Pedro Martinez stats

by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Aug 9, 2006 2:24 PM PDT

I'm looking at Pedro's stats for BA, OBP, and SLG against, and they just don't reconcile with his ERA. I'm sure some of you will come back and say, "that is why ERA is not a good measure of how a pitcher is pitching..." Well, ok, I believed you before and I still believe you. Now explain it. How can Pedro be #1 in BA against, #2 in OBP against, #3 in SLG against, but be #17 in ERA? And the difference between #17 in ERA and #2 in ERA is not insignificant - almost 3/4 of a run (.74). By the way, he is #3 in K/9 and #1 in WHIP.

I will posit the only explanation I can think of: When Pedro is pitching well, he is pretty much unhitable. When he isn't pitching well, he's somewhat human. That is to say, a very large percentage of the batters he lets on base come in small bunches and a lot of those score. What do you think?

The espn.com link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?split=0&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2 &sort=opponentOnBasePct&type=pitch4&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&am p;country=0&hand=a&pos=all

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

As far as FIP and RA, Pedro is near the top. The other guys, apparently, have had more unearned runs scored upon them.

David
SPORTSZILLA - kickass sports writing

by David Arnott on Aug 9, 2006 2:29 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

Sorry, what are FIP and RA? I could look it up, but I'm lazy...

by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Aug 9, 2006 2:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

Fielding indepedent pitching

run average [is better than ERA because it is less fluky]

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 2:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

Fielding Independent Pitching, and Runs Allowed.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&league_filter[0]=2&orderBy=fip&direction=ASC&page=1

David
SPORTSZILLA - kickass sports writing

by David Arnott on Aug 9, 2006 2:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

FIP = Feliz Innings Pitched. These innings don't count in calculating a pitcher's ERA, because the number of runs scored in Feliz Innings are so few as to be statistically insignificant.

RA = Runs per Albert. Calculated by dividing the number of RBI Albert Pujols gets against a pitcher by the number of Pujols at-bats. Any number below 1.000 is considered good.

Waiting for Travis, Nate, Marcus, and Nick P.

by Lyle on Aug 10, 2006 6:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

FIP,RA how many stats are there in baseball? Jesus what kind of people pay attention to stuff like that, i could do without half of them but then again, I probably just don't have the brain capacity.

why i like the Giants...i'll never know

by kingaro on Aug 9, 2006 2:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

To go along with you theory

Pedro's injuries may also be a source of the problem - he has bad innings when he is hurting.

Other possibilities:

Bad luck with the bullpen and inherited runners.
Low slugging due to fewer 2B and 3B, but still has too many homers.
Bad luck from a BABIP with men on base.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 2:41 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: To go along with you theory

Could also be as he's become more of a 6 inning pitcher, his manager hasn't figured out when to get him out of the game. Anybody have a split for his last inning pitched per performance?

by Roger on Aug 9, 2006 3:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: To go along with you theory

late inning, close game: 0.00 ERA in 5 innings. But I doubt that includes the 7th.

The more I think about it, I think it is the homers that is affecting his era

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 3:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

BABIP is.... Bib Roberts official stat, what the hell.

why i like the Giants...i'll never know

by kingaro on Aug 9, 2006 2:50 PM PDT 0 recs

Not sure if you were kidding...

Batting average on ball in play.

Basically, the theory goes that major league pitchers, once you adjust for defense and park effects, exert very little effect on the outcome of a ball in play [everything not a BB, HBP, K or homer]. "Luck" plays a large part in what happens in the field of play - think infield hit.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 3:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Not sure if you were kidding...

Pitchers can also control extra base hits, and the very cream of the crop can often exert some control on the hits they give up (usually only a couple fewer hits a year, not a lot).

by Bitter Fan on Aug 9, 2006 6:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

Incidentally, Lowry has gotten the least support from his bullpen in the majors. [about 6 runs

Cain is 13th, Wright 15th.

