Everyones favorite WHIP scenario: your pitcher gets two outs, someone makes an error then they implode on the mound. I have come around on the reasoning behind counting those hits and walks in a pitchers WHIP total. Mainly agreeing that they did give up those hits or walks and who is to say they would not have done the same next inning. I do think there is one flaw here. This is in regards to the innings pitched part. It is true that they would have faced those batters anyway but the catch is that they had to get an additional "out." It seems at the least this could be acknowledged and considered when making the calculation. Thoughts?
They should remove ERA and just use RA. Errors are way too subjective, CF loses the ball in the lights, it falls at his feet without him touching it and it is a 'hit'. Ball is hit hard at the 3B who makes an amazing defensive play on it but then throws over the 1B head with a quick throw and it is an 'error' even though most 3B probably have the ball just go right by them.
The whole concept is just flawed.
Last edited by Ender on Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ender wrote:They should remove ERA and just use RA. Errors are way too subjective, CF loses the ball in the lights, it falls at his feet without him touching it and it is a 'hit'. Ball is hit hard at the 3B who makes an amazing defensive play on it but then throws over the 1B head with a quick play and it is an 'error'.
The whole concept is just flawed.
Anymore if an infielder has to move more than 2-3 steps in either direction and doesn't make the play then there is no error there either. It's well past ridiculous.
Ender wrote:They should remove ERA and just use RA. Errors are way too subjective, CF loses the ball in the lights, it falls at his feet without him touching it and it is a 'hit'. Ball is hit hard at the 3B who makes an amazing defensive play on it but then throws over the 1B head with a quick throw and it is an 'error' even though most 3B probably have the ball just go right by them.
The whole concept is just flawed.
I was at the Mets Brewers game last night and Bill Hall smoked a grounder right at Jose Reyes. It two hopped to Reyes who had it bounce off his glove and go back into the infield. It's a play that every single big league shortstop should make. Official ruling? Hit for Bill Hall. Errors are all about the home team scorer.
In my fridge: Founders Kentucky Breakfast Stout (KBS), Central Waters Peruvian Morning, Bell's Batch 10,000, Dale's Pale Ale, Capital Brewery Amber, New Glarus Moon Man, and Guinness.
Steve-o
Major League Manager
Posts: 1879
Joined: 7 May 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Finally back home. A sweet 15 mi from Miller Park.
Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean its flawed.
um, "not perfect" is the exact definition of flawed. if it's "not perfect" it by definition must have a flaw or two. otherwise...well, it'd be perfect.
Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean its flawed.
Actually it technically does. However to answer the point of your post, it is broken to the point where I feel that RA tells how a pitcher pitched better than ERA. I look at RA and not ERA when judging pitchers in general and then I look at the teams park and defense to make mental adjustements to RA.
I think it would be nice to see some consistency in the way the two are counted. Using the WHIP standards it would seem any home run should be an earned run. Or this scenario, the two out error occurs and then the pitcher gives up a triple and then a single. If we assume the hits would have happened anyway would they not have earned the run? Then again maybe it is good each gives a different take on what happened. I think I would be most in favor of counting RA and WHIP the way it is but giving the pitcher credit for getting additional 1/3 an inning pitched for errors that should have been outs.
Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean its flawed.
Actually it technically does. However to answer the point of your post, it is broken to the point where I feel that RA tells how a pitcher pitched better than ERA. I look at RA and not ERA when judging pitchers in general and then I look at the teams park and defense to make mental adjustements to RA.
Definition: 1. physical blemish: a physical disfigurement that prevents something from being totally perfect and detracts from its value 2. detracting feature: a feature that is regarded as unfavorable
IMO it neither detracts from its value or is unfavorable, but there could be a flaw in my thinking.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by walkoffblast » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:29 am 
