Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
He's got going to answer.  You have to wonder why not.
You know exactly why not.

You won't tell me whether or not you altered the stats.
2/29/2012 11:13 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
And why is that relevant?  It's a hypothetical with a well-defined set of realistic statistics and assumptions.
2/29/2012 11:18 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
I'd like to know.  If it's irrelevant, why won't you tell me?
2/29/2012 11:23 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Because it's irrelevant to the question at hand.  And you've proven yourself to become easily distracted and tend to lose focus when presented with irrelevant information earlier in this thread.
2/29/2012 11:31 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
I wasn't distracted by your last hypothetical.  I said Pitcher B was better and I was right.

2/29/2012 11:34 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
750 1 2 2 144
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
He's got going to answer.  You have to wonder why not.
Not really. We know why he won't answer.
2/29/2012 11:34 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
750 1 2 2 144
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
I'd like to know.  If it's irrelevant, why won't you tell me?
Would you like me to go through this thread and count how many times you've answered a question with a question? You've yet to give ONE straight answer, to any question. Tec's answer should not have any bearing on yours. The only reason you could possibly want tec's answer is so you can try and gain more information to put your answer in context. But you already stated context doesn't matter; only stats. And you were given the stats - so answer the question, or shut the hell up already. You're nauseating.
2/29/2012 11:36 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.

1. 9 is greater than three.   No formula changes that.    3 is not half of 9 no matter how you word it.  
2. 5 examples, please. 

Fine, who cares, even if hits are only a third of WHIP.  It doesn't matter.  If BABIP tells us nothing, as several have argued in this thread, it is useless.  If it is useless we can take BABIP out of WHIP. Once you do that, you are left with walks and home runs.  We don't need WHIP to measure those.

Hits are 2/3 of WHIP in the example I posted. 

Taking hits out of WHIP is pretty much BB/9.   Not much value in that. 

I'd still like 5 examples where you consider the guy with a 1.5 WHIP to be better than the guy with 1.1 WHIP.   Baseball has played a lot of seasons.  A lot of innings have been pitched.  Surely you can find 5 examples to back up what you claim. 

2/29/2012 11:38 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I wasn't distracted by your last hypothetical.  I said Pitcher B was better and I was right.

Right based solely on the numbers presented in the hypothetical?
2/29/2012 11:41 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I wasn't distracted by your last hypothetical.  I said Pitcher B was better and I was right.

Right based solely on the numbers presented in the hypothetical?
Yes.  B was the better pitcher.  He had the same stats as A and then pitched longer.
2/29/2012 11:47 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1.  9 is considerably larger than 3.   Doesn't matter what formula you use, that's always going to be the case.  
2.  Opinion.  Both are well below average WHIP.    Let's work on facts.    Compare a 1.10 WHIP to a 1.50 WHIP pitcher.    Find me 5 examples of a the 1.50 WHIP being better.
1. Yeah it does. In (A+B)/C ,   B makes up half the numerator.

2. How many 300 win pitchers were worse than 100 win pitchers?  That doesn't mean pitcher wins are a good stat.

1. 9 is greater than three.   No formula changes that.    3 is not half of 9 no matter how you word it.  
2. 5 examples, please. 

Fine, who cares, even if hits are only a third of WHIP.  It doesn't matter.  If BABIP tells us nothing, as several have argued in this thread, it is useless.  If it is useless we can take BABIP out of WHIP. Once you do that, you are left with walks and home runs.  We don't need WHIP to measure those.

Hits are 2/3 of WHIP in the example I posted. 

Taking hits out of WHIP is pretty much BB/9.   Not much value in that. 

I'd still like 5 examples where you consider the guy with a 1.5 WHIP to be better than the guy with 1.1 WHIP.   Baseball has played a lot of seasons.  A lot of innings have been pitched.  Surely you can find 5 examples to back up what you claim. 

