and Pedro have been near the worst in the league for hit rate) so it's not progression by Bonderman, it's just luck. Next year he could be way above .300, or way below .300, you don't know.
The formula said Glendon Rusch's ERA should have been 4.02 base don his K, BB, and HR in 2003, but in real life it was 6.42, quite a difference. In 2004 Rusch had a 3.75 ERA which doesn't seem all that shocking when you figure he was only 27 ERA points below his previous season's total. Bonderman's 2003 ERA should have been 4.75, not the 5.56 he actually had. Going back to previous years, Ryan Drese's aweful 6.55 ERA in 2002 should have been about 4.75.
Going the other way finding pitchers who had good luck, Kip Wells' 2003 looked great just by looking at ERA and BAA. 3.28 ERA, .233 BAA, how could you go wrong? But what SHOULD his ERA have been that year? About 4.36, more than enough information to tell you this guy's gonna be over-rated big time in 2004. So 2004 rolls around and he has a 4.55 ERA. People are shocked, thinking he was the next big thing. Sorry.
Another 2003 example is Ryan Franklin. His ERA was 3.57 in 2003. Again, people think he's a decent option as a 3rd starter maybe. Had a good ERA and BAA, so why not? Well his ERA should have been 4.60 according to my formula. 2004 rolls around and Franklin has a 4.90 ERA.
So yes, the formula does work. If you're looking for people who were lucky in 2004, Jake Peavy and Johan Santana top the list. Jake Westbrook and Joe Kennedy are also up there near the top. Unlucky oens were Sidney Ponson, Bronson Arroyo, Jeff Weaver, Derek Lowe, and Kris Benson.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
FIP: Fielding Independent Pitching. Essentially an approximation of what the pitcher's ERA would be with an "average" defense behind him. The formula is (13xHR + 3xBB - 2xK)/IP plus a league-specific factor (around 3.20). It works like DIPS ERA, if you're familiar with that, but it's a lot easier to compute and explain.
The idea behind FIP is similiar to DIPS (defense independant pitching stats); it concentrates on the 3 things a pitcher can control that isn't influenced by his defense: walks, strikeouts, and homeruns. Many consider it the surest way to look at the pure ability of a pitcher; a pitcher who does the most for himself without any help is most likely the better pitcher.
Team IPAvg is the hit rate the team allows. There is also a multiplier that accounts for things like G/F ratio and adjusts the expected ERA slightly based on a pitcher's historical multipliers. There's a separate formula for WHIP as well, but WHIP is fairly consistent and isn't affected by luck nearly as much as ERA is.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal wrote:No, but if he was healthy he might have been closer to his true 2003 ERA of 4.36 as opposed to the 4.55 ERA he had in 2004
You can make excuses for him, but he didn't have a good year in 2003.
Nah, no excuses ... I just saw a loop hole and went for it.
Anyways I like the formula, very useful. That being said, Bonderman is being overrated this year ... which is odd to me. I mean he did well, I just don't think he did that well to get all this hype. Though I do personally love the kids future, I've seen him pitch many times and as soon as he gets that change up done and better control ... watch out.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by NZF » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:48 pm 
