Messages

Forum Index : MLB Betting : Messages Page 2 of 4  1 2 3 4  
Author: [MLB Betting] Topic: Preseason SABRmetrics Discussion
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#26
Posted: 2/28/2012 3:37:03 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by depeche2:



I understand what you're saying, but couldn't a harmless infield popup also result from guys that can consistently make it tough for the hitter to properly square up the pitch -- from a guy that throws a rising fastball or very hard or movement such that a hitter consistently gets under it.  I understand it could result from a hitter that just screwed up and the pitcher got lucky, but couldn't there also be an explanation favorable to the pitcher? 

Depeche, it's hard to give you a precise answer here because you've sort of stumbled upon one of pitching's biggest statistical debates.  How much control does a pitcher have over a hitter?  Looking past intangible angles like pressure situations, mind games - and basically anything psychological... what can a pitcher control?  To a reasonable degree a pitcher can control three things: location, spin, velocity.  Location and velocity are self explanatory and spin is really about movement.  So a pitcher controls the movement, location and velocity of his pitches.  He can't control the defense behind him, but it's a statistical fact that a defense has a better chance of recording an out if a ball is hit on the ground.  Thus the idea recently arose that pitches that produce downward contact are preferred.  Some people classify three different hitting results:  ground balls, line drives, and fly balls.  Ground balls are obviously the best whereas fly balls and line drives can either result in an out, a hit or even a home run.  Now if you want my opinion, I prefer to simplify these results even more.  Line drives and fly balls are basically the same thing to me.  They can both produce similar results, and if you look at the trajectory of the ball they both mean the ball is moving up after contact (as opposed to ground balls which are moving down).  Therefore, I like to think of two hitting results:  Up-contact or Down-contact.  Here's where I'll answer your question.  I prefer down-contact, so I don't care whether a ball is popped up to the in-field, to the outfield, is hit on a line drive right to center field, bounces over the wall for a double, or sails over the fence for a home run (you get the point).  In an over-simplified sense, they're all the same to me - they're all the fault of the pitcher.  So a long winded answer is, I don't think a pitcher can induce in field fly balls - nor should he want to.  A pitcher should always be looking to do two things and only two things:  get strikeouts or produce ground balls.
quote
depeche2 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
depeche2
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 67006
Location: Illinois
#27
Posted: 2/28/2012 4:03:27 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by si1ly:


Depeche, it's hard to give you a precise answer here because you've sort of stumbled upon one of pitching's biggest statistical debates.  How much control does a pitcher have over a hitter?  Looking past intangible angles like pressure situations, mind games - and basically anything psychological... what can a pitcher control?  To a reasonable degree a pitcher can control three things: location, spin, velocity.  Location and velocity are self explanatory and spin is really about movement.  So a pitcher controls the movement, location and velocity of his pitches.  He can't control the defense behind him, but it's a statistical fact that a defense has a better chance of recording an out if a ball is hit on the ground.  Thus the idea recently arose that pitches that produce downward contact are preferred.  Some people classify three different hitting results:  ground balls, line drives, and fly balls.  Ground balls are obviously the best whereas fly balls and line drives can either result in an out, a hit or even a home run.  Now if you want my opinion, I prefer to simplify these results even more.  Line drives and fly balls are basically the same thing to me.  They can both produce similar results, and if you look at the trajectory of the ball they both mean the ball is moving up after contact (as opposed to ground balls which are moving down).  Therefore, I like to think of two hitting results:  Up-contact or Down-contact.  Here's where I'll answer your question.  I prefer down-contact, so I don't care whether a ball is popped up to the in-field, to the outfield, is hit on a line drive right to center field, bounces over the wall for a double, or sails over the fence for a home run (you get the point).  In an over-simplified sense, they're all the same to me - they're all the fault of the pitcher.  So a long winded answer is, I don't think a pitcher can induce in field fly balls - nor should he want to.  A pitcher should always be looking to do two things and only two things:  get strikeouts or produce ground balls.


You don't think a pitcher can induce easy popups by keeping the hitter off balance and unable to properly square the bat to the ball?  Is it just an illusion when I see a pitcher throw a great changeup and the hitter lunges and pops it up harmlessly?

In your theory, I guess we want to look for pitchers that throw the fewest fly balls -- so strikeouts are good of course and ground balls are good.  Does that always correlate to the best pitching?  Can't a pitcher be a higher flyball rate pitcher and still be effective? 

I tend to agree with preferring ground balls, but isn't there more than one way to skin the cat?
quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#28
Posted: 2/28/2012 4:14:19 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by depeche2:



You don't think a pitcher can induce easy popups by keeping the hitter off balance and unable to properly square the bat to the ball?  Is it just an illusion when I see a pitcher throw a great changeup and the hitter lunges and pops it up harmlessly?

In your theory, I guess we want to look for pitchers that throw the fewest fly balls -- so strikeouts are good of course and ground balls are good.  Does that always correlate to the best pitching?  Can't a pitcher be a higher flyball rate pitcher and still be effective? 

I tend to agree with preferring ground balls, but isn't there more than one way to skin the cat?

In baseball Physics:  no, I don't think so.  But we're talking about spinning round balls making contact with round bats.  I personally believe that a pitch is only "good" if it is a called strike, swung at and missed, or hit on the ground.  Anything else is a "bad" pitch.  Like I said, some people will disagree with me on this perspective.
quote
borje21 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
borje21
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 189
Location: Canada
#29
Posted: 2/28/2012 5:08:30 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by si1ly:

I'll get things started by posting the generic spreadsheet format that I'm using this season for advanced pitching stats.



PITCHER NAME (L/R):  0.00 tERA, 0.00 SIERA, 0.00 GB/FB, 00.0% GB%, 0.00 K/9, 0.00 K/BB

     (L) Splits:  .000 BA, .000 BABIP, 0.00 FIP, 0.00 xFIP
     (R) Splits:  .000 BA, .000 BABIP, 0.00 FIP, 0.00 xFIP


I noticed that you use L/R splits for FIP/xFIP, but not for tERA/SIERA. Are there available stats that break down both tERA/SIERA by L/R or even Home/Away?
quote
Dgretzky69 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Dgretzky69
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1579
Location: Virginia
#30
Posted: 2/28/2012 6:47:41 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by si1ly:

A pitcher should always be looking to do two things and only two things:  get strikeouts or produce ground balls.

What about extreme fly-ball pitchers like Tyler Clippard (20.2% last year), Antonio Bastardo (25.4%) or even Jered Weaver (32%). 

Balls hit in the air have the potential to become home runs, but they are also more likely to become an out when the ball is in play compared to a ground ball.  In 2010, league wide BABIP on ground balls was .233, fly ball BABIP was .137.  That's a significant difference, and it's the reason why guys like Clippard and Bastardo can post sub-.200 BABIPs and significantly out-pitch their xFIPs. The new SIERA accounts for this. It also accounts for the fact that relievers consistently post lower BABIPs and HR/FB than starters.

Bastardo: 3.56 xFIP, 2.94 SIERA, 2.64 ERA
Clippard: 3.20 xFIP, 2.56 SIERA, 1.83 ERA

Environment is huge, though.  Both league and ball park. Put a guy like Matt Cain in San Francisco and his high FB rate translates to a great ERA.  Put a guy like Colby Lewis in Texas and his high FB rate translates to a lot of home runs and a high ERA.  

good stuff right here for more information on the nuances of SIERA: 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/new-siera-part-two-of-five-unlocking-underrated-pitching-skills/




quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#31
Posted: 2/28/2012 6:50:02 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by borje21:



I noticed that you use L/R splits for FIP/xFIP, but not for tERA/SIERA. Are there available stats that break down both tERA/SIERA by L/R or even Home/Away?

