Tweet
I mean, obviously it isn't, but is it even better than ERA as a predictor of future performance?
-
In the best of times, our days are numbered, anyway. And it would be a crime against Nature for any generation to take the world crisis so solemnly that it put off enjoying those things for which we were presumably designed in the first place, and which the gravest statesmen and the hoarsest politicians hope to make available to all men in the end: I mean the opportunity to do good work, to fall in love, to enjoy friends, to sit under trees, to read, to hit a ball and bounce the baby. -
xFIP is a good indicator of what it's trying to indicate (fielding independent performance). As we all know, pitchers do not pitch in fielding independent environments, and items like batted ball data and strand rates are also important components that contribute to a pitcher's ERA, but are not included in the FIP (or xFIP) metric. The article doesn't touch on any of this. Also, it's important to mention that pitching stats are 'ballpark dependent' as well. Some parks make it very easy for a pitcher to rack up Strikeout totals, or walk totals, where others make it *more* difficult. FIP doesn't make those types of adjustments for ballpark.
That's why I like a stat like tRA (statcorner.com) which include batted ball data with the FIP formula, then you can make your own adjustments from there.
In more direct response to your question: If I could choose between looking at a player's ERA and xFIP the previous season, I would ALWAYS choose to look at xFIP. Regardless of what this guys' non comprehensive study indicates.
A pitcher that strikes out a ton of batters and prevents walks is ALWAYS going to be the better bet to return the most roto value going forward. xFIP essentially "ranks" players based on those 2 core components. -
Is there a more comprehensive study out there?In the best of times, our days are numbered, anyway. And it would be a crime against Nature for any generation to take the world crisis so solemnly that it put off enjoying those things for which we were presumably designed in the first place, and which the gravest statesmen and the hoarsest politicians hope to make available to all men in the end: I mean the opportunity to do good work, to fall in love, to enjoy friends, to sit under trees, to read, to hit a ball and bounce the baby.Comment
-
Honestly, I don't know. I don't really follow the industry that closely anymore. I think it should be intuitively obvious though, that if you had a choice between looking at a player's peripherals (which xFIP is doing), or simply looking at a player's ERA, you would choose the former and be accurate more times than not.Comment
-
read the comment at the bottom of the story from Peter Kreutzer for a little more infoFollow me on Twitter @ToddZolaComment
-
That article is a pretty weak way to look at the question; the 'size' of the win matters, too! Beyond that, 55% vs 45% is meaningful in and of itself---even using the author's own approach, the data says that it is a helpful metric.Comment
-
I like xFIP, but assuming that all pitchers will trend towards the same HR/FB is not right. Pitchers in Petco and AT&T just won't give up home runs at the same rate. Neither will pitchers in Yankee Stadium, for that matter - they'll always be higher.
That said, xFIP for starters is still useful. I don't really bother looking at it for relievers because their HR/FB rates tend to be a lot more divergent.Comment
Comment