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

[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.

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.

Who's autistic? You keep applying eepstein's argument to me for some odd reason. For the last time, I'm not arguing his side - I'm arguing with you about the value you place on wins in an individual comparison (as I stated in my FIRST post on the topic). Again, keep up and you won't have to resort to petty name calling. Take a deep breath and start over.

[twballgame9]

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.

When comparing guys like Lowe to Vasquez, it's 8+ years of run support from a variety of teams with varying degrees of run support. Your point has much more validity for Cain or Sanchez - to use stat geek parlance, "small sample size" and less diversity of run support.

[bignick33]

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.

When comparing guys like Lowe to Vasquez, it's 8+ years of run support from a variety of teams with varying degrees of run support. Your point has much more validity for Cain or Sanchez - to use stat geek parlance, "small sample size" and less diversity of run support.

So, you're hypothesizing that Vasquez and Lowe have had comparable run support over the course of their careers, due to the sample size. Please back up this claim with numbers.

KThxBye.

[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).

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.

Talk about reading comprehension problems! Let me refresh your memory on my positions since you can't find them yourself:

"Just like in the best NBA player argument you value championships (and wins) far too highly. For some reason you like to argue "guys I'd rather have" instead of look at a guy's actual value when discussing individuals."

"I've been talking about pitchers overall the entire time - you try to bring championships into it as something of individual achievement that you'd prefer in a pitcher even though there are plenty of pitchers who are giving their teams better chances to win day in and day out, but weren't lucky enough to have top talent surrounding them to get them into the final two."

"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."

"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."

and on and on...

AS CLEAR AS DAY.

[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.

When comparing guys like Lowe to Vasquez, it's 8+ years of run support from a variety of teams with varying degrees of run support. Your point has much more validity for Cain or Sanchez - to use stat geek parlance, "small sample size" and less diversity of run support.

Applying eepstein's argument to me again, genius. If you bothered to read what I wrote, this would be an actual argument. I've never met anyone who would argue against a position they didn't bother reading while also applying someone else's argument to that person. Grab some coffee and wake up.

[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.

Who's autistic? You keep applying eepstein's argument to me for some odd reason. For the last time, I'm not arguing his side - I'm arguing with you about the value you place on wins in an individual comparison (as I stated in my FIRST post on the topic). Again, keep up and you won't have to resort to petty name calling. Take a deep breath and start over.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of your self righteous stance on namecalling, I will stay on point. If you are not taking epstein's position, I am not arguing with you. I think there are many stats to evaluate a pitcher. Some more useful for things like "predicting future success" and "deciding if a guy is HOF worthy" than they are for "judging past performance." Theo Epstein would never sign a Jack Morris "for next season" but he would never deny his success, either. Like wise, he would thank Derek Lowe for his win total over two seasons, but would not extend him a reasonable contract.

Bottom line, for judging the performance of a pitcher, wins are not the only stat, but they are the most important. For judging whether Roy Oswalt will help your club down the stretch - well that's largely witchcraft and guesswork. In those circumstances, many people look to arcane measurables in place of success on the mound. I understand the iherent flaws in relying solely on wins. But like clutch hitting, I believe in the intestinal fortitude of some pitchers over others. Some guys you want on the mound with the bases loaded in a tie game in the 7th inning - and it is not solely because of their strike out ration of ground ball/flyball ratio. Some guys just get it done in those spots. Like Derek Lowe, a ground ball pitcher with small strike out totals striking out two Oakland As with the bases loaded to move his team to the ALCS.

[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.

Talk about reading comprehension problems! Let me refresh your memory on my positions since you can't find them yourself:

"Just like in the best NBA player argument you value championships (and wins) far too highly. For some reason you like to argue "guys I'd rather have" instead of look at a guy's actual value when discussing individuals."

"I've been talking about pitchers overall the entire time - you try to bring championships into it as something of individual achievement that you'd prefer in a pitcher even though there are plenty of pitchers who are giving their teams better chances to win day in and day out, but weren't lucky enough to have top talent surrounding them to get them into the final two."

