TEC, try this...

If the stats you posted are true and not tampered with, tell him so - I'm curious to see what his answer will be.

Better yet, if the stats are fake/tampered with/not legitimate, still tell him that they are true and not tampered with.  It'll drive him nuts trying to find the player they belong to, and I'd STILL like to see what his answer will be.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
YES!

Home runs allowed are.
Walks allowed are.
Strikeouts are.

hits/outs in play? No.

Wow.

Just. 

Wow.

Do you think that controlling hits/outs in play is a skill?

Todd?

Yes, it is more indicative of skill than simply throwing it aside as luck.

Just because there are clumps around the mean does not preclude the possibility of SKILL.

You're assuming that massing around the mean MUST mean that there is no skill.  There is no evidence to support that assumption.  Just because Randy Johnson and Jose Lima might have the same BABIP (not sure if this is even true), doesn't mean that SOME PITCHERS can't raise or lower the stat based on an ability or inability to control the pitch.

Your logic is so flawed in this matter that NOBODY agrees with your logic, though some might agree with your conclusion.

Here are the top ten starting pitchers by BABIP since 96 (min 1000 IP):

Matt Cain
Barry Zito
Ted Lilly
Orlando Hernandez
Johan Santan
Jarrod Washburn
Carlos Zambrano
Kerry Wood
Jered Weaver
Woody Williams

Here are the top 10 by FIP for the same years and min IP:

Pedro Martinez
Tim Lincecum
Kevin Brown
Randy Johnson
John Smoltz
Curt Schilling
Roy Halladay
Roger Clemens
Roy Oswalt
Felix Hernandez


Which stat looks more like of a reflection of skill?

I waiting for my 5 examples, in the history of baseball, where the 1.1 WHIP guy would be considered worse than the 1.5 WHIP guy.

Quit looking up useless **** like BABIP/FIP and find 5 examples.

Here's what BABIP proves:  Taking HRA and K out of a pitcher's equation is kind of stupid.   Much like FIP which is almost BABIP exact opposite.

BABIP influences WHIP somewhat.  Would you agree?   A very small amount, yes.

Even if it's just a small amount, we're talking about two pitchers separated in WHIP by 0.091 (Carlton's WHIP 65-79 WHIP of 1.225 vs Hunter's 1.134). Carlton's WHIP was 8.0% higher than Hunter's (.091/1.134)

We know that Hunter has a BABIP 25 points lower than Carlton.   Carlton had a BB/9 28% higher than Hunter's though (3.2 to 2.5 or 0.7/2.5) and a K/9 that was 36.5% higher than Hunter's and a HR/9 that was 42.9% lower than Hunter's.  So......    his WHIP was MUCH closer to Hunter's because BABIP doesnt include K/9 and BB/9 and HR/9 and they were radically different pitchers in that aspect, but not in BABIP as much.

Several people have argued that WHIP is the best stat to use to evaluate the difference between Carlton and Hunter.  Is it?   No.  It's a starting point, but they are both well under MLB averages, but ERA+ would compare them better and Carlton was SIGNIFICANTLY better because Hunter was well below MLB average at HR/9

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter

Jim Palmer

Charlie Hough

Tom Seaver

Dave Stieb

Mel Stottlemyre

Juan Marichal

Don Sutton

Luis Tiant

Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.

Of the top 10 BABIP pitchers on jrd's list, five are Hall of Famers.  Four of the other five made multiple All Star appearances.  The only "outlier" of the bunch is Charlie Hough, who was a knuckleballer.  According to what I have read about BABIP, knuckleballers tend to have abnormally low BABIPs.

Interesting how the top 10 pitchers on this list are either HOFers, or were generally regarded as very good pitchers in their primes.  Why is that?

More "fun facts" about BABIP:

• Very few pitchers with long careers have BABIP above the league average
• There are no pitchers in the Hall of Fame with a BABIP higher than .300.

Since "more" implies "better" according to jrd, then players with long careers must be better than players with short careers,  So is there some sort of mysterious correlation between BABIP and "better" pitchers.  Or is that an unexplained statistical anomoly?

It's also interesting that there are no HOFer pitchers with a BABIP higher than .300.  Since .300 is the magical norm that everybody converges to over time, is this just another unexplained statistical anomoly?  Or might there be another reason?

I need jrd_x to enlighten me.

jrd, do you understand the concept of curve-fitting?  Y'know... where you start with a pre-conceived notion of the "best" or the "most" and then you try and fit correlative stats and numbers that will best match your own pre-conceived notion?

