Both are pretty blunt instruments in general and should not be taken too seriously.I'd say that WHIP is also not even as good as a predictive tool because it counts Walks, Hits, and Home Runs as the same.While ERA doesn't even factor in what sort of circumstances resulted in the Runs, if a pitcher is getting hit hard, that's probably going to result in some runs, while if a pitcher is giving up a few singles and few walks, he's likely to escape the damage.Pitcher A gives up 1 home run, 3 doubles, and 4 singles over 6 innings.
In other words, ERA and WHIP are most always going to be closely correlated.There are at least three statistics you would want to look at to spot possible regressions: left of base % (LOB%), batting average on balls in play (BABIP%), and FIP/xFIP/SIERA. His WHIP/ERA are decent at 1.12/2.88, but his BABIP of .336 shows in part that he should have a much better ERA, somewhere in the low 2's.And remember Derek Lowe? WHIP is the best non advanced ratio you'll see without going to fangraphs or the like.Neither stat is more important. My opinion is WHIP is more important because it shoes how hard a pitcher has to work during a game. To me, a pitcher with a high WHIP and low ERA will be more prone to fizzling out later in the season due to high pitch count and a lot of innings.
I guess the test will be when Gleyber plays AnaheimCopyright 2007 - 2020 Razzball LLC. You could walk three batters an inning on four pitches, then get infield flies on the first pitch for the next three outs (clearly that's an extreme scenario, but you get the idea). Similarly, one could argue that a pitcher's ability to keep baserunners off shows the quality of their pitching.But in my opinion, a pitcher's job is to give up the least number of runs, so ERA is more important, because it shows that the pitcher keeps their team in the game. IMO, Low ERA means a pitcher is stingy and tough to score on. (1.20)Neither of the stats are perfect, and ERA is certainly not the be-all-end-all of statistical evaluations, but, of those two flawed metrics, ERA beats WHIP hands down.Neither does ERA. **For the best user experience, we recommend disabling the Reddit redesign. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks.More important? Defence, ballpark, opponents, and luck all play a major role. **Press J to jump to the feed.
That hurts ERA a lot more than WHIP.
In one of my leagues, my pitching staff has a 3.65 ERA and a 1.17 WHIP over 828.3 IP. Pitching is more complex.If you'd rather have the pitchers with the best WHIP than the pitchers with the best ERA, I'll concede the point.For instance, Ted Lilly (1.09) is 4th in WHIP in all of baseball over the past 4 years: Better than Felix Hernandez(1.14) or Tim Lincecum. All rights reserved.
Lance Lynn has 0.90 WHIP, 1.81 ERA. Unlike ERA, which spiked last year, we see only a slight uptick in WHIP. In other words, ERA is an output of WHIP.But in my opinion, they quality of a pitcher can only be judged by both. A good WHIP shows the quality of the pitcher, but a good ERA shows that the pitcher gives his team a good chance to win, and that's what's important.A pitcher with a high WHIP/low ERA does not necessarily work any harder. Look at his LOB% and his BABIP though: 87% and .219. So this means he is basically losing 1 hit every 10 at bats, and nearly 2/10 of his runners who get on base and should score, don't.Instead, if you sort that chart by xFIP, you see a guy who is making a case to be the perennial leader in this category: Zach Greinke. So technically you could give up no runs 0 ERA (Great) and walk 3 per inning for a 3.0 WHIP (not good.) The WHIP is more important as a predictive tool, because it can show that an ERA is too high or too low. LOW Whip means the hurler is downright nasty with over-the-top stuff. A pitcher with a high WHIP and a low ERA likely has a very high LOB%, which indicates he's getting lucky.WHIP is FAR MORE statistically accurate indication of a player's performance. We To begin with, what’s the context in which we should gauge whether an SP’s WHIP actually helps our team? Im having a discussion with a buddy at work. Since MLB is a long season, everything a pitcher does will effect his performance later in the season and the playoffs. WHIP is one of the most commonly used statistics for evaluating a pitcher's performance. Walks are ONLY brought upon by a pitcher. I'd be nervous if my team was making a late push (might not happen for the sox this year, ha ha), or in a play-off series, and the pitcher is known to put a lot of guys on base.i agree, WHIP is more important for individual assessment, i think.