Teach me about K/BB ratio - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Teach me about K/BB ratio

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby glcmustliveon » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:50 pm

PlayingWithFire wrote:
BritSox wrote:
PlayingWithFire wrote:still haven't answered my Saarloos example...


Because it's worthless. When has Saarloos ever had good K/BB and HR/9 in the majors? Prospects bust sometimes, big wow.

Let me guess, Greg Maddux' entire career was a fluke.


No, Maddux does everything other than k extremely well and his k-rate was acceptable.

My point is that when scouting prospects, stuff absolutely matter. And the definite statement that k/bb and hr/9 is all you need is just plain not accurate, sure those 2 stats helps. But so does a lot of other factors.


First of all, the ability to strikeout a lot of batters shows "stuff", while the BB part of the ratio shows how a pitcher, prospect or not, controls his "stuff". Also, if a guy has good "stuff" then taking him deep is harder. Second, There are three stats that correlate highly from year to year: K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 (Allowed). And seeing as how "stuff" is generally subjective, these three stats give a better picture about what a pitcher will do in the future, at least better than traditional stats such as ERA, WHIP, and, of course, wins.
Image

"I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul." --Ichiro Suzuki on Dice-K
glcmustliveon
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 591
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Angels Stadium, Section 132

Postby The Loveable Losers » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:00 pm

BritSox wrote:
Ender wrote:A line drive is worth 0.391 runs over average, an outfield fly 0.192, a ground ball 0.045 and an infield fly is -0.088 from last year.

Pitchers want to induce infield flies, ground balls and outfield flies in that order. Every study I've ever seen has shown that ground balls are a better result than fly balls for a pitcher. The higher a pitchers GB% the better.


*Sighs*

I can't believe you're not getting this.

A big part of the advantage of a ground ball is that it is almost never a home run, yes?


I didn't quote everything from the discussion but you're both right on different points.

HR/9 isn't necessarily a good stat to use because it can be greatly influenced by bad luck. We're talking about 15-30 hr's a year for a typical starting pitcher. A few home runs either direction can greatly skew the hr rates. Because of that gb% is very useful for exactly the reason that you're arguing in this post that it's the ideal outcome for a pitcher - a ground ball can't leave the ballpark. While hr/9 can be skewed by luck, competition and park factors gb% isn't likely to get skewed in the same way. Personally I use hr/9 as my metric but I keep an eye out for a guy whose hr/fb% is skewed away from the 11-12% range where you would expect it. If I find a player like that then I'll start to delve deeper to find out if this is bad luck or as is often the case bad consistent control (ie the pitcher has a tendency to throw a couple softballs up there each game that get creamed).

You're right that ground balls are the best result for a pitcher on balls in play but it's not because they go for hits less (which is what the other poster was pointing out). It's because they never go for home runs and rarely go for extra base hits whereas fly balls can do both.

So to sum things up:
1) HR/9 is a good metric to use in evaluating pitchers but ONLY if you pay close attention to hr/fb% and gb% rates to make sure that the hr/9 wasn't a factor of luck, park or competition factors.
2) Ground balls are better than fly balls even though they go for hits more often than fly balls since they go for extra bases much less often than fly balls.
The Loveable Losers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 7290
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cubs Win!!! Cubs Win!!!

Postby BritSox » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:05 pm

The Loveable Losers wrote:
HR/9 isn't necessarily a good stat to use because it can be greatly influenced by bad luck. We're talking about 15-30 hr's a year for a typical starting pitcher. A few home runs either direction can greatly skew the hr rates.

You're right that ground balls are the best result for a pitcher on balls in play but it's not because they go for hits less (which is what the other poster was pointing out). It's because they never go for home runs and rarely go for extra base hits whereas fly balls can do both.


Over one season, yes. With a bigger sample size, not so much.

The Loveable Losers wrote:2) Ground balls are better than fly balls even though they go for hits more often than fly balls since they go for extra bases much less often than fly balls.


Correct. Found the stats:

In 06, ground balls in MLB were hits .227 of the time.
Non-HR flyballs were hits .125 of the time.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby The Loveable Losers » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:22 pm

BritSox wrote:
The Loveable Losers wrote:
HR/9 isn't necessarily a good stat to use because it can be greatly influenced by bad luck. We're talking about 15-30 hr's a year for a typical starting pitcher. A few home runs either direction can greatly skew the hr rates.

You're right that ground balls are the best result for a pitcher on balls in play but it's not because they go for hits less (which is what the other poster was pointing out). It's because they never go for home runs and rarely go for extra base hits whereas fly balls can do both.


