Fielding Independent Hitting
OK, so based on FreeZorilla's comment in the pitcher thread I figured team-by-team FIH for each team thus far.
A note about the process:
FIP= (((13*HR)+(3*(BB-IBB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP)+3.2
Since you can't really get IP for a team's hitters, I took AB-H+GIDP for outs. Then I used 3*Outs for IP.
Here are the results:
| Team | AB | H | HR | BB | IBB | HBP | SO | GDP | Outs | FIH |
| Indians | 492 | 138 | 24 | 76 | 3 | 10 | 121 | 14 | 368 | 5.80 |
| Cubs | 412 | 107 | 16 | 63 | 2 | 8 | 87 | 9 | 314 | 5.50 |
| Rangers | 455 | 127 | 26 | 41 | 1 | 5 | 110 | 7 | 335 | 5.47 |
| Yankees | 481 | 128 | 21 | 56 | 2 | 5 | 90 | 12 | 365 | 5.42 |
| Blue Jays | 540 | 155 | 23 | 60 | 3 | 2 | 91 | 15 | 400 | 5.41 |
| Cardinals | 477 | 139 | 17 | 65 | 5 | 5 | 80 | 12 | 350 | 5.39 |
| Phillies | 414 | 115 | 16 | 43 | 1 | 3 | 63 | 9 | 308 | 5.31 |
| Dodgers | 477 | 142 | 16 | 73 | 8 | 5 | 88 | 16 | 351 | 5.27 |
| White Sox | 439 | 117 | 18 | 50 | 1 | 6 | 93 | 11 | 333 | 5.12 |
| Orioles | 481 | 132 | 13 | 65 | 3 | 3 | 82 | 9 | 358 | 4.88 |
| Red Sox | 451 | 121 | 15 | 56 | 6 | 6 | 86 | 12 | 342 | 4.88 |
| Rockies | 437 | 106 | 19 | 47 | 1 | 5 | 109 | 7 | 338 | 4.82 |
| Tigers | 444 | 124 | 14 | 50 | 3 | 7 | 83 | 13 | 333 | 4.80 |
| Braves | 464 | 123 | 14 | 48 | 3 | 5 | 76 | 12 | 353 | 4.73 |
| Brewers | 424 | 98 | 16 | 49 | 3 | 9 | 102 | 10 | 336 | 4.71 |
| Rays | 480 | 125 | 20 | 47 | 1 | 3 | 119 | 7 | 362 | 4.60 |
| Padres | 463 | 125 | 15 | 53 | 3 | 0 | 96 | 6 | 344 | 4.53 |
| Astros | 458 | 118 | 12 | 50 | 1 | 2 | 82 | 11 | 351 | 4.44 |
| Royals | 432 | 109 | 14 | 43 | 2 | 8 | 99 | 12 | 335 | 4.37 |
| Marlins | 486 | 125 | 16 | 53 | 4 | 5 | 117 | 11 | 372 | 4.30 |
| Mets | 436 | 125 | 9 | 57 | 7 | 2 | 78 | 12 | 323 | 4.29 |
| Diamondbacks | 458 | 104 | 16 | 40 | 3 | 3 | 102 | 6 | 360 | 4.23 |
| Nationals | 460 | 124 | 12 | 61 | 3 | 4 | 121 | 9 | 345 | 4.07 |
| Reds | 404 | 87 | 9 | 56 | 2 | 6 | 104 | 10 | 327 | 4.02 |
| Pirates | 474 | 126 | 13 | 43 | 4 | 3 | 101 | 7 | 355 | 3.99 |
| Angels | 439 | 112 | 9 | 43 | 5 | 2 | 77 | 6 | 333 | 3.95 |
| Mariners | 454 | 115 | 9 | 32 | 2 | 3 | 75 | 17 | 356 | 3.76 |
| Twins | 476 | 125 | 9 | 42 | 2 | 2 | 91 | 8 | 359 | 3.71 |
| Athletics | 464 | 110 | 3 | 43 | 0 | 7 | 84 | 5 | 359 | 3.38 |
| Giants | 412 | 101 | 7 | 31 | 3 | 5 | 108 | 15 | 326 | 2.96 |
BTW, I would have been done with this forever ago but my comp froze.
1 recs |
12 comments
Comments
Looking at the teams at the top,
park factors come into play alot. The new Yankee Stadium is prevalent, Arlington, etc.
by rglass44 on Apr 22, 2009 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This stat will be irrelevant, though.
One has to figure that team defense faced evens out over the course of a season. Since a a batter has way more control over BIP it also confounds its uselessness. It is a nice little look into how defense may or not have played a role at this point in the season.
by rglass44 on Apr 22, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
It seems a lot of the concern about the Rays pitching is based on fewer strikeouts, more walks and a new found adoration for the gopher ball. Given that those are the 3 components of FIP, I thought it would be worth a look to see how our opponents to date fared at FIH for 08 to see how much of our lesser stats coudl be attributed to competition. I suppose I could just look at their BB/K ratios and HR totals. Too ambitious for my own good.
by FreeZorilla on Apr 22, 2009 4:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What did the San Francisco Bay Area do to deserve such pitiful offense?
by Lurch's Lobbyists on Apr 23, 2009 1:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They could just sign Barry Lamar Bonds
Swav or Die.
by SRQman on Apr 23, 2009 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing is that the Giants' offense was worse when Bonds was there, if you ignore what Bonds contributed.
It’s been said a lot, but the talent Sabean put around Bonds during his legendary season is a pity.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Apr 23, 2009 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems to me
the Rosetta Stone of FIP analysis really lies in determining the effect, if any, a pitcher has on balls in play. If we are comfortable assuming a batter has some or much, why are we not comfortable assuming a pitcher has some as well?
I know some study of this should result from Hit F/X, but I’m still a bit uncomfortable with the broad acceptance of FIP as a superior measure for pitchers.
I accept it’s more predictive of a future season’s ERA than is current ERA. Guess I’m not convinced of it’s superiority as a real time indicator of pitching performance compared to other measures such as WHIP (or BPIP – what happened to that RJ?), BB and K rates. GB/ FB rates. I understand the affinity for a single number – just leaves out a lot of the game.
by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 23, 2009 3:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Check out tRA.
It accounts for pitcher’s abilities to give up certain types of BIP (i.e. Webb and Halladay punding the ball into the ground), and it adjusts for the values of each type. It is, IMO, the best tool we have right now to truly measure a pitcher’s value. The only issue is the BIP data has to be reliable (an issue with MILB players) and it is WAY harder to figure than FIP (although that is more of a problem to me than most people).
by rglass44 on Apr 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
FIP seems to have a glaring weakness of not accounting for a good defense. When your defense carries pianos FIP becomes far more important to evaluate.
by FreeZorilla on Apr 23, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BUT FIP makes bad players with good defenses look bad.
So looking at Jackson, he was more expendable because he looked better with other measures than he did with a defense-independent one.
by rglass44 on Apr 23, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I like FIP for it’s simplicity and the fact that it is uncorrupted by suspect batted ball data. However, tRA is probably the best predictive stat out there for pitchers.
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Apr 26, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















