Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

     

    in other words

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to Triumph-'s comment:

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    Zac should add 2K9 to his lexicon for 2009. Just saw someone use that on another thread. It does save one keystroke.

     




     


    Pike,

    How long does it take you to look up another screen name?



    I put Pike on ignore and it has done wonders.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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

     

     




    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."

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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.  

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    in other words

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    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.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:


    1) whip
    2) K/BB   
    3) W & W %



    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.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    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.

    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.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to chickenandboose's comment:

    With the new looking Lackey, what are your expectations for him this season?

     



    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.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    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.

     

     

    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?

    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. 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    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.  ;-)

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Holy **** John Lackey is skinny

    Sorry, wrong thread.

     

Share