Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:12:00 AM (view original):
I think you just answered your own question - maybe a lightbulb will go off now. Hunter had the better WHIP, therefore...

As for tec's question - why should he answer you? His answer won't (or at least shouldn't) have any bearing on yours. Better question is, why won't YOU answer? Afraid you might contradict 60 pages of work?
He's the one that wants me to answer a question.  I'm willing to, on one condition.  He admits whether or not the stats are real or altered.  I'm still going to answer either way, but I want to know ahead of time.

If he doesn't want to answer, oh well, I guess you guys will have live without my answer.
2/29/2012 10:14 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
751 1 2 2 144
Prospect
KEVIN GREGG IS THE BEST CLOSER EVER!!
2/29/2012 10:14 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
751 1 2 2 144
Prospect
jrd, get real. It's not tec's fault you can't read. First of all, no pitchers in the history of the game have those career IP totals. Therefore, the numbers do not represent full careers. Secondly, tec clearly said "based on real pitchers, and we'll assume full careers."  Therefore, I think it's pretty safe to say those are ACTUAL, UNCHANGED numbers that form partial stretches of two pitchers' (or *gasp* the same pitcher's) careers.

Stop dodging and smokescreening and try to answer one damn question directly in this thread without whining like a little spoiled girl for 10 pages.
2/29/2012 10:16 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.
2/29/2012 10:18 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:05:00 AM (view original):
jrd - as tec said, if they have been changed, will that somehow alter your answer about which player is better? Whether he pulled the numbers out of his *** or based them on real players, that should have NO bearing on you deciding which player is better based on stats. The only reason for wanting to know if he altered the stats or not would be so you know if you can somehow find a match or not.
Are you stupid?

If he says, yes, he changed them, I'll still answer him and I won't be able to look anything up.  Why won't he answer?

You have provided absolutely no reason why you NEED to know in order to answer the question.  In fact, you are saying that you have an answer without needing that info.

As I stated previously, the other time I provided you extraneous information on a hypothetical example, you became massively distracted by the irrelevant info after the fact.  I'm not going there again.

At this point, I don't really care if you answer the question or not.  I think the point proven here is that you're acting as if you have something to hide.  One can only assume what that is.  And if you're hiding something, that goes directly against what little credibility with respect to baseball knowledge you may think that you have.

 

2/29/2012 10:19 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):
jrd, get real. It's not tec's fault you can't read. First of all, no pitchers in the history of the game have those career IP totals. Therefore, the numbers do not represent full careers. Secondly, tec clearly said "based on real pitchers, and we'll assume full careers."  Therefore, I think it's pretty safe to say those are ACTUAL, UNCHANGED numbers that form partial stretches of two pitchers' (or *gasp* the same pitcher's) careers.

Stop dodging and smokescreening and try to answer one damn question directly in this thread without whining like a little spoiled girl for 10 pages.
All he has to do is say that and I'll answer.

Or he can tell me he changed them.  And I'll still answer.

Or he can **** off.
2/29/2012 10:20 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
751 1 2 2 144
Prospect
*yawn* With the superior stat and baseball knowledge you've been declaring throughout this thread, this little hissy fit is proving you actually have none. You determine in your mind who the better pitcher is, then manipulate stats to "prove" it. When given stats, without a player or context, you can't answer the question. Which further proves what the rest of us have been saying this entire thread - that seeing players play and knowing context is key in determining who is the better player. "Best" cannot simply be determined by looking at a stat sheet.
2/29/2012 10:23 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.

1. 9 is greater than three.   No formula changes that.    3 is not half of 9 no matter how you word it.  
2. 5 examples, please. 

2/29/2012 10:27 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
751 1 2 2 144
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.
Wow...a stat nerd with no grasp of basic mathematics. That's a first.  (9+3)/9 = 12/9 = 1.33.  9 is not "half" of the numerator - 6 is. Just because there are two values, doesn't make one half.

And 300 win pitchers can't be worse than 100 win pitchers because they pitched longer. That automatically makes them better.
2/29/2012 10:36 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.


Oh my.  Jrd....   you made some valid points, but how can you possibly argue that others dont understand advanced metrics, when you post that????

B makes up half of the VARIABLES COMPRISING the numerator.  Not half the numerator.  Otherwise the chance of you winning the lottery are 50/50.  Either you win or you dont.  Those are the 2 variables.  Forget how heavily one is weighted over another.....  

2/29/2012 11:00 AM (edited)
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.

1. 9 is greater than three.   No formula changes that.    3 is not half of 9 no matter how you word it.  
2. 5 examples, please. 

Fine, who cares, even if hits are only a third of WHIP.  It doesn't matter.  If BABIP tells us nothing, as several have argued in this thread, it is useless.  If it is useless we can take BABIP out of WHIP. Once you do that, you are left with walks and home runs.  We don't need WHIP to measure those.
2/29/2012 11:18 AM (edited)
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
751 1 2 2 144
Prospect
Still waiting for an answer on tec's question, dodger.
2/29/2012 11:01 AM
tecwrg2
Posts: 237 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 2 3 94
Prospect
He's got going to answer.  You have to wonder why not.
2/29/2012 11:08 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.


Oh my.  Jrd....   you made some valid points, but how can you possibly argue that others dont understand advanced metrics, when you post that????

B makes up half of the VARIABLES COMPRISING the numerator.  Not half the numerator.  Otherwise the chance of you winning the lottery are 50/50.  Either you win or you dont.  Those are the 2 variables.  Forget how heavily one is weighted over another.....  

You're right I worded it poorly.  I meant they are weighed evenly in the calculation.
2/29/2012 11:12 AM
◂ Prev 1...61|62|63|64|65...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.