Did you really need to say xFIP/FIP/SIERRA are objective measure of performance after I said you believe they are infallible. Firstly, they all differ so which one is the most objective..lol. You keep putting words in my mouth. Where did I make a snap judgement and point to ERA? I said FIP doesn't distinguish between the type of contact and xfip doesn't take into account the number of line drives a pitcher gives up.
I then went through the macro statistics outlining how much more damaging line drive hits are relative to ground balls and flyballs. I then compared Hutch and Sanchez to show that Hutch had given up far more line drives and far more hard hit balls than Sanchez. I indicated you believe this to be random bad luck. I disagree with that supposition. I believe that when hutch and Sanchez both throw a pitch that lands in the heart of the plate that Sanchez' is harder to hit. He throws harder, and his ball movement takes the ball off the barrel of the bat. I've heard the mlb experts who were former pitchers talk about Sanchez and articulate this point. I witnessed Martin call 40 straight fastballs, because Sanchez on the night had great movement and was keeping the ball in the zone. Even with players knowing what was coming they weren't hitting it. Why would Martin call the game this way if Sanchez was simply getting "LUCKY" as you like to point out.
Sanchez has only struck out 5.9 batter per 9 yet even with that low strike out rate has only given up 7.4 hits per 9. Hutch has given up 10.8 hits per 9 despite the fact that he has struck out 7.9 batters per 9. You're saying fip is objective and infallible. Hutch is the most unlucky man alive. You think Sanchez is the luckiest man alive and should just quit baseball and start buying lottery tickets because he'd win for sure. I dispute this. I don't think Hutch has been better than Sanchez because his FIP is lower. I am not suggesting he is better because his ERA is lower. So quit spouting off that I'm using ERA to judge the two for fawk sakes..lol