IST: Cubs @ Cards

[chibears55]

What sucks about him not getting the no no tonight is that the type of pitcher he is, this might be the closest he will ever come to getting one...

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[DanTown]

Kyle has been very good obviously but I can't give the Cy Young to a starter who's ERA is that far removed from his FIP (coming in it was 2.07 vs 3.36) who has only thrown about 195 innings when it's all said and done.

It's a shame Kershaw got hurt but even with getting hurt, I may give it to him if he gets to around 150 innings and still has the same peripherals. i just don't see him getting there with two/three starts left.

If I took Kershaw off, it'd probably be something like

Syndergaard
Scherzer
Hendricks

 

[A.C. Milan]

 

[cubsmann]

Hendricks should be the Cy Young winner this year. With this staff it should definitely be a Cub who wins it.

 

[cubsmann]

Sucks Hendricks lost the no-no but that was still an absurdly good outing.

Yeah on top of every one the guy has had in the last 2 months. I can't believe Hendricks is making the league minimum and Heyward is making $18M!! It shows that it should be Lester, Hendricks, Arrieta in the post season. I can't wait because assuming the guys keep playing like this its over.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think of he ends up with 18+ wins and keeps his ERA near 2
He has a great chance to win it..

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

I really hope so but in listening to national writers/bloggers Scherzer seems to have it sewn up.

 

[chibears55]

I really hope so but in listening to national writers/bloggers Scherzer seems to have it sewn up.

That because of the Ks ..

Scherzer got more Ks and IP(couple more starts then Hendricks) but overall their close..

I think it going to come down to the last starts

Scherzer
16w 7L 2.78 ERA .918 Whip 203 IP 251 Ks 1CG 0 SHO

Hendricks
15w 7L 2.03 ERA .960 WHIP 173 IP 152 Ks. 2CG 1 SHO


Kyle Hendricks opened some eyes last night with the near no no against Cards on road...
So. Maybe he gained some interest from voters after that to at least see how he finishes

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[TL1961]

Hendricks should be the Cy Young winner this year. With this staff it should definitely be a Cub who wins it.

That's cardinal fan logic. And that's no compliment.

 

[fatbeard]

Kyle has been very good obviously but I can't give the Cy Young to a starter who's ERA is that far removed from his FIP (coming in it was 2.07 vs 3.36) who has only thrown about 195 innings when it's all said and done.

It's a shame Kershaw got hurt but even with getting hurt, I may give it to him if he gets to around 150 innings and still has the same peripherals. i just don't see him getting there with two/three starts left.

If I took Kershaw off, it'd probably be something like

Syndergaard
Scherzer
Hendricks

I really disagree in using FIP to determine awards in any way. Hendricks' results matter. We can't discount those because FIP says that, under different conditions, they might not have happened. They did happen. If you want to use FIP to project future performance, that's fine, but it shouldn't be used to discount actual performance.

 

[cubsmann]

Everyone in the sports press is talking about Kyle Hendricks and the Cy Young. He has been virtually un hittable in the last 2 months and has pitched great all year. If not Hendricks then who? Scherzer? Scherzer is having a good year but nothing like Hendricks. The guy is leading the league in ERA by a wide margin and one more start like last night and his ERA will be under 2!! He reminds me very much of Greg Maddux in his prime. Maddux pitched the same way. High 80's fastball with a great curveball and tons of movement on his fastball. No one can hit the corners of the plate like Hendricks. The guy can hit the outside corner all night and that pitch is almost un hittable especially to guys who don't crowd the plate. Hendricks is 11-1 with a 1.26 ERA in his last 16 appearances!! This is what matters because come October he's going to be lighting up the NL hitters.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I really disagree in using FIP to determine awards in any way. Hendricks' results matter. We can't discount those because FIP says that, under different conditions, they might not have happened. They did happen. If you want to use FIP to project future performance, that's fine, but it shouldn't be used to discount actual performance.

I both agree and disagree. I was hard on Hendricks for the FIP discrepancy up until recently when I was challenged on two different sites (including here but I can't remember who it was here) to take a closer look and to look at how soft contact rates played a part in the higher FIP. I went back 10 years and found that the leaders in soft contact rates have a significantly higher FIP to ERA than the leaders in other categories. Just as an example I think Jake Arrieta's FIP is a more accurate measure to how he's pitched with only a 21.7% soft contact rate to Hendrick's 25.6%. With a team that is as good defensively as the Cubs are I think the distinctions matter. All that said does that make up for all the 1.35 of a run difference in Hendrick's FIP to ERA? I don't know although there is probably an algorithm out there that can figure it out.

All that said I do believe FIP matters more often than not. A lot of times there are pitchers who's FIP is far better than their ERA because their team sucks at defense. Up until this year Jose Quintana has been the poster child for that with a FIP usually .5 of a run better than his ERA. In specific cases though I think we should be willing to dive deeper into the numbers to determine when it matters and when it doesn't. Hendrick's is having an extraordinary season by almost any tradition metric and THAT matters too.

