|
|
Post by fjenkins on Dec 5, 2018 16:36:28 GMT
THIS is what's wrong with sports and baseball in general. Guy has had 2 good seasons. NOT great, just good. 3.91 career ERA. This year was his best WHIP and he's only had one other good season with the WHIP. But now they give this guy a giant contract for this one good season. He turns out to be an average pitcher, .500 with the wins and an ERA near 4.00. They'll be trying to dump his contract onto someone else but no one will want to eat that crap contract. And the cycle continues.
These idiot owners give these big contracts to people who had ONE good season, then spend the last 4 years of the contract trying to find someone to eat it. People are talking about how great the Nats starters will be this year. Really? I think they'll be okay. There's Scherzer and then the rest. When Corbin goes 11-9, 4.20 ERA and a WHIP of 1.30, what will they be saying then? That's he's not living up to his contract? Actually he is, that's about pretty close to his career average.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 16:48:53 GMT
i'm baffled because aren't the Nats in rebuild mode?
or is this one last ditched effort to get Harper to stay after he supposedly turned down like $400 mil
talk about wasted money
guy's probably going to throw his arm out in 2 years. he's not exactly a young buck and the length of the contract IMO was ludicrous - was it 6 years for $140 mil or am I seeing things.
if you want to do something like this with a pitcher - do what the phils did with Arrieta - 3 years top and front load the first year.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Dec 5, 2018 18:03:47 GMT
i'm baffled because aren't the Nats in rebuild mode? or is this one last ditched effort to get Harper to stay after he supposedly turned down like $400 mil talk about wasted money guy's probably going to throw his arm out in 2 years. he's not exactly a young buck and the length of the contract IMO was ludicrous - was it 6 years for $140 mil or am I seeing things. if you want to do something like this with a pitcher - do what the phils did with Arrieta - 3 years top and front load the first year. Well there's one thing we know and that's Harper has played his last game as a Nat. He'll probably be with the Dodgers next year. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 5, 2018 18:19:41 GMT
THIS is what's wrong with sports and baseball in general. Guy has had 2 good seasons. NOT great, just good. 3.91 career ERA. This year was his best WHIP and he's only had one other good season with the WHIP. But now they give this guy a giant contract for this one good season. He turns out to be an average pitcher, .500 with the wins and an ERA near 4.00. They'll be trying to dump his contract onto someone else but no one will want to eat that crap contract. And the cycle continues. These idiot owners give these big contracts to people who had ONE good season, then spend the last 4 years of the contract trying to find someone to eat it. People are talking about how great the Nats starters will be this year. Really? I think they'll be okay. There's Scherzer and then the rest. When Corbin goes 11-9, 4.20 ERA and a WHIP of 1.30, what will they be saying then? That's he's not living up to his contract? Actually he is, that's about pretty close to his career average. all about the whip! who cares if he wins any games!  |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Dec 5, 2018 21:12:34 GMT
THIS is what's wrong with sports and baseball in general. Guy has had 2 good seasons. NOT great, just good. 3.91 career ERA. This year was his best WHIP and he's only had one other good season with the WHIP. But now they give this guy a giant contract for this one good season. He turns out to be an average pitcher, .500 with the wins and an ERA near 4.00. They'll be trying to dump his contract onto someone else but no one will want to eat that crap contract. And the cycle continues. These idiot owners give these big contracts to people who had ONE good season, then spend the last 4 years of the contract trying to find someone to eat it. People are talking about how great the Nats starters will be this year. Really? I think they'll be okay. There's Scherzer and then the rest. When Corbin goes 11-9, 4.20 ERA and a WHIP of 1.30, what will they be saying then? That's he's not living up to his contract? Actually he is, that's about pretty close to his career average. all about the whip! who cares if he wins any games! Wins, as a pitching stat, is overrated. I don't fallow Brian Kenny, who thinks it should be abolished, but it's not the best indicator. Wins are highly dependent on the team you pitch for. Take a hypothetical pitcher. This pitcher throws the exact same pitches to the exact same lineup. One day he does it for Baltimore (sorry nut), one day he does it for Boston. Where does he stand a better chance to pick up the "W"? Many factors determine a pitchers value. Does he pitch in Coors or Dodgers Stadium? Does he have a team of Gold Glovers behind him or a team of invalids? Luck of the draw, does he get more starts against top team? Does he get more starts against #1 starters or #5 starters? As far as a stat, WHIP, walks and hits for Innings pitched, is as good as anything. It finally treats walks as a negative thing for a pitcher. I wouldn't have given Corbin six years, just five. He 29 and been pretty durable since the TJ surgery. He slots in nicely as a #2 or #3 starter. Nats have to do something. The see the Braves getting stronger, the Phils with a Phistfull of cash and the Mets making noise. They have to do something. Guess thats the end of the Bryce Harper era in DC |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 5, 2018 21:45:33 GMT
