Comments on: Breaking News: Chan Ho Park Is Good

By: PhD Brian

PhD Brian — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:55:26 +0000

Chan Ho Park was considered an “Ace” when he was a Dodger. And frankly he was! In Texas he sucked, but his style of pitching is not one that favors a hitters park. Anyone with a brain new he would probably get shelled in Texas. Old Texas stadium favored left handed hitters and Park has never gotten lefthanders out all that well. Since Texas, he has been very effective against right handed hitters and bad against left handed hitters. For his career, taken alone, his numbers against right handers are good enough for the hall of fame, but his numbers against left handers probably would have trouble succeeding in AA. Knowing that split, Park was almost a sure out against Jeter. Jeter was right to bunt.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:58:50 +0000

Thanks for the explanation.

By: Dave Cameron

Dave Cameron — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:31:00 +0000

My comments about FIP have never been of the kind that they are “bad for relievers”. I have talked about the differences in BABIP and HR/FB rates for relievers and starters and how ideally we wouldn’t regress them to equal numbers, but it’s a minor issue.

There’s nothing wrong with using FIP for relievers.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:32:15 +0000

**********Why would FIP be bad for relievers? ***********

Dave has argued in the past it’s because starters and relievers belong to two separate cohorts…

That’s why I asked Dave about the change of heart….

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:40:23 +0000

Why would FIP be bad for relievers? The only problem is that HR, which don’t stabilize as quickly as K’s and BB’s, can skew FIP by a lot in a small sample of innings. Dave accounted for that in the article (he certainly mentioned it).

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:04:36 +0000

Dave,

You used to argue that FIP isn’t a good metric for relief pitchers. What has caused you to change your mind?

By: e poc

e poc — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:47:07 +0000

Park’s career k/9 is 7.8. As a starter last year it was 10.8, and as a reliever 6.3. That’s in 25 and 70 innings respectively. This year his k/9 as a starter was 5.7, and as a reliever 9.4. That’s 33 and 50 Ip respectively. So what does his increase in k rate in 50 ip this year tell us? I’d have to think the answer would be nothing. In fact, over the last two years combined, his k/9 has been 7.6 as a reliever and 7.9 as a starter, and both numbers are very close to his career number of 7.8. So the evidence does not support your claim that his k rate improved when he moved to the bullpen. At best, you could claim that he got better in the bullpen this year, but that’s only a 50 IP sample, and as you’ve pointed out before, anything can happen for a pitcher in such small samples. You say that his 3.9 FIP from the last two years doesn’t tell the full story of just how effective he’s been because he’s way more effective out of the bullpen. But that’s only true in a small sample from this year. Last year he was atrocious pitching out of the bullpen, and much better as a starter.

Basically, your contention that his stuff improved in the bullpen is unfounded (unless speed of fastball is synonymous with “stuff”), and your contention that his k rate improved is quite simply wrong. Of course we should expect him to more effective, generally speaking, out of the bullpen than he is as a starter, but there’s no evidence particular to Park to suggest that that’s the case for him. Again, it seems like the “evidence” for him being good now is his last 180 innings, and based on your response hear, I’m going to have to stick to my opinion that he’s not as terrible as we thought in 2007, but that he is basically a bad pitcher who’s had 180 decent innings.

By: Wally

Wally — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:48:26 +0000

Ok, I should have proof read that, please excuse my butchering of “convenient” among some of the other mistakes.

By: Wally

Wally — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:45:56 +0000

viva, Most of that 95 IP last year with Dodgers came as a reliever. He only started 5 games. In relief work last year his FIP was 4.86. That’s over 70 IP. I’m not saying that’s his “true talent,” but Just adjusting his 4.40 FIP over the whole season down to 4.10 is obviously the wrong thing to do here.

This year his K/9 and BB/9 rates are pretty much exactly the same as last year. The huge difference is in HR/9, where he’s given up about half his career average of HR/9. So while I don’t think he’s a bad pitcher, I don’t think he’s anywhere close to this 3.49 FIP due to that HR/9 difference, and he’s probably closer to his 2008 numbers in true talent.

Also, doesn’t it strike anyone as pretty convient that Chan Ho Park went from a pretty awfull pitcher in the AL to roughly league average in the NL? Chan Ho Park’s FIP in the AL was 5.10….just saying…

By: Troy Patterson

Troy Patterson — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:20:18 +0000

I think you skewed the numbers a bit to make your point here. You pointed to his 2009 relief numbers and as I showed he hasn’t always been this good even as a reliever. Then you point to his career splits against righties, but you didn’t show his 2009 splits when he was actually worse against righties by K/BB (2.17 against righties and 2.27 against lefties)

I’m assuming the 1.5 WAR this year is a fluke for someone with a total of 4.6 WAR in the previous 7 seasons. I still think we’re seeing replacement level pitching in Park.