Brief Sabermetric Primer: FIP
by redsoxstatscom on Jan 21, 2010 11:16 AM EST
Email
Print[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first post in a series of primers to discuss some more "forward thinking" baseball statistics. We use these stats here at OTM, but we don't necessarily have time to explain them very well -- that's why I've asked redsoxstatscom to contribute.]
I started my website redsoxstats.com back in 2004 after a combination of reading Moneyball and getting my first copy of the Ron Shandler Baseball Forecaster books. There are other places on the web to find new and cutting edge sabermetric stats, those are some of my favorite places, but my site focuses on the huge second and third steps beyond evaluating players based on Batting Average, ERA, or RBI.
I was once told that the difference between a $1 HDMI TV cable and a $10 one is huge, but the difference between that $10 cable and a $50 one is very small. That’s the basic principal I use when running my site and thinking about sabermetrics. The difference between ERA and FIP is huge, but the difference between FIP and New-Random-Fancy-Pitching-Metric with a formula 50 variables long is not so huge.
Over the next few days I’ll be posting some brief primers on some of my favorite sabermetric stats and will be using Red Sox related examples of what they show.
Since I already brought it up, let’s take a look at FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching.
FIP was formulated by current top sabermetrician Tom Tango and is based off the groundbreaking work by Voros McCracken, in which he showed that strikeouts, walks, and home runs are really all a pitcher has control over. Everything else is fielding dependent and out of the pitchers hands.
Using the FIP formula, (13*HR+3*BB+HBP-2*K)/IP+3.2, we can rate how a pitcher performed based on what he controlled without having to factor in if he was benefiting from pitching in front of the awesome 2009 Mariners defense or pitching in front of a left side of the infield that included Mike Lowell and Julio Lugo.
As you can see, the formula pummels a pitcher for giving up home runs, punishes for walks and hit batters, and rewards for strikeouts. These are then divided by innings pitched and then added to a normalizing factor that puts it on an ERA scale, usually around 3.20.
There were a couple of extremes on both ends of the spectrum for the 2009 Red Sox.
Jonathan Papelbon (1.85 ERA) and Ramon Ramirez (2.84 ERA) were both back end of the bullpen arms with sparkling ERA’s, however their FIP’s of 2.98 and 4.38 tell a different story (the one of why they were frustrating to watch most of last season). Both pitchers had issues with walking batters and Ramirez’s strikeout rate was a career low.
The two pitchers that took the most abuse from Red Sox Nation probably deserved a better fate. John Smoltz and Brad Penny each had FIP’s in the 4.00’s, much more respectable than their 8.33 and 5.61 ERA’s. Fittingly, Smoltz had a 4.26 ERA after joining the Cardinals and Penny posted a 2.59 ERA with the Giants.
Jon Lester and Josh Beckett’s FIP’s of 3.07 and 3.55 show that their skills are elite, with an improved 2010 defense behind them they could both be in for dominating seasons. John Lackey’s 3.73 FIP wasn’t too shabby either.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
question?
What is considered to be an avg FIP and what is considered and elite FIP? I guess that is my problem with these new stats.
.300 or above avg is considered really good .320+ avg is elite, and .275 is considered and avg hitter.
So what are the standards for FIP and all of the other new stats?
It does not take long to get used to these newer stats. Give them a chance.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Yeah, generally they're all based around other stats.
A good wOBA looks like a good OBP
A good FIP looks like a good ERA
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 22, 2010 4:13 AM EST up reply actions
also curious
about Derek Lowe’s last year as a closer, the not very good one. I know he gave up a few homers that year but he is the type of pitcher that was dependant on defense. Im curious if FIP shows he wasnt quite as horrible as his ERA showed that year. To my eye it seemed just before any homer there was 2-3 seeing eye singles or bloopers that got through. Just curious if FIP backs that up.
Just like any
stat (ERA and FIP included) small sample sizes make all of them unreliable. So, for the case of Lowe you could indeed posit that his ERA/FIP difference was due to bad luck but it is hard to say. If you want to try, look at xFIP (expected FIP) which adjusts for bad luck on balls in play (like seeing eye hits) to say what Lowe’s expected FIP should have been. Since Lowe started in games in the same year that he pitched from the pen it may be hard to look up, but I can try if you remind me of the year. Either way, it might not be that telling…
2001
As a reliver that year his ERA was 4.04. His FIP was 3.90.
