tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post8103052024596586985..comments2024-01-06T02:22:33.000-05:00Comments on Camden Depot: Miguel Gonzalez Is Still Cheating His FIPJon Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-18761856974592974792015-06-18T14:04:41.069-04:002015-06-18T14:04:41.069-04:00Fair enough. I do think that the only real way to...Fair enough. I do think that the only real way to do analysis on small trends like this really is to look at detailed information on every data point. But, yes, this is a pretty weird stretch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-33768433183515322682015-06-18T08:24:53.780-04:002015-06-18T08:24:53.780-04:00First of all, you'd expect some weakly hit gro...First of all, you'd expect some weakly hit groundballs to go for hits or some weakly hit fly balls to go for bloop singles. That hasn't happened (provided you trust the contact categories defined by ESPN). But the Soft% data reported by BIS shows that he's not giving up a lot of weak contact. <br /><br />What I wanted to do is look at each of the 39 balls put into play and see whether there was good defense. At 30 second a play it would take roughly 20 minutes. Unfortunately, that ESPN tool appears to be broken. <br /><br />I agree that the sample size is small. And I'm not sure there's so much here either. We know that these are some really odd results for 39 balls in play. I'd probably expect his numbers to look like his career numbers as well and that this is just what happens when dealing with limited cases. But it's always fun to see an outlier.Matt Perezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191574755038653061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-75652220851822663372015-06-17T15:36:55.269-04:002015-06-17T15:36:55.269-04:00The "types of hits that signify a pitcher is ...The "types of hits that signify a pitcher is giving up hard contact" are subject to a lot of variance, though. How many of his outs were hit hard? Over this sample size, do you have any reason to think that he hasn't simply had a large number of weakly-hit balls to go with his 6 hard-hit ones? This is what I mean by overfitting.<br /><br />If we had access to the hitFX data, I think one could do analyses like this with a lot more confidence (we could, for example, examine whether his outs have come on hard-hit balls). As it stands, I'm not sure there's really much here, to be honest.<br /><br />For the record, I don't think .083 BABIP is sustainable by anyone under any circumstance. I also don't think that you're going to see this rate of home runs allowed w/ RISP for the rest of the year, either. Put me down under "he'll end the year with numbers that look like his career numbers" until there's really a compelling reason to predict otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-28518124116170694802015-06-17T13:45:14.722-04:002015-06-17T13:45:14.722-04:00But he IS giving up hits. Allowing 4 HRs in 54 TBF...But he IS giving up hits. Allowing 4 HRs in 54 TBF is terrible. The 2 doubles are at least average. More importantly, he's giving up the types of hits that signify a pitcher is giving up hard contact. <br /><br />In 2014, he gave up 15 singles out of 138 TBF (10.9%). Interestingly, he also only allowed 3 HRs or fewer than he's giving up in all of 2015. In 2013, he gave up 22 singles out of 145 TBF (15.2%). This is relatively new. <br /><br />I do agree that he's had low BABIPs with runners in scoring position the past two years. But it's still been on average around the .250 mark. A .083 is considerably lower.<br /><br />He didn't do anything like this in either 2012 or 2013.Matt Perezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191574755038653061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-49765888684036800372015-06-17T11:07:55.935-04:002015-06-17T11:07:55.935-04:00I think you are overfitting.
It is not that he ha...I think you are overfitting.<br /><br />It is not that he has "found a way of avoiding giving up singles" in particular so much as, as per most of his career, "found a way to avoid giving up hits." It is less-burdened, I think, to suggest that the fact that more of the hits he has given up this year with men on base have been big hits is simply noise and he's essentially the same pitcher as he has been since he started with the Orioles.<br /><br />Without his track record, I would be inclined to agree that this is not sustainable. Most pitchers are not able to limit hits with men on base. But he has done this, more or less, for three years now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-72174322899628421752015-06-17T10:52:53.397-04:002015-06-17T10:52:53.397-04:00The point I was trying to make with the luck state...The point I was trying to make with the luck statement is that managers won't care about how a pitcher succeeds as long as he does. If Gonzo were to load the bases every single inning but not allow a single run then he'd have a long career because when it comes down to it his teams would win despite the statistical improbability.<br /><br />But I do think Gonzo has been lucky with men on base. He's given up a lot of extra base hits so it's not like he is giving up a a lot of weak contact. I mean, he's clearly getting hit hard. He's allowed a lot of walks while recording a minimal amount of strikeouts so it's not like guys aren't putting the ball into play. He's just found a way to somehow avoid giving up singles. How can a pitcher that is getting dominated in so many facets find a way to avoid giving up singles?Matt Perezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16191574755038653061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-47386256033809549882015-06-17T10:15:27.507-04:002015-06-17T10:15:27.507-04:00There's really no reason to believe that the r...There's really no reason to believe that the residual of FIP is luck. Beware treating your metrics as anything more than they are, lest you fall into the vicious cycle of confirmatory-search-bias. SABRmetrics has done this with FIP for years, to their detriment.<br /><br />Related (and worth a read, though most of the site should be taken with a grain of salt): http://lesswrong.com/lw/iw/positive_bias_look_into_the_dark/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-87619725747814751822015-06-15T21:20:25.997-04:002015-06-15T21:20:25.997-04:00Good stuff, Matt. Long live Gonzalez.Good stuff, Matt. Long live Gonzalez.Ryan Romanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831177754232641404noreply@blogger.com