Oswalt --Millwood -- Lee -- GREAT TALENT available!

[BCEagle74]

To elaborate, these appear in the same article on wikipedia:

John Scott "Jack" Morris (born May 16, 1955, in St. Paul, Minnesota) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed starting pitcher. He played in 18 big league seasons between 1977 and 1994, mainly for the Detroit Tigers, and won 254 games throughout his career. Armed with a fastball, slider, devastating splitter and a fierce competitive spirit, Morris was a five-time All-Star (1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1991), and played on four World Championship teams (1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins, and 1992-93 Blue Jays). He was the winningest major league pitcher in the decade of the 1980s.

Morris has been eligible for the National Baseball Hall of Fame since 2000. From 2000 to 2003, he never received greater than 30% of the vote. He received 40% of the vote for the first time in 2006. In 2010, he received 52.3% of the vote, his highest level of support so far[3].

Sad. I'll take Jack Morris, ace of 4 World Champions, any day over the innumerable guys with better WHIPs.

I believe the guy you're referring to is Javier Vazquez. Great #'s and never wins. Or any pitcher for the SF Giants this season (what a horrible offense that is this season)

Morris never pitched in the 1993 Post Season but did get his 4th ring.

His magic arm left him in 1992-1993, but he was 4-0 in the WSeries with Det and Minn.

Everything 9 says here is gospel and JM was a fucking HOF animal and big game pitcher.

[twballgame9]

To elaborate, these appear in the same article on wikipedia:

John Scott "Jack" Morris (born May 16, 1955, in St. Paul, Minnesota) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed starting pitcher. He played in 18 big league seasons between 1977 and 1994, mainly for the Detroit Tigers, and won 254 games throughout his career. Armed with a fastball, slider, devastating splitter and a fierce competitive spirit, Morris was a five-time All-Star (1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1991), and played on four World Championship teams (1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins, and 1992-93 Blue Jays). He was the winningest major league pitcher in the decade of the 1980s.

Morris has been eligible for the National Baseball Hall of Fame since 2000. From 2000 to 2003, he never received greater than 30% of the vote. He received 40% of the vote for the first time in 2006. In 2010, he received 52.3% of the vote, his highest level of support so far[3].

Sad. I'll take Jack Morris, ace of 4 World Champions, any day over the innumerable guys with better WHIPs.

I believe the guy you're referring to is Javier Vazquez. Great #'s and never wins. Or any pitcher for the SF Giants this season (what a horrible offense that is this season)

Morris never pitched in the 1993 Post Season but did get his 4th ring.

His magic arm left him in 1992-1993, but he was 4-0 in the WSeries with Det and Minn.

Everything EPS says here is gospel and JM was a fucking HOF animal and big game pitcher.

Actually, you basically just said that everything epstein said is stupid. I am the one using Jack Morris as "big game pitcher". epstein doesn't believe in that. He thinks pitchers pitch in a vacuum.

[BCEagle74]

I fixed it 9.

Vader gave me too many free beers as a youth.

The collateral long term flashback damage is quite evident in the twi-nighter years.

Excuse me while I remember back when I had a real life.

[twballgame9]

There is a major league pitcher right now with an astounding 1.348 WHIP, including 3.4 BB/9IP, a career ERA of 4.33, yet has a career record of 190-164 and has a career Wins Above Replacement Level of 33.5

[pick6pedro]

I was talking about the playoffs. Said it thrice.

And you must have missed the part where Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the decade of the 80s.

"Sad. I'll take Jack Morris, ace of 4 World Champions, any day over the innumerable guys with better WHIPs"

Look familiar?

Why do you keep trying to shift to a playoffs conversation to cover up your inadequacies? You say stuff like this and then abandon it because you'd rather bring up another point that has a minimal amount to do with the conversation.

[twballgame9]

"The most important player in a seven game baseball series used to be the guy that took the ball 3 times and threw 23-27 of the 63 innings. There is nothing more important that the ace of a staff come playoff time. And Jack Morris was the ace of each of those four staffs."

Sound familiar?

[pick6pedro]

"The most important player in a seven game baseball series used to be the guy that took the ball 3 times and threw 23-27 of the 63 innings. There is nothing more important that the ace of a staff come playoff time. And Jack Morris was the ace of each of those four staffs."

Sound familiar?

You're such a boob. Can't you follow a simple argument? At no time did I debate what an ace does in the playoffs. Keep trying to run away from your horrible argument though by stating brain-dead playoff cliches. You can bring it up over and over again, just admit you're wrong that it's a stupid generality to point to a guy on a dominant franchise and say you'd take him just because he won rings over pitchers who are probably giving their clubs better chances to win, yet their clubs are worse.

[twballgame9]

"The most important player in a seven game baseball series used to be the guy that took the ball 3 times and threw 23-27 of the 63 innings. There is nothing more important that the ace of a staff come playoff time. And Jack Morris was the ace of each of those four staffs."

Sound familiar?

You're such a boob. Can't you follow a simple argument? At no time did I debate what an ace does in the playoffs. Keep trying to run away from your horrible argument though by stating brain-dead playoff cliches. You can bring it up over and over again, just admit you're wrong that it's a stupid generality to point to a guy on a dominant franchise and say you'd take him just because he won rings over pitchers who are probably giving their clubs better chances to win, yet their clubs are worse.

Your argument is stupid. Just like all other stat based arguments. Stats don't play baseball games.

The argument is whether wins are important. I pointed to Jack Morris and his 254 wins, most wins in a decade, 4 world series rings, 3 as the ace of a staff, and noted that Jack Morris never scored well in the invented and arbitrary Sabermetrics statistical categories. He wins. He's a winner. He wins a lot. He wins big games. He wins world series. He wins regular season. He wins. And that column of the newspaper standings has always been the most important.

Give me a pitcher like Derek Lowe, with a bad WHIP and other sabremetrics numbers, but who averages 15 wins as a starter over 8 years for 3 different teams (two offensively challenged, epstein) over the guy with great stats and rare wins like Javy Vasquez any day.

[pick6pedro]

Your argument is stupid. Just like all other stat based arguments. Stats don't play baseball games.

The argument is whether wins are important. I pointed to Jack Morris and his 254 wins, most wins in a decade, 4 world series rings, 3 as the ace of a staff, and noted that Jack Morris never scored well in the invented and arbitrary Sabermetrics statistical categories. He wins. He's a winner. He wins a lot. He wins big games. He wins world series. He wins regular season. He wins. And that column of the newspaper standings has always been the most important.

Give me a pitcher like Derek Lowe, with a bad WHIP and other sabremetrics numbers, but who averages 15 wins as a starter over 8 years for 3 different teams (two offensively challenged, epstein) over the guy with great stats and rare wins like Javy Vasquez any day.

The argument is not whether wins are important (how the hell did you miss that and who would argue that wins by a team is not the most important thing in ANY sport?).

The argument is that whether a pitcher is more valuable to a team or not does not hinge on wins alone because there are too many other factors beyond the pitcher's control. You're taking the end product and saying a guy is more valuable because of what the team as a whole does when the actual comparison is the value one pitcher brings against the value another brings to team X. Despite your best efforts to try to paint me into a stat-based argument, I am not using stats here. But by all means, keep mentioning sabermetrics like I've been using them. I've said that pitchers on shittier teams can easily be better players and give their clubs better chances to win than the guy who gets wins despite his performance or because he's got a ton around him. And as I've said, you rely too much on who just happens to be on the mound to get that W whether they put in a good performance or not. How you lean on this as your main argument in a comparison of individual players is borderline silly. I'm really not sure how this has all gone over your head, Johnny Cochrane.

[twballgame9]

Your argument is stupid. Just like all other stat based arguments. Stats don't play baseball games.

The argument is whether wins are important. I pointed to Jack Morris and his 254 wins, most wins in a decade, 4 world series rings, 3 as the ace of a staff, and noted that Jack Morris never scored well in the invented and arbitrary Sabermetrics statistical categories. He wins. He's a winner. He wins a lot. He wins big games. He wins world series. He wins regular season. He wins. And that column of the newspaper standings has always been the most important.

Give me a pitcher like Derek Lowe, with a bad WHIP and other sabremetrics numbers, but who averages 15 wins as a starter over 8 years for 3 different teams (two offensively challenged, epstein) over the guy with great stats and rare wins like Javy Vasquez any day.

The argument is not whether wins are important (how the hell did you miss that and who would argue that wins by a team is not the most important thing in ANY sport?).

The argument is that whether a pitcher is more valuable to a team or not does not hinge on wins alone because there are too many other factors beyond the pitcher's control. You're taking the end product and saying a guy is more valuable because of what the team as a whole does when the actual comparison is the value one pitcher brings against the value another brings to team X. Despite your best efforts to try to paint me into a stat-based argument, I am not using stats here. But by all means, keep mentioning sabermetrics like I've been using them. I've said that pitchers on shittier teams can easily be better players and give their clubs better chances to win than the guy who gets wins despite his performance or because he's got a ton around him. And as I've said, you rely too much on who just happens to be on the mound to get that W whether they put in a good performance or not. How you lean on this as your main argument in a comparison of individual players is borderline silly. I'm really not sure how this has all gone over your head, Johnny Cochrane.

No one was arguing with you. The argument was with epstein, who tossed out sabermetrics and said wins and ERA aren't important. You interjected, a day late, a dollar short, and completely off point, and decided that what epstein and I were arguing about was not the argument.

The argument is whether wins by a pitcher are an important statistic. Whatever you are arguing about is unimportant to me.

[twballgame9]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=571&position=P

Check out all Oswalt's peripherals, they're almost all headed in the wrong direction. Forget stupid stats like ERA and Wins. K/IP were down almost every year except for this one and his FIP is pretty consistently rising, up to about 3.80. His BABIP has also stayed pretty constant showing he's not getting unlucky or lucky

...Now I feel like a stat dork.

Fucks those dumb things like winning, and giving up runs.

Proves what a retard you are. Wins depends on all kinds of things like offense, etc and ERA is dependent on defense, etc. ERA is an absolutely useless statistic, and so are wins for a starting pitcher.

And.....case rested.

[pick6pedro]

No one was arguing with you. The argument was with epstein, who tossed out sabermetrics and said wins and ERA aren't important. You interjected, a day late, a dollar short, and completely off point, and decided that what epstein and I were arguing about was not the argument.

The argument is whether wins by a pitcher are an important statistic. Whatever you are arguing about is unimportant to me.

You weren't arguing with me? Holy crap - what's it like when you do argue?

I interjected because saying you'd take a guy in a head-to-head comparison solely based on the fact that he wins is about as dumb as it gets when a better pitcher in a similar situation would not only get those wins, but he'd get MORE wins. You'd take Morris and Lowe over guys who give their team a better chance to win...good for you. Now make sure you stick to those guns to the death. Are you going to go back to the "I was only talking about the playoffs" repertoire or just continue to spit out "wins are the only thing that matter" tripe?

[eepstein0]

No one was arguing with you. The argument was with epstein, who tossed out sabermetrics and said wins and ERA aren't important. You interjected, a day late, a dollar short, and completely off point, and decided that what epstein and I were arguing about was not the argument.

The argument is whether wins by a pitcher are an important statistic. Whatever you are arguing about is unimportant to me.

You weren't arguing with me? Holy crap - what's it like when you do argue?

I interjected because saying you'd take a guy in a head-to-head comparison solely based on the fact that he wins is about as dumb as it gets when a better pitcher in a similar situation would not only get those wins, but he'd get MORE wins. You'd take Morris and Lowe over guys who give their team a better chance to win...good for you. Now make sure you stick to those guns to the death. Are you going to go back to the "I was only talking about the playoffs" repertoire or just continue to spit out "wins are the only thing that matter" tripe?

The fact that you'd take Lowe over guys like Matt Cain and Joanthan Sanchez is completely insane.

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

[pick6pedro]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

Yup, because the difference between the guy who wins 15 games with DLowe's mediocre to bad stats (like DLowe) and the guy who doesn't is all about run support. Sure, because the Braves were a powerhouse the past few years. And the pre-Kemp/Ethier/Manny Dodgers were a fucking run scoring machine as well.

And sure, the difference between Matt Cain and Javy Vasquez, who fucking squander talent because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to bear dowbn and get guys out in key situations and guys who win more with similar stats is all about run support. Never mind that you can compare Sanchez's and Cain's stats to Zito's and Lincecum's favorably, other than in the win column, and they pitch for the same team.

Wins are a measure of your ability as a pitcher to get it done, bottom line. "Losers always whine about 'lack of run support''their best'. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

I don't care if a guy wins anything! I just want him to give us a chance to win! I love Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe!!!!!!!!!!!" They are awesome." -pedro 5/25/2010

[pick6pedro]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

Yup, because the difference between the guy who wins 15 games with DLowe's mediocre to bad stats (like DLowe) and the guy who doesn't is all about run support. Sure, because the Braves were a powerhouse the past few years. And the pre-Kemp/Ethier/Manny Dodgers were a fucking run scoring machine as well.

And sure, the difference between Matt Cain and Javy Vasquez, who fucking squander talent because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to bear dowbn and get guys out in key situations and guys who win more with similar stats is all about run support. Never mind that you can compare Sanchez's and Cain's stats to Zito's and Lincecum's favorably, other than in the win column, and they pitch for the same team.

