THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews
If you are a media member and would like a review copy of The Book, please contact Kevin Cuddihy of Potomac Books.

Buy The Book from Amazon

MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Median ERA?

By Tangotiger, 03:18 PM

There was a discussion on Baseball Fever about using median ERA, because one bad game can really kill you in ERA.  I wrote the following:


The ERA “problem” is that it doesn’t (can’t) follow a normal distribution. It’s bound by 0 on one side and infinity on the other.

OBP however doesn’t have that problem, and neither does winning %. I think converting ERA up to winning percentage (runs to wins) or down to OBP (runs to base/outs) is a sensible approach.

***

I just did a little test, where I took games, with an OBP of .135 to .535 (player mean of .335, uniform distribution, league mean also .335).

While the league mean of runs allowed per 9IP is 5.00, this pitcher had an RA of 5.66.  However, when I converted it to win% instead, I got a win % of .498.

Essentially, what I did was construct an average pitcher; and his OBP and win% both gave me an average pitcher, but his runs allowed was 13% higher than the league average.

Therefore, you *cannot* look at the runs allowed figure, precisely because of the skew issue.  Of course, when you look at it over a period of years, all the pitchers should have the same skew, and therefore, balance out that this is not an issue.  On a seasonal basis?  Definitely a problem.

#1          (see all posts) 2007/07/12 (Thu) @ 16:40

You’re correct in pointing out the problem with bounds.  It is possible to correct for this in a theoretical sense.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/moving-beyond-era/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/more-on-mera/

However, it is not possible to correct for this on a seasonal basis because most pitchers only start 20-30 games and therefore rarely follow the theoretical distribution (on an individual basis).  If one were interested detailed accounting, using individual game results would be better, in which case it is *better* if a pitcher is inconsistent rather than consistent.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/same-old-same-old/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/are-foolish-conistencies-the-hobgoblins-of-starting-pitchers/

Now, having said all that, it’s only a value judgement since we don’t know if there is a skill in the way a pitcher distributes his performances.  Anecdotally, I believe the answer to be “no”, but I haven’t done a rigorous study.


#2    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/15 (Sun) @ 00:12

http://detectovision.com/?p=1054

That’s SABRMatt from Baseball-Fever taking the PythagenPAt, and applying it on a game-by-game basis to give us PythagenMatt.

As I noted in the blog, you can’t use runs scored and allowed, but either something OBP-like, or win%-like.  So, that’s what Matt does… PythagenPat, on a daily basis.

Makes sense to me…


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Jan 08 04:25
Sabermetric Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season

Jan 09 00:01
Cheers

Jan 08 23:45
The first Hardball Times Annual available for download!

Jan 08 21:16
Line Drives

Jan 08 20:23
(recent) Historical WAR on Fangraphs

Jan 08 16:07
Clint Eastwood is Archie Bunker

Jan 08 16:06
Hardball Times Annual 2008, starring…

Jan 08 15:58
Madoff’s Ponzi

Jan 08 03:41
Valuing relievers

Jan 07 17:41
The latest in park factors