It's really not a tough question.  

What is the most important aspect of pitching?    I'm almost certain this will be unanimous if you aren't the one dissenting voice in the crowd.

Ok. Getting outs. Please explain your strikeout pitchers are punished in BABIP theory.

Nope, that would be wrong.   Getting outs is secondary to the correct answer.   I'll give you a hint.   It's also important in real estate.

Ok.  Let's say location is the most important thing.  How does that help us here?  We still need a way to evaluate pitchers who might not have played during our lifetimes, across large and possibly career long sample sizes.

Does good location reduce BABIP allowed?

So, if it's location, how does that play into walks, strikeouts and batted balls?   

Obviously it helps.  Still waiting for the point.

What stat would you like to use to measure "location"?

There isn't one*.  Obviously we have to measure the results of the pitch location as opposed to the pitch itself.  FIP is better at measuring the results of the pitch than ERA because ERA includes a bunch of stuff the pitcher can't control.

*pitchfx data is getting better every day, there may be one soon.

You say location obviously helps with batted balls.   Is that limited to homeruns allowed?

I'm 100% sure that some pitchers are better at inducing weak contact than others.  But if BABIP allowed is a skill, there should be some sort of correlation between quality pitchers and low BABIP.  There doesn't seem to be.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/25/2012 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ok.  Let's say location is the most important thing.  How does that help us here?  We still need a way to evaluate pitchers who might not have played during our lifetimes, across large and possibly career long sample sizes.

Does good location reduce BABIP allowed?

Here is the fundamental problem.

We still need a way to evaluate pitchers who might not have played during our lifetimes, across large and possibly career long sample sizes.

No, we don't.  What possible difference does it make whether Mordecai Brown was better than Antonio Alfonseca??  Why not just WATCH THE GAMES and enjoy them, rather than attempt to quantify the unquantifiable?

Would you say a struck ball traveling at 112 MPH has a better or worse chance of becoming a hit than one traveling at 81 MPH?

OK, since you've confirmed that some pitchers are better at inducing weak contact than others AND that a well-struck ball has a better chance at becoming a hit, would you still take a pitcher that can induce weak contact even though your beloved BABIP and FIP make his ability to locate pitches "unquantifiable"?

The results like a low ERA(you know, not allowing earned runs) and wins(you know, the actual object of the game)?

Or results like not walking batters(a good thing but pitchers can walk batters and still win), striking out batters(another good thing but you don't get runs for strikeouts) or not allowing homers(also good but one homer will result in less runs than 2 strikeouts followed by three straight doubles)?

At the end of the day, I think you can look at something like this and decide if a pitcher was effective: