BP develops new pitching metric...

[Clem Fandango]

Is this being discussed anywhere? Didn't see it. For all I know it's been around for a while now and everyone already knows about it, but noticed it just now and thought I'd share...

 

Cue SIERA, Skill Interactive Earned Run Average, a new metric created by Baseball Prospectus that generates a pitcher's ERA while bypassing the events that could fall under the defense or luck subheadings, such as batting average on balls in play. The reason for avoiding these types of events is that they are not consistent from year to year but can result in a pitcher looking better or worse than his actual skills would dictate. Because SIERA uses statistics found to be consistent from year to year, such as strikeouts, walks and ground-ball rate, it is a very good predictor of a pitcher's ERA in the following season. Therefore, SIERA can be used to identify hurlers who could potentially surprise or disappoint in 2010, based on a 2009 disconnect between ERA and SIERA.

 

It's an insider article...

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=4938710

 

I'm sure there's probably more info on the BP website.

 

EDIT: They listed Randy Wells as one of the pitchers who was worse than his ERA dictated.

 

Randy Wells, Chicago Cubs: 3.05 ERA in 2009, 4.34 SIERA

 

Wells and Happ found themselves intertwined for much of the 2009 seasons as NL Rookie of the Year candidates, and also in that the controllable numbers indicated both would regress in 2010. Wells barely touches 90 mph with his fastball and he doesn't miss many bats (5.7 K/9), but he is stingy with walks and keeps the ball in the park (0.8 HR/). All of that is well and good, but what one would expect from a No. 3 or No. 4 starter, which is what his SIERA indicates.

[Cubswin11]

Is this being discussed anywhere? Didn't see it. For all I know it's been around for a while now and everyone already knows about it, but noticed it just now and thought I'd share...

 

Cue SIERA, Skill Interactive Earned Run Average, a new metric created by Baseball Prospectus that generates a pitcher's ERA while bypassing the events that could fall under the defense or luck subheadings, such as batting average on balls in play. The reason for avoiding these types of events is that they are not consistent from year to year but can result in a pitcher looking better or worse than his actual skills would dictate. Because SIERA uses statistics found to be consistent from year to year, such as strikeouts, walks and ground-ball rate, it is a very good predictor of a pitcher's ERA in the following season. Therefore, SIERA can be used to identify hurlers who could potentially surprise or disappoint in 2010, based on a 2009 disconnect between ERA and SIERA.

 

It's an insider article...

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=4938710

 

I'm sure there's probably more info on the BP website.

 

EDIT: They listed Randy Wells as one of the pitchers who was worse than his ERA dictated.

 

Randy Wells, Chicago Cubs: 3.05 ERA in 2009, 4.34 SIERA

 

Wells and Happ found themselves intertwined for much of the 2009 seasons as NL Rookie of the Year candidates, and also in that the controllable numbers indicated both would regress in 2010. Wells barely touches 90 mph with his fastball and he doesn't miss many bats (5.7 K/9), but he is stingy with walks and keeps the ball in the park (0.8 HR/). All of that is well and good, but what one would expect from a No. 3 or No. 4 starter, which is what his SIERA indicates.

I don't know one person (nor have I seen anyone on here mention) who thinks Wells is anything close to an "ace" or #2 (even though he can have #2/1 outings from time to time), everyone pretty much expects him to be a 3 or 4, with most thinking he falls more into the #4 range.

[erik316wttn]

Seems like a good indicator, as BABIP relies so much on luck and overall ERA is flawed. I hope it gets mainstream use.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seems like a good indicator, as BABIP relies so much on luck and overall ERA is flawed. I hope it gets mainstream use.

 

good luck with that. espn got negative feedback on including [expletive] OPS in their broadcasts.

[David]

Seems like a good indicator, as BABIP relies so much on luck and overall ERA is flawed. I hope it gets mainstream use.

 

good luck with that. espn got negative feedback on including [expletive] OPS in their broadcasts.

 

 

Just curious, but where'd you hear that?

 

 

If so, ....ugh.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seems like a good indicator, as BABIP relies so much on luck and overall ERA is flawed. I hope it gets mainstream use.

 

good luck with that. espn got negative feedback on including [expletive] OPS in their broadcasts.

 

 

Just curious, but where'd you hear that?

 

 

If so, ....ugh.

 

Bruce Miles has said he got negative feedback for bringing up OBP and OPS.

[erik316wttn]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seems like a good indicator, as BABIP relies so much on luck and overall ERA is flawed. I hope it gets mainstream use.

 

good luck with that. espn got negative feedback on including [expletive] OPS in their broadcasts.

 

 

Just curious, but where'd you hear that?

 

 

If so, ....ugh.

 

Remember, ESPN tried to roll out OPS last year as a “new statistic,” explaining it on virtually every broadcast of Sunday Night Baseball. Jon Miller would read a short script, give an example, and then Joe Morgan would say something about the Big Red Machine. All planned out, in great detail. Yet people I know at ESPN have told me that in their testing, their viewers rejected OPS as “too complicated.”

