Page 1 of 1

WHIP --> ERA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:27 pm
by TheRock
There's a definite relationship between these 2 ratios. See a guy with a mile-high WHIP but low ERA, he's been lucky. 4.80 ERA with a 1.2 WHIP, he's had a bad outing or two but he's making good pitches and the ERA should fall. Good time to buy low.

I've seen charts correlating WHIP/projected ERA but I've lost my links to them. Anyone know where to find one?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:34 am
by xeifrank

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:05 am
by mkooljr1
More bad information circulating on the Cafe! Sure the two are correlated, but the following quote is just bad adivce
TheRock wrote:See a guy with a mile-high WHIP but low ERA, he's been lucky. 4.80 ERA with a 1.2 WHIP, he's had a bad outing or two but he's making good pitches and the ERA should fall. Good time to buy low.


Have you ever thought about how walks and HRs have affected these two categories? A pitcher who gives up a lotta homers will have a worse ERA than his WHIP indicates. This is because HRs count the same as a single in the WHIP calculation, but obviously lead to more runs than a single, hurting an ERA more. The opposite (few homers lead to an era better than whip indicates) is also true. Also, a pitcher who walks a lot of batters will probably have a better ERA than his WHIP suggests. A walk counts the same as a HR in WHIP, so a lotta walks will inflate a WHIP, but since a walk could only drive in a run if it's bases loaded, it's not as harmful to a pitcher's era as a hit. And again, the opposite is true. This is of course all assuming everything else, like K rate, are equal. Thanks for listening, class is now dismissed.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:55 am
by bleach168
Xiefrank,

If I read your chart right, it's saying Homeruns have very little correlation with Stolen Bases. Ok, that's pretty obvious.

But it also says ERA has very little correlation with Wins. That's very interesting. Logically, you would think, lower ERA = more Wins, but I would say that run support is the biggest factor in getting wins.

How else would you explain Pettite's 21 Wins and 4.02 ERA while Kevin Brown gets 14 Wins and a 2.39 ERA.

I've always felt the Wins stat was terrible and is a poor reflection on quality pitchers. Now, I have statistical evidence to back it up! Thanks!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:04 am
by TheRock
mkooljr1 wrote:More bad information circulating on the Cafe! Sure the two are correlated, but the following quote is just bad adivce
TheRock wrote:See a guy with a mile-high WHIP but low ERA, he's been lucky. 4.80 ERA with a 1.2 WHIP, he's had a bad outing or two but he's making good pitches and the ERA should fall. Good time to buy low.


Have you ever thought about how walks and HRs have affected these two categories? A pitcher who gives up a lotta homers will have a worse ERA than his WHIP indicates. This is because HRs count the same as a single in the WHIP calculation, but obviously lead to more runs than a single, hurting an ERA more. The opposite (few homers lead to an era better than whip indicates) is also true. Also, a pitcher who walks a lot of batters will probably have a better ERA than his WHIP suggests. A walk counts the same as a HR in WHIP, so a lotta walks will inflate a WHIP, but since a walk could only drive in a run if it's bases loaded, it's not as harmful to a pitcher's era as a hit. And again, the opposite is true. This is of course all assuming everything else, like K rate, are equal. Thanks for listening, class is now dismissed.


Very good points. Of course it's an over-simplification to say that a certain WHIP absolutely predicates a particular ERA. Can we say that often times these 2 numbers are at least related, and that often ERA will tend to fall in line with WHIP? There will always be exceptions and there are a number of other factors to be considered in evaluating the effectiveness of a pitcher. Sorry for the bad advice. ;-)