I compile my sabrmetric data from fangraphs and they do not have tERA/SIERA broken down into splits.  But they do have FIP and xFIP.  My spreadsheets pull data directly off that site so that's partly why they're built that way.  I would think SIERA would be very difficult to calculate using splits data.  FIP and xFIP are much simpler formulas and that's probably why they more commonly appear in advanced splits.  I've never looked into finding that out though, so if you stumble across those metrics in split form I'd love to hear about it!
quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#32
Posted: 2/28/2012 7:11:00 PM
I see your point Dgretzky, but let me ask you this:  What happens when you combine fly balls and line drives into a single BABIP output?  I bet it's higher than .233.  Try and think of the pure geometry of a baseball's trajectory.  If the ground plane is 0 degrees; then any ball hit with a positive angle (moving up after contact) I would classify as a negative result and conversely any ball with a negative angle (moving down after contact) is a good result.  I know this is a gross over simplification of the dynamics of hitting, but it helps to rationalize the problem of how to qualify a pitching result (i.e. in terms of good or bad).
quote
Dgretzky69 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Dgretzky69
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1579
Location: Virginia
#33
Posted: 2/28/2012 7:47:14 PM
The league wide BABIP on line drives in 2010 was .716, and ground ball pitchers aren't any less susceptible to line drives than fly ball pitchers are.

BABIP on fly balls + line drives = .338
BABIP on grounders+ line drives = .423

Generating a lot of fly balls can definitely work to a pitcher's advantage.  If he is prone to giving up home runs or pitches in a small ball park, the positive effects will go out the window in a hurry.
quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#34
Posted: 2/29/2012 2:30:16 PM

so does any of this nonsense help you pick winners?


lets see some betting recordds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#35
Posted: 2/29/2012 7:26:06 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by lewlew:

so does any of this nonsense help you pick winners?


lets see some betting recordds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111


I'll refer you to the first post of this thread.  And the first post of any thread I start for that matter.

quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5797
Location: Nevada
#36
Posted: 2/29/2012 8:33:38 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by lewlew:

so does any of this nonsense help you pick winners?


lets see some betting recordds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111




You're right lewlew. 

Figuring out ways to accurately project scores using advanced stats is completely useless in gambling. 


quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#37
Posted: 2/29/2012 9:29:51 PM

seaon not far away.........are you gonna give picks and analysis?


of course i wont understand it.....lol.

quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#38
Posted: 2/29/2012 9:33:43 PM

op you have  plays in nba this year......prove your mettle here.


dont post plays in nba setion -too many threads to follow!



SHOW US WHAT YOU GOT! start tomorrow!  if you do good guys will pay you.

quote
guil0000 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
guil0000
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 257
Location:
#39
Posted: 2/29/2012 11:42:53 PM
If you guys could use only one advanced stat which would you choose between tERA, SIERA and xFIP that would predict the pitcher's real projected ERA? I just want to simplify things for the more casual handicappers
quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#40
Posted: 2/29/2012 11:44:15 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by lewlew:

seaon not far away.........are you gonna give picks and analysis?


of course i wont understand it.....lol.


Yes, I will be posting my plays with write-ups just like I do in every sport.  That's not what this thread is for though.  It's for talking advanced baseball statistics and sharpening up our tools before the season starts.  You can learn a lot by reading these threads.. enjoy!
quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#41
Posted: 2/29/2012 11:45:14 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by guil0000:

If you guys could use only one advanced stat which would you choose between tERA, SIERA and xFIP that would predict the pitcher's real projected ERA? I just want to simplify things for the more casual handicappers

For me it's tERA, the jury is still out on SIERA.
quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#42
Posted: 3/1/2012 12:22:57 AM

sorry but im a skeptic......if you guys were any good there wouldnt be books taking our action!


you just dont use stats to win...............you think linemakers are clueless?

quote
jpero send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
jpero
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9317
Location: United States
#43
Posted: 3/1/2012 12:43:08 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by lewlew:

sorry but im a skeptic......if you guys were any good there wouldnt be books taking our action!


you just dont use stats to win...............you think linemakers are clueless?



Are card counters in blackjack clueless?

They will lose money during shoes where the cards just are not in their favor. However, when the shoe does turn in their favor they bet larger than normal to take advantage of the statistical advantage. They may even lose those hands but the whole point of card counting is to take advantage and bet large when the deck is in the players' favor.

