Posted by mrbubble on 2/29/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Have you read the entire thread?  If so, you'd know he does not understand baseball at all.

holy fvck.  you're right.  this dude's an idiot!  lol

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 9:45:00 AM (view original):
jrd - it's VERY obvious that you want to know if they're real stats or not so you can look up the players associated. You don't want to risk contradicting yourself and looking stupid by saying a certain pitcher is better than another. You think it's a trap, so rather than answer tec's hypothetical (and fair) question, you're insisting on more information that will allow you to determine who the players are. That proves you think you'll contradict yourself, and thus have little faith in your own evaluation system.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 9:45:00 AM (view original):
jrd - it's VERY obvious that you want to know if they're real stats or not so you can look up the players associated. You don't want to risk contradicting yourself and looking stupid by saying a certain pitcher is better than another. You think it's a trap, so rather than answer tec's hypothetical (and fair) question, you're insisting on more information that will allow you to determine who the players are. That proves you think you'll contradict yourself, and thus have little faith in your own evaluation system.

That's what I'm thinking. 

For 60+ pages he's been preaching about how his knowledge about how to evaluate players by looking at sabrmetric stats is so much better than those who disagree with him, yet he's unable to commit himself to answer a simple question about two hypothetical players, even though he's been given a well-defined example with all the new-generation stats that he embraces.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 8:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 10:49:00 PM (view original):
Look dude, you're the one trying to get me to play this hypothetical game.  If you want me to answer, then tell me.  If not, f*ck off.

For the sake of this hypothetical, assume they are real stats.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mrbubble on 2/29/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Have you read the entire thread?  If so, you'd know he does not understand baseball at all.

holy fvck.  you're right.  this dude's an idiot!  lol

Welcome to the party!!!!

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 8:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 10:49:00 PM (view original):
Look dude, you're the one trying to get me to play this hypothetical game.  If you want me to answer, then tell me.  If not, f*ck off.

For the sake of this hypothetical, assume they are real stats.

This.

Assume they are unchanged stats.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:05:00 AM (view original):
jrd - as tec said, if they have been changed, will that somehow alter your answer about which player is better? Whether he pulled the numbers out of his *** or based them on real players, that should have NO bearing on you deciding which player is better based on stats. The only reason for wanting to know if he altered the stats or not would be so you know if you can somehow find a match or not.

Anyone who says this...

"I'm not asking anyone to rely on just one stat.  Especially not WHIP.  If pitchers have little to no control over their BABIP, then BABIP doesn't tell us much about the skill of the pitcher.

If BABIP doesn't tell us much about the skill of the pitcher, and half the numerator of WHIP is largely derived from BABIP, then WHIP is a bad stat to use to evaluate pitchers."

...is mentally challenged.     First, I'll address his inner stat-nerd.    The top 40% pitchers, generally, give up 9 hits per 9 innings.  1 homer.  They walk 3.  That's equates to 1.33 WHIP.    2/3 of that WHIP is from BABIP not half.   Second, I'll address the retardness of the statement.    If we can't use WHIP to evaluate effectiveness of a pitcher, there is nothing we can use to evaluate the effectiveness of the pitcher.   The pitcher's primary job is to limit runs.   The pitcher's secondary job is to limit baserunners(which is important to his primary job).   WHIP tell us how many people run bases against him every 9 innings.   The better pitchers ALWAYS have a lower WHIP.
 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Anyone who says this...

"I'm not asking anyone to rely on just one stat.  Especially not WHIP.  If pitchers have little to no control over their BABIP, then BABIP doesn't tell us much about the skill of the pitcher.

If BABIP doesn't tell us much about the skill of the pitcher, and half the numerator of WHIP is largely derived from BABIP, then WHIP is a bad stat to use to evaluate pitchers."

...is mentally challenged.     First, I'll address his inner stat-nerd.    The top 40% pitchers, generally, give up 9 hits per 9 innings.  1 homer.  They walk 3.  That's equates to 1.33 WHIP.    2/3 of that WHIP is from BABIP not half.   Second, I'll address the retardness of the statement.    If we can't use WHIP to evaluate effectiveness of a pitcher, there is nothing we can use to evaluate the effectiveness of the pitcher.   The pitcher's primary job is to limit runs.   The pitcher's secondary job is to limit baserunners(which is important to his primary job).   WHIP tell us how many people run bases against him every 9 innings.   The better pitchers ALWAYS have a lower WHIP.