Hennessey, Morris, and Schmidt have all benefitted from the pen. [-1.5,-.8, -.2]

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=12134

Martinez is about half a run, so that probably not ir.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 2:51 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

As I sit here typing, I imagine I feel somewhat like a physicist searching for the theory of everything. Anyway, is there a single pitching stat that you guys look to first as a way to evaluate a pitcher? I saw PRC, but that is new and needs to stand the test of time (that's like 6 months for baseball stats, right?).

by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Aug 9, 2006 3:01 PM PDT 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

This is how I would order them, if I wanted a predictive stat for major leaguers.

1.) K/9
2.) BB+HBP/9
3.) GB-FB ratio [it is a good predictor of HR rate]

2 and 3 have to be really good to make up for a poor 1. But pitchers with good 2 and 3 can make up for an average 1.

If I was looking a minor leaguer, then 1 becomes much, much more important.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 3:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

WHIP

I know we've had this discussion before but K/9 is actually pretty similar for the majority of MLB pitchers. WHIP is a much better measure of pitching success.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 9, 2006 4:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: WHIP

Doc, I know you assert that, but it isn't the case.

Sure, there isn't much difference between the k rates of average major league pitchers. But that is almost true by definition.

WHIP is a good evaluator of how a player performed - but not as predictive statistic. Variation in BABIP can effect it too much.

Also, I should note, that I feel it is rather important to limit comparisions to a reasonable period of time. [don't compare pitchers of the 1930 to today]

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 4:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

1930?

Did I ever compare a pitcher from 1930 to today?

The whole BABIP/DIPS argument is a crock.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 9, 2006 6:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think...

we are all too entrenched in our respective camps on the DIPS issue to be swayed one way or the other. I will just say that in terms of correlation with future ERA or any other measure of pitching success, DIPS performs far better than WHIP. It just does. Now does DIPS have flaws? Absolutely. Does it apply universally? nope. However, IMO, DIPS numbers tell you far more about a pitcher than anything else out there.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 9, 2006 6:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

PS

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

The link above has by far the best analysis of DIPS I have ever read (in fact, it is the initial piece which refuted McCraken's initial claim). I consider it absolutely essential reading.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 9, 2006 6:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: PS

Fascinating. I hadn't read that. I think, though, that it doesn't render McCracken's work invalid as much as it clarifies and limits its scope. It seems to me like an early step towards analyzing line drive percentage and such. The big point still stands that, as a rule of thumb, I'd prefer pitchers who retire batters with strikeouts in as few pitches as possible than guys who don't strike out many guys, depend on their defense, and who throw tons of pitches.

David
SPORTSZILLA - kickass sports writing

by David Arnott on Aug 9, 2006 7:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: PS

A pitcher who doesn't strike out many guys, depends on his defense and throws tons of pitches, is either giving up tons of walks or hits. So yea, I'd prefer to stay away from guys like that. Which is why Wright needs to be gone.

by Voodoo Chile on Aug 9, 2006 8:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: 1930?

no, sorry if it seemed like I said you did. I was just trying to be clear.

Doc, if the whole DIPS argument is a crock, please show me a pitcher who consistently [say ~400 IP] who is able to prevent runs while

1.) Walking people
2.) Giving up homers
3.) Not striking out batters.
4.) Being corrected for the ballpark.

I get the feeling that you, and please correct me if I am wrong, look at the strikeout portion of DIPS as the whole of the theory. Walks and homers are also a big part of the theory. It's not as if the theory says you aren't a good pitcher if you don't strike out batters - it merely says that if you don't, you had better not walk people or give up homers.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 6:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Strikeouts

On the contrary, I might actually buy DIPS theory if most of the proponents weren't fixated on strikeouts. I might be wrong about this, but the 3 main events that are excluded from BABIP are K's, BB's and HR's. If, in fact, the theory is correct they are all of approximately equal weight, however, I hear over and over and over again that K/9 is the end-all, be-all stat. I have actually had discussions with people who think that Nolan Ryan was the greatest pitcher of all time because hardly anyone ever put the ball in play in his games. The problem with that reasoning is that Ryan had a horrendous walk rate, a bad thing. The fact is that if you have a choice between walking a batter, giving up a HR, or putting the bal in play, it's far better to put the ball in play. If anything, I would consider K's to be the least important of the 3 parameters, but they all have their place.

