Park adjustments, FIP, and the Rangers pitching

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 4:47 PM CDT

In the comments to the earlier FanShot about the Rangers pitching, Jeff Sullivan mentions that the Rangers are 28th in the majors in FIP.

This is true, but it is also, I think, a little misleading, because FIP doesn't take into account park or league effects. They are, for example, 21st in the majors in ERA, but 14th in ERA+, because of the impact of playing in the A.L. and in TBIA.

The Indians, for example, are .01 ahead of the Rangers in FIP. However, if you include park effects, the Rangers are going to rank ahead of Cleveland.

I think the same is probably true for the Mets, Padres, Pirates, Nationals, Angels, Reds, and Brewers, all of whom are slightly ahead of the Rangers in FIP, but who would probably drop below them in FIP+ (if that were calculated).

So, if you take into account park and league adjustments, the Rangers pitching staff is probably below average, but sitting around 20th to 22nd, not 28th.

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It shouldn't be that tough

to park adjust, should it? I assume all you have to adjust is the Home Run component of FIP.

"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers

by DJCahill on Jul 9, 2009 4:52 PM CDT reply actions

There are other factors

probably minor – amount of foul territory affects park factors, a place like Oakland gets a lot more foul pop-outs than RBiA, for example. Of course, that could be a general problem wtih FIP, as foul outs are somewhat fielding independent – obviously they are fielding dependent, but the alternative is a continued at bat, not a man on base.

I think Adam’s system is probably pretty good. Obviously using ERA to monitor pitching has an error associated with it due to fielding. And FIP has estimation errors associated with it as well and lack of park factors. Averaging a park factor corrected ERA (ERA+) and FIP probably gives you a decent estimate.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Jul 9, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions

No

Ks and walks can vary dramatically from park to park.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions

thanks a certain light

blinding our hitters behind mark buerhle, we strike out a lot

maybe they should turn that off

by kevinkinsler on Jul 9, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I thought the purpose of FIP

was to use factors controlled by the pitcher such as Ks and BBs no matter where they pitch.

Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Mitch Moreland - 2009 Rangers Minor League POY

by RangerMad on Jul 9, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions

If that were the case...

…then HRs wouldn’t be included.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Which is the argument for xFIP.

Though, IIRC, the correlations for xFIP to ERA are about the same as for FIP to ERA.

by Requiem on Jul 9, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Due to what,

foul territory?

by DJCahill on Jul 9, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions

Batter's eye, generally

Although you also have the school of thought that says that in more pitcher-friendly parks, pitchers are more willing to challenge hitters, leading to fewer walks and Ks and more BIPs.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions

tRA adjusts for park, is better than FIP, and paints a bad picture

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 9, 2009 4:56 PM CDT reply actions

I guess I'm not quite as sold on the validity/reliability of tRA

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed

tRA seems way overblown by it’s supporters.

I ran a somewhat small sample regression on tRA using inning cutoffs from 2007 to 2008, and the reliability of predicting 2008 tRA from 2007 tRA was about the same if not worse than FIP. As was 2008 ERA.

Now, the problem might have been that my sample size was too low, but I haven’t seen any significant analysis which shows that tRA is in any way significantly better than FIP in predicting ERA OR itself.

In fact, if you include predicted fielding, you’ll see that that and FIP shows a significant BETTER correlation with ERA than tRA by itself.

This was a small sample, though.

by Requiem on Jul 9, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions

thought that FIP did include a league factor

From Hardball Times Glossary

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)3-K2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Promote Nam!

by LukeR on Jul 9, 2009 4:57 PM CDT reply actions

That's a league factor, not a park factor

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 9, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions

just responding to Adam's claim that FIP didn't take into account league effects

Promote Nam!

by LukeR on Jul 9, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I think the league effect, though...

…is to adjust for what the league normally allows. So if anything, the league effect is going to be higher for the A.L. (because more runs score in the A.L.) and lower in the N.L., rather than vice-versa.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions

i feel like FIP misses an important component

of walks exponentially making HRs worse.

sure, we may be allowing a few more home runs this year, but id rather give up three solos than a single grand slam

by kevinkinsler on Jul 9, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions

How much

would you factor that in?

by Requiem on Jul 9, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions

not sure exactly how it should be done

maybe raising the factor for home runs a little more for every walk, it wouldn’t be perfect either, since a walk then a home run is worse than the other way around

by kevinkinsler on Jul 9, 2009 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey, 20th worst pitching in the majors?

MOVIN’ ON UP! I’ll take it. Go FIP yourself, Mariners blogger dude.

by jam0152 on Jul 9, 2009 4:59 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Free Man-Boobs!

"Back on the scene, with a gangsta lean" RW
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jul 9, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions

This isn't suprising

D man, D.

Or in German, The Bart, The.

Remember Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.

by WyoRanger on Jul 9, 2009 5:07 PM CDT reply actions

S"So, if you take into account park and league adjustments, the Rangers pitching staff is probably below average,"

So what you’re saying is that….

We can contend with league average pitching?

"andruw jones hits 3 HRS at LA of Anaheim last nite after hitting zero at LA of LA as Dodger in all of '08. thats nuts." SI_JonHeyman

by WestTxAg06 on Jul 9, 2009 5:13 PM CDT reply actions

If we somehow ran out league average pitching

we would find ourselves in contention.

I'm Ron Burgundy?

by Cecilio's Guante on Jul 9, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions

8.5+

Is the only number I will be concerned with after this weekend

"Support the Dutch Oven" - Me

by RangerFloppy on Jul 9, 2009 5:21 PM CDT reply actions

Question for Jeff or Adam

In either FIP or IRA subject to being skewed by blowouts? Games won or lost by large margins? I ask because I don’t know, and wonder if kryptonite effects like matchups with Detroit have an overweighted effect on either statistical computation.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -

"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce

by Ed Coffin on Jul 9, 2009 5:24 PM CDT reply actions

The only thing that impacts FIP

are HRs, Walks, and BBs and they have a constant to make them scale like ERA. In a blowout you would assume the pitcher being blownout would give up lots of HRs and BBs so it is about as susceptible as ERA is to blowouts.

by DJCahill on Jul 9, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions

kind of OT

but does FIP include intentional walks?

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Jul 9, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions

no, they get subtracted out

by kevinkinsler on Jul 9, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Sshhh...

you’re supposed to assume baseball statistics are parametric and smoothly distributed. Stop rocking the boat.

In all seriousness, I think you touch on a key point here. Because runs scored aren’t independent of one another, the marginal probability of scoring (or giving up) an additional run decreases as the number of runs goes up. There are several reasons for this – runs gets scored in bunches (just guessing, but I’d bet 3 hits in an inning probably yields something like 1.3 runs, 4 hits probably 2.2 runs, 5 hits 3 runs, etc). Once down (or up) by a lot, teams use worse pitchers so as not to waste their good arms, so there is another bias against high score teams.

I think a similar bias will exist in Pythagorean records as well. I don’t know how significant these biases are, but you’re probably right that they exist.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Jul 9, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Come on, boys!...

If you really believe the Rangers are 28th in pitching (whatever matrix you use to convince you) you need to get away from XBox and go SEE a game….it may be defense (who’da thunk it, JD knew what he was doing when he ‘shifted’ Michael), it may be any number of things, that the sabre’s can’t measure (yet)…….but they’ve consistently "under-achieved’ at the plate & they’re still in “1ST PLACE”….Ian’s hitting 200 since mid-May, Josh hasn’t contributed a bit, & we’ve had Crash’s rally killing ass there all year….how much better MIGHT it be in the 2nd half?

I don’t know, but it’ll be FUN to watch!!!

by tklawless on Jul 9, 2009 7:55 PM CDT reply actions