Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If it was all dumb luck, then BABIP would, over the course of long careers, all come out about the same when you factor in the defense behind the pitcher. There would not be pitchers who have incredibly successful and long careers, not giving up many runs, while being contact instead of strikeout pitchers. It doesn’t.

If it’s all dumb luck, how are contact pitchers often just as successful as strikeout pitchers? Maddox and Randy Johnson put together similar total careers. Johnson’s BABIP is league average, Maddux, like most hall of fame contact pitchers, is well below it. They achieved similar ERA’s and total careers via very different methods, in huge sample sizes.

Maddux's success was the result of dumb luck!! 21 years of it, well, maybe 16 of which really defined him.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux's success was the result of dumb luck!! 21 years of it, well, maybe 16 of which really defined him.

Well, he pitched for 21 years which seems like a lot, but it was only 5,008 innings. The sample is just too small. Maddux was lucky. Also a bum because only K pitchers who played after Spahn, except for Koufax who is exempted because I don’t know, are any good.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well, he pitched for 21 years which seems like a lot, but it was only 5,008 innings. The sample is just too small. Maddux was lucky. Also a bum because only K pitchers who played after Spahn, except for Koufax who is exempted because I don’t know, are any good.

Snowman is always right. Just ask him.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Snowman is always right. Just ask him.

He even has a statistical algorithm to prove it. But don't ask him to show you, because he hasn't actually created it yet. And he doesn't really have the time to do it right now, unless you want to pay him. But even if you do, and then he does, it probably doesn't matter because he'll tell you you're too ignorant to understand it anyway.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

He even has a statistical algorithm to prove it. But don't ask him to show you, because he hasn't actually created it yet. And he doesn't really have the time to do it right now, unless you want to pay him. But even if you do, and then he does, it probably doesn't matter because he'll tell you you're too ignorant to understand it anyway.

Pretty much sums up our snowman on every thread, Bob. Since I have been here this is the fastest I have seen someone overstay their welcome however he is very amusing because of how serious he takes himself.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Pretty much sums up our snowman on every thread, Bob. Since I have been here this is the fastest I have seen someone overstay their welcome however he is very amusing because of how serious he takes himself.

LOL

Hopefully things will change, but the fact he got bounced off Blowout makes the the question others have asked as to whether or not he's a troll, more possible than not I guess. He's a smart guy, just wish he'd be a little more open minded and realize he's not always going to be right. Oh well. Guess we'll wait to see what happens. I just put him on "Ignore" myself and don't read his posts anymore. It's better that way.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

from MLB.com

"The formula

(H - HR)/(AB - K - HR + SF)
Why it's useful

BABIP can be used to provide some context when evaluating both pitchers and hitters. The league average BABIP is typically around .300. Pitchers who have allowed a high percentage of hits on balls in play will typically regress to the mean, and vice versa. In other words, over time, they'll see fewer (or more) balls in play fall for hits, and therefore experience better (or worse) results in terms of run prevention. The same applies for batters who have seen a high or low percentage of their balls in play drop in for hits.

That said, skill can play a role in BABIP, as some pitchers are adept at generating weak contact, while some hitters excel at producing hard-hit balls. For example, Clayton Kershaw finished the 2019 season with a lifetime .270 BABIP allowed, while Mike Trout ended the campaign with a career .348 BABIP."

My Thoughts:

The all-time leader of BABIP for starters over 1000 innings is Babe Ruth at .241, 2000 innings Andy Messersmith at a slightly higher .241, 3000 innings Catfish Hunter at .243 Those are all fine pitchers but none of them are in the running for all-time greatest status. So clearly BABIP, even to the degree it is controllable, isn't a perfect stat either.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Hopefully things will change, but the fact he got bounced off Blowout makes the the question others have asked as to whether or not he's a troll, more possible than not I guess. He's a smart guy, just wish he'd be a little more open minded and realize he's not always going to be right. Oh well. Guess we'll wait to see what happens. I just put him on "Ignore" myself and don't read his posts anymore. It's better that way.

He seems to double down and then resort to putting everyone down in every thread in which his theories, which he presents as facts, are successfully challenged. He might be smart but he is not that bright.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

He even has a statistical algorithm to prove it. But don't ask him to show you, because he hasn't actually created it yet. And he doesn't really have the time to do it right now, unless you want to pay him. But even if you do, and then he does, it probably doesn't matter because he'll tell you you're too ignorant to understand it anyway.