People act like Moneyball uncovered a whole new idea about baseball that had never been thought of before. Well, all it is a recycled version of something a great baseball manager named Earl Weaver said a long time ago. "Baseball games are won by great pitching and 3 run homers," or something to that effect. Weaver represented the old "AL" style of play and the "NL" was the style favored by the "tools" enthusiasts. I'm old enough to remember a time when it was pretty universally accepted that the "NL" syle was superior. Anyway, I digress.

The best way to avoid giving up 3 run HR's is to not walk people and not give up HR's. Outs are outs. A hitter who hits a groundout or a popup is just as out as if he struck out. In the case of a DP, he's twice as out!

There's just more than one way to skin a cat. Go look up the K/9 and WHIP's for Koufax, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal and Warren Spahn. They were all pitchers from the same or at least overlapping eras who were all HOF'ers and all enjoyed approximately the same degree of success in their careers. Tell me which stat correlates better, WHIP or K/9.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 9, 2006 8:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Strikeouts

Dr. B, the Orioles fan in me loves you for invoking the name of the greatest manager in history, but, when looking at the strikeout rates of Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, and Spahn, it is important to put them in context of the league strikeout rates. Yes, I know Gibson was under one K/IP on his career, but he was still way above average, and it was a huge part of what made him great. (Koufax was nothing less than the most overrated pitcher in history... though still worthy of the Hall.)

I agree entirely with what you say about Ryan. I think the "third way" that we're not seeing here is that strikeouts AND walks are very important, and BABIP is not quite as important.

The weird thing about this is that the BA allowed by pitching prospects is strongly correlated with future success, while the BA allowed by ML veterans is not... it's really weird.

by antinous on Aug 9, 2006 10:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not Sure....

what you said there. Whattheheck to league K rates have to do with anything? The formula is still the same no matter what the rest of the league is doing. Besides, the whole point of picking these pitchers is that they were all from the same era and in the case of Koufax, Marichal and Gibby, they were in the same league at the same time!

BTW. I don't get why Koufax was overrated. He had a relatively short career and therefore did not compile much in the way of cumulative stats, but for those 4 great years, he might have been the best. There's a good argument for Martinez, Clemens, and Maddux(another counter example to DIPS theory. No matter how few walks or HR's you give up, you still have to get 27 outs somehow), but Koufax was darn good.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 9, 2006 10:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Not Sure....

Maddux could actually be a poster boy for DIPS theory... during his prime his BB rate and HR rate were spectacular, and his K rate was above average. (Take out the strike year and Maddux had consecutive years with 198, 199, 197, 181, 172, 177 and 204 strikeouts.) Later in his career, he maintained his walk rate, but the HR and K rates took a turn for the worse.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 9, 2006 10:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Outs

Even after you take HR's and BB's into acount, you still have the problem of how Maddux got his outs. According to DIPS theory, once a ball is put in play, the pitcher no longer has any control over whether it becomes a hit or an out. Here's some career and peak K/9 rates for the 4 guys who I think are the dominant pitchers of their era:

Greg Maddux: Career- 6.20, Peak- 7.77

Pedro: Career- 10.20, Peak- 13.20.

Roger Clemens- Career- 8.60, Peak- 10.39.

RJ- Career- 10.81, Peak- 13.41.

Maddux somehow achieved competetive result even though he had to get about 100 more outs from ball in play than Pedro or Randy and about 50 more than Roger. If DIPS is true, he shouldn't have been able to do that.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 10, 2006 5:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

virtually...

noone advocates DIPS in its purest form anymore. Furthermore, extreme control artists, like Maddux in his prime, don't really obey it. I question the validity of using Maddux, a truly unique pitcher, as an example.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 10, 2006 5:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

also...

in Maddux's two best seasons, he allowed a ridiculous 4 and 9 homeruns and 20 and 31 walks respectively in over 200 IPs.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 10, 2006 5:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

OK.

We'll just ignore everybody who doesn't fit the theory.

Look, I pointed out the how 4 HOF'ers from the 60's prove it wrong and folks complained that it was a different era. OK, here's 4 future HOF'ers who are still currently playing. Oops! Let's throw out the one's who don't fit.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 10, 2006 6:14 AM PDT up 0 recs

dude...

