Zito

Lincecum

Liriano

Cain

Lowry

 

 

meh- :|

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

You mean the Noah Lowry with as many walks as strikeouts? He's mediocre and if the Giants kept Liriano, they probably wouldn't have signed Zito...

Liriano's said he owes a lot of his success to Santana, just like Santana says the Marlins-Astros rule v shenanigans are what motivated him to be the pitcher he is now.

 

If I'm a Giants fan, I'm PO'd, but it's not like the Mets trading Kazmir.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

 

The only thing that matters in baseball in Win/Loss. Everything else is just Bullcrap, WHIP, BABIP. If you can win, you deserve to play. Sure, some of those stats may lead to a future Fall, but Lowry has always won.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

 

The only thing that matters in baseball in Win/Loss. Everything else is just Bullcrap, WHIP, BABIP. If you can win, you deserve to play. Sure, some of those stats may lead to a future Fall, but Lowry has always won.

:lol :lol :lol

 

I'm not up to saying anymore.

 

Where is bobbob?

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

 

The only thing that matters in baseball in Win/Loss. Everything else is just Bullcrap, WHIP, BABIP. If you can win, you deserve to play. Sure, some of those stats may lead to a future Fall, but Lowry has always won.

 

Christ. Where to begin? OK. I really don't understand how people can continue to believe that outdated and pointless statistics like Pitcher Win/Losses are an effective way to measure a pitcher's performance. The funny thing is, you can lead people into logically understanding how pointless it is, but they'll come back at you with the irrational "You play to win. A win is a win." argument.

 

Here's the major problem with the "all that matters is Win/Loss" argument. You're misapplying when that principle is true. If you're talking about a team's performance, then all that matters is their Win/Loss record. World Series rings are not awarded on the basis of run differential or VORP, so official Wins and Losses do serve as the be-all-end-all when you're talking about a TEAM's performance.

 

However, that changes COMPLETELY when you begin to analyze an INDIVIDUAL player's performance. Since baseball is a team sport, no one player can ever win you a game singlehandedly. Even a pitcher who throws a shut out relies on his offense to put up a run on the board. Likewise, a hitter who hits a walk off home run has his pitcher and fellow teammates to thank for putting him in the position whereby his home run won his team the game. I mean, this isn't even controversial stuff. Therefore, the only thing any single player can do in baseball is to put their team in a better position to win the game.

 

That's why Pitcher Win/Loss is such a dumb statistic. You're essentially throwing responsibility of an entire game's outcome on an individual who, at most, is responsible for half of what goes on in the field. I could be Roger Clemens circa Retirement Comeback #1, but my win/loss will still be crappy 7-6 because I'm playing for the offensively anemic Houston Astros. Or I could be 2006 Josh Beckett, putting up bad pitching numbers on an offensively stacked Red Sox team and getting undue credit for 16 wins. How is that the best way to judge performance?

 

I honestly don't buy anything of this, "A truly great pitcher always does just enough to get his team a win" garbage that people throw out when their brain has hit a wall trying to think of a valid response. A pitcher doesn't have this magical dial they turn on or off depending on how much run support they're getting on any given night. A pitcher who gives up 4-5 runs night in and night out, but has a team that routinely scores 6-7 for him in a start is not a "proven winner" he's "damn lucky." And a guy who cruises to a barely .500 record (with a lot of no decisions) after pitching many 8 inning, 3 ER gems for a crap offense or terrible bullpen is just plain unlucky, not "a guy who lacks what it takes to win." How is this hard to understand?

 

To put it more bluntly, I have a question for all people who believe that a stat like Pitcher Win/Loss tells you something important about a pitcher's makeup. Why is that a pitcher's Win/Loss record is MUCH more likely to vary year to year than his WHIP or K/BB ratio? And, if the Win/Loss record varies so much, does that imply that the pitcher forgot how to "win" one season and all of a sudden remembered how next season? WHIP and the other "bullcrap" stats all have strong correlations with a pitcher's runs allowed. On the other hand, W-L record has a stronger correlation with how many runs your offense score. Now, you have WHIP that actually does what it's supposed to do (i.e. measure the quality of a pitcher's performance) and W/L that indirectly measures how many runs your offense can score (a fact completely unrelated to pitching performance). Why would anybody side with the latter? It's can't be easiness to understand because Walk + Hits over Innings Pitched seems more intuitive to me than the relatively arbitrary rules on awarding wins. Is it the name? Pitcher "Wins" sounds like something Joe Morgan came up with, while WHIP sounds like some parent's basement dweller thought it up on his Apple NerdMachine G4.

 

So, let's change the names to make them reflect what they actually measure. Now, Noah Lowry has a Good Pitcher Index of 1.51 (Hmm...Not so good!) and a How Well Your Team Hits When You Pitch-Meter of 14-7 (Nobody really understands why HWYTHWYPM has 2 numbers. Don't worry, we just tend to ignore it anyway)

He's just 13.

 

Although he was a bit rude to the other stats

He's just 13.

 

Although he was a bit rude to the other stats

 

Did not know that... (Assumed otherwise given his university sig)

 

Agreed on the harsh treatment. WHIP doesn't deserve that. He's very nice once you get to know him.

