Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I don't need stats. It's common sense. Where a batted ball ends up depends on the ability of the hitter, first and foremost. But then it depends on pitch type, speed and location. I'm not positive, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the pitcher can control those last three.

Then why isn't it apparent in the stats?

If pitchers could control it, wouldn't the BABIP leaders be some of the best pitchers ever?

Why does the FIP leaderboard give us a much better list of great pitchers?

tec, he's just egging us on now...he clearly likes the attention.  No one is this dumb to not get the difference between quantity and quality.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
tec, he's just egging us on now...he clearly likes the attention.  No one is this dumb to not get the difference between quantity and quality.

Tec is.  He would rather have 8 years of Clemens than those 8 years plus 5 more very good years.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I don't need stats. It's common sense. Where a batted ball ends up depends on the ability of the hitter, first and foremost. But then it depends on pitch type, speed and location. I'm not positive, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the pitcher can control those last three.

Then why isn't it apparent in the stats?

If pitchers could control it, wouldn't the BABIP leaders be some of the best pitchers ever?

Why does the FIP leaderboard give us a much better list of great pitchers?

Are you going to ignore my questions?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

That other 70% of the game is largely determined by the defense and luck, not the pitcher.

Somebody should alert MLB GMs that 70% of major league pitching is just dumb luck, and is therefore not that important.

Is that about right?

I'm 100% sure that GM's know that pitchers can't control their BABIP.

If BABIP "proves" that all balls in play lead to uncontrollable results that roughly converge to a .300 AVG, then what is it's purpose?  Why does it even exist and is tracked as a statistic?

Your argument keeps inferring that BABIP shows absolutely nothing, yet you keep going back to it over and over and over and over and over during your argument as if it does.

"The discussion at hand is Hunter's career vs. Carlton's career through 1979"

OK, I'll compare them again, but this time exclude Carlton's seasons after 1979.

Carlton:  12.2  7.2  5.8  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  0.6  0.5
Hunter:   7.6    6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

Carlton STILL beats Hunter in WAR, every single year.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I don't need stats. It's common sense. Where a batted ball ends up depends on the ability of the hitter, first and foremost. But then it depends on pitch type, speed and location. I'm not positive, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the pitcher can control those last three.

Then why isn't it apparent in the stats?

If pitchers could control it, wouldn't the BABIP leaders be some of the best pitchers ever?

Why does the FIP leaderboard give us a much better list of great pitchers?

Are you going to ignore my questions?

No need to.  We've been over the flaws of FIP ad nauseum already

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.

Who had the better career . . . Jamie Moyer or Sandy Koufax?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

That other 70% of the game is largely determined by the defense and luck, not the pitcher.

Somebody should alert MLB GMs that 70% of major league pitching is just dumb luck, and is therefore not that important.

Is that about right?

I'm 100% sure that GM's know that pitchers can't control their BABIP.

If BABIP "proves" that all balls in play lead to uncontrollable results that roughly converge to a .300 AVG, then what is it's purpose?  Why does it even exist and is tracked as a statistic?

Your argument keeps inferring that BABIP shows absolutely nothing, yet you keep going back to it over and over and over and over and over during your argument as if it does.

It adds context.

If a pitcher has a high career ERA with a league average BABIP and then his ERA plummets along with his BABIP, it's probably a fluke season.  If it plummets but his BABIP stays constant, it may be a sustainable trend.

HR rate, K rate, and BB rate help too.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.

Who had the better career . . . Jamie Moyer or Sandy Koufax?

Koufax.  IP is the only advantage Moyer has and it makes it closer than it probably should be (career BR WAR 54.5 for Koufax vs 47.3 for Moyer) but Koufax was the better pitcher.

Cmon fellaz, EVERYONE knows Moyer was better than Koufax. He's pitched like 18 more seasons.

How can something that measures a completely uncontrollable result add context to anything?

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways . . . (1) BABIP measures uncontrollable results; and (2) BABIP can be used to show a trend.

I'll ask again . . . do you realize how completely and utterly retarded that sounds?

I'll do the same WAR comparison with Moyer/Koufax that I did with Hunter/Carlton

Koufax:  10.8  10.8  8.2  7.8  5.6  4.4  2.3  1.8  1.3  1.1  0.8  -0.4
Moyer:    5.7    5.3    5.2  3.9  3.7  3.3  3.1  3.0  2.7  2.6  1.8  1.7  1.4  1.1  0.9  0.9  0.7  0.7  0.6  0.5  0.4  -0.1  -0.1  -0.4  -0.5  -0.8

To me Koufax's career looks better.  But it doesn't matter, because every season of Carlton's career was worth more than Hunter's, AND he pitched longer.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.

Who had the better career . . . Jamie Moyer or Sandy Koufax?

Koufax.  IP is the only advantage Moyer has and it makes it closer than it probably should be (career BR WAR 54.5 for Koufax vs 47.3 for Moyer) but Koufax was the better pitcher.

Moyer pitched for 24 years and won 267 games as a major league pitcher.  Koufax pitched for only 12 seasons.  One could argue that Moyer had a better career by virtue of being able to pitch at an effective level until age 47.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):

How can something that measures a completely uncontrollable result add context to anything?

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways . . . (1) BABIP measures uncontrollable results; and (2) BABIP can be used to show a trend.

I'll ask again . . . do you realize how completely and utterly retarded that sounds?

Just because the pitcher can't control it doesn't mean we don't need to know what happened.  BABIP varies due to defense and luck.  It is good to know which pitchers benefited from defense and luck and which pitchers didn't.