In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

 

In response to mef429's comment:

 

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

 

he had 12 wins in 2011 posting the worst ERA EVER!

 

besides, his ability has no bearing on how many wins he gets....

Oh Mef  not U2

not even most superstat geeks would go that far

ok maybe they would ;-)

 

 


sorry to say it Zac, i just hate the W/L stat. it is the single WORST statistic out there... Too many variables involved to depend on it as a measuring stick.

 ...................................................................................................................

Exactly.  Lackey posted the worst ERA of a full-time pitcher in the modern era or something and got 12 wins in 2011.  Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young in 2010 with 13.  An interesting statistic no doubt, but useless as a yard stick.

 

 

exactly what ?

I figure we all respected each others knowledge enough that

there was no need to mention that no single stat can stand by it's self

 

sorry guys  but IMO saying

''his ability has no bearing on how many wins he gets.''

''useless as a yardstick

is a couple of left turns  past reasonable

sure we can all come up with those exceptions to every rule

and even throw  small sample size into the conversation

when using W's of 1 season

but once you start looking at mutli yrs / careers

I think the good pitchers have more wins

than the not so good ones

as carnie said it's about the W's

 

 

 

in other words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to selenium-'s comment:

pike=dead horse.

In response to Triumph-'s comment:

I put Pike on ignore and it has done wonders.

In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

"i put pike on prosac and it hasn't done a thing."-----his doctor.

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

Zac, please read this article:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Get-rid-of-win-loss-stat-for-pitchers

a snipet from the article:

"As we all know, a starting pitcher gets a win for working at least five innings and giving his team a lead that's never relinquished. Sounds harmless enough, but in practice a pitcher can — by any reasonable standard — stink up the joint and still get a shiny "W" next to his name. On such occasions, it's of course the offense that contributed the most to the victory and not the starting pitcher whose good fortune it was to be lousy on a day in which his counterpart was just a bit lousier. In fact, you can hemorrhage 12 hits and nine runs in 5.0 innings and still "earn" the victory.

By the same token, a pitcher can "lose" a game in which he was utterly dominant. The defense can let him down, or the bullpen can fritter away his lead, or he can get no run support. If he's especially fortunate on such days, he'll escape with a no-decision despite giving his team ample chance to win. In fact, you can throw a no-hitter and still be slapped with a loss; you can retire the first 36(!) batters you face, give up one unearned run in 12.2 innings and still somehow "lose"; and you can win an ERA title while going 8-16."

 

This post has been removed.

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

 

In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

 

In response to mef429's comment:

 

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

 

he had 12 wins in 2011 posting the worst ERA EVER!

 

besides, his ability has no bearing on how many wins he gets....

Oh Mef  not U2

not even most superstat geeks would go that far

ok maybe they would ;-)

 

 


sorry to say it Zac, i just hate the W/L stat. it is the single WORST statistic out there... Too many variables involved to depend on it as a measuring stick.

 ...................................................................................................................

Exactly.  Lackey posted the worst ERA of a full-time pitcher in the modern era or something and got 12 wins in 2011.  Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young in 2010 with 13.  An interesting statistic no doubt, but useless as a yard stick.

 

 

exactly what ?

I figure we all respected each others knowledge enough that

there was no need to mention that no single stat can stand by it's self

 

sorry guys  but IMO saying

''his ability has no bearing on how many wins he gets.''

''useless as a yardstick

is a couple of left turns  past reasonable

sure we can all come up with those exceptions to every rule

and even throw  small sample size into the conversation

when using W's of 1 season

but once you start looking at mutli yrs / careers

I think the good pitchers have more wins

than the not so good ones

as carnie said it's about the W's

 

 

 

What you say is true.  However, most of this thread has infact been talking about wins as a stand-alone indicator.  

 

 

This post has been removed.

thanks 4 the read mef

while the writer clearly supports your  point

he also in a very small way  supported my point

when I charged you with  going 2 far

 at least he admitted  '' Like almost any flawed statistic,

 win-loss records can be vaguely useful at the margins''


I have only a little problem  with us disagreeing on how much value  the stat has

but have more of a  problem with anyone calling it totally useless

no worries i'll get over it ;-)

FWIW worth I usually look in this order

1) whip
2) K/BB   
3) W & W %
4) inns
5) K/9 BB/9

this could explain my shortcomings in FB ;-)


mef I'm thinking  we could throw any stat out there and then

we could  find flaws with it

many with the  same  ''team stat '' flaw

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

I'm with you, Zac, when it comes to not being dismissive about wins. The Tiants, Schillings, and Pettittes of the game don't go out there thinking, "Oh, I'll just try to keep the other team from scoring four or more runs."  If their team scores one run, these pitchers use everything in their arsenal to keep it a shutout.  They bear down and are extra stingy about giving up that tying run.  Think about the epic battle between Jack Morris vs. John Smoltz in the World Series.  Great pitchers rise to the occasion.

