# FanGraphs Baseball

1. Bradley you make the best graphs.

Comment by Jon — March 1, 2012 @ 11:07 am

2. Thanks Jon!

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 11:20 am

3. Great stuff as usual.

Will FIO be available on google doc’s as well?

Comment by wiersNRAF — March 1, 2012 @ 11:29 am

4. Yeah, I may try to throw one into Part 2 if I have enough space.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 11:37 am

5. Why not include the R-squared from the original regression? Also, the fact that alpha is not 0 and beta is not one suggest that this measure is biased. Why would it be biased?

Comment by Barkey Walker — March 1, 2012 @ 11:38 am

6. Sorry, this looks to me like just a great deal of work for little or no value.

Comment by Baltar — March 1, 2012 @ 11:43 am

7. How well does the accuracy of FIO compare with FIP? Please tell me this will go on the player’s pages!

Comment by Nick — March 1, 2012 @ 11:44 am

8. Well this looks like a colossal waste of time for both you and me. For the record, upon what degree did your parents waste their money?

Comment by Wet Blanket — March 1, 2012 @ 11:52 am

9. I will wholeheartedly agree its value does not compare to FIP, but it certainly has it’s uses — which I will offer in Part the Second.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 11:53 am

10. No degree. I “wasted” a LOT of Future Brad’s money on an economics degree.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 11:54 am

11. When you complete this, I think you should write a very concise explanation of when to use FIO versus any other metric.

Comment by Eminor3rd — March 1, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

12. First of all, this is amazing work as always Bradley. I find your mix of wit, graphs, and clear language very enjoyable.
Second of all, why not use wOBA instead of wRC+? Since you’re not trying to normalize for park and league factors, which is the main difference between wOBA and wRC+, then it seems like you might as well just use the former, right?
THIRD of all, I commend you for responding to almost every comment, even the trolls, with thoughtfulness and without snark.

Comment by Matt H — March 1, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

13. Good idea.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

14. Thanks Matt. I’m waiting for a bus, so I’ve got the time. :)

Well, one of the main reasons for using wRC+ was the + helped with the changing run environments. It doesn’t cancel it out entirely (as noted above), but since the league wOBA has gone from .332 to .316 in just five years –while wRC+ remains at 96 — wRC+ invites less problem on that front.

But your question strikes a chord in my research ligaments, so I’ll take a gander back to my charts and give it another look.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

15. Could you bring Carl Crawford, Jason Werth and Adam Dunn’s FIO results to the front? It would seem that FIO disagrees with the + in wRC+

Comment by TomCat — March 1, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

16. REGRESS ALL THE BABIPS PLZ

Comment by PE — March 1, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

17. Hey! HEY! Fangraphs Staff! You posted this NotGraphs article in the wrong place! I SAAAAID… YOU

Comment by Keystone Heavy — March 1, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

18. If you divide your coefficients for SO, BB, HR by 91, you get:
-2
3
13

Which are, of course, the FIP coefficients.

I’m not sure why you have BABIP in there, other than to show its impact. Obviously, in a FIO equation, you have to take that out.

Comment by Tangotiger — March 1, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

19. Hey! HEY! Fangraphs Staff! You posted this NotGraphs article in the wrong place! Get this thing out of here!

“In fact, but ignoring caught stealing — which merely helps to keep the calculations simple — we are assuming each of these base-thieves is a steal master and that the defenses they play against are all equal, neither of which is true.”

I’m I was shaking my head in disapproval every once in a while, and then I read this and punched my f***** monitor.

Comment by Keystone Heavy — March 1, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

20. So, you are advocating justing turning this into FIP? You know if you use the FIP equation for batters, Ian Kinsler’s FIO (FIB? FIH?) would be .748.

Comment by Keystone Heavy — March 1, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

Comment by AJS — March 1, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

22. Wouldn’t it make more sense to make a FIH stat over TYPES of balls in play? Wouldn’t it make more sense find some general rules for BIP and go from there? For example, batters are likely to be able to control their BA on ground balls. But what about LDs and FBs in play? Esp if you were to adjust for park. If so, what would happen if you took IFFBs out of the equation? Or just as SIERA says that pitchers that strike out more batters produce lower BABIPS and HR/FB, what if batters who strike out more/less have higher/lower BABIPs? A SIERA type FIH would be interesting.

