In response to nhsteven's comment:
In response to mef429's comment:
You claim it doesn't mean anything. I've showed you otherwise, and via this high effort cherry picking, you've reinforced my point. Of course, there are other factors, such as run support, both lack of (Hernandez, Peavy, Johnson, Oswalt, Lincecum, Kershaw) and the opposite (Beckett, Burnett) or clutch pitching (Nova, and yrs ago Morris). Plus, you're stretching the truth here, i.e Harrison has a mediocre ERA at 3.29?
i said mediorce IN COMPARISON to the non-bold stats.
Playing in the AL at Texas stadium? Good for 7th in the league in ERA? Really? It's also notable how most of your high ERAs (DH counts for at least 0.75 runs), are AL and low are the NL (except Hernandez, who plays in a pitchers park with a weak hitting team in tow). Misrepresentative, to say the least.
Do you agree that a qualified sub-par pitcher can lead the league in wins? In theory if he has good run support and a good BP behind him it doesn't matter how good he pitches. A qualified sub-par pitcher CAN NOT lead the league in other pitching stats (like ERA, WHIP, SO/BB etc.) because then he wouldn't be a sub-par pitcher now would he? because what constitutes a good pitcher? good ERA, WHIP SO/9 etc...
In my eyes, W/L should only be used as a tiebreaker in the event that stats between pitchers are extremely close. example: Pitcher A has a 2.68 ERA, 1.116 WHIP, 13-12. Pitcher B has a 2.81 ERA, 1.067 WHIP, 18-5. Then i would say Pitcher B is better. Of course, there are 15 other pitching stats i would use to settle the debate ahead of wins/losses. If judging a pitcher on W/L floats your boat thats fine by me. To each their own. People value different statistics at differing rates. I put 0 value into the W/L stat because of so many variables that determine if a pitcher ends up with a "win" or not. Especially when there are an abundance of other stats that do a much much much much better job of displaying how good a pitcher is.
I have a similar view on IP, just because a guy pitches 250 innings doesnt mean he is good. it just gives some perspective when comparing other stats between pitchers.
I guess you don't value inning eaters/bull dogs; that's not what all MLB coaching staffs think. To each his own, And if means nothing, there would be no tie breaker. But I don't go along with this anyway. BTW, there are NO 300 GWs (except Clemens) who are NOT in the HOF. I'm still waiting for that 22 GWer who isn't that good.
like i said, i only look at a players W/L in the event that every other stat is virtaully identical between players. But since i rank evry other pitching stat ahead of W/L it never comes to that.
OK. We don't have to agree.