Ken Davidoff: Francisco Rodriguez And Advanced Metrics
Ken Davidoff of Newsday is one of the few proponents of sabermetrics in the mainstream media. Unsurprisingly, he produces some of the best content around. An excerpt from his column on Frankie:
K-Rod has a 2.04 ERA in 16 appearances this season, and that and about $350 million will help you clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It's just not a very useful statistic for a reliever.
Instead, you should delve into the exciting world of sophisticated baseball analysis and check out xFIP, which factors in walks, strikeouts and fly ball rate. Heading into Wednesday, Rodriguez carried an xFIP of 4.41. That reflects the high number of fly balls he surrenders - 56.4 percent of his batted balls, before Wednesday - and the expectation that 11 percent of those will be home runs.
Comments
To be fair to KRod, there IS skill to HR/FB
Relievers keep it down (like they keep BABIP down a bit) and some guys are just better at it. KRod’s probably one of them, with a career 8.4% rate, which matches his 2010 rate.
It’s his LOB% that’s been damn lucky this year: 93.4%. With all the guys he walks, you’d expect more to score. Some of that is a .230 BABIP, which will come up.
I can haz no paywall?
Besides being a flyball pitcher (and his GB% is still declining), he does generate a lot of pop-ups. This year at 23.3% rate, above his career average and way above the MLB average (7.3%). And a pop up is almost as good as a strikeout.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
"Almost."
Yes, that word has rather painful meaning to us and to KRod.
by dontstopbelieving on May 13, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Somewhere, non-blogging blogger Murray Chass is firing up his keyboard:
“Fucking sell-out Davidoff grumble grumble . . . "
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 13, 2010 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
we should make a lot of the things that like 42 million still owed to him could get
I wonder if Carl Everett believes Jamie Moyer exists.
Why...
… that’s 3 1/6 Ollies!
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on May 13, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Even before I knew anything about sabermetrics, etc.
It always bothered me that announcers would cite reliever ERA as a meaningful statistic. It’s so obvious that it’s not.
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on May 13, 2010 11:26 AM EDT reply actions
it's better than reliever W-L
which I’ve heard cited as a meaningful sign of a reliever being good/bad
2009 Did Not Happen
Somewhat on topic
It bothers the crap out of me when a reliever blows a save and gets a win. I think the win should revert back to the previous pitcher of record in the case of a blown save/win.
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on May 13, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
The should just get rid of the win for pitchers in general
The whole stat makes no sense to me. A starter can only get the win after at least 5 innings. Why 5 innings? Why not 4 or 6? Why does a reliever only have to pitch 1 inning? How can a pitcher get a win after coughing up the lead as you said? Why can a pitcher come into a tie game with 2 outs and a runner on first, pick off the runner, then get pinch hit for and still get the win? The stat makes no sense and the rules are arbitrary. A win is a team effort not just a pitchers. Eliminate the stat and begin easing the stupid baseball writers and fans into useful metrics.
Bleh, it's not a particularly meaningful stat, but you can't just get rid of it.
The same argument, in theory, could be made and applied to any stat.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on May 13, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Batting average? Home runs?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 13, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
9th inning doubles in the month of August?
by Matthew Artus on May 13, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
All of the above, sure.
Batting average, it doesn’t determine the “skill” of the batter alone, since doesn’t take into account things like BABIP. Home runs, every park is different, so flyballs in certain parks could be home runs in other parks- not fair.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on May 13, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything that happens in the game is obviously at least minimally contingent on something else.
So, yes, in theory, you could argue that there is no true “individual” stat. I mean, that’s just society and nature at work there. But pitcher W/L tells us literally nothing about a pitcher’s ability; you know that. Get rid of the damned thing.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 13, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I completely agree that W/L means very little.
Greinke is, what, 0-3 with a 2.50 ERA and 1.15 WHIP? Something like that. My point was just that plenty of stats reflect things on an individual that are more reflective of the total team effort, and I just can agree with arbitrarily removing one, over, say, others. It’s deeply ingrained in there, even if it doesn’t mean all that much.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on May 13, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Why can't you? It's a team stat applied to an individual.
It’s the same (big) problem that people have with RBI’s and Runs. No fancy math argument needed, it boils down to taking something that is a team acheivement and attributing it to a single individual.