"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."

"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."

and on and on...

AS CLEAR AS DAY.

Quoting yourself to state what my argument is about? None of these are my argument.

[twballgame9]

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.

When comparing guys like Lowe to Vasquez, it's 8+ years of run support from a variety of teams with varying degrees of run support. Your point has much more validity for Cain or Sanchez - to use stat geek parlance, "small sample size" and less diversity of run support.

So, you're hypothesizing that Vasquez and Lowe have had comparable run support over the course of their careers, due to the sample size. Please back up this claim with numbers.

KThxBye.

Do your own research. Or get one of the interns to do it.

[twballgame9]

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.

When comparing guys like Lowe to Vasquez, it's 8+ years of run support from a variety of teams with varying degrees of run support. Your point has much more validity for Cain or Sanchez - to use stat geek parlance, "small sample size" and less diversity of run support.

Applying eepstein's argument to me again, genius. If you bothered to read what I wrote, this would be an actual argument. I've never met anyone who would argue against a position they didn't bother reading while also applying someone else's argument to that person. Grab some coffee and wake up.

Again, if you aren't taking epstein's position, I am not arguing with you.

[pick6pedro]

Ignoring the hypocrisy of your self righteous stance on namecalling, I will stay on point. If you are not taking epstein's position, I am not arguing with you. I think there are many stats to evaluate a pitcher. Some more useful for things like "predicting future success" and "deciding if a guy is HOF worthy" than they are for "judging past performance." Theo Epstein would never sign a Jack Morris "for next season" but he would never deny his success, either. Like wise, he would thank Derek Lowe for his win total over two seasons, but would not extend him a reasonable contract.

Bottom line, for judging the performance of a pitcher, wins are not the only stat, but they are the most important. For judging whether Roy Oswalt will help your club down the stretch - well that's largely witchcraft and guesswork. In those circumstances, many people look to arcane measurables in place of success on the mound. I understand the iherent flaws in relying solely on wins. But like clutch hitting, I believe in the intestinal fortitude of some pitchers over others. Some guys you want on the mound with the bases loaded in a tie game in the 7th inning - and it is not solely because of their strike out ration of ground ball/flyball ratio. Some guys just get it done in those spots. Like Derek Lowe, a ground ball pitcher with small strike out totals striking out two Oakland As with the bases loaded to move his team to the ALCS.

I was pointing out that you did the same with the best NBA player debate - team success is a significant factor to you - and I believe that is hugely flawed when making individual comparisons. That can be just as arbitrary as any stat out there - if not more. In other words, just like you are making a point that all these stats can't be viewed in a vaccuum, neither can wins. You can talk about intestinal fortitude and clutch all you want, but even when looking at those factors, all the other things going on around an individual still can easily make the difference between fist pumping while walking to the dugout and hanging your head in shame.

Is really all that clutch if you strike out Adam Melhuse and Terrence Long (both pinch hitters in their 1st appearance in the game)? Maybe they shit the bed to give you the "clucth" performance. (by the way only one K was with the bases loaded - he walked a guy in between). Hey it's still clutch, but a lot of those factors dillute the "clutchness". That's my point.

Thanks for wasting my time. Don't bother arguing with me if you're going to ignore what I actually say.
I AM NOT EEPSTEIN!

[twballgame9]

I wasn't going to engage in stats, but I will.

Without doing crazy math breakdown of various seasons, in his 8 years as a regular starter, DLowe has gotten an average of .5 more runs per game than Vasquez. MLB average is somewhere between the two. DLowe's number spikes largely because of the 3 of 8 seasons he pitched for the Red Sox, where he was getting 6+ runs per game. In 4 seasons with the Dodgers, his average run support was lower than Vasquez' career average, down around 4.3.

Other factors: DLowe averages 15 w/season, while Vasquez averages 12. Vasquez has had the ball in his hand longer, with substantially more innings pitched per year, meaning DLowe was more reliant on his bullpens (which worked to his advantage with the Dodgers), but also means that Vasquez loses a lot more because he stays on the mound.

In short, run support is a factor, to Lowe's huge advantage for 3 years with the Sox, when he accounted for a 21 win season, and to his disadvantage with the Dodgers. In other words, run support may explain why Lowe won more with the Sox than the Dodgers. But it alone cannot account for a three win per season differential over Vasquez, especially since Vasquez's other stats - the sabermetric stats - appear to lean heavily in Vasquez' favor at first blush (I don't even understand a few of them).

One final point - Vasquez has had more seasons in the NL than has Lowe. This will artificially lower his run support number as a factor in wins - both because the NL can't hit and because the pitcher does.

Draw from these stats whatever conclusions you will.

[pick6pedro]

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.

Talk about reading comprehension problems! Let me refresh your memory on my positions since you can't find them yourself:

"Just like in the best NBA player argument you value championships (and wins) far too highly. For some reason you like to argue "guys I'd rather have" instead of look at a guy's actual value when discussing individuals."

"I've been talking about pitchers overall the entire time - you try to bring championships into it as something of individual achievement that you'd prefer in a pitcher even though there are plenty of pitchers who are giving their teams better chances to win day in and day out, but weren't lucky enough to have top talent surrounding them to get them into the final two."

"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."

"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."

and on and on...

AS CLEAR AS DAY.

Quoting yourself to state what my argument is about? None of these are my argument.

Seriously?

[twballgame9]

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.

Talk about reading comprehension problems! Let me refresh your memory on my positions since you can't find them yourself:

"Just like in the best NBA player argument you value championships (and wins) far too highly. For some reason you like to argue "guys I'd rather have" instead of look at a guy's actual value when discussing individuals."

"I've been talking about pitchers overall the entire time - you try to bring championships into it as something of individual achievement that you'd prefer in a pitcher even though there are plenty of pitchers who are giving their teams better chances to win day in and day out, but weren't lucky enough to have top talent surrounding them to get them into the final two."

"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."

"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."

and on and on...

AS CLEAR AS DAY.

Quoting yourself to state what my argument is about? None of these are my argument.

Seriously?

The only reason Jack Morris' rings came into the discussion were to point out that he wins big games. It was not meant to sidetrack from the larger point - despite having fairly weak sabermetrics measurables, Jack Morris was a stone cold killer on the mound that won 254 games and was the winningest pitcher in the decade of the 1980s, largely because he knew when he had to be Pedro Martinez and when he could afford to be mediocre.

[eepstein0]

I'll cede the point that sinkerball and knuckleball pitchers don't fit statistically. Although true, wins simply aren't a good measure of pitching. There are too many factors that you're not neutralizing (ballpark, run support, defense, etc). I'm not saying we have to totally discount wins, but it's just not as good as Batting Average Against (BAA), FIP, K/IP and a bunch of other statistics we don't have to dive into here. Pitching in a huge ballpark, with fast and talented fielders and a good offense makes a huge difference in wins/ERA. Pitching in Coors Field with Eric Hinske playing center field and the Oakland A's offense is going to make a huge difference also.

You can take your eye test as far as you want, but again the numbers don't back up your argument.

[BC '00]

I'll cede the point that sinkerball and knuckleball pitchers don't fit statistically. Although true, wins simply aren't a good measure of pitching. There are too many factors that you're not neutralizing (ballpark, run support, defense, etc). I'm not saying we have to totally discount wins, but it's just not as good as Batting Average Against (BAA), FIP, K/IP and a bunch of other statistics we don't have to dive into here. Pitching in a huge ballpark, with fast and talented fielders and a good offense makes a huge difference in wins/ERA. Pitching in Coors Field with Eric Hinske playing center field and the Oakland A's offense is going to make a huge difference also.

You can take your eye test as far as you want, but again the numbers don't back up your argument.

You should check out the Question for Eagledom thread to discuss advanced statistics more.