It works the same in baseball. Even when you expect an outcome to favor a certain side there is always a chance the other side may be the actual outcome.
quote
fitguy67 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports |
fitguy67
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 127
Location:
#44
Posted: 3/1/2012 2:19:21 AM
lewlew, jpero just responded in a way that assumes you are really interrested in this (and not just a garbage-disturbing troll)...i will do the same...but not from the theoretical perspective...let's look at the ACTUAL RESULTS of a good capper like Si1ly...let's take apart

"97-66, +31.61 units" and see what it really means, and how lucky results such as this are simply the result of chance...got a hand-held calculator ready?...let's go!

59.15% of the 164 plays were winners
assuming typical odds were, say -110 (even tho' they're probably quite a bit better than that in MLB, we'll use the std estimate for basketball/football to get started)

how good is 59.15% when you'd need 52.38% winners to break even at -110 odds (1.9091 in decimal-->1/decimal odds tells us the break even percentage)

it's [(59.15%/52.38%)-100%]= 12.92% better than break even, meaning that every 100 bet returns 112.92 or nets 12.92 on average.  That's investment-grade returns...13% netted on amount risked...cuz his actual winning percentage outstripped the winning-percentage imbedded in the book's odds when he placed his bets.   

Question for you...how likely is it to flip a coin 164 times and have it come up heads 97 times or more...think you could outstrip mr. B.E. (break-even) chance by 13% repeatedly.  Well Sil did it last year, using analytic techniques (ie. "metrics") suitable for baseball.

Was this luck?...it very well could be.  However, look at every other sport's winning% and units...all but one of the dozen sets of "coin flip" seasons (which is exactly what they'd be if books couldn't be beaten by sharp analysis and wise line-shopping)  all but one of them shows a similar result...positive units cuz his winning% consistently outstrips BY A CONSIDERABLE 10%-plus MARGIN the (approx) 52.38% required to break even. 

Overall, over a dozen or so sports and 700-or-so bets, this capper has hit just about 59% winners, and sports a similarly amazing record as his possibly-lucky 160 baseball-game results.

He uses various sport-appropriate versions of  analytic techniques in all these sports...and gets a similar double-digit edge on the book in the whole set of 700-ish plays and in 11 of the 12 cases taken separately. 

If you don't study at all and write a dozen T/F exams in a subject you know nothing about, would you expect 59% overall and 11 passes out to 12. 

Si1ly studies and uses sports metrics and aces the course, and all but one of the sections (and in that one he was 48.08%, 25 or 52). 

Most successful sports investors use metrics...they don't beat the books...they beat the majority of lazy or innumerate bettors who don't.
 
Hope that helps


quote
guil0000 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
guil0000
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 257
Location:
#45
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:19:41 AM
Great response fitguy
quote
si1ly send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
si1ly
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 12061
Location: Florida
#46
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:55:30 AM
quote
billieman send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
billieman
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1436
Location:
#47
Posted: 3/1/2012 11:04:07 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by si1ly:


In baseball Physics:  no, I don't think so.  But we're talking about spinning round balls making contact with round bats.  I personally believe that a pitch is only "good" if it is a called strike, swung at and missed, or hit on the ground.  Anything else is a "bad" pitch.  Like I said, some people will disagree with me on this perspective.

I really like the discussion in this thread; however, I could not disagree with this statement more.  I will take guys like Verlander Weaver and Beckett over guys like Morton Westbrook and Lowe any day of the week.  A ball hit on the ground can be hit just as hard and even harder than a ball hit in the air.  You cannot make a generalization like this.  Admittedly you do acknowledge that people will disagree with this statement which puts you ahead of most of the clowns here.  On the flip side, it is hard to take anyone seriously as a knowledgeable baseball fan that makes such a general statement.  I cannot imagine a single major league baseball pitcher, past or present agreeing with this statement.   Batters hit soft pop flys on great pitches that have the batter reaching in a way that makes it impossible to hit a ball hard.  That's an ideal pitch for a quality pitcher.  

quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#48
Posted: 3/1/2012 11:44:10 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by fitguy67:

lewlew, jpero just responded in a way that assumes you are really interrested in this (and not just a garbage-disturbing troll)...i will do the same...but not from the theoretical perspective...let's look at the ACTUAL RESULTS of a good capper like Si1ly...let's take apart

"97-66, +31.61 units" and see what it really means, and how lucky results such as this are simply the result of chance...got a hand-held calculator ready?...let's go!

