Tigers vs. mariners Game Thread September 16

[Rebbiv]

Let's play "what ifs" all day. Bottom line, most sabermatics do not care much about ERA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/era/

WHIP has it's flaws also. Tom even mentioned it, it does not take into account hit batsmen. But to say ERA is better is just plain ignorant.

Now, for most sabermatics, linear weights (normally expressed as Runs Created) or OPP OPS are better comparison stats.

2nd Half Runs vs Unearned

Fister 26 vs 25

Verlander 39 vs 32

Porcello 31 vs 30

A pitcher could give up a grand slam in an inning on NOT have any of the runs count as earned runs. On July 25th, Verlander gave up 7 runs and only 3 was "earned". He gave up 4 runs in the 4th, all unearned. 3 singles and a walk. The error was a line drive to deep LF, so it wasn't a "cheap" error.

 

[tomdalton22]

Let's play "what ifs" all day. Bottom line, most sabermatics do not care much about ERA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/era/

WHIP has it's flaws also. Tom even mentioned it, it does not take into account hit batsmen. But to say ERA is better is just plain ignorant.

Now, for most sabermatics, linear weights (normally expressed as Runs Created) or OPP OPS are better comparison stats.

2nd Half Runs vs Unearned

Fister 26 vs 25

Verlander 39 vs 32

Porcello 31 vs 30

A pitcher could give up a grand slam in an inning on NOT have any of the runs count as earned runs. On July 25th, Verlander gave up 7 runs and only 3 was "earned". He gave up 4 runs in the 4th, all unearned. 3 singles and a walk. The error was a line drive to deep LF, so it wasn't a "cheap" error.

I think WHIP and ERA are both pretty good stats when there is a large enough sample size.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Let's play "what ifs" all day. Bottom line, most sabermatics do not care much about ERA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/era/

WHIP has it's flaws also. Tom even mentioned it, it does not take into account hit batsmen. But to say ERA is better is just plain ignorant.

Now, for most sabermatics, linear weights (normally expressed as Runs Created) or OPP OPS are better comparison stats.

2nd Half Runs vs Unearned

Fister 26 vs 25

Verlander 39 vs 32

Porcello 31 vs 30

A pitcher could give up a grand slam in an inning on NOT have any of the runs count as earned runs. On July 25th, Verlander gave up 7 runs and only 3 was "earned". He gave up 4 runs in the 4th, all unearned. 3 singles and a walk. The error was a line drive to deep LF, so it wasn't a "cheap" error.

That's not the point. Don't dismiss ERA to Tom and then bring up WHIP. Neither one are good indicators by themselves..

 

[WoodwardSon]

WHIP is an important stat, but it also depends on the type of pitcher you are. If you are a fly ball pitcher who gives up a lot of Home Runs, it will reflect upon your ERA more often. If you are a ground ball pitcher who gets a lot of double plays, your ERA will probably still be in decent shape. If a groundballer like Doug Fister's WHIP is 1.20 or below, his ERA would realistically be somewhere around 3. Fister has gotten a bit lucky in the second half, because his ERA would generally require his WHIP be somewhere around 1.25 for a realistic 3.1 ERA considering his groundball %. Scherzer has a WHIP under 1, yet his ERA is still around 3. That may suggest bad luck, but it's also because a good percentage of his hits allowed are extra base hits. He's giving up less HR per fly ball this year, but 39% of his hits allowed this season have been for extra bases(35% last year). This explains why his FIP is 2.68 and his ERA is about .30 higher. Every stat is flawed because it depends on the weapons the pitchers have with their pitches and also their defenders.

 

[Thumb]

I like WHIP better than ERA because it's more dependent on the pitcher.

How many times have we got a ton of hits but not been able to score against some weak ass pitcher? If you went by ERA it would make it seem like the guy was an ace, forget that we might have 11 hits and 4 walks and only 1 ER in 8 IP.

WHIP is a better representation of the basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do, not allow baserunners. ERA just shows how many baserunners actually score, due to nobody's fault but the pitcher.

But I don't like either stat as an independent indicator.

 

[spockmaster]

But I don't like either stat as an independent indicator.

Tbh, I dont like ANY single stat as an independent indicator in any situation. Baseball is just way too complex of a game.

 

[tomdalton22]

I like WHIP better than ERA because it's more dependent on the pitcher.

How many times have we got a ton of hits but not been able to score against some weak ass pitcher? If you went by ERA it would make it seem like the guy was an ace, forget that we might have 11 hits and 4 walks and only 1 ER in 8 IP.

WHIP is a better representation of the basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do, not allow baserunners. ERA just shows how many baserunners actually score, due to nobody's fault but the pitcher.

But I don't like either stat as an independent indicator.

