1. Thank you, I really enjoyed that thread.
2. No, I didn't read that. Thats very interesting, thank you. Well then, maybe one day Hit F/x can be incorporated into DIPS. Like a new and improved tERA.

Keystone sees it, Well then, maybe one day Hit F/x can be incorporated into DIPS. Like a new and improved tERA.

Exactly. Dave Cameron recently said that he thinks (generally speaking) that a pitcher should get credit for about half of BABIP. It's not being properly weighed with current metrics.

But it is hard to discern the luck factor in that if you can' access data like hSOB (horizontal Speed of struck ball).

Hit/FX delivers the magic sauce.

Cameron thinks that a typical pitcher should get credit for 1/2 of his BIP wins. For most pitchers, that doesn't amount to much. For example, our very own Matt Harrison has 0.3 BIP wins this season. If you add 1/2 that to his fWAR, it increases by 0.15.

Now for a pitcher like Jered Weaver who consistently produces significant BIP wins, adding 1/2 of those to his fWAR makes a big difference. But does Jered Weaver really deserve 50% of the credit for those wins or are they mostly due to the Angels defense?

"But it is hard to discern the luck factor in that if you can' access data like hSOB (horizontal Speed of struck ball).

Hit/FX delivers the magic sauce."

Now you're being reasonable. I think that you and I actually agree on this to some extent. Detailed pitch data could be useful in trying to figure out how much of BIP wins should be allocated to the pitcher versus luck or defense.

Where you and I disagree is in how important this is. For the vast majority of pitchers, BIP wins is near 0. So allocating some portion of BIP wins to them won't affect their fWAR much. Matt Harrison is a good example b/c he has only 0.3 BIP wins.

Where it would matter is in those cases like Jered Weaver where the pitcher consistently produces significant BIP wins. Note that Weaver pitchers in front of an elite defense. Coincidence? I doubt it. I think Weaver does deserve some credit for his BIP wins. If he's good at missing bats, it stands to reason that he's good at initiating weak contact. (The research that gave us SIERA confirms that strike out pitcher's have lower BABIPs b/c they initiate weak contact.) I just doubt that Weaver should receive full credit for his BIP wins, and I don't know how to draw the line.

RFan, you and I might not agree when you understand my fully elaborated opinion.

You are viewing it as if PitchF/x and HitF/x will merely fill in the gaps for FIP. My opinion on the future of this is far more radical. This change won't be evolutionary—but revolutionary. I propose that 10 years from now FIP simply won't matter at all. Some old-schoolers might still reference it, but it won't be at all the foundational currency of Sabermetrics that it is today.

My sense of the future is this...
NEXTGEN will centrally look at 5 things when measuring a pitcher:

-Strike-outs
-Walks
-Opposing batter-ball trajectory
-Opposing batter ball velocity
-League adjustments (which would not only account for the DH but this year would factor in the AL .560 win rate superiority over the AL)

Forget about hits. Forget about runs. Forget about home runs....Those are too tied into fielding, weather, Fenway/Safeco oddities.

PLEASE NOTE: I will likely amend this formula. PitchF/x and the combination of Pitch/FX with Hit/FX will offer so many other interesting patterns and formulas.

This is why I call this Saber's EVENT HORIZON. The ridiculous escalation of available data and ways to correlate them will be utterly crazy. Lots of ideas are going to be overthrown, just as happened with SABER I.

If you want to consider one of the immediately flawed aspects of FIP/SIERA etc...consider the home run. FIP says that a home run...unlike all other hits...is under a pitcher's control.

Really?

Which pitcher was it that constructed Fenway or Safeco park? Which pitcher dictates the wind effects that sometimes dominate BBIA?

NEXTGEN with use of Hit/FX will remove this wonkiness. It's the speed and trajectory immediately off that bat that will be used to measure a pitcher's susceptibility to BIGFLY...not his good fortune at pitching in Safeco or San Diego.

We have become entirely comfortable and spoiled at seeing the pitcher's MPH when we watch games. In 10 years we'll become equally accustomed to seeing the MPH of the batted ball.

It will be a more varied, more enjoyable and I contend a more meaningful stat.

Can we kill this thread? Seriously, it's a frigging game.

They are trying to prove how smart they are, this could go on much longer.

