Rest of Baseball - 2012

Sgt PSN · May 29, 2012, 04:03:33 PM

JA Happ has a 1.47 ERA in his last 3 starts.

PoopyfaceMcGee · May 30, 2012, 11:18:23 AM

MOCK

BigEd76 · May 30, 2012, 07:13:27 PM

Moyer was DFAed. old fart mock

Geowhizzer · May 31, 2012, 12:16:32 PM

Quote from: BigEd76 on May 30, 2012, 07:13:27 PM
Moyer was DFAed. old fart mock

And yet he still has two more wins this season than Cliff Lee.

MDS · May 31, 2012, 01:13:38 PM

and yet, that proves just how useful a stat wins are

Geowhizzer · May 31, 2012, 01:24:47 PM

If whine was a stat, you'd be a hall of famer.

Sgt PSN · May 31, 2012, 01:27:02 PM

MDS kills me. While wins are no where near the be all, end all stat to define how good (or bad) a pitcher is, the fact that he seems to completely dismiss any relevance they have is mind boggling. Because 100+ years of baseball history shows that the overwhelming majority of the time, good pitchers win a lot of games and bad pitchers don't. Using a statistical anomaly or the exception to try and define the rule is....well.....it's something a republican would do.

Rome · May 31, 2012, 01:50:59 PM

Lee has been über-unlucky this year, hence the lack of wins.

But discounting wins in general really is farging stupid.

ice grillin you · May 31, 2012, 02:17:23 PM

everyone wants pitchers whose lose games.....duh

SunMo · May 31, 2012, 05:30:08 PM

wins and losses as a stat are irrelevant, you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise

MDS · May 31, 2012, 05:39:57 PM

i love it

3 elders chime in with their outdated ideas and 1 igynoramous does...whatever i dont care.

I'm going to try to break this down as slowly as humanly possible.

Wins and Losses for pitchers were a relevant stat 80 years ago, and even 20 years ago, when pitchers generally finished what they started. There were no closers, no loogy's, no middle relievers, no pitch counts. Pitchers pitched well into the 10 or 11th inning if need be. So generally your record was deserved and a decent indication of how you did.

But that is not part of the game anymore. The stat should be abolished, it means absolutely nothing and accounts for dick. Again, look at Lee. He's pitched well this year but if you look at his record youd think he was terrible. Well, hes not. His offense and bullpen are.

In this current era of baseball it really does not matter WHO gets the win as long as the team wins. You guys have to understand this. Please.

hbionic · May 31, 2012, 09:12:41 PM

I'm with the Jew.

ERA is more telling a stat....but wins do help in contract negotiations right? The pitchers that have been getting the most money have been the dominant ones in playoffs...right? That's how pitchers score big contracts? Playoffs? Mr. Mora, I'm talking about playoffs?

ice grillin you · June 01, 2012, 08:34:45 AM

Quote from: hbionic on May 31, 2012, 09:12:41 PM
I'm with the Jew.

ERA is more telling a stat....but wins do help in contract negotiations right? The pitchers that have been getting the most money have been the dominant ones in playoffs...right? That's how pitchers score big contracts? Playoffs? Mr. Mora, I'm talking about playoffs?

you know whos not getting a lot of money....pitchers who lose a lot of games

Quote from: MDS on May 31, 2012, 05:39:57 PM
i love it

3 elders chime in with their outdated ideas and 1 igynoramous does...whatever i dont care.

I'm going to try to break this down as slowly as humanly possible.

Wins and Losses for pitchers were a relevant stat 80 years ago, and even 20 years ago, when pitchers generally finished what they started. There were no closers, no loogy's, no middle relievers, no pitch counts. Pitchers pitched well into the 10 or 11th inning if need be. So generally your record was deserved and a decent indication of how you did.

But that is not part of the game anymore. The stat should be abolished, it means absolutely nothing and accounts for dick. Again, look at Lee. He's pitched well this year but if you look at his record youd think he was terrible. Well, hes not. His offense and bullpen are.

In this current era of baseball it really does not matter WHO gets the win as long as the team wins. You guys have to understand this. Please.

this just couldnt be more wrong...heidi is the perfect example...last year he was a fine pitcher except he couldnt finish and win games...was always giving up the game losing run in the 6th 7th or 8th inning...also if your starting pitchers are not winning a lot of games it means your bullpen is getting taxed and your thereore your team is not going to win as much....id much rather have my starter win a game than my middle reliever

if your other numbers are good then theoretically your wins should be high but that doesnt always happen....but the most important thing is to get that W

your entire argument is based on the premise that a pitcher can pitch well and not win or pitch terribly and win...well no shtein....if thats your basis then we all agree

if you say wins mean nothing then youre a seamhead piglet

Eagles_Legendz · June 01, 2012, 10:54:36 AM

I don't dismiss wins entirely but they're not as telling of a statistic of how good a pitcher has been than something like ERA or WHIP.

Wins, normally, will give you a generalized picture of success or failure, but the problem is they rely on factors outside of the pitchers control: run support, relief pitchers, opposing pitchers etc. You can stick the exact same pitcher having the exact same year on the Royals and Yankees and wins give you a varying glance at his success. They aren't irrelevant, but if you want to just see how a player is doing, looking at statistics that the player can only control is a better metric.

I'll take the pitcher who is 11-9 with a 2.7 ERA on a zesty team rather than the one who is 18-10 with a 4.2 on the Yankees.

Sgt PSN · June 01, 2012, 11:01:19 AM

Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on June 01, 2012, 10:54:36 AM
I don't dismiss wins entirely but they're not as telling of a statistic of how good a pitcher has been than something like ERA or WHIP.

Wins, normally, will give you a generalized picture of success or failure, but the problem is they rely on factors outside of the pitchers control: run support, relief pitchers, opposing pitchers etc. You can stick the exact same pitcher having the exact same year on the Royals and Yankees and wins give you a varying glance at his success. They aren't irrelevant, but if you want to just see how a player is doing, looking at statistics that the player can only control is a better metric.

I'll take the pitcher who is 11-9 with a 2.7 ERA on a zesty team rather than the one who is 18-10 with a 4.2 on the Yankees.

This sums it up almost perfectly. Wins aren't the measuring stick but they do start to paint the picture. ERA, K/9, opp avg, BB/9, etc provide the fine details.