WHIP: The most important pitching category.

[laxguy8947]

Great debate guys Whip is nice (and it has a cool name) but I like K/BB myself. Strike em out and make them earn their way on at good rates and a pitcher is bound to have success

[Zito is God]

I can't believe there are still people out there who think walks are no big deal. Lets see, with a walk you are:

A) Tiring yourself out by throwing those 4+ pitches for nothing.
B) Getting a runner on base that could be a SB threat.
C) Getting a runner on base that is a scoring threat.
D) Getting a runner on base that makes you pitch out of the stretch instead of the wind up.
E) Getting a runner on base for free. PERIOD.

If you walk guys you will be giving up unecessary runs and tiring yourself out much faster.

THE most important thing is limiting walks showing good control. Guess what the first letter in WHIP stands for?

[garf112]

I can't believe there are still people out there who think walks are no big deal. Lets see, with a walk you are:

A) Tiring yourself out by throwing those 4+ pitches for nothing.
B) Getting a runner on base that could be a SB threat.
C) Getting a runner on base that is a scoring threat.
D) Getting a runner on base that makes you pitch out of the stretch instead of the wind up.
E) Getting a runner on base for free. PERIOD.

If you walk guys you will be giving up unecessary runs and tiring yourself out much faster.

THE most important thing is limiting walks showing good control. Guess what the first letter in WHIP stands for?

I never said that walks were "not a big deal." I said that they were the third most important trait for a pitcher to possess to be successful.

It is not even a question.

Ks
gb/fb
BBs

Walks are important. They just aren't the most important thing a pitcher can do. Now if a pitcher walks as many as Daniel Cabrera does, it makes him much less effective, but it also means that, if he can limit those walks, he has the ability to become a VERY good pitcher.

[Zito is God]

I can't believe there are still people out there who think walks are no big deal. Lets see, with a walk you are:

A) Tiring yourself out by throwing those 4+ pitches for nothing.
B) Getting a runner on base that could be a SB threat.
C) Getting a runner on base that is a scoring threat.
D) Getting a runner on base that makes you pitch out of the stretch instead of the wind up.
E) Getting a runner on base for free. PERIOD.

If you walk guys you will be giving up unecessary runs and tiring yourself out much faster.

THE most important thing is limiting walks showing good control. Guess what the first letter in WHIP stands for?

I never said that walks were "not a big deal." I said that they were the third most important trait for a pitcher to possess to be successful.

It is not even a question.

Ks
gb/fb
BBs

Walks are important. They just aren't the most important thing a pitcher can do. Now if a pitcher walks as many as Daniel Cabrera does, it makes him much less effective, but it also means that, if he can limit those walks, he has the ability to become a VERY good pitcher.

Your contradicting yourself. Just like J35J pointed out, by your logic O.Perez and D.cabrera should be winning Cy Youngs.

I'll take a pitcher who doesn't walk anyone and has good control over a pitcher with great stuff and high walks anyday.

[DK]

Limiting hits is much more important than limiting walks.

Think of it this way, would you rather have someone with a .000 batting average and a .300 on-base; or a .300 average and a .300 on-base?

You'd want the second player, because he's actually hitting the ball and has the ability to slug players ahead. Even if he's hitting solely singles, he's still creating more runs.

If you can limit both hits and walks, you're golden. But I'd rather a pitcher limit the hits given up than the walks any day.

[Zito is God]

Limiting hits is much more important than limiting walks.

Think of it this way, would you rather have someone with a .000 batting average and a .300 on-base; or a .300 average and a .300 on-base?

You'd want the second player, because he's actually hitting the ball and has the ability to slug players ahead. Even if he's hitting solely singles, he's still creating more runs.

If you can limit both hits and walks, you're golden. But I'd rather a pitcher limit the hits given up than the walks any day.

I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with your unfair comparison since you are basing it on common sense (2 guys that walk the same amount with one that never hits, as opposed to a guy who never hits but gets an OBP twice what the hitter does). If you want to compare identical players lets say a guy who hits .300 with a OBP of .300 (never walked) and a guy who is hitting .000 with an OBP of .600 (walks 6/10 ABs, obviously unrealistic but for debate sake). That is a much more fair comparison and a much more debatable discussion. I think I would take the .600 OBP guy, while he does not hit runners along he more then makes up for it with his constant getting on base and thus producing more runs.

[johnsamo]

A lot of walks is just the kiss of death to me... It means you're giving guys free bases, which means more blow out inning potential, you're putting yourself in more hitters counts, you're more likely throwing strikes that are in the danger zone, etc...

I look at the K per innings,walks per inning, hits per innings ratios... and also the the K versus Walks ratio. When I see those things trending favorably, I'm impressed...

Especially when you're looking at a relatively small sample size, ERA and WHIP can vary a lot just based on good or bad luck or the quality of your fielders or even what teams you've been facing over a stretch.

[garf112]

I can't believe there are still people out there who think walks are no big deal. Lets see, with a walk you are:

A) Tiring yourself out by throwing those 4+ pitches for nothing.
B) Getting a runner on base that could be a SB threat.
C) Getting a runner on base that is a scoring threat.
D) Getting a runner on base that makes you pitch out of the stretch instead of the wind up.
E) Getting a runner on base for free. PERIOD.

If you walk guys you will be giving up unecessary runs and tiring yourself out much faster.

THE most important thing is limiting walks showing good control. Guess what the first letter in WHIP stands for?

I never said that walks were "not a big deal." I said that they were the third most important trait for a pitcher to possess to be successful.

It is not even a question.

Ks
gb/fb
BBs

Walks are important. They just aren't the most important thing a pitcher can do. Now if a pitcher walks as many as Daniel Cabrera does, it makes him much less effective, but it also means that, if he can limit those walks, he has the ability to become a VERY good pitcher.

Your contradicting yourself. Just like J35J pointed out, by your logic O.Perez and D.cabrera should be winning Cy Youngs.

I'll take a pitcher who doesn't walk anyone and has good control over a pitcher with great stuff and high walks anyday.

Where am I contradicting myself? I said that walks are important, but they are the third most important stat. Perez and Cabrera K guys, but they are also flyball pitchers who walk alot of guys. That's two strikes against them. In their case, the K's don't make up for it. My point is that there is no ONE golden stat, (except for DICE). It is a combination of the three stats that I have repeated that make a good pitcher.

K's are the most important, then gb%, then walks. I would take a guy with great stuff and a high gb% who walks a few more than a guy who doesn't walk anybody or strike them out and let's up a lot of flyballs.

Go back and read my posts... tell me again that I've contradicted myself. Tell me where I predicted a Daniel Cabrera or Oliver Perez Cy Young.