As foor the blooper thing, his Batting Average on Balls in Play was .354, his career average BABIP is .299. There was some stuff falling for hits that was out of his control.
I’ll be posting about BABIP next week.
by redsoxstatscom on Jan 21, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
xFIP
I’m pretty sure that the only adjustment xFIP makes is that it adjusts everyones HR-rate to 11% because that is what pitchers normalizes to.
The corrolation between ERA and FIP is only about .45, from FIP to xFIP it’s .81… that’s pretty much what I was getting at with the whole first step is the biggest thing.
I definitly agree with you bringing up tRA below. If anyone wants to get in depth with a new pitching metric, check out Lookout Landing.
by redsoxstatscom on Jan 21, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
Welcome
nice job. The biggest issues with FIP (which is my favorite quick pitching stat) are:
a)assumes an average batted ball profile for all pitchers. Indeed the weird numbers (eg the 3.2) in part take such values due to this. Thus heavy ground-ball pitchers are often “FIP Challenged” because GBs are more valuable in out conversion than things hit in the air. That does not mean that Roy Halladay will not have a good FIP, but just that FIP might relatively undervalue him compared to tRA, which does individually consider the rate at which a pitcher gives up GBs, FBs, etc.
b)Some pitchers (Beckett, Kazmir and Vazquez come to mind) seem to be worse relative to neutral when they put runners on with less than 2 outs. Such pitchers can underperform their FIPs in a rather consistent way.
All in all, however, FIP is a much better thing to look at than ERA if you want to see if a pitcher should have imporved performance going forward, or even if you want to take some bias (eg defense) out of the equation to judge performance. To adjust for BABIP luck, see xFIP as an even better future predictor.
Someone should probably throw tRA and FIP together somehow.
Somehow more than just with xFIP.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 21, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Buzzy's right - 2 problems with FIP
- - K’s – Many great pitchers are ground ball pitchers who don’t K a lot (Maddox, Hershiser) of hitters. Hard to double up a runner on a K; easier on a grounder.
- - HRs – Many great pitchers are fly ball pitchers who may give up more HRs because of their home stadium. I know this afflicts ERA, too, but the idea is that FIP should be better than ERA.
So the big FIP winners are biased to high speed throwers for their K’s who may also be ground ballers in a short home park or fly outers in their long home park.
Seems tRA, ERA+ (park adjusted), or OPS+ against still rules.
Problems
You’re spot on with those two criticisms. As redsoxstatscom says above, xFIP corrects for these two problems by removing the HR component and adding in a FB component instead. (.11*FB) This means that more credit is given to pitchers that keep balls on the ground, and pitchers in abnormal parks aren’t penalized/rewarded for it.
What about IBB?
Is that a stat you can find and subtract from a pitchers BB numbers? Since the IBB is out of their control.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 21, 2010 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
IBB
Adding IBB to the fomula the biggest difference it would have made in 2009 would be -0.04. Adding HBP to the fromula the biggest difference is 0.08. Both corrolate .99 with the simplist formula of FIP, (13*HR3*BB-2*K)/IP.
by redsoxstatscom on Jan 21, 2010 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
FIP is better than ERA
It’s also better than ERA+, ERA with a crude park adjustment. OPS against (and OPS+ against) aren’t better than FIP. Both are affected by HR and BB. HR affect SLG and BB affect OBP. But OPS and OPS+ are also affected by fluke hits and poor defensive plays that result in singles, doubles, or triples. ERA and OPS are influenced by BABIP. FIP isn’t.
Greg Maddox and Orel Hershiser are bad examples. Neither pitcher had a bad career FIP. In his prime, Maddox had decent K-rates, outstanding BB-rates and HR-rates. Maddox had a career ERA of 3.16 and a career FIP of 3.26.
Hershiser’s prime was shorter than Maddox’s. In his prime, his K-rates and BB-rates were decent and his HR-rate was excellent. Hershiser had a 3.48 career ERA and a 3.69 career FIP.