all about the whip! who cares if he wins any games! Wins, as a pitching stat, is overrated. I don't fallow Brian Kenny, who thinks it should be abolished, but it's not the best indicator. Wins are highly dependent on the team you pitch for. Take a hypothetical pitcher. This pitcher throws the exact same pitches to the exact same lineup. One day he does it for Baltimore (sorry nut), one day he does it for Boston. Where does he stand a better chance to pick up the "W"? Many factors determine a pitchers value. Does he pitch in Coors or Dodgers Stadium? Does he have a team of Gold Glovers behind him or a team of invalids? Luck of the draw, does he get more starts against top team? Does he get more starts against #1 starters or #5 starters? As far as a stat, WHIP, walks and hits for Innings pitched, is as good as anything. It finally treats walks as a negative thing for a pitcher. I wouldn't have given Corbin six years, just five. He 29 and been pretty durable since the TJ surgery. He slots in nicely as a #2 or #3 starter. Nats have to do something. The see the Braves getting stronger, the Phils with a Phistfull of cash and the Mets making noise. They have to do something. Guess thats the end of the Bryce Harper era in DC if you had to choose b/t a guy who was 19-9 or a guy with a 1.11 whip who would you go with? i agree no single stat, or single variable should be regarded as being the complete indicator, but b/c a win is a result of so many other factors that's why i think it's the most valuable. |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 5, 2018 21:59:46 GMT
Wins, as a pitching stat, is overrated. I don't fallow Brian Kenny, who thinks it should be abolished, but it's not the best indicator. Wins are highly dependent on the team you pitch for. Take a hypothetical pitcher. This pitcher throws the exact same pitches to the exact same lineup. One day he does it for Baltimore (sorry nut), one day he does it for Boston. Where does he stand a better chance to pick up the "W"? Many factors determine a pitchers value. Does he pitch in Coors or Dodgers Stadium? Does he have a team of Gold Glovers behind him or a team of invalids? Luck of the draw, does he get more starts against top team? Does he get more starts against #1 starters or #5 starters? As far as a stat, WHIP, walks and hits for Innings pitched, is as good as anything. It finally treats walks as a negative thing for a pitcher. I wouldn't have given Corbin six years, just five. He 29 and been pretty durable since the TJ surgery. He slots in nicely as a #2 or #3 starter. Nats have to do something. The see the Braves getting stronger, the Phils with a Phistfull of cash and the Mets making noise. They have to do something. Guess thats the end of the Bryce Harper era in DC if you had to choose b/t a guy who was 19-9 or a guy with a 1.11 whip who would you go with? i agree no single stat, or single variable should be regarded as being the complete indicator, but b/c a win is a result of s o many other factors that's why i think it's the most valuable. So many factors.....that are often entirely out of the pitcher's control. Remember my Jose Urena analysis from a few months ago, about how was 0-7 in his first 12 starts, and 5-5 in his next 14 with virtually identical peripherals (and an exact match on ERA) and you chalked it up to wins meaning a pitcher understood the team concept? I do. As for the question, I'd want to see their entire stat line before making that decision. Is it 1.11 WHIP across 20 innings or 200 innings? Is he 19-9 with a 4.00+ ERA like shitty Aaron Sele who sucked but was on awesome teams? Guys can rack up win totals but still be terrible pitchers. How people can't see this is baffling to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 22:11:01 GMT
favor
I need a baseball guru to break down WHIP to me
extra points to break down Quarterback QBR too....
you can whip out flashcards too....
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 5, 2018 22:15:55 GMT
favor I need a baseball guru to break down WHIP to me extra points to break down Quarterback QBR too.... you can whip out flashcards too.... Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched. Generally speaking, it's how many baserunners you allow on a per-inning basis. WHIP |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 22:23:17 GMT
favor I need a baseball guru to break down WHIP to me extra points to break down Quarterback QBR too.... you can whip out flashcards too.... Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched. Generally speaking, it's how many baserunners you allow on a per-inning basis. WHIPinteresting
interesting indeed
so what if you pitched 1/3 of an inning and are pulled.
