Which on for Cy Young Topic

oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Whip and ERA shouldn't be used to evaluate best pitcher.  The use of K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and innings are the numbers to look at as well as park factors.  I mean you could look at more but we don't have all that information through the simulator.
So not allowing baserunners or runs isn't important?

What sort of game do you play?
I think the point he is making is that allowing baserunners or runs depends on external factors like your defense, which is not an individual measurement.  If you want to measure an individual pitchers ability the only stats we have are K's, BB's and HRA
2/20/2012 1:17 PM
oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
Posted by jvford on 2/20/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
And if you ignore the parks for a sec (I know, big if), the extra 81 innings came with a 1.45 WHIP and 4.55 ERA.  Not exactly tough to find 81 ML average innings.
Can you explain how you came up with this
2/20/2012 1:18 PM
JFerg
Posts: 86 (0)
Veteran
9 1 2 4 13
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 2/20/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):
205 is plenty
It's not 286.  Do not belittle the value of 286 innings.  It's more.  I mean where do we cut off then?  150 innings?  200 innings?  Nashville was able to pitch more then Honululu.  You do not evaluate 205 innings and 286 innings the same, that's stupid.
2/20/2012 1:20 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Pitchers have to face batters, right?

I don't think pitchers have complete control of anything except IBB. 

I know everyone loves FIP but not giving up hits, walks or runs is the name of the game.   Anyway, the team ERA of Nashville was 3.93.   Honolulu was 3.88.   Under similar conditions, Sheldon is clearly the superior pitcher.
2/20/2012 1:24 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, FWIW, Nashville and Honolulu had very similar defensive stats.   Defense isn't really a factor. 
2/20/2012 1:27 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 2/20/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):
205 is plenty
It's not 286.  Do not belittle the value of 286 innings.  It's more.  I mean where do we cut off then?  150 innings?  200 innings?  Nashville was able to pitch more then Honululu.  You do not evaluate 205 innings and 286 innings the same, that's stupid.
Right.  You look at the the value of the additional 81 innings.  And in this case they weren't that valuable. 

And before you go off on another "what the pitcher can control" argument, keep in mind that this is not real baseball.  For all we know, a pitcher's splits and pitches could have a bigger impact on WHIP than defense.
2/20/2012 1:32 PM
oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Pitchers have to face batters, right?

I don't think pitchers have complete control of anything except IBB. 

I know everyone loves FIP but not giving up hits, walks or runs is the name of the game.   Anyway, the team ERA of Nashville was 3.93.   Honolulu was 3.88.   Under similar conditions, Sheldon is clearly the superior pitcher.
The problem is that FIP is a determining factor in whether a pitcher gives up runs, and BB's and Hits are already  included in FIP, so FIP is a far better way to measure a pitchers skillset then whip.
2/20/2012 1:33 PM
oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
Posted by jvford on 2/20/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 2/20/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):
205 is plenty
It's not 286.  Do not belittle the value of 286 innings.  It's more.  I mean where do we cut off then?  150 innings?  200 innings?  Nashville was able to pitch more then Honululu.  You do not evaluate 205 innings and 286 innings the same, that's stupid.
Right.  You look at the the value of the additional 81 innings.  And in this case they weren't that valuable. 

And before you go off on another "what the pitcher can control" argument, keep in mind that this is not real baseball.  For all we know, a pitcher's splits and pitches could have a bigger impact on WHIP than defense.
Can you explain how you came up with the value of those additional 81 innings.
2/20/2012 1:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And by "clearly superior", I mean Sheldon's production would have been much tougher to replace on his team.
2/20/2012 1:35 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/20/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 2/20/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
And if you ignore the parks for a sec (I know, big if), the extra 81 innings came with a 1.45 WHIP and 4.55 ERA.  Not exactly tough to find 81 ML average innings.
Can you explain how you came up with this
Calculate how many baserunners and runs each pitcher gave up.

Calculate the WHIP and ERA of the additional 81 innings using the difference of baserunners and runs between the two pitchers.
2/20/2012 1:35 PM
JFerg
Posts: 86 (0)
Veteran
9 1 2 4 13
Prospect

It's a balanced schedule so it's a wash on the argument of pitchers have to face batters, they faced similar batters with similar skill sets through out the season .  Hits have a large dependency on fielding and again stadium.  HRs allowed matters quite a bit and to hide it from your statement proves you are only attempting to use the numbers that benefit your side of the argument.  The Nashville pitcher is clearly the superior pitcher.  Not Sheldon.

2/20/2012 1:37 PM
oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
I dont think that takes enough into account.  Thats saying that they were exactly even pitchers through the 200 some innings that Sheldon pitched, which is clearly not the case.
2/20/2012 1:38 PM
JFerg
Posts: 86 (0)
Veteran
9 1 2 4 13
Prospect

And what does Team ERA have to do with this?  Couldn't Nashville just have the better rotation?  That was just dumb to bring up unless I'm missing something here.

2/20/2012 1:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by oriolemagic on 2/20/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Pitchers have to face batters, right?

I don't think pitchers have complete control of anything except IBB. 

I know everyone loves FIP but not giving up hits, walks or runs is the name of the game.   Anyway, the team ERA of Nashville was 3.93.   Honolulu was 3.88.   Under similar conditions, Sheldon is clearly the superior pitcher.
The problem is that FIP is a determining factor in whether a pitcher gives up runs, and BB's and Hits are already  included in FIP, so FIP is a far better way to measure a pitchers skillset then whip.
I discussed this a few days ago in the MLB forum.   Dave Kingman and Rob Deer produced a lot of home runs and strikeouts.   Not many would consider either a "good" player.    So why would we use those exact stats to determine if a pitcher is good? 
2/20/2012 1:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by JFerg on 2/20/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):

And what does Team ERA have to do with this?  Couldn't Nashville just have the better rotation?  That was just dumb to bring up unless I'm missing something here.

They had a worse WHIP and ERA.   Sheldon's 205 innings would be much tougher to replace as he was so much better than the rest of the staff. 
2/20/2012 1:42 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...24 Next ▸
Which on for Cy Young Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.