Stat Argument

[Angel_Fan]

Re: Stat Argument

I would go with the pitcher with more wins, remember "you play to win the game." Its kind of like what Kevin Millwood is doing right now on the Indians. His numbers are good, but he's getting bad run support which result in losses.

You could really take either one, but it depends on the team they are on. But if this was fantasy baseball, the pitcher with the better numbers fo sure

[mjb2124]

Re: Stat Argument

I would go with the pitcher with more wins, remember "you play to win the game."

For a one year stat approach, that might be good. For estimating a pitchers career or seeing if that pitcher will be a good pitcher down the road, you'd be better off looking at WHIP, K/BB ratio, ERA etc....

Look at Jose Lima back with the Astros (1999). He won 21 games despite giving up more hits than innings pitched. His 3.58 ERA was respectable (although he pitched many games at the spacious astrodome). Since then he hasn't come close to that win total and one could say he's been a big failure. His win total didn't really show the type of pitcher he was to become. Giving up more hits than innings pitched was a telling stat that he wasn't fooling anyone, but got very lucky or had a ton of run support that year.

[X*Cell]

Re: Stat Argument

For a one year stat approach, that might be good. For estimating a pitchers career or seeing if that pitcher will be a good pitcher down the road, you'd be better off looking at WHIP, K/BB ratio, ERA etc....

Look at Jose Lima back with the Astros (1999). He won 21 games despite giving up more hits than innings pitched. His 3.58 ERA was respectable (although he pitched many games at the spacious astrodome). Since then he hasn't come close to that win total and one could say he's been a big failure. His win total didn't really show the type of pitcher he was to become. Giving up more hits than innings pitched was a telling stat that he wasn't fooling anyone, but got very lucky or had a ton of run support that year.

Thats the best argument I have seen in the thread... CASE CLOSED :wink:

[Angel_Fan]

Re: Stat Argument

For a one year stat approach, that might be good. For estimating a pitchers career or seeing if that pitcher will be a good pitcher down the road, you'd be better off looking at WHIP, K/BB ratio, ERA etc....

Look at Jose Lima back with the Astros (1999). He won 21 games despite giving up more hits than innings pitched. His 3.58 ERA was respectable (although he pitched many games at the spacious astrodome). Since then he hasn't come close to that win total and one could say he's been a big failure. His win total didn't really show the type of pitcher he was to become. Giving up more hits than innings pitched was a telling stat that he wasn't fooling anyone, but got very lucky or had a ton of run support that year.

You make a good point, I guess I dont think about the future that much aka: the Yankees.

Looking at a team standpoint, I like look at wins, and as a fan, I rather have a guy win 15 games and have a 5 ERA than only win 9 and have a 3 ERA. But when looking at a pitchers career stats to determine how good of a pitcher he was, the main stats I like to look at are K:BB and ERA. If a pitcher maintains around a 3 ERA with a good strikeout to walk ratio, then Id consider him a damn good pitcher.

As in the case with Lima, I think that the quality of the team affects how well pitchers pitch. When Lima won 21 games his team went 97-65. Last year which he had a pretty solid year when the Dodgers made the playoffs, they went 93-69 and won the west.

Now look at Lima. Hes with another crappy team in Kansas City, and hes struggling. So what Im saying is that if you have a talented team around you, it gives you confidence in your guys which boosts your perfomance on the mound which I think plays a key role in Lima's case.

[kweiss]

Re: Stat Argument

I've been down this road a thousand times on OS.

A win is the most worthless stat in baseball. It tells nothing of a pitcher's performance, other then his offense's ability to score runs, something he has absolutely no control over. A win has everything to do with run support and a quality bullpen, and nothing to do with how well a pitcher has performed.

Pitcher A: 8 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB. His team can't put a run on the board, and he gets charged with the loss. You're telling me it's his fault his team didn't win the game? A pitcher can't do much more then that to keep his team in the game.

Pitcher B: 6 IP, 5 ER, 8 H, 2 BB. Yet he's pitching alongside the hottest offense in baseball, and they manage to get the lead by the 5th inning, despite his terrible pitching.

The win stat is supposed to tell me that that Pitcher B had a better performance then pitcher A. That's ridiculous, he had a great offense and was rewarded despite his weak performance. Meanwhile Pitcher A dominated on the hill, yet he gets punished for having a bad offense, something he doesn't even control. That's insane.

The win stat is completely flawed, and tells nothing of a pitcher's performance.

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

I've been down this road a thousand times on OS.

A win is the most worthless stat in baseball. It tells nothing of a pitcher's performance, other then his offense's ability to score runs, something he has absolutely no control over. A win has everything to do with run support and a quality bullpen, and nothing to do with how well a pitcher has performed.