Over one season, yes. With a bigger sample size, not so much.


Exactly. What's biting you when you look at hr/9 rate for a season isn't that hr/9 isn't a good metric...quite the opposite. It's a BETTER metric than gb%. What's biting you is the sample size issue. If you give me 3-5 seasons worth of data I'd rather use the hr/9 because it might illuminate a guy that deviates from the normal 11-12% hr/fb% you'd expect from a fantasy-worthy pitcher. And there ARE guys - usually fringe major leaguers - who give up well over 11-12% hr/fb%. But when you're only looking at one season's worth of data you have to take those hr/9 numbers with a grain of salt. Look at opposing lineups. Look at park factors. Look at hr/fb%. Look at gb%. If all of those look fairly neutral then hr/9 is great. If they don't you may have to make some adjustments before you take the hr/9 at face value.
The Loveable Losers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 7290
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cubs Win!!! Cubs Win!!!

Postby bclay » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:09 pm

Another thing about GB's...obviously they allow a defense to turn two when there's a man on first. I'm pretty sure every pitcher in the league is looking to induce a GB in this situation.

Also, with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 out I think a ground ball has less of a chance of getting him home than a fly ball does. But I don't have the numbers to back this statement up.

I'm sure these two points are obvious to everybody on this board, but this is something that does not get taken into account with GB hit % and FB hit %, and all the other metrics. But the ability of a GB to produce two outs is extremely valuable and cannot be ignored when comparing the two.
bclay
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 56
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby PlayingWithFire » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm

glcmustliveon wrote:
PlayingWithFire wrote:
BritSox wrote:
PlayingWithFire wrote:still haven't answered my Saarloos example...


Because it's worthless. When has Saarloos ever had good K/BB and HR/9 in the majors? Prospects bust sometimes, big wow.

Let me guess, Greg Maddux' entire career was a fluke.


No, Maddux does everything other than k extremely well and his k-rate was acceptable.

My point is that when scouting prospects, stuff absolutely matter. And the definite statement that k/bb and hr/9 is all you need is just plain not accurate, sure those 2 stats helps. But so does a lot of other factors.


First of all, the ability to strikeout a lot of batters shows "stuff", while the BB part of the ratio shows how a pitcher, prospect or not, controls his "stuff". Also, if a guy has good "stuff" then taking him deep is harder. Second, There are three stats that correlate highly from year to year: K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 (Allowed). And seeing as how "stuff" is generally subjective, these three stats give a better picture about what a pitcher will do in the future, at least better than traditional stats such as ERA, WHIP, and, of course, wins.


Kirk Saarloos was excellent in all 3(8.22k/9, 2.02bb/9, 0.55hr/9) in all those aspects in the minors. Does he have good stuff? No. And that's pretty much universally agreed that Saarloos doesn't have good stuff. So aside from looking up stats, knowing background absolutely matters when it comes to prospects.
Are you interested in joining a 28 teams dynasty league? If so, PM me.
PlayingWithFire
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13262
Joined: 7 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Manhattan, KS

Postby reynolds80 » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:40 pm

BritSox wrote:
The Loveable Losers wrote:
HR/9 isn't necessarily a good stat to use because it can be greatly influenced by bad luck. We're talking about 15-30 hr's a year for a typical starting pitcher. A few home runs either direction can greatly skew the hr rates.

You're right that ground balls are the best result for a pitcher on balls in play but it's not because they go for hits less (which is what the other poster was pointing out). It's because they never go for home runs and rarely go for extra base hits whereas fly balls can do both.


Over one season, yes. With a bigger sample size, not so much.

The Loveable Losers wrote:2) Ground balls are better than fly balls even though they go for hits more often than fly balls since they go for extra bases much less often than fly balls.


Correct. Found the stats:

In 06, ground balls in MLB were hits .227 of the time.
Non-HR flyballs were hits .125 of the time.


Of course if a pitcher was prone to inducing "non-HR flyballs" then everyone would want him! Problem is, such a pitcher doesn't exist because pitchers can't control whether or not their flyballs leave the yard.

But that's not even what I'm talking about - I am simply saying, on a very basic level, that your statement "Ground ball rate doesn't matter much at all(in so far as it does, everything else being equal a low GB% is a good thing)" is categorically false, because a ball hit on the ground produces better results over the long haul than a ball hit in the air.
reynolds80
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 290
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Area51's » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:57 pm

Grouperman941 wrote:Awesome -- 3 very helpful answers.

