Posted by Jtpsops on 2/27/2012 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/27/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 6:09:00 PM (view original):
You used the WifS data to determine the value of players earlier.    Is WAR better than that?

No, I'm pretty sure that was Jtpsops, actually (which you didn't have a problem with, by the way).  I referred to how WIS calculates results to show that a number of people would say that the hitter affects the result of a PA more than the pitcher.

OK, I knew you used WifS database for something.   Yeah, that was dumb.

I don't read a whole lot of jtpops posts. 

I believe it was thejuice who used the WifS comparison.  Assclowns.

Posted by jm1618 on 2/27/2012 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we're demanding responses, what's your response to this?

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/05/the_location_of.php

I remember the Ted Williams chart specifically referring to batting average, that's why I talked about strike-outs.

The article makes the point that pitch location does matter for BABIP, which I agree with.  However, it didn't have much to say about the relative importance of pitcher skill vs. batter skill, which is the point I've been making.  I wonder what would happen if you made 2 BABIP charts like that, one for .300 hitters, and one for .250 hitters.  Would the BABIP in each region be more closely related to the location of the pitch, or the skill of the batter?  I'd guess that the batter has more importance.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/27/2012 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we're demanding responses, what's your response to this?

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/05/the_location_of.php

I remember the Ted Williams chart specifically referring to batting average, that's why I talked about strike-outs.

The article makes the point that pitch location does matter for BABIP, which I agree with.  However, it didn't have much to say about the relative importance of pitcher skill vs. batter skill, which is the point I've been making.  I wonder what would happen if you made 2 BABIP charts like that, one for .300 hitters, and one for .250 hitters.  Would the BABIP in each region be more closely related to the location of the pitch, or the skill of the batter?  I'd guess that the batter has more importance.

I'm not going to lie.  And I'm going to try not to be insulting.

If Ted Williams can't hit low and away pitches, doesn't it stand to reason that a .300 hitters would have less success on those types of pitches while .250 hitters would be even worse?

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would deny that better contact = more hits and that one of the greatest of all-time had a weak spot.

I didn't mean to imply you've lied.   I meant I'm not going to lie.

I find it unbelievable that anyone who's ever watched/played a baseball game thinks that a pitch in the fat part of the plate is just as likely to fall in for a hit as one in the same batters' weak spot.    Assuming contact.    That strikes me as someone who has no comprehension of the game beyond a stat book.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 6:26:00 PM (view original):
No, but lets look at them side by side. 

Carlton at 31:
252 IP
3.13 ERA
114 ERA+
2.93 FIP
1.172 WHIP
3.7 WAR

Hunter at 31:
143 IP
4.71 ERA
98 ERA+
5.69 FIP
1.284 WHIP
-0.6 WAR

Oh goodie!  Can I play that game too?

Carlton at 28:
293 IP
3.90 ERA
97 ERA+
4.12 FIP
1.384 WHIP
2.3 WAR

Hunter at 28:
318 IP
2.49 ERA
134 ERA+
3.75 FIP
0.986 WHIP
6.4 WAR
. . . and a CYA for Hunter.

You are a friggin' retard for wanting to play the "cherry picking" game.

Sweet.  Now that we're playing the "compare Hunter's best year to Carlton's" game, using those stats: 

Pitcher    IP      ERA   ERA+    FIP    WHIP     WAR
Carlton   346    1.97   182     2.01    0.993     12.2
Hunter    318    2.49   134     3.75    0.986       6.4

Wow.  I like that Carlton steak a lot better than that Hunter steak.
  

Awesome.  Let's compare other pitchers best seasons:

Mark Fidrych  250 IP, 2.34 ERA, 159 ERA+, 3.68 FIP, 1.079 WHIP, 8.5 WAR
Bert Blyleven  245 IP, 2.87 ERA, 144 ERA+, 3.73 FIP, 1.135 WHIP, 6.2 WAR

Who had the better career?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 6:26:00 PM (view original):
No, but lets look at them side by side. 

Carlton at 31:
252 IP
3.13 ERA
114 ERA+
2.93 FIP
1.172 WHIP
3.7 WAR

Hunter at 31:
143 IP
4.71 ERA
98 ERA+
5.69 FIP
1.284 WHIP
-0.6 WAR

Oh goodie!  Can I play that game too?

Carlton at 28:
293 IP
3.90 ERA
97 ERA+
4.12 FIP
1.384 WHIP
2.3 WAR

Hunter at 28:
318 IP
2.49 ERA
134 ERA+
3.75 FIP
0.986 WHIP
6.4 WAR
. . . and a CYA for Hunter.

You are a friggin' retard for wanting to play the "cherry picking" game.

Sweet.  Now that we're playing the "compare Hunter's best year to Carlton's" game, using those stats: 

Pitcher    IP      ERA   ERA+    FIP    WHIP     WAR
Carlton   346    1.97   182     2.01    0.993     12.2
Hunter    318    2.49   134     3.75    0.986       6.4

Wow.  I like that Carlton steak a lot better than that Hunter steak.
  

Awesome.  Let's compare other pitchers best seasons:

Mark Fidrych  250 IP, 2.34 ERA, 159 ERA+, 3.68 FIP, 1.079 WHIP, 8.5 WAR
Bert Blyleven  245 IP, 2.87 ERA, 144 ERA+, 3.73 FIP, 1.135 WHIP, 6.2 WAR

Who had the better career?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2012 7:45:00 PM (view original):
"The pitcher has no control once the ball is hit on whether it will be caught" has been repeated over and over again.

1. We've agreed that the pitcher is 100% in charge of location.
2. We've agreed that all balls are not struck equally well.
3. We've almost agreed that location is one of the most important, if not the most important, factors in how well a ball can be struck.

Once one of you will commit to #3, I think we can throw out "The pitcher has no control once the ball is hit on whether it will be caught" simply because he's the one who was largely responsible for how well the ball was hit.  Which is one of the biggest factors on whether or not it can be caught.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 8:13:00 PM (view original):
Here's another hypothitical for you.  Based on real numbers by two different pitchers.

Player A: 3621 IP, 3.42 ERA, 100 ERA+, 4.48 FIP, 1.191 WHIP, .243 OAV, .299 OBP, .390 SLG, .689 OPS
Player B: 3659 IP, 3.23 ERA, 104 ERA+, 3.91 FIP, 1.287 WHIP, .249 OAV, .317 OBP, .410 SLG, .728 OPS

The last four items (OAV, OBP, SLG, OPS) were for hitters against that pitcher.

Who's the better pitcher?