Just watch the games.  Get out from behind your spreadsheets and your stat charts.  Watch the game.  Learn how a good pitcher (like Matt Cain or Johan Santana) can take the sting out of a bat, even with a 3-1 count.  Learn how a crappy pitcher (like Barry Zito or Ted Lilly) can walk people and give up 500-ft bombs, but still strike out a couple on big curveballs.  There are DIFFERENT ways to achieve a low BABIP, which is why it isn't so much a meaningless stat, but an easy-to-misinterpret stat when in the hands of someone (like you) that has no ******* clue about the game.

Posted by thejuice6 on 2/29/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):
TEC, try this...

If the stats you posted are true and not tampered with, tell him so - I'm curious to see what his answer will be.

Better yet, if the stats are fake/tampered with/not legitimate, still tell him that they are true and not tampered with.  It'll drive him nuts trying to find the player they belong to, and I'd STILL like to see what his answer will be.

OK.

jrd, the stats that I provided in my hypothetical are not altered in any way.

Please answer the question.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2012 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer my question. Does "based on" mean you changed them or the years aren't consecutive?

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?

It's a hypothetical based on real stats by two real pitchers.

For the sake of this example, full careers. Including ramp-up at the beginning, decline at the end.

So you don't have to look back for the hypothetical, here are the numbers again.

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
BABIP influences WHIP somewhat.  Would you agree?   A very small amount, yes.

Even if it's just a small amount, we're talking about two pitchers separated in WHIP by 0.091 (Carlton's WHIP 65-79 WHIP of 1.225 vs Hunter's 1.134). Carlton's WHIP was 8.0% higher than Hunter's (.091/1.134)

We know that Hunter has a BABIP 25 points lower than Carlton.   Carlton had a BB/9 28% higher than Hunter's though (3.2 to 2.5 or 0.7/2.5) and a K/9 that was 36.5% higher than Hunter's and a HR/9 that was 42.9% lower than Hunter's.  So......    his WHIP was MUCH closer to Hunter's because BABIP doesnt include K/9 and BB/9 and HR/9 and they were radically different pitchers in that aspect, but not in BABIP as much.

Several people have argued that WHIP is the best stat to use to evaluate the difference between Carlton and Hunter.  Is it?   No.  It's a starting point, but they are both well under MLB averages, but ERA+ would compare them better and Carlton was SIGNIFICANTLY better because Hunter was well below MLB average at HR/9

Wouldn't FIP be even better than ERA+ since it avoids BABIP completely and just focuses on HR, K, and BB?

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2012 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer my question. Does "based on" mean you changed them or the years aren't consecutive?

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?

It's a hypothetical based on real stats by two real pitchers.

For the sake of this example, full careers. Including ramp-up at the beginning, decline at the end.

So you don't have to look back for the hypothetical, here are the numbers again.

Ok. Since those stats were not altered in any way, B was better for those innings pitched.

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter

Jim Palmer

Charlie Hough

Tom Seaver

Dave Stieb

Mel Stottlemyre

Juan Marichal

Don Sutton

Luis Tiant

Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.

Of the top 10 BABIP pitchers on jrd's list, five are Hall of Famers.  Four of the other five made multiple All Star appearances.  The only "outlier" of the bunch is Charlie Hough, who was a knuckleballer.  According to what I have read about BABIP, knuckleballers tend to have abnormally low BABIPs.

Interesting how the top 10 pitchers on this list are either HOFers, or were generally regarded as very good pitchers in their primes.  Why is that?

More "fun facts" about BABIP:

• Very few pitchers with long careers have BABIP above the league average
• There are no pitchers in the Hall of Fame with a BABIP higher than .300.

Since "more" implies "better" according to jrd, then players with long careers must be better than players with short careers,  So is there some sort of mysterious correlation between BABIP and "better" pitchers.  Or is that an unexplained statistical anomoly?

It's also interesting that there are no HOFer pitchers with a BABIP higher than .300.  Since .300 is the magical norm that everybody converges to over time, is this just another unexplained statistical anomoly?  Or might there be another reason?

I need jrd_x to enlighten me.

.300 has only been the league average since the mid to late 90s.  In the 60s and 70s league average was around .275.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2012 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer my question. Does "based on" mean you changed them or the years aren't consecutive?

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?

It's a hypothetical based on real stats by two real pitchers.

For the sake of this example, full careers. Including ramp-up at the beginning, decline at the end.

So you don't have to look back for the hypothetical, here are the numbers again.

Ok. Since those stats were not altered in any way, B was better for those innings pitched.

So I answered you.  Now what?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2012 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer my question. Does "based on" mean you changed them or the years aren't consecutive?

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?

It's a hypothetical based on real stats by two real pitchers.

For the sake of this example, full careers. Including ramp-up at the beginning, decline at the end.

So you don't have to look back for the hypothetical, here are the numbers again.

Ok. Since those stats were not altered in any way, B was better for those innings pitched.

Explain.