Comments on: Regression Will Find You http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:03:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37519 Brian Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:27:05 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37519 This is considered analysis. Duke won't keep his ERA under 2, wow that is some in-depth stuff. This is considered analysis. Duke won’t keep his ERA under 2, wow that is some in-depth stuff.

]]> By: Brian http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37467 Brian Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:53:06 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37467 Dave, RE: Peavy But the topic is- who's numbers will regress in the second half. Not whose numbers could quickly regress the following season. Dave,
RE: Peavy

But the topic is- who’s numbers will regress in the second half. Not whose numbers could quickly regress the following season.

]]> By: Jay http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37447 Jay Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:20:26 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37447 I'm guessing zero since it's extremely rare for four batters to reach base without scoring. I’m guessing zero since it’s extremely rare for four batters to reach base without scoring.

]]> By: Bill http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37446 Bill Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:38:55 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37446 What about Dice-K? Here's the comparison between Dice-K and Daniel Cabrera (leading into their H2H matchup right before the break) so far this year: D.Cabrera 69K 51BB 1.37WHIP Dice-K 70K 52BB 1.37WHIP And some other numbers: D.Cabrera 6-4 4.40ERA 124.2IP Dice-K 9-1 2.84ERA 82.1IP Funny aren’t they? Obviously luck and run support is playing a huge part in Matsuzaka’s 10-1 record. Dice-K’s FIP is 4.10 and Cabrera’s is 4.95, so there’s definitely a gap there in their true performance, but it’s nowhere as wide as their W-L records and ERA indicate (thanks to diverging luck and run support they're experiencing and receiving so far this season). As a Red Sox fan, I can't tell you how many times I've somehow seen him walk a couple of guys, hit a batter, and give up a hit or two, all in the same inning, and not give up a run. No way Dice-K can keep this up. What about Dice-K? Here’s the comparison between Dice-K and Daniel Cabrera (leading into their H2H matchup right before the break) so far this year:

D.Cabrera 69K 51BB 1.37WHIP
Dice-K 70K 52BB 1.37WHIP

And some other numbers:

D.Cabrera 6-4 4.40ERA 124.2IP
Dice-K 9-1 2.84ERA 82.1IP

Funny aren’t they?

Obviously luck and run support is playing a huge part in Matsuzaka’s 10-1 record. Dice-K’s FIP is 4.10 and Cabrera’s is 4.95, so there’s definitely a gap there in their true performance, but it’s nowhere as wide as their W-L records and ERA indicate (thanks to diverging luck and run support they’re experiencing and receiving so far this season).

As a Red Sox fan, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve somehow seen him walk a couple of guys, hit a batter, and give up a hit or two, all in the same inning, and not give up a run. No way Dice-K can keep this up.

]]> By: Mike http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37417 Mike Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:09:55 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37417 Worth noting re: Eveland: Eveland yielded 8 HRs over 246 innings from 2005-2007 in the minors, so it's reasonable to think that his depression of home runs is at least to some extent real. On the other hand, his command is terrible and even a slight uptick in the HR-rate could spell disaster. Worth noting re: Eveland:
Eveland yielded 8 HRs over 246 innings from 2005-2007 in the minors, so it’s reasonable to think that his depression of home runs is at least to some extent real.

On the other hand, his command is terrible and even a slight uptick in the HR-rate could spell disaster.

