Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:12:00 AM (view original):
I think you just answered your own question - maybe a lightbulb will go off now. Hunter had the better WHIP, therefore...

As for tec's question - why should he answer you? His answer won't (or at least shouldn't) have any bearing on yours. Better question is, why won't YOU answer? Afraid you might contradict 60 pages of work?

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.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/29/2012 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:05:00 AM (view original):
jrd - as tec said, if they have been changed, will that somehow alter your answer about which player is better? Whether he pulled the numbers out of his *** or based them on real players, that should have NO bearing on you deciding which player is better based on stats. The only reason for wanting to know if he altered the stats or not would be so you know if you can somehow find a match or not.

Are you stupid?

If he says, yes, he changed them, I'll still answer him and I won't be able to look anything up.  Why won't he answer?

You have provided absolutely no reason why you NEED to know in order to answer the question.  In fact, you are saying that you have an answer without needing that info.

As I stated previously, the other time I provided you extraneous information on a hypothetical example, you became massively distracted by the irrelevant info after the fact.  I'm not going there again.

At this point, I don't really care if you answer the question or not.  I think the point proven here is that you're acting as if you have something to hide.  One can only assume what that is.  And if you're hiding something, that goes directly against what little credibility with respect to baseball knowledge you may think that you have.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):
jrd, get real. It's not tec's fault you can't read. First of all, no pitchers in the history of the game have those career IP totals. Therefore, the numbers do not represent full careers. Secondly, tec clearly said "based on real pitchers, and we'll assume full careers."  Therefore, I think it's pretty safe to say those are ACTUAL, UNCHANGED numbers that form partial stretches of two pitchers' (or *gasp* the same pitcher's) careers.

Stop dodging and smokescreening and try to answer one damn question directly in this thread without whining like a little spoiled girl for 10 pages.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/29/2012 11:00:00 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.


Oh my.  Jrd....   you made some valid points, but how can you possibly argue that others dont understand advanced metrics, when you post that????

B makes up half of the VARIABLES COMPRISING the numerator.  Not half the numerator.  Otherwise the chance of you winning the lottery are 50/50.  Either you win or you dont.  Those are the 2 variables.  Forget how heavily one is weighted over another.....