And I'll give you $1k right now if you can explain in detail why a pitcher's win totals and ERA from any given season should not be used to evaluate pitching performance. And you can't just say "sample size". Good luck.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well, he pitched for 21 years which seems like a lot, but it was only 5,008 innings. The sample is just too small. Maddux was lucky. Also a bum because only K pitchers who played after Spahn, except for Koufax who is exempted because I don’t know, are any good.

Maddux also pitched in the NL, in a pitcher's park, and with one of the greatest defensive center fielders of all time catching balls for him. His BABIP would be expected to be lower than MLB average. If you look at Smoltz and Glavine's numbers during the same time, they also both beat league average MLB BABIP.

Perhaps you should read up on BABIP? I somewhat excuse the level of ignorance on these topics by the non data savvy people in this thread because it's not exactly their job to understand numbers. But if you are serious about being a data analyst, your perpetual ignorance displayed throughout the entirety of this thread with respect to just basic statistics and simple statistical concepts is remarkably embarassing. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go read a book. Or three.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Maddux also pitched in the NL, in a pitcher's park, and with one of the greatest defensive center fielders of all time catching balls for him. His BABIP would be expected to be lower than MLB average. If you look at Smoltz and Glavine's numbers during the same time, they also both beat league average MLB BABIP.

Perhaps you should read up on BABIP? I somewhat excuse the level of ignorance on these topics by the non data savvy people in this thread because it's not exactly their job to understand numbers. But if you are serious about being a data analyst, your perpetual ignorance displayed throughout the entirety of this thread with respect to just basic statistics and simple statistical concepts is remarkably embarassing. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go read a book. Or three.

The only person being embarrassed in this thread is you. You’ve progressed into actually having some points beyond claiming to be infallible and have a statistical model you can’t show that proves your claims, but any good point in it is lost by the constant insults of everyone else here and the childish immaturity of your ‘over the top brag - insult’ pattern that never ceases. I’m well aware of what BABIP is and already said the defense behind the pitcher needs to be adjusted for. Regardless of what you claim, great contact pitchers find success at not giving up many runs, often equal to or even better than great K pitchers. Dismissing all non K centric pitchers, which seems to be your implied basis for ignoring Spahn but including his exact contemporary Koufax, is not supported by the data. It does not appear to be random luck, and they tend to have lower BABIP’s over large sample sizes.

But I’m illiterate and homeless, among many other things.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

The only person being embarrassed in this thread is you. You’ve progressed into actually having some points beyond claiming to be infallible and have a statistical model you can’t show that proves your claims, but any good point in it is lost by the constant insults of everyone else here and the childish immaturity of your ‘over the top brag - insult’ pattern that never ceases. I’m well aware of what BABIP is and already said the defense behind the pitcher needs to be adjusted for. Regardless of what you claim, great contact pitchers find success at not giving up many runs, often equal to or even better than great K pitchers. Dismissing all non K centric pitchers, which seems to be your implied basis for ignoring Spahn but including his exact contemporary Koufax, is not supported by the data. It does not appear to be random luck, and they tend to have lower BABIP’s over large sample sizes.

But I’m illiterate and homeless, among many other things.

In one breath, you claim to understand BABIP and its implications, and in the very next breath you use the completely nonsensical term of "great contact pitchers" as if such a thing exists. This is what I'm trying to tell you. There is no such thing as a "great contact pitcher". They are the Loch Ness Monster of baseball. A myth. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand BABIP and why it is important.

This isn't exactly news either. Every franchise in the league today knows this. You might find some old school uneducated managers here and there who still reject it, but the front offices and owners across the league all accept this fundamental truth. It's been well known for the better part of 20 years now.

You should read this. It's a link to the original research article by the guy who discovered this fundamental truth about pitchers not being able to control contact after the pitch.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/n...-hurlers-have/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

In one breath, you claim to understand BABIP and its implications, and in the very next breath you use the completely nonsensical term of "great contact pitchers" as if such a thing exists. This is what I'm trying to tell you. There is no such thing as a "great contact pitcher". They are the Loch Ness Monster of baseball. A myth. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand BABIP and why it is important.