59.15% of the 164 plays were winners
assuming typical odds were, say -110 (even tho' they're probably quite a bit better than that in MLB, we'll use the std estimate for basketball/football to get started)

how good is 59.15% when you'd need 52.38% winners to break even at -110 odds (1.9091 in decimal-->1/decimal odds tells us the break even percentage)

it's [(59.15%/52.38%)-100%]= 12.92% better than break even, meaning that every 100 bet returns 112.92 or nets 12.92 on average.  That's investment-grade returns...13% netted on amount risked...cuz his actual winning percentage outstripped the winning-percentage imbedded in the book's odds when he placed his bets.   

Question for you...how likely is it to flip a coin 164 times and have it come up heads 97 times or more...think you could outstrip mr. B.E. (break-even) chance by 13% repeatedly.  Well Sil did it last year, using analytic techniques (ie. "metrics") suitable for baseball.

Was this luck?...it very well could be.  However, look at every other sport's winning% and units...all but one of the dozen sets of "coin flip" seasons (which is exactly what they'd be if books couldn't be beaten by sharp analysis and wise line-shopping)  all but one of them shows a similar result...positive units cuz his winning% consistently outstrips BY A CONSIDERABLE 10%-plus MARGIN the (approx) 52.38% required to break even. 

Overall, over a dozen or so sports and 700-or-so bets, this capper has hit just about 59% winners, and sports a similarly amazing record as his possibly-lucky 160 baseball-game results.

He uses various sport-appropriate versions of  analytic techniques in all these sports...and gets a similar double-digit edge on the book in the whole set of 700-ish plays and in 11 of the 12 cases taken separately. 

If you don't study at all and write a dozen T/F exams in a subject you know nothing about, would you expect 59% overall and 11 passes out to 12. 

Si1ly studies and uses sports metrics and aces the course, and all but one of the sections (and in that one he was 48.08%, 25 or 52). 

Most successful sports investors use metrics...they don't beat the books...they beat the majority of lazy or innumerate bettors who don't.
 
Hope that helps


nope.


hitting 59% att  -110 is rock star quality.


i want to see real records! no one wants to prove their mettle.  actually all this theory garbage makes me suspicious.

i doubt a real winner would even respond to my inquiries.  they got nothing to prove.

quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#49
Posted: 3/1/2012 11:49:44 AM

a guy writes up a long whatevre and ends with the GOAL is to beat other lazy boozos - not the books.


this is insane logic!

quote
fitguy67 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports |
fitguy67
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 127
Location:
#50
Posted: 3/1/2012 4:16:38 PM
the point is books don't bet against you and lose if you win (or win if you lose)...they charge a "rake" on all bets...more betting action is good for books...bettors divide up the amount left after the rake/vig/juice/chalk...winners win/losers lose...house always wins on the rake...just like at poker or at the race-track...

house or book or racetrack never lose...they always get their "rake"...remaining is divided up among winners and losers...the more betting they get...the larger the $-volume for them  to rake from

so noone beats the books (cuz they don't really care who wins/loses the game...they move the lines around just to stimulate more action...to increase the $-volume to rake)...

winners win and their winnings come from...losers...and yes they get their money from less "sharp" cookies...those that are too illiterate to read "long whatevers" or too innumerate to follow quantitative analysis of game-dynamics and probabilities/odds...those who prefer to think that becoming more analytical...the key to becoming more successful is a waste of time...



capiche...
quote
Forum Index : MLB Betting : Messages Page 2 of 4  1 2 3 4  
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.