He's just 13.

 

Although he was a bit rude to the other stats

 

Did not know that... (Assumed otherwise given his university sig)

 

Agreed on the harsh treatment. WHIP doesn't deserve that. He's very nice once you get to know him.

WHIP took me to Houstons for dinner. It was lovely

f*** that. WHIP is an a**hole. One time, he called me a "queer"...

f*** that. WHIP is an a**hole. One time, he called me a "queer"...

the truth hurts?

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

He's given up less hits than innings pitched, ya his WHIP is high due to the walks but theyre not coming around to score.

 

I agree W/L is worthless, I think ERA has always been a farely accurate rating of a players performance. Ya it can be inflated by bad outings but so can WHIP.

 

I always thought this about WHIP, what if you have a pitcher who walks alot of batters but keeps the ball down, keeps the ball in the park, like a Ray King of old, almost impossible to get extra bases off of. He can give up maybe two or even three base runners and not allow a run. Then you have a guy who doesnt allow alot of hits or walks, but gives up alot of extra base hits.

A guy like King would eventually have a higher WHIP, but not exactly a giving up more runs... I'd be surprised if anyone would really understand what i'm talking about but...

 

And i'm not saying Lowry is a Liriano Cane or Lincecum, but if you have a rotation like that, a guy with a 13-7 3.34 , regardless of how realistic the stat, im taking him as a #5.

 

And about Liriano, this guy was a top 5 prospect before he met Johan, and i think he had it already figured out in Rochester in 05.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

He's given up less hits than innings pitched, ya his WHIP is high due to the walks but theyre not coming around to score.

 

I agree W/L is worthless, I think ERA has always been a farely accurate rating of a players performance. Ya it can be inflated by bad outings but so can WHIP.

 

I always thought this about WHIP, what if you have a pitcher who walks alot of batters but keeps the ball down, keeps the ball in the park, like a Ray King of old, almost impossible to get extra bases off of. He can give up maybe two or even three base runners and not allow a run. Then you have a guy who doesnt allow alot of hits or walks, but gives up alot of extra base hits.

A guy like King would eventually have a higher WHIP, but not exactly a giving up more runs... I'd be surprised if anyone would really understand what i'm talking about but...

 

And i'm not saying Lowry is a Liriano Cane or Lincecum, but if you have a rotation like that, a guy with a 13-7 3.34 , regardless of how realistic the stat, im taking him as a #5.

 

And about Liriano, this guy was a top 5 prospect before he met Johan, and i think he had it already figured out in Rochester in 05.

 

The thing about that is... if he walks the bases loaded, or even 1 or 2... and gives up a double, there are two runs scoring without the hitters doing much... pitcher B in your theory needs to give up two solid hits (XBH) to give up 1 run, and even after two doubles, probably has fewer pitches that inning and only has one guy on base and one run scored, whereas pitcher A has given up several runs, thrown more pitches, and has given other batters the opportunity to see more of his "stuff" thereby weakening him to later batters... there's more to it than that... but at Tuesday at 6am, Im not in the best frame of mind to think.

 

Also, on a quick note I don't know about others, but I don't judge relief pitchers very much on ERA due to the inflation factor... but for starters who log 150+ IP over a season, that tends to balance out between having an awful game and a great game, first example that comes to mind is Wandy Rodriguez... although he's not that good to begin with...

 

/tired explanation in terms I understand

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

League average says nothing about the Noah Lowry. It means what the average pitcher's ERA would be if he pitched in the same ballparks that Lowry has pitched in. Tottally irrelevant to Noah Lowry's performance (Well, outside of what he adds to the league average)

 

His BABIP is also in line with his career numbers. And, if they weren't, his BABIP would actually be really good, not terrible. If they were terrible, his ERA and such would be high.

W/L record as a pitcher is ultimately what shows results, however, basing an evaluation of a pitcher on W/L is pretty stupid. ERA is by far and away the most important pitching stat, IMO.

Seeing that im here with a bunch of stat geeks, i would like to know one thing.

 

What stat shows the reason AJ Burnett can never live up to his potential of being an 18-20 game winner? (injuries aside)

Seeing that im here with a bunch of stat geeks, i would like to know one thing.

 

What stat shows the reason AJ Burnett can never live up to his potential of being an 18-20 game winner? (injuries aside)

Nothing anyone has said is mind blowing or out of this world.

 

Also, asking someone to show why someone can't be an 18-20 game winner goes back to square one where pitcher wins and losses don't mean anything.

 

Burnett was certainly good enough in say, '05 to win 18-20 games but other things, many of which are out of his control, gave him only a .500 record.

 

VORP, ERA+, DIPS are all far more useful tools then W-L. A pitcher's individual record is the last thing I'd look at to see how successful they have been.

Zito and Lowry are both awful.

I guess your thinking of another Noah Lowry, 13-7 with that offense? not to mention 3.34 Era, but i'll take your word for it.

 

Looks pretty right?

 

Too bad he has a 1.51 WHIP (yeah, that's not a typo) and a *lgERA of 4.39. I'm not even going to bother looking at his BABIP, but I'm sure that's terrible as well.