 

[DanTown]

I really disagree in using FIP to determine awards in any way. Hendricks' results matter. We can't discount those because FIP says that, under different conditions, they might not have happened. They did happen. If you want to use FIP to project future performance, that's fine, but it shouldn't be used to discount actual performance.

Did Grienke having a lower ERA than Jake matter last year?

I completely understand that in a way that most stats cannot account for a pitcher actually pitching to weak contact, Kyle Hendricks is having a very good year that his FIP cannot possibly pick up. However, Scherzer is going to end up throwing 30 or so more innings with a lower FIP (3.13 vs 3.36) and a drastically better K rate (11.1 vs 7.9). Maybe to you, the award is about ERA and results and that's fine but to me, that's not enough normalizing of a pitcher's surroundings. Park elements matter, defense of the guys behind him matter, etc.

I guess for me, I don't think Kyle is that much different than he was last year: the Cubs are playing a drastically better defense and he's had slightly better luck so now, his ERA is 1.2 ish lower than his FIP than instead of being higher. I think it's important to remember the Cubs have the best run prevention defense in baseball and it's not even close when you compare two guys ERA. I think Hendricks has been good and would give him the spot over Lester because Lester's low ERA is mostly a product of an absurd strand rate (85.2% of the runners who reach base have not scored) where as Kyle's is him using a great defense.

The Cubs defense has "saved" 72 runs this year in 1294 innings. If you assume they save runs equally, Kyle is the beneficiary of 9.6 "saved" runs via his defense. The Nationals defense has "saved" -9 runs this year meaning Scherzer has given up 1.4 MORE runs than an average defense. If you normalize out the runs saved, the new ERA's become

Hendricks - 2.50
Scherzer - 2.75

While I think it's worth commending Kyle for his low ERA, his low ERA isn't so much his own ability as much as it is partly due to the Cubs having a fantastic defense and if that's the case, that really hurts Kyle's argument of being the best pitcher in baseball.

 

[TL1961]

Using FIP essentially says "The guy who stuck the batter out pitched better than the guy who induced the soft ground ball because the second guy had tobrely on D"

OK. So, if two pitchers both get outs, the one doing it by K is pitcjing better? Ok.

So now factor in that the guy getting more K's, gives up more runs! He is NOT pitching better!

 

[TL1961]

Did Grienke having a lower ERA than Jake matter last year?

I completely understand that in a way that most stats cannot account for a pitcher actually pitching to weak contact, Kyle Hendricks is having a very good year that his FIP cannot possibly pick up. However, Scherzer is going to end up throwing 30 or so more innings with a lower FIP (3.13 vs 3.36) and a drastically better K rate (11.1 vs 7.9). Maybe to you, the award is about ERA and results and that's fine but to me, that's not enough normalizing of a pitcher's surroundings. Park elements matter, defense of the guys behind him matter, etc.

I guess for me, I don't think Kyle is that much different than he was last year: the Cubs are playing a drastically better defense and he's had slightly better luck so now, his ERA is 1.2 ish lower than his FIP than instead of being higher. I think it's important to remember the Cubs have the best run prevention defense in baseball and it's not even close when you compare two guys ERA. I think Hendricks has been good and would give him the spot over Lester because Lester's low ERA is mostly a product of an absurd strand rate (85.2% of the runners who reach base have not scored) where as Kyle's is him using a great defense.

The Cubs defense has "saved" 72 runs this year in 1294 innings. If you assume they save runs equally, Kyle is the beneficiary of 9.6 "saved" runs via his defense. The Nationals defense has "saved" -9 runs this year meaning Scherzer has given up 1.4 MORE runs than an average defense. If you normalize out the runs saved, the new ERA's become

Hendricks - 2.50
Scherzer - 2.75

While I think it's worth commending Kyle for his low ERA, his low ERA isn't so much his own ability as much as it is partly due to the Cubs having a fantastic defense and if that's the case, that really hurts Kyle's argument of being the best pitcher in baseball.

Kyle leads the majors in soft contact rate, so it IS due to his own ability.

I like saber stats but people are going way too far with them.

Like BABIP. People assume it "normalizes" and will essentially be the same for all hitters (and pitchers)

Really? Think Rod Carew doesn't do a better job of directing where he hit a ball than does, say, David Ross?

Think Greg Maddux doesn't have more control over where a ball is hot or how hard than did my old pal Steve Effing Traechsel?

Ain't so!

 

[Parade_Rain]

Using FIP essentially says "The guy who stuck the batter out pitched better than the guy who induced the soft ground ball because the second guy had tobrely on D"

OK. So, if two pitchers both get outs, the one doing it by K is pitcjing better? Ok.

So now factor in that the guy getting more K's, gives up more runs! He is NOT pitching better!

Yes. Now we're back to the argument of a Triple Crown winner wasn't as good as Trout based upon sabermetrics. Silly. Hendricks ERA and soft contact matters.

