Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

[edited] Why WHIP and not WHHBPIP

/10

New member
Aug 1, 2011
147
0
Hi All. I'm one of the people who finds the metrics of sabermetrics difficult to interpret and frustrating as measures. I had a question about walks and hits per inning pitched (WHIP). I think this is a useful statistic - it's simple, reasonably comparable over different pitchers, and has the added benefit of being intuitive (lower is better). Certainly walks and hits far outnumber hit batsmen; is this the reason the latter is not included in such a measure? Because they're so infrequent that they'd average out to a very small contribution to the measure? Part of me would like it included for comprehensiveness. Does such a measure already exist about which I am not aware?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.


(edited to reflect my dumbness about balks, thanks to below)
 

DaleMurphyCollector

New member
Aug 7, 2008
2,527
0
Imagination Land
Re: Why WHIP and not WHHBPBaIP

A balk does not result in a baserunner.

I can't think of a good arguement on why a hit batter shouldn't be a part of the base runners allowed per inning pitched measurement.
 

Hallsgator

New member
Aug 7, 2008
4,354
0
Charleston, SC
Re: Why WHIP and not WHHBPBaIP

You could look at the OBA against for pitchers. That will include HBP.

But it probably should be included, however like you said, it happens so few times it really wouldn't make a difference.
 

/10

New member
Aug 1, 2011
147
0
Re: Why WHIP and not WHHBPBaIP

DaleMurphyCollector said:
A balk does not result in a baserunner.

Ah, of course. That's my mistake.
 

Latest posts

Top