ptatc

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 05:40 PM) I find it interesting that the sort of "statistics aren't everything" crowd are pointing to another statistic, wins, as some sort of indicator of the type of thing statistics can't depict. The thing is that the win statistic is so far removed from what the pitcher can actually control that it is essentially meaningless. It is impossible to parse out whether or not a pitcher consistently gets screwed by things out of control or if he legitimately just melts down in crucial situations. A lack of wins will happen in both of those scenarios. If you were to replace wins by saying something along he lines of scouting how the pitcher performs along with using the statistics for how he performs, I'd be able to go along with that argument. That is the point of the discussion. Believe it or not the point of the game is to win. There really hasn't been much evidence to show that any of the stats really show how much a pitcher contributes to a win. I think the SIERA is the closest. But what is the true measure of a pitcher's effectiveness? Wins are part of the formula.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 03:38 PM) You're right, a small percentage of the "failed to get the bunt down" at bats probably do turn into productive outs/hits, but those also include times when the bunt was unsuccessful and resulted in a popup/foulout/otherwise out without advancing the runner. Statistically the bunts don't make much sense in many cases. However, with how bad the offense has been I don't blame them for just trying something to change it up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 04:15 PM) That is the point you aren't seeing. If you dismiss the ability to "win" as a skill than there will be no context we can provide that you simply won't either attribute to other factors or dismiss as not meaningful. Are there not some pitchers whose W-L record would belie some other more "contextual" stats which one could study to determine if they possessed some sort of inherent ability to retain a lead or simply to win? Dammit! I typed for 20 minutes trying to say something and you said it in a single sentence. I'm awful at articulating my thoughts in writing. can you edit my research papers before I send them to the journals?

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 03:51 PM) Because I still can't think of an example where W-L record actually adds to the discussion. Looking at W-L record tells you nothing about how good a pitcher is. Yes, the good pitchers tend to have good records and the bad pitchers tend to have bad records, but there's way too many examples where it lies to be meaningful. Shelby Miller led the MLB in losses last year at 6-17 and yet was one of the best pitchers in baseball. Drew Hutchison had the 7th worst ERA last year among SP with at least 100 IP yet he had a 13-5 record. All the variables pointed out in this thread (how deep a pitcher goes into games, how he pitches in close games/high leverage situations, etc.) are important but can't be gleaned from a pitcher's W-L record (and for every example of a pitcher who didn't get wins because he didn't go deep enough into games or pitched poorly in close games, there's a counter-example of a pitcher who did the same but was bailed out by their offense). If a pitchers' W-L record tells me nothing about how well a pitcher pitched, then why bother with it? A pitcher can get spotted a 5-run lead, then immediately give up 6 runs the next inning, but then be bailed out by the offense and still get the win. On the other hand, a pitcher can throw a no-hitter and give up runs due to 2 errors by the defense and take a loss. It provides zero context. Give me a specific example where it provides meaningful discussion about a pitcher, because there haven't been any in this thread to this point. not sure where you get the Miller was one of the best pitchers as his FIP, xFIP and SIERA all have him around 50th. If you only look at the number you want you are always going to find what you want. The highlighted example is true. However it's true for all stats. You can make them valid or invalid in your view. take the example we discussed earlier using xFIP. Most people will agree it's a good measure of pitchers, yet you found an example where you didn't think it was. If you want a specific example where wins could help with your decision, look at Cueto and Lester this year. Most of the peripherals are fairly even. i would look at it and give Cueto the edge because of the wins. You will find soemthing else you deem more important to make the decision. you are giving many examples where wins are influenced by other factors, all of which is true. However, when it comes down to it all pitchers want to win and the win also effects all of those. In a tight game they pitch differently than in a blowout. Use the example of Sale he has said all he wants to do is pitch in the playoffs. This is predicated on him winning not having the best BABIP, HR%, FIP, WAR or anything else. He will pitch differently in all of those scenarios. So the win is actually determining his peripherals in many different ways. I think the overall issue is: How do you determine if a pitcher has pitched well? This is truly the discussion. Has he pitched well if he strikes out x number of hitters? walked fewer? To me a primary factor is did the team win the game. Did he contribute to the win. This is why I like the SIERA stat as it looks and many of the variables that the pitcher can control. So to answer your question, if you are trying to put wins in a true equation: Wins+FIPxFB/GB+(BABIP-OPS)= Cy Young, you probably can't. However, you also can't prove that any of the other stats are directly correlated to success either. However, I think the beginning and end of the conversation is how does he contribute to a win. If you can come of with an equation that determines that, now you've got something.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) 2 months into the season when Rose is battling some lingering ankle issue, missing 5 games here, 8 games there, I think we're all going to be ok with this trade. Bulls aren't winning the championship, so if this is the first of many trades to rebuild, i'm 100% ok with it. Something tells me that he wont' miss as many games next with it being his contract year.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) Wins are important, especially to the common fan. And you're right that the color announcers tend only to mention the traditional stats. Steve Stone did mention the other day that WHIP is an important stat, especially for relievers. Oftentimes you'll see a closer with a losing record but good other stats because those occasional blown saves can turn into losses. As far as Quintana, I've had to correct my wife and son multiple times when they've said that he's not very good. They're looking at his record without looking at one of the other most basic stats for a pitcher: ERA. Quintana's run support is horrendous. He's 5-7, and he has the lowest ERA on the team (2.63). The argument has been that wins don't matter as much when you're looking at a pitcher's value. That I will agree with. To say that Quintana is not nearly as valuable as Sale because he's 5-7 while Sale is 12-2 is very shortsighted. The other traditional stats and the advanced stats matter in regards to his value. This wasn't where the discussion started. Everyone will agree that wins don't matter as much as other. However, the discussion are wins meaningless thus should be totally ignored and not involved in the discussion.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Aren't we all the judges in this competition? There's so much we don't know. We weren't in Javy's head, we have no idea what he went through on his path to the big leagues, what adversity he had to overcome, what days he had to pitch over discomfort or some kind of physical ailment or when he was feeling 100% healthy. I watched him pitch too, he was as frustrating as anyone, because it was clear he had a talented arm, but there are dozens of examples of pitchers nearly every year with talented arms who also never live up to their potentials. Since there's so much we don't know, we can only make judgments on the information we do know, like the judge had to. If this is true, why just flat out ignore any information that can add to the discussion?

