Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):
If a player's career ends due to injury, would it not be completed at that point?

And without seeing individual seasons, how can you say for sure that B's peak was just as good as A's?  Perhaps A was just a little bit better than B every season they played.  Which means that for any/every given season, A was the better pitcher.

My God, you are dense.

But he wasn't.  B's stats were exactly the same as A's.

And then he threw another thousand innings.

And then you said you thought A was the better pitcher.

You are a retard.

Players don't have linear careers like that.  Give me two players off the top of your head who you think are similar.  I bet either one's first 8 years will be better than the other one's first 13.

FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Players don't have linear careers like that.  Give me two players off the top of your head who you think are similar.  I bet either one's first 8 years will be better than the other one's first 13.

Irrelevant and off-topic to the discussion at hand.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

That other 70% of the game is largely determined by the defense and luck, not the pitcher.

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I won't say WAR is an all-encompassing stat, but it's pretty close.  I'll compare Hunter and Carlton in terms of WAR, going from best year to worst.

Carlton:  12.2  9.4  7.2  5.8  5.7  5.5  5.4  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  2.3  2.2  1.2  0.8  0.6  0.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8  -1.0  -2.1
Hunter:    7.6   6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

That's pretty convincing.  And in their best seasons, Carlton beats Hunter in virtually every statistical category.

Please don't ignore this.

"No one has ever argued that FIP is an all perfect stat.  It's just better than WHIP (and ERA) because they are both so dependent on factors outside of the pitcher's control."

This is why no one takes you seriously, jrd. ERA can definitely fluctuate with luck - two guys give up 3 singles and a HR in a game, one could give up 0 runs while the other gives up 4. But WHIP - WHIP is completely within the pitchers control. Walks are on the pitcher. Balls in play are on the pitcher. If the fielder does his job, it helps the pitcher out. If the fielder doesn't, he gets an error. If it's a hit, it's on the pitcher, plain and simple. Whether or not he has 100% control over where the ball lands, he has control over how hard it's hit and the fact that it's put in play. If it drops somewhere where there is no fielder, that's the pitcher's fault. WHIP may not be the best stat out there, but it's a very accurate and beneficial stat that relies very little on luck. That's exactly why you can two guys with the same WHIP and wildly different ERAs. One is based on luck/circumstance, one is based on the pitcher's ability to not let runners get on base. Period.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

That other 70% of the game is largely determined by the defense and luck, not the pitcher.

Somebody should alert MLB GMs that 70% of major league pitching is just dumb luck, and is therefore not that important.

Is that about right?

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I won't say WAR is an all-encompassing stat, but it's pretty close.  I'll compare Hunter and Carlton in terms of WAR, going from best year to worst.

Carlton:  12.2  9.4  7.2  5.8  5.7  5.5  5.4  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  2.3  2.2  1.2  0.8  0.6  0.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8  -1.0  -2.1
Hunter:    7.6   6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

That's pretty convincing.  And in their best seasons, Carlton beats Hunter in virtually every statistical category.

Please don't ignore this.

The discussion at hand is Hunter's career vs. Carlton's career through 1979. Not vs. Carlton's entire career.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
FIP covers strikeouts, walks, and homeruns, which as I pointed out earlier were the result of around 29.1% of all plate appearances in 2011.  Which means that it ignores around 70.9% of the game.  I'm guessing the exact numbers would deviate slightly from season to season, but certainly not drastically.

WHIP includes strikeouts, walks, homeruns, and almost every ball put in play (errors would not be included, as they are neither hits or outs).  If I had to guess, it roughly covers 95% of the game.

How is a stat that only covers around 30% of the outcome of a pitcher/batter matchup better than a stat that covers 95% of a pitcher/batter matchup?

That other 70% of the game is largely determined by the defense and luck, not the pitcher.

Somebody should alert MLB GMs that 70% of major league pitching is just dumb luck, and is therefore not that important.

Is that about right?

I'm 100% sure that GM's know that pitchers can't control their BABIP.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I won't say WAR is an all-encompassing stat, but it's pretty close.  I'll compare Hunter and Carlton in terms of WAR, going from best year to worst.

Carlton:  12.2  9.4  7.2  5.8  5.7  5.5  5.4  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  2.3  2.2  1.2  0.8  0.6  0.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8  -1.0  -2.1
Hunter:    7.6   6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

That's pretty convincing.  And in their best seasons, Carlton beats Hunter in virtually every statistical category.

Please don't ignore this.

The discussion at hand is Hunter's career vs. Carlton's career through 1979. Not vs. Carlton's entire career.

So you admit that Carlton was better than Hunter over his entire career?

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
"No one has ever argued that FIP is an all perfect stat.  It's just better than WHIP (and ERA) because they are both so dependent on factors outside of the pitcher's control."

This is why no one takes you seriously, jrd. ERA can definitely fluctuate with luck - two guys give up 3 singles and a HR in a game, one could give up 0 runs while the other gives up 4. But WHIP - WHIP is completely within the pitchers control. Walks are on the pitcher. Balls in play are on the pitcher. If the fielder does his job, it helps the pitcher out. If the fielder doesn't, he gets an error. If it's a hit, it's on the pitcher, plain and simple. Whether or not he has 100% control over where the ball lands, he has control over how hard it's hit and the fact that it's put in play. If it drops somewhere where there is no fielder, that's the pitcher's fault. WHIP may not be the best stat out there, but it's a very accurate and beneficial stat that relies very little on luck. That's exactly why you can two guys with the same WHIP and wildly different ERAs. One is based on luck/circumstance, one is based on the pitcher's ability to not let runners get on base. Period.

If pitchers can control their balls in play, show it to me using their stats.

You've seen the top ten BABIP for pitchers since 1960 (min 2500 IP).  If the best pitchers could control their balls in play you'd see it in the BABIP numbers.  But you don't.  Dave Stieb, Charlie Hough,  Mel Stottlemyre, Catfish Hunter, Luis Tiant, and Mike Cuellar don't belong anywhere near the discussion of greatest pitchers of all time, yet they make up 6 of the top ten BABIP pitchers of all time.

On the other hand, the top ten for FIP is all sure fire Hall of Famers (Pedro and Clemens aren't in yet, but they are arguably two of the greatest pitchers ever).

Which stat do you think gives you a more accurate reflection of the pitcher's skill?

I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I don't need stats. It's common sense. Where a batted ball ends up depends on the ability of the hitter, first and foremost. But then it depends on pitch type, speed and location. I'm not positive, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the pitcher can control those last three.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.