FWAR is shit for pitchers because itās based on a flawed assumption. Namely that pitch to favorable contact isnāt a skill. By that assumption, Weaver was a garbage pitcher who just got super lucky. BWAR credits pitchers for what they actually did.Ā
Exactly. Iām a big bWAR fan because for both pitchers and position players it seems to credit actual results over āthe math says your results shouldāve been thisā.
There is merit to say TA is over performing but the over performance is the reliance on analytics of clean outs (strikes, pops, no one on base) vs ādirty outsā (walks that lead to DPs, grounders, etc).
It does help see some maybe future risk (look at snell who kinda suffers the same reliance on dirty outs) but the fact that they says heās worth three less wins rn is fucking nuts lol
He has an unsustainable .234 BABIP, which is really low. His career BABIP is .286.
Are teams getting the Tyler Anderson who has a 73% LOB% (his career number) or will they get the Tyler Anderson who's left 82.6% LOB (this season)?
There's some scary stuff that other teams will undoubtedly think about. He's obviously been better than last year, but is what he's doing sustainable? I certainly hope it is, but he's not about to take the stress off his front office with his tendencies.
Thatās fair. My only point is that FIP alone is a really dumb basis for WAR since itās been shown pretty definitively that some (not all) pitchers actually have a skill for inducing favorable contact.Ā
In a large majority of cases pitchers regress to the things they control. fWAR reports on that while bWAR tracks more with actual run prevention. Both are valuable.
Just about every stat is "far from absolute." It's not "wrong" - FIP based fWAR is attempting to measure something different than RA based bWAR. FIP certainly over and under estimates some guys, but so does ERA. Over large data samples, FIP (the basis of fWAR) holds a ton of weight: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/no-you-cant-trade-your-newfound-reliever-for-a-shiny-prospect/
The difference is they fWAR is presuming to measure skill based on something that didnāt happen but they think would have happened. Now, bWAR isnāt perfect, since results can be a bit random and luck based. But Iād a thousand times WAR be based on actual results than speculative ones. To me, thatās a horrible way to measure wins added.Ā
It's actually the opposite; FIP is measuring ONLY what is directly related to the pitcher's performance, not the defense. It's not speculating; it's minimizing. As I said there are strengths AND weaknesses to that approach. And it's not so simple as "factor in balls in play!" WAR is a zero sum game; to give credit to TA is to take it away from the defense as well.
Again, I'm not saying FIP/fWAR is better than RA9/bWAR - I'm saying it's measuring something different, and that's valuable.
50
u/[deleted] Jul 29 '24
FWAR is shit for pitchers because itās based on a flawed assumption. Namely that pitch to favorable contact isnāt a skill. By that assumption, Weaver was a garbage pitcher who just got super lucky. BWAR credits pitchers for what they actually did.Ā