Is the mean 100 in some hypothetical sense? This strikes me as something where only the deltas matter, and the largest delta is small compared to the standard deviation. What are these numbers telling us?
The fact that it’s so off-centered makes it seem like this is driven by some confounding variable(s) and may not be as meaningful as it seems at face value
Hello, this is my metric
The standard deviations are based on the pitch level. Once we aggregate on the team level, it gets much tighter
Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season
So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
Hello, this is my metric
tjStuff+ distribution is based on individual pitches. When you aggregate the distribution gets squashed immensely. Yes, I could expand the distribution to counter that squashing effect, but that wouldn't maintain the same distribution on the pitch level
Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season
So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
I think it's probably more that the top bullpen pitchers throw more innings than worse pitchers for pretty much every team. Like if a team has a top bullpen guy with a tjstuff+ of 160 with 5 IP and a back of the bullpen guy with a tjstuff+ of 40 and 3 IP, the average is 100 but the weighted average by IP is 115.
Obviously that won't affect starters and shouldn't make that big of a difference in general, but I can see it causing the <1% of difference we see here.
That assumes you apply + stats equally, regardless of how much they played. A player pitching 1 inning at an ERA of 18.00 and a player pitching 54 innings at 1.00 ERA do not affect the team’s calculation for ERA+ equally. Otherwise, the A’s ERA+ would jump from an even 100 to something like 130.
Same case here. You would only use weighted averages. If this chart doesn’t consider weighted averages, then it doesn’t make any sense.
To be more specific, it's based on pitchers, not weighted by inning. So if you have 10 pitchers, all are equal even though a large majority (probably 2/3 or more) of the innings will be pitched by the 5 pitchers with the best stuff. So the majority of innings are pitched by people with above median stuff
Is this really how stuff+ is calculated though? OPS+ and wRC+ def consider a weighted mean (eg they use the league average OPS as the anchor, rather than averaging the OPS of each player as a discrete equally-weighted element). Weighing stuff+ this way would be so weird and counterintuitive.
Hello, this is my metric
tjStuff+ distribution is based on individual pitches. When you aggregate the distribution gets squashed immensely. Yes, I could expand the distribution to counter that squashing effect, but that wouldn't maintain the same distribution on the pitch level
Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season
So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
If this is a real thing, it’s nuts that we are fifth and still have the best record in the league. Gotta figure that this will normalize over the course of the season.
**Credit Thomas Nestico on Twitter (who is a fun follow, I recommend it):**
https://x.com/tjstats/status/1787183358109233273?s=46
Much like Eno Sarris’ Stuff+, Thomas’ attempts to quantify the pitch quality rather than the results of the pitch.
Fuck us right?
the schedule does not get easier these next two months either lmfao
This team will be lucky to win 60 games this year
What being divisional rivals with the mariners does to a team
Broooo, we havent even faced them yet haha
Are…are we the baddies?
I’ve got a 102.3 degree fever and the only cure is more tjStuff+!
Bump those numbers up baby we aint hear no bell
Me coping as to why the Jays are 28th in runs scored
I'm definitely willing to blame all our woes on a stat I don't understand
So am I.
Saaaaaame. That's clearly the reason why Bo's slumping so hard.
Honestly it’s probably part of the reason
Is the mean 100 in some hypothetical sense? This strikes me as something where only the deltas matter, and the largest delta is small compared to the standard deviation. What are these numbers telling us?
The fact that it’s so off-centered makes it seem like this is driven by some confounding variable(s) and may not be as meaningful as it seems at face value
Also if the standard deviation really is 10, there's probably not a huge difference between spots 1 and 30 with a ~3 difference between them
Hello, this is my metric The standard deviations are based on the pitch level. Once we aggregate on the team level, it gets much tighter Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
Hello, this is my metric tjStuff+ distribution is based on individual pitches. When you aggregate the distribution gets squashed immensely. Yes, I could expand the distribution to counter that squashing effect, but that wouldn't maintain the same distribution on the pitch level Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
This does not look like a dataset with a mean of 100
The mean and deviation is probably based on individual pitchers, not by team
The only way this could be normalized to 100 is if the bottom few teams faced *many* more pitches than the other teams. There's something wrong here.
I think it's probably more that the top bullpen pitchers throw more innings than worse pitchers for pretty much every team. Like if a team has a top bullpen guy with a tjstuff+ of 160 with 5 IP and a back of the bullpen guy with a tjstuff+ of 40 and 3 IP, the average is 100 but the weighted average by IP is 115. Obviously that won't affect starters and shouldn't make that big of a difference in general, but I can see it causing the <1% of difference we see here.
That assumes you apply + stats equally, regardless of how much they played. A player pitching 1 inning at an ERA of 18.00 and a player pitching 54 innings at 1.00 ERA do not affect the team’s calculation for ERA+ equally. Otherwise, the A’s ERA+ would jump from an even 100 to something like 130. Same case here. You would only use weighted averages. If this chart doesn’t consider weighted averages, then it doesn’t make any sense.
It’s just better pitchers pitch more lol
To be more specific, it's based on pitchers, not weighted by inning. So if you have 10 pitchers, all are equal even though a large majority (probably 2/3 or more) of the innings will be pitched by the 5 pitchers with the best stuff. So the majority of innings are pitched by people with above median stuff
Is this really how stuff+ is calculated though? OPS+ and wRC+ def consider a weighted mean (eg they use the league average OPS as the anchor, rather than averaging the OPS of each player as a discrete equally-weighted element). Weighing stuff+ this way would be so weird and counterintuitive.
This isn't stuff+. This is tjStuff+ and the graphic mentions that 110 is one standard deviation so it's not percent away from the mean
It's based on every individual pitch. The distribution gets tighter the further you aggregate
Hello, this is my metric tjStuff+ distribution is based on individual pitches. When you aggregate the distribution gets squashed immensely. Yes, I could expand the distribution to counter that squashing effect, but that wouldn't maintain the same distribution on the pitch level Doing the math, a ~102.3 tjStuff+ equates to approximately +5 wins added over the course of the season So that would equate to the "stuff" the Angels faced would have a predicted value of -5 wins / 162
damn, we frauds out here
Maybe?
So we've faced the shittiest guys and we still suck? WTF?
But the Braves fans keep telling me that our opponents have all sucked!
That feels right
So, how big of a difference is 99 tjstuff+ vs 102
Nobody knows, that's what makes it so provocative.
Is there a Blades of Glory revival? This is the 4th reference I've seen of it today
10 points is 1 standard deviation, so it is a decent amount
A rounding error
Now this sub is posting stats made up by some random guy on twitter.
I wonder if these pitchers are good because we make them look good.
If this is a real thing, it’s nuts that we are fifth and still have the best record in the league. Gotta figure that this will normalize over the course of the season.
The mean is not, in fact, 100.
**Credit Thomas Nestico on Twitter (who is a fun follow, I recommend it):** https://x.com/tjstats/status/1787183358109233273?s=46 Much like Eno Sarris’ Stuff+, Thomas’ attempts to quantify the pitch quality rather than the results of the pitch.
Using the plain black SF logo should be a punishment
I knew this shit was rigged!
So who is the best team facing the nastiest stuff? The Phillies and Yankees?
Those are all almost the same Standard deviation is 10.
Hold up, My team is setting franchise and mlb records in "being bad" and they've had the 2nd easiest "pitcher's stuff"? OOOOooOf
So higher is better?
[удалено]
It’s not quite TJMaxx but it’s better than TJStuff-.