]]> By: Brian http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37415 Brian Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:11:25 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37415 Cliff Lee's ERA is real in that it perfectly reflects what his raw numbers would suggest: his .298 BABIP is on par with the league norm and his 78% strand rate sounds about right for a guy who has only allowed 27% of batters to reach base and very few home runs. It is not real in the sense that he is almost certainly not this talented and any regression that he sees will come in the form of a decline in controllable skills. His K% has soared to an all-time high while his BB% has dipped to an all-time time low, which could very well be legit, but it's just as likely that it's not. His ridiculous home run rate (one every 98 PA!) figures to regress as his super low 4.1% HR/FB does, but at least his newfound groundball ability—and increased punchout rate, if sustainable—will mitigate the bulk of the damage. Cliff Lee’s ERA is real in that it perfectly reflects what his raw numbers would suggest: his .298 BABIP is on par with the league norm and his 78% strand rate sounds about right for a guy who has only allowed 27% of batters to reach base and very few home runs. It is not real in the sense that he is almost certainly not this talented and any regression that he sees will come in the form of a decline in controllable skills. His K% has soared to an all-time high while his BB% has dipped to an all-time time low, which could very well be legit, but it’s just as likely that it’s not. His ridiculous home run rate (one every 98 PA!) figures to regress as his super low 4.1% HR/FB does, but at least his newfound groundball ability—and increased punchout rate, if sustainable—will mitigate the bulk of the damage.

]]> By: chronosaurus http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37411 chronosaurus Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:34:07 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37411 Not a single mention for Cliff Lee? Not a single mention for Cliff Lee?

]]> By: Sky http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37410 Sky Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:25:26 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37410 Many of the stats that point to flukey pitchers will also result in higher than normal LOB rates, because the fewer baserunners you allow and the fewer homeruns you allow, the lower the percentage of baserunners that score. (The first runner in an inning rarely scores, but adding a increases the first's chances of scoring and also could score himself.) Good pitchers tend to have good LOB%s not because it's a skill, but because better pitchers allow fewer baserunners and homeruns. So when I see a high or LOB% rate, I often first look to a weird BABIP or HR/FB. Then, if those are in line, I chalk it up to the LOB%, like in Peavy's case. His career rate is 77%, which is probably fine given his talent, PETCO, and the Padres' defense. Many of the stats that point to flukey pitchers will also result in higher than normal LOB rates, because the fewer baserunners you allow and the fewer homeruns you allow, the lower the percentage of baserunners that score. (The first runner in an inning rarely scores, but adding a increases the first’s chances of scoring and also could score himself.) Good pitchers tend to have good LOB%s not because it’s a skill, but because better pitchers allow fewer baserunners and homeruns.

So when I see a high or LOB% rate, I often first look to a weird BABIP or HR/FB. Then, if those are in line, I chalk it up to the LOB%, like in Peavy’s case. His career rate is 77%, which is probably fine given his talent, PETCO, and the Padres’ defense.

]]> By: Dave Cameron http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37403 Dave Cameron Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:51:53 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37403 And after Peavy's flukey LOB% in 2004, it regressed quickly in 2005. Check out the list of players who have posted a LOB% of 80% or higher from 2004 to 2007, and then check their following years LOB%. You'll see regression across the board. No one sustains an 80% or higher LOB%. And after Peavy’s flukey LOB% in 2004, it regressed quickly in 2005.

Check out the list of players who have posted a LOB% of 80% or higher from 2004 to 2007, and then check their following years LOB%. You’ll see regression across the board.

No one sustains an 80% or higher LOB%.

]]> By: beamsplitter http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37401 beamsplitter Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:22:51 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/regression-will-find-you/#comment-37401 Peavy may regress, but your choice of LOB% as support is a strange one. You say no one can strand runners at 83.7% but Peavy did it over 166 innings in 2004. Also, between '04 - '07 he's been at least in the upper 70%s. So, although his strand rate today is arguably a bit high, it certainly isn't unsustainable. Now that I look at it, Peavy's 2008 so far is remarkably similar to his 2004... I'll take the under on this particular prediction, Dave ; ) Peavy may regress, but your choice of LOB% as support is a strange one.

You say no one can strand runners at 83.7% but Peavy did it over 166 innings in 2004. Also, between ’04 – ’07 he’s been at least in the upper 70%s. So, although his strand rate today is arguably a bit high, it certainly isn’t unsustainable.

Now that I look at it, Peavy’s 2008 so far is remarkably similar to his 2004… I’ll take the under on this particular prediction, Dave ; )

]]>