Need help understanding pitching scoring

[Canada8999]

An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:

Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010.  He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place.  However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score.  Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.

Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:

27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA

All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season.  Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?

I think part of what you see in this list is they were unlucky (Shields had a big discrepency between his ERA and FIP or xERA).  The other is as you note, perhaps an overweight on GB. 

When the current system was put in place, the use of both HR and GB was raised as a potential concern, since they essentially both measure the pitchers effect on preventing HR's, and there is certainly  skew towards GB heavy pitchers in our league.  While inducing GB's is certainly an important skill, it's importance on FIP is included in the HR weighting. 

[VolsRaysBucs]

An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:

Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010.  He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place.  However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score.  Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.

Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:

27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA

All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season.  Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?

                    

[Mr.TradeKing]

This is exactly what I have been saying. This will lead to these guys being paid more than commonly accepted "better" pitchers, which in no way can be good for the league.

~MTK

[lp815]

An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:

Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010.  He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place.  However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score.  Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.

Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:

27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA

All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season.  Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?



 

[VolsRaysBucs]

Pitchers absolutely have control over their ability to toss a lot of innings.  It's called command and low pitch counts.  It is no secret teams pay pitchers who find ways to "eat innings."  SP are more valuable than RP, as evidenced by contrasting contracts in real life and teams attempting to get their best arms in their rotations.  Generally speaking, a SP's innings are far more valuable than a RP's innings, not taking into account leverage and things of that nature.  A pitcher going 6 strong giving up 2 runs should be valued higher than a LOOGY getting two lefties to ground out, regardless of how few K's or GB's he had.   It seems our scoring system throws the baby out with the bathwater by eliminating good scoring cats to try to neutralize an already neutralized phenomenon known as luck.   

As an aside, I'll watch Tue and Wed Rays games (Davis-Neimann) and add the points for GB and FB.

[h4cheng]

Awarding outs (ie: IP) is something I am undecided on - I'm honestly not sure what the research says about IP.  One would think a pitcher has significant control over their durability, and there is definitely a perception that teams sign specific pitchers for their 'rubber arms' to 'save the bullpen'.  However, there are metrics out there such as xIP, because if a pitcher gets knocked out early on bad luck they miss out on innings they might 'deserve', or if a pitcher gets really lucky through say 8 innings, when they 'should' have been knocked out after say 5.

Like I said, there's gotta be some trial and error process to find the optimal weights for GB/K/IP. There is always an element of luck with any scoring system. The addition of IP simply bridges the gap between the theoreitcal pitcher's performance and the actual pitcher's performance.

[Canada8999]

I like this. Either penalize hits allowed or awarding outs recorded would work. It's a matter of coming up with the correct weights so that GB & K are still important parts of the scoring system

Awarding outs (ie: IP) is something I am undecided on - I'm honestly not sure what the research says about IP.  One would think a pitcher has significant control over their durability, and there is definitely a perception that teams sign specific pitchers for their 'rubber arms' to 'save the bullpen'.  However, there are metrics out there such as xIP, because if a pitcher gets knocked out early on bad luck they miss out on innings they might 'deserve', or if a pitcher gets really lucky through say 8 innings, when they 'should' have been knocked out after say 5.

[h4cheng]

Lowering the innings limit may make teams pick and choose which starters to throw each week a bit more strategically, but I don't think that will necessarily solve the 'Niemann vs. Price' dilemma, since they will still be scoring the same.

Just an idea, but what if Baserunners Allowed was brought into the picture as a negative stat?  This is simply Hits + Walks + Hit Batters, but this might correct the Niemann vs. Price issue, as Price's score would have went down heavily due to this.

I like this. Either penalize hits allowed or awarding outs recorded would work. It's a matter of coming up with the correct weights so that GB & K are still important parts of the scoring system

[Canada8999]

This article from BP goes on to say that a pitcher can control whether a hitter hits a fly ball or a ground ball, so I'm thinking maybe adding fly balls to the equation - as stated above. If anyone (Mike I think you volunteered to do some research) would care to do the following for the two starts (Davis - Price) - 2 points for fly balls - outs or otherwise, 4 points for GBs, outs or otherwise, keeping the rest of our scoring the same. Just curious what the difference would be.

I guess the question is why would we reward pitchers for every GB and FB?  There is an argument for GB, in that every GB is certainly not a HR, but FB's are often seen as a negative for pitchers (since ~10% leave the park).

[Dan Wood]

"One reason that people often suspect there should be a difference is that ground balls in play are more likely to be hits than fly balls in play. Although about 24 percent of ground balls are hits, just 14 percent of fly balls and pop-ups are hits (and 16 percent of non-home run outfield fly balls, specifically). Since pitchers are certainly prone to either be of the ground-ball or fly-ball variety�GB/FB ratio has as much persistence as walk and strikeout rates�people expect that there should be some difference between pitchers in this regard. The reason that this is such a small difference in aggregate is that the batted-ball type that really falls for hits more than the others is line drives, which drop about 73 percent of the time. Thus, the most important question in asking whether pitchers control their hit rates on balls in play is whether they control their line-drive rate on balls in play.

The answer to that question is no. Although we are perfectly aware that game charters are biased in evaluating what constitutes a line drive�Colin Wyers showed that very well a few months ago�when you look at a pitcher's line drive rate, net of his team�s pitching staff's line drive rate, the intra-class correlation Eric and I found was 0.007. In other words, pitchers who give up a lot of line drives on balls in play one year are no more or less likely to allow a lot of line drives on balls in play the next year. Line drives are not a pitcher skill, but they are the primary determinant in BABIP. That is why researchers have continually found that pitchers do not have significant control over BABIP."


This article from BP goes on to say that a pitcher can control whether a hitter hits a fly ball or a ground ball, so I'm thinking maybe adding fly balls to the equation - as stated above. If anyone (Mike I think you volunteered to do some research) would care to do the following for the two starts (Davis - Price) - 2 points for fly balls - outs or otherwise, 4 points for GBs, outs or otherwise, keeping the rest of our scoring the same. Just curious what the difference would be.