DIPS at espn.com

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?split=0&league=mlb&season=2004&seasonType=2&sort=DIPSERA&type=pitch5&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all

well it's pretty neat isn't it.

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 21 May 2004 02:41 (twenty-two years ago)

DIPS ERA - A pitcher's ERA, independent of the defense behind him. This formula, based on essays by Voros McCracken, assumes that all pitchers have consistent BIPA (See Above), and adjusts accordingly. The DIPS ratios on ESPN use the DIPS 2.0 formula, are not park-adjusted, and do not adjust for knuckleball pitchers.

Can somebody explain what this means? Morbs? From that description, it just sounds like another voodoo number to me.

― boldbury (boldbury), Friday, 21 May 2004 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

It'd take too long. Google it (like "sabermetrics FAQ").

Subsequent research has questioned McCracken's thesis -- ie, that aside from the 3 "perfect outcomes" (walk, strikeout, home run), the result of the pitcher-batter confrontation is widely variable, ie a matter of luck.

ESPN doesn't park-adjust DIPS, bah! (I don't ever look at DIPS myself.)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 May 2004 13:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Would it be safe to say that a having a low DIPS, but high ERA, means you have a porous defense?

― David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 21 May 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Probably that would indicate some combination of porous defense and bad luck.

― mattbot (mattbot), Friday, 21 May 2004 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the main flaw in the DIPS view one guy found was that pitchers are more responsible for extra-base hits, generally. However, one year Greg Maddux gave up a ton more singles, and I think the interpretation was that it wasn't Maddux's fault.

His name always sounded like a good line for the "Slowly I Turn" vaudeville act... "VORos McCRACK-ennnn! Sloooowly I turnnn..."

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 May 2004 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

at this point (or any point actually) it could just be luck, i think. if every or nearly every starter on a staff has a lower DIPS than actual ERA than i'd assume that.

BB, DIPS counts ONLY a pitcher's strikeouts and walks and home runs allowed, ie the three things the defense has no effect over. the assumption in this is that pitchers have no control over a ball that falls in play - from there it's up to the defense and to luck. this has been demonstrated to be mostly true, and with some exceptions (afaik, knuckleballers and elite relievers, a handful of individual cases, and GB pitchers have on average a higher hit-allowed rate than FB pitchers, which i assume is accounted for in DIPS 2.0). it's not a voodoo number, it's a good indication of how much a luck and defense have been helping a pitcher, and i have quite a bit of faith in it's accuracy - i don't think any high priests of the sabermetric community consider it magic but no one considers it crap either. i should add that strikeouts, walks and home runs allowed are all very good indicators of success (because they = missing bats, good control, and, well, not allowing home runs). it's kind of shocking that a metric like this wasn't around a lot sooner, with someone just stumbling on the fact that pitchers don't even have much control over what happens to balls hit in play anyway.

i know that doesn't do a decent job of "explaining" DIPS in anything other than bare-bones theory, but you'll probably have to read a multiple page essay if you want that, and i'd advise against it.

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 21 May 2004 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Eric Gagne
Luck: +4

― Leeefuse 73 (Leee), Friday, 21 May 2004 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't think so.

― John (jdahlem), Saturday, 22 May 2004 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Because? No pitchers ever have luck? Like Rocket Asshole getting raked the other day and still escaping with a no-decision?

btw, as of today, Gagne is not in the top 30 in the majors in relief in Adjusted Runs Prevented. On the Dodgers, he trails Duaner Sanchez by a hair.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 24 May 2004 12:45 (twenty-two years ago)

no, because last year he struck out nearly 2 guys an inning, didn't walk many batters, and only allowed 2 home runs all season. i've certainly never seen a reliever with his stuff (i never saw eckersley). as i said, DIPS reportedly has a problem evaluating ace relievers, so that should mostly explain why his dera was higher. i'd put his luck at +1, maybe +2 because i don't think anyone can consistently have seasons like he did last year, but the real point is he earned it.

who cares where he is in ARP? look at his actual numbers; he's very clearly done a better job than duaner sanchez. (actually that's interesting, but you're acting like you've got something against the man)

― John (jdahlem), Monday, 24 May 2004 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I don't have nuttin agin him. I agree Gagne has great stuff and was the best reliever last year, but in those situations where he entered at the start of the 9th with a lead (1-inning save), it's still *generally* a situation with more a more likely chance of success than entering with runners on in the 7th or 8th. "Holders" are still underrated in relation to closers.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 24 May 2004 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

doc, that has nothing to do with how GOOD he is. that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) effect his WHIP, BAA, Ks, BBs, or home runs against. (i suppose it would effect whip and baa slightly because he doesn't often have to worry about runner on third >2 outs - but dips doesn't care about that, of course.) if you're just saying he's "lucky" because he's generally brought in in situations where he superficially looks more valuable than he actually is, then ok i guess, but that doesn't effect his ERA at all which is what i assume leee was (prob. half/jokingly) referring to.

― John (jdahlem), Monday, 24 May 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Gagne has had a couple good bounces this year that have kept his saves streak alive, notably one game (against the Rockies?) with men on where the batter hit a pea right up the middle, but it bounced off Gagne to an infielder for an easy out.

― Leee's a Simpson (Leee), Tuesday, 25 May 2004 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

There was a game late in the season last year against the Astro that he would have blown a save in if not for Dave Roberts running up the hill and snagging a ball that would have been a home run.

― boldbury (boldbury), Tuesday, 25 May 2004 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, I was using metric luck, and I guess John was using English units.

― Leee's a Simpson (Leee), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)

actually i was using metric as well, but we're measuring different entities. his save streak has a decent-sized luck factor (mostly because he's been giving up runs, but hasn't ever given one up at a time when it would compromise a save, which is at least partly luck), but gagne's success in general hasn't been anymore a result of luck than (for example) joe dimaggio's was.

― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

if gagne's so good, why was his record 0-3 last year? oh he's only good when he pitches one inning with a 1-3 run lead? way too many conditions for the supposed greatest pitcher in the NL last year. there's a few other threads on this in the archives.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

what is it with you people? he was far and away the best reliever in baseball last year, pitching arguably the most dominating season by a reliever ever. all sustained streaks take some amount of luck, so what? if he had been 52-55 SVs with a 3-0 record he would've been no less impressive. if you're not impressed by his saves, then don't focus on them.

― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm kinda disappointed more folks haven't gone for the obvious gag - "Well, Berman / Greenberg / Neil Everett / your momma is a pretty big dip if you ask me." etc etc etc.

Wait a sec - maybe it's because the obvious gag blows!

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"I put my hand upon yo hip,
when I DIPS, you DIPS, we DIPS."

― boldbury (boldbury), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

hiss

― mattbot (mattbot), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.