 

Wins/Losses and ERA are your typical 'luck' statistics. You can't even take them seriously.

 

Oh and just in the interest of accuracy, the Giants score nearly 5 runs a game for Lowry. Thats WELL above league average.

 

With those numbers in the NL West? You can make your own conclusion. But, I'll just say that Noah Lowry blows.

 

He's given up less hits than innings pitched, ya his WHIP is high due to the walks but theyre not coming around to score.

 

He might strand a lot of runners but eventually hits will start to fall in and the ERA will go up. A good example of a pitcher who went through this is Willis.

 

I think Ray King is not a good example because he is a reliever. You could argue a reliever can walk the high WHIP tight rope longer because he is pitching in short spurts, while a starter is asked to pitch 6-7 innings every 5 days throwing 100-120 pitches a start.

Seeing that im here with a bunch of stat geeks, i would like to know one thing.

 

What stat shows the reason AJ Burnett can never live up to his potential of being an 18-20 game winner? (injuries aside)

Nothing anyone has said is mind blowing or out of this world.

 

Also, asking someone to show why someone can't be an 18-20 game winner goes back to square one where pitcher wins and losses don't mean anything.

 

Burnett was certainly good enough in say, '05 to win 18-20 games but other things, many of which are out of his control, gave him only a .500 record.

 

VORP, ERA+, DIPS are all far more useful tools then W-L. A pitcher's individual record is the last thing I'd look at to see how succesful they have been.

 

TEAM ----------G GS CG SHO- IP H R ER HR BB SO W L ERA Whip Run Support

Pitcher A -- 174 171 18 9 1111 950 517 464 99 470 1000 66 65 3.76 1.28 4.31

 

Pitcher B-- 199 199 2 5 10 1301 1326 638 594 137 403 829 103 57 4.11 1.33 5.31

How ever, While Pitcher A had an average Run support of 5 runs a game during two years, he only went 21-20.

 

Pitcher A may be a product of "tough luck" and Pitcher B may be a product of "good luck". But when given the same run support spread through 2 season, Pitcher A had a much better record than Pitcher B while putting up worse numbers.

 

Combined Stats from two seasons

average Run support per game

------------------5.04------------- 39-19 2 blown saves

-------------------5.02---------- 21-20 No blown saves but over 100 days on DL

 

Then to compare One Season full Of Pitcher A to the two half-seasons of Pitcher B

 

Average run support per start

---------------- 4.85------- 16-10 31 appearences

 

-----------------5.02 -------21-20 44 appearences

 

The point im trying to make is that when Given run support, Pitcher B, AJ Burnett, still pitched like a .500 pitcher.

 

Given lower than his usual run supports, Pitcher A, Mark Mulder, Still pitcher like a .666 career win percentage pitcher.

 

If Burnett had been given Great run support early in his career, who knows what would have happened, but the stats do show that He has always pitched as a .500 pitcher no matter how much run support he gets.

I'm having a hard time deciphering your logic and what you are laying out (where all this luck came from or why you want to compare the two pitchers you have).

 

Maybe give me the years you are comparing and the pitchers you are comparing and I'll look at it but that is a clusterf*** of random information in my view that I can't understand.

 

Anyways, I'll give you some very basic reasons why pitcher W/L is useless.

 

Baseball is a team game. No matter what the pitcher does, there has to be something that the offense does to get him a win. A pitcher could throw a complete game shut out but unless his team scores 1 run, he can't win. On the flip side, if a pitcher goes for a complete game but gives up an unearned run and his offense doesn't score, he gets the loss.

 

Did he lose the game? In the most basic sense he did.

 

Did he really lose the game, though? No, his defense and his offenses' lack of scoring 'lost' the game.

 

A win or a loss is a bad statsistic when there is no standard for it.

 

5 IP and 14 ER can = W

9 IP and 3 ER can = L

 

Extreme examples, but ones that are attainable and that can happen.

 

The majority of baseball fans, sportcasters, etc have become so obsessed with this vanity stat that it has been ingrained in our consciousness that a 20 game winner means you were very good and were one of the best pitchers in the league. More often then not that pitcher did have a good year and was one of the best pitchers in his league, however

 

What if he was the benefit of the best run support in the league?

What if he was the benefit of matching up with below league average pitching often?

 

The 20 win standard along with W/L is by far the most flawed stat in baseball.

 

Pedro Martinez had the single best pitching season of all-time since 1900 and didn't win 20 games.

 

20 games is a mythical benchmark which really serves no purpose.

I made a massive error in one part of my post that caused it to make no sense, i hope my correction clears it up for you

Again, in addition to what I said above average run support doesn't paint the whole picture.

 

If a player gets 10 runs of support 1 start and gave up 8 ER and then 0 runs support the next time and gives up 1 ER he gets the win in the first game and the loss in the 2nd. How does W/L show which game was the better pitched game?

 

The bottom line is and if what I and CC laid out isn't conclusive or evidence enough of this then there is obviously no point in continuing, there are too many variables in what earns a player a win or a loss for it to be a good or even useful stat.