And the fact that Carlton dwarfed Hunter's total seasons with top 5 and top 10 honors is NOT due to longevity.  As you and Mike so correctly posted.....  more than half of the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years, and he certainly was not posting top 10 finishes in major stat categories during that time.  Meaning that the majority of his seasons in which he outdistanced himself from Hunter, Carlton threw while they were contemporaries.

E - I still think there's room for debate, but my overall point is, jrd's methods for "proving" Carlton as the better pitcher. And now, he refuses to answer a hypothetical question because the longevity argument is no longer in play for him.

I'm not answering because tec won't admit that he changed the stats.  I don't need to know which stats or by how much.  And I'm going to answer either way.

But not until I get an answer.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

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.

Hits are 2/3 of WHIP in the example I posted. 

Taking hits out of WHIP is pretty much BB/9.   Not much value in that. 

I'd still like 5 examples where you consider the guy with a 1.5 WHIP to be better than the guy with 1.1 WHIP.   Baseball has played a lot of seasons.  A lot of innings have been pitched.  Surely you can find 5 examples to back up what you claim. 

We've already established that BABIP isn't controlled by the pitcher.  If BABIP isn't controlled by the pitcher, we shouldn't be using it to evaluate pitchers.

If WHIP is heavily dependent on a stat that we shouldn't be using to evaluate pitchers, then we shouldn't be using WHIP to evaluate pitchers.

We've established no such thing.   You've repeated it over and over again but I'm not sure anyone has agreed with you.

5 examples, please.

Jtpsops said it was useless.

E - I still think there's room for debate, but my overall point is, jrd's methods for "proving" Carlton as the better pitcher. And now, he refuses to answer a hypothetical question because the longevity argument is no longer in play for him.




Of course there is room for debate.  In fact, if it is your opinion that Hunter was better than Carlton, you can't be wrong.  An opinion (not an interpretation of fact) can't be wrong.

You can't have it be your opinion that Hunter racked up more top 10 finishes in major stat categories than Carlton.  But it can be your opinion that even though Carlton had many more top 10 finishes in important pitching categories than did Hunter, Hunter was the better pitcher.  It is very difficult to successfully argue.....  but you cant be wrong.  It's your opinion.  My opinion would differ.  My opinion is Carlton was better after looking back at the accumulated career stats.  Before I did that, I would have thought they were close to equal.  After doing research, I came to the conclusion that Carlton was a better pitcher, and had the better career.  If you differ in opinion, you're not wrong.  You just came to a different conclusion after looking at the facts.  There are no "wrong" opinions.  They are just that.  An opinion.

jtpops is useless.

BABIP does not count homers.  They're still hits.  BABIP does not count strikeouts.  They are still outs.    Hits and outs are pretty important aspects of the game.

E, I think ALL of us know our own positions re: Hunter v. Carlton, and how we arrived at them.  It's just that jrd's insistence on the VAST superiority of Carlton based on a couple of recently invented stats (that even he doesn't understand) is perplexing/irritating/amusing to most of us.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I'm not answering because tec won't admit that he changed the stats.  I don't need to know which stats or by how much.  And I'm going to answer either way.

But not until I get an answer.

Do you realize how childish that sounds?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
jtpops is useless.

BABIP does not count homers.  They're still hits.  BABIP does not count strikeouts.  They are still outs.    Hits and outs are pretty important aspects of the game.

No ****.  BABIP is heavily incorporated into WHIP though.  If BABIP isn't a skill and makes up a large part of WHIP, then a large part of WHIP isn't a skill and we shouldn't use it.

jrd/BABIP is rapidly becoming the uncleal/LH2B of this year.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
jtpops is useless.

BABIP does not count homers.  They're still hits.  BABIP does not count strikeouts.  They are still outs.    Hits and outs are pretty important aspects of the game.

Don't drag me into this, potato boy.

I said BABIP was useless becasue it only incorporates select outcomes. It penalizes strikeout pitchers (since their K's don't count as outs) and let's HR pitchers off the hook. WHIP includes all outs and all baserunners - it's a very useful stat. But jrd is once again twisting the argument and saying "well if BABIP is useless, and it's part of WHIP, then WHIP is useless". And so the carousel of flawed logic spins on.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:23:00 PM (view original):
jrd/BABIP is rapidly becoming the uncleal/LH2B of this year.

Excellent point.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
jtpops is useless.

BABIP does not count homers.  They're still hits.  BABIP does not count strikeouts.  They are still outs.    Hits and outs are pretty important aspects of the game.

Don't drag me into this, potato boy.

I said BABIP was useless becasue it only incorporates select outcomes. It penalizes strikeout pitchers (since their K's don't count as outs) and let's HR pitchers off the hook. WHIP includes all outs and all baserunners - it's a very useful stat. But jrd is once again twisting the argument and saying "well if BABIP is useless, and it's part of WHIP, then WHIP is useless". And so the carousel of flawed logic spins on.

Can a pitcher control his BABIP?

jrd, I'm just curious.  If a pitcher gives up five homers in between three groundouts, is his BABIP .000?