Perfect Example Of The Reason Some Are "Statsed-Out"

C

clvclv

<B>"What is a clvclv"</B>
Depending on the metric of choice, Robbie Ray ranged from barely above replacement-level to a Top 15 SP last season...

"Southpaw Robbie Ray posted a 4.90 ERA, 11.3 K/9 and 3.07 K/BB rate over 174 1/3 innings for the D’Backs last season, and as ESPN.com’s Sam Miller notes, Ray’s year also served as an interesting test case for the different ways player value is measured. Depending on who you ask, last season Ray was either barely above replacement level (0.7 bWAR from Baseball Reference), one of the game’s better starters (3.0 fWAR from Fangraphs) or a top-15 starter in the game (4.82 WARP from Baseball Prospectus)."

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18114272/miller-going-war-mystery-robbie-ray
 
What it boils down to is do you think the .352 BABIP against for Ray is all on him or is his defense responsible? Or somewhere in between? I don't think he was a 3 WAR pitcher in 2016 but if he puts up those same peripherals in 2017 he's not going to be a 4.9 ERA pitcher either.
 
thewupk said:
What it boils down to is do you think the .352 BABIP against for Ray is all on him or is his defense responsible? Or somewhere in between? I don't think he was a 3 WAR pitcher in 2016 but if he puts up those same peripherals in 2017 he's not going to be a 4.9 ERA pitcher either.
Click to expand...

That's the point for some of us though. It's not that the metrics can't be valuable tools - they obviously are. It's just that - in the end - it's eventually likely going to come down to what you SEE. The numbers are unquestionably important because they can point you in the right direction and help you narrow the scope of things you're looking for, but they can only get you so far.
 
clvclv said:
That's the point for some of us though. It's not that the metrics can't be valuable tools - they obviously are. It's just that - in the end - it's eventually likely going to come down to what you SEE. The numbers are unquestionably important because they can point you in the right direction and help you narrow the scope of things you're looking for, but they can only get you so far.
Click to expand...

Of course the problem is you can't SEE everybody all the time. I would wager if Ray was a Brave and had that stat line he would be seen as a guy with great stuff that can't put it together.
 
clvclv said:
That's the point for some of us though. It's not that the metrics can't be valuable tools - they obviously are. It's just that - in the end - it's eventually likely going to come down to what you SEE. The numbers are unquestionably important because they can point you in the right direction and help you narrow the scope of things you're looking for, but they can only get you so far.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I think FJM once pointed this out as well while they were active. Obviously scouting a player is going to tell you more about him than anything else, but stats are simply a record of what happened during a game, and you can't watch every single game. No team (and especially no fan) has the resources to watch every game of baseball each year. That is why statistics are important in baseball analysis, because it lets you know what happened in the games you couldn't watch.
 
thewupk said:
Of course the problem is you can't SEE everybody all the time. I would wager if Ray was a Brave and had that stat line he would be seen as a guy with great stuff that can't put it together.
Click to expand...

Based on what, exactly? Your feeling, your gut?

This is part of the problem - the numbers folks just aren't willing to admit that those numbers simply can't tell you the whole story in every situation. There's nothing wrong with that - it shouldn't hurt feelings or lead to arguments - just say this particular situation is odd and needs more investigation, and having eyes on Ray would certainly help. The Diamondbacks saw EVERY pitch he threw last season, so is it that big a leap to think that they have a better handle on him than the stats community since they're obviously split (and not by just a little)?

Is it really that hard?
 
clvclv said:
Based on what, exactly? Your feeling, your gut?

This is part of the problem - the numbers folks just aren't willing to admit that those numbers simply can't tell you the whole story in every situation. There's nothing wrong with that - it shouldn't hurt feelings or lead to arguments - just say this particular situation is odd and needs more investigation, and having eyes on Ray would certainly help. The Diamondbacks saw EVERY pitch he threw last season, so is it that big a leap to think that they have a better handle on him than the stats community since they're obviously split (and not by just a little)?

Is it really that hard?
Click to expand...

Because isn't that the general consensus around here for guys with nice peripheral stats but a crappy era? Nice stuff but needs to learn how to pitch, etc.

And it's not really that odd. There are plenty of seasons with pitchers with crazy differences between an ERA and FIP. If he keeps his FIP in that area then the odds are in his favor that the ERA will follow.
 
thewupk said:
Because isn't that the general consensus around here for guys with nice peripheral stats but a crappy era? Nice stuff but needs to learn how to pitch, etc.

And it's not really that odd. There are plenty of seasons with pitchers with crazy differences between an ERA and FIP. If he keeps his FIP in that area then the odds are in his favor that the ERA will follow.
Click to expand...

I think there are almost as many schools of statistical analysis now as there are approaches to scouting. I think statistical analysis helps at the margins--and that can be very important--but teams are always going to make a case for the guys they like. Sometimes that's justifiable and sometimes it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top