When you quote infield fly rate, what are you referring to?  Your numbers are different from THT’s numbers.  It would be nice to have some continuity in how we reference stats.

Why compare it to FIP and not xFIP?

How long until fielding/luck independent pitching becomes more mainstream?

You see BABIP around, but it’s often not followed with the real juice behind it, stats like xFIP, LIPS, DIPS, tRA or what have you.

I guess what I’m talking about is that there seems to be no reason why component ERA stas aren’t talked about in the same conversations that mention BABIP.  “Mainstream” is a broad definition (as I’m not even sure what I meant by it) but you see BABIP talked about a lot now in fantasy circles, even on ESPN fantasy regularly (although you are right, never mentioned on TV).  I’m just confused as to why something like BABIP is used (relatively often) but it’s often not accompanied by component ERA talk, which to my knowledge is really the entire point of BABIP.

I’m sure I’m not alone on this sentiment but it’s become increasingly frustrating when people who use and like stats (albeit relying on outdated ones) fail to appreciate or even acknowledge these new ones.

Hi, Derek. I know you like DIPS WHIP as another indicator. Do you know if that stat can be found on any website? If not, can you let me know how I could get about calculating it? Always looking for an edge. Thanks.

My opinion on why these stats aren’t used in a bit more cynical, unfortunately. Frankly, professional baseball, as an institution, is Luddite and anti-intellectual. There’s a perverse sense of pride taken in its own counter-intellectual mythology. All the talk about the grit, hustle, and toughness that pervades the mainstream discourse on the sport is a manifestation of the jock-geek dichotomy. Jocks resent geeks (As much as the geeks resented the jocks during our formative years, the shoe is on the other foot for most of our adult lives). Jocks always had sports as the one thing they knew better than the geeks, and they will not admit that the geeks, when they apply themselves, actually understand THAT better too! It’s self-preservation. For Joe Morgan to advocate sabermetrics would be to endorse the movement toward his own obsolescence. So, what do they do? They attack this train of thought ad hominem.

Guys who actually live at home in their parents’ basements make fun of me for sitting at home in my parents basement and “inventing” bogus stats. Quite ironic, on two levels. One, my parents don’t have a basement, and I haven’t lived with them since I graduated college. Two, what stats aren’t bogus and arbitrary? Was RBI some divine decree etched on Moses’s tablet? No, it was made up! I’m rambling.

But, the point is that this type of statistical thought threatens baseball men, who pride themselves on vapid cliches like “doing what it takes to win.” Adam Dunn does what it takes to win - he does the two most important things a (corner OF) can do - he hits for lots of power and gets on base. Carlos Beltran does what it takes to win - he’s just so damn talented that it doesn’t look like he’s trying. And, even if he was lazy - 90% of Carlos Beltran is better than 120% of David Eckstein anyway. But, the MSM isn’t in the business of analyzing anything anyway - they’re in the business of hagiography, and of creating and subsequently destroying false idols. They’re threatened by progress and they resent the thinking man’s game. But, ask them who they’d rather have managing their stock portfolio, Billy Beane or Ozzie Guillen, and you know they know…

This type of thought is embraced in fantasy circles because rotisserie baseball has always been the geeky stepchild of the game - since the days of Strato. Hence one of the other common dismissals of this type of thought, “this isn’t fantasy baseball.” (As if the homers we tally aren’t based on ones that actually count for them - I give up!)