 

it just doesn't do much for them because there are a huge number of middle-aged and old (hell, probably some young) viewers who aren't interested in learning any stats outside of the basic ones, and for the viewers who are into sabermetrics, those people already understand how basic OPS is and aren't going to be wowed by its inclusion on broadcasts.

[TruffleShuffle]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

[17 Seconds]

its amazing how so many people who have been in love with this game for decades still don't really understand it

[Guest]

Remember, ESPN tried to roll out OPS last year as a “new statistic,” explaining it on virtually every broadcast of Sunday Night Baseball. Jon Miller would read a short script, give an example, and then Joe Morgan would say something about the Big Red Machine. All planned out, in great detail. Yet people I know at ESPN have told me that in their testing, their viewers rejected OPS as “too complicated.”

holy crap, the baseball watching public is stupid.

[erik316wttn]

Remember, ESPN tried to roll out OPS last year as a “new statistic,” explaining it on virtually every broadcast of Sunday Night Baseball. Jon Miller would read a short script, give an example, and then Joe Morgan would say something about the Big Red Machine. All planned out, in great detail. Yet people I know at ESPN have told me that in their testing, their viewers rejected OPS as “too complicated.”

holy crap, the public is stupid.

 

fixed

[imb]

DOT DOT DOT

[Rob]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Pretty much, but you're missing one minor component.

 

In an effort to try to market ESPN Insider as something worthwhile (instead of just the paid version of rotoworld that it was), they've started paying some of the better baseball sites like BA, BP, Fangraphs, etc... for early or exclusive access to some articles. That way, they get to keep us geeks and our stats separate from ESPN-proper, but still manage to exploit us.

[Tracer Bullet]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats.

[Guest]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats.

Bill James.

[treebird]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats.

 

neyer was definitely my guy.

[Clem Fandango]

For what it's worth ESPN is starting a new blog called "The Max Info" which is geared toward sabermetrics. In their words:

 

Just what the world needs, right? Another baseball blog?

 

Yup.

 

Because this one is going to be different. Here's why:

 

This blog will make you see the game in a new light, and enable you to be a smarter fan. Powered by ESPN's one-of-a-kind Stats & Information department, using all the tools and data at its disposal, the posts found here will feature around-the-clock reactions and in-depth predictive analysis. We'll also have daily, exclusive contributions from ESPN Insider's all-star team of free-thinking sabermetricians, starting with industry leaders such as Baseball Prospectus and FanGraphs, along with Tom Tango and other special guests. You're part of this, too -- we'll be encouraging all our contributors to read and respond to your comments.

 

So you may hear TMI and think, Too Much Information. But we think there's no such thing.

 

Because when you stop here, starting now, you'll be getting The Max Info.

 

Corny ass title, but it's nice to see ESPN take a step in the right direction.

[Rob]

Bill James got to me first and Neyer was right on his heels. But I've loved baseball stats as far back as I can remember. I was calculating my own obp and slugging back in pee-wee ball. I was doing the same for all the players on the baeball cards back in '91, and I was seven.

[erik316wttn]

Bill James got to me first and Neyer was right on his heels. But I've loved baseball stats as far back as I can remember. I was calculating my own obp and slugging back in pee-wee ball. I was doing the same for all the players on the baeball cards back in '91, and I was seven.

 

I did this, too. :oops:

[Clem Fandango]

Wasn't worthy of starting a new thread for it, so figured I'd post here... I bought the 2010 BP book today and found this line to be hilarious...

 

Jim Rice thinks Ellsbury has Hall of Fame potential, which is true if you work under the assumption that the standards will continue to erode, thanks to the induction of players like Jim Rice

[Tracer Bullet]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats.

Bill James.

 

just reading his books? how did you hear about him? I'm interested b/c I sort of stumbled upon Neyer on espn.com and his analysis really struck a chord with me. I'm not sure when I would have read about this stuff if not for him.

[jersey cubs fan]

There are still a very vocal number of resistors who roll their eyes at any stat more sophisticated than Slugging Percentage, but thankfully there are enough respected baseball intellectuals out there who adopt these new metrics and therefore accelerate their widespread use. If you educate the masses, the big guns like ESPN or various newspaper managements will have to adapt sooner or later.

 

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics.

 

Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats.

Bill James.

 

just reading his books? how did you hear about him? I'm interested b/c I sort of stumbled upon Neyer on espn.com and his analysis really struck a chord with me. I'm not sure when I would have read about this stuff if not for him.

 

I think Neyer was the first to hit the masses and hit the non-old people like Tim generation. I know that was my first real exposure. I didn't buy baseball stat books when I was a lad.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There were a ton of statheads in the old Cubs newsgroup on Usenet that smacked me around. Al Yellon was also there.