Stat Argument

[APD0290]

What's a more important stat for pitchers?

ERA, WHIP, K/BB
vs
Wins/Losses

I don't even think it's close, I'd rather have a pitcher who is 13-8 with an ERA of 3.25, WHIP of < 1.25, and K/BB of 5/1 than a pitcher who is 20-4 with an ERA of 4.25, WHIP of > 1.75, and K/BB of 3/2.

On a related note, which hitter would you rather have?

.300/.360/.500
vs
.250/.360/.500

Once again, not even close. I'd rather take the latter of the two. He's getting you more XBH and is replacing singles with walks, which isn't as bad of a tradeoff as singles for doubles.

[Stu]

Re: Stat Argument

What's a more important stat for pitchers?

ERA, WHIP, K/BB
vs
Wins/Losses

I don't even think it's close, I'd rather have a pitcher who is 13-8 with an ERA of 3.25, WHIP of < 1.25, and K/BB of 5/1 than a pitcher who is 20-4 with an ERA of 4.25, WHIP of > 1.75, and K/BB of 3/2.

On a related note, which hitter would you rather have?

.300/.360/.500
vs
.250/.360/.500

Once again, not even close. I'd rather take the latter of the two. He's getting you more XBH and is replacing singles with walks, which isn't as bad of a tradeoff as singles for doubles.

I think the numbers listed on the 2nd one are wrong. It has OBP and SLG as equal, in which case you'd obviously take the first option.

[APD0290]

Re: Stat Argument

The numbers listed are correct, I just don't think you thought deep enough into it. Both hitters make the same number of outs, hence the OBP, but hitter #2 gets more extra base hits because a lot of singles are replaced by walks.

[DGetz]

Re: Stat Argument

What's a more important stat for pitchers?

ERA, WHIP, K/BB
vs
Wins/Losses

I don't even think it's close, I'd rather have a pitcher who is 13-8 with an ERA of 3.25, WHIP of < 1.25, and K/BB of 5/1 than a pitcher who is 20-4 with an ERA of 4.25, WHIP of > 1.75, and K/BB of 3/2.

On a related note, which hitter would you rather have?

.300/.360/.500
vs
.250/.360/.500

Once again, not even close. I'd rather take the latter of the two. He's getting you more XBH and is replacing singles with walks, which isn't as bad of a tradeoff as singles for doubles.

I assume from the detailed part of your response you meant which stat group is better used to evaluate, rather than what single stat is most important.

I think the WHIP, ERA, and K/BB walk ratio is by far more important and that W-L is a refelection of those statistics along with run support. For example, I think it's hard to argue against Clemens having the best season in the NL, yet he is tied for 17th in wins, behind Jon Lieber (Era: 4.88) and Javier Vasquez (4.37). Clemens is 8-4; Jason Schmidt is 7-5 despite Schmidt's ERA being over 3 runs higher. Peavy has the same record as Clemens but his ERA is almost 2 runs higher.

As for hitters...for those two I'd probobly rather have the guy with the higher batting average. I think the most important numbers for a hitter are OBP and Slugging (and of course by association OPS), but if those are equal I would rather have a guy who gets more hits. Why? If there is a runner on second or third and the hitter singles, the runner will probobly score. If there is runner on second or third and the hitter walks, the runner doesn't go anywhere. Same idea with a runner on first - a single may send him to third, whereas a walk only sends him to second.

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

What's a more important stat for pitchers?

ERA, WHIP, K/BB
vs
Wins/Losses

I don't even think it's close, I'd rather have a pitcher who is 13-8 with an ERA of 3.25, WHIP of < 1.25, and K/BB of 5/1 than a pitcher who is 20-4 with an ERA of 4.25, WHIP of > 1.75, and K/BB of 3/2.

On a related note, which hitter would you rather have?

.300/.360/.500
vs
.250/.360/.500

Once again, not even close. I'd rather take the latter of the two. He's getting you more XBH and is replacing singles with walks, which isn't as bad of a tradeoff as singles for doubles.

It's a little bit of a misleading question. Pitcher A has more losses than Pitcher B. That means your team has lost four more games in his starts. Not to mention the fact that (assuming they both started the same number of games) we don't know how the team fared in all of Pitcher A's no decisions.

Pitcher B's team could conceivably have 10-12 more wins than Pitcher A and how is that reflected in the standings? It's all about the team winning and where they finish.

[DGetz]

Re: Stat Argument

It's a little bit of a misleading question. Pitcher A has more losses than Pitcher B. That means your team has lost four more games in his starts. Not to mention the fact that (assuming they both started the same number of games) we don't know how the team fared in all of Pitcher A's no decisions.

Pitcher B's team could conceivably have 10-12 more wins than Pitcher A and how is that reflected in the standings? It's all about the team winning and where they finish.

That's true, but if you are to use that as the basis for criteria it assumes the pitcher has total control over the outcome of the game when in reality the only have control over the defensive part (and a small bit of the offensive part if in the NL). A pitcher generally will not have a big impact on how many runs his team scores or when they score them; they can only have an impact on how many runs are scored against them; therefor I would take the guy who allows the other team to score fewer runs.

That of course assumes all else is equal, i.e. hitter/pitcher ballpark, stamina, etc...

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

That's true, but if you are to use that as the basis for criteria it assumes the pitcher has total control over the outcome of the game when in reality the only have control over the defensive part (and a small bit of the offensive part if in the NL). A pitcher generally will not have a big impact on how many runs his team scores or when they score them; they can only have an impact on how many runs are scored against them; therefor I would take the guy who allows the other team to score fewer runs.

That of course assumes all else is equal, i.e. hitter/pitcher ballpark, stamina, etc...

You are correct, but we can't consider everything equal. Some pitchers simply just have more runs scored for them in their starts. Whether it is the teams getting up for that particular pitcher's starts or some other intangible, it happens.

Individually I'd rather have Pitcher A of course, but as a team I'll take Pitcher B all day long.

[Autoproxy]

Re: Stat Argument

Well, there is a school of thought that the only things a pitcher can control are Ks, BBs and HRs allowed. WHIP takes into account walks, but also defenses that have more range behind the pitcher will reduce the pitcher's WHIP, so that's not perfect.

However, if you give K-BB ratio highest priority...then Maddux is only good and not great and...well, he was great. So...I say K-BB and W-L are the two most important ways to judge a pitcher.

As for the comparison of the two hitters...I say .300/.360/.500 is better than .250/.360/.500. They're virtually the same thing...but the .300 hitter will put the ball in play more often as hits and be more fun to watch. But...if you asked me which player I would want the next season, I'd take the .250 hitter...batting average fluctuates, but the ability to draw a walk does not.

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

Well, there is a school of thought that the only things a pitcher can control are Ks, BBs and HRs allowed. WHIP takes into account walks, but also defenses that have more range behind the pitcher will reduce the pitcher's WHIP, so that's not perfect.

However, if you give K-BB ratio highest priority...then Maddux is only good and not great and...well, he was great. So...I say K-BB and W-L are the two most important ways to judge a pitcher.

As for the comparison of the two hitters...I say .300/.360/.500 is better than .250/.360/.500. They're virtually the same thing...but the .300 hitter will put the ball in play more often as hits and be more fun to watch. But...if you asked me which player I would want the next season, I'd take the .250 hitter...batting average fluctuates, but the ability to draw a walk does not.

It depends on the needs of your team. I'll take the .300 hitter in the #2 or #3 slot any day of the week over the .250 hitter.

[DuffysCliff]

Re: Stat Argument

Pitcher B has been exetremley lucky if he has a 4.25 ERA with a WHIP of 1.75 and K/BB of only 3 to the 2. I"d steer clear of that guy.

It depends on the needs of your team. I'll take the .300 hitter in the #2 or #3 slot any day of the week over the .250 hitter.

Why does it matter though, each player is making the same number of outs. Sure player A is more of a contact hitter, so he'll get lucky with a few more hits and maybe move over the runner every now and then, but also there will be times where he'll ground into a double play since instead of letting that pitch on the outside go by for a strike. I rather have strike out guys who get on base the same amount and hit for more power early in the batting order and the contact guys lower. That way, the guy will hit a double or something, which lets the contact guys get a hit and drive him in, or just move him over so the other contact guys can get him in.

[dkgojackets]

Re: Stat Argument

Id rather have pitcher two and batter one. A lot of teams would gladly take 7 more wins and 4 fewer losses from their ace, and the extra 1.00 ERA (which is the most important stat), does not trade off for that significant difference in record. For example, if you are pitching while your team has already got you a good sized lead, then you aren't trying to paint the corners and rack up strikeouts, its about getting the ball in play and recording some outs.

Also who could possibly want hitter two? Always take the best average if on-base is the same, because you can't go from first to third or score from second on a walk like you can on a base-hit.

[mjb2124]

Re: Stat Argument

Pitcher A, Batter A. I'm viewing this as a GM. Someone who looks at this for the overall, longterm.

Pitcher A because WHIP, K/BB, ERA are more telling stats of how a pitcher is performing than W/L. Roger Clemens is a perfect example right now. Low ERA, good K/BB ratio, excellent WHIP, but a very average record. His team isn't scoring for him so his W/L record doesn't show how well he's pitched this season. I don't know the numbers, but I'd guess the Astros are averaging less than 3 runs per game in games that he starts. Nothing a pitcher can do about that....

Batter A for all the reasons stated above....

[DGetz]

Re: Stat Argument

If you look at it from a statistical standpoint of W-L record being an effect of WHIP, BB, Ks, ERA, etc then the first pitcher <i>should</i> have a better record.

In his Baseball Historical Abstract Bill James calculate that for starting pitchers an extra win was earned for ~8.5 runs. Over the course of a full season (200 Innings) Pitcher A would have allowed 72 runs and Pitcher B, 94 runs. Using the statistic normalities you expect Pitcher A to have 3 more win than Pitcher B (22/8.5 = 2.59). The example given then would be a case of statisical outliers or abnormalities which would likely move closer to the average the following year (if the pitchers had the same run support). Thus, if I were a GM and I had a choice between the two I would take Pitcher A because he is more likely to pick up more wins.

Also as mentioned a pitcher with a 1.75 WHIP and a 4.25 ERA must really have a knack for getting out of jams. As of now there are only two pitchers with WHIPs over 1.7 (Ponson and Nomo, who was just released) and their ERAs are 5.91 and 7.24. The highest WHIP for a pitcher with an ERA at or under 4.25 is 1.46.

[X*Cell]

Re: Stat Argument

If a pitcher is 20-4 but with the Royals... then it is worth alot more compared to a pitcher who is 20-4 with the Cardinals...

This is what I do with Wins and Losses...

(Wins / Team Wins) - (Losses / Team Losses)

Example: (Player 1 is 13-6 on a team that is 41-36 ... and player 2 is 15-4 on a team that is 58-20)

Player 1:
(13 / 41) - (6 / 36)
.150

Player 2:
(15 / 58) - (4 / 20)
.059

I would take Player 1

[mjb2124]

Re: Stat Argument

If a pitcher is 20-4 but with the Royals... then it is worth alot more compared to a pitcher who is 20-4 with the Cardinals...

I see what you're getting at, but is it really worth much more?

I really don't think the team one plays for and their record has very much merit here. The Royals could perceivably put up decent offensive numbers for their 20-4 pitcher (avg 5 runs while pitcher gives up 4) while the Cards struggle for their 20-4 pitcher (avg 4 runs while pitcher gives up 3). Runs scored for that pitcher and runs given up by that pitcher have to be factored into the equation IMO. I'm going with the guy who gives up the least amount of runs regardless of his teams record.