Yes. And his WHIP would be 5.00. Which is a more accurate reflection of performance?

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
jrd, I'm just curious.  If a pitcher gives up five homers in between three groundouts, is his BABIP .000?

Yes

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
jrd, I'm just curious.  If a pitcher gives up five homers in between three groundouts, is his BABIP .000?

Yes

So, his WHIP would be 5.00, his ERA would be 45.00, his OAV would be .625, but his BABIP would be .000?

You don't have a problem with that?

todd, that's an outlier. it would never happen

Choosing a real life example.....  1988 World Series, 9th inning.  Dennis Eckersley, after getting two outs, walks the execrable Mike Davis, then gives up the walk-off homer to Kirk Gibson.

BABIP = Zero.  Point.  Zero.

Todd.....    He does.  He thinks BABIP is not a stat which accurately details how well a pitcher performed.  And I think we all agree on that.  The stat sucks.

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Todd.....    He does.  He thinks BABIP is not a stat which accurately details how well a pitcher performed.  And I think we all agree on that.  The stat sucks.

But he used it to show how Catfish Hunter was somehow "luckier" than Steve Carlton

Where Jrd differs in opinion to everyone on the site is that he believes that since BABIP is a large part of WHIP  (because other than HRs, all hits are included in BABIP), WHIP is a meaningless stat

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
jrd, I'm just curious.  If a pitcher gives up five homers in between three groundouts, is his BABIP .000?

Yes

So, his WHIP would be 5.00, his ERA would be 45.00, his OAV would be .625, but his BABIP would be .000?

You don't have a problem with that?

???

BABIP is not an accurate reflection of the pitcher's skill.
WHIP relies heavily on BABIP.
WHIP is flawed.

According to the definition of BABIP, deviation from the norm of around .300 would be due to the influence of defense or luck.

Clearly, this pitcher either had an excellent defense behind him, or was a very lucky pitcher to not have allowed any balls in play to become hits.

I know this, because I clearly understand the meaning of and correct application of advanced baseball statistics better than the rest of you retards.

Wow, really?  That's what you're going with?

You really never took Logic 101 in college, did you?

No, your logic is flawed. WHIP is a reliable stat. BABIP is unreliable because it is only a FRACTION of WHIP. It doesn't take into account all outcomes.

Is BA a fairly accurate reflection of a player's hitting skill? Yes. It's why every year you see BA leaders and not BABIP leaders. BABIP would screw HR hitters and help hitters who K a lot. H + Walks + Flyouts + Groundouts + K's = WHIP. Taking one or some of those 5 elements, but not all, creates a flawed stat. WHIP may not be the be all, end all stat, but it's not flawed.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 12:49:00 PM (view original):

According to the definition of BABIP, deviation from the norm of around .300 would be due to the influence of defense or luck.

Clearly, this pitcher either had an excellent defense behind him, or was a very lucky pitcher to not have allowed any balls in play to become hits.

I know this, because I clearly understand the meaning of and correct application of advanced baseball statistics better than the rest of you retards.

Yes.  And league average BABIP in the 60s and 70s was around .275

Carlton's career BABIP was about league average.  Hunter's BABIP was about 25 points below league average.  That reflects a lot of good defense and luck.  The same way that Barry Zito's BABIP is also around 25 points below league average.  Good defense and luck.  Not a superior ability to control what happens to balls in play.

I've just created a stat called RETARD.  It stands for Runs Eddie Taubensee and Ronaldo Did.  It doesn't mean anything, but I added up the runs that Eddie Taubensee and Ronaldo scored.

It uses RUNS in the numerator, and the stat is meaningless.

Therefore RUNS are meaningless.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Wow, really?  That's what you're going with?

You really never took Logic 101 in college, did you?

I did.

Did you even go to college?