Wins are a measure of your ability as a pitcher to get it done, bottom line. "Losers always whine about 'lack of run support''their best'. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

Godspeed Mr. Goodspeed.

Man, it's a good thing you focus so squarely on lack of run support. Because there are no other factors at all. How about defense? Ballpark? Bullpen? Matchups? Forget about those? You know, all those factors that make a team a team? Your ability to decipher what is important in an individual comparison is astounding. But we're not arguing, right?

[pick6pedro]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

I don't care if a guy wins anything! I just want him to give us a chance to win! I love Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe!!!!!!!!!!!" They are awesome." -pedro 5/25/2010

OJ, is that you?

[bignick33]

I tend to be a moderate on the argument between old-school baseball observers and new-school state geeks. But I will say that Lowe is a poor example because he is a sinker-baller. Some of the new types of statistical analysis aren't as useful for pitchers who don't have traditional pitching styles. They tend to be the outliers in these statistical analyses. For example, K/9 is, IMO, largely useless for evaluating sinker-ballers and knuckle-ballers. EEP will probably disagree, but some pitching styles seek weak contact more so than others.

On another note, denying that run support is important is inexplicably asinine.

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

Yup, because the difference between the guy who wins 15 games with DLowe's mediocre to bad stats (like DLowe) and the guy who doesn't is all about run support. Sure, because the Braves were a powerhouse the past few years. And the pre-Kemp/Ethier/Manny Dodgers were a fucking run scoring machine as well.

And sure, the difference between Matt Cain and Javy Vasquez, who fucking squander talent because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to bear dowbn and get guys out in key situations and guys who win more with similar stats is all about run support. Never mind that you can compare Sanchez's and Cain's stats to Zito's and Lincecum's favorably, other than in the win column, and they pitch for the same team.

Wins are a measure of your ability as a pitcher to get it done, bottom line. "Losers always whine about 'lack of run support''their best'. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

Godspeed Mr. Goodspeed.

Man, it's a good thing you focus so squarely on lack of run support. Because there are no other factors at all. How about defense? Ballpark? Bullpen? Matchups? Forget about those? You know, all those factors that make a team a team? Your ability to decipher what is important in an individual comparison is astounding. But we're not arguing, right?

What about "the pitcher's ability to bear down in close games and ease off with big leads"?

Now we are arguing. You are finally on point.

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

I don't care if a guy wins anything! I just want him to give us a chance to win! I love Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe!!!!!!!!!!!" They are awesome." -pedro 5/25/2010

OJ, is that you?

I just did the same thing you did OJ.

[pick6pedro]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

I don't care if a guy wins anything! I just want him to give us a chance to win! I love Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe!!!!!!!!!!!" They are awesome." -pedro 5/25/2010

OJ, is that you?

I just did the same thing you did OJ.

You really don't see the difference? While you've spouted off over and over that wins are all that matter, I've never once said I don't care about wins. You must be confusing me with eepstein. So, sorry, you did not do the "same thing". Although, it's kinda cute you tried to copy me - try and keep up.

[twballgame9]

I tend to be a moderate on the argument between old-school baseball observers and new-school state geeks. But I will say that Lowe is a poor example because he is a sinker-baller. Some of the new types of statistical analysis aren't as useful for pitchers who don't have traditional pitching styles. They tend to be the outliers in these statistical analyses. For example, K/9 is, IMO, largely useless for evaluating sinker-ballers and knuckle-ballers. EEP will probably disagree, but some pitching styles seek weak contact more so than others.

On another note, denying that run support is important is inexplicably asinine.

And if anyone had done that, that would be a great observation.

The point is that nothing is more important to a pitcher's win total than what he does with the ball. In other word's, pitch. Sure, his team might get shut out once or twice or shut down 3-4 times over a season. You lose those games, all pitchers do. All pitchers benefit from 10-0 and 15-3 scores as well. Those games are the outliers that ever pitcher wins and loses.

The difference between the good pitchers and the bad pitchers are the games in between. The close and tight ones. And in those games, some guys are better than other at making sure if their team scores 3, the other only scores 2. They win more.

[pick6pedro]

Godspeed Mr. Goodspeed.

Man, it's a good thing you focus so squarely on lack of run support. Because there are no other factors at all. How about defense? Ballpark? Bullpen? Matchups? Forget about those? You know, all those factors that make a team a team? Your ability to decipher what is important in an individual comparison is astounding. But we're not arguing, right?

