DIPS in Review

KCBOOMER · 10-13-2003, 11:27 AM

Tom Tippett, over at Diamond Mind Baseball has written an excellent peice in going deeper into Voros McCracken's assertion of two years ago that pitchers have little to do with the outcome of balls in play (i.e. batted balls that are not home runs).

This is the kind of analysis that I really enjoy. Where someone takes someone else's assertion/claim/conjecture and subjects it to a rigorous review. This is a very lengthy article, but well worth the time. At times you think it may be getting ready to walk off into stat head heaven but it doesn't. The charts are most illuminating.

I won't give away Tippett's finding or conclusions, I'll just say it is a superb piece of analytical work. I wish to hell someone would do such a study on relievers/closers so we could leave the "surely it makes sense" arguments behind.

Ytown Tribe fan · 10-13-2003, 01:05 PM

It's a good study but, amazingly, the author excludes two groupings: fly ball vs ground ball pitchers (that is, pitchers who record more outs on fly balls vs pitchers who record more outs on grounders), and a further subdivision of groundball pitchers who pitch on artifical turf vs natural grass.

Perhaps the dearth of data for the entire POR was the reason for such an omission.

KCBOOMER · 10-13-2003, 01:14 PM

YTF, the guy used 90 years worth of data and I can't imagine the flyball versus groundball nature of pitchers is worth considering. Particularly, since the original study (McCracken's) doesn't consider it either.

Ytown Tribe fan · 10-13-2003, 03:49 PM

Perhaps, but McCracken's original conclusions were flawed, as shown by the new study.

When studying the relationship between balls-in-play and hits, the nature of the ball-in-play could be a big factor. A pitcher who tends to induce more ground balls than fly balls would be dependent on a different sort of defense than a fly ball pitcher. Also, turf vs grass would seem to affect ground ball pitchers more than fly ball pitchers.

It just seemed to me that it would be something to consider in the study.

WiredTiger · 10-13-2003, 03:57 PM

A very interesting article. It also emphasizes the danger of using small sample sizes to make conclusions. Using two years worth of data was hardly sufficient for a conclusion. But the findings definitely have spurred a lot of talk about the topic.

poorme · 10-13-2003, 04:07 PM

why is it that i read the article and thought it generally supported mccracken's theory while others read it and think it refutes his theory? he needs an executive summary.

SmedIndy · 10-13-2003, 04:46 PM

The answer lies in between poorme in what I read. Yes pitchers have an impact but it's smaller than you think. And extremes of all pitchers throw it off totally.

YT - if you want to do a comprehensive study you have to exclude the GB / FB data.

Wolf Hopper · 10-13-2003, 05:11 PM

Can someone post a link to the article? Thanks in advance............

KCBOOMER · 10-13-2003, 05:34 PM

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm

poorme · 10-13-2003, 07:03 PM

you really have to look at the numbers and think about them. tippett shows that the most veteran pitchers give up .003 fewer hits/inning than average. that's 3 hits in a thousand innings or less than one hit/year! to me this is as solid evidence as any that mccracken is correct!

sweaver · 10-13-2003, 07:48 PM

McCracken in his original, and Tippett in this response, both overplayed their hands and wrote conclusions exceeding their evidence. Pitchers have a limited effect on balls in play. Some more than others. Knuckleball pitchers have a larger effect, for some reason.

In other words, a lot of what we think is pitching is still defense.

SmedIndy · 10-14-2003, 12:47 AM

If you watched Wakefield, you know why the knucklers have a larger effect. Unless you hit it on the screws, you can't get good wood on it.

And I bet the same shows for sinkerballers.

KCBOOMER · 10-14-2003, 10:39 AM

I guess I read it that Tippet was discrediting McCracken's work due to the almost complete sample he used. He showed clearly that some pitchers are definitely better than others at getting "in play" outs and that the pitcher who do this tend to be pitchers we think of as "good".

sweaver · 10-14-2003, 11:44 AM

Tippett was trying to do so, but overreached. He actually confirmed most of McCracken's conclusions, although McCracken also was too strong in his conclusions based on his data.

I think the "hard to hit" has a lot to do with movement on the ball. Knucklers move a lot, and so do really good fastballs like Randy Johnson's.

WiredTiger · 10-14-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweaver

I think the "hard to hit" has a lot to do with movement on the ball. Knucklers move a lot, and so do really good fastballs like Randy Johnson's.

Randy Johnson is actually a very interesting case. According to Tippett he is average at everything except striking batters out where he has a huge advantage. When batter put the ball in play against Johnson he is an average pitcher.

McCracken came up with an interesting conclusion. He wasn't wrong, he just needed more data to come to a better conclusion.

What interests me the most is that you can succeed in several different ways as a pitcher. The easiest is striking out more people than your peers do but there other ways to succeed. Which explains why guys like Jamie Moyer and Greg Maddux are so successful and why hopefully a guy like Nate Cornejo can succeed at the major league level.

