BB/9 or WHIP?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

We currently use BB/9. There's been some interest expressed in replacing it with WHIP. Both are rate stats and both measure similar things, so it's the league's choice.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Don't have a strong opinion either way. Gonna refrain from sharing my thoughts for now.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

3 votes for WHIP so far. None for BB/9. Any of the WHIP supporters want to share their thoughts?

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

I vote for keep it the same. SO many potential changes already. If they are smilier and that is what we have been using, why change.

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

Plus I look at whip in every other league....liked looking at something different.

[Deleted]

I voted to change to WHIP. I think a pitcher has some inherent ability to limit the amount of hits he allows (albeit less than for walks). Some pitchers excel at not allowing hits but give up extraneous walks; others do the opposite - both pitcher types still have value and WHIP takes both skills into account.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 12, 2013 18:17:12 GMT -5 @miamidan said:

I voted to change to WHIP. I think a pitcher has some inherent ability to limit the amount of hits he allows (albeit less than for walks). Some pitchers excel at not allowing hits but give up extraneous walks; others do the opposite - both pitcher types still have value and WHIP takes both skills into account.

Most analysis says that the best way for a pitcher to limit hits is by limiting HRs and striking guys out. Strikeouts are already a category, HRs are not.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I think I'm leaning towards switching to WHIP. Overall, I think BB/9 is a more useful predictive category than WHIP is, as it is probably better reflects the things that the pitcher can control. As I said above, a pitcher can only really limit hits insofar as he can strike guys out and prevent HRs. That said though, even though a pitcher doesn't have a whole lot of control over how many hits he allows from one year to the next, it's still the pitcher's job to limit baserunners, which is exactly what WHIP measures. Regardless of how much a pitcher can control where his hit pitches land, it's still going to have a significant effect on how successful he is. Fantasy baseball isn't just about picking guys who can be successful in the component categories, it's also about finding that magic formula where just the right level of each ingredient is used and results in the perfect finished product. And yes, sometimes there's some luck involved. The fact remains that the pitcher's job is to keep guys off the base paths by limiting walks and hits, and regardless of how you believe that's accomplished, we should be judged on how well we pick the pitchers who achieve that goal, and not JUST on how well we pick the pitchers who do a single component of the formula well. Components are important too, and our stats will still reflect that (Ks, and the W in WHIP), but there should be room for both components and results, and WHIP is a great way to make room for both.

Also, WHIP is sort of a pillar of fantasy baseball, and seeing as we've taken away some of those pillars (Wins, RsBI, Runs) for other various reasons, there's something to be said for keeping the other pillars as long as we can stand it. We don't want to be too esoteric, seeing as we still need to recruit new GMs from time to time.

But like I said, I'm not strongly opinionated one way or the other. I agree with both Kevin's comments - we are making a lot of changes, and there's something to be said for limiting the amount of change we make at a time, particularly in a case like this where it's not really a huge deal. There's also something to be said for doing something a little bit differently and putting a fresh spin on fantasy baseball (although we still do that in a bunch of other categories).

My other chief hangup when it comes to WHIP is that, like I said, pitchers only have so much control over the hits that they allow, and most of that control manifests itself in the Ks (already a category) and the HRs (nowhere near as important nor as skill-dependent as BBs). Once a ball is in play it mostly comes down to luck - except in terms of GBs and FBs, and it actually turns out that a GB in play is more likely to result in a hit than a FB, so WHIP actually penalizes pitcher's for having high GB rates, even though IRL high GB rates are generally more desirable (because they limit HRs and XBHs).

So yeah, WHIP isn't perfect. However, I think overall the merits of switching to WHIP slightly outweigh the reasons not to from where I'm standing.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

When we get down to the point of saying something is slightly better but not perfect, I'd rather just leave it be. It isn't something that's broken or redundant like ops was. I don't think we should try to force fix it. Just my two cents.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 12, 2013 20:59:23 GMT -5 Tucker (Padres GM) said:

When we get down to the point of saying something is slightly better but not perfect, I'd rather just leave it be. It isn't something that's broken or redundant like ops was. I don't think we should try to force fix it. Just my two cents.

