Tweet
What are people's thoughts on adjusting hitting value based on quality of pitchers faced? On one hand, it obviously takes more talent to hit well against good pitching than against poor pitching. On the other hand, a win is a win no matter who it's against, which is what a straight value calculation cares about. On the third hand, a true WPA analysis would give more credit against the tougher pitcher, by starting the game at 40% WP instead of 50% WP, yielding more potential WPA for the underdog team's hitters.
-
I believe in using value metrics to "see" ability by factoring out as much of the context as possible. I will be using the Fiato/Souders Matrix to take the starting pitchers out of the equation in the pre-PBP era and the PBP database to rate the strength of ALL pitchers and in so doing, take the strength of all pitchers out of the equation for hitters in the PBP era... -
If a "win is a win", then why adjust for Coors then? You end up transferring more wins over to pitchers with the park adjustment.
You adjust because you are trying to figure out what an average player would do in that particular context, and you are comparing each of your players to that baseline.Comment
-
Exactly, Tom. It is almost endless the number of adjustments you could theoretically make but the ones you definitely need to make are league quality, strength of schedule and park effect.Comment
-
Yes, if you were to make 3, those'd be the ones.Comment
-
For me...league quality is actually two things.
1) Shape of the distribution of your statistic within the league (this should be identical for every league)
2) True quality (depth of quality players...era difficulty if you will(
And park factors are actually a series of adjustments...not just one. But you get the idea.Comment
Comment