And Now for Something Completely Different

Today we're going to talk about pop-up rate and Z-contact, their inverse correlation to BABIP and their effect on DIPS projections.

Ha! Just kidding! I mean, that's what we'll be discussing , but you won't know it. What you will know is that we've engaged in a new and fascinating discussion that might help you win your fantasy baseball league.

Ha! If anything in this blog were actually fascinating, Braindrizzling would be positively thrumming with annoying but remunerative pop-up ads and flashing banners. Far more likely, you'll find it mildly relevant if you manage to read to the end.

First things first: this blog post owes everything to Dave Cameron and Voros McCracken. It is a recapitulation of this fine post by Cameron at Fangraphs.

Fourth things second: there will be no math and you won't be quizzed on it next week. However, there will be a wee bit of trailblazing that will help us understand yet a skooch better how pitchers succeed or fail.

Second things third: the abridged version of the back story. Sabermetricians, led by McCracken in '99, realized that pitchers can control Ks, BBs, HBP and HRs, and not much else. Fielding, ballpark and luck are much more relevant than pitcher aptitude to whether a grounder punches through for a single or gets gobbled up by the shortstop for a 6-4-3. Their BABIP-against, that is, the batting average on all those other balls put into play, tends to be random. Sort of. Hurlers with high BABIP one year often have low ones the next and vice versa. Not all and not always, but more or less. Void where prohibited by law.

Except: flyball pitchers give up fewer safeties than worm killers. On the other hand, those fly ball hits more often fall in as doubles and triples and those four hoppers through the infield rarely push the hitter past first.

So when the SABR dudes attempt to project pitching ERAs, they don't look at a pitcher's previous ERA but at the constituent parts -- HR, K, BB, HBP -- and assume an average BABIP going forward. These projections have bested projections using just previous ERA by a significant and consistent amount over the last decade, particularly as further refinements -- like ground ball and fly ball proclivities -- have helped salt the projections.

In English, if you want a prediction of Johnny Cueto's ERA in 2013 because you're considering making a bid on him in your fantasy league, his 2012 ERA of 2.78 says GO! But his constituent parts whisper FLUKE! They project a 3.74 ERA in 2013, assuming a league-average BABIP.

And now for something completely different: Suppose Dave Cameron tells you that he has a formula that's NEW AND IMPROVED! It can account 15% better for the batting average against a pitcher on balls put in play. That means he can get you a better idea of the pitcher's ERA and WHIP, and give you a leg up on the innumerate competition. Has Dave Cameron ever lied to you before?

In a nutshell, what Cameron found is that pitchers who induce a lot of pop-ups and who get batters to swing and miss on more pitches in the strike zone, reduce their BABIPs. It's partly why consistently good pitchers, like Justin Verlander and Jared Weaver, post consistently low BABIPs. In other words, we've found another way that BABIP is not entirely random for pitchers. (It's not random at all for batters, as anyone who's watched Ichiro knows intuitively.)

If Cameron's conclusion is supported by more research -- because this is how science advances -- pitching projections will get 15% better. How big a deal is that? Five advances of 15% each double the accuracy of projections. (Trust me on the math; I stayed in a Holiday Inn near MIT.) But even without four more Eureka moments among the seamheads, you can look up a pitcher's pop-up rate last year and squeeze out an edge on the competition in your fantasy league.

The naysayers will still neigh because advances of these stripe -- small and complicated -- are hard to see. The projections still won't identify the lucky dogs, the breakthroughs and the cliff divers. They won't be able to predict which pitcher tamed his control tiger, altered his mechanics and added 4 mph to his heater, or just figured something out. Truth is, luck is still way too big a factor in baseball to overcome with science. But if science can help you win your fantasy league you probably want to listen to the scientists.

Thankful

On Thanksgiving, it is proper to take a moment to ruminate over our many blessings, such as that we're not a turkey, or a Royals fan. Anymore.

My gratitude to others:

I give thanks for the "traditionalists" who claim to hate baseball statistics and then misuse them to justify foolish positions. They make possible the endless arguments that bring joy to the interstitial spaces between pitches, at bats and innings.

I give thanks for the Luddites who refuse to learn anything new about baseball, as if willful ignorance is a life strategy. A weak beam like me positively shimmers in contrast to dull mattes like that.

I give thanks for the innumerate journalists who assume that if analysis is beyond their understanding it can't be valuable. They allow a third-rate amateur blogger to produce more insightful opinions in his spare time than they do vocationally.

I give thanks for the slow learners who aren't prepared to rush into the embrace of new statistics developed just 33 years earlier and tested rigorously since, the kind of examination that exposes the irrelevance of RBIs and pitcher wins. They allow a new breed of open-minded fans to converse at a higher plane than they can fathom.

I give thanks for the robotic seamheads who forget that real humans play the game. They give cover to lunkheads still dog-paddling in the shallow end of the knowledge pool and spur the debates that I so enjoy.

But mostly, I give thanks for being born rich and free in America where I have the luxury to waste time on frivolous pursuits like this with a full stomach and the security that it will all be there tomorrow.