RFan, Eric Reining, Txball and Scooby have it correct...

Especially this little nugget from Scooby:

"You're going Full-Ricky-In-Ft-Worth here. You wake up, come on this board, and look for someone to fight with. It has a "Right, now, who want to brawl?" quality to it ("Harrison DOMINATES his critics", for example)."

There is no such sport as Competitive Internet Forum Posting, so stop trying to win at it. This board is more like a symposium, where we all try to become smarter baseball viewers. Stop trying to set it up as a who's smartest contest."

I think somebody else around here may have recently mentioned the strong similarities between shortstopMVP's "style" and our old pal Ricky...

As Scooby states above, this site is supposed to be a FUN place where we can all go and learn a little more about baseball from one another. This is best accomplished in a non-hostile environment, with a mutual respect for fellow posters.

Unfortunately, shortstopMVP, your insatiable need to be the loudest guy in the room and turn every forum into a dick measuring contest, coupled with your apparent need to back-handedly belittle other posters in most of your responses (chirps, burps, chuckles, etc.) makes the forums far less fun than they could or should be.

Please take a chill pill.

"I propose that 10 years from now FIP simply won't matter at all."

FIP is a simple metric that explains 96% of RA9 wins over large samples. It will never become obsolete. Someone might incorporate it into a metric that also explains the other 4% of RA9 wins, but that's not the same thing as FIP becoming obsolete.

"Forget about hits. Forget about runs. Forget about home runs....Those are too tied into fielding, weather, Fenway/Safeco oddities."

Park adjusted FIP already factors out defense and park factors and it explains 96% of pitcher performance over large samples. Detailed pitch data might someday supplement FIP, but it'll still be useful as a simple metric that's easy to understand and can be calculated without a computer and reams of data.

"If you want to consider one of the immediately flawed aspects of FIP/SIERA etc...consider the home run. FIP says that a home run...unlike all other hits...is under a pitcher's control."

This is why xFIP was invented. It assumes a league avg. HR/FB rate.

I agree that detailed pitch data is useful and analysts may find ways to incorporate it into metrics that change how we judge pitchers. All that's well and good. It doesn't change the fact that FIP explains 96% of pitcher results over large samples or that Matt Harrison is outperforming his FIP this year due to LOB wins, which he has no history of producing in prior years. Detailed pitch data would not cause you to conclude that Harrison is outperforming his FIP due to succes on balls in play resulting from the ball hitting the bat in a way that initiates weak contact. The fact is that Harrison isn't having unexpected success on balls in play. He has has a normal BABIP and only 0.3 BIP wins.

RFan you radically underestimate the trouble at the heart of Saber when it comes to home runs.

First, consider the arbitrary nature of a home run.

On some nights BBIA is not run inflationary...on other nights it is like playing on the moon. Day games along the West coast are very different than night games. A home run to left field in Boston is five times easier than a homer to center in Boston. Statistically compensating for such disparities in current Saber is impossible. Park effects adjustments in current saber are a ridiculous kludge.

A home run down the line is treated no differently than a bomb to center. Line drive home runs and fly ball home runs are not differentiated.

Secondly, consider the ridiculously binary quality of a home run.

The ball goes 390, lands in a glove and it counts as 1.0 out. It goes 393 and it counts as a homer. It's statistically all or nothing.

Hit/FX remedies both of these flaws...Cheap homers won't exist with this data, and even more importantly the data isn't binary.. It's like moving from 2-bit black-and-white to 16-bit color.

The ball speed and trajectory off the bat is what is empirical and statistically meaningful.. That' what best describes the performance of hitter and pitcher..not the temperature, the wind or the dimension of the park at a particular point along its perimeter.

Suppose a pitcher yields 2 balls that leave the park...one at 111 mph and another at 109 . But he also yields 3 other fly balls that don't quite leave the park -- with speeds of 112, 109 and 108. This data is vastly more refined and valuable. (speeds here are initial)

@Profar

What good are these ideas if there isn't a way to quantify it?

Listen, I know you are on to something here. You aren't some raving lunatic spouting out all these thoughts for nothing. I get that there will be more specific data coming our way in the SABR world. I don't know if you took calculus, or maybe this is just the way I see things, but I look at sabermetrics like they're limits. They will keep expanding, getting more and more precise, but they will never reach a level of being exactly 100% correct. To that end, the metrics are like an asymptote, forever growing closer to a certain point without actually reaching it.

