Hey, USS-How you doing?

[CubbieRich]

You must view a starting pitcher over his career, not just one season. Yes Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, etc.. all have had a bad year. Some even have a few poor years 'win wise', but they have a history of keeping their teams in the game and winning the majority of the time.

 

Wood's claims to fame are the 20 strikeout game in 1998 and a good year in 2003. Other than that he is injured, the highest paid pitcher on the Cubs and not living up to anyone's expectations. The whiners for Kerry will look at any small obscure stat that serious baseball people discount and then claim that Wood is doing his job. It's quite funny to read. I destroyed the WHIP myth months ago to them and many fled the scene.

 

I wish Wood was the 20 game winner, Cy Young pitcher we thought he might turn into, but he is far from it. But he'll be gone next year and the Cubs will have $12 million off the payroll to spend it more wisely.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

You must view a starting pitcher over his career, not just one season. Yes Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, etc.. all have had a bad year. Some even have a few poor years 'win wise', but they have a history of keeping their teams in the game and winning the majority of the time.

 

Wood's claims to fame are the 20 strikeout game in 1998 and a good year in 2003. Other than that he is injured, the highest paid pitcher on the Cubs and not living up to anyone's expectations. The whiners for Kerry will look at any small obscure stat that serious baseball people discount and then claim that Wood is doing his job. It's quite funny to read. I destroyed the WHIP myth months ago to them and many fled the scene.

 

I wish Wood was the 20 game winner, Cy Young pitcher we thought he might turn into, but he is far from it. But he'll be gone next year and the Cubs will have $12 million off the payroll to spend it more wisely.

 

:lol: OK...

[FergieJ31]

...It's quite funny to read. I destroyed the WHIP myth months ago to them and many fled the scene.

 

What is the WHIP myth and how did you destroy it? Feel free to link to your posts (I must have missed them). I'm not being argumentative - I really want to know what you mean.

 

Personally I think WHIP is just about the truest objective summary of pitcher performance. If I could ask for one stat -- one stat only -- about a pitcher I knew nothing about, that is the one I'd want (HR/9 and K/BB being a close 2nd and 3rd).

[Soul]

...It's quite funny to read. I destroyed the WHIP myth months ago to them and many fled the scene.

 

What is the WHIP myth and how did you destroy it? Feel free to link to your posts (I must have missed them). I'm not being argumentative - I really want to know what you mean.

 

Personally I think WHIP is just about the truest objective summary of pitcher performance. If I could ask for one stat -- one stat only -- about a pitcher I knew nothing about, that is the one I'd want (HR/9 and K/BB being a close 2nd and 3rd).

 

I always considered WHIP to be an informative stat, too. And I try to look beyond stats when I can.

[CubbieRich]

...It's quite funny to read. I destroyed the WHIP myth months ago to them and many fled the scene.

 

What is the WHIP myth and how did you destroy it? Feel free to link to your posts (I must have missed them). I'm not being argumentative - I really want to know what you mean.

 

Personally I think WHIP is just about the truest objective summary of pitcher performance. If I could ask for one stat -- one stat only -- about a pitcher I knew nothing about, that is the one I'd want (HR/9 and K/BB being a close 2nd and 3rd).

 

WHIP fails to include two stats that a pitcher is certainly responsible for: HBP and WP. But the most glaring omission is treating a single and a home run as the same. WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not. Closing one eye and then squinting with the other one hardly gives one an accurate evaluation of a starting pitcher.

 

I'll take the pitchers with 300+ wins over top 100 WHIP leaders any day.

[goonys evil twin]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

[CubbieRich]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

 

WHIP=H+BB/IP

 

9 singles+ 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

9 HR + 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

 

Next.

[Mark Priors Calves]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

 

WHIP=H+BB/IP

 

9 singles+ 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

9 HR + 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

 

Next.

 

Is this the "destroying" of the WHIP stat you talked about?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

And a similar example can be presented for wins...and it is much more likely to take those extreme scenarios (such as no run support) vs someone giving up 9 H vs. 9 HR.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That argument might work if Wood had a high SLG against, but he doesn't. No one ever said to look at WHIP in a vacuum.

[sethuel1]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

 

WHIP=H+BB/IP

 

9 singles+ 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

9 HR + 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

 

Next.

 

Case closed. Let's pick players by how fast they can get to first.

[rocket]

I don't remember these posts in NSBB.

 

Poster: WHIP IS ALL THAT MATTERS I DON'T THINK ANY OTHER PITCHING METRICS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AT ALL!

CubbieRich: WHIP is dumb. 9 hits and 9 home runs gives you the same WHIP.

Poster: OMG YOU'RE RIGHT, HOW HUMILIATING.

 

Top Ten Starting Pitchers in WHIP in 2006

 

1. Pedro

2. Santana

3. Clemens

4. Petitte

5. Peavy

6. Carpenter

7. Randy Johnson

8. Willis

9. Smoltz

10. Carlos

 

Weird how such a mythical stat will net you the top 10 pitchers in baseball.

[UBlink]

OK, I compared top 10, wins vs WHIP for NL only. There are 5 pitchers on both lists - Willis, Carpenter, Pettite, Beckett and Pedro. Which 5 would you rather have to round out your top 10?

 

By Wins - Suppan, Mulder, Lieber, Capuano, Oswalt

 

By WHIP - Clemens, Peavy, Smoltz, Zambrano, Weaver

 

Edit - If you use opponent OPS instead of WHIP, nine of the top 10 stay the same - Weaver is replaced by AJ Burnett. Clemens opponent OPS was 544, 42 points better than 2nd place Pedro :shock: , but he only had 13 wins.

Edited March 13, 2006 by UBlink

[moorecg]

What about the top ten list of pickoff throws to first base. I think that's really the true indicator. Followed closely by the fake to third and then throw to first. :D

[Houston_Cub_Fan]

Rocket Sauce,

 

I think you just destroyed the destroyer. :)

[goonys evil twin]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

 

WHIP=H+BB/IP

 

9 singles+ 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

9 HR + 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

 

Next.

 

Next what? Next absurdly foolish claim by you? Okay, what is it?

 

WHIP is one stat. It's one extremely helpful stat in judging pitchers, but it's still one stat. Nobody will tell you 9 singles equals 9 homeruns. To claim so is completely ignorant.

[wade]

I think this is a textbook example of the "straw man argument".

[Magnetic Curses]

i think the top 3 "conventional" stats when looking at pitchers are as follows:

 

1. WHIP

2. G/F ratio

3. K/9

 

if all 3 are present, you have a very good pitcher who will likely put up strong BAA/OBPA/SLGA/OPSA.

 

any pitcher that gives a semblance of consistency from year to year in regards to wins, will generally have these peripherals. wood is simply an exception to the rule.

 

as far as WHIP not indicating the difference between a HR and a single, i think it's just idiotic to believe a pitcher with a good WHIP is going to give up a majority of home runs. if you can't hit the guy well, you can't hit him well, and i'd think a guy who's bad at limiting home runs would be equally as bad at limiting singles and other types of hits.

[BigbadB]

WHIP enthusiasts will tell you 9 singles is the same as 9 HR, which of course they are not.

 

That is an absurdly foolish claim.

 

WHIP=H+BB/IP

 

9 singles+ 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

9 HR + 0 BB/9 IP=1.0 WHIP

 

Next.

 

Next what? Next absurdly foolish claim by you? Okay, what is it?

 

WHIP is one stat. It's one extremely helpful stat in judging pitchers, but it's still one stat. Nobody will tell you 9 singles equals 9 homeruns. To claim so is completely ignorant.

 

The pitcher who gave up 9 home runs over the course of 9 innings got the win because his own offense scored 10 runs.

 

He's 1-0 with a 1.00 WHIP and a complete game. What an awesome pitcher!!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

While I don't think WHIP is an all-encompassing stat, it beats wins every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[CubbieRich]

Top 20 All-Time Winningest Pitchers

 

Cy Young

Walter Johnson

Pete Alexander

Christy Mathewson

Pud Galvin

Warren Spahn

Kid Nichols

Tim Keefe

Roger Clemens

Steve Carlton

John Clarkson

Eddie Plank

Nolan Ryan

Don Sutton

Greg Maddux

Phil Niekro

Gaylord Perry

Tom Seaver

Charley Radbourn

Mickey Welch

 

Top All-Time WHIP

 

Addie Joss

Ed Walsh

Pedro Martinez

John Ward

Christy Mathewson

Walter Johnson

Mordecai Brown

Charlie Sweeney

Reb Russell

Joe Wood

Jim Devlin

Jack Pfiester

George Bradley

Babe Adams

Tommy Bond

Juan Marichal

Dick Hall

Rube Waddell

Larry Corcoran

Deacon Phillippe

 

Nobody will tell you 9 singles equals 9 homeruns. To claim so is completely ignorant

.

 

That is exactly what WHIP does-there is no distinction.

[BigbadB]

Top 20 All-Time Winningest Pitchers

 

Cy Young

Walter Johnson

Pete Alexander

Christy Mathewson

Pud Galvin

Warren Spahn

Kid Nichols

Tim Keefe

Roger Clemens

Steve Carlton

John Clarkson

Eddie Plank

Nolan Ryan

Don Sutton

Greg Maddux

Phil Niekro

Gaylord Perry

Tom Seaver

Charley Radbourn

Mickey Welch

 

Top All-Time WHIP

 

Addie Joss

Ed Walsh

Pedro Martinez

John Ward

Christy Mathewson

Walter Johnson

Mordecai Brown

Charlie Sweeney

Reb Russell

Joe Wood

Jim Devlin

Jack Pfiester

George Bradley

Babe Adams

Tommy Bond

Juan Marichal

Dick Hall

Rube Waddell

Larry Corcoran

Deacon Phillippe

 

Nobody will tell you 9 singles equals 9 homeruns. To claim so is completely ignorant

.

 

That is exactly what WHIP does-there is no distinction.

 

Interestingly enough, many of the pitchers on your all time winningest list would also be on the all time losingest list. :wink:

[rocket]

That is exactly what WHIP does-there is no distinction.

 

And there's no distinction between a win where you give up 23 earned runs and a win where you give up 0 earned runs.

 

On-base-percentage and batting average doesn't distinguish between home runs and singles either. Are these stats mythical too?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Don't forget BB/9 as an important stat too--all other factors constant, the pitcher that can consistently throw strikes tends to be more successful--and certainly goes deeper into ballgames with lower pitch counts--than those that struggle with control.

 

Look at Fergie and Maddux' numbers as just two examples and factor in their durability and longevity. Tom Terrific and Jim Palmer two more good examples.

 

It's just one factor to consider, but WHIP and BB/9 together will get you 90% of the picture I would guesstimate. GB/FB is a good indicator at the margin between good and great pitchers, and bad vs mediocre pitchers, but it's not as telling. Ditto for K/9.

 

Someone with handy access to detailed statistics, I think it would be interesting to see a correlation between WHIP and BB/9 for the top guys lifetime.

[UBlink]

i think the top 3 "conventional" stats when looking at pitchers are as follows:

 

1. WHIP

2. G/F ratio

3. K/9

 

if all 3 are present, you have a very good pitcher who will likely put up strong BAA/OBPA/SLGA/OPSA.

 

any pitcher that gives a semblance of consistency from year to year in regards to wins, will generally have these peripherals. wood is simply an exception to the rule.

 

as far as WHIP not indicating the difference between a HR and a single, i think it's just idiotic to believe a pitcher with a good WHIP is going to give up a majority of home runs. if you can't hit the guy well, you can't hit him well, and i'd think a guy who's bad at limiting home runs would be equally as bad at limiting singles and other types of hits.

 

We have somewhat of a counter-example from last year, although your secondary stats pick up the distinction. Carlos Zambrano and Jeff Weaver rank 8 and 9 in the NL in WHIP for last year with 1.15 and 1.17, but their overall value differs greatly - on OPSA, Z is 632 while Weaver is 740. The difference is that Weaver gave up 35 HR while Z had 21 in virtually the same number of innings - 223.1 and 224. But this would be picked up from the differences in the secondary stats. On G/F, 1.62 for Z, 1.0 for Weaver. On K/9, 8.14 for Z, 6.31 for Weaver. Weaver keeps his WHIP down by not walking anybody - he had half as many walks as Z, 43 vs 86. But they both had 14 wins so I guess they're just the same.