@JoeBanzai said:
I think the bottom line might be, would you rather play great and lose or play good and win.
It's not about being unable to "grasp" statistical evidence at all, it's not about being on the "wrong side of stupid" either.
I went 3 for 4 in a baseball game once hitting every ball right on the button in every at bat, but lined out to end the game with men on base. My coach said "good game Joey" my response was "not good enough".
Another time I bowled an average game but finished with three straight strikes to eliminate the other team.
I felt better after the bowling than the baseball.
Poor examples. Team dependent outcomes. Its not about feeling good, its about evaluating the ability of the player. Although the baseball example would be represented with Win Probability Added, as you get knocked for making an out in that situation.
Bowling an average game means you are an average bowler. Whether your team won or loss was highly dependant on your teammates. Crappier teammates, then your three strikes at the end doesn't give you a chance to win. Period. Better teammates mean your three strikes at the end would have been a moot point since you would have won anyway. So that should have no reflection on how good a bowler YOU are. Your average score however, would tell you EXACTLY how good a bowler you are.
So yes, it is about being on the wrong side of stupid with W/L record. With all the information available right there, and still making comments that border on stupidity. Yes.
joebanzi, you can be on Bricks team in the bowling challenge I presented above, then you can report how happy you are after handing over $10,000 because your teammates were not as good as mine.
When you win you feel good, when you play great and lose.....not so much.
First, I want to make clear that I agree that W-L records can be misleading.
The fact is your stats are great, but they are not proof, great evidence I'll be the first to agree. Any pitcher that wins 300 games in a career is great. Could your buddy "Catfish" have pitched better in 1973 if he needed to? We will never know, he didn't have to. Holtzman was a better pitcher in 1973 than "Catfish" but his team scored an entire run per game less for him.
My examples were great not poor, you just refuse to accept them because they support a different, yet valid point of view. You WON'T win the bowling because your great bowlers will have to give our team "marks" to even thing out! ;-) I think I would enjoy bowling with "Brick" and I could only afford to lose $10.00 so that would be ok too! LOL
You posted Bert Blyleven got average run support in 1973. True, BUT when I looked at game by game results they scored 32 runs (about 20% of runs) in three of his wins, looks like they scored about 165 for him the entire year.
Can't argue with the 4.2 runs per game for his 40 total starts, but in 37 of them he got 3.6 runs per game. 8% of his run support came in one game.
Happy Valentines day! I'll be grilling rib-eyes later with my wife.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
When you win you feel good, when you play great and lose.....not so much.
Obviously. Nobody is arguing that. It is the person's contribution and value to the win is what is being discussed. In other words, how good they are. A pitcher who gets credited with a win is not solely responsible for that win in the standings. Each player in the game either added to, or took away, parts of that win. A pitcher who throws nine shutout innings is going to be of great importance to the win, and in cases like that, getting a W in their W/L record is actually pretty indicative of their value.
The majority of other wins they are credited with are of vastly different importance on their contribution to the outcome of a team's win. There are time where a pitcher can get a win, and be of a detriment in contributing to the teams win, and in cases like that, adding a W to their W/L record is not only silly, but completely moronic.
Then there are all the starts of varying degree mixed in between.
Jack Morris gets hailed for that one great World Series game, and he pitched OUTSTANDING. If 200 of his career wins were of THAT variety, then his W/L would reflect his value. However, he was a leader in the cheap wins category...so his value based on his W/L record is simply wrong. Wrong any in measure possible, including common sense.
I see you agree about W/L record so no need to beat a dead horse.
QUESTION~ IF you need 1 pitcher to grace the cover of MLB as the greatest pitcher of ALL TIME....WHO are you putting on the cover?????? Just the name ...no need to pontificate.
@Odessafile said:
QUESTION~ IF you need 1 pitcher to grace the cover of MLB as the greatest pitcher of ALL TIME....WHO are you putting on the cover?????? Just the name ...no need to pontificate.
Pontificate, i forget his first name, was a really good pitcher.
Seriously...i gotta break it up into two categories:
To win one game - Koufax in his prime, not even debatable.
For a career - Steve Carlton, and there are around seven or eight others who debatable are close.
@Odessafile said:
QUESTION~ IF you need 1 pitcher to grace the cover of MLB as the greatest pitcher of ALL TIME....WHO are you putting on the cover?????? Just the name ...no need to pontificate.
Jack Morris
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
In MLB each team manager sets his own lineup. He does not pick the other teams lineup. Whether he has a pitcher some feel is overrated or underrated he puts the best team on the field behind him. I still believe that really good pitchers will win quite a bit more than really bad pitchers.