Okay, Okay, Okay I get it. Now, all you saber nerd's need to take up your numbers to another blog, we just want to talk baseball the way it has been since the beginning. Not all this numbers business. WASH would never ever approve or use the stuff you youngins' are discussing.

Before you know it you guys will figure out who is going to win each game pitch by pitch. I'm not interested please go find another web site for folks who have never played baseball for the games sake. Over the next 20 year period my numbers tell me there will be no need to attend games, just buy the data for the players playing that day spin it up and "Bazinga!" you'll tell us who is going to win. How do you think GM's and stock holders are going to respond to no one showing up for the games because the outcome will be known in advance.

I equate this numbers game to stem cell research and we all know its not nice to mess with mother nature. I sincerely hope I have not offend anyone, just stated an old man's opinion. If I have offended you, "toiugh, live with it!" I don't want baseball to be a numbers game.

^

This may be the worst, most closed-minded post I have seen on BBTiA.

@mmurph

If you don't want to know this stuff, then don't read it. If my memory serves me correctly, did you not already abandon ship on this 2012 Rangers campaign? Spewing some disillusioned rhetoric along the lines of . . . "This team isn't good enough to win it all" . . . or something?

SABR isn't for everyone. What it takes away in the dramatic aspect of baseball it gives back by making you a smarter, more well-rounded fan. And I can tell you, as someone who played baseball from a 5 year-old young buck in T-ball through the time I was well into my high school years, it's not just something for "nerds". I played the game. I understand the game. It's just a way of furthering the knowledge. If you love the Rangers, or if you love baseball, why wouldn't you want to know as much about it as possible?

It beats being a decrepit old man who's intellectual growth stunted once upon a time because you were too empty to want to learn more.

Eric, yes I agree— it's asymptotic and I wouldn't want it any other way. Perfection in anything is boring.

I don't know what you are asking when you write,
"What good are these ideas if there isn't a way to quantify it?

Are you talking about the current lack of public accessibly to the privately held Hit/FX data?

@Profar

Basically, yes, that's what I'm asking. It's not accessible, so essentially it doesn't exist.

Eric wonders "Basically, yes, that's what I'm asking. It's not accessible, so essentially it doesn't exist."

Consider a 3-fold response

1. Certain researchers have been given access to the data and have published some very insightful findings.

Such articles as these:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15532
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15562

We'll continue to see more of these articles published.

2. Hit/FX might not stay private/inaccessible for long. Sportsvision previously made Pitch/FX data publicly available so there's that. Also Sportvision is in partnership in this endeavor with MLBAM. What is MLBAM? A little googling informed me that it is "Major League Baseball Advanced Media" a limited partnership of the club owners.

MLBAM handles MLB.com as well as all the individual team's websites. More interestingly MLBAM owns MLB Radio and BaseBallChannel.TV. Think about it...Could we see Hit/FX offered as a service to Baseball Fantasy players and stats-loving fans?....Perhaps packaged together with a premium version of MLB.TV? Think about it. I don't pretend to know their business model, but such a premium service would make a lot of sense.

3. Copycats. ESPN is developing a knock-off of sorts...a flavor that doesn't rely on tracking technology but on professional spotters. Subjective...yes, but still really valuable. Other people could jump this game.

Looking around at Sportsvision's website...it seems like their business model is to enhance sports broadcasts with data — particularly with the visualization of that data. (cool animated graphs, 3d replays, etc)

They don't seem to be about making their money through consulting. My best guess is that they've spent the last 3-4 years devising ways to make hit/FX visually exciting...to turn the numbers into pictures. I bet we see hit/FX on TVs and iPads soon, perhaps as a subscription service.

I found these pages super interesting:
Fieldf/x http://sportvision.com/base-fieldfx.html
Commandf/x -- this is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread
Link:
http://sportvision.com/baseball.html

"RFan you radically underestimate the trouble at the heart of Saber when it comes to home runs."

