Well guys, if he really doesn't understand that preventing HITS is the pitcher's job, there's no point in attempting to enlighten him.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
jtpops is useless.

BABIP does not count homers.  They're still hits.  BABIP does not count strikeouts.  They are still outs.    Hits and outs are pretty important aspects of the game.

No ****.  BABIP is heavily incorporated into WHIP though.  If BABIP isn't a skill and makes up a large part of WHIP, then a large part of WHIP isn't a skill and we shouldn't use it.

Not so much.  A pitcher who gets outs via the K and doesn't give up homers is getting screwed by BABIP.   FIP says striking people out and not giving up homers is a good thing, right? 

The real problem is....  WHIP does NOT rely heavily on BABIP.  If it did, I would agree that it is a very flawed stat. 

BABIP has a very small range of deviation from highest to lowest, with the vast majority contained very close to the median, because as Jrd pointed out....   pitchers cannot control where a batted ball that stays in the ballpark lands on a consistent basis.

Balls in play (BIP in the BABIP stat) varies A LOT by pitcher though.  So, if a pitcher like Randy Johnson has a BABIP of .280 and Bob Tewksbury's is .278 (I dont know what they really are, they are just examples), but since Johnson was higher in BB/9 and K/9, his BABIP affects WHIP much less than Bob Tewksbury's BABIP affects his.  Tewksbury (with a very low BB/9 and K/9) had the majority of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  Johnson (with a higher BB/9 and a MUCH higher K/9) had a much smaller percentage of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  

In summary....   BABIP does affect WHIP.  But not to a large degree.  

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
The real problem is....  WHIP does NOT rely heavily on BABIP.  If it did, I would agree that it is a very flawed stat. 

BABIP has a very small range of deviation from highest to lowest, with the vast majority contained very close to the median, because as Jrd pointed out....   pitchers cannot control where a batted ball that stays in the ballpark lands on a consistent basis.

Balls in play (BIP in the BABIP stat) varies A LOT by pitcher though.  So, if a pitcher like Randy Johnson has a BABIP of .280 and Bob Tewksbury's is .278 (I dont know what they really are, they are just examples), but since Johnson was higher in BB/9 and K/9, his BABIP affects WHIP much less than Bob Tewksbury's BABIP affects his.  Tewksbury (with a very low BB/9 and K/9) had the majority of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  Johnson (with a higher BB/9 and a MUCH higher K/9) had a much smaller percentage of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  

In summary....   BABIP does affect WHIP.  But not to a large degree.  

Even if it's just a small difference, why not take BABIP out?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
YES!

Home runs allowed are.
Walks allowed are.
Strikeouts are.

hits/outs in play? No.

Wow.

Just. 

Wow.

Do you think that controlling hits/outs in play is a skill?

Todd?

Because hits are hits?    WHIP = Walks+hits/9

What part of that is confusing you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Because hits are hits?    WHIP = Walks+hits/9

What part of that is confusing you?

Are you responding to my question?

If BABIP is out of the pitchers control, and all non-HR hits are in play, why would we want to evaluate a pitcher based on something that is out of their control? 

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
And the fact that Carlton dwarfed Hunter's total seasons with top 5 and top 10 honors is NOT due to longevity.  As you and Mike so correctly posted.....  more than half of the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years, and he certainly was not posting top 10 finishes in major stat categories during that time.  Meaning that the majority of his seasons in which he outdistanced himself from Hunter, Carlton threw while they were contemporaries.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic on that "more than half the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years" part. Otherwise, you really need to take another look at Carlton's Baseball Reference page.

You are dumb. Did you really suggest taking BABIP out of WHIP? So we should make it WHOBOPIP (Walks plus hits on balls out of play per inning pitched)?

You're just not getting it. WHIP represents the whole. BABIP is a fraction of the whole. It's not that BABIP is meaningless, but it doesn't give you the entire picture because it excludes stats.

If you ordered a pizza and someone gave you just a crust and sauce, what would you say? "This sucks! It's only half of the pizza equation!" And then when he adds cheese and toppings, you say "It still has crust and sauce - it sucks!!"

You still are not grasping basic concepts. Quantity vs. Quality, Partial vs. Whole, etc. For a supposed stat nerd and college grad, you really have a lot of trouble with the basics.

Posted by 1899_spiders on 2/29/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
And the fact that Carlton dwarfed Hunter's total seasons with top 5 and top 10 honors is NOT due to longevity.  As you and Mike so correctly posted.....  more than half of the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years, and he certainly was not posting top 10 finishes in major stat categories during that time.  Meaning that the majority of his seasons in which he outdistanced himself from Hunter, Carlton threw while they were contemporaries.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic on that "more than half the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years" part. Otherwise, you really need to take another look at Carlton's Baseball Reference page.

I think he meant half his additional seasons. 80-83 were good...84-88 were not.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
The real problem is....  WHIP does NOT rely heavily on BABIP.  If it did, I would agree that it is a very flawed stat. 

BABIP has a very small range of deviation from highest to lowest, with the vast majority contained very close to the median, because as Jrd pointed out....   pitchers cannot control where a batted ball that stays in the ballpark lands on a consistent basis.

Balls in play (BIP in the BABIP stat) varies A LOT by pitcher though.  So, if a pitcher like Randy Johnson has a BABIP of .280 and Bob Tewksbury's is .278 (I dont know what they really are, they are just examples), but since Johnson was higher in BB/9 and K/9, his BABIP affects WHIP much less than Bob Tewksbury's BABIP affects his.  Tewksbury (with a very low BB/9 and K/9) had the majority of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  Johnson (with a higher BB/9 and a MUCH higher K/9) had a much smaller percentage of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  

In summary....   BABIP does affect WHIP.  But not to a large degree.  