Pitcher A: 8 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 0 BB. His team can't put a run on the board, and he gets charged with the loss. You're telling me it's his fault his team didn't win the game? A pitcher can't do much more then that to keep his team in the game.

Pitcher B: 6 IP, 5 ER, 8 H, 2 BB. Yet he's pitching alongside the hottest offense in baseball, and they manage to get the lead by the 5th inning, despite his terrible pitching.

The win stat is supposed to tell me that that Pitcher B had a better performance then pitcher A. That's ridiculous, he had a great offense and was rewarded despite his weak performance. Meanwhile Pitcher A dominated on the hill, yet he gets punished for having a bad offense, something he doesn't even control. That's insane.

The win stat is completely flawed, and tells nothing of a pitcher's performance.

See Joeboo's post about this type of phenomenon over an extended period of time. The wins will catch up with the good/great pitchers and the losses will do the same with the bad/mediocre pitchers.

One start does not constitute a trend.

[kweiss]

Re: Stat Argument

See Joeboo's post about this type of phenomenon over an extended period of time. The wins will catch up with the good/great pitchers and the losses will do the same with the bad/mediocre pitchers.

One start does not constitute a trend.

Obviously, but that still isn't to excuse how flawed the stat is.

When looking at a career, it is a different story. In that instance, a win can give you an idea of success over a long period of time. Regardless, I still feel ERA and ERA+ are better indications of a career, but that's a little off topic.

Under the short term, the win stat is entirely flawed. All too often players are snubbed from All-Star games, Cy Youngs, etc. just because they don't have the magical number of wins. I used one start as an extreme example, but we all know that a few bad offensive performances can completely dent a pitcher's wins, making wins throughout a season pretty useless as well.

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

Obviously, but that still isn't to excuse how flawed the stat is.

When looking at a career, it is a different story. In that instance, a win can give you an idea of success over a long period of time. Regardless, I still feel ERA and ERA+ are better indications of a career, but that's a little off topic.

Under the short term, the win stat is entirely flawed. All too often players are snubbed from All-Star games, Cy Youngs, etc. just because they don't have the magical number of wins. I used one start as an extreme example, but we all know that a few bad offensive performances can completely dent a pitcher's wins, making wins throughout a season pretty useless as well.

We'll see how it turns out this year. Carpenter and Clemens is a neck and neck race for the NL Cy Young at this point. Clemens has him in (barely) in every category except wins, CG, and ShO. It'll be interesting to see how much stock the voters put into wins.

[Autoproxy]

Re: Stat Argument

Aside from the fact that I hate Clemens, I would love to see him sustain his ERA which would be the lowest since 1968 (while pitching in a hitter's park!) and finish with about 14 wins, and have Carpenter or Pedro finish with an ERA in the mid 2's with 20+ wins and lots of Ks. It would just be interesting to see if Clemens would be able to win the Cy Young in what would be a richly deserving season. I wouldn't feel too badly if he didn't win...it would be karma for when he won the Cy with the yanks only because he was 20-3 or whatever.

[dkgojackets]

Re: Stat Argument

An ERA in the 2s isnt exactly relying every night on an offensive explosion....The ability to lock down in crucial situations and win games for your team can't be overloooked. Anyways, over time there is nearly always a direct correlation to wins and ERA.

[DGetz]

Re: Stat Argument

We'll see how it turns out this year. Carpenter and Clemens is a neck and neck race for the NL Cy Young at this point. Clemens has him in (barely) in every category except wins, CG, and ShO.

Clemens ERA, BBA, and WHIP are 1.40, .187, 0.96. Carpenter is 2.26, .220, and 1.03.

Not to take anything away from Carpenter but to me it's clear Clemens is having a better season and if there records were reversed (Clemens was 14-4 and Carpenter 8-4) I dont think there would be any discussion of Carpenter as a Cy Young winner.

[Autoproxy]

Re: Stat Argument

True, an ERA in the mid 2s is good. But an ERA of 1.40 is amazing. That means your team can score 3 runs and win whenever the bullpen is mediocre. An ERA in the mid 2s means you win whenever the team scores 3 runs and the bullpen is perfect. If they played the games on the statsheet, of course...

[SportsTop]

Re: Stat Argument

Clemens ERA, BBA, and WHIP are 1.40, .187, 0.96. Carpenter is 2.26, .220, and 1.03.

Not to take anything away from Carpenter but to me it's clear Clemens is having a better season and if there records were reversed (Clemens was 14-4 and Carpenter 8-4) I dont think there would be any discussion of Carpenter as a Cy Young winner.

I never denied that Clemens was having the better year.

But you can't deny that they are neck and neck in the voter's eyes. Like it or not, wins goes a long way to winning the Cy Young.