Realizing that there are a million ways to judge ball players, what do you think is the best single metric to judge pitcher performance. For many years it was ERA, but that seems to have changed. Personally I like opponent’s OBP or Batters per Walk but realize there can be many other valid ways to do it.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Stats4Gnats posted:Realizing that there are a million ways to judge ball players, what do you think is the best single metric to judge pitcher performance. For many years it was ERA, but that seems to have changed. Personally I like opponent’s OBP or Batters per Walk but realize there can be many other valid ways to do it.
WHIP is a pretty good indicator of success as a stand alone stat. Get at 1.00 or below & you are flat dealing.
What level are you talking about and what is the goal of the judging? I'd say, at some levels - if the goal is to choose future MLB pitcher prospects, I'd go with MPH as the single most important metric. If you are judging a current MLP pitcher, then maybe WHIP or OBP. Started thinking about high school pitchers when reading the original post and could not help but recall what has been said here many times - high school stats don't matter - talent, especially hitting, just too inconsistent across the board.
2017LHPscrewball posted:
What level are you talking about and what is the goal of the judging? I'd say, at some levels - if the goal is to choose future MLB pitcher prospects, I'd go with MPH as the single most important metric. If you are judging a current MLP pitcher, then maybe WHIP or OBP. Started thinking about high school pitchers when reading the original post and could not help but recall what has been said here many times - high school stats don't matter - talent, especially hitting, just too inconsistent across the board.
I never try to pick who will make it to the ML. My perspective is almost always looking to see which player on the team is the most “successful” now.
I know what’s been said about HS stats, but almost always it’s been from the perspective of moving to the next level. Since there’s no place where there’s access to every HS player’s stats, of course using them to project what the future holds is silly. But, every HC has access to the stats for all of his players, so using them to help judge those players is relatively simple.
Steve A. posted:
WHIP is a pretty good indicator of success as a stand alone stat. Get at 1.00 or below & you are flat dealing.
I like WHIP as well, but only if HBPs are part of the computation for amateurs.
STATS - Can you give a brief overview of how WHIP gets calculated?
2017LHPscrewball posted:
STATS - Can you give a brief overview of how WHIP gets calculated?
It’s really one of the more simple baseball statistic calculations there is. Walks + Hits divided by innings pitched. Many believe it to a measurement of the number of base runners a pitcher has allowed per inning pitched and/or a measure of a pitcher's ability to prevent batters from reaching base. The reason I believe HBPs should be added to the computation, at least for amateurs, is because a hit batter is a runner and comes as a direct result of the pitcher.
Looking at just free passes, BBs & HBPs, it’s not unusual for HBPs to be right at 25% of the total. To me that’s a significant number and therefore has a lot of effect on the final WHIP number.
WHIP is a very good basic indicator at all levels. The only problem is that at the HS level and below there can be a lot of variation in what's called a hit. So K's per inning is a good secondary stat to look at. I have the number 1 stuck in my head for both. If I look at a pitcher and his WHIP is near or below 1, I figure he's probably pretty good. If WHIP is near 1 and his K per inning is at least 1 I feel like the WHIP is confirmed. If his K per inning is closer to 2 then there is no question that he's pretty darn good. (assuming the competition is not horrible)
The four I like to look at (in order that I like to look at them) that I use to make such a judgment of a pitcher:
WHIP - something right at 1 or better
SO's per inning - 1 per inning or more
BB's per inning - a small number like 1 in 4 or better
Batting Average (opponents) - Low average of course and like seeing .225 or less.
Truman posted:
The four I like to look at (in order that I like to look at them) that I use to make such a judgment of a pitcher:
WHIP - something right at 1 or better
SO's per inning - 1 per inning or more
BB's per inning - a small number like 1 in 4 or better
Batting Average (opponents) - Low average of course and like seeing .225 or less.
Those 4 metrics are pretty good ones except for one teeny thing I have an issue with. I know K’s and BB’s per inning are widely used, but to me they have the same problem as using IPs as a way to limit pitchers. Using something per inning isn’t even close to being the most accurate measurement.
