Metrics mania.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.

     



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

     

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.

     




    A pitcher throwing a no hitter and losing is so rare that it is preposterous to use it as an example.

     

     



    there are examples every day of pitchers throwing great outings who shouldn't be attributed to the loss and yet still recieve one. That's why it's dumb. it's a team stat being assigned to an individual. a win/loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher.

     

     




    A pitcher throwing a good game and losing is part of the game. The opposing pitcher probably was a little better. Only one can get the win. It is always interesting to watch two great pitchers go head to head. This is the last time that I am going to reiterate that ERA must be looked at along with wins and losses. A pitcher who consistently pitches well will have a good ERA. To say that a win / loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher is simply not true.

     



    except it is. especially in the AL where a starter can't go out and bat to try and contribute to runs coming across the plate which helps him get a win. He also can't control defense and the quality of the BP that comes in after him.

    you say that W/L should be looked at along with ERA and other peripheral pitching stats but the truth is. you can just look at ERA and the other stats without W/L and a better view of the top pitchers because it's not getting mucked up by a bogus stat that is out of their control.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    While we are on the subject, I have real reservations about one aspect of ERA, and that is the pitcher's total unresponsibility for what happens after an error.  If it would have been the third out, the pitcher can offer up mulitple gopher balls and allow several runs to come, and they are all unearned runs.  As powerful as the MLBPA is, I think the pitcher's lobby is even stronger because of the creation of the ERA.  And let's not forget that a pitcher's own errors are part of the ERA syndrome.  So, for example, when he gets a one hopper with a man on first and throws the ball into centerfield, he can then get a bunch of unearned runs. 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    While not entirely meaningless, agree W-L is less relevant today than in the past.  What could be more meaningless, as an aside, than a relief pitchers won-lost record (if there are wins, how many of those equal a blown save?).  ERA (ERA+) together with WHIP, and throw in durability (innings pitched year after year) tell a lot about where to rank a given starting pitcher in terms of quality and value.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    This is a very interesting thread.  The debate is intrinsically unwinnable.  Baseball is separated from other sports by the great value of statistics in appreciation for the game.  At the same time, it is also, by virtue of its non-linear time and unstandardized space, probably the hardest to fully understand through statistics.  I find I need to study the metrics, both simple and advanced AND use my eyes and senses to get proper understanding.  One can never obscure the other.  

    Softy recently criticized me for using the term "hard-nosed gamer" in my analysis of Jonny Gomes.  This is fair enough, as "hard-nosed gamer", an analytical conclusion drawn soley from watching and absorbing, on its own is pretty meaningless.  However, "hard-nosed gamer" with a 1.00+ OPS vs. lefties begins to tell a fuller story.  

    I think we need all the tools at our disposal in order to even begin to get an inkling of understanding for this mysterious game:  old school sensory understanding, old school numbers, new school numbers, and sometimes a little LSD helps to unlock the doors of baseball perception too.  Wink

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Of course it is a team win , but the pitcher is the biggest part of that. That is why the pitcher is given the win or loss. 

    No, that's where you are wrong. Dempster was the biggest part of that win, but Bailey blew the save and got the win. It's a horrible pitcher stat that should be way down on any list for evaluating a pitcher's skillset. (Below team W-L records in your starts)

    I don't put all my faith in a pitcher's won / loss record. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that you also have to look at ERA when evaluating a pitcher's effectiveness.  

    I get your position. Just because we don't agree and continue pointing out hos useless W-L is, does not mean we do not get your position. The fact that you choose maybe the 3rd or 4th best stat (ERA) and the 20th best stat (pitcher W-L record) -- Ok maybe 10th best-- to make the major part of your case for who are the best pitchers, is an arguable and tenuous position.

     

    If a pitcher has a good won / loss record and a low ERA, he is a top pitcher , no matter what WHIP may say.

    So, run support, park factors, team bullpen and defense do not affect that?

      Over the course of time , the best pitchers will be the ones with the best records and / or the lowest ERAs.

    False. Pitchers on teams with poor offenses and defenses and or in small parks will hardly ever be ahead of pitchers on good teams in big parks.

     I know there is value in all of the available stats , but to suggest that a pitcher's won / loss is no more relevant than the color of his underwear , is beyond inane and preposterous. 

    Who said that?