We've already established that BABIP isn't controlled by the pitcher.  If BABIP isn't controlled by the pitcher, we shouldn't be using it to evaluate pitchers.

If WHIP is heavily dependent on a stat that we shouldn't be using to evaluate pitchers, then we shouldn't be using WHIP to evaluate pitchers.
2/29/2012 11:54 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
750 1 2 2 144
Prospect
So what you're saying is, when you have two pitchers who pitched roughly the same amount of time, you can't answer because you can no longer say "I'll go with the guy who pitched longer"? Is that why you're not answering? Because you think tec shaved some years of one of their careers and you want to be able to declare the guy with the longer career better?

It all makes sense now. He doesn't want to declare one guy better and find out the other guy had a longer career, or else he'll have to concede longevity isn't everything and Hunter may actually be the better pitcher.
2/29/2012 11:55 AM
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie

1. 9 is greater than three.   No formula changes that.    3 is not half of 9 no matter how you word it.  
2. 5 examples, please. 

Fine, who cares, even if hits are only a third of WHIP.  It doesn't matter.  If BABIP tells us nothing, as several have argued in this thread, it is useless.  If it is useless we can take BABIP out of WHIP. Once you do that, you are left with walks and home runs.  We don't need WHIP to measure those.


Hits are 2/3 of WHIP in the example I posted.    

Actually, Mike....   you're wrong, but even more correct than if you were right.  LOL    Hits are 3/4 of WHIP in the example that you posted.  Walks are 3 of the 12 baserunners.  Or 25%.  Hits are 9 of the 12 baserunners or 75%.
2/29/2012 11:58 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I wasn't distracted by your last hypothetical.  I said Pitcher B was better and I was right.

Right based solely on the numbers presented in the hypothetical?
Yes.  B was the better pitcher.  He had the same stats as A and then pitched longer.
Can you conclude that from the current hypothetical?
2/29/2012 11:59 AM
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie
It all makes sense now. He doesn't want to declare one guy better and find out the other guy had a longer career, or else he'll have to concede longevity isn't everything and Hunter may actually be the better pitcher.



JT, while I agree with you and Mike (and just about everyone else on the site who has posted) about the WHIP argument, and that longevity does not make a pitcher better than another pitcher (i.e. Koufax vs. Drysdale debate) in the specific Hunter vs. Carlton debate.....   I side with JRD.....  Hunter & Carlton were not equals.  Carlton was better.  Here is what I posted about 30-35 pages ago....  lol

Here is what I found.....
  • In Hunter's best 5 seasons, he was 111-49 (113-117 in his other seasons combined) and won 1 Cy Young. In Carlton's best 5 seasons, he was 117-47 and won 4 Cy Youngs.
  • Hunter had 5 seasons of 110+ Adjusted ERA seasons.  Carlton had 12
  • Hunter had 3 seasons of more than a 2.5/1 K/BB ratio.  Carlton had 8
  • Hunter had 3 top 10 ERA seasons.  Carlton had 8
  • Hunter had 7 seasons where he was top 10 in CGs.  Carlton had 15.
  • Hunter had 6 seasons where he was top 10 in SOs.  Carlton had 11.
  • Hunter had only 3 seasons where he was top 10 in WAR/pitcher.  Carlton had 7.
  • Hunter's 10 most similar pitchers to him were Tiant, Pappas, Hershiser, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, Welch, Drysdale, Jim Perry, Pierce & Rick Reuschel.  1 of which is in the HOF (Drysdale)
  • Carlton's 10 most similar pitchers to him were Sutton, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Blyleven, Spahn, Wynn, Seaver, Clemens, Maddux & Glavine.  All of whom are either in the HOF or shoo-ins for it (other than maybe Clemens because of PEDs).
  • Hunter's HOF Standards number (the one less affected by longevity) is 42 while an average HOFer is 50.  Carlton's is 58.

2/29/2012 12:05 PM
◂ Prev 1...62|63|64|65|66...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.