The most precise measurement would be # of pitches per K. The next would be the number of batters per K. And then would come K’s per inning. I’m not saying any of those measurements wouldn’t be good, but rather that the more precise the more useful.
Attached is a metric I’ve run for many years. If you notice I do all 3 measurements for both walks and K’s. That way there’s a measurement that meets anyone’s precision requirements. 
My son and I were talking about this last weekend. We like Sabermetrics (numbers in general a lot ;-) so I'm inclined to latch onto Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) as the best metric to measure a pitcher. As noted in the article, it is used a lot by FanGraphs. I'm constantly looking at FanGraphs and Sabermetrics to fully understand all of their formulas and acronyms, but I think this one is pretty straight forward. JMO.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...g-basic-sabermetrics
fenwaysouth posted:
My son and I were talking about this last weekend. We like Sabermetrics (numbers in general a lot ;-) so I'm inclined to latch onto Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) as the best metric to measure a pitcher. As noted in the article, it is used a lot by FanGraphs. I'm constantly looking at FanGraphs and Sabermetrics to fully understand all of their formulas and acronyms, but I think this one is pretty straight forward. JMO.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...g-basic-sabermetrics
When I read this I realized I’d forgotten to qualify my original question. I often forget that everyone doesn’t take the name of this board as literally as I do, i.e. High School Baseball Web. My bad.
When I look at numbers I’m looking at HSV numbers. No matter how hard anyone tries, there’s no way to calculate a FIP constant at amateur levels, and that kind of destroys the value of the calculation. Keeping in mind my question is pointed at HS baseball or really any amateur level, would you care to take another shot at picking a metric?
Stats4Gnats posted:Truman posted:
The four I like to look at (in order that I like to look at them) that I use to make such a judgment of a pitcher:
WHIP - something right at 1 or better
SO's per inning - 1 per inning or more
BB's per inning - a small number like 1 in 4 or better
Batting Average (opponents) - Low average of course and like seeing .225 or less.
Those 4 metrics are pretty good ones except for one teeny thing I have an issue with. I know K’s and BB’s per inning are widely used, but to me they have the same problem as using IPs as a way to limit pitchers. Using something per inning isn’t even close to being the most accurate measurement.
The most precise measurement would be # of pitches per K. The next would be the number of batters per K. And then would come K’s per inning. I’m not saying any of those measurements wouldn’t be good, but rather that the more precise the more useful.
Attached is a metric I’ve run for many years. If you notice I do all 3 measurements for both walks and K’s. That way there’s a measurement that meets anyone’s precision requirements.
Interesting thought. I'm not sure how I could interpret such numbers given the variable of situational issues involved which seems to affect such precise measurements.
This brings to mind a 5th element I sometimes like look at and that's the ratio of pitched strikes to balls, where if a pitcher is throwing at a ratio of 3 strikes to every ball, I'd say he's doing well in terms of command.
Truman posted:
The most precise measurement would be # of pitches per K. The next would be the number of batters per K. And then would come K’s per inning.
Interesting thought. I'm not sure how I could interpret such numbers given the variable of situational issues involved which seems to affect such precise measurements.
There aren’t many guarantees in baseball, but one is everything changes based on the situation at any specific point in time. But even though situations cause changes galore, those changes will have effects no natter what’s being measured or how. I maintain that at the more precise measurement technique being used, the less the effect of the situation will be.
What I’ve done is “reworked” the report I previously posted. Please see the pitall2x.pdf attachment. This time I used all the pitchers rather than just starters, and only considered pitcher who had thrown to at least 108. If you notice I added 3 columns. What they are is how each player ranked depending on either Ks per inn, batters per K, or pitches per K.
Here’s a couple examples of how the precision affects the list. The player who was 4th in K’s per inning was 9th in batters per K and 13 in pitches per K. The player who was 13th in K’s per inning was 13th in batters per K as well but 10th in pitches per K. And the player who was 6th in K’s per inning was 2nd in Batters and pitches per K. I’ll let you come to your own conclusion about what those numbers mean.
Granted most of the time there’s little or no difference, but that doesn’t mean the differences mean nothing.
This brings to mind a 5th element I sometimes like look at and that's the ratio of pitched strikes to balls, where if a pitcher is throwing at a ratio of 3 strikes to every ball, I'd say he's doing well in terms of command.