This isn't exactly news either. Every franchise in the league today knows this. You might find some old school uneducated managers here and there who still reject it, but the front offices and owners across the league all accept this fundamental truth. It's been well known for the better part of 20 years now.

You should read this. It's a link to the original research article by the guy who discovered this fundamental truth about pitchers not being able to control contact after the pitch.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/n...-hurlers-have/

And yet, throughout the entirety of baseball history, we have great pitchers who are not strikeout pitchers (and thus getting their outs on contact) having very long careers and performing far above most pitchers. If there is no such thing as a great contact pitcher, how are pitchers like Maddux great? Or do you think Maddux and the numerous other pitchers like him are all sheer luck?


I'm familiar with McCracken's article and Bill James' positive take on it. I think some of the points are true indeed. But I also am aware that some contact pitchers have high inning careers of greatness. These sample sizes seem unreasonable to chalk up to sheer dumb luck. If it was purely the team defense behind them, pitchers like Maddux and the number 5 starter on the team who isn't a strikeout pitcher would chalk up about the same numbers on the whole. Maddux is a good example, he wasn't a great K pitcher. He pitched to contact. And he won 4 ERA crowns, 4 FIP crowns, led the league in fewest hits per 9 once. How do we explain his 5,000IP career if contact pitchers are all bad or mediocre?


Are you capable of making any argument whatsoever without insulting anyone? I think you've actually started to bring up good points that can coalesce into a coherent, rational argument, but your absurd egotism and propensity to just resort to the ad hominem at every single turn obscures even your good points.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

And yet, throughout the entirety of baseball history, we have great pitchers who are not strikeout pitchers (and thus getting their outs on contact) having very long careers and performing far above most pitchers. If there is no such thing as a great contact pitcher, how are pitchers like Maddux great? Or do you think Maddux and the numerous other pitchers like him are all sheer luck?


I'm familiar with McCracken's article and Bill James' positive take on it. I think some of the points are true indeed. But I also am aware that some contact pitchers have high inning careers of greatness. These sample sizes seem unreasonable to chalk up to sheer dumb luck. If it was purely the team defense behind them, pitchers like Maddux and the number 5 starter on the team who isn't a strikeout pitcher would chalk up about the same numbers on the whole. Maddux is a good example, he wasn't a great K pitcher. He pitched to contact. And he won 4 ERA crowns, 4 FIP crowns, led the league in fewest hits per 9 once. How do we explain his 5,000IP career if contact pitchers are all bad or mediocre?


Are you capable of making any argument whatsoever without insulting anyone? I think you've actually started to bring up good points that can coalesce into a coherent, rational argument, but your absurd egotism and propensity to just resort to the ad hominem at every single turn obscures even your good points.

Plus one. And I without looking at stats I will just say the eye test can tell a great pitcher. It’s fun to watch a guy where no one can touch the ball - thinking DeGrom when he’s actually healthy - but it’s also fun to watch a guy that paints corners and throws junk down the middle that ends up with dribblers.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm familiar with McCracken's article and Bill James' positive take on it. I think some of the points are true indeed. But I also am aware that some contact pitchers have high inning careers of greatness. These sample sizes seem unreasonable to chalk up to sheer dumb luck.

The article did have some good points, but I agree that its whole "FIP is all that matters" conclusion is too simplistic and goes too far. And some of the points were really grasping at straws; the quotes from Maddux and Pedro were an especially poor attempt to help prove the merits of the study (of course a long scoreless innings streak will have a lot of luck...what does that have to do with that specific discussion?)

I've noticed that when it comes to sports and gambling, statisticians love to claim as many "this is completely random" findings as they possibly can. A lot of that probably has to do with being the devil's advocate about the general public's often faulty attempts to find reason in trends or insufficient statistics.

And with having such a passion to do so, it's easy for them to go too far in the other direction (and be too quick to dismiss the possible meaning in some numbers)

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well, he pitched for 21 years which seems like a lot, but it was only 5,008 innings. The sample is just too small. Maddux was lucky. Also a bum because only K pitchers who played after Spahn, except for Koufax who is exempted because I don’t know, are any good.

I'll give you $1k right now if you can repeat my arguments in a way I'll sign off on. Good luck.