Brewers

[Chisoxfn]

I've long said that these stats (unless proven similar over a long period of time) are biased to how teams play. For example I've long felt that there was a period of time where US Cellular rated as a more extreme hitters park than it may be because we have a lineup full of HR hitters and a pitching staff that was prone to the long ball.

 

The same can be said of a team like Mil which for a long period of time has lacked many good hitters (and Power Hitters).

[CWSGuy406]

Wrigley Field is a pretty tough call when it comes to hitters park/pitchers park.

 

The past two years, it has played as a hitters park, but from 2000-'03 (a four year span), it played as an extreme pitchers park.

 

Miller Park, OTOH, is a difficult call. It's been in existance five years (going on six); for two years, it's played as a slight hitters park ('01 + '03), two years as a pitchers park ('02 + '04), and in '05, it played neutral.

 

I'll be seeing a lot of Brewer games in the near future (going to Marquette next fall), but I'd have to guess (by the numbers) that it's a slight pitcher's park.

[hammerhead johnson]

No the guy who wins 20 games and puts up a good ERA is the best.  I realize Wins are an elusive stat but thats what you get paid to do...WIN Games.  Sure you can make a point that a guy who wins 22 with a poor ERA got a little lucky, but he still got the wins and thats what this game is about.

 

You don't award Cy Youngs on WHIP.

 

Well, teams win games, not pitchers. To me, wins are the last thing that you look at. Ben Sheets is Exhibit A.

[hammerhead johnson]

A guy whose a damn good pitcher may walk more than the usual batter and therefor his WHIP may be higher, but he could have stellar stuff and therefor people never get the key hits off him.

 

Look at Millwood last season, he had runners on but he flat out pitches better with runnres on.  Sure ERA tends to fluctuate year to year based on luck in a sense, but you don't need a very low WHIP to be a good pitcher.  It helps, but its definately not a necessity. 

 

Bottom line what wins games, ERA (Runs allowed) or WHIP.  You don't get a W because you gave up just 5 hits but also 5 runs.  However if you give up 15 hits/walks and only give up 3 runs, well thats the result that matters and if people are posting a consistently good ERA year in year out, than I could give two s***s about what there whip is.

 

I also think people drastically overlook home road splits.  Fact is guys sometimes pitch better at certain places than others and there are plenty of people who have better stats at home becuase its there home park and they are more comfortable pithcing in front of there fans, etc. 

 

Other pitchers may struggle at there home park because for whatever reason the way they pitch doesn't fit in well for a ball park (maybe a pitcher who really like hammering the ball inside would struggle at Fenway because right handers would be able to get a lot of pulled homers, however at other parks he wouldn't suffer from that.

 

Fact is I can tell people if someone is a good or bad pitcher with my eyes.  Stats only back up whether he's actually succeeding or not and some people drastically overlook stats (in fact I think most statty guys do exactly that).  And because of it they oow and awe stupid things.

 

Well, if you have stellar stuff, you're not walking many people to begin with, because by definition, the most important ingredient for "stellar stuff" is control, and WHIP is easily the best measure of control on an individual basis. Maybe some of the position players behind you suck defensively, but they can't walk guys for you. Walks are the biggest killer in baseball IMO. That's why I sweat Frank Thomas so hard. And Billy Beane too..

 

Yeah, there is no doubt that you judge guys with your eyes, and you supplement what you have seen with statistics.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, WHIP rules all in the world of pitching statistics. Johan Santana had the second best WHIP ratio in the majors. Kevin Millwood wasn't even in the Top 25 in WHIP, but he won the ERA title? What's more accurate? That's why the ERA argument just ain't registering on my end, and the Wins argument ain't even a blip on my radar.

 

If you're giving up 15 hits/walks and you only allow three runs, then you either have a stellar defense behind you, or you need to start playing the lottery ASAP.

 

Maybe some guys pitch better with runners on during the regular season (Millwood), but in a playoff situation, they're f***ed. That ice that they have in their veins is melting with the quickness in such a high pressure situation. And besides, Millwood is so overrated that it's not even funny.

[hammerhead johnson]

For example they appreciate a guy with a .400 OBP yet a .240 AVG over someone with a .300 AVG, a .350 OBP, and a lower OPS than the prior hitter (or at least some do).  Thats just stupid, fact is while walks can get you on base, hits are what drives guys in and they don't always go for just one base (plus walks can move guys one base, hits can move guys 2 bases quite often, sometimes more, sometimes less).

 

Hence the reason I think statiticians everywhere over-rate OBP and underrate AVG.  If OBP was such a tell all you'd have some different teams in the playoffs this past few years.  The Sox wouldn't have won the world series, the Angels wouldn't have made the playoffs, Jeff Francouer wouldn't be a solid player (with a lot of upside)...etc etc.

 

See, I agree with the OBP guys. It's all about getting on base for the hitter, just like it's all about NOT letting people get on base as a pitcher (WHIP). OPS rules all for sluggers, OBP and AVG rule all for table-setters, and WHIP rules all for pitchers.

 

Hits drive guys in, that is correct. But the guys who are being driven in got on base via the walk.

[hammerhead johnson]

Did you notice that Viz wasn't bad for the Sox last season or that Kolb had a career year.  He wasn't the same pitcher with the Braves.  So because Shingo suck in YR 2 does that mean it was all because of US Cellular.

 

There are exceptions, but it seems like the Brewers have the best relievers in the history of baseball! That's just deliberate exaggeration on my part, but those guys ain't nowhere near as good as what the numbers indicate. Miller = crazy pitcher's park.

 

And Shingo? Move the fences back 600 feet, and he's still f***ed.

[hammerhead johnson]

Also Miller Park apparently is one of the hardest stadiums to get a hit in, which definatley could point to the pitchers being more dominant at home.

 

Hmmm, sounds about right.

[hammerhead johnson]

I've long said that these stats (unless proven similar over a long period of time) are biased to how teams play. 

 

That's exactly how I feel about ERA or Wins. WHIP is a measure of control on an individual basis. ERA, on the other hand? Just like you stated: biased to how teams play. Yeah, the official scorer didn't call it an error, but Scotty Pods done f***ed up when that catchable line drive turned into a freaking triple with the bases loaded. That ain't cool.

 

And I just love it when a starting pitcher leaves the game with two outs and two men on, and some scrub comes in and gives up a 3 run shot. That's two earned runs for your SP who just pitched a brilliant game. But that WHIP ratio ain't getting hit too hard after you leave the game.

[Rowand44]

  ERA, on the other hand?  Just like you stated: biased to how teams play.  Yeah, the official scorer didn't call it an error, but Scotty Pods done f***ed up when that catchable line drive turned into a freaking triple with the bases loaded.  That ain't cool.

 

 

Then that causes a hit to be added on to the guys whip as well.

[hammerhead johnson]

Then that causes a hit to be added on to the guys whip as well.

 

Right, one hit, as opposed to three runs.

[hammerhead johnson]

Even the best starters in baseball are going to have bad innings, and it's all about minimizing the damage.

 

You can give up 4 walks/hits in one inning, but then you can retire 12 straight batters or whatever, so your WHIP ratio is still gonna be sweet.

 

But the runs that you gave up in that inning as a result of a horses*** play by Scotty Pods?

 

ERA = f***ed

WHIP = SWEET

 

Point: ERA is mad misleading, WHIP tells me the truth

[RockRaines]

Hmmm, sounds about right. 

Yeah, meaning that those pitchers are dominant at home, so the stadium appears to be a pitchers park in that sense.

 

Because if you go by your "parks make the player" theory, you would have to go by more than just home/away stats, you would have to examine each stadium and their corresponding stats in each stadium.

 

Doug Davis's worst stadiums 2005:

Rogers Centre 37.80

Shea Stadium 14.73

Busch stadium: 9.0

Minute Maid 5.25

citizens Bank 6.75

RFK 6.0

 

Those mostly are pitching parks. So I wonder if his ERA is just not great on the road in general, because he would rather pitch at home.

 

Career-wise, some of his worst stadiums are "pitchers parks." And some of his best are hitters parks.

Chris Capuano has the same mixed statistics.

 

As far as your love fest with WHIP. There are several flaws in using WHIP over ERA to find a pitcher's worth. WHIP considers all walks and hits allowed. Period. ERA considers only the runs allowed that the opponent earned—that is, runs that would not have scored if not for an error. The focus of each statistic, therefore, is different. For instance, consider Pitcher X, who loads the bases on three consecutive errors by his fielders. He then proceeds to surrender two hits and two walks before completing the inning after allowing five runs. Since he should have completed the inning after the first three hitters, his ERA is 0.00. His WHIP, in contrast, is 4.00.

You also see the trade off when you can watch a strike out pitcher vs someone like Jon Garland. Jon is going to trade off less walks because he strikes out players less. Therefor he relies more on ground outs and contact while lower his WHIP. Other pitchers who strike out batters at a higher rate may miss the strike zone once an inning and walk a batter, only to rack up a strikeout the next person up to bat. Which pitcher is more valuable? Both would have an ERA of 0, but one would have a higher WHIP. Does that make the strikeout pitcher less skilled? not IMO. I think they are both valuable, but there is not as much correlation as you may think. And IMO ERA is the most valuable statistic because it focuses truly more on the pitchers skill and worth.

Edited April 13, 2006 by RockRaines

[RockRaines]

But the runs that you gave up in that inning as a result of a horses*** play by Scotty Pods? 

 

 

Point: ERA is mad misleading, WHIP tells me the truth

If its an error, the runs will be unearned, therefore ERA would still show the pitcher's true statistics.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm just going to agree to disagree, but there is a reason why the teams that win are still routed in scouting and not stats that pop up out of a computer.

 

I'm not knocking stats, they are important, but way overdone. And anyone that doesn't realize how over-rated OBP is well whatever. Its great to have a nice OBP but more important is a hitters ability to HIT. Having a good eye makes him a more complete player.

 

And having good STUFF has nothing to do whether you can throw strikes or not. Thats COMMAND, not STUFF.

[WHarris1]

I'm just going to agree to disagree, but there is a reason why the teams that win are still routed in scouting and not stats that pop up out of a computer.

 

I'm not knocking stats, they are important, but way overdone.  And anyone that doesn't realize how over-rated OBP is well whatever.  Its great to have a nice OBP but more important is a hitters ability to HIT.  Having a good eye makes him a more complete player.

 

And having good STUFF has nothing to do whether you can throw strikes or not.  Thats COMMAND, not STUFF.

[ZoomSlowik]

Well, if you have stellar stuff, you're not walking many people to begin with, because by definition, the most important ingredient for "stellar stuff" is control, and WHIP is easily the best measure of control on an individual basis.  Maybe some of the position players behind you suck defensively, but they can't walk guys for you.  Walks are the biggest killer in baseball IMO.  That's why I sweat Frank Thomas so hard.  And Billy Beane too..

 

That's not really the case. Stuff and control are totally unrelated, or at least in the sense that they are normally used. Good control means that you can spot your pitches, while stuff means that the raw quality of your pitches is good. Guys like Zambrano, Burnett, Lackey and Jenks have good stuff and bad control, while guys like Moyer, Radke, Maddux and Glavine (at least at this point in their careers) have fairly good control but poor stuff. You won't hear people saying that the pitchers in the llatter group have good stuff. You can definitely have one without the other. If anything stuff is generally inversly related with control because if your stuff is good you can get away with weaker control.

[hammerhead johnson]

Yeah, but you need control to get your "stellar stuff" anywhere near the plate. Think about it. I have a mean curveball. The only problem is that it lands like 10 feet in front of the plate. How can your stuff be stellar in the first place without being able to dictate where the pitches are going? I dunno, it just doesn't make much sense.

 

If you can't control a pitch at least somewhat, you're not going to be in the majors. It kind of defeats the purpose.

 

I'm just talking control, not good control or great control. Just your typical average major league level of control. Or whatever the f***. Zambrano, Burnett, etc have average control. Without it, they wouldn't be in the majors -- obviously.

 

But I must admit, after I typed it, I knew that someone would try to correct me on it. Don't separate "control" and "stuff", because you need some control to have good stuff in the first place.

 

Or am I way off base here?

[Rowand44]

I'm just going to agree to disagree, but there is a reason why the teams that win are still routed in scouting and not stats that pop up out of a computer.

 

I'm not knocking stats, they are important, but way overdone.  And anyone that doesn't realize how over-rated OBP is well whatever.  Its great to have a nice OBP but more important is a hitters ability to HIT.  Having a good eye makes him a more complete player.

 

And having good STUFF has nothing to do whether you can throw strikes or not.  Thats COMMAND, not STUFF.

Wow, um....Bingo.

[hammerhead johnson]

I'm not knocking stats, they are important, but way overdone.  And anyone that doesn't realize how over-rated OBP is well whatever.  Its great to have a nice OBP but more important is a hitters ability to HIT.  Having a good eye makes him a more complete player.

 

You can't knock OBP, though. Getting on base is what it's all about. You put pressure on the pitcher, you f*** with the heads of infielders, you see to it that there are more "ducks on the pond" so that your sluggers can have more RBI opportunities, etc.

 

And really, how often are you going to have a guy with a great OBP and a s***ty batting average? There are only a select few guys that I can think of.

 

Plenty of stats are overrated. That ain't one of them IMO.

[Rowand44]

You can't knock OBP, though.  Getting on base is what it's all about.  You put pressure on the pitcher, you f*** with the heads of infielders, you see to it that there are more "ducks on the pond" so that your sluggers can have more RBI opportunities, etc.

 

And really, how often are you going to have a guy with a great OBP and a s***ty batting average?  There are only a select few guys that I can think of.

 

Plenty of stats are overrated.  That ain't one of them IMO.

It's an important stat but it's overrated in the sense that some people think it's the only thing that matters. That's far from the case. I'm just one of those people who hate when people say that Garrett Anderson sucked last year cause his obp and ops were down yet he still drove in 96. It seems at times that people have now forgot about the traditional stats with all these new age ones out there.

[hammerhead johnson]

If its an error, the runs will be unearned, therefore ERA would still show the pitcher's true statistics.

 

Yep, but it wasn't an error.

 

Also, if the bases are loaded on three errors, and the pitcher proceeds to give up four straight hits, ERA ain't gonna show just how terrible that pitcher was in that particular inning, but WHIP will.

 

Yeah, the position players behind him were terrible, but so was he. Why should he get a free pass? But with all of the errors that go uncalled, I guess that it all evens out in the end.

[hammerhead johnson]

It's an important stat but it's overrated in the sense that some people think it's the only thing that matters.  That's far from the case.  I'm just one of those people who hate when people say that Garrett Anderson sucked last year cause his obp and ops were down yet he still drove in 96.  It seems at times that people have now forgot about the traditional stats with all these new age ones out there.

 

That's cool. I tend to agree for the most part.

 

But god damn, Garrett only had a .743 OPS last year? Ouch.

[CWSGuy406]

It's an important stat but it's overrated in the sense that some people think it's the only thing that matters.  That's far from the case.  I'm just one of those people who hate when people say that Garrett Anderson sucked last year cause his obp and ops were down yet he still drove in 96.  It seems at times that people have now forgot about the traditional stats with all these new age ones out there.

 

I think the reason people like SLG% and OBP more than batting average is because the former two have proven to correlate better with scoring runs than the latter (over the course of a 162 game season -- in the playoffs this changes).

 

And Jason, it's all relative. I mean, yeah, you can say OBP is overrated, but you have to put it in a context.

 

What I'm saying is, if you have a player who is making $8 million a year, but his only real asset is his OBP (say he's putting up a .250/.375/.375 line), then of course he's going to be overrated.

 

OBP isn't the be-all, end-all, and I doubt any real saber fan would tell you that. You have to mix and match it with other things (such as defense, power, position relativity -- ie, is this a catcher or a right-fielder?).

[hammerhead johnson]

What I'm saying is, if you have a player who is making $8 million a year, but his  only real asset is his OBP (say he's putting up a .250/.375/.375 line), then of course he's going to be overrated. 

 

And really, there ain't very many Brad Wilkersons out there. In the vast majority of cases, you're not gonna have a guy with a great OBP and a s***ty batting average. Being able to draw walks usually means that you have a solid batting eye. Having a solid batting eye usually means that you can hit for a good average. Or maybe I'm just oversimplifying things.

[CWSGuy406]

And really, there ain't very many Brad Wilkersons out there.  In the vast majority of cases, you're not gonna have a guy with a great OBP and a s***ty batting average.  Being able to draw walks usually means that you have a solid batting eye.  Having a solid batting eye usually means that you can hit for a good average.  Or maybe I'm just oversimplifying things.

 

No, that's true.

 

There's very few cases like the Adam Dunn's of the world.

 

But, Dunn's value isn't just in his OBP, it's combined with the fact that he's going to hit 70-80 x-tra basehits a year. Oh, yeah, and he's 26 friggin' years old...