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/5/11...n-fly-ball-rate Quintana has pretty much always been below average in HR/FB rate (8.1% for his career, just 6.5% over the last three seasons), especially in the last three years, which xFIP normalizes. Strasburg on the other hand has always been above the league average (11.6% for his career, 12.8% over the last three seasons), as he has been a below-average contact-manager in his career and given up a lot of loud contact. Using xFIP in this comparison isn't the best, as these guys are both examples of pitchers who are consistently above or below that normalized homerun rate. Strasburg's homerun rate is nearly double Quintana's over the last three seasons, so it's not really fair to normalize their rates. The HR rate is only part of the equation for xFIP. You are pointing out the very flaw in using stats that I was talking about. They are purely dependent on what people perceive as important. XFIP may not be the best in this case in your view, however many view it as the gold standard. As stated I like the way SIERA is designed and Strasburg is the clear winner here as well as well as wins.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:25 PM) He's actually pitched at his best in high leverage situations and with runners on base this year. Ok. Since I really hadn't looked at Strasburg and Quintana until you brought it up, I need to change my answer. the two are almost identical in all stats except for 3, wins, xFIP and the pitching stat i think is the most telling of performance SIERA. Strasburg has a big lead in all three of those. Giving Quintana credit for being in the AL, i need to go with Strasburg as having the better season.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:27 PM) What in the he!! happened to this thread since last night?? hahaha got in from NC from a track meet last night and I have a day off of work. Bad weather and I'm bored.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:25 PM) He's actually pitched at his best in high leverage situations and with runners on base this year. good. another reason why I would give him a slight edge over Strasburg.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) 100% Sorry, I just get annoyed when people want to be "progressive" and think they are ahead of the curve by just completely eliminating a statistic or data. Why would you do that? You should want as much information as possible at your disposal to make a determination on the value of whatever player you are talking about. How you use that information is up to you. Dang, i wish I could have come up with this statement. Thanks, my point exactly.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:05 PM) A woman's husband had been slipping in and out of a coma for several months, yet she had stayed by his bedside every single day. One day, when he came to, he motioned for her to come nearer. As she sat by him, he whispered, eyes full of tears, "You know what? You have been with me all through the bad times. When I got fired, you were there to support me. When my business failed, you were there. When I got shot, you were by my side. When we lost the house, you stayed right here. When my health started failing, you were still by my side. You know what?" "What dear?" she asked gently, smiling as her heart began to fill with warmth. "I think you're bad luck." Q has been a slightly sub .500 pitcher for his career and he is now in his 5th season. It is ridiculous the run support he does not get. But, Chris Sale has played behind the same team and is +27 over the same timeframe. Q is bad luck. He has had bad luck for 5 years? The researcher in me thinks there are other reasons.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 12:00 PM) So Quintana just doesn't know how to win a ballgame? Could be. How many 2 out hits do pitchers give up and people think "he just can't get that last out" In all sports there is a mental aspect to finishing. Being highly involved in running there is a huge mental game in racing vs. running.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) What kind of importance should we give them? Because even something small like 5% importance should give Strasburg the edge here. That is a good question. I'm not sure I could come up with an exact percentage. I don't think there is an exact equation for the Cy Young or best pitcher. It's just looking at the whole picture. Including competition, I would give that to the AL pitcher due to the DH alone.