And that same arguement can’t really be applied to any stat.
I mean really, I don’t think it’s going anywhere anytime soon, but I’m never convinced by the arguement that “you just can’t.”
by SoCal Metfan on May 13, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
You say that it can't be applied to, realistically, any stat, and then proceed to apply it to two other stats.
The concept can be applied to virtually any stat because: (A) a great deal of other stats are attributed to the individual, but are realistically team stats, as mentioned (RBI, ERA, etc.), or are in some other way affected or influenced by outside sources (Ks are dependent very often on the catcher framing the ball, and/or an umpire’s generous strike zone, Home runs are dependent on the particular field someone is hitting them at); (B) Plenty of other stats have seemingly arbitrary values attached to them (Quality Starts, for example; why is it quality if you give up only three runs, over six innings? Why not four runs, over seven?).
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on May 13, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
The difference?
RBIs and runs are heavily team-influenced, but they measure things actually produced— which is to say, I do this, then THIS happens. (A player scores a run, and/or makes another player score a run with a batted ball or BB.)
Wins are “awarded.” No pitcher ever produces a win, really.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on May 13, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I kind of think the idea behind quality starts
not the actual parameters for it but the idea is good. Some stat that shows you how often a player put his team in a quality position to win whether they won or not.
I wonder if Carl Everett believes Jamie Moyer exists.
Yea, the concept of "quality start" could be useful (and improved).
Only thing is that the formula of fixed innings pitched and earned runs doesn’t cut it. Ollie could walk 8 in 6 innings, give many flyballs/linedrives and get saved by Voltron fielding, and let 2 earned runs. Greinke could strike out 15, give 2 walks, but a soft grounder goes by Yuniesky Betancourt and it’s not considered an error. He pitches 7 innings and 3 runs. Even though Ollie gave up only 2 runs, the team isn’t in a position to win because of his effort, but despite it.
They could invent something like a tRA for each start and scale the benchmark to innings pitched. If he pitches only 5 innings, it better be 5 awesome innings, peripherals wise (K, BB, IFF, GB, HBP, HR, whatever). If he pitches 7 innings, the benchmark would be different, since he lasted longer and saved the pen.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
More important than K-Rod's xFIP--
What about paying ~15 million a year to a guy who throws at most like 60 innings a year and those not even being the highest leverage spots— 1-, 2-, and 3-run leads to start the ninth. If I were made GM today, I would instantly move K-Rod into the starting rotation and keep him there if he can get under 4 BB/9 IP.
And can someone please tell Ron Darling that the argument that one shouldn’t move a pitcher from the bullpen into the starting rotation “BECAUSE HE IS SO VALUABLE IN THE BULLPEN” (a la Takahashi, Mejia, etc.) is stupid and fallacious? Because I am tired of hearing it.
Well I imagine K-rod would fall apart in the rotation
between his max effort, herky jerky motion, and then the whole really only throwing two pitches thing.
That being said year, paying K-rod that much wouldn’t be bad if they’d proven they’re still willing to spend big everywhere else. Like Rivera making 16 million isn’t bad when the Yankees don’t let it stop them from spending, but we seem to be allocating money towards 60 innings of baseball at the expense of multiple other positions.
I wonder if Carl Everett believes Jamie Moyer exists.
He actually throws 4 pitches: fastball (52.9%); curve (18.3%); change (21.6%); slider (6.1%)
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
This season, he's only been throwing three: fastball (58.6%), curveball (20.1%) and change-up (21.2%)
with the remaining 4.8% being unknown, and possibly including a few sliders, but maybe not.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on May 13, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a discrepancy at the fangraphs page. If you look at his main page, you are lead to believe he completely abandoned his slider.
However, if you click on the “pitch f/x” tab, you can see his correct pitch usage. I double checked with TexasLeaguers pitch fx.

In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
Yeah I didn't realize he's basically completely abandoned his slider
well until he got here he was pretty much a two pitch pitcher, His numbers were someting like 35-40% sliders, 50-55% fastballs.
I wonder if Carl Everett believes Jamie Moyer exists.

