FIP doesn’t necessarily hurt GB pitchers with low K-rates, unless they also have high BB-rates too. For example, in 2006/2007 Chien-Ming Wang was a severe GB pitcher with absurdly low K-rates. His BB-rates were decent and his FIPs were good. In 2006, Wang had an ERA of .363 and a FIP of 3.91. The following year his ERA was 3.70 and his FIP was 3.79. In 2007, his K-rate went up 1.64 K/9 and his HR-rate dropped. In other words, Wang’s reduced FIP reflected the fact that he pitched better, despite the slightly higher ERA.
Sure it’s “hard to double up a runner with a K.” But throwing double plays is not a pitching skill. There’s a lot of chance involved. While throwing GBs is a skill, a pitcher has little control over where the ball goes. It might be hit right at a defensive player or it just might as easily find a hole in the IF. How many times is a well hit GB turned into a DP? I don’t have a stat, but it’s safe to assume that it’s easier to double a runner on a hard hit ball than a slowly hit ball. Yet a slowly hit ball is probably the result of a better pitch (as are weak grounders that result in IF singles). Again, there’s a lot of luck involved in balls in play. One thing is certain: GB pitchers generally give up fewer HR—and FIP hates HR.
No stat is perfect. And there’s lots of chance in baseball outcomes. However, FIP does tend to focus on aspects of the game which pitcher has more control: K, BB, and HR.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 21, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
especially about ERA/OPS+. However my point about ground balls is not that gb pitchers will be penalized by FIP, but that they are relatively penalized compared to tRA. Players with low GB rates control the game less (all things equal) and will have larger fluctuations in comparison to results that otherwise are better tracked by tRA.
I wasn't responding to you, Buzzy
I was responding to dsharp.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2010 7:23 AM EST up reply actions
As I said below
look at Maddux’s peak years, where he consistently outperformed his FIP by a lot. Only in his later years did he become mortal and lose that ability to throw 80-pitch complete games, and his ERA regressed to his FIP.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Nice post.
My only issue with FIP is that it treats all contact the same, punishing guys who have a talent for inducing weak contact. Mariano Rivera comes to mind, as does (as mentioned above) Greg Maddux.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Doesn't take into account many factors
I understand the general concept of this but I don’t believe it takes into consideration many things. Number one, it hurts pitchers that are adept at keeping hitters off balance albeit inducing weak contact as these pitchers typically have low strikeout numbers. Two, it doesn’t factor in the opposition or the venue of the game which can dramatically alter homeruns and strikeouts. I’m sure there are plenty other things I could complain about it but its getting late haha. Overall though it is a useful stat, I just hope that people remember to look at all the stats and not to take any type of sabermetrics as an end all be all stat.
The point is not that FIP is perfect. The point is that it is much more predictive of future performance than ERA (my guess is that past FIP correlates better with future ERA than past ERA).
Also, I think FIP is positing that there are not any pitchers that consistently are able to “keep hitters off balance” and induce weak contact. Greg Maddux was successful because he did not walk anybody and did not give up HR’s.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Greg Maddux "pitched to contact"
and consistently induced weak contact. Thus the low HR totals, and thus consistently outperforming his FIP.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
His career FIP is .1 higher than his career ERA. He hardly consistenly outperformed his FIP.
Your point is taken that Maddux produced consistenly low HR totals (by inducing weak contact), but that is taken into account in FIP.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Look at his peak years.
His ERA was consistently a half-run to a run better than his FIP. It wasn’t til @ 2003 – when he started giving up lots of HRs – that his ERA regressed to his FIP.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
And BABIP
While it doesn’t account for the Braves fielders, his peak BABIP versus the league average is out of this world, versus a strikeout pitcher like Pedro.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
disagree
Maddox did not ‘pitch to contact’. He was not a batting practice pitcher. He pitched to make bats swing & miss. He changed speeds and controlled his location. The fact that his pitches weren’t 98 mph heaters so batters could at least touch wood on the ball doesn’t change the fact that they missed if the result is not a hit.
If anything, Maddox was a perfect reference for FIP. His ERA and FIP are extremely close – reflective of the fact that Maddox pitched with exquisite control over two (BBs & HRs) of the three things that FIP rewards a pitcher for having control over. And he wasn’t bad at getting Ks, he just wasn’t Randy Johnson. His career SO/9 was 6.1. Very respectable!
agree
maddox was an artist. he kept batters off balance. his control was what made him hof material. i think he only relied on 2 pitches fb & ch.