What about "the pitcher's ability to bear down in close games and ease off with big leads"?

Now we are arguing. You are finally on point.

I've been on point, you've been busy fondling yourself.

Sure, that's a factor too (as mentioned before). How about asserting that point rather than just assuming a guy who gets more wins does exactly that with no other factors involved? It is my opinion that run support, defense, matchups, ballpark, bullpen, etc have more to do with discrepancies in pitchers of equal abilities' wins than bearing down in close games and easing off with big leads has to do with a discrepancy in any given stat (since you've wanted to focus so much on stats).

[twballgame9]

You take the guys that give their teams a better chance to win. I will take the guys that win more.

Thanks in advance.

P&S Pedro, I have no idea what you are talking about, but it skips over nice.

"I'm going to take a guy who is less talented simply because the team around him allowed him to win more games. Trent Dilfer and I are having lunch this afternoon, he's just a winner. Teh awesomeness!1" - twb 5/25/2010

I don't care if a guy wins anything! I just want him to give us a chance to win! I love Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe!!!!!!!!!!!" They are awesome." -pedro 5/25/2010

OJ, is that you?

I just did the same thing you did OJ.

You really don't see the difference? While you've spouted off over and over that wins are all that matter, I've never once said I don't care about wins. You must be confusing me with eepstein. So, sorry, you did not do the "same thing". Although, it's kinda cute you tried to copy me - try and keep up.

So in other words, you are not OJ because its' true, you are OJ because you argued with me without taking a position. In fact, you are now implying that you argued with me because you agreed with me.

And I didn't say wins are the only stat. Again, since you appear to be slightly autistic, the argument is not whether wins are the only stat, and whether anything else matters. The point is that epstein said wins are "meaningless". Thus, my position is that that is wrong, that they are not meaningless. That's called an "argument".

I thought you were back on track with your reading comprehension. I was wrong.

[pick6pedro]

Sure, his team might get shut out once or twice or shut down 3-4 times over a season. You lose those games, all pitchers do. All pitchers benefit from 10-0 and 15-3 scores as well. Those games are the outliers that ever pitcher wins and loses.

Sure all pitchers benefit from scores and are hurt by scores - but some have more outliers in one direction than others. Some have more outliers in a positive direction than others. And some have far more outliers in a negative direction than others. So comparing a guy with many more negative outliers to a guy with many more positive outliers based solely on wins is ridiculous. Not sure what's so tough about that.

[twballgame9]

Godspeed Mr. Goodspeed.

Man, it's a good thing you focus so squarely on lack of run support. Because there are no other factors at all. How about defense? Ballpark? Bullpen? Matchups? Forget about those? You know, all those factors that make a team a team? Your ability to decipher what is important in an individual comparison is astounding. But we're not arguing, right?

What about "the pitcher's ability to bear down in close games and ease off with big leads"?

Now we are arguing. You are finally on point.

I've been on point, you've been busy fondling yourself.

Sure, that's a factor too (as mentioned before). How about asserting that point rather than just assuming a guy who gets more wins does exactly that with no other factors involved? It is my opinion that run support, defense, matchups, ballpark, bullpen, etc have more to do with discrepancies in pitchers of equal abilities' wins than bearing down in close games and easing off with big leads has to do with a discrepancy in any given stat (since you've wanted to focus so much on stats).

Do you agree with epstein's statement that wins and ERA are "meaningless statistics"? If so, please share your thoughts.

If not, welcome to the fold.

[bignick33]

I tend to be a moderate on the argument between old-school baseball observers and new-school state geeks. But I will say that Lowe is a poor example because he is a sinker-baller. Some of the new types of statistical analysis aren't as useful for pitchers who don't have traditional pitching styles. They tend to be the outliers in these statistical analyses. For example, K/9 is, IMO, largely useless for evaluating sinker-ballers and knuckle-ballers. EEP will probably disagree, but some pitching styles seek weak contact more so than others.

On another note, denying that run support is important is inexplicably asinine.

And if anyone had done that, that would be a great observation.

Umm...I'm pretty sure that you've cited Derek Lowe several times in this thread as a guy who defies both traditional and new-school statistics and simply wins games. But, that's beside the point. I'm not disagreeing with you in so much as I'm pointing out that, in my opinion, some categories of pitchers are more conducive to the use of advanced statistics than others. Since we were talking about sabermetrics and all. I fail to see the rationale behind your defensiveness.

[bignick33]

"You're an OJ."

"No, you're an OJ."

OOL