Maddux does fit the DIPS theory, he just has slightly more control over balls put in play than most pitchers do. As far as I know, no one argues the contrary.

You don't see a problem with using HOF players, each exceedingly rare and exceedingly unique, to argue against a theory?

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 10, 2006 6:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

No I Don't

I've learned the hard way that if you use virtually any other examples, it's too easy to argue that one pitcher is actually a lot better than the other. Pretty hard to do with 8 HOF'ers. He'res a group of players who all played at a very high level, achieved essentially the same results, and did it in different ways.

Let's recap the argument so far:

K/9 is the best stat to measure pitchers.

No, WHIP is. Here's why.

Oh, I didn't really mean K/9, I meant all the factors in DIPS.

OK, here's a group of pitchers who show that DIPS doesn't necessaryily tell the whole story.

Oh, that's from different era.

OK. Here's some pitchers from the current era.

Oh, you can't count the one guy because he's an anomaly. Besides, nobody believes in DIPS anymore anyway. But, it's still the best measure.

You'll have to excuse me for being just a bit frustrated. Geez. Make up your minds what you believe and then defend it.

BTW. 100 outs in a season isn't just slightly more control. That's a significant number.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 10, 2006 7:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

also frustrated

noone at any point said "K/9 is the best stat". Irwin stated he looks at strikeouts, controls and homeruns in that order, which sounds an awful lot like DIPS to me.
Noone has argued that DIPS tells the entire story. It does tell a hell of a lot more than WHIP, which in my opinion is an arbitrary collection of numbers. Not only does DIPS reveal far more about current performance, it also has far more predictive value
HOF pitchers are by definition exceptional. Saying "hey, these guys are exceptions" strikes me as pointless
You seem to be setting up a strawman here. What you believe DIPS to be doesn't really exist as a theory anymore. Pitchers can control balls put in play. I consider this a fact. I also consider it a fact that they have FAR more control over strikeouts, walks and homeruns.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 10, 2006 7:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: also frustrated

Kev, you're never gonna argue Dr. B off this one. It's been tried and tried. Slightly off topic, but talk of Maddux reminds me of Jim Palmer, who always maintained that he'd let people get themselves out until a couple of people got on base, and then he'd revert to the K pitcher he was and pitch for the strikeout. He insisted (much to Weaver's chagrin) that this would save his arm in the long run (he'd had major arm troubles that cost him 2 years after bursting on the scene at 18). Interestingly, it didn't. Like most of his great contemporaries from the 4-man rotation days (Gibson, Koufax, Drysdale, Marichal, Ford) he was washed up by the time he was 36.

by Roger on Aug 10, 2006 10:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: No I Don't

This has been a fun thread to wake up to.

DrB, I'm pretty sure that no one upthread would argue that Nolan Ryan was the best pitcher ever. As you said, there's nothing radically new here: You prevent runs by keeping the ball in the park and runners off the bases. The contribution of "DIPS theory" is the observation that getting strikeouts, avoiding walks, and playing good team defense are much more important in realizing this goal than any ability on the part of the pitcher to get people to hit the ball where he wants them to.

There's a ton of evidence that this is true, and the strikeout rates of a few great pitchers don't do a thing to refute it. The Maddux/Clemens comparison actually supports the theory rather than contradicts it. Maddux doesn't strike out as many batters, and -- as a result -- he gives up more hits. He compensates for this by giving up fewer home runs and walking fewer batters, so the two pitchers end up with virtually identical results.

by Evan on Aug 10, 2006 8:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Outs

I'm not as passionate about DIPS theory as many are, but I still don't think Maddux is very much of an execption.

His career FIP ERA is 3.33, nestled right between his ERA of 3.07 and his RA of 3.47. The numbers for Pedro and Clemens fall in between their RA and ERA as well. Randy Johnson (3.15 FIP ERA vs. 3.19 actual ERA) seems to get a small boost.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 10, 2006 10:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Strikeouts

"I think the "third way" that we're not seeing here is that strikeouts AND walks are very important, and BABIP is not quite as important."