    Saying it might be the 20th best stat, is not saying it is useless.

    ERA+ is clearly better than ERA. If you can't see that, there's nothing more to say. Even tERA and SIERA are better than ERA.

    WHIP or OBP against tells a lot about a pitcher's effectiveness at getting batters out- a big part of being effective. Way more telling than W-Ls.

    Slg% against tells if a pitcher is getting hit hard or not, or somewhere inbetween.

    OPS against is better. Wat better.

    K/9 or K/BB rates and ratios tell part of the story as well, but FIP and xFIP may be even better. All are better than a pitcher's W-L record.

    QS% is better than W-L record (unless one SP has 18 GS'd and another 33).

     

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    While we are on the subject, I have real reservations about one aspect of ERA, and that is the pitcher's total unresponsibility for what happens after an error.  If it would have been the third out, the pitcher can offer up mulitple gopher balls and allow several runs to come, and they are all unearned runs.  As powerful as the MLBPA is, I think the pitcher's lobby is even stronger because of the creation of the ERA.  And let's not forget that a pitcher's own errors are part of the ERA syndrome.  So, for example, when he gets a one hopper with a man on first and throws the ball into centerfield, he can then get a bunch of unearned runs. 



    Valid points.  When evaluating a pitcher's total performance, his fielding, and his unearned runs allowed, have to be taken into consideration as well.  It all matters. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Was RA Dickey 20-6  2.73

    really better than

    Matt Cain  16-5  2.79

     

    Dickey ERA+ 139/ WHIP 1.05 R support 4.76 (17 gm his team scored 5+ runs)

    M Cain  ERA+ 126/ WHIP 1.04 R support 4.68 (17 gms over 5)

     

    These two are about as even as you could get, but because Dickey got 20 wins, he's better?

    Team records:

    Dickey: 22-12

    M Cain: 21-11

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Here is an example:  Pitcher A goes six innings. Gives up a double , walk , single , then a grand slam in the third. Otherwise just one more hit over the six.  His opposing pitcher, Pitcher B , goes seven innings. Gives up one run on six singles and two walks , while striking out nine. The bullpens close it out without further scoring.  The line: Pitcher A is now 0-1 , with an ERA of 6.00. Pitcher B is now 1-0 , with an ERA of 1.29.  But guess what? Pitcher A has the better WHIP. Who do you prefer ?  My choice would be the winner , Pitcher B.  

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Here is an example:  Pitcher A goes six innings. Gives up a double , walk , single , then a grand slam in the third. Otherwise just one more hit over the six.  His opposing pitcher, Pitcher B , goes seven innings. Gives up one run on six singles and two walks , while striking out nine. The bullpens close it out without further scoring.  The line: Pitcher A is now 0-1 , with an ERA of 6.00. Pitcher B is now 1-0 , with an ERA of 1.29.  But guess what? Pitcher A has the better WHIP. Who do you prefer ?  My choice would be the winner , Pitcher B.  



    you could also look at it this way:

    Pitcher A has an ERA of 6.00 and a WHIP of 0.833

    Pitcher B has an ERA of 1.29 and a WHIP of 1.143

    who is better? obviously Pitcher B.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Many stats can be discredited using one-game examples.  ERA can be as well.

    Pitcher A gives up no runs in 6 innings but loads the bases in the 7th with no out.  A relief pitcher comes in and gets out of it with no runs allowed.  Pitcher A has a 0.00 ERA for the game.

    Pitcher B gives up no runs in 6 innings but loads the bases in the 7th with no out.  A relief pitcher comes in and allows all 3 runs to score.  Pitcher B has a 4.50 ERA for the game.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Here is an example:  Pitcher A goes six innings. Gives up a double , walk , single , then a grand slam in the third. Otherwise just one more hit over the six.  His opposing pitcher, Pitcher B , goes seven innings. Gives up one run on six singles and two walks , while striking out nine. The bullpens close it out without further scoring.  The line: Pitcher A is now 0-1 , with an ERA of 6.00. Pitcher B is now 1-0 , with an ERA of 1.29.  But guess what? Pitcher A has the better WHIP. Who do you prefer ?  My choice would be the winner , Pitcher B.  



    I could come up with examples the other way around as well.

