Metrics mania.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Felix had a great year. No question his won / loss record would have been better if he pitched for a better team. I have no problem with him getting the award.

    But if they reversed teams, and Buchholz pitched in Seattle, with the Seattle defense, and Felix pitched in Fenway, with our defense, Buchholz would've had a far better ERA.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

     UZR uses standardized zones and tabulates plays made in the zone, plays not made in the zone, and plays made out of the zone.  It is not "some guy's opinion."  In fact, that is how errors are assigned, not UZR.   Al of this "watch the games" is nice, but how do you compare defensive players you rarely or never see?   I like the fact taht someone has made the ffort to tabulate every play involving that player and assigned a value relative to the league average.  There is much less subjectivity in UZR than there is in errors, believe it or not.   Certainly you have seen errors assigned or not assigned many times and disagreed with the scoring decision.   UZR ceratinly has its flaws, and seems to be a very poor measurement for outfielders.  This is not a surprise as the system was designed for infield defense, and accomodates that situation pretty well.

     

    Counting putouts and assists operates on the assumption that all players have the same number of opportunities.  Fielding percentage is also useless.  How many times does a SS get the assigned error because the 1B could not handle a relatively simple throw?  How many times does a SS have a poor throw salvaged by an elite fielding 1B?   Does having a good 1B mean the SS has better defensive ability?

    Nice job, notin.

    The posters who rely on Fld% seem to think that numbert is a rock solid objective stat. It is far from it, and even if it was 100% accurate and consistent, it does not take into account the amount of realsitic chances that player had to make a play. To me, this is the biggest key to great defensive play, particularly at the SS position. If two SS happen to both have exactly 1300 balls hit into their area that were, in theory, playable by an exceptionally ranged SS, and player A gets to 1,000 of them and makes just 10 errors, his flg% is .990 and many here call him great, but player B may get to 1200 of those same exact plays and make 24 errors, maybe some because he threw off balance of dropped a pop up the other guy never could even get to. His flg% would be .980, "way below" player A, but he made 188 more plays! (200 plays -12 more errors). I'll go to my grave defending SS B as being vastly better than SS A with the better Flg%.

    Using total assists and put outs can be decieving as well. Say SS A makes 1200 Put outs + A's, but had 1,500 playable chances, but SS B made only 1,100 Put O's + A's. A is better, right? Well, not if player B had only 1,300 playable chances. Player B made 1100/1300 (85%) vs Player A who made 1200/1500 (80%). Yes, there is some subjectivity involved with UZR/150, but certainly no more or less than Fld%, and the point is, these guys are trained to be consistent, have no team loyalty issues like a home scorer often does, and they watch and chart every play of every team every day. No casual fans can watch what many other SSs do all year long, they see a handful of games here and there by opposing SSs, so their point of reference will almost always be severely limited.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I have come to believe that ERA+ is a more useful stat than simple ERA. That takes into account where the pitcher plays. ERA is next in line.

    Yes, but it doesn't take into account the fielders behind him, the strength of batters he faced vs other pitchers, and other factors, like who his catcher is, how his pen handles the inherited runners, who his manager is, etc...

    All stats are flawed, even the traditional ones, but stats like ERA+ do make one needed adjustment (park factor). Maybe someday, someone will invent an ERA that takes more into account.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Felix had a great year. No question his won / loss record would have been better if he pitched for a better team. I have no problem with him getting the award.

    But if they reversed teams, and Buchholz pitched in Seattle, with the Seattle defense, and Felix pitched in Fenway, with our defense, Buchholz would've had a far better ERA.




       We could go on and on with if this , if that and the other thing. There are many variables both pro and con , but the variables apply to metrics just as much as to traditional stats.  My whole point is that if you look at a pitcher's won / loss record in conjunction with his ERA , you will get a good idea of his value. ERA is a telling stat, but it is also true that a pitcher has to go out and win games. Sometimes they just have to battle and out-duel the opposing pitcher.  The obsession with things like WHIP is very overrated.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Felix had a great year. No question his won / loss record would have been better if he pitched for a better team. I have no problem with him getting the award.

    But if they reversed teams, and Buchholz pitched in Seattle, with the Seattle defense, and Felix pitched in Fenway, with our defense, Buchholz would've had a far better ERA.

     




       We could go on and on with if this , if that and the other thing. There are many variables both pro and con , but the variables apply to metrics just as much as to traditional stats.  My whole point is that if you look at a pitcher's won / loss record in conjunction with his ERA , you will get a good idea of his value. ERA is a telling stat, but it is also true that a pitcher has to go out and win games. Sometimes they just have to battle and out-duel the opposing pitcher.  The obsession with things like WHIP is very overrated.

     




    I would submit that when you are evaluating the value of a pitcher his W-L record is nearly irrelevant if you take into account other measures like ERA+, ERA, WHIP, K/BB etc. Everyone knew that Felix had a great year in 2010 without looking at his very ordinary 13-12 record. Its not his fault he played for a crappy team that couldn't score runs. That year the Mariners were dead last in runs scored by 100 runs behind the team above them and their team OPS was just .637. I think W-L record is THE most important TEAM statistic, but its not very important in the evaluation of an individual pitcher at all.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    WAR doesn't take into account what a player is making (see Trout). It assigns value to a player based on their WAR though. for example, Jacobys 2011 season was valued at ~40Million if i remember correctly. Trouts 2012 season is probably in the ballpark of that too.

    WAR does not "assign value". Some people use WAR to assign a monetary value to the amount of wins a player contributed over a set line of a "replacement player" value.



    i could swear on fangraphs that they have a value section with the WAR ratings (hitting, defense, baserunning)  that also includes "value". Maybe that is just fangraphs determination and has nothing to do with WAR. if so, my mistake

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     

     



    It goes without saying that those are good stats.  But all stats are relative.

     

    So the next question is, is 2.27 better than a 2.33?  From a simple perspective of <>, 2.27 is better.

    But suppose the 2.27 pitched in a great pitcher's park, and the 2.33 pitched in a hitter's park?

    And suppose the 2.27 had great fielders behind him, and the 2.33 had average fielders behind him?

    But of course, that is why they created FIP and x-FIP, and now you get buried in advanced stats.

    So the ultimate question is, do you want to look at 2.27 v 2.33, or do you want to be at least a little sophisticated and take into account where they play, and who they play for?  The reason why the 2.27 won the CY is because they chose his ERA over W/L, because his team didn't score for him.

    But the reason why the team didn't score for him is because of a large park and players chosen for their fielding, which is exactly why he had a 2.27 to begin with.

    And now you know the rest of the story.




    And while I get the purpose of the narrative, at thtis point you look at ERA+.

     

    Because anyone trying to argue the difference between an ERA of 2.27 and 2.33 really needs a good slap.   Those are about as equal as it gets.   Unless you want to overvalue a difference of 6 earned runs over 900 IP (or about 5 years).

     

    And my point is - I think fans lose sight at the differences in mnay stats.  In baseball, a hiter who is successful 30% of the time is at the top of the game.  A hitter who is successful 20% of the time is among the worst in the