Metrics mania.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 



    You're oversimplifying it though.  Nolan Ryan had a career record of 324-292 for a .526 winning pct. with a 3.19 ERA.  Andy Pettitte has a career record of 247-142 for a .635 pct. with a 3.84 ERA.  Why?  Because Ryan played on a lot of losing teams and Pettitte has always played on a winning team.  It's a team stat.  The method of assigning the win or loss to the pitcher is arbitrary.  One game you give up 5 runs and win.  The next you give up 2 runs and lose or get a no-decision. 

     
  2. 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:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Let's look at the obsession with the trendy "metrics ".  OPS:  Nothing more than the sum of slugging pct. and on base pct.  These stats have been around forever. And how in the world are they given equal value in OPS ?  WAR: How many fans even know how this is computed ? The traditional stats tell you everything you need to know about a player's ability and worth. UZR: This is the worst. Check putouts , assists and fielding percentage to determine a player's defensive ability. Better yet , watch the games , although you obviously cannot watch them all. UZR is simply trusting someone else's opinion.  WHIP:  Very overrated stat. Totally ignores home runs and any extra base hits. Gives same value to an infield single as to a gap double.  Ignores being able to pitch out of a jam. Ignores game situations. A walk is sometimes as good as a hit, but usually a hit , especially an extra base hit is better. The bottom line is wins and losses. I do not totally discount the use of " Metrics " , but I think they have become very over valued. There are many things that make up a winning ball club , we should know what they are. Don't get carried away with being a stat man. 

     



    The stats give you an uncanny ability to predict wins and losses.  OPS and OPSa tell you how many runs you'll score and allow.  The Py W/L is usually within a handful of games.

     

    The correlation between scoring and OPS is really quite high.  Last year, the average MLB team had an OPS of .724.  Of the 14 teams that scored .724 or above, 13 of the 14 were above average in RPG.

    The year before, of the 14 teams that had a higher than average OPS, all 14 teams had higher than average RPG.

     



    Then why not just look at runs scored ?  And allowed ?  

     



    I assumed this was for predictive purposes.  Runs scored and allowed are historical.  So sure, the best way to predict last year's record would be to look in the sports' section.

     
  3. 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 pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    yes, wins and losses matter.. as a TEAM STATISTIC

     

    a pitcher with 20 wins and a 2.86 ERA is just as good as a pitcher with 11 wins and an ERA of 2.86. W/L adds nothing to the conversation.

    a low ERA means a pitcher is good. a high ERA means he is not good. someone with a low ERA and bad W/L is still a good pitcher. a pitcher with a high ERA and a good w/l is just bad and lucky.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     



    This isn't necessarily true. Maybe -- MAYBE -- over the course of a career it might be true. But no over the course of the season. Just take a look at Josh Beckett's 2011 season. By all rights, he should have been a 20-game winner for as well as he pitched. Certainly by the end of August he should have had at least 17 or 18 wins, if not more.

    And the Nolan Ryan example certainly fits. Because of longevity, he got to 324 wins, but had he pitched for better teams in his prime, he might have a lot more wins.

    Sometimes it balances out. Just guessing, but Buchholz's W-L record last year was probably accurate. He won some games early when he pitched lousy but got some losses or ND later in the year when he was pitching great.

    I don't think it balances out as much as you think.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.



    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Sorry about the duplicate posts everyone. BDC has issues.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.



    That is undoubtedly true.

    But isn't a pitcher with a 2.33 and bad fielding a better pitcher than a pitcher with a 2.33 and great fielding?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     




    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

     

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

    Then by this standard, you are certainly in agreement that Buchholz should've won the Cy Young in 2010 over Felix.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

    Then by this standard, you are certainly in agreement that Buchholz should've won the Cy Young in 2010 over Felix.




    I think it actually was a tossup. Felix deserved to win it , but it would not have been an outrage if Clay got it.   Clay had a great year.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     




    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

     



    The ERA alone shows that this is a top notch pitcher. The W-L record alone in this case would be deceiving. Thats why I say that ERA (or better still, ERA+) is a much better indicator of how good a pitcher is.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     




    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

     

     



    The ERA alone shows that this is a top notch pitcher. The W-L record alone in this case would be deceiving. Thats why I say that ERA (or better still, ERA+) is a much better indicator of how good a pitcher is.

     



    If I am not mistaken , Clay Buchholz had the best ERA+ in MLB in 2010. Correct me if I am wrong.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     




    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

     

     



    The ERA alone shows that this is a top notch pitcher. The W-L record alone in this case would be deceiving. Thats why I say that ERA (or better still, ERA+) is a much better indicator of how good a pitcher is.

     

     



    If I am not mistaken , Clay Buchholz had the best ERA+ in MLB in 2010. Correct me if I am wrong.

     

     



    You are correct. From baseballreference.com:

     

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2010-pitching-leaders.shtml

    Felix did it over 250 innings; CB over just 173. Maybe thats why he didn't win it.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     




    The ERA shows that this is a top pitcher. Those are Cy Young numbers.  If you checked , you could find the reasons why the won/loss record was not better. It could be a lack of run support, blown saves , poor defense , or a combination of those things.  That is why I say that you have to look at won/loss together with ERA.  But to say that wins and losses are meaningless , is absurd. Of course it is a team stat, but the pitcher is a big part of that. Probably the biggest part. This why we honor 20 game winners , 30 game winners and 300 career wins.  Giving isolated cases of exceptions to the rule is a weak argument. Wins and losses is what the game is all about.  You can disect every statistic available with the new metrics. In the end , it still comes down to wins and losses.

     

     



    The ERA alone shows that this is a top notch pitcher. The W-L record alone in this case would be deceiving. Thats why I say that ERA (or better still, ERA+) is a much better indicator of how good a pitcher is.

     

     



    If I am not mistaken , Clay Buchholz had the best ERA+ in MLB in 2010. Correct me if I am wrong.

     

     



    You are correct. From baseballreference.com:

     

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2010-pitching-leaders.shtml

    Felix did it over 250 innings; CB over just 173. Maybe thats why he didn't win it.




    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.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    WAR doesn't take into account what a player is making (see Trout). It assigns value to a player based on their WAR though. for example, Jacobys 2011 season was valued at ~40Million if i remember correctly. Trouts 2012 season is probably in the ballpark of that too.

    WAR does not "assign value". Some people use WAR to assign a monetary value to the amount of wins a player contributed over a set line of a "replacement player" value.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share