 

[anotheridiot]

I hope everyone arguing for Hendricks accepts him as at least the 3 next year while people look for another free agent arm.

 

[beckdawg]

While FIP is useful, it doesn't tell the whole picture with a guy like Hendricks. It's entirely reliant on k/bb rate which in one case Hendricks is great at(bb rate) and he's more average on the other. It's obvious why you would use that as a model and all but the fact it doesn't take contact into the equation skews the picture for ground ball pitchers because it's pretty obvious that the ability to generate weak contact is a skill. They just aren't in a stage yet where it's predictable enough to include in metrics.

At the end of the day though, whether or not Hendricks wins the Cy Young isn't really important. He's in the conversation and it's rare that you just have one guy who's far and away *the best* pitcher in the league. It's usually a group of a couple of guys. This year you could probably have 5-10 guys in it but even if Hendricks had this season last year instead he'd have still been in the conversation though again I doubt he would win.

Also for what it's worth, expect to see a lot more pitching of this style. Hendricks isn't "one of a kind." His results this year might be but the cubs have drafted a bunch of guys who pitch similarly to him. Ryan Williams is the one closest to the majors. Jeremy Null wasn't amazing in A+ and probably isn't as good as Hendricks was at that point in his career but he pitches similarly. Preston Morrison looks quite a bit like Hendricks. Jen-Ho Tseng again hasn't been as successful as Hendricks was at similar levels but throws similarly. So, it's clearly something the cubs think is undervalued.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Yes. Now we're back to the argument of a Triple Crown winner wasn't as good as Trout based upon sabermetrics. Silly. Hendricks ERA and soft contact matters.

To me the Trout/Cabrera argument was a much different case than this one. From a purist's standpoint two of the three elements of the Triple Crown, BA and RBI, are poor stats. RBI is the more obvious in that a #3 hitter on a team with the 2 hitters in front of him with great OBP has a distinct advantage over the team where those 2 hitters have subpar OBP. BA is less obvious but is considered a poor stat because A) BA doesn’t include walks. A player drawing a walk is a good thing, and it should be included when evaluating a player’s success. B) Batting average weighs a single the same way it does a home run. Clearly hitting a home run is much better than hitting a single. Why should the two outcomes be equal? All that said there was no way the baseball world was ready for those concepts in 2012 and the Triple Crown had been considered the pinnacle of baseball achievement. The fact that Trout was by far the better offensive and defensive player, and that the difference between the two men in those metrics wasn't even close, meant that to me, and many others, that he was robbed.

All that said sometime metrics do go too far and after really looking at the data I think placing an over importance on Hendrick's FIP is one of those times. In his his case you have to consider soft contact in regards to FIP. I've had old school baseball people use the argument to me that "baseball is not a math problem!" and while that's not exactly true it certainly isn't only a math problem. There are humans involved. Each case is individual and you have to look at them as such and know when to trust the metrics and when those metrics give a false impression. That's probably the hardest thing to do in this game. We're fortunate as Cubs fans to have a FO that tries to come up with those answers between metrics and human behavior.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Kyle Hendricks is a GOD. Scherzer can suck it.

Cubs, baby!!! Championship!!!!

 

[DanTown]

It's funny, you mention that I use a stat like FIP over ERA and I get the argument that FIP is a flawed stat. When trying to compare two things that existed in different environments (i.e Scherzer pitching vs Hendricks), I want to normalize as much as possible. For example, this year the Cubs park was one of the best parks for pitchers in the entire league. That's an advantage that Kyle has over Scherzer in trying to figure out ERA when all things are equal.

I get that it's not something people want to do but I do want to try and normalize for park, opponent, etc. To me, Scherzer has been the better pitcher than Kyle due to his ability to induce strikeouts and pitch deep in to games with limited runs.

Scherzer
Times 7+: 19
Times 8+: 6
CG: 1
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 17
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 5
CG, 2 ER or less: 1
Median Game Score: 69.5


Hendricks
Times 7+: 7
Times 8+: 4
CG: 2
Times 7+, 2 ER or less: 7
Times 8+, 2 ER or less: 4
GG, 2 ER or less: 2
Median Game Score: 62

Kyle has been great this year, he's third on "my" ballot for Cy Young but I just don't believe the Cy Young is for pitchers who predominantly pitch 6 innings a start and do not often go deep in to ball games unless they've been historically good in those innings. With Kyle's case, I think he's been good but the difference in innings (Scherzer is at 30 more innings) is quite staggering when comparing the two.

Essentially you're saying the reason to give some a Cy Young is not because they have a lot of great outings; it's have they avoided the bad one. Kyle has 23 starts of 2 ER or less and Scherzer is at 21; the difference in the two is the four "poor" starts Scherzer has that Kyle doesn't (5 ER in three of them, 7 in a fourth). That to me isn't a good reason to give a Cy Young. I much rather concern myself with how good you're good is than how good your bad is.