not part of the discussion. Just a theory that has been out there awhile. It's one that I always come back to when the discussion of pitching comes around. I truly wanted an opinion on it. I guess instead of "serious question" i should have started it by saying On another topic" or something like that.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:40 AM) Baseball-sized hail during the bottom half of the first few innings, only in the outfield seating areas between foul poles. Even better than the other comments.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:49 AM) If you agree that Quintana has been slightly better, then why all the arguments in favor of W-L record? Their numbers are close enough that if pitchers' wins mattered even a little bit then that should give Strasburg the edge, considering his record is way better than Quintana's. I'm saying the wins needs to be considered. I'm not saying it is the only factor or even the most important. I just disagree that it is meaningless and shouldn't be part of the process.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) I think I'm done here. This is a serious question. Do you think it would be more effective to take the starting pitchers and pitch them 3 innings each as the Cubs tried at one point? This way the can go lights out for three innings then come back just 2 days later? This way you could have 6 starting pitchers for 3 days and have the bullpen cover the other 3? I always go back to that theory and wonder if it could be effective.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) Quintana has been slightly better. Both are fantastic though. Agreed.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:42 AM) Yeah, I put 0 value on pitcher wins. I only know Sale has 12 because it gets mentioned a lot. I honestly don't have a single clue how many wins ANY other pitcher has in baseball, or how many wins anyone had last year, White Sox or otherwise. I've successfully managed to push that meaningless statistic out of my mind. This is a mistake and you are missing the importance of the starting pitcher.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:33 AM) But since Quintana does go deep enough into games, then why should the lack of run support need to be considered? He has no control over it. In 2006, Jon Garland finished with a better record than he did in 2005, even though his ERA rose by more than a run. Why should he get credit for that? Does he have control over how many runs the other teams score? I'm sure the lack of run support changes the way he pitches and a great deal of support would change the way he pitches as well. for the Garland case, maybe he had really good run support so to help the team he gave up some runs but stayed in games longer to save the bullpen and help win other games later. He may have been able to have better stats if he just left the game because he wasn't pitching as well. There are situations where pitchers stayed in games to do this and sacrificed stats. That doesn't happen as much now with the emphasis on the stats. however, this is part of the evolution of the game with 4 man pitching staffs to 5 man staffs and to the increased emphasis on the bullpen. doesn't mean i have to like it though

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:25 AM) I've already pointed out that the criticism that he doesn't go deep enough into games is wrong. Unless you think Jake Arrieta, Stephen Strasburg, David Price, Noah Syndergaard, Jose Fernandez, Marco Estrada and Cole Hamels (among many others) also don't go deep enough into games. Again, i'm not saying it's the only variable, just that it needs to be considered. This may be true so you need to look at others as well. But you just can't dismiss it outright.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) It's judging him by a measure that is completely out of his control though. This argument makes absolutely zero sense to the point where I can't believe someone is actually arguing it. If they don't score any runs, and he pitches great, he did his job. But somehow he's supposed to magically make them score more so that people can see an arbitrary number on the left side of the column under his name? It is not completely out of his control. all of the variables you described are true. however, he can control the other offense to large degree. He can pitch deep into games to give his team a chance. He can keep the lesser pitchers in the bullpen. If he is the best pitcher in the game, he should be able to do these things. however, you are correct where he cannot control everything but he does have some control. This is why wins are part of the equation not the only variable.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 11:25 AM) Obviously the journalist/voters do. That's why a couple of us were dismissive of quinarvy about Quintana and the Cy Young when a lot of us know, it'll be Sale since he has the wins. Hell, Sale had s great shot a couple of years ago and actually put up better peripherals but lost. Same with Kershaw vs Arrieta last year. I would agree. wins aren't the only thing to look at and can be deceiving. That is why they are just part of the equation.