I agree that a pitcher doesn't have complete control over HRs. Things like luck, park, etc. have an effect. But to a large extent, those factors become irrelevant over large samples. A pitcher may give up a HR one day b/c it's 90 degrees and he's pitching in RBIA against the Yankees. He may make the same pitch a year later against the Mariners and it's a fly ball out. But over the long run, all this evens out. Of course, if the pitcher pitches half his game in a park that either supresses/magnifies HR #s, then we have to take that into account. Park adjusted FIP does that. Park adjustments aren't always perfect, but they do a pretty good job.

You seem to be obsessed with the notion that microlevel factors like weather, park, etc. affect pitcher results. Welcome to the club. I agree. That's why I say pitchers can get lucky/unlucky over a small sample. A pitcher could make the same pitch on 2 different days and get radically different results b/c of differences in the hitter, the park, the weather, etc. Good luck or bad luck. But that all evens out over large samples and we see just who the pitcher is.

The fact is that FIP explains 96% of pitcher results over large samples. That means for the vast majority of pitchers, over large samples, whether a pitcher is successful or not can be determined by looking at just his HRs, Ks, and walks. Performance on balls in play and success/failure in stranding runners generally isn't something that we need to look at. LOB wins and BIP wins may be + or - over small samples, but for most pitchers, they even out to zero over large samples. There are exceptions, that's the general rule.

RFan, writes, "But over the long run, all this evens out."

Say what!?

We both know that luck/field/temperature may factor into as many as 1/4 of all homers...Don't forget to double this error count to include the would-have-been homers that don't make it across the wall due to the same vagaries.

An average starter might give up 15-30 homers in a season. So we are forever stuck with small samples. With FIP the luck dragons absolutely dominate in any season for any given starter.

Home run counts are a wildly inaccurate way to measure what we are looking for. Batted ball velocity is infinitely more accurate...and this permits us to move away from the stupid binary counts that FIP relies on with homers.

FIP makes home runs such a central element...yet that element has a high bullshit content. Some would say that SIERA is better because it exchanges home runs for fly-ball rate...but SIERRA doesn't include Batted Ball velocity...it's ultimately just as lame.

FIPLOPS are everywhere. Why do we persist with this horse and buggy approach?

And once again, RFan, I must say: your oft-repeated 96% doesn't mean anything close to what you think it means.

If you want to consider one of the immediately flawed aspects of FIP/SIERA etc...consider the home run. FIP says that a home run...unlike all other hits...is under a pitcher's control.

Well, SIERA does not have the HR in its formula. The point of it being in FIP isn't exactly that its totally under the control of the pitcher, but that its not influenced by the defense. Thus the name, Fielding Independent Pitching.

Its the very idea that the pitcher only has so much control over HRs that lead to the creation of xFIP, as Rfan mentioned above.

"I don't want baseball to be a numbers game."

So you don't care about numbers? How about batting average, homeruns, RBIs, wins, losses? If you don't care about numbers, you shouldn't care who wins the division.

We all care about the numbers. The only thing different with the "fancy stats" numbers and the numbers you care about is that you know the ones you care about. (Oh, and the "fancy stats" are much, much more meaningful/useful.)

Keystone...as you may see in my last post...I addressed SIERA.

SIERA, as I understand, eschews home-runs and instead uses a league average for home run per fly ball. This was the creators' concession that home runs are surprisingly fickle things.

The SIERA creators would not be at all in agreement with RFan's notion that "over the long run, all this evens out."

But the SIERA approach to treat all fly balls the same creates a whole new set of problems.

As the early returns have shown us from Hit/FX...some pitchers are markedly better at repressing velocity—thus they are demonstrably and repeatably better at keeping their fly balls in the park.

What does SIERA do but completely blur these distinctions into grey goop. The data shows that there are emphatic differences between a fly ball of Justin Verlander and a fly ball of Derek Holland. But SIERA paints over all these distinctions with grey paint.

FIP, SIERA, xFIP...etc. etc. they will all be dead within 5 years. There is going to be so much fresh data in play that it will be far wiser to rethink Saber from scratch.

Baseball is ALL about speed.

...the speed of a player to recognize a change-up from a fast ball
...bat speed coming through the hitting zone
...foot speed to first base to beat out a grounder
...speed to react to a liner rocked down the line...and field the ball
...speed to run down and catch a ball in the gap
...speed of a pitched ball

When we can see, tally and analyze the hSOB (horizontal speed of struck ball) of players across baseball...and compare them... it's going to change our understanding of hitters and pitchers alike.