I don’t know, I’m no expert. But it just seems to me like doing FIH based off the knowledge of “what batted balls- as a rule do- what” would make more sense. Esp since we know batters have more control over batted ball type than pitchers.

Comment by Keystone Heavy — March 1, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

23. Why are you graphing FIO (a stat that’s clearly not park-adjusted, as it includes HR% and BABIP) against a park-adjusted stat like RC+? Why not just use wOBA (the not park adjusted version of RC+)? That way, when looking at the biggest differences, we’d be seeing where FIO is “wrong” instead of just seeing a bunch of Rockies and Padres players.

Then again, I’m not sure what use FIO really has in the first place.

Comment by Yirmiyahu — March 1, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

just out of curiosity, would you save bad eyes some effort, and maybe mark the switch hitters?

Great article, waiting eagarly on Part duo.

Comment by channelclemente — March 1, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

25. Yeah, I feel to see how this is “defense independent” whatsoever when it has BABIP in it.

It just seems like a sloppy way to approximate wOBA. The wRC+ thing confuses me too, because “FIO” isn’t park-adjusted.

Comment by Yirmiyahu — March 1, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

26. Keep this up, Bradley, and we’re going to have certain baseball sites using FIO to calculate WAR. I mean, we’ve already got one using FIP for………well, you know.

Comment by bstar — March 1, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

27. Could you personally just create wRCBRAD+ in which you standardize wOBAs without regard to park? I mean, I’d bet wOBAs are pretty normally distributed, so you could just give everyone Z-scores and WOOHOO!

Right?

Comment by Matthias — March 1, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

28. Interesting suggestions! I already had plans to show Werth and Dunn. I’ll throw in Crawford as well.

Comment by Bradley Woodrum — March 1, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

29. I enjoyed this thoroughly and look forward to part duex, but was that a coke reference?

Comment by GTW — March 1, 2012 @ 9:36 pm

30. Dude, put down the tequila bottle.

Comment by bstar — March 2, 2012 @ 12:51 am

31. I had this discussion somewhere, somehow. You use wOBA, and in the place of the in-park batted balls, you set them to “.300”. And the rest, you use the wOBA equation.

So…..
0.0 SO
0.3 everything else
0.7 BB, HB
2.0 HR

Comment by Tangotiger — March 2, 2012 @ 1:06 am

32. I hate it when people say “how much of your parents money did you waste”. Some of us actually pay our own way through school and aren’t drunk, adderall takin’ pieces of shit who are only going to school so that daddy can justify hiring you.

Comment by Antonio Bananas — March 2, 2012 @ 2:02 am

33. Yea, that’s a topic that I get fired up about. It’s because virtually every kid I know who’s parents pay his/her way is a brat and I wish their seat in class would be given to a more driven human being.

Comment by Antonio Bananas — March 2, 2012 @ 2:03 am

34. What if you took a similar equation as the tERA and applied it to hitters, then had some sort of “speed” coefficient. For example, a league average speed guy gets the same worth out of a line drive, a groundball, a flyball, etc. A slow guy probably gets a few less bases on a GB, FB, LD, but a fast guy probably gets more bases.

You don’t need to take fielding out, just adjust for how hard the ball is hit and in which direction and then tweak it based on how fast the guy is.

Comment by Antonio Bananas — March 2, 2012 @ 2:07 am

35. So…FIP can be recalculated very easily to adjust for different run environments. Do you think you can get FIO to the point where you can say…

The basic formula for FIO is X and if you think the run environment is different than the default setting Y, then you can easily adjust the formula by doing _______.

Comment by Brad Johnson — March 2, 2012 @ 9:05 am

36. O Hit f/x, where art thou?

Comment by Neuter Your Dogma — March 2, 2012 @ 9:44 am

37. strong agree.

Comment by sprot — March 2, 2012 @ 10:28 am

38. You do have to admit that Wet Blanket’s name was perfect for his comment.

Comment by drewcorb — March 2, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

39. Wether this is useful or not, I whole heatedly appreciate the humble attitude.

Comment by Larry — March 2, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.