 

In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

 

I'm with you, Zac, when it comes to not being dismissive about wins. The Tiants, Schillings, and Pettittes of the game don't go out there thinking, "Oh, I'll just try to keep the other team from scoring four or more runs."  If their team scores one run, these pitchers use everything in their arsenal to keep it a shutout.  They bear down and are extra stingy about giving up that tying run.  Think about the epic battle between Jack Morris vs. John Smoltz in the World Series.  Great pitchers rise to the occasion.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

glad to have you on board Sheriff



of course it's ALL ABOUT THE WINS

anything else is just blind date talk



U know

the W's R the hot sexy prize everyone  wants

but when  one doesn't have that going 4 them

they talk about era..........  code 4 her personality

or the whip ..........code for her sense of humor etc etc

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

Wow Zac, we're making progress.  It was not so long ago that you ranked "Wins" #2.

And it only took us four years to get to this point, but we both know how slow you are.  ;-)

 

Seriously, Wins for a pitcher has to be the worst baseball stat out there.

I would rank it last, by a good margin.

 

Won-lost record for a pitcher is still an interesting stat, if you know how to put it in context.  Sometimes a pitcher's won-lost record will even truly reflect his performance.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Every stat needs to be used in context. A pitcher's wins and losses really gives me no additional information about that pitcher that I wouldn't already have gathered from putting his wins and losses in context.

In a team sport, it seems ludicrous to me to assign a win or a loss to any individual player. Why don't we assign a win to the guy who drives in the winning run? Why don't we assign a loss to the guy who makes an error, allowing the opposition to score the winning run? Why don't we assign a loss to the baserunner who makes the last out of the game trying to take an extra base?

It's bad enough when a pitcher gets awarded a win when he pitched really well, because he can never win a game by himself.   It's even worse that a pitcher can get a win when he pitches like crap.

If you told me that Lackey got a win in a game, that tells me nothing about how Lackey pitched in that game, other than he pitched at least 5 innings.  Pretty worthless, if you ask me.

 

A pitcher's wins and losses really gives me no additional information about that pitcher that I wouldn't already have gathered from putting his wins and losses in context.

a most interesting point

not saying I agree that it applies to W's   but a most interesting concept




It's bad enough when a pitcher gets awarded a win when he pitched really well, because he can never win a game by himself.   It's even worse that a pitcher can get a win when he pitches like crap.

OMG kimmi

U think this is where it all started

I'm talkin bout kids getting trophies for just showing up ;-)



If you told me that Lackey got a win in a game, that tells me nothing about how Lackey pitched in that game, other than he pitched at least 5 innings.  Pretty worthless, if you ask me.

Question: if I told you he had 300 wins what would that  tell you ?

Answer :   it tells you he played 4 a long  time

geez and I'm the slow one ;-)

Seriously, Wins for a pitcher has to be the worst baseball stat out there.

I would rank it last, by a good margin.

U want to start our game

U name a better pitching stat

and if I understand what it means

then we all can list it's flaws

This post has been removed.

In response to chickenandboose's comment:

Lackey gets props for showing up to ST in shape but there is still nothing skinny about his wallet we filled with 80mil.  He can help our cause and erase a few bad memories by having a solid year for us.

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

Because we want to give the most credit or assign the most blame to the starting pitchers.

The fact that a pitcher's wins and losses are determined in an arbitrary and flawed way doesn't completely remove the value of the stat.

Saves for a reliever are also a deeply flawed stat, but also not without value.

A pitcher who wins 20 games in a season, or 300 games in a career, probably performed very well to accumulate those numbers.  A correlation exists.

Just because the new stats give more refined information is no reason to throw away the old stats.  A lot of people like them and think they're fun and think they mean something.  I don't see a problem. 

This post has been removed.

Zac and Bob, fair enough about the 300 win pitcher, though for me, Wins for a pitcher is still a pretty worthless stat.  If I'm going to assess the talent or value of a pitcher, Wins is the last stat I'm going to look at.

I realize that all stats have their flaws, but they at least will give me some information about the pitcher's performance.  I agree Saves is a deeply flawed stat (don't even get me started on Holds), but even that tells me more than Wins does. 

 

 

I'm talkin bout kids getting trophies for just showing up ;-) 

Touche' Zac

 

 

"Just because the new stats give more refined information is no reason to throw away the old stats. A lot of people like them and think they're fun and think they mean something. I don't see a problem. "

 

That's the problem Bob.  Everyone knows the main goal of the new stats is to take all the fun and enjoyment out of baseball for the old schoolers.  ;-)

 

In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

As usual, Zac is here to tell us that Lackey sucks and will continue to suck. Why not just agree with him and end it instead of going on and on about W's not being that important (I'm fully in that camp btw, especially in the the division we're in where anything can happen with power players.)

Sorry, wrong thread.