Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Explain what?

I think B was better for those innings based on the stats you posted.  Do you disagree?
2/29/2012 2:30 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 14021 (1)
Hall of Famer
633 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2012 6:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/28/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer my question. Does "based on" mean you changed them or the years aren't consecutive?
Here's another hypothitical for you. Based on real numbers by two different pitchers.

Player A: 3621 IP, 3.42 ERA, 100 ERA+, 4.48 FIP, 1.191 WHIP, .243 OAV, .299 OBP, .390 SLG, .689 OPS
Player B: 3659 IP, 3.23 ERA, 104 ERA+, 3.91 FIP, 1.287 WHIP, .249 OAV, .317 OBP, .410 SLG, .728 OPS

The last four items (OAV, OBP, SLG, OPS) were for hitters against that pitcher.

Who's the better pitcher?

It's a hypothetical based on real stats by two real pitchers.

For the sake of this example, full careers. Including ramp-up at the beginning, decline at the end.
So you don't have to look back for the hypothetical, here are the numbers again.
Ok. Since those stats were not altered in any way, B was better for those innings pitched.
A allowed fewer baserunners, a lower percentage of hits, and that OPS difference is fairly significant too. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going A all the way.
2/29/2012 2:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I think we all should create an ADVANCED METRIC!!!

I will remove all opposite field doubles, in day games, from AVG/OBP/SLG for every batter except Jeter.   After all, virtually no one hits the other way intentionally with authority.

I give you OPS-OFDIDGEJ. 
2/29/2012 2:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm also going to remove triples from baseball.    Nobody gets a legit triple in today's parks.   The OF has to misplay the ball for that to happen.    They will now be classified as 2BMPBOF.
2/29/2012 2:45 PM
raeliens
Posts: 105 (0)
Rookie
10
Prospect
LET"S SEE THE TOP TEN PITCHERS IN SLGBIP!!!! EVERYONE KNOWS BA IS CRAP!!!
2/29/2012 2:45 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 155 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Explain what?

I think B was better for those innings based on the stats you posted.  Do you disagree?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point.

I would just like to understand your thought processes for choosing B.
2/29/2012 2:47 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
I think he was the better pitcher over those IP based on the stats you listed.  That's the thought process.

Who were the pitchers?
2/29/2012 2:50 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 14021 (1)
Hall of Famer
633 1 2 2 138
Prospect
You are so impossible, it's almost hilarious.

"A allowed fewer baserunners, a lower percentage of hits, and that OPS difference is fairly significant too. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going A all the way."

That is an explanation. Not "I picked him because he was better. Duh!!"
2/29/2012 2:55 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 155 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:50:00 PM (view original):
I think he was the better pitcher over those IP based on the stats you listed.  That's the thought process.

Who were the pitchers?
That't it?  Your detailed analysis using your superior knowledge of advanced baseball statistics comes down to "I think . . . ".

It this kind of like "I like broccoli but I don't like cauliflower" . . . it's a matter of inexplicable taste?
2/29/2012 2:55 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
You didn't ask for an essay.  You asked which one I thought was better.

I answered your question.


2/29/2012 2:56 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 155 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter
Jim Palmer
Charlie Hough
Tom Seaver
Dave Stieb
Mel Stottlemyre
Juan Marichal
Don Sutton
Luis Tiant
Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.
Of the top 10 BABIP pitchers on jrd's list, five are Hall of Famers.  Four of the other five made multiple All Star appearances.  The only "outlier" of the bunch is Charlie Hough, who was a knuckleballer.  According to what I have read about BABIP, knuckleballers tend to have abnormally low BABIPs.

Interesting how the top 10 pitchers on this list are either HOFers, or were generally regarded as very good pitchers in their primes.  Why is that?

More "fun facts" about BABIP:

  • Very few pitchers with long careers have BABIP above the league average
  • There are no pitchers in the Hall of Fame with a BABIP higher than .300.

Since "more" implies "better" according to jrd, then players with long careers must be better than players with short careers,  So is there some sort of mysterious correlation between BABIP and "better" pitchers.  Or is that an unexplained statistical anomoly?

It's also interesting that there are no HOFer pitchers with a BABIP higher than .300.  Since .300 is the magical norm that everybody converges to over time, is this just another unexplained statistical anomoly?  Or might there be another reason?

I need jrd_x to enlighten me.

.300 has only been the league average since the mid to late 90s.  In the 60s and 70s league average was around .275.

If BABIP describes a completely uncontrollable event, then why has the number it converges to changed over the years? 

Did pitchers have better defenses behind them in the 60s and 70s, or were they all just luckier?

2/29/2012 2:58 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 14021 (1)
Hall of Famer
633 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
You didn't ask for an essay.  You asked which one I thought was better.

I answered your question.


Actually, he asked you how you reached your decision. And he's got a point - if all it comes down to is "Pitcher B just looks better", then all this crap you've been feeding us about your superior stat analysis is a joke.
2/29/2012 3:01 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/29/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter
Jim Palmer
Charlie Hough
Tom Seaver
Dave Stieb
Mel Stottlemyre
Juan Marichal
Don Sutton
Luis Tiant
Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.
Of the top 10 BABIP pitchers on jrd's list, five are Hall of Famers.  Four of the other five made multiple All Star appearances.  The only "outlier" of the bunch is Charlie Hough, who was a knuckleballer.  According to what I have read about BABIP, knuckleballers tend to have abnormally low BABIPs.

Interesting how the top 10 pitchers on this list are either HOFers, or were generally regarded as very good pitchers in their primes.  Why is that?

More "fun facts" about BABIP:

  • Very few pitchers with long careers have BABIP above the league average
  • There are no pitchers in the Hall of Fame with a BABIP higher than .300.

Since "more" implies "better" according to jrd, then players with long careers must be better than players with short careers,  So is there some sort of mysterious correlation between BABIP and "better" pitchers.  Or is that an unexplained statistical anomoly?

It's also interesting that there are no HOFer pitchers with a BABIP higher than .300.  Since .300 is the magical norm that everybody converges to over time, is this just another unexplained statistical anomoly?  Or might there be another reason?

I need jrd_x to enlighten me.

.300 has only been the league average since the mid to late 90s.  In the 60s and 70s league average was around .275.

If BABIP describes a completely uncontrollable event, then why has the number it converges to changed over the years? 

Did pitchers have better defenses behind them in the 60s and 70s, or were they all just luckier?

It's shifted. I'm not sure why. Hitters tend to be bigger and stronger now.
2/29/2012 3:14 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 72
Prospect
I want to get back to "pitchers can't control hits, but they can control home runs"

Where are you with someone cranking it 400ft to dead centre off of the top of the fence for a triple?
2/29/2012 3:55 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
◂ Prev 1...68|69|70|71|72...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.