So I have been analyzing pitchers for years and it has been a long path. I started out like a rookie simply looking at wins and HR given up. I then went on to strict ERA. After reading moneyball I was obsessed with K/BB ratios, I swore by them. Upon further review I figuired out that WHIP is by far the most accurate way of prediting a pitcher's future, value, and stuff.
Just think about it: The less hits you are giving up the better your chances are of winning the game, have a better ERA, and giving up less runs in general. The less you are walking means that you have been having good control and are throwing your pitches where you want them. Combine those two and it seems like the perfect formula for an ace pitcher.
I don't think I have to explain why W don't mean much because of the unlucky situations and poor team offense. Now ERA can always be inflated by HR. The problem with giving up HR could be making 1 bad pitch. That one bad pitch does not make you a bad pitcher, but it does on the statistics because of the inflated ERA. Your WHIP however shows how many guys are actually hitting off of you and based on that you can tell whether this HR was a fluke or guys are teeing off of you.
By strictly statistic ERA (extreme example coming up), 2 pitchers could have the exact same numbers. One could have went 9, given up 2 ER, thrown a 2 hitter, and gotten knocked out of the park twice The other could have gone 9, given up two, but walked 5, gave up 7 more hits, and got out with the exact same ERA as the first guy. The WHIP however differenciates between them.
This is my analysis of WHIP being the most efficient and accurate category on portraying a pitcher's stuff, skill, and control. Hoping to get an interesting discussion out of this from all of you.
Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!