There's a lot to be said for this.

[Max (Tigers GM)]

Aug 12, 2013 22:21:20 GMT -5 Ben (Rays GM) said:

Aug 12, 2013 20:59:23 GMT -5 Tucker (Padres GM) said:

When we get down to the point of saying something is slightly better but not perfect, I'd rather just leave it be. It isn't something that's broken or redundant like ops was. I don't think we should try to force fix it. Just my two cents.

There's a lot to be said for this.

i'm good with keeping BB/9

[Max (Tigers GM)]

bump; need more votes/input

[Zack (Mariners GM)]

I support switching to WHIP. WHIP still incorporates the BB component while introducing the H component, thus giving a more comprehensive measurement of how a pitcher has performed. It may not have as much predicative value, but I don't really think that's what we should be striving for in fantasy stats. We want to award fantasy points based on what has happened (even if it occurred due to luck/randomness), not necessarily what is likely to happen in the future. A pitcher's job is to get outs and keep people off base and that is exactly what WHIP measures.

In addition, I wholeheartedly agree with Ben's point of keeping some traditional fantasy stats. It can be sort of a culture shock to new GM's when they see a fantasy league without Wins, RBIs, Runs, etc... Switching from BB/9 to WHIP would help ease that transition a little bit, IMO.

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

I never really supported the fact that we didn't have a representation of hits given up by a pitcher in our stat categories but did have a representation of walks. I think WHIP is a much more comprehensive metric of a pitcher's performance and I strongly support using it instead of BB/9

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 13, 2013 10:47:32 GMT -5 Zack (Mariners GM) said:

I support switching to WHIP. WHIP still incorporates the BB component while introducing the H component, thus giving a more comprehensive measurement of how a pitcher has performed. It may not have as much predicative value, but I don't really think that's what we should be striving for in fantasy stats. We want to award fantasy points based on what has happened (even if it occurred due to luck/randomness), not necessarily what is likely to happen in the future. A pitcher's job is to get outs and keep people off base and that is exactly what WHIP measures.

Really well said. I keep going back and forth on this myself but I think this is the strongest argument in favor of WHIP and I think it shows that it's probably the right decision.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Still very close with 12 people yet to vote. If you're one of those 12, please share your thoughts.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Interesting read:

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-the-best-stat-to-evaluate-pitchers/

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

Aug 19, 2013 12:39:35 GMT -5 Ben (Rays GM) said:

Interesting read:

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-the-best-stat-to-evaluate-pitchers/

Further proof that Glen Perkins is awesome

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 19, 2013 15:56:43 GMT -5 Brian (Blue Jays GM) said:

Further proof that Glen Perkins is awesome

I like what Perkins says (or alludes to) regarding the difference between "evaluative" stats and other stats, which I guess I'd call "results" stats.

Evaluative stats are the stats you should use to scout out players. But when it comes to actually playing the games, if we judge players on the evaluative stats it's not going to be very interesting, since we'll all be evaluating the same way. Real baseball is about using evaluation to get results. Fantasy baseball should be the same. With that in mind, I'm supporting WHIP, since a hit is just as much an important result as a walk is, and even though they're not as easy to predict, that's part of the fun. If we use WHIP as a stat, then some people will use BB/9 to evaluate, some people will use H/9, some people will just use WHIP or some combination of stats, some will use pitchfx data, etc, and our various strategies will be put to the test on the field, like they should be. If we just use BB/9, there's no diversity in strategy.

[Kevin (Rangers GM)]

I think whip is good !!!!!

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Currently 16-9. Looks like WHIP is pulling away, with the majority of the league (and a significant majority of those who have voted) in support. Last call to vote or share your opinion if you have not yet done so.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I still somewhat consider whip a team dependent stat, though not on the level of RBI's etc, which is the main reason i'm not for changing it. But if it does get changed its not a huge deal.

[Deleted]

I voted to keep it the same

[Ben (Rays GM)]

With 27 out of 30 GMs voting, WHIP has won 18-9, and will be replacing BB/9 among the stat categories next season.