    Plus, I have never said ERA is not a big factor. I like ERA+ better, but that pitcher with a 6.00 ERA would be rated below on my list as well. WHIP is not the ne all end all. I would never use just WHIP and ERA to rate a pitcher, but if I had to choose just 2 stats, I'd certainly never come close to W-Ls as one of them. I'd probably choose ERA+ and WHIP near the top or maybe ERA+ and OPS against.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Here is an example:  Pitcher A goes six innings. Gives up a double , walk , single , then a grand slam in the third. Otherwise just one more hit over the six.  His opposing pitcher, Pitcher B , goes seven innings. Gives up one run on six singles and two walks , while striking out nine. The bullpens close it out without further scoring.  The line: Pitcher A is now 0-1 , with an ERA of 6.00. Pitcher B is now 1-0 , with an ERA of 1.29.  But guess what? Pitcher A has the better WHIP. Who do you prefer ?  My choice would be the winner , Pitcher B.  



    One game of contrived results is absolutely meaningless.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Felix had a great year. No question his won / loss record would have been better if he pitched for a better team. I have no problem with him getting the award.

    But if they reversed teams, and Buchholz pitched in Seattle, with the Seattle defense, and Felix pitched in Fenway, with our defense, Buchholz would've had a far better ERA.

     




       We could go on and on with if this , if that and the other thing. There are many variables both pro and con , but the variables apply to metrics just as much as to traditional stats.  My whole point is that if you look at a pitcher's won / loss record in conjunction with his ERA , you will get a good idea of his value. ERA is a telling stat, but it is also true that a pitcher has to go out and win games. Sometimes they just have to battle and out-duel the opposing pitcher.  The obsession with things like WHIP is very overrated.

     



    Nobody is obsessed with Whip.  I very rarely hear it discussed on it's own merits.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Here is an example:  Pitcher A goes six innings. Gives up a double , walk , single , then a grand slam in the third. Otherwise just one more hit over the six.  His opposing pitcher, Pitcher B , goes seven innings. Gives up one run on six singles and two walks , while striking out nine. The bullpens close it out without further scoring.  The line: Pitcher A is now 0-1 , with an ERA of 6.00. Pitcher B is now 1-0 , with an ERA of 1.29.  But guess what? Pitcher A has the better WHIP. Who do you prefer ?  My choice would be the winner , Pitcher B.  

     



    I could come up with examples the other way around as well.

     

    Plus, I have never said ERA is not a big factor. I like ERA+ better, but that pitcher with a 6.00 ERA would be rated below on my list as well. WHIP is not the ne all end all. I would never use just WHIP and ERA to rate a pitcher, but if I had to choose just 2 stats, I'd certainly never come close to W-Ls as one of them. I'd probably choose ERA+ and WHIP near the top or maybe ERA+ and OPS against.




    I think we have all made our arguments. Not much more to add without becoming repetitive.  Time to just let it be.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    What 2 lists better represent the best pitchers with 2500+ IP since 1990?

              A              B             C              D                E                F

    1) Pedro      Schill     Randy       Pedro       Pedro      Maddux

    2) Maddux   Randy    Maddux     Halladay  Maddux   Randy

    3) Schilling  Halladay  Clemens  Clemens  Clemens  Glavine

    4) Randy J   Smoltz    Pedro       T Hudson  Randy    Mussina

    5) Halladay  Pedro     Mussina    CC Sab      Brown    Clemens

    6) Clemens  Clemens   Schilling  Randy J    Halladay  Pettitte

    7) Smoltz     Brown      Brown      Pettitte     Smoltz   Moyer

    8) Mussina   Finley     Halladay   Maddux   Schilling  D Wells

    9) K Brown   Mussina  Smoltz      Glavine   Hudson    Pedro

    10) CC Sab   Brown     Pettitte     Schilling  Glavine    Schilling

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)



    lol i thikn that settles it.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)



    I was not going to post again on this thread, but since you obviously put a lot of effort into these stats , I will just add one more post. One thing that stands out is that , no matter which stat you may prefer, the same names keep showing up.  How one might rate the top ten pitchers of that era is strictly a matter of opinion.  Wins ( career ) can be deceiving because it depends on longevity and health , as well as just ability. If you ignored all of those stats and just gave your opinion of the best pitchers of that era , the same names would appear. Different people would rank them in different orders, but it is clear who the top pitchers are , no matter how you look at it. When it comes down to Cy Young awards and Hall of Fame voting, I think the main consideration is still wins and losses and ERA.  I would also like to say thanks for your effort and input into this discussion. I am done. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    WAR <flush>