Even if it's just a small difference, why not take BABIP out?

Jrd...  The Law of Syllogism that I posted before holds true if all statements in your progression are true.  I am older than my brother John.  John is older than my sister Susan.  I am therefore by the law of syllogism, Older than Susan.  I would be older than Susan if the preceding 2 statements were true.

So....

BABIP is meaningless
BABIP is a large part of WHIP
WHIP is meaningless

This would be true if the first 2 statements are true.  Your problem is the 2nd part (BABIP is a large part of WHIP) is NOT TRUE. 

Follow my logic here.....   we all agree that most every pitcher will be tightly grouped with not much difference in BABIP, and a pitcher's BABIP being significantly better than anothers is NOT a reliable indicator of better performance.  But NONE of that is true for WHIP.  Pitchers are NOT tightly grouped with a low standard deviation when it comes to WHIP.  There is GREAT deviation from pitcher to pitcher when it comes to WHIP, and a pitchers WHIP being significantly better than anothers IS a reliable indicator of better performance.  That is so because BABIP does not greatly influence WHIP

Posted by 1899_spiders on 2/29/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
And the fact that Carlton dwarfed Hunter's total seasons with top 5 and top 10 honors is NOT due to longevity.  As you and Mike so correctly posted.....  more than half of the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years, and he certainly was not posting top 10 finishes in major stat categories during that time.  Meaning that the majority of his seasons in which he outdistanced himself from Hunter, Carlton threw while they were contemporaries.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic on that "more than half the innings that Carlton threw after Hunter retired were crappy hanging on years" part. Otherwise, you really need to take another look at Carlton's Baseball Reference page.

JT is correct.  I meant seasons.  Because I was measuring how many top 10 seasons each had in major categories.  1980-84 were good seasons (82 & 84 were Cy Young seasons).  But 85-88 were not seasons where Carlton was top 10 in anything.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/29/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
YES!

Home runs allowed are.
Walks allowed are.
Strikeouts are.

hits/outs in play? No.

Wow.

Just. 

Wow.

Do you think that controlling hits/outs in play is a skill?

Todd?

Yes, it is more indicative of skill than simply throwing it aside as luck.

Just because there are clumps around the mean does not preclude the possibility of SKILL.

You're assuming that massing around the mean MUST mean that there is no skill.  There is no evidence to support that assumption.  Just because Randy Johnson and Jose Lima might have the same BABIP (not sure if this is even true), doesn't mean that SOME PITCHERS can't raise or lower the stat based on an ability or inability to control the pitch.

Your logic is so flawed in this matter that NOBODY agrees with your logic, though some might agree with your conclusion.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Because hits are hits?    WHIP = Walks+hits/9

What part of that is confusing you?

Are you responding to my question?

If BABIP is out of the pitchers control, and all non-HR hits are in play, why would we want to evaluate a pitcher based on something that is out of their control? 

BABIP isn't out of the pitcher's control.

We agreed that location was a big part of the actual contact. 
Pitchers control location. 
Ted Williams couldn't hit low and outside.

However, if a pitcher wanted to have a good BABIP, he could.   Sling everything across the meat part of the plate.   He won't strike anyone out(a + for BABIP) and he'll give up a lot of homers(another + for BABIP).     Are those good things? 

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
The real problem is....  WHIP does NOT rely heavily on BABIP.  If it did, I would agree that it is a very flawed stat. 

BABIP has a very small range of deviation from highest to lowest, with the vast majority contained very close to the median, because as Jrd pointed out....   pitchers cannot control where a batted ball that stays in the ballpark lands on a consistent basis.

Balls in play (BIP in the BABIP stat) varies A LOT by pitcher though.  So, if a pitcher like Randy Johnson has a BABIP of .280 and Bob Tewksbury's is .278 (I dont know what they really are, they are just examples), but since Johnson was higher in BB/9 and K/9, his BABIP affects WHIP much less than Bob Tewksbury's BABIP affects his.  Tewksbury (with a very low BB/9 and K/9) had the majority of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  Johnson (with a higher BB/9 and a MUCH higher K/9) had a much smaller percentage of his outcomes that produced his WHIP occur through events that affect BABIP.  

In summary....   BABIP does affect WHIP.  But not to a large degree.  

Even if it's just a small difference, why not take BABIP out?

Jrd...  The Law of Syllogism that I posted before holds true if all statements in your progression are true.  I am older than my brother John.  John is older than my sister Susan.  I am therefore by the law of syllogism, Older than Susan.  I would be older than Susan if the preceding 2 statements were true.

So....

BABIP is meaningless
BABIP is a large part of WHIP
WHIP is meaningless

This would be true if the first 2 statements are true.  Your problem is the 2nd part (BABIP is a large part of WHIP) is NOT TRUE. 

Follow my logic here.....   we all agree that most every pitcher will be tightly grouped with not much difference in BABIP, and a pitcher's BABIP being significantly better than anothers is NOT a reliable indicator of better performance.  But NONE of that is true for WHIP.  Pitchers are NOT tightly grouped with a low standard deviation when it comes to WHIP.  There is GREAT deviation from pitcher to pitcher when it comes to WHIP, and a pitchers WHIP being significantly better than anothers IS a reliable indicator of better performance.  That is so because BABIP does not greatly influence WHIP

BABIP influences WHIP somewhat.  Would you agree?

Even if it's just a small amount, we're talking about two pitchers separated in WHIP by 0.091 (Carlton's WHIP 65-79 WHIP of 1.225 vs Hunter's 1.134).

We know that Hunter has a BABIP 25 points lower than Carlton.

Several people have argued that WHIP is the best stat to use to evaluate the difference between Carlton and Hunter.  Is it?