Although I don’t one and have nothing against it if it suits your purpose, I think if you’re really looking for command you ought to only look at pitches not swung at. Please see the pitchkindslook.pdf attachment.
Stats4Gnats posted:Truman posted:
The most precise measurement would be # of pitches per K. The next would be the number of batters per K. And then would come K’s per inning.
Interesting thought. I'm not sure how I could interpret such numbers given the variable of situational issues involved which seems to affect such precise measurements.
There aren’t many guarantees in baseball, but one is everything changes based on the situation at any specific point in time.
What I’ve done is “reworked” the report I previously posted. Please see the pitall2x.pdf attachment. This time I used all the pitchers rather than just starters, and only considered pitcher who had thrown to at least 108. If you notice I added 3 columns. What they are is how each player ranked depending on either Ks per inn, batters per K, or pitches per K.
Here’s a couple examples of how the precision affects the list. The player who was 4th in K’s per inning was 9th in batters per K and 13 in pitches per K. The player who was 13th in K’s per inning was 13th in batters per K as well but 10th in pitches per K. And the player who was 6th in K’s per inning was 2nd in Batters and pitches per K. I’ll let you come to your own conclusion about what those numbers mean.
Granted most of the time there’s little or no difference, but that doesn’t mean the differences mean nothing.
This brings to mind a 5th element I sometimes like look at and that's the ratio of pitched strikes to balls, where if a pitcher is throwing at a ratio of 3 strikes to every ball, I'd say he's doing well in terms of command.
Although I don’t one and have nothing against it if it suits your purpose, I think if you’re really looking for command you ought to only look at pitches not swung at. Please see the pitchkindslook.pdf attachment.
Looks like good stuff if you understand it and know how to use it.
. . . and appears someone is almost as much a spreadsheet geek as me. 
Truman posted:
Looks like good stuff if you understand it and know how to use it.
. . . and appears someone is almost as much a spreadsheet geek as me.
Yeah, a big problem with the numbers is lack of understanding what they mean or using them for something they’re not intended for. 
But look at how far baseball statistics have come in just the last generation. In my generation, few other than the most rabid baseball people knew there were other stats than BA, ERA, and FPct. With technology coming so far, it’s enabled a much higher percentage of people looking at baseball to become aware of a much wider range of statistics. That’s made it possible to dispel one heck of a lot of baseball myths, as well as to support a heck of a lot of beliefs. In the end I believe the game is far better understood by those who really need to understand it like ML front offices, and at the same time not lost its charm for the casual baseball fan.
I thought that since I’d put the ranking on that report for K’s, I may as well do the same thing for BB’s and see if the same thing was going on there. When I saw what happened I also added the percentage ML uses to show whether a pitcher is a Power or Finesse pitcher, then sorted the whole thing by the P/F calculation.
I think it’s fascinating to see how while for the most part long held beliefs are supported such as high K pitchers are also high walk pitchers and vice-versa, there are a fair number of pitchers go against the grain as well.
See if you can pick out the 17 kids who were either drafted out of HS or pitched in college.
Stats4Gnats posted:I thought that since I’d put the ranking on that report for K’s, I may as well do the same thing for BB’s and see if the same thing was going on there. When I saw what happened I also added the percentage ML uses to show whether a pitcher is a Power or Finesse pitcher, then sorted the whole thing by the P/F calculation.
I think it’s fascinating to see how while for the most part long held beliefs are supported such as high K pitchers are also high walk pitchers and vice-versa, there are a fair number of pitchers go against the grain as well.
See if you can pick out the 17 kids who were either drafted out of HS or pitched in college.
Boy that's pretty cool collection of data. If I had to go by 1 category I would probably pick the top 17 in "Pitches Per K," I suppose. Would I be close?
Steve A. posted:
Boy that's pretty cool collection of data. If I had to go by 1 category I would probably pick the top 17 in "Pitches Per K," I suppose. Would I be close?
Well, I’d say you were darn close.
I added a Dr for drafted, Co for college and NA for either not graduated yet or didn't play after HS and sorted it by pitches per K for you.
