The more movement on a pitch the less command over it a typical pitcher has. Are you unable to think about more than 1 thing at a time? Really? Another example from a totally different era - Joe McGinnity's best BB/9 season was his worst ERA season.

I am not trying to be a dick but why do you ignore the pitchers with less than 125 ip booger?



There are plenty of examples of guys who didn't walk people but had an ERA+ of under 100 (or 80).

I'm not going to agree to any of that. I could list a ton of credentials indicating that I am not in any way obtuse, but frankly that would be highly uncontributing to the thread. For some reason booger you seem to be quite good at ignoring the fact that most people seem to only partially agree with you; what exactly makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong? How is it that you know more than big league pitchers and pitching coaches? Why haven't any teams hired you with your vast knowledge of the game? And if you're positive you're right, why bother posting the thread in the first place? You really need positive feedback to feel good about yourself?

To fully clarify my position, I do agree that the vast majority of major league pitchers waste way too many pitches when they are ahead in the count and should work to increase their strike:ball ratio and decrease their walks. But that is not universally true, which you seem to think it is.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 11/30/2009
We've already discussed Maddux in this thread. His own career is excellent proof of why most pitchers can't afford to be like him. I think most people recognize that he was a historically great pitcher. As he aged he lost some of the dominant ability he had in his prime. His BB/9 continued to stay low, but his H/9 and HR/9 rose consistently from the late '90s on and by the end of his career he was consistently below league average in ERA. The fact is, without well-above-average stuff or command, pitchers can't afford never to walk anyone. Not everyone can be well above average. That's why it's called well above average.

Whats incredible about your logic, is that you admit he doesn't have good stuff, yet you think he was capable of having even better ERAs in his last 5 years than he did. The only reason his ERA the last years of his career were as good as they were is because he didn't give up walks. A 4.2 ERA is not bad at all for an older guy with little velocity or movement. If he had started pitching around guys trying to make them swing and miss his ERA would have shot up over 5 for sure.

I can't believe this debate has gotten this complex and turned into name calling. In my understanding, booger's original hypothesis was basically that there is a somewhat linear correlation between number of walks and the pitcher's effectiveness measured by ERA - correct me if I misunderstood.

Lacking the time to do the grand-scale number crunching to verify it, I would guess that this is more or less true. On average, pitchers with 3BB/9 will have better ERAs than guys with 4BB/9 and guys with 2BB/9 will have better ERAs still. Anyone disagree? Probably not many will.

What intelligent and well-meaning people CAN disagree on is WHY that is the case. Do fewer walks MAKE a pitcher more effective, or is a low walk rate simply a result of a pitcher who's already good? Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Is a pitcher walking someone because he's really trying to pitch around him, or is it because his control is off? How can anyone really know? Is the reasoning the same for each pitcher in each circumstance? What statistic can we reference to verify our view? And to someone who's good at numbers (as many of you here are), you can make them say just about anything you want them to based upon how they are presented. In fact, studies show that 2/3 of all statistics are made up on the spot.

At some point, we just have to smile, shake hands, and realize that rational people can disagree. It's okay.

Or you can be glad that Boogerlips in all of his awesomeness started a thread thats worth reading so you don't have to read those horribly dull threads about how Bob Caruthers has pitched lately. The art of debate is a lost one. Even though I'm pretty sure Dahsdebater is retarded, I'm sure we are both better off for exercising our brains. I'm not on board with the philosophy that all arguing is bad. Maybe I'll start another thread on that.

I averaged 1.3 Arguments/Day in 2008 and on New Year's Eve my brain weighed 1481 grams. In 2009, I upped it to 2.2 Arguments/Day and now my shoes don't fit. So, I guess we can all agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

Very well said.

Quote: Originally Posted By boogerlips on 12/01/2009Very well said

No it is not

Oh go drink your Haterade, Truemen...

So...who would you say is the greatest pitcher ever? Hitter? team? Growing up in the '60's, it is hard for me to imagine anyone better than Koufax, but... Mantle was my hero growing up. And I am still tied into the '27 Yankees. If they aren't the best ever, I'm not sure I want to know.