[twballgame9]

I'll cede the point that sinkerball and knuckleball pitchers don't fit statistically. Although true, wins simply aren't a good measure of pitching. There are too many factors that you're not neutralizing (ballpark, run support, defense, etc). I'm not saying we have to totally discount wins, but it's just not as good as Batting Average Against (BAA), FIP, K/IP and a bunch of other statistics we don't have to dive into here. Pitching in a huge ballpark, with fast and talented fielders and a good offense makes a huge difference in wins/ERA. Pitching in Coors Field with Eric Hinske playing center field and the Oakland A's offense is going to make a huge difference also.

You can take your eye test as far as you want, but again the numbers don't back up your argument.

K/IP is by far the worst way to judge a pitcher, period. AJ Burnett and his 5 innings, 12 Ks, 145 pitches, 9 walks and a .500 winning percentage says hello. On the other hand, Greg Maddux and his 9 IP, 5 Ks, 0 BBs, 88 pitches and .650 winning percentage also say hello.

All factors factor in to the equation, no doubt. All stats are flawed, particularly in a vaccuum. But wins are as useful as any other, and are the only way to get at the intangible aspects of pitching - being a winner. I understand that my emphasis of wins highlights the fundamental dispute between myself and the stat geeks - they want to view pitchers as a pile of numbers working in a computer program, and thus refuse to consider clutch hitting and smart pitching. That's a dispute that no one will win.

At the end of the day, there is no more important team stat than winning. Every five days, the guy that takes the mound is the most important person that day in determining whether the team comes away with a win. 35 times a year, a starting pitcher is arguably the most important player on the field in any sport, and the ultimate question is not whether he walks a lot of guys or Ks a lot of guys, or keeps guys off of the bases, but whether he wins.

[commavegarage]

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

Yes.

Love the baseball banter.

You can't simply take the guy "who wins" when comparing individuals (I think P6P was suggesting this) because it suggests you would rather take Scott Feldman who had 17 wins and a 4.08 ERA with him team last year over Zach Greinke who had 16 wins and a 2.16 ERA last year (and dominated virtually every other stat) on your team simply because of the fact that he had one more win.

Please continue the though.

[twballgame9]

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

Yes.

Love the baseball banter.

You can't simply take the guy "who wins" when comparing individuals (I think P6P was suggesting this) because it suggests you would rather take Scott Feldman who had 17 wins and a 4.08 ERA with him team last year over Zach Greinke who had 16 wins and a 2.16 ERA last year on your team simply because of the fact that he had one more win.

Please continue the though.

That's grotesque oversimplification of the point. Unlike pedro, who changed it to some non sequitur about the postseason, this point is valid. No, you wouldn't take a guy simply because he has one more win. But you would take a guy (Lowe) over a guy (Vasquez) because he averages 3 more wins over a large sample size with similar run support and a lesser quality sabermetrics. I find the conclusion "that's because he is a sinkerballer" to leave open more questions than it provides answers. Similar to the discarding of Wakefield's undeniable success as a starter in winning ("he's a knuckleballer, that's different"), despite atrocious sabermetrics.

Matt Cain has had great measurables without significant winning playing for a team that has produced a two-time Cy Young award winner that is a lock to approach 20 wins every year, and in front of a team that has propelled the corpse of Barry Zito to six wins already. Cain doesn't have the measurables of Lincecum, but his are pretty damn good. At some point saying the difference in measurables from Lincecum to Cain, combined with any difference in run support they may get (I haven't bothered to even check if there even is a difference), is the sole explanation for the rather large gap in winning between two pitchers on the same team becomes thin.

[pick6pedro]

Unlike pedro, who changed it to some non sequitur about the postseason

Jesus Christ, you're fucking hopeless.

[branchinator]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

[bignick33]

I find the conclusion "that's because he is a sinkerballer" to leave open more questions than it provides answers. Similar to the discarding of Wakefield's undeniable success as a starter in winning ("he's a knuckleballer, that's different"), despite atrocious sabermetrics.

