More on (moron?) the 9 single-A pitcher strategy

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:30 am

On Mike and Mike this morning, they were talking about Braden Looper's ERA of infinity. Got me thinking about the 9 single-A pitcher strategy in the NFBC. Suppose a team had 8 inactive pitchers and Braden Looper. Let's also say that Braden Looper blew out his elbow yesterday, and was lost for the season. A further assumption: the team made no other pitching changes for the rest of the season. The team's ERA would be infinity, but...

would that put that team in last place overall in ERA, or

would they be tied with the other teams that had zero innings pitched on the season?

Real stupid question, but then again, maybe not. Keep in mind that both situations would result in a team having zero innings pitched.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:40 am

How's this for a guess...The teams with o innings would be ranked by runs allowed.

JAR · Post by **JAR** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:51 am

Well.. being a programmer I think I can answer this question for you.

ERA is (Earned Runs*9)/Innings Pitched..

so a pitcher who gives up 3 runs in a 9 inning game..

(3*9)/9 = 3.00 era

Since Looper gave up 3 runs, and had 0 IP.. that is..

(3*0)/9 = 0.00 era

So his 3 ER would be the same as 0 ER (assuming his team does not accumulate any IP the entire year)

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:57 am

Originally posted by JAR:

Well.. being a programmer I think I can answer this question for you.

ERA is (Earned Runs*9)/Innings Pitched..

so a pitcher who gives up 3 runs in a 9 inning game..

(3*9)/9 = 3.00 era

Since Looper gave up 3 runs, and had 0 IP.. that is..

(3*0)/9 = 0.00 era

So his 3 ER would be the same as 0 ER (assuming his team does not accumulate any IP the entire year) Duh....

(3*9)/0 does not equal 0

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:58 pm

Originally posted by JAR:

Well.. being a programmer I think I can answer this question for you.Great! I've come to the right place.

Originally posted by JAR:

Since Looper gave up 3 runs, and had 0 IP.. that is..

(3*0)/9 = 0.00 era

So his 3 ER would be the same as 0 ER (assuming his team does not accumulate any IP the entire year) Thanks for the chuckle.

PittIsIt95 · Post by **PittIsIt95** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:40 pm

Originally posted by JAR:

Well.. being a programmer I think I can answer this question for you.

ERA is (Earned Runs*9)/Innings Pitched..

so a pitcher who gives up 3 runs in a 9 inning game..

(3*9)/9 = 3.00 era

Since Looper gave up 3 runs, and had 0 IP.. that is..

(3*0)/9 = 0.00 era

So his 3 ER would be the same as 0 ER (assuming his team does not accumulate any IP the entire year) JAR, I surely hope you don't get paid alot for your analysis. I am guessing you are STRICTLY a programmer (and avoid any type of analytical work) after that post

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:57 pm

Quite seriously, JAR's response might be one of the funniest posts of the season. As Bill Simmons might say, he scored very well on the Unintentional Comedy Scale.

JAR · Post by **JAR** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:26 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:

(3*9)/0 does not equal 0 I never said it did.. I said 3*0/9 = 0

But you're right.. I was being stupid.. the correct way to calculate it is (3*9)/0.. which of course is impossible to compute because you cannot divide by 0.

But in my defense.. the answer would still be 0, because ERA is a number, and you can't represent infinity in a numerical field within a database.

So the programmer for STATS would write a line of code like... if(IP != 0)){ ERA = runs*9/IP; } else { ERA = 0; }

[ April 06, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: JAR ]

mrphikapp · Post by **mrphikapp** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:59 am

Actually if the programmer were intelligent they would write that same line of code but with the result of the then statement being the largest possible era since basic proofs show that any number divided by 0 will approach infinity you would automatically set ERA = to the largest value that numeric field could possibly hold thus representing the closest approximation allowable within the confines of the table structure used to hold that value...

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:52 am

Originally posted by mrphikapp:

Actually if the programmer were intelligent they would write that same line of code but with the result of the then statement being the largest possible era since basic proofs show that any number divided by 0 will approach infinity you would automatically set ERA = to the largest value that numeric field could possibly hold thus representing the closest approximation allowable within the confines of the table structure used to hold that value... Indeed, that's my feeling, too.

Dyv

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:55 am

Originally posted by Dyv:

quote:Originally posted by mrphikapp:

Actually if the programmer were intelligent they would write that same line of code but with the result of the then statement being the largest possible era since basic proofs show that any number divided by 0 will approach infinity you would automatically set ERA = to the largest value that numeric field could possibly hold thus representing the closest approximation allowable within the confines of the table structure used to hold that value... Indeed, that's my feeling, too.

Dyv [/QUOTE]Like 99.99

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:20 am

Originally posted by JAR:

But you're right.. I was being stupid.. But in my defense.. the answer would still be 0, because ERA is a number, and you can't represent infinity in a numerical field within a database.

So the programmer for STATS would write a line of code like... if(IP != 0)){ ERA = runs*9/IP; } else { ERA = 0; } If a train is leaving Chicago at exactly 3pm, carrying 500 passengers, and is heading towards Las Vegas, and at the EXACT SAME MOMENT, another train is leaving New York, with 400 passengers, heading towards Iola...

...would a programmer say that the ERA is still zero?

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:59 am

That would depend on which engineer was on steroids.