Providing Quality Fantasy Sports Information
|
View Your Purchased Products
or Find a Your League
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
WHIP
or SWIP? WHIP, a “roto-geek” stat that has become all the rage in the past ten years (you measure WHIP by adding Walks and Hits and dividing by Innings Pitched). Of course this is a valuable stat and it can be one of many predictive tools one uses to forecast the success of a pitcher. But we believe that the vagaries of hits allowed (a ball lost in the sun, a wind gust, a misstep by a fielder, coaches positioning of players) can possible offer a “false” positive in terms or a pitchers overall effectiveness. How do we remedy this situation? We propose a new stat, one we call SWIP. What does SWIP stand for? S- Strikeouts
What becomes apparent in this instance is that the HIGHER the SWIP, the more effectively the pitcher presumably performed. We say presumably because SWIP, like any other tool , is but one measure of the effectiveness of a ballplayer. This system is also more biased toward power pitchers as it places a greater emphasis on K’s (Tim Hudson scores a rather poor .42 SWIP last year, but by almost all other statistical measurements had a very successful year, so the system is not full proof). But it stands to reason, does it not, that the fewer times a batter puts the ball in play the fewer hits he can accumulate? Therefore the pitcher who successfully limits the amount of balls in play stands a greater chance of given up fewer baserunners, and by inference, fewer runs. Just what designates a great total for SWIP? A general table for SWIP would be as follows: .90 and UP… Excellent season, Hall of
Fame worthy. Lets look at some of the top seasons from 1995-2002 as benchmarks.
As we can see anything over 1.00 represents a truly historic season (Schilling, Johnson and Pedro averaged 324 K’s while going an aggregate 67-17, or on average roughly 22 -6). We can also see that a CY Young season usually hovers around the .80 total. The .32 SWIP of Hampton is a result of his inordinate amount of walks, something that should have been taken into consideration as an extremely obvious harbinger that he was due for a fall (In fact, he went from 22-4 to 15-10, while his ERA went from 2.90 to 3.14, and his SWIP went down to .24 in 2000…suggesting that his 1999 SWIP was accurate in saying that his 1999 season was, at least record wise, a fluke). Lets take a glance of some of the
other “franchise” pitchers 2003 seasons.
What can we infer from this list? Well, despite his high ERA (4,26) and WHIP (1.33) last year, Randy Johnson was still pretty darn effective. On the flip side, can a “power” pitcher like Bartolo Colon be said to be wearing down when his SWIP was only 0.44 up barely from his 2002 season of .34, but down from the previous two years of .50, .54? Maddux did have a very solid year, but was it luck, ideal positioning by his teammates, or does his style of pitching simply defy explanation? Lets look at a group of the “must have” youngsters of 2004.
Perhaps all the pundits predicting great things from Vazquez with his move to the Yankees are correct in seeing a breakout year. Perhaps the same can be said for Santana and Beckett…but Webb, Willis, and O. Perez…the jury’s still out. Who had some of the poorest SWIP figures last year? A few of these pitchers will surprise you.
Zito, didn’t he just win the CY Young? We admit that we were a bit shocked so see the Zen master on this list, a huge bounce back is in order for him. Didn’t Russ Ortiz win 21 games? Yes he did, but his other totals (3.81 ERA, 1.32 WHIP and the 4th highest run support in the NL) should have alerted you that last season, barring an unforeseen jump for Russ, was an anomaly. Lowe had 17 wins, but again, look at his other figures (4.47, 1.42, #1 run support in the AL). On the flip side there’s Jamie Moyer (see Maddux comment above). One last mention of last years SWIP totals…under no circumstances would we recommend picking the following player, even if he starts of April with a 4-0 record and a 24 inning scoreless streak.
MINUS .04 ! The only word that comes to mind in this case is… atrocious. So have we pioneered a new way to revolutionize the scouting of pitchers? Of course we haven’t. Sabermaticians have pioneered many a pitching stats to gauge the effectiveness of hurlers that will make this formula seem like it was written by a 3rd grader. But isn’t that kind of the point? SWIP is something that is readily understood and it’s a formula that doesn’t require calculus or an abacus to solve, so isn’t it a more practical tool that we might all use? To that end , have we provided another tool to be included in the cache of already existing measurements of pitchers? We believe we have. SWIP, less so than any of the other “standard” fantasy categories (W, L, ERA, WHIP) appears to be a more complete reflection of the effort put forth by the pitcher in the previous year. Give it a look, we think you’ll agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | Advertising | Links | Contact Us |
|
|||
|
|