That was the point I was trying to make, but apparently did so poorly.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Aug 9, 2006 11:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

BB vs. K vs. HR

Using a simplified FIP ERA formula...

FIP ERA = ((13HR + 3BB - 2K)/ IP) + 3.20

...here are some numbers I ran based on this year's league averages (approx. 3.3 BB, 6.5 K, and 1.14 HR per 9 IP, which works out to a 4.50 FIP ERA). Your comments made me wonder how FIP ERA is affected by a pitcher who is strong at one particular stat.

-20% HR: 4.17
+20% K: 4.21
-20% BB: 4.28
Average: 4.50
+20% BB: 4.72
-20% K: 4.79
+20% HR: 4.83

According to my sloppy math, home run rate is a little bit more important than strikeout rate, which is more important than walk rate. A pitcher who has 20% fewer BB, HR, and K than average will have a FIP ERA of 4.24, similar to that of the average HR/BB pitcher who strikes a lot of batters out. Multiple ways to skin a cat, natch.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 9, 2006 10:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: BB vs. K vs. HR

Not too surprised(although I'm not sure about the validity of that particular stat). The HR is the only offensive event that produces a run without the help of another player. I don't know the exact numbers, but an inordintely high percentage of all the runs scored in baseball are scored as a result of a HR either as a solo shot or contributing by driving in runners who are on base. You cut down on HR's and you will cut way down on runs given up.

That's why Cain will have to learn to pitch down in the zone more(something he seems to be getting better at) unless he cuts way down on his walks(something he also seems to be doing) and maintains a great WHIP. You can survive a lot of HR's allowed if you have a very low WHIP. Walk very many batters and give up HR's and you won't have a very happy career.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 9, 2006 10:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: BB vs. K vs. HR

Curt Schilling is the poster boy for surviving lots of HR's by keeping the walk rate down and maintaining a very low WHIP.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Aug 9, 2006 11:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Strikeouts

Of course it's far better to put a ball in play than walk or surrender a homer because there are 7 guys out there with a chance to do something about it. NOT because the pitcher brilliantly avoided "good wood". As you know perfectly well, Doc, once a ball is put in play a pitcher has little to do with it's result. You don't need Veros to understand this (although it helps). Simply watching games will show you that a poorly hit ball is just as likely to be a hit as well hit ball is to be an out (or something like that).

Ryan by the way, is the only argument ever needed for the toxic nature of walks. Easily the most difficult pitcher to hit in history (BAA), his career ERA isn't even close to the Top 100. I don't if they keep such a stat, but his percentage of hits allowed that scored runs must be absurdly high.

by Roger on Aug 10, 2006 8:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

Poorly Hit vs Well Hit

I would vehemently argue that a poorly hit ball is much less likely to be a hit than one that gets scalded.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 10, 2006 10:24 AM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Strikeouts

Where can one find BAA for historical players?

by Josh from The New Giant Thrill on Aug 10, 2006 4:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re: Pedro Martinez stats

Very good question. It has taken me a few years to warm up to EqA for hitters... now it's the first thing I look at. I haven't found an all-emcompassing stat for pitchers, though. I look at "opponent's OPS" a lot. It has the same limitiations as OPS does for hitters, but I think it's pretty useful.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 9, 2006 3:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Irwin and Pants...

suggested several good comprehensive stats to look for (I personally like FIP) to evaluate pitchers, so I will offer a few warning signs to look for in pitchers.

1. Strand rates: Look for pitchers who strand an inordinate number of baserunners in one season. No evidence suggests that stranding runners represents a repeatable skill. Thus, pitchers with high rates tend to regress the next season

Example: Jarrod Washburn (3.2 ERA in 2005, stranded something like 80% of his baserunners)

2. Hr rates: Now, obviously every pitcher has a unique "true home run rate" (Eric Milton for instance has a very high one). However, the number of homeruns a pitcher allows in general depends on the number of flyballs he allow. A flyball pitcher with an extremely low hr rate will in all likelyhood have a much higher ERA the following season.

Example: <sob> Matt Cain in 2005 ( his bueatiful low 2 ERA largely resulted from his unsustainably low homerun rate)

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Aug 9, 2006 4:11 PM PDT up 0 recs