Defense Independent Pitching Stats (Leaders)
Voros
The following are the major league leaders in Defense Independent
Pitching. The list is sorted by DIPR (explained in the Intro post) and
includes the top 20 in the majors last year. Your comments are
extremely welcome! A fixed pitch font should be used for best viewing:
PITCHER ERA DIPR DIFF
Pedro Martinez 1.71 102.9 8
Randy Johnson 3.18 81.8 -19
Kevin Brown 3.45 68.2 -10
Greg Maddux 3.65 58.4 -6
Mike Mussina 3.51 55.3 -1
Aaron Sele 3.81 51.4 17
Shane Reynolds 4.00 50.7 -5
Pedro Astacio 4.06 49.7 22
John Smoltz 3.56 48.0 -6
Jon Lieber 3.97 46.7 -2
Kevin Millwood 4.01 46.5 -28
Jamie Moyer 4.10 45.9 -4
Tom Glavine 4.25 45.0 -6
Chuck Finley 4.08 43.9 9
Gil Heredia 4.08 42.3 14
Mike Hampton 4.30 40.6 -30
Freddy Garcia 4.16 40.3 -3
Dustin Hermanson 4.28 40.1 -2
Steve Woodard 4.18 37.8 4
Jose Lima 4.56 37.6 -26
Comments?
--
* Keith Woolner, Moderator for rec.sport.baseball.analysis *
* Submissions: rs...@stathead.com *
* Questions/Info/Contact: rsba-r...@stathead.com *
* Charter: http://www.stathead.com/rsba-charter.htm *
Amarilis Rockhill
Considering that the vast majority(at least 75%) of the outs made by
the defense actually belong to the pitcher(since the vast majority of
plays or outs are "routine" and therefore are a product of the pitcher's
ability, not the fielder's)
is all this work you've done necessary?
From what I can tell, your methods have determined that Martinez and
Johnson were the two best pitchers in 1999 . This is a revelation? And
your top 20 would resemble a top 20 based on a vote of the media and/or
fans, to most of whom, the word "sabermetrics" is some measurement used
on Canadian highways.
Voros
> Considering that the vast majority(at least 75%) of the outs made by
>the defense actually belong to the pitcher(since the vast majority of
>plays or outs are "routine" and therefore are a product of the pitcher's
>ability, not the fielder's)
Proof by assertion. Do you have any reason to believe this is true,
other than that's generally what you think? I have just posted my
reasons why I think it isn't true. If you're interested, you might
want to read it.
>is all this work you've done necessary?
I believ it's not only necessary, it's vital.
>
> From what I can tell, your methods have determined that Martinez and
>Johnson were the two best pitchers in 1999 . This is a revelation?
Sele ranking 6th is. And Woodard and Heredia being in the top 20 are
as well.
>And
>your top 20 would resemble a top 20 based on a vote of the media and/or
>fans, to most of whom, the word "sabermetrics" is some measurement used
>on Canadian highways.
Well let's go over them and see.
PITCHER ERA DIPR DIFF
Pedro Martinez 1.71 102.9 8
If Pedro wasn't listed as #1, the system would be invalidated. I see
no problem with his ranking.
>Randy Johnson 3.18 81.8 -19
Many thought Hampton should be here, and the "stathead" opinion was
"the strikeouts won it for him" which I agree with, but not with the
level of derision usually associated with that statement.
>Kevin Brown 3.45 68.2 -10
Brown did poorly in the Cy Young voting getting one measly vote.
>Greg Maddux 3.65 58.4 -6
No Cy Young votes. "What's wrong with Maddux" was a familiar refrain
this year. My method says there wasn't anything wrong with him, he
just was unfortunate.
>Mike Mussina 3.51 55.3 -1
#2 in AL Cy Young. Always a good pitcher.
>Aaron Sele 3.81 51.4 17
The BBWAA gave him some support for his win total, which the
"statheads" poked fun at. This method has nothing to do with Sele's
win total and posts him way higher than I think any sabermetician
would. You must agree that this counts as a "surprise ranking" ahead
of Millwood, Hampton and Lima.
>Shane Reynolds 4.00 50.7 -5
Another surprise.
>Pedro Astacio 4.06 49.7 22
Hello Coors! Probably the best season any Rockies pitcher has had. I'm
very impressed with his work although his workload under Leyland was a
bit worriesome.
>John Smoltz 3.56 48.0 -6
Another surprise. Smoltz, while missing some time, got a lot of the
same "what's wrong" stuff Maddux did.
>Jon Lieber 3.97 46.7 -2
Big surprise. If Lieber can't be moved up for playing in Wrigley Field
with that wretched defensive ballclub...
>Kevin Millwood 4.01 46.5 -28
Tumbles to 10th.
>Jamie Moyer 4.10 45.9 -4
>Tom Glavine 4.25 45.0 -6
Another surprise, but a good one. I like it when good pitchers thought
to have off years do well in the rankings.
>Chuck Finley 4.08 43.9 9
>Gil Heredia 4.08 42.3 14
Give me the name of a BBWAA member or SABR that would have placed
Heredia as high as 14th or higher and ahead of Hampton. Surprise
ranking.
>Mike Hampton 4.30 40.6 -30
>Freddy Garcia 4.16 40.3 -3
>Dustin Hermanson 4.28 40.1 -2
Surprising. Montreal's defense was one of the worst I've seen in a
while.
>Steve Woodard 4.18 37.8 4
Give me the name of a Brewers fan who thought the Brewers had one of
the top 20 pitchers in the Major Leagues in 1999 much less a BBWAA or
SABR member.
>Jose Lima 4.56 37.6 -26
Most would probably have rated him higher than 20th.
I think the list has enough deviance from the "accepted" evaluations
of these pitchers to be of value in that regard. There of course,
aren't any relief pitchers on the list. Keith Foulke was the highest
rated reliever placing 26th and his high ranking is due to his 105.1
IP.
I believe this to be much more in line with the pitcher's actual
abilities and goes a long way in weeding out extraneous influences
unrelated to his pitching skills. My next post in the group explains,
in detail, why I believe this.
Amarilis Rockhill
It seems that the common practice here(and it's a good one) is to cut
and paste sections of others' posts so your responses have a point of
reference. Sadly, I'm technically unable to do this, which may keep me
from posting in this forum. Unless there's another way you can tell me?
Anyway, my point is I hope my post isn't too hard to follow.
I base my belief that 75% of non-K outs belong to the pitcher on game
observations. What in your game observations has led you to believe
otherwise? (I couldn't find anything in your responses where you touched
on the subject)
But I realize that this has little to do with your DIP method.
I must apologize for being too quick to criticize. After I read your
explanation for DIP, I was impressed by the amount of thought you put
into it. The fact that $H for a pitcher has little correlation,
especially when compared to SOs and BBs was an eye opener.
But, you used only one pitcher from one year to another as an example.
Do you have larger samplings?
You mentioned amongst the possible factors in the difference between
DIP ERA and ERA pitching for a bad defensive team. Do you think there's
any way to correlate DIP with a fielding stat like ZR? So as to make
adjustments?
I like any attempt at an isolating stat as long as the results are
significant. And it seems that DIP is significant.
Again, pardon my brashness.
Looking forward to a response.