10-13-2003, 11:27 AM	#1
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	DIPS in Review Tom Tippett, over at Diamond Mind Baseball has written an excellent peice in going deeper into Voros McCracken's assertion of two years ago that pitchers have little to do with the outcome of balls in play (i.e. batted balls that are not home runs). This is the kind of analysis that I really enjoy. Where someone takes someone else's assertion/claim/conjecture and subjects it to a rigorous review. This is a very lengthy article, but well worth the time. At times you think it may be getting ready to walk off into stat head heaven but it doesn't. The charts are most illuminating. I won't give away Tippett's finding or conclusions, I'll just say it is a superb piece of analytical work. I wish to hell someone would do such a study on relievers/closers so we could leave the "surely it makes sense" arguments behind. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

10-13-2003, 01:14 PM	#3
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	YTF, the guy used 90 years worth of data and I can't imagine the flyball versus groundball nature of pitchers is worth considering. Particularly, since the original study (McCracken's) doesn't consider it either. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

10-13-2003, 05:11 PM	#8
Wolf Hopper NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 6,191	Can someone post a link to the article? Thanks in advance............ __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator POSTING TIP FOR THE DAY: When composing a post, think about what you would say if the intended recipient was an individual who was actually sitting just two feet in front of you, in person, rather than just some far away and anonymous audience who only can identify you as text on a PC screen - - and then write your post in that manner. It makes for remarkable and sincere discourse.

10-13-2003, 05:34 PM	#9
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

10-14-2003, 10:39 AM	#13
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	I guess I read it that Tippet was discrediting McCracken's work due to the almost complete sample he used. He showed clearly that some pitchers are definitely better than others at getting "in play" outs and that the pitcher who do this tend to be pitchers we think of as "good". __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

10-13-2003, 01:05 PM	#2
Ytown Tribe fan Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Scrappers territory Posts: 2,515	It's a good study but, amazingly, the author excludes two groupings: fly ball vs ground ball pitchers (that is, pitchers who record more outs on fly balls vs pitchers who record more outs on grounders), and a further subdivision of groundball pitchers who pitch on artifical turf vs natural grass. Perhaps the dearth of data for the entire POR was the reason for such an omission.

10-13-2003, 03:49 PM	#4
Ytown Tribe fan Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Scrappers territory Posts: 2,515	Perhaps, but McCracken's original conclusions were flawed, as shown by the new study. When studying the relationship between balls-in-play and hits, the nature of the ball-in-play could be a big factor. A pitcher who tends to induce more ground balls than fly balls would be dependent on a different sort of defense than a fly ball pitcher. Also, turf vs grass would seem to affect ground ball pitchers more than fly ball pitchers. It just seemed to me that it would be something to consider in the study.

10-13-2003, 03:57 PM	#5
WiredTiger Guest Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The city of Kaline, Cobb and Greenberg Posts: 3,395	A very interesting article. It also emphasizes the danger of using small sample sizes to make conclusions. Using two years worth of data was hardly sufficient for a conclusion. But the findings definitely have spurred a lot of talk about the topic.

10-13-2003, 04:07 PM	#6
poorme Guest Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,625	why is it that i read the article and thought it generally supported mccracken's theory while others read it and think it refutes his theory? he needs an executive summary.

10-13-2003, 04:46 PM	#7
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	The answer lies in between poorme in what I read. Yes pitchers have an impact but it's smaller than you think. And extremes of all pitchers throw it off totally. YT - if you want to do a comprehensive study you have to exclude the GB / FB data.

10-13-2003, 07:03 PM	#10
poorme Guest Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,625	you really have to look at the numbers and think about them. tippett shows that the most veteran pitchers give up .003 fewer hits/inning than average. that's 3 hits in a thousand innings or less than one hit/year! to me this is as solid evidence as any that mccracken is correct!

10-13-2003, 07:48 PM	#11
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	McCracken in his original, and Tippett in this response, both overplayed their hands and wrote conclusions exceeding their evidence. Pitchers have a limited effect on balls in play. Some more than others. Knuckleball pitchers have a larger effect, for some reason. In other words, a lot of what we think is pitching is still defense.

10-14-2003, 12:47 AM	#12
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	If you watched Wakefield, you know why the knucklers have a larger effect. Unless you hit it on the screws, you can't get good wood on it. And I bet the same shows for sinkerballers.

10-14-2003, 11:44 AM	#14
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	Tippett was trying to do so, but overreached. He actually confirmed most of McCracken's conclusions, although McCracken also was too strong in his conclusions based on his data. I think the "hard to hit" has a lot to do with movement on the ball. Knucklers move a lot, and so do really good fastballs like Randy Johnson's.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T3 - Rise Of The Machines	Max Power	Entertainment	36	12-04-2003 11:13 PM
Spiderman Movie Review	Slippery Pedro	Entertainment	91	06-10-2003 11:07 AM
Bowie/Moby Area2 review	VNV Nation	Entertainment	1	08-03-2002 12:58 PM
Kirk Gibson In Review	Fuzzy Bear	2002 Baseball History Archives	25	06-27-2002 04:01 PM
Attack of the Clones (movie review)	Craig S.	Entertainment	40	05-28-2002 03:09 PM