You totally missedmy point. If anything, I was supporting your conclusion, while only questioning your method of arguing it.

To recap, my point was: While sinkerballers/knuckleballers are singularly poor counters to sabermetricians because they are more likely be the outliers, to an extent they do prove that metrics such as K/9 and Component ERA are merely indicative measures, just like wins and ERA are. All I was saying was that it would make more sense to make your argument with more traditional pitchers, which is exactly what CAG was doing (although I have no idea where he stands in this argument), because at least then you'd be comparing apples to apples.

I don't know what I'm more disgusted with at the moment: TW's complete butchering of everyone's points or the fact that I completely am on the same page with CAG (at least until he ventures a more specific opinion).

[pick6pedro]

I don't know what I'm more disgusted with at the moment: TW's complete butchering of everyone's points or the fact that I completely am on the page with CAG

I had the same dilemma. So I decided to just like BC baseball.

[eepstein0]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

ERA is better than wins, but really still tells you less than WHIP and on down the line. ERA does not neutralize fielding in back of you (a ball Ellsbury gets to and catches in LF Eric Hinskie does not) and leaves what exactly is an earned run up to the official scorers judgment. It also doesn't build in factors like what ballpark you pitch in.

[BC '00]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

ERA is better than wins, but really still tells you less than WHIP and on down the line. ERA does not neutralize fielding in back of you (a ball Ellsbury gets to and catches in LF Eric Hinskie does not) and leaves what exactly is an earned run up to the official scorers judgment. It also doesn't build in factors like what ballpark you pitch in.

Wouldn't WHIP also not adjust for the fielding behind you? If Hinske doesn't catch the ball, it still goes as a hit against you, and therefore in your WHIP.

[eepstein0]

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

Yes.

Love the baseball banter.

You can't simply take the guy "who wins" when comparing individuals (I think P6P was suggesting this) because it suggests you would rather take Scott Feldman who had 17 wins and a 4.08 ERA with him team last year over Zach Greinke who had 16 wins and a 2.16 ERA last year on your team simply because of the fact that he had one more win.

Please continue the though.

That's grotesque oversimplification of the point. Unlike pedro, who changed it to some non sequitur about the postseason, this point is valid. No, you wouldn't take a guy simply because he has one more win. But you would take a guy (Lowe) over a guy (Vasquez) because he averages 3 more wins over a large sample size with similar run support and a lesser quality sabermetrics. I find the conclusion "that's because he is a sinkerballer" to leave open more questions than it provides answers. Similar to the discarding of Wakefield's undeniable success as a starter in winning ("he's a knuckleballer, that's different"), despite atrocious sabermetrics.

Matt Cain has had great measurables without significant winning playing for a team that has produced a two-time Cy Young award winner that is a lock to approach 20 wins every year, and in front of a team that has propelled the corpse of Barry Zito to six wins already. Cain doesn't have the measurables of Lincecum, but his are pretty damn good. At some point saying the difference in measurables from Lincecum to Cain, combined with any difference in run support they may get (I haven't bothered to even check if there even is a difference), is the sole explanation for the rather large gap in winning between two pitchers on the same team becomes thin.

Agreed on the over-simplification. Although true, every GM in baseball would rather have Matt Cain than Lowe. Cain wins 20+ games on the Phillies with some decent run support, Lowe probably still doesn't.

[eepstein0]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

ERA is better than wins, but really still tells you less than WHIP and on down the line. ERA does not neutralize fielding in back of you (a ball Ellsbury gets to and catches in LF Eric Hinskie does not) and leaves what exactly is an earned run up to the official scorers judgment. It also doesn't build in factors like what ballpark you pitch in.

Wouldn't WHIP also not adjust for the fielding behind you? If Hinske doesn't catch the ball, it still goes as a hit against you, and therefore in your WHIP.

