[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book
is Finally Written!

Read Excerpts & Reviews
E-Book available
as Amazon Kindle or
at iTunes for $9.99.

Hardcopy available at Amazon
SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
Shop Amazon & Support This Blog
RECENT FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 Marcels
Apr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref

Advanced

Tangotiger Blog

A blog about baseball, hockey, life, and whatever else there is.

Friday, November 17, 2023

Blake Snell or Spencer Strider?

Blake Snell had a .266 wOBA. But because his BABIP was so incredibly low (.256), the rest of that wOBA, viewed through FIP gave us a good, but not great, FIP of 3.44. FIP is agnostic as to that BABIP. Hold that thought.

Spencer Strider had a .278 wOBA. But because his BABIP was so incredibly high (.316), the rest of that wOBA, viewed through FIP gave us a great, even outstanding, FIP of 2.85. FIP is agnostic as to that BABIP. Hold that thought.

So, was Snell a little bit better overall because of his wOBA, or was Strider far better because of his FIP? Ok, let's bring that thought about BABIP to the forefront.

Since each pitcher allowed about 400 batted balls in play (BIP, excludes HR), then that difference of .316 and .256, or .060 per BIP comes out to a total of 24 hits (.060 x 400 = 24). FIP says: I don't care. And it can say that in the same way that OBP says: I don't care if someone has 120 walks and 10 HR and someone else has 80 walks and 50 HR. OBP is not the last word in overall production. This is why we have wOBA. It can balance that.

Similarly, FIP is not the last word in overall production. Pitchers of course have fielders to help, or hurt them. Fortunately, we track that, at the pitcher level, right here.

Spencer Strider's fielders were actually league average. So, that .316 BABIP of his? That's all his doing. He deserves that. And so, that .278 wOBA? Yes, that's his. He deserves that. As wonderful as his FIP was, well, FIP is not the last word. And given evidence of average fielders, then wOBA is the last word for Strider.

How about Snell? Well, his fielders were definitely above average, at +8 when he was on the mound. Indeed, most of the Padres pitchers benefitted from stellar fielding. Still, that's +8 above average, and since Strider had league average support, that difference between the two is 8 hits. So, that's 8 hits that we can bump up his wOBA by. With 742 PA, we can bump up Snell's wOBA by 8/742 or .011. And since he had an unadjusted wOBA of .266, we can have a fielding-adjusted wOBA for Snell of .277.

Well, well, well. Snell and Strider are, overall, nearly identical.

Indeed, once you park adjust (Petco is pitcher-friendly), Strider pulls slightly ahead. But, let's not talk about park factors, as you might be able to make the argument that Petco affects Snell differently, and maybe he doesn't get all the benefit. Let's call them even. Overall.

Now, Snell is famous for giving up alot of walks. Alot. Like ALOT. But not as much with runners on, and so, he can make walks less damaging. And especially that he gives up very few HR with runners on. Just 4.

Strider on the other hand gave up 10 HR with runners on. And he gives up alot more walks with runners on, making them more costly. And a huge share of his strikeouts are with no runners on. And with no runners on, a strikeout is identical to any other kind of out. Strikeouts get their extra value with a runner on 3B and fewer than two outs.

Here is how their wOBA splits look like, with bases empty (.282 v .263) and with runners on (.245 v .301). So, one pitcher drops his wOBA by 37 points when they can be more damaging, while the other increases by 38 points when they can be more damaging. I don't even have to tell you which one is Snell and which one is Strider.

Pitchers of course change their approach based on the ball-strike count, and naturally with runner-out scenarios. Batters too for that matter. Heck, even the fans have a different reaction in watching the game based on the changing conditions. But how much of that context matters? Does it matter just a little, or totally?

At a high level view, after adjusting for fielding support and park, Snell and Strider were pretty much equals. At a field-level view, Snell clearly saved more runs than Strider.

In your view: in 2023, were they in fact equals, because you see things from a high-level view? Or was Snell noticeably better because you see things from a field-level view?

(1) Comments • 2023/11/17 • Linear_Weights Pitchers

Latest...

COMMENTS

Nov 23 14:15
Layered wOBAcon

Nov 22 22:15
Cy Young Predictor 2024

Oct 28 17:25
Layered Hit Probability breakdown

Oct 15 13:42
Binomial fun: Best-of-3-all-home is equivalent to traditional Best-of-X where X is

Oct 14 14:31
NaiveWAR and VictoryShares

Oct 02 21:23
Component Run Values: TTO and BIP

Oct 02 11:06
FRV v DRS

Sep 28 22:34
Runs Above Average

Sep 16 16:46
Skenes v Webb: Illustrating Replacement Level in WAR

Sep 16 16:43
Sacrifice Steal Attempt

Sep 09 14:47
Can Wheeler win the Cy Young in 2024?

Sep 08 13:39
Small choices, big implications, in WAR

Sep 07 09:00
Why does Baseball Reference love Erick Fedde?

Sep 03 19:42
Re-Leveraging Aaron Judge

Aug 24 14:10
Science of baseball in 1957

THREADS

November 17, 2023
Blake Snell or Spencer Strider?