@Brick said:
In MLB each team manager sets his own lineup. He does not pick the other teams lineup. Whether he has a pitcher some feel is overrated or underrated he puts the best team on the field behind him. I still believe that really good pitchers will win quite a bit more than really bad pitchers.
....and the proper stats will measure THEIR ability, and the invalid stats(wins) will measure their ability AND the team's ability (to a great extent). Until we have the bowling and golf outings, where you feel it first hand....you may not truly understand.
Jack Morris was not a really good pitcher(until you define the terms of "really good" and not use 'wins' to make that definition), as Morris was the master of cheap wins, because he received run support better than almost any of his peers. I haven't looked, but I know I will be hard pressed to find another pitcher to receive better than average run support nearly EVERY year of their career(16 out of 18 years). Yet, many dopes(including some former players who voted on the veterans committee), held him in higher esteem than other BETTER pitchers because of Morris's (I mean the Tigers) win total!
I would actually like to challenge Morris himself. He himself spouts nonsense when he talks. The challenge: He pitches for one team, and I pitch for another team. I will pick his teammates and my teammates...and since Morris 'knows how to win' he should be able to beat me(and I was not a pro pitcher). So, Jack Morris, here is your call. Show me that you know how to win and that YOU are the reason why your WP% was so good. . I will bet each of our life savings on the game....assuming he didn't piss his away.
PS, I just liked a SteveK post...and I heard sports talk people using ERA+ in a discussion...hell may have frozen over. Actually, in 20 years, when people have not grown up on 'wins' and 'RBI' as the defining stats...this resistance to the better measurements will be gone. It's good to see that some Free Agents like Arrieta are not getting the huge money they thought they would get, because many GM's are getting smarter. It isn't collusion.
Scott Bor'ass' even had the gall to compare Arrieta to Scherzer based on a couple post season starts Arrieta had, and then said Arrieta should get Scherzer money. GM's aren't buying it. Good for them.
And Joebanzi, I suck at bowling, and believe it or not, despite our exchanges on here, I know you and I would have a good time drinking and bowling. Brick, I haven't read enough of your posts...but a couple chicks and some Scotch(i believe you like Scotch), and we would have a good time.
Perkdog, I haven't heard from you and I know you love the old school stats, and I don't care, lol. You present it well. You are like the Dean Martin of Old School stats. It doesn't matter what you say, it will still sound smooth. We would kill it on a night out.
I'm not sure if the following point was addressed or not? I think we all clearly understand that a pitcher can play for low run scoring teams and lose games that he should have won with a team that could score more runs. But how about a pitcher whose team was so good, and scored so many runs, and dominated teams, that his ERA was HIGHER than what it normally would have been?
Take for example Whitey Ford, who played for Yankees teams that were just killers, they dominated the league in some years with superior hitters, and for a number of years. How many games did Ford pitch whereby the Yankees had an insurmountable lead, and Ford just grooved the baseball, let them hit it, maybe they scored a few runs but who cares, and just let some of them quickly fly out or ground out and get the game over with. Considering all that, Ford's lifetime ERA was only 2.75.
I'm not saying Whitey Ford is a top 10 pitcher, but i do think he should be higher up on any list that is only using pitcher stats to determine a ranking.
@stevek A great example of how a teams offense can undercut their pitchers performance.....case by case....2.75 ERA is masterful....MAddux, who I think was my #1 pitcher of all time had a 3.19 ERA.
Brick, I haven't read enough of your posts...but a couple chicks and some Scotch(i believe you like Scotch), and we would have a good time.
We could have an enjoyable day bowling or at the golf club. My wife of fifty years might be upset if chicks were involved or even discussed so I'll leave them to you. I do not drink scotch. I am a Bud Lite drinking common construction worker proud of the fact I worked my way up to lower middle class...well, to be honest... upper ghetto.
@stevek said:
I'm not sure if the following point was addressed or not? I think we all clearly understand that a pitcher can play for low run scoring teams and lose games that he should have won with a team that could score more runs. But how about a pitcher whose team was so good, and scored so many runs, and dominated teams, that his ERA was HIGHER than what it normally would have been?
Take for example Whitey Ford, who played for Yankees teams that were just killers, they dominated the league in some years with superior hitters, and for a number of years. How many games did Ford pitch whereby the Yankees had an insurmountable lead, and Ford just grooved the baseball, let them hit it, maybe they scored a few runs but who cares, and just let some of them quickly fly out or ground out and get the game over with. Considering all that, Ford's lifetime ERA was only 2.75.
I'm not saying Whitey Ford is a top 10 pitcher, but i do think he should be higher up on any list that is only using pitcher stats to determine a ranking.
What most people don't know was Casey Stengel tried to Pitch Whitey in the toughest situations against the best pitchers and he still had a great winning percentage. When Ralph Houk took over and let him pitch every fourth day he won 25 games.