you're responsible for 2 runners on base - 1 you gave up a walk to and another a single to - and previously in the inning you gave up 3 runs - 1 to a passed ball, the 2nd to an error (both runners were walked), and the third to an inside the park homer
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Dec 5, 2018 22:50:10 GMT
Wins, as a pitching stat, is overrated. I don't fallow Brian Kenny, who thinks it should be abolished, but it's not the best indicator. Wins are highly dependent on the team you pitch for. Take a hypothetical pitcher. This pitcher throws the exact same pitches to the exact same lineup. One day he does it for Baltimore (sorry nut), one day he does it for Boston. Where does he stand a better chance to pick up the "W"? Many factors determine a pitchers value. Does he pitch in Coors or Dodgers Stadium? Does he have a team of Gold Glovers behind him or a team of invalids? Luck of the draw, does he get more starts against top team? Does he get more starts against #1 starters or #5 starters? As far as a stat, WHIP, walks and hits for Innings pitched, is as good as anything. It finally treats walks as a negative thing for a pitcher. I wouldn't have given Corbin six years, just five. He 29 and been pretty durable since the TJ surgery. He slots in nicely as a #2 or #3 starter. Nats have to do something. The see the Braves getting stronger, the Phils with a Phistfull of cash and the Mets making noise. They have to do something. Guess thats the end of the Bryce Harper era in DC if you had to choose b/t a guy who was 19-9 or a guy with a 1.11 whip who would you go with? i agree no single stat, or single variable should be regarded as being the complete indicator, but b/c a win is a result of so many other factors that's why i think it's the most valuable. 1.11 WHIP. Pitchers with 2.00 WHIP rarely go 19-9. Only have to look at Jacob deGrom. What was the better indicator of his 2018 season, the 0.912 WHIP or the 10-9 W-L record? deGrom had an amazing season for a team that couldn't push runs across if they had 10 outs per inning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 22:57:57 GMT
WHIP = If a train left Africa at 200 mph from congo and then boarded a speedboat to Cuba through 45 mph winds with 10 slaves on board weighing 115 lbs each - what is their approximate destination time if there's a leak in the boat and the captain has the sniffles?
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 5, 2018 23:05:55 GMT
if you had to choose b/t a guy who was 19-9 or a guy with a 1.11 whip who would you go with? i agree no single stat, or single variable should be regarded as being the complete indicator, but b/c a win is a result of s o many other factors that's why i think it's the most valuable. So many factors.....that are often entirely out of the pitcher's control. Remember my Jose Urena analysis from a few months ago, about how was 0-7 in his first 12 starts, and 5-5 in his next 14 with virtually identical peripherals (and an exact match on ERA) and you chalked it up to wins meaning a pitcher understood the team concept? I do. As for the question, I'd want to see their entire stat line before making that decision. Is it 1.11 WHIP across 20 innings or 200 innings? Is he 19-9 with a 4.00+ ERA like shitty Aaron Sele who sucked but was on awesome teams? Guys can rack up win totals but still be terrible pitchers. How people can't see this is baffling to me. -good stuff. José Ureña is a Dominican---pitchers from their have a different metaphysical makeup. good for making cigars, not so much for pitchers. -Guys can rack up win totals but still be terrible pitchers? highly doubtful. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 5, 2018 23:07:05 GMT
if you had to choose b/t a guy who was 19-9 or a guy with a 1.11 whip who would you go with? i agree no single stat, or single variable should be regarded as being the complete indicator, but b/c a win is a result of so many other factors that's why i think it's the most valuable. 1.11 WHIP. Pitchers with 2.00 WHIP rarely go 19-9. Only have to look at Jacob deGrom. What was the better indicator of his 2018 season, the 0.912 WHIP or the 10-9 W-L record? deGrom had an amazing season for a team that couldn't push runs across if they had 10 outs per inning. cool. that's valid. tho, i wouldn't choose that guy. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Dec 5, 2018 23:44:37 GMT
