Pitching methodology

[alleyoops]

In reading the "aging" methodology article, I was struck by this paragraph:

"For pitchers, however, when we first ran this, we saw that basically every age group showed some level of decline, because of how often pitchers get hurt, lose it, etc. And there’s no doubt that if we wanted to show that level of decline across the board, we could justify it from a statistical standpoint. But the problem with that is that projections should present a pitcher’s skill set, not their skill set taking into account what might happen if they blow up. We already take that risk into account by the way we allocate dollars to pitching and through our overall strategies. "

I see the point, and agree that is the case - that we do take into account the greater risk/variability in pitching stats in our budget allocation and strategies. Why do we do that? I mean, it's obvious that you have to account for it in some way, or you'd wind up with a $130 pitching budget, and almost certainly not do well.

Gary's saying he's applying some adjustment in the value calculations to account for this. The "yardstick" appears to be to make the numbers "feel right". It almost sounds like he knows what the results "should be", and is coming up with an algorithm to produce those results. But what if what "feels right" is wrong?

I'm wondering if there's a more quantitative way of coming up with this impact? Maybe the 70/30, or 68/32, or whatever breakouts we've been using are NOT what would produce the best results.

[Todd Zola]

I'll let Gary respond as well, but I do want to clarify he is talking about adjustments in the projections model, not the valuation process.

Take Brandon Webb as an example. He has shown no history of injury or decline, but he is at an age where globally, pitcher's performance begins to show their age, and they are more of a health risk.

If the 'global algorithm' for pitchers Webb's age were used, we would have had Webb falling off the cliff this season. On the other hand, he IS getting older and he did have a hiccup last season which we do not yet know if this is the beginning of a decline or just that, a hiccup and this needs to be reflected in the projection.

We also go on to mention that we look at each player on an individual basis. Our FOUNDATION is the translated stats that include the aging curves. So in effect what we have done is try to split the difference between those that are really, really impacted by injury/age and those like Webb that have been fortunate with respect to health and do not show a skills decline other pitchers of similar ages demonstrate.

A major reason Gary and I decided to jump into this endeavor was for discussions just like this.

[Guest]

Great question, and it's due to the fact I was having a really difficult time writing what we did.

I didn't touch the valuation, all I did was try to factor out (and I did do this somewhat quantitatively) the piece of the decline in our pitching aging methodology that was due to the collapse risk, and instead keep in place the piece due to simple aging.

What I did was look at pitchers who didn't collapse from an IP standpoint and looked at their aging characteristics, and then I used that information and some regression to re-calculate our aging methodology. It's not perfect, but I think it's pretty good.

The only numbers I was trying to make feel right were the MLB-neutral projections, nothing to do with valuation. It was a choice between this and not including an aging adjustment at all.

I agree with Todd, keep it coming...the great thing about the method is that input here really affects things - these are living, breathing methods.

I do see how my comments could indicate an attachment to valuation process, but I only commented on that as a way to elaborate on the thought process behind reigning in the aging adjustment.

By the way al - you deserve credit for some of this - you're the one who correctly hammered me (I'm being a little melodramatic) on the Smoltz projection of last year that we didn't factor in his risk of missing time due to his age. That night was the night I started scoping out this methodology.

[alleyoops]

I'll let Gary respond as well, but I do want to clarify he is talking about adjustments in the projections model, not the valuation process.

Take Brandon Webb as an example. He has shown no history of injury or decline, but he is at an age where globally, pitcher's performance begins to show their age, and they are more of a health risk.

If the 'global algorithm' for pitchers Webb's age were used, we would have had Webb falling off the cliff this season. On the other hand, he IS getting older and he did have a hiccup last season which we do not yet know if this is the beginning of a decline or just that, a hiccup and this needs to be reflected in the projection.

We also go on to mention that we look at each player on an individual basis. Our FOUNDATION is the translated stats that include the aging curves. So in effect what we have done is try to split the difference between those that are really, really impacted by injury/age and those like Webb that have been fortunate with respect to health and do not show a skills decline other pitchers of similar ages demonstrate.

A major reason Gary and I decided to jump into this endeavor was for discussions just like this.

By what measure did Webb have a hiccup last season? He produced roughly the same amount of value as his most recent seasons (although a lot of that was driven by W's). His ERA was up some, but his dominance was about the same. Maybe a very small decline in the skills stats, but not much. On the other hand, you're right, maybe this is the start of a downtrend which could get more steep.

I agree that you have to look at pitchers individually, and I'm really glad that you do. Obviously there are some who decline rapidly, and some who keep their skills late into their careers. It would have been foolish to project a big downturn for Nolan Ryan in his 30's (or even in his 40's). Some individuals seem to defy the aging process, or at least their decline is much more gradual, and risk of injury much less.

Interesting comment on the Smoltz conversation from last year. I'm glad it helped. I don't know that I was "hammering you". I was just trying to get a handle on why the projections on him (and others) were different than BBHQ's. Turns out theirs was "less wrong" on Smoltz, but one of the reasons I'm here, and not there this year, is that on the whole, your projections did significantly better on the players with large differences. Well that, and the fact that there are several HQ subscribers in all of my leagues, so it's very hard to get a good price on the guys they like. Maybe I'll have the same problem with this site, at some point.

[Guest]

You didn't hammer me - I was being tongue in cheek, sorry if it didn't come across well.

And I look forward to your discussions about players with major differences. I think HQ does a great job with what they do and we do a great job with what we do, but it is rewarding to see that our process last year at least brought forth a good result.

[Todd Zola]

By what measure did Webb have a hiccup last season? He produced roughly the same amount of value as his most recent seasons (although a lot of that was driven by W's). His ERA was up some, but his dominance was about the same. Maybe a very small decline in the skills stats, but not much. On the other hand, you're right, maybe this is the start of a downtrend which could get more steep.

Not so much the entire season, he was right in line with other seasons when all was said and done. He had a rather worrisome (to some) short string of rough outings. I tried to minimize the stretch by calling it only a hiccup, but even that is an overstatement.