WHIP also has it's flaws too. A walk = a HR in WHIP. A single = a HR. Those are not equal yet in WHIP they are.

 

[WoodwardSon]

Quality Starts is another bad stat. The rule Gods justify giving a Quality start to a pitcher who throws at least 6 innings while giving up 3 ER or less. A guy who tosses a complete game while giving up 4 ER would not be given a quality start, even though the ERA is a half point lower than the original qualifier.

 

[Thumb]

WHIP also has it's flaws too. A walk = a HR in WHIP. A single = a HR. Those are not equal yet in WHIP they are.

Yet this is what I said.

WHIP is a better representation of the basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do, not allow baserunners.

A HR or a walk it's still a pitcher allowing a baserunner. I also said you can't use either as a stand alone stat, the main reason for that is flaws like you mentioned. But I never said WHIP was one stat to rule them all, I simply said I liked it better than ERA as an indicator.

 

[tomdalton22]

Yet this is what I said.



A HR or a walk it's still a pitcher allowing a baserunner. I also said you can't use either as a stand alone stat, the main reason for that is flaws like you mentioned. But I never said WHIP was one stat to rule them all, I simply said I liked it better than ERA as an indicator.

I think WHIP and ERA are pretty equal as far as stats go. You indicated that the basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do is not allow baserunners. I think the most basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do is not allow runs.

 

[Thumb]

I think WHIP and ERA are pretty equal as far as stats go. You indicated that the basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do is not allow baserunners. I think the most basic thing a pitcher is supposed to do is not allow runs.

Again, a guy who allowed 1 or few runs but a ton of baserunners would be just great by your definition.

The root of now allowing runs, is not allowing run scoring opportunities, which would be limiting baserunners, so when you say "most basic", you really have it backwards.

 

[tomdalton22]

Again, a guy who allowed 1 or few runs but a ton of baserunners would be just great by your definition.

The root of now allowing runs, is not allowing run scoring opportunities, which would be limiting baserunners, so when you say "most basic", you really have it backwards.

I agree that limiting baserunners will help you because the more men on base allows for bigger innings and more opportunites. But there are many times that a pitcher will pitch around a batter for better match ups etc. Walk a RH batter to get to a lefty. Walk a batter with a man on 2B to set up a DP.

I just think WHIP has just as many flaws as ERA. Both are good stats with a large enough sample size.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Again, a guy who allowed 1 or few runs but a ton of baserunners would be just great by your definition.

The root of now allowing runs, is not allowing run scoring opportunities, which would be limiting baserunners, so when you say "most basic", you really have it backwards.

That's not fair to say. That's like saying, as I pointed out earlier, 5 hits in 9 innings all home runs - the WHIP says you're good.

Its not as easy saying one is better then the other just by themselves.

 

[Thumb]

That's not fair to say. That's like saying, as I pointed out earlier, 5 hits in 9 innings all home runs - the WHIP says you're good.

Its not as easy saying one is better then the other just by themselves.

What's not fair to say Mitch? What part are you quoting?

I'm refuting tom saying that a pitchers "most basic" thing a pitcher is supposed to do is not allow runs, by saying that in order to do that you have to limit scoring chances, which are baserunners.

Also in your scenario, you will not that all those HR's were solo HR's, and even though the end result is bad, it's a lot better than having a bunch of baserunenrs when those HR's were hit.

 

[Rebbiv]

That's not fair to say. That's like saying, as I pointed out earlier, 5 hits in 9 innings all home runs - the WHIP says you're good.

Its not as easy saying one is better then the other just by themselves.

If those 5 HRs came after errors could mean they were all unearned, which means ERA = 0.00

Again, ERA is not directly controlled by the pitcher. WHIP is totally on the pitcher. And at no point did I say either was a good stat, just that ERA was a terrible comparative stat. Just like BAVG is a bad comparative stat. A guy who hits .300 may not be better than a hitter who hit .280.

 

[tomdalton22]

If those 5 HRs came after errors could mean they were all unearned, which means ERA = 0.00

Again, ERA is not directly controlled by the pitcher. WHIP is totally on the pitcher. And at no point did I say either was a good stat, just that ERA was a terrible comparative stat. Just like BAVG is a bad comparative stat. A guy who hits .300 may not be better than a hitter who hit .280.

I still think that ERA is as good of a comparative stat as WHIP. Both are flawed but have good aspects to them.

 

[Mitchrapp]

But you guys are missing the point: You talk about a bunch of hits but few runs in support of WHIP over ERA and then post "Again, a guy who allowed 1 or few runs but a ton of base-runners would be just great by your definition." and then deny that I posted the same thing about WHIP.

Bottom line is both ERA & WHIP are not good stats, especially on their own.

If you're going to use a what if on me then take my what if as well..