1.11 WHIP. Pitchers with 2.00 WHIP rarely go 19-9. Only have to look at Jacob deGrom. What was the better indicator of his 2018 season, the 0.912 WHIP or the 10-9 W-L record? deGrom had an amazing season for a team that couldn't push runs across if they had 10 outs per inning. cool. that's valid. tho, i wouldn't choose that guy. Take Dave Stewart then. Journeyman until he got to Oakland. Then four straight 20 win season, 1987 - 1990. Why? He went to a team with a pitcher's park, dominant bullpen and the Bash Brothers offense. 20 wins seasons, WHIP in the 1.25 - 1.27 range. Decent, not Earth shattering. Was he the dominant pitcher of the era, no. Zero Cy Youngs. Sometimes, someone outdid him, Clemens in '87. Did he deserve the trophy, no. And if you go by WAR (I'm torn), he was never close. Long way around to say the 1.277 WHIP was more indicative of Stew's pitching than the 21 wins. About WAR. It was just meant to judge stats in a historical sense. A hypothetical batting line of .303, 20 HR's 79 RBI's. Is it the same if the line was in 1930, when my Aunt Maire could have hit .320 with 35 HR's, or 1968, where on player hit .300? No. Factors were different, baseballs, dilution of talent, bandbox parks etc. I don't think it works as well comparing players in the same year. But you look at guys who put up monster singe season stats. Ruth in 1923, Bonds in 2001, Mantle in 1956, Hey thay had huge WAR's! and it's top heave to starting pitchers. Yeah, the starter is more key than any of the other eight, but it gets silly. |
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 6, 2018 0:10:19 GMT
cool. that's valid. tho, i wouldn't choose that guy. Take Dave Stewart then. Journeyman until he got to Oakland. Then four straight 20 win season, 1987 - 1990. Why? He went to a team with a pitcher's park, dominant bullpen and the Bash Brothers offense. 20 wins seasons, WHIP in the 1.25 - 1.27 range. Decent, not Earth shattering. Was he the dominant pitcher of the era, no. Zero Cy Youngs. Sometimes, someone outdid him, Clemens in '87. Did he deserve the trophy, no. And if you go by WAR (I'm torn), he was never close. Long way around to say the 1.277 WHIP was more indicative of Stew's pitching than the 21 wins. About WAR. It was just meant to judge stats in a historical sense. A hypothetical batting line of .303, 20 HR's 79 RBI's. Is it the same if the line was in 1930, when my Aunt Maire could have hit .320 with 35 HR's, or 1968, where on player hit .300? No. Factors were different, baseballs, dilution of talent, bandbox parks etc. I don't think it works as well comparing players in the same year. But you look at guys who put up monster singe season stats. Ruth in 1923, Bonds in 2001, Mantle in 1956, Hey thay had huge WAR's! and it's top heave to starting pitchers. Yeah, the starter is more key than any of the other eight, but it gets silly. Dave Stewart wasn't the most dominant pitcher of his era, but there was no one else I would choose to pitch a big game for me. He beat Clemens EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT GAME he pitched against the guy. WHIP, WAR, FLIP, FLOP, who cares? I'll take the guy with 19 wins any day of the week. All stats can be misleading, but most guys that hit the 19 win plateau must be doing SOMETHING right. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Dec 6, 2018 0:21:23 GMT
Take Dave Stewart then. Journeyman until he got to Oakland. Then four straight 20 win season, 1987 - 1990. Why? He went to a team with a pitcher's park, dominant bullpen and the Bash Brothers offense. 20 wins seasons, WHIP in the 1.25 - 1.27 range. Decent, not Earth shattering. Was he the dominant pitcher of the era, no. Zero Cy Youngs. Sometimes, someone outdid him, Clemens in '87. Did he deserve the trophy, no. And if you go by WAR (I'm torn), he was never close. Long way around to say the 1.277 WHIP was more indicative of Stew's pitching than the 21 wins. About WAR. It was just meant to judge stats in a historical sense. A hypothetical batting line of .303, 20 HR's 79 RBI's. Is it the same if the line was in 1930, when my Aunt Maire could have hit .320 with 35 HR's, or 1968, where on player hit .300? No. Factors were different, baseballs, dilution of talent, bandbox parks etc. I don't think it works as well comparing players in the same year. But you look at guys who put up monster singe season stats. Ruth in 1923, Bonds in 2001, Mantle in 1956, Hey thay had huge WAR's! and it's top heave to starting pitchers. Yeah, the starter is more key than any of the other eight, but it gets silly. Dave Stewart wasn't the most dominant pitcher of his era, but there was no one else I would choose to pitch a big game for me. He beat Clemens EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT GAME he pitched against the guy. WHIP, WAR, FLIP, FLOP, who cares? I'll take the guy with 19 wins any day of the week. All stats can be misleading, but most guys that hit the 19 win plateau must be doing SOMETHING right. To put this in NFL terms, Peyton Manning got the “win” in that Broncos Super Bowl. Tom Brady got the “loss” in Super Bowl LII. Who had the better game? DC-Fan, no one’s asking you. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Dec 6, 2018 0:23:00 GMT
