Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 7:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 2/29/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
WHIP and ERA in tandem are usually pretty reliable. Low WHIP + Low ERA = great pitcher. High WHIP + Low ERA = unreliable but great at getting out of jams. Low WHIP + High ERA = likely good stuff, but poor command and lots of HR.  High WHIP + High ERA = sucks.

Each of those stats gives you valuable information. BABIP does not offer anything off value. All that information (and a lot more) can be gained from WHIP.

That seems like the most sound thinking presented in this entire thread.

Well that's debatable.  But we're left with the problem that Carlton had a lower ERA and higher WHIP than Hunter.  Which lead jtpsops to insist that WHIP was the most important stat for pitchers.

Well my post from 6:02pm on the previous page dismissed ERA as a valid stat.  You previously dismissed WHIP as a valid stat.  So they cancelled each other out, and we are left with:

Hunter = Carlton

Which is why we should use FIP.  And in that case, Carlton beats Hunter easily.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 7:36:00 PM (view original):
Looks who's talking about looking stupid.

Have you found me 5 examples, in the 100+ years of baseball, where one could consider a pitcher with a 1.5 WHIP better than one with a 1.1 WHIP?

BADA BING!!! Seriously jrd, it took me 20+ minutes to read the RSF. I responded as I read and you say that I'M THE ONE who looks stupid. Have you READ what you've written here? You demanded to know if the stats were altered like a little kid for GOD ONLY KNOWS what reason and then you answer that B is the BETTER pitcher??? You know who looks stupid? That would be you. I think that almost everyone else would say that A is at least a SLIGHTLY better pitcher based on the statistics presented. The guy with the better WHIP, the better OAV, the better OBP, the lower SLG and OPS allowed is, somehow, WORSE to you. That's nothing short of ******* HILARIOUS. You picked B because his ERA and FIP are better and he throws 38 more innings. That's just amazingly dumb. Like, earth-shatteringly incomprehensibly dumb.

For reference sake, the stats in question:

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

Yes, of course.  We'll use the stat that ignores 71% of the game.  How logical. 

And really, give him 5 examples. It should be EASY for a stat genius such as yourself.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Yes, of course.  We'll use the stat that ignores 71% of the game.  How logical. 

It should be changed to TIB...

THINKING INDEPENDENT BRAINS

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Based on the logic used to dismiss WHIP as a meaningful statistic for pitchers, I think we need to also disregard other stats like ERA, ERA+, and even runs allowed by a pitcher.

Follow along, if you can:

1)  BABIP shows us that hits that are not home runs are a factor of luck, and a pitcher has no control or influence over them
2)  Many runs scored during the course of a game are constructed by events which often include, and may in fact primarily be, non-HR hits
3)  Therefore, the pitcher has very little influence on the number of runs he allows because he cannot control the hits he allows
4)  If runs are disregarded, then ERA must in turn be disregarded because half of it's numerator is a subset of allowed runs, i.e. earned runs
5)  If ERA is disregarded, then ERA+ must be disregarded because  it is a normalization of ERA

Did I miss anything?

Did I miss anything?  Is my logic sound?

I'll agree that ERA is flawed because it relies (though less directly than WHIP) on BABIP.

Posted by rsp777 on 2/29/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 7:36:00 PM (view original):
Looks who's talking about looking stupid.

Have you found me 5 examples, in the 100+ years of baseball, where one could consider a pitcher with a 1.5 WHIP better than one with a 1.1 WHIP?

BADA BING!!! Seriously jrd, it took me 20+ minutes to read the RSF. I responded as I read and you say that I'M THE ONE who looks stupid. Have you READ what you've written here? You demanded to know if the stats were altered like a little kid for GOD ONLY KNOWS what reason and then you answer that B is the BETTER pitcher??? You know who looks stupid? That would be you. I think that almost everyone else would say that A is at least a SLIGHTLY better pitcher based on the statistics presented. The guy with the better WHIP, the better OAV, the better OBP, the lower SLG and OPS allowed is, somehow, WORSE to you. That's nothing short of ******* HILARIOUS. You picked B because his ERA and FIP are better and he throws 38 more innings. That's just amazingly dumb. Like, earth-shatteringly incomprehensibly dumb.

For reference sake, the stats in question:

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

You seem to be the only person that has a problem with B as the answer.  Tec didn't even disagree and it was his game.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Yes, of course.  We'll use the stat that ignores 71% of the game.  How logical. 

Instead of thinking of it as the stat that ignores 70% of the game, think of it as the stat that only includes things we know the pitcher controls and leaves out stuff can be attributed to defense and luck.

I neither agreed nor disagreed. I have not given my answer

See, he hasn't even given his answer.  Don't think he plans to either, since the stats aren't real.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Yes, of course.  We'll use the stat that ignores 71% of the game.  How logical. 

Instead of thinking of it as the stat that ignores 70% of the game, think of it as the stat that only includes things we know the pitcher controls and leaves out stuff can be attributed to defense and luck.

71 > 29. I'll go with the bigger number because, as I've learned, more is better.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 8:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/29/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Yes, of course.  We'll use the stat that ignores 71% of the game.  How logical. 

Instead of thinking of it as the stat that ignores 70% of the game, think of it as the stat that only includes things we know the pitcher controls and leaves out stuff can be attributed to defense and luck.

71 > 29. I'll go with the bigger number because, as I've learned, more is better.

Pitcher win/loss actually includes even more, because it includes the offense.  So I'm going to go ahead and say that pitcher win/loss is DEFINITELY the best stat because it includes 100% of the game.  We all know how important offense is.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 2/29/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/29/2012 7:36:00 PM (view original):
Looks who's talking about looking stupid.

Have you found me 5 examples, in the 100+ years of baseball, where one could consider a pitcher with a 1.5 WHIP better than one with a 1.1 WHIP?

BADA BING!!! Seriously jrd, it took me 20+ minutes to read the RSF. I responded as I read and you say that I'M THE ONE who looks stupid. Have you READ what you've written here? You demanded to know if the stats were altered like a little kid for GOD ONLY KNOWS what reason and then you answer that B is the BETTER pitcher??? You know who looks stupid? That would be you. I think that almost everyone else would say that A is at least a SLIGHTLY better pitcher based on the statistics presented. The guy with the better WHIP, the better OAV, the better OBP, the lower SLG and OPS allowed is, somehow, WORSE to you. That's nothing short of ******* HILARIOUS. You picked B because his ERA and FIP are better and he throws 38 more innings. That's just amazingly dumb. Like, earth-shatteringly incomprehensibly dumb.

For reference sake, the stats in question:

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

You seem to be the only person that has a problem with B as the answer.  Tec didn't even disagree and it was his game.

Going by the stats given I pick A. I think most will agree with me and not you. Pitcher A gives up less hits and walks, gives up a lower batting average, a lower on base percentage, a lower slugging percentage and thus, a lower OPS. It's not rocket science. I think it's a simple deduction based on the information given and I couldn't care less WHERE the stats come from. You think that B's superior FIP and ERA make him better. I think you're wrong. Tell me why you're not.