This is a fact you can't get from a statistic.
Whitey is under rated, could have won a lot more games, but I can't prove it!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Ford was a great pitcher, but I'm comfortable with where he landed in the ranking (28th). The ceiling he bumps up against is the length of his career; he has only 12 full seasons and just over 3,000 innings. Weight peak value higher and career value lower and Ford could probably get close to top 20; I don't think there's any way to get him higher than that without ignoring career value entirely.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think 28 is fine, actually better than many would rank him.
Ford could have made another 7 starts a year from about 1953-60 maybe another 30 wins? Two years missed due to military......30 more? Gives him a theoretical 300 wins and an awesome winning % (I know, Yankees scored a lot of runs).
After reading several books about the Yankees of Whitey's era, I realized he kind of got screwed by Stengel. Casey did not care about any of his ballplayers careers, only about winning. As it should have been.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Poor examples. Team dependent outcomes. Its not about feeling good, its about evaluating the ability of the player. Although the baseball example would be represented with Win Probability Added, as you get knocked for making an out in that situation.
Bowling an average game means you are an average bowler. Whether your team won or loss was highly dependant on your teammates. Crappier teammates, then your three strikes at the end doesn't give you a chance to win. Period. Better teammates mean your three strikes at the end would have been a moot point since you would have won anyway. So that should have no reflection on how good a bowler YOU are. Your average score however, would tell you EXACTLY how good a bowler you are.
So yes, it is about being on the wrong side of stupid with W/L record. With all the information available right there, and still making comments that border on stupidity. Yes.
joebanzi, you can be on Bricks team in the bowling challenge I presented above, then you can report how happy you are after handing over $10,000 because your teammates were not as good as mine.
When you win you feel good, when you play great and lose.....not so much.
First, I want to make clear that I agree that W-L records can be misleading.
The fact is your stats are great, but they are not proof, great evidence I'll be the first to agree. Any pitcher that wins 300 games in a career is great. Could your buddy "Catfish" have pitched better in 1973 if he needed to? We will never know, he didn't have to. Holtzman was a better pitcher in 1973 than "Catfish" but his team scored an entire run per game less for him.
My examples were great not poor, you just refuse to accept them because they support a different, yet valid point of view. You WON'T win the bowling because your great bowlers will have to give our team "marks" to even thing out! ;-) I think I would enjoy bowling with "Brick" and I could only afford to lose $10.00 so that would be ok too! LOL
You posted Bert Blyleven got average run support in 1973. True, BUT when I looked at game by game results they scored 32 runs (about 20% of runs) in three of his wins, looks like they scored about 165 for him the entire year.
Can't argue with the 4.2 runs per game for his 40 total starts, but in 37 of them he got 3.6 runs per game. 8% of his run support came in one game.
Happy Valentines day! I'll be grilling rib-eyes later with my wife.
Obviously. Nobody is arguing that. It is the person's contribution and value to the win is what is being discussed. In other words, how good they are. A pitcher who gets credited with a win is not solely responsible for that win in the standings. Each player in the game either added to, or took away, parts of that win. A pitcher who throws nine shutout innings is going to be of great importance to the win, and in cases like that, getting a W in their W/L record is actually pretty indicative of their value.
The majority of other wins they are credited with are of vastly different importance on their contribution to the outcome of a team's win. There are time where a pitcher can get a win, and be of a detriment in contributing to the teams win, and in cases like that, adding a W to their W/L record is not only silly, but completely moronic.
Then there are all the starts of varying degree mixed in between.
Jack Morris gets hailed for that one great World Series game, and he pitched OUTSTANDING. If 200 of his career wins were of THAT variety, then his W/L would reflect his value. However, he was a leader in the cheap wins category...so his value based on his W/L record is simply wrong. Wrong any in measure possible, including common sense.
I see you agree about W/L record so no need to beat a dead horse.
Haddix pitches 12 perfect innings, but loses
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/haddix-pitches-12-perfect-innings-but-loses
QUESTION~ IF you need 1 pitcher to grace the cover of MLB as the greatest pitcher of ALL TIME....WHO are you putting on the cover?????? Just the name ...no need to pontificate.
Cy Young
Greg Maddux
Pontificate, i forget his first name, was a really good pitcher.
Seriously...i gotta break it up into two categories:
To win one game - Koufax in his prime, not even debatable.
For a career - Steve Carlton, and there are around seven or eight others who debatable are close.
Jack Morris
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
In MLB each team manager sets his own lineup. He does not pick the other teams lineup. Whether he has a pitcher some feel is overrated or underrated he puts the best team on the field behind him. I still believe that really good pitchers will win quite a bit more than really bad pitchers.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
....and the proper stats will measure THEIR ability, and the invalid stats(wins) will measure their ability AND the team's ability (to a great extent). Until we have the bowling and golf outings, where you feel it first hand....you may not truly understand.