Take Dave Stewart then. Journeyman until he got to Oakland. Then four straight 20 win season, 1987 - 1990. Why? He went to a team with a pitcher's park, dominant bullpen and the Bash Brothers offense. 20 wins seasons, WHIP in the 1.25 - 1.27 range. Decent, not Earth shattering. Was he the dominant pitcher of the era, no. Zero Cy Youngs. Sometimes, someone outdid him, Clemens in '87. Did he deserve the trophy, no. And if you go by WAR (I'm torn), he was never close. Long way around to say the 1.277 WHIP was more indicative of Stew's pitching than the 21 wins. About WAR. It was just meant to judge stats in a historical sense. A hypothetical batting line of .303, 20 HR's 79 RBI's. Is it the same if the line was in 1930, when my Aunt Maire could have hit .320 with 35 HR's, or 1968, where on player hit .300? No. Factors were different, baseballs, dilution of talent, bandbox parks etc. I don't think it works as well comparing players in the same year. But you look at guys who put up monster singe season stats. Ruth in 1923, Bonds in 2001, Mantle in 1956, Hey thay had huge WAR's! and it's top heave to starting pitchers. Yeah, the starter is more key than any of the other eight, but it gets silly. Dave Stewart wasn't the most dominant pitcher of his era, but there was no one else I would choose to pitch a big game for me. He beat Clemens EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT GAME he pitched against the guy. WHIP, WAR, FLIP, FLOP, who cares? I'll take the guy with 19 wins any day of the week. All stats can be misleading, but most guys that hit the 19 win plateau must be doing SOMETHING right. They sure are doing something right. Pitching for a good team. Look a Nolan Ryan. His best season was (arguably) 1987. Led the NL in eight pitching categories. Most notably, ERA, K's, BB/K ratio (not WHIP tho). But he was 8-16. The Astros, an eyelash away from the pennant in 1986, fell apart in '87. Mike Scott was good, but not the beast he was a year before. And the other starters were putrid. The rotation could make up for an anemic lineup in 86, couldn't in '87. Ryan's fault, fuck no. But people will look at the W-L record and hold their noses. Big win totals on rotten teams are rare, no matter the pitcher. Steve Carlton in 1972 an anomaly. Once again, deGrom. 10-9, meh. Would his record have been 10-9 if he had been in Boston or Houston? THAT was a misleading stat, more indicative of the Mess than deGrom. EDIT: Before someone goes there, yes you do have to have talent to begin with. I couldn't have won one game with the Red Sox. |
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 6, 2018 0:25:16 GMT
Dave Stewart wasn't the most dominant pitcher of his era, but there was no one else I would choose to pitch a big game for me. He beat Clemens EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT GAME he pitched against the guy. WHIP, WAR, FLIP, FLOP, who cares? I'll take the guy with 19 wins any day of the week. All stats can be misleading, but most guys that hit the 19 win plateau must be doing SOMETHING right. To put this in NFL terms, Peyton Manning got the “win” in that Broncos Super Bowl. Tom Brady got the “loss” in Super Bowl LII. Who had the better game? DC-Fan, no one’s asking you. The guy who had the better game is the guy who won the game, always and forever. |
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 6, 2018 0:31:23 GMT
Dave Stewart wasn't the most dominant pitcher of his era, but there was no one else I would choose to pitch a big game for me. He beat Clemens EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT GAME he pitched against the guy. WHIP, WAR, FLIP, FLOP, who cares? I'll take the guy with 19 wins any day of the week. All stats can be misleading, but most guys that hit the 19 win plateau must be doing SOMETHING right. They sure are doing something right. Pitching for a good team. Look a Nolan Ryan. His best season was (arguably) 1987. Led the NL in eight pitching categories. Most notably, ERA, K's, BB/K ratio (not WHIP tho). But he was 8-16. The Astros, an eyelash away from the pennant in 1986, fell apart in '87. Mike Scott was good, but not the beast he was a year before. And the other starters were putrid. The rotation could make up for an anemic lineup in 86, couldn't in '87. Ryan's fault, fuck no. But people will look at the W-L record and hold their noses. Big win totals on rotten teams are rare, no matter the pitcher. Steve Carlton in 1972 an anomaly. Once again, deGrom. 10-9, meh. Would his record have been 10-9 if he had been in Boston or Houston? THAT was a misleading stat, more indicative of the Mess than deGrom. EDIT: Before someone goes there, yes you do have to have talent to begin with. I couldn't have won one game with the Red Sox. Every single season, in every single sport, you can make a case for a player where the results didn't match the stats. That's absolutely true. Some guys are lucky when it comes to what team they're on, and some guys are unlucky. However, in MOST situations, a guy that reaches 18-20 wins in a season has absolutely earned those wins. Most case scenarios, not all obviously. |
|
