Both SorianoFHW and Rune have been debating what's more important for a pitcher, the past few hours. Which brings up the question to everyone.

 

Is it The ERA of The Pitcher or his Win - Loss record

if you don't win, it don't matter what your ERA is

I hope the vote doesn't go a certain way to spite me. Nevertheless, don't forget the W-L of Beckett!

Things to remember:

2003

Darren Oliver 13-11

Javier Vazquez 13-12

Barry Zito 13-12

Brandon Webb 9-8

Josh Beckett 9-8

Curt Schilling 8-9

 

So, is Darren Oliver the best pitcher of the group? Case closed.

as a single stat, RCA is probably the most important.

actually, i haven't seen the argument between you two.

 

 

but yeah, ERA is definitely more important than win-loss record in measuring how good a pitcher is.

 

methinks you guys are just arguing over the semantics behind the comparison.

 

retrospectively, after a full season, i'd rather have had a pitcher with the best win-loss record on my team than the pitcher with the best ERA on my team, yes. wins and losses are the only things that matter in hindsight.

 

prospectively, if i had two guys--one with a better win-loss record for me last year and another with a better ERA for me last year--i'd probably rather keep the ERA guy, barring any injury or durability problems.

according to the wording of the poll, i think it's very tough to not vote for w-l.

 

What is the most important stat for pitchers?

 

not which stat means a pitcher is good, or which stat wins you the Cy Young. Better pitchers have lower ERA's, but if you go 12-20 with 2.00 ERA, i don't think you'll last very long in the bigs.

 

Not to mention the fact that w-l wins and loses you games, that part's kind of important to.

Id vote neither...ERA+ is the best. W/L record is probably the most retarded stat ever used as a talent statistic for pitchers....just wayyy to many variables involved.

Both are team stats, but a pitcher can do more to help or hurt his ERA.

Both are team stats, but a pitcher can do more to help or hurt his ERA.

exactly...a pitcher doesn't control hits on balls in play...the defense does. Pitchers have control over walks, strikeouts, and HR allowed.

Without a doubt ERA.

for a GM, the most important thing for pitchers when going for them is their performance: ERA, OPS against, K/BB, HR/9 etc... or for hitters whatever stat they prefer...

 

for a manger, the most important thing is playing the ebbs and flows within the season...playing the hothand and boosting hte teams confidence.

 

the answer to the question is in regards to wheather you're thinkning like a GM or a manager. the GM should be looking at ERA, the manager should be looking W-L.

 

but in the end, regardless of which side it is, looking at just one stat to judge any player is totatly asinine.

Better pitchers have lower ERA's, but if you go 12-20 with 2.00 ERA, i don't think you'll last very long in the bigs.

I disagree. A pitcher with a 2.00 era is gonna last in the MLB no matter what their record is. Its not their fault they aren't getting run support.

Better pitchers have lower ERA's, but if you go 12-20 with 2.00 ERA, i don't think you'll last very long in the bigs.

I disagree. A pitcher with a 2.00 era is gonna last in the MLB no matter what their record is. Its not their fault they aren't getting run support. Exactly.

 

In fact, I think that's what Pedro Martinez's stat line would be with the Tigers: 12-20, 2.00 ERA.

Better pitchers have lower ERA's, but if you go 12-20 with 2.00 ERA, i don't think you'll last very long in the bigs.

I disagree. A pitcher with a 2.00 era is gonna last in the MLB no matter what their record is. Its not their fault they aren't getting run support. Exactly.

 

In fact, I think that's what Pedro Martinez's stat line would be with the Tigers: 12-20, 2.00 ERA. Not exactly....the Tigers have a terrible defense, so many more hits will occur as a result, leading to more runs scored.

Not exactly....the Tigers have a terrible defense, so many more hits will occur as a result, leading to more runs scored.

Uhh....

 

The Red Sox weren't exactly the Florida Marlins defensively in 2003...

Not exactly....the Tigers have a terrible defense, so many more hits will occur as a result, leading to more runs scored.

Uhh....

 

The Red Sox weren't exactly the Florida Marlins defensively in 2003... Even so, I believe the Tigers were the worst team defensively. But this silly argument aside your main point is accurate.

Even so, I believe the Tigers were the worst team defensively.

If this is true, Boston was probably second-to-last. :lol

 

But this silly argument aside your main point is accurate.

 

Glad to hear it. :thumbup

Aside from mike bordick, I think Toronto had the worst defensive team.

 

However, I'm an ERA+/ K/BB kind of guy. I mostly look at park adjusted era, because groundballers and such will let people on and get double plays, and K/BB cannot adjust for that. ERA+ shows the pitcher's overall ability to just make outs and deal with runners on.

k/bb if u dont count win shares

Beckett is a great pictcher, but didn't get to show it till off season.

ERA matters it tells you how good a pitcher is, but it also comes with the Park ( coors field) defense ( good vs bad) ... it all could help

 

but in the end i think that wins is the most important thing, your playing the game to win not for your personal record. But yeah ERA tells you how good a pitcher is, but a pitcher is not good if he doesnt win.