Right right, that's what I said it tells you less than WHIP, WHIP tells you less than FIP, and then on down the line. I think DIPS (Defense Independence Pitching Stats) is one of the better one's you can look at, but I haven't studied this stuff since I graduated from college in a few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_In ... Statistics

Wiki sucks, but see here.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/stati ... cid=137785

Also, these are the top VORP guys this year. These guys have been pretty successful this year, and no Derrick Lowe is not on the list.

[bignick33]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

ERA is better than wins, but really still tells you less than WHIP and on down the line. ERA does not neutralize fielding in back of you (a ball Ellsbury gets to and catches in LF Eric Hinskie does not) and leaves what exactly is an earned run up to the official scorers judgment. It also doesn't build in factors like what ballpark you pitch in.

I'm calling on this one.


WHIP has all the same problems that you mention about ERA (such as not factoring fielding, ballpark, etc), plus it doesn't take into consideration runs allowed, and it especially doesn't take into consideration that some types of hits allowed are worse than others. For example, some pitchers are more prone to making mistakes giving up home runs than other pitchers are, but WHIP doesn't acknowledge the difference between allowing a single and allowing a home run. Hell, in a vacuum, slugging percentage allowed is probably more useful than WHIP.

On the other hand, ERA is more end-result oriented (without the run-support issue of the Win statistic), and while it is certainly flawed, I'll take the pitcher with a 3.8 ERA and a 1.4 WHIP any day over the pitcher with a 4.3 ERA and a 1.3 WHIP, all other things being equal. WHIP is only useful when you have a host of other statistical measures alongside it, whereas ERA can be useful on its own.

[eepstein0]

I'm still having trouble understanding why epstein (poster, not Theo) thinks that ERA is a useless stat. I agree that wins are not a good way to measure pitching performance but ERA certainly is. Sure, there are other metrics but that doesn't mean that ERA isn't a good metric to use.

ERA is better than wins, but really still tells you less than WHIP and on down the line. ERA does not neutralize fielding in back of you (a ball Ellsbury gets to and catches in LF Eric Hinskie does not) and leaves what exactly is an earned run up to the official scorers judgment. It also doesn't build in factors like what ballpark you pitch in.

I'm calling on this one.


WHIP has all the same problems that you mention about ERA (such as not factoring fielding, ballpark, etc), plus it doesn't take into consideration runs allowed, and it especially doesn't take into consideration that some types of hits allowed are worse than others. For example, some pitchers are more prone to making mistakes giving up home runs than other pitchers are, but WHIP doesn't acknowledge the difference between allowing a single and allowing a home run. Hell, in a vacuum, slugging percentage allowed is probably more useful than WHIP.

On the other hand, ERA is more end-result oriented (without the run-support issue of the Win statistic), and while it is certainly flawed, I'll take the pitcher with a 3.8 ERA and a 1.4 WHIP any day over the pitcher with a 4.3 ERA and a 1.3 WHIP, all other things being equal. WHIP is only useful when you have a host of other statistical measures alongside it, whereas ERA can be useful on its own.

See the post above yours, I revised slightly...

[twballgame9]

Nick is right on this one. ERA is much more important than WHIP. Last I checked, it is the first column on the scoreboard, not the second, that determines the outcome of games.

WHIP may be an idicator of how likely you are to give up runs, just as OBP is an indicator of how likely you are to score them. But ERA actually tells you how many runs you give up that are directly attributable to something other than poor defense.

ERA is actually a bad stat in the other direction. Sometimes a guy with a higher ERA is still a good pitcher because he doesn't bear down when he doesn't need to. No need for a shutout when your team is up 8 - conserve the arm, throw strikes and get the hell out of there. If Pedro Martinez didn't try to no hit every team, he might still be pitching. If Josh Beckett and AJ Burnett threw to contact more, they might pitch more innings.

[branchinator]

There is a pretty direct correlation between ERA and the quality of a pitcher. Sure, it doesn't tell the whole story but calling ERA a "useless" stat is pretty stupid or makes someone look like a pretentious stat nerd. ERA is the bottom line.