Add new comment

Points we can agree on.
1) "General" range of runs allowed per team per season is about 300 (600 - 900)
2) "General" range of Ks generated per team per season is about 300 (900 - 1200)
3) "General" range of hits allowed per team per season is about 300 (1350 - 1650)
So, at least in this glance at the stats, the concept of a 50/50 split between defense and pitching has some "untweaked" data to support it.
BUT -- a strikeout, while being an out, does *NOT* prevent a hit. It only prevents a ball-in-play. And the ball-in-play WILL be turned into an out (by the defense) roughly 2/3 of the time. So, only 1/3 of strikeouts actually prevent a hit.
Meanwhile, a fielding out DOES prevent a hit, because fielding is the last line of defense. If they don't make the play, it's a hit.
If one were to, (for the sake of argument), divide the K column by three to take into account the fact that 2/3 of non-Ks are going to turn into outs anyway, then you would end up with a K range of 300-400, and when compared to the hits range, you'd be right back in the vicinity of the original 20/7 ratio. Hmmmm.
Now, before the steam starts pouring out your ears, (or the ears of any other SABR dudes lurking), if blithely dismissing 2/3 of the strikeouts generated as trivial seems arbitrary and capricious, I would respond that doing so for fielding plays is EQUALLY arbitrary and capricious. If one is going to ever build a complete working defensive model, then one has to account for EVERY out -- not just the easy or hard ones. And if one decides that looking only at the "above baseline" plays is required to complete a working model - then it only makes sense to utilize the same logic for BOTH fielding and pitching.
I remember that some of your foundation work was heavy into Bases-per-out. I think that is an excellent starting point for defensive analysis. But, if you take the total bases allowed by a team during a season, and then split the credit between pitching/defense with outs -- well, you run right back to that 20/7 split I'm starting with -- and then it becomes a "chore" to explain why credit for outs recorded by fielders should somehow be ignored - or the value of those outs diminished or transfered to the pitchers in some way.
One of the limitations of analysis for defense is that practically all I've seen BEGINS with the assumption of an average defense -- and given that foundation, the DIPs numbers behave very nicely. But, you get a non-standard defense, and they simply fall apart.
Well, the best run-suppression teams around are "typically" those with superior DER totals -- and these are the very teams that don't work well with the models. I see a flaw with an approach that says, essentially -- "To become really great, you have to do "something" that simply doesn't work within the confines of the model we have to work with today."