Fun with getting it exactly wrong

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

9 thoughts on “Fun with getting it exactly wrong

  1. John

    I'm surprised you didn't reference the Marchand article as well Brien. It translated to "Yeah, the Yankees won, but Nova had a poor game, so therefore they actually suck."

    Thanks for keeping the sane perspective for us Brien.

  2. BrienJackson

    Haven't read it yet. That's *your* end of this arrangement. :)

  3. John

    Ah ok. I got it. Thanks a lot. :)

    It's ok, reading those first always makes the stuff here more enjoyable.

    • williamjtasker

      Nova didn't really get hit hard until his last batter or two in his outing. It was really a BABIP game with some bleeding singles just out of reach and a couple of awful fielding miscues he had to pay for. It wasn't a bad outing at all.

      • David

        Yeah, I was describing it to my brother this morning at my nephew's little league game; Nova probably escapes the second without giving up anything without the Ibanez "error" and then a bunch of "hit 'em where they ain't" singles (or BABIP singles, as William points out) for the bulk of the rest of the runs early. Nothing REALLY concerning, other than Joe playing Ibanez in the OF of course…

      • John

        You're preaching to the choir Will.

  4. thecutoffman

    I agree with your point Brien, but xFIP is a really stupid stat. Replacing home runs that are literally hit on the field, with the league average in homers allowed is stupid. I understand the point is to neutralize park effects, but homers are homers.

    • BrienJackson

      No it isn't. You substitute the league average because, over time, there's very little consistency for most pitchers in terms of their HR/FB%, so to get an idea of what you can expect them to do from a predictive standpoint, you need to find some constant for that. There are exceptions that prove the rule, of course, but for the most part it works pretty well as a predictive tool, and it should work even better for a full rotation than for individual pitchers.

      • BrienJackson

        To be clear, I think you're confusing the point of FIP (to judge actual performance based on the components the pitcher can control) with xFIP (to predict what we can expect that pitcher to do based on those components going forward).

Comments are closed.