Re: Miller & Lackey
posted at 8/2/2011 12:55 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey
[QUOTE]Win ratio is still very pertinent. If wins were strictly team induced, then the HOF is full or random winners. Last year, Lackey was 14-11 4.40 ERA 1.409 WHIP. His career avg. in CA: 14 wins a year 3.88 ERA 1.306 WHIP Adjust the numbers realistically for Fenway, pitching in the A.L. East, in Boston's climate, and he's the same pitcher, which, according to this thread author, means he was a "bust" in CA. Harness, seriously, using wins or win ratio is not very meaningful. Wins are assigned according to the scoring rules in baseball, which can often lead to a distorted view of a pitcher's performance. As for Lackey's other stats, his numbers in CA are not all that impressive. I made the same mistake Theo did because I was too optimistic about Lackey's ability to pitch effectively in Fenway. I considered his numbers in CA solid but not spectacular. At this point in his career he is not getting any better. I see this as a bad fit; wrong pitcher in the wrong ballpark at the wrong point in his career. As far as who is in the HOF due to wins, that is the HOF's problem. But I don't think wins is all the HOF looks at. Wins are largely a matter of team performance, If any great pitchers failed to make the HOF due to lack of wins, it's time for the HOF to reconsider their criteria. Relievers are now receiving more consideration for the hall and more will be getting in. Their won-loss records are not relevant at all. I really don't get into debates about which players are "busts" or not. This is not my issue with Lackey. My only issue is his ability to pitch effectively for the Boston Red Sox. Lackey hasn't been completely worthless with the Sox but he hasn't been as solid as I expected him to be. We all can only judge by our own criteria and expectations. But I never emphasize won-loss record, ratio, or any thing to do with wins and losses when I judge a pitcher.
Posted by devildavid
There was a time, in the era of 5-man rotations, when the criteria for getting into the HOF was 300 wins. Anybody who could accomplish that will have solid accompanying numbers. Those like Blyleven who fell short either didn't get in or waited far too long. If winning was more a team function, than why weren't there more 300 game winners back then?
Clemens, with or w/o the juice was a winner every where he went. He has highly questionable ethics, but his talent - his wins - were not a function of team as much as it was himself/juice.
I disagree with a prior statement of yours saying how pitchers in the era of CG's got many more decisions because of the CG's. The reason was the 4-man rotation. In today's era of specialists
, starters get the decisions more than you can imagine.
But they get fewer starts in the 5-man rotations.
If you do a study of win per-start-ratio, you'll find it coincides with corresponding data over the long run. Any one stat in a vacuum is limited, but win-per-start ratio is very under-rated.