Comments on: Get to Know: K/9 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:42:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ryan http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-1299808 Ryan Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:39:36 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-1299808 Yeah I'd say 8-9 is pretty high. Yeah I’d say 8-9 is pretty high.

]]> By: Sofla Baseball http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-742038 Sofla Baseball Mon, 16 May 2011 19:31:34 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-742038 I also agree that K/IP is the best approach to reading the numbers in gauging potential for pitchers. You definitely have a keeper if your closer gets over 8. I also agree that K/IP is the best approach to reading the numbers in gauging potential for pitchers. You definitely have a keeper if your closer gets over 8.

]]> By: David Appelman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31286 David Appelman Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:08:30 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31286 I think it isolates strikeout potential better than K/BF does. I think it isolates strikeout potential better than K/BF does.

]]> By: studes http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31282 studes Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:47:19 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31282 Not to drag it out, but why exactly do you prefer K/IP over K/BFP? Not to drag it out, but why exactly do you prefer K/IP over K/BFP?

]]> By: David Appelman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31162 David Appelman Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:54:25 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31162 I don't think that makes K/9 is any less insightful as long as you know what you're using. In all honesty they are really insanely similar with a r-squared of .96. The biggest difference you're ever really looking at is not much more than 1 K per 9/G. But, with that said, the players who have their K/9 most "undervalued" compared to K/G were typically those who had pretty good or great seasons. And likewise players who were most "overvalued" were players with poor seasons. With K/G there's a slight possibility (and I do mean ever so slight) you may be missing out on a potential breakout pitcher since it undervalues pitchers with high K/9 that walked a lot of batters and gave up a lot of hits. It's tough to say K/9 undervalues players that already have K/G up in the 9+ range which is already quite high. I don't think either of these stats should be used in isolation, but if you had to use one in isolation I probably would use K/G. Assuming I had the rest of the stats on hand like BB/9 (or whatever flavor of that you want) along with HR/FB etc... I'd probably stick with K/9. I don’t think that makes K/9 is any less insightful as long as you know what you’re using. In all honesty they are really insanely similar with a r-squared of .96. The biggest difference you’re ever really looking at is not much more than 1 K per 9/G.

But, with that said, the players who have their K/9 most “undervalued” compared to K/G were typically those who had pretty good or great seasons. And likewise players who were most “overvalued” were players with poor seasons.

With K/G there’s a slight possibility (and I do mean ever so slight) you may be missing out on a potential breakout pitcher since it undervalues pitchers with high K/9 that walked a lot of batters and gave up a lot of hits. It’s tough to say K/9 undervalues players that already have K/G up in the 9+ range which is already quite high.

I don’t think either of these stats should be used in isolation, but if you had to use one in isolation I probably would use K/G. Assuming I had the rest of the stats on hand like BB/9 (or whatever flavor of that you want) along with HR/FB etc… I’d probably stick with K/9.

]]> By: studes http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31151 studes Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:49:27 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/get-to-know-k9/#comment-31151 I think the rationale for K/BFP (at THT, we multiply BFP by 38, or the average number of batters per game in a given league in a given year) is stronger than that. Good pitchers are definitely underrated by K/9, because they face less batters per nine innings (that's not just walks, but hits allowed, too). I guess the difference is "minimal," but that depends on your expectations, right? Also, the differences are biased -- good pitchers are underrated and bad pitchers are overrated -- which makes K/9 less insightful and more misleading. I think the rationale for K/BFP (at THT, we multiply BFP by 38, or the average number of batters per game in a given league in a given year) is stronger than that. Good pitchers are definitely underrated by K/9, because they face less batters per nine innings (that’s not just walks, but hits allowed, too). I guess the difference is “minimal,” but that depends on your expectations, right? Also, the differences are biased — good pitchers are underrated and bad pitchers are overrated — which makes K/9 less insightful and more misleading.

]]>