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to georom4's comment:

    WAR <flush>



    it's a better metric than W/L for pitchers..... by a lightyear.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to georom4's comment:

    WAR <flush>


    C'mon geo, be creative. If that's you're view of WAR then say,

     

    "Ooooh, war, huh

    Good God y'all
    What is it good for
    Absolutely nothing
    Say it again

    War, whoa, Lord
    What is it good for
    Absolutely nothing
    Listen to me"

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    WAR <flush>

     

     

     

    C'mon geo, be creative. If that's you're view of WAR then say,

     

    "Ooooh, war, huh

    Good God y'all
    What is it good for
    Absolutely nothing
    Say it again

    War, whoa, Lord
    What is it good for
    Absolutely nothing
    Listen to me"

     

    Jackie Chan!




     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)

     



    I was not going to post again on this thread, but since you obviously put a lot of effort into these stats , I will just add one more post. One thing that stands out is that , no matter which stat you may prefer, the same names keep showing up.  How one might rate the top ten pitchers of that era is strictly a matter of opinion.  Wins ( career ) can be deceiving because it depends on longevity and health , as well as just ability. If you ignored all of those stats and just gave your opinion of the best pitchers of that era , the same names would appear. Different people would rank them in different orders, but it is clear who the top pitchers are , no matter how you look at it. When it comes down to Cy Young awards and Hall of Fame voting, I think the main consideration is still wins and losses and ERA.  I would also like to say thanks for your effort and input into this discussion. I am done. 

     

     



    One name is only on the wins and win% list: Glavine. While some may argue he is a top 10 SP since 1990, I would not. He was helped by having a good to great team around him, pitching in the NL with no DH, and not having a better's park for his home field or a particularly great offensive division he played in over those years.

    Tim Hudson appears on just two lists, and he's 4th on win%-- your stat and 9th in ERA (your other stat). Do you really think he's even a top 10 SP since 1990, let alone #6 (if you average your two criteria lists).?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    WAR <flush>

     



    it's a better metric than W/L for pitchers..... by a lightyear.

     



    That's all I was pointing out, and if you look at the top 10 lists I provided, it's pretty darn close to the best of all the lists there.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)

     



    I was not going to post again on this thread, but since you obviously put a lot of effort into these stats , I will just add one more post. One thing that stands out is that , no matter which stat you may prefer, the same names keep showing up.  How one might rate the top ten pitchers of that era is strictly a matter of opinion.  Wins ( career ) can be deceiving because it depends on longevity and health , as well as just ability. If you ignored all of those stats and just gave your opinion of the best pitchers of that era , the same names would appear. Different people would rank them in different orders, but it is clear who the top pitchers are , no matter how you look at it. When it comes down to Cy Young awards and Hall of Fame voting, I think the main consideration is still wins and losses and ERA.  I would also like to say thanks for your effort and input into this discussion. I am done. 

     

     

     



    One name is only on the wins and win% list: Glavine. While some may argue he is a top 10 SP since 1990, I would not. He was helped by having a good to great team around him, pitching in the NL with no DH, and not having a better's park for his home field or a particularly great offensive division he played in over those years.

     

    Tim Hudson appears on just two lists, and he's 4th on win%-- your stat and 9th in ERA (your other stat). Do you really think he's even a top 10 SP since 1990, let alone #6 (if you average your two criteria lists).?




    I feel like Al Pacino on this thread: " Just when I thought I was out , they pull me back in."  I think it is somewhat deceptive to start the time frame in 1990.  Tim Hudson's career did not start until 1999. While he has flown under the radar much of the time, when healthy , he has consistently been one of the best of his era. Top ten since 1990 ?  No.   Top ten since 1999? Very possible.  As for Glavine , he is a certain Hall of Famer. Anyway , I was not thinking so much of career wins in this discussion. They depend greatly on health and longevity. I was thinking more of evaluating a pitcher from year to year. A pitcher could be great one year , but not measure up over the long haul. That does not change the fact that he was great in that one year. And , this is absolutely my last post in this thread.  I will not be pulled back in , even if you make me an offer I can't refuse.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share