Jack Morris was not a really good pitcher(until you define the terms of "really good" and not use 'wins' to make that definition), as Morris was the master of cheap wins, because he received run support better than almost any of his peers. I haven't looked, but I know I will be hard pressed to find another pitcher to receive better than average run support nearly EVERY year of their career(16 out of 18 years). Yet, many dopes(including some former players who voted on the veterans committee), held him in higher esteem than other BETTER pitchers because of Morris's (I mean the Tigers) win total!
I would actually like to challenge Morris himself. He himself spouts nonsense when he talks. The challenge: He pitches for one team, and I pitch for another team. I will pick his teammates and my teammates...and since Morris 'knows how to win' he should be able to beat me(and I was not a pro pitcher). So, Jack Morris, here is your call. Show me that you know how to win and that YOU are the reason why your WP% was so good.
. I will bet each of our life savings on the game....assuming he didn't piss his away.
PS, I just liked a SteveK post...and I heard sports talk people using ERA+ in a discussion...hell may have frozen over. Actually, in 20 years, when people have not grown up on 'wins' and 'RBI' as the defining stats...this resistance to the better measurements will be gone. It's good to see that some Free Agents like Arrieta are not getting the huge money they thought they would get, because many GM's are getting smarter. It isn't collusion.
Scott Bor'ass' even had the gall to compare Arrieta to Scherzer based on a couple post season starts Arrieta had, and then said Arrieta should get Scherzer money. GM's aren't buying it. Good for them.
And Joebanzi, I suck at bowling, and believe it or not, despite our exchanges on here, I know you and I would have a good time drinking and bowling. Brick, I haven't read enough of your posts...but a couple chicks and some Scotch(i believe you like Scotch), and we would have a good time.
Perkdog, I haven't heard from you and I know you love the old school stats, and I don't care, lol. You present it well. You are like the Dean Martin of Old School stats. It doesn't matter what you say, it will still sound smooth. We would kill it on a night out.
I'm not sure if the following point was addressed or not? I think we all clearly understand that a pitcher can play for low run scoring teams and lose games that he should have won with a team that could score more runs. But how about a pitcher whose team was so good, and scored so many runs, and dominated teams, that his ERA was HIGHER than what it normally would have been?
Take for example Whitey Ford, who played for Yankees teams that were just killers, they dominated the league in some years with superior hitters, and for a number of years. How many games did Ford pitch whereby the Yankees had an insurmountable lead, and Ford just grooved the baseball, let them hit it, maybe they scored a few runs but who cares, and just let some of them quickly fly out or ground out and get the game over with. Considering all that, Ford's lifetime ERA was only 2.75.
I'm not saying Whitey Ford is a top 10 pitcher, but i do think he should be higher up on any list that is only using pitcher stats to determine a ranking.
@stevek A great example of how a teams offense can undercut their pitchers performance.....case by case....2.75 ERA is masterful....MAddux, who I think was my #1 pitcher of all time had a 3.19 ERA.
Brick, I haven't read enough of your posts...but a couple chicks and some Scotch(i believe you like Scotch), and we would have a good time.
We could have an enjoyable day bowling or at the golf club. My wife of fifty years might be upset if chicks were involved or even discussed so I'll leave them to you. I do not drink scotch. I am a Bud Lite drinking common construction worker proud of the fact I worked my way up to lower middle class...well, to be honest... upper ghetto.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
What most people don't know was Casey Stengel tried to Pitch Whitey in the toughest situations against the best pitchers and he still had a great winning percentage. When Ralph Houk took over and let him pitch every fourth day he won 25 games.
This is a fact you can't get from a statistic.
Whitey is under rated, could have won a lot more games, but I can't prove it!
Ford was a great pitcher, but I'm comfortable with where he landed in the ranking (28th). The ceiling he bumps up against is the length of his career; he has only 12 full seasons and just over 3,000 innings. Weight peak value higher and career value lower and Ford could probably get close to top 20; I don't think there's any way to get him higher than that without ignoring career value entirely.
I think 28 is fine, actually better than many would rank him.
Ford could have made another 7 starts a year from about 1953-60 maybe another 30 wins? Two years missed due to military......30 more? Gives him a theoretical 300 wins and an awesome winning % (I know, Yankees scored a lot of runs).
After reading several books about the Yankees of Whitey's era, I realized he kind of got screwed by Stengel. Casey did not care about any of his ballplayers careers, only about winning. As it should have been.
Yankees offense over shadowed this career 2.75 ERA...