|
FIP
Dec 31, 2015 12:12:01 GMT -5
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 12:12:01 GMT -5
Seeing as there is a lot of FIP talk in here, what does everyone think about the legitimacy of FIP? Tomase on the Hot Stove Show remarked how even extremely analytical front offices (dodgers/former Rays execs) kinda laugh at all the FIP talk.
|
|
|
FIP
Dec 31, 2015 13:15:59 GMT -5
Post by mgoetze on Dec 31, 2015 13:15:59 GMT -5
Seeing as there is a lot of FIP talk in here, what does everyone think about the legitimacy of FIP? Tomase on the Hot Stove Show remarked how even extremely analytical front offices (dodgers/former Rays execs) kinda laugh at all the FIP talk. First of all, this is completely offtopic in this thread, you should consider starting a new thread or finding a more appropriate one next time. Oh wait sorry I'm not allowed to say that on this forum, disregard it please. I don't know what you mean by "legitimacy" here. FIP nowadays is clearly recognized as more of an indicator of past performance than a predictor of future performance. That might be of interest to the sort of person who likes to debate who should be in the hall of fame - something I couldn't care less about. Furthermore, it's widely recognized that some pitchers have a real BABIP skill, though there is some debate as to the extent of that. These pitchers are clearly underrated by FIP. And FIP is not park-neutral. I don't know of anyone on this forum who would deny these limitations and shortcomings of FIP. That doesn't mean you can't use it when people understand the context.
|
|
|
FIP
Dec 31, 2015 14:41:52 GMT -5
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2015 14:41:52 GMT -5
Since this had nothing to do with the thread it was in really, started a new one. Someone more familiar can determine if the discussion should be directed to the DIPS theory thread in throwdown.
|
|
|
FIP
Dec 31, 2015 20:36:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Dec 31, 2015 20:36:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 19:35:00 GMT -5
Post by burythehammer on Jan 1, 2016 19:35:00 GMT -5
Seeing as there is a lot of FIP talk in here, what does everyone think about the legitimacy of FIP? Tomase on the Hot Stove Show remarked how even extremely analytical front offices (dodgers/former Rays execs) kinda laugh at all the FIP talk. I'm gonna give Tomase the benefit of the doubt here because I didn't actually hear what he said specifically, but if he's implying that progressive front offices "laugh" at FIP in favor of ERA or other traditional metrics, he's being completely disingenuous. They may laugh at it because they consider FIP rudimentary compared to their internal metrics (metrics that neither we nor John Tomase has access to), but that's an entirely different discussion.
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 20:22:25 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jan 1, 2016 20:22:25 GMT -5
Coming up with FIP was the equivalent of passing 2nd grade of baseball pitching analytics. ERA was 1st grade. It is still going to take another few decades before anyone graduates high school.
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 21:14:01 GMT -5
Post by mandelbro on Jan 1, 2016 21:14:01 GMT -5
Seeing as there is a lot of FIP talk in here, what does everyone think about the legitimacy of FIP? Tomase on the Hot Stove Show remarked how even extremely analytical front offices (dodgers/former Rays execs) kinda laugh at all the FIP talk. I'm gonna give Tomase the benefit of the doubt here because I didn't actually hear what he said specifically, but if he's implying that progressive front offices "laugh" at FIP in favor of ERA or other traditional metrics, he's being completely disingenuous. They may laugh at it because they consider FIP rudimentary compared to their internal metrics (metrics that neither we nor John Tomase has access to), but that's an entirely different discussion. Tomase is one of the more shameless hacks in sports reporting. I would not bother to give him the benefit of the doubt if I were you.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 22:53:09 GMT -5
Post by jimoh on Jan 1, 2016 22:53:09 GMT -5
I'm gonna give Tomase the benefit of the doubt here because I didn't actually hear what he said specifically, but if he's implying that progressive front offices "laugh" at FIP in favor of ERA or other traditional metrics, he's being completely disingenuous. They may laugh at it because they consider FIP rudimentary compared to their internal metrics (metrics that neither we nor John Tomase has access to), but that's an entirely different discussion. Tomase is one of the more shameless hacks in sports reporting. I would not bother to give him the benefit of the doubt if I were you. I heard the interview and there was no suggestion that FIP is worse than "ERA or other traditional metrics," just that you can't put much faith in it. I assume they would prefer their own internal metrics please scouting. For Tomase to have heard this from people is perfectly plausible. What could be hackier than condemning words you have not heard?
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 23:11:16 GMT -5
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 1, 2016 23:11:16 GMT -5
I heard the interview and there was no suggestion that FIP is worse than "ERA or other traditional metrics," just that you can't put much faith in it. I assume they would prefer their own internal metrics please scouting. For Tomase to have heard this from people is perfectly plausible. What could be hackier than condemning words you have not heard? The five best qualified starters by FIP were Kershaw, Arrieta, Gerrit Cole, deGrom, and Sale. You can put a decent amount of faith in it.
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 23:44:08 GMT -5
Post by thursty on Jan 1, 2016 23:44:08 GMT -5
There is no consensus that FIP "is clearly recognized as more of an indicator of past performance than a predictor of future performance"
I think it's fair to say that there is a consensus that there are better predictors of future performance than FIP (xFIP, SIERA, et al), but there are certainly many who strongly feel that HOF consideration, Cy Young, etc. should take into consideration actual run prevention (this is the main source of discrepancies between bWAR and fWAR when it comes to pitchers)
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 2, 2016 3:55:18 GMT -5
Post by mgoetze on Jan 2, 2016 3:55:18 GMT -5
There is no consensus that FIP "is clearly recognized as more of an indicator of past performance than a predictor of future performance" That's basically the entire argument for using FIP rather than, say, xFIP for fWAR - they want their WAR to describe "what actually happened" rather than "what should have happened" or "what might have happened". There is not one credible sabermetrician who will tell you you don't need to regress HR/FB to the mean in order to predict future performance.
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 2, 2016 7:34:15 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2016 7:34:15 GMT -5
There is no consensus that FIP "is clearly recognized as more of an indicator of past performance than a predictor of future performance" I think it's fair to say that there is a consensus that there are better predictors of future performance than FIP (xFIP, SIERA, et al), but there are certainly many who strongly feel that HOF consideration, Cy Young, etc. should take into consideration actual run prevention (this is the main source of discrepancies between bWAR and fWAR when it comes to pitchers) I think FIP is a way better indicator of past performance than RA9. A pitcher who gives up two ground ball errors, 4 ground ball singles that don't even make it to the pitcher and a pop fly HR that hits the Pesky Pole was probably pitching better than the scoreboard indicates. And a pitcher who gives up a 420 foot fly out after walking the bases loaded probably was pitching worse. When someone looks at the box score and play log, what indicates how the pitcher pitched? If glancing, I look at K/BB and GB%, which is pretty much FIP and a little SIERA. RA9 isn't even as "advanced" as ERA and is the equivalent of just looking at the scoreboard.
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 2, 2016 20:54:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mandelbro on Jan 2, 2016 20:54:46 GMT -5
Tomase is one of the more shameless hacks in sports reporting. I would not bother to give him the benefit of the doubt if I were you. I heard the interview and there was no suggestion that FIP is worse than "ERA or other traditional metrics," just that you can't put much faith in it. I assume they would prefer their own internal metrics please scouting. For Tomase to have heard this from people is perfectly plausible. What could be hackier than condemning words you have not heard? If Tomase didn't make up stories I'd put stock in what he says. No reason to trust someone with his track record.
|
|