“he is a member of the 3,000 strikeout club) because of his ability to change speeds and the deceptive nature of his pitches.” i stole that quote.
he is only HOF material
because he got laser eye surgery. Its performance enhancing and there should be an asterick next to all of his stats!!!
ok jking, just trying to stir up some trouble.
Really?
Here’s Brent Mayne on Maddux -
We’ve all heard the "pitch to contact" theories of Greg Maddux, right? Basically it means making the opposing team put the ball in play early. Decrease walks, keep the pitch count low…maximum outs with minimum pitches. In Maddux’s world, a perfect inning isn’t 3 strikeouts on 9 pitches, it’s 3 pitches and 3 groundouts.
Simply put, this theory works. The pace of the game speeds up, pitchers can work later into the game, the defense stays engaged and on its toes, umpires call more strikes, plus shorter games = happier girlfriends/wives, etc.
Here’s the deal though. Pitchers love to trick hitters. And pitchers love to nibble on the corners. Both of these facts are contrary to the "pitch to contact" theory. As the catcher you need to recognize this and take control of the situation.
This is how you can help. Work fast. Put the signs down quickly and intuitively. Get the pitcher in a good tempo and remember the less time he has to think, the better. DO NOT set up too far on the corners! Unless your pitcher’s name is Greg Maddux or Cliff Lee, setting up away from the plate is an excellent recipe for a walk-a-thon. Only split the corners of the plate with your crouch when you are way ahead in the count. Make the pitcher throw good low strikes yielding weak ground balls. Set up around the plate and make the offense put the ball in play right now.
Here’s Fergie Jenkins and Maddux discussing their similar pitching styles (though it is Fergie who stated “pitch to contact and make the hitter work”).
Here’s Billy Owes, the A’s Director of Player Personnel, discussing Maddux’s approach –
Greg Maddux of the Chicago Cubs of the late 80’s and early nineties had better stuff than the Maddux of the Braves of the mid-90’s but the Braves Maddux pitched to contact and had absolute command of his fastball. On the way he acquired 3,000 strikeouts because his longevity has been so spectacular, but the main ingredient of his success has been fastball command and pitching to the bat versus trying to avoid it.
And here’s 6,000 more articles discussing Maddux in the context of pitching to contact, I’ll let you surf around.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Allow me to butt in
Pitch to contact, not pitch to contact, GB pitcher, FB pitcher…
What you are all missing is this:
bq. FIP was formulated by current top sabermetrician Tom Tango and is based off the groundbreaking work by Voros McCracken, in which he showed that strikeouts, walks, and home runs are really all a pitcher has control over.
McCracken was able to show what pitchers have control over, which is limited to those three items.
Anecdotal evidence is fun to play with, but via McCracken’s work, things like “pitching to contact” are not skills that pitchers have complete control over.
I think its key to remember that.
Maddux, Jenkins, Mayne, player development guys, and scads of other guys in and around the sport talking about their strategy for getting outs efficiently and pitching deep into games is no more “anecdotal” than a batter discussing his route around first base on a double.
I’m not saying FIP is useless. Obviously Tango and McCracken (sounds like a SNL buddy-cop sketch) are smart dudes, and they obviously think about baseball a lot more than we do. But it’s not like all pitchers are evenly matched once you eliminate HRs, BBs and Ks. Some guys are just better at breaking bats and getting weak grounders to first than others. Think Mo. The most obvious stat to look at to test this would be BABIP. Pitchers who excel at BABIP either have a amazing D behind them or are good at inducing weak contact – and when a guy does it for a number of years, with a changing team behind him, you have to think it’s the latter. Look at Mo’s career BABIP and then consider that godawful shortstop and the Giambi-types who’ve played behind him. Or Maddux, during his considerable peak.
My only point is that it’s limited in that it doesn’t account for the guys who excel at inducing weak contact. It’s not like all pitchers are at an eve
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I'm undecided.
I understand your point. And conceptually it makes sense. But these guys are saying that you (and Maddux etc) are wrong. They are saying that pitcher performance is best measured by those three true outcomes.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Hmm
I like you’re point about pitchers not being evenly matched, but I think there’s a fine line between luck and other skills not covered in FIP. And the danger is that we can see the proof of the pudding in FIP, but not in how much luck or a partial skill of weak contact plays a role.
I see FIP as an interesting guideline: this is what we should expect from a pitcher with these three peripherals, not a hard and fast this is what the ERA needs to be. It’s a guide post or reference point, from where the interesting discussions as to why pitchers out- or under-perform their FIP can begin.
On a side note, I always smile when bringing a player such as Rivera or Maddux into the discussion. Historic players like him (Teddy, Mays, etc.) are outliers, often times exceptions to the rule rather than following the rules.
And on a second side note, I’d love to see somebody crunch the numbers on if relievers are more likely to out- or under-perform their FIP than starters. Even specialists, such as LOOGYs.
It’s a guide post or reference point, from where the interesting discussions as to why pitchers out- or under-perform their FIP can begin.
Exactly.
And I also agree about the limitations of citing to Maddux and his ilk. Most guys who “pitch to contact” see their careers stall at AA, because they just don’t have the stuff and command to make it work. But seeing Maddux in his prime was sort of like watching Neo in Matrix 2. He was just stupid good, in complete control of the game, and he only cracked 200 Ks once.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Maddux
“Stupid good” is fitting, although ironically enough he’s one of the very few athletes that I enjoy hearing speak. Intelligent and articulate guy, which is often hard to find in sports.
I guess he was an outlier in more than one way.
Yeah, I think he got that.
Just commenting on the irony of the phrase.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 23, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
and that is why FIP is useful. However some pitchers obviously have control over more than just HRs, BBs, and Ks, and that is why we have tRA. In particular pitchers like Wang and Halladay are severe GB pitchers. While such pitchers usually have good FIPs because they suppress HRs and usually have low BB rates, they do more than that in that their balls in play are heavily weighted toward the most anemic outcome-a ground ball. That (in a convoluted way ;)) is Tommy’s point. McCracken himself admited that the statement that pitchers have no control over balls in play is only a crude zeroth order guideline. While much more true than acknowledged at the time, it is not universal.
How does any of that refute my points?
Did he (Maddux) NOT keep his walks down?
Did he NOT keep his HRs down?
Did he NOT strikout batters at a rate of 6.1 per 9?
Is his career FIP NOT very close to his career ERA?
Mayne, et al, and Maddux himself are all entitled to their interpretations of how he got to where he ended up. But to quote Rasheed Wallace: “Ball don’t lie!”
You said "Maddux did not 'pitch to contact'"
Maddux disagrees. As do a host of scouts, analysts, players, etc.
But yes, he also didn’t walk many guys, didn’t give up many HRs (i.e., weak contact), struck out a few guys, and – including the twilight of his career, when he didn’t consistently outperform his FIP – his career FIP is close to his career ERA.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Question:
Rarely have I noticed a FIP as low as some elite ERA’s (in the 1.00-2.00 range). Is there a reason for this?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
...
Because ERA’s in the 1.00 to 2.00 range are usually by relief pitchers that only work ~60 IP a year, and if they put together a sick 0.92 ERA season like Papelbon in 2006 (FIP 2.14) there is probably some luck going their way… in that season Pap had a .239 BABIP and 92% Strand Rate.
Here are the best FIP’s of the last 10 years; they show just how sick Pedro was, how we will most likely never see another season of dominance in our lifetimes like his ’99 season, and how lucky we are as fans to have Greinke and Lincecum to watch.
1999 Pedro Martinez 1.39
2000 Pedro Martinez 2.17
2003 Pedro Martinez 2.21
2002 Pedro Martinez 2.24
2004 Randy Johnson 2.30
2009 Zack Greinke 2.33
2009 Tim Lincecum 2.34
by redsoxstatscom on Jan 22, 2010 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
I'm glad you guys are doing this
I was actually going to suggest something like this, or a glossary perhaps, for folks who aren’t as familiar with advanced baseball stats. Namely…me.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Bloggy,
You might be interested in this Alex Remington has been giving primers on some of the advanced stats on Yahoo. The link is for UZR, but here are links at the bottom for BABIP, OPS+, FIP, wOBA, WPA, and WAR. You might find them helpful.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Wonderful.
Thanks, brother.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ballboy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
- Lance Berkman’s knee injury creates a lot of questions for Cards but also his career
- Next generation: Scott Van Slyke, son of Andy Van Slyke, hits first career homer
- The Juice: Stephen Strasburg homers to cool off Orioles, Aroldis Chapman closes out Yanks