One of the things that made me pause when looking at this was that John Leiber shows up among the league leaders. Obviously, he gets few Ks and doesn't walk anybody, but that's because they're all hitting the third pitch in the gap.

I also notice that Halladay gets buried in the lists when you look at this aspect.

Galt: did you add the ratios? Adding k9 back in does seem to weed out the low K pitchers, but again, good in the case of Leiber, bad in the case of Halladay.

This is the kind of thing I am looking for, though. What I do is come up with a sort of 'sliding scale' score for a set of qualities (I started by using just categories, and I change it up a little each year and see what happens) I rate each player on the scales and add them up to get an index# that I use to compare players across positions. If nothing else, I memorize a lot of stuff about a lot of players. :-)

I could use RugbyD's #s from his league on a scale and see what that does to my rankings. I'd need to figure out how predictable a pitcher's k/bb is, though.


k/9 and k/bb is a super starting point, but outliers like Lieber and Vazquez can also be explained by their HR/9 or HR/flyball. Grabbing a guy w/ great k/9, great k/bb and a higher groundball rate (halladay, webb) helps that out. Not too often you get the perfect combo, but those can sure help weed guys out.
Area51's
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1002
Joined: 3 Nov 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: night watchmen at Pork n Beans factory

Postby BritSox » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:33 pm

reynolds80 wrote:
BritSox wrote:
Correct. Found the stats:

In 06, ground balls in MLB were hits .227 of the time.
Non-HR flyballs were hits .125 of the time.


Of course if a pitcher was prone to inducing "non-HR flyballs" then everyone would want him! Problem is, such a pitcher doesn't exist because pitchers can't control whether or not their flyballs leave the yard.

But that's not even what I'm talking about - I am simply saying, on a very basic level, that your statement "Ground ball rate doesn't matter much at all(in so far as it does, everything else being equal a low GB% is a good thing)" is categorically false, because a ball hit on the ground produces better results over the long haul than a ball hit in the air.


*Deep Breath*

But if we're already taking into account homerun rate, then the groundballers' propensity to give up fewer homers is factored in, yes?

Please explain which of these steps are wrong.

1. The number of walks and strikeouts a pitcher gets, and particualarly the relationship of one to the other, is important.
2. The rate at which home runs are given up is important.
3. What happens when the ball is hit within the field of play is not really within the pitchers' control, and largely the product of luck and his defense, so ought to be excluded from any evaluation of the pitcher's personal impact on the game.

Given that groundballers here are being given credit for their low HR rate, giving them credit for producing groundballs seems like double-counting, no?

Hence, I stand by the statement.

If you are already taking into account the pitcher's K/bb as well as his ability to keep the ball in the park, Ground ball rate doesn't matter much at all(in so far as it does, everything else being equal a low GB% is a good thing). It's extraneous information.


By 'everything else is equal' I'm referring to the above, K/bb and HR/9. Surely you can see that a groundball pitcher is not more valuable than a flyballer who gives up homers at the same rate?

In fact, a flyball pitcher who gives up homers at the same rate as a groundballer is likely to be much the better pitcher.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby reynolds80 » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:57 am

Surely you can see that a groundball pitcher is not more valuable than a flyballer who gives up homers at the same rate?

In fact, a flyball pitcher who gives up homers at the same rate as a groundballer is likely to be much the better pitcher.


I would argue that if a flyballer and a groundballer are giving up homers at the same rate (HR/9), then the groundballer has been unlucky and possibly pitches in a hitter's park, and/or the flyballer has been lucky and possibly pitches in a pitcher's park, because neither has control over whether their flyballs leave the yard. Luck and ballpark decide that.

As far as "double-counting" or giving credit twice to groundballers in your first couple paragraphs, I agree with you there - although I must say, I've always used GB% and HR/9 to complement each other, because they work hand in hand.

For example Westbrook is the most severe groundballer in MLB, and the last 3 years he has pitched 210+ innings each year, and given up just 19, 19, and 15 HR each year, respectively. I don't credit him twice, I just see a guy who limits flyballs and thus limits homers. In this case HR/9 and GB% work together and paint a clear picture.

In short, I almost never want a flyballer - his HR/9 will be high and this will bloat his ERA. If his HR/9 is NOT high, he has been either lucky or he pitchers at a big park like Petco. In that case, like I said earlier, I can give him a pass.
reynolds80
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 290
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp and 4 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Jul. 29
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Angels at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
Milwaukee at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Philadelphia at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Arizona at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Toronto at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Colorado at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Oakland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Atlanta at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
St. Louis at San Diego
(10:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact