Comments on: 1,000 IP With WHIP = 1.5+ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99808 Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:42:23 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99808 @28, Wat -- I'm not a big Doug Davis fan, but ... For the 6 years 2004-09, Davis averaged almost 200 IP and a 109 ERA+ -- and he did it for an average salary of less than $5 million. There are probably 100 MLB pitchers earning more money while providing less value.

Also, Davis never really had a bad year until last year, when he was hurt. A 10-year run of reliably acceptable performance, and usually better than average, is something of real value.

]]>
By: wat http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99733 Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:16:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99733 Why has Doug Davis hung around all of these years? He has always seemed pretty pointless to me.

]]>
By: Mike Felber http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99725 Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:57:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99725 Ah well, thanks for the information. I cannot demand others do the work I am unable to do, or unwilling to learn now!

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99662 Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:17:21 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99662 Mike -- Your point is valid. Unfortunately, the Play Index search engine doesn't provide a direct means of making era adjustments for most of the searchable stats. With a few exceptions -- OPS+, ERA+, and the WAR group -- one can only search on the raw numbers.

]]>
By: Mike Felber http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99629 Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:14:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99629 True that it is not directly indicated that these guys are bad pitchers John. And you cannot be TOO bad & get a lot of IP. But I referred to a certain skill, WHIP, & clearly this list is showing who got a reasonable # of innings & was the worst at keeping this stat down. Unless it is specified that this was not era or otherwise adjusted, many will assume that this shows how good these guys are at keeping men off base in general.

Why not just make it, & all similar lists, era adjusted? That would reflect on the pitcher in this basic skill, not be a list very distorted by era differentials.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99505 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:05:53 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99505 P.S. to my @22-23:
One problem with trying to find "the greatest discrepancies" between WHIP and ERA (or ERA+) -- or, the problem with interpreting the lists I presented -- is that we haven't established what is a "normal" relation between those numbers. Is it linear? Exponential? I have no idea.

I used ratios that were tailored to produce lists of 50 to 100 pitchers. But I don't know what those ratios mean, if anything.

It also occurs to me that I should have included a minimum WHIP filter, in order to stay on the topic of pitchers with a high WHIP, so I'll post a couple more links with a minimum 1.4 WHIP (and min. 1,000 IP):

ERA+ more than 70 times WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/VtLSF
(Bob Wickman has the highest ratio in this group; his 126 ERA+ is exactly 90 times his 1.4 WHIP.)

ERA less than 2.8 times WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/YPi2r

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99501 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:40:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99501 One of my links @22 didn't work, so I'll try to present them both again:

Pitchers with 1,000+ IP and ERA+ more than 100 times their WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/blk3x

Pitchers with 1,000+ IP and ERA less than 2.2 times their WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/Y2oXc

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99497 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:26:12 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99497 Mike @21 & others -- You make a valid point about the importance of context when looking at raw numbers.

At the same time, I don't agree that this list "by implication ... purports to measure [ ] how good or bad a player is at a certain skill." I don't see anything in Steve's text that says or implies that this is a list of bad pitchers. And by presenting a pretty full statistical record (including ERA+), the list does give us some tools to put the raw numbers into context.

Morten asked for the biggest discrepancies between WHIP and ERA. Here are links to 2 P-I searches (I hope they work!): the first compares WHIP and ERA+, the second compares WHIP and raw ERA.

Pitchers with 1,000+ IP and ERA+ more than 100 times their WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/watji

Pitchers with 1,000+ IP and ERA less than 2.2 times their WHIP:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/Y2oXc

]]>
By: Mike Felber http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99452 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:23:09 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99452 I want to echo & amplify what others here have said: It would be much more informative to have these all time lists be adjusted at least for the era. Otherwise it totally distorts what by implication it purports to measure: how good or bad a player is at a certain skill.

This is not fair to the athletes, & tells us nada useful about who was good or bad at what.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10299/comment-page-1#comment-99436 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:45:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10299#comment-99436 @19, Biff, re: '01 Brewers having more Ks than Hits:

That was quite a feat for its time, but the 2010 D'backs raised that bar a notch or two, with 163 more Ks than Hits -- a gap so wide that even if all of Justin Upton's 152 Ks were wiped off the books, they still would have had more Ks than Hits, and still would have led the majors in strikeouts.

The D'backs had at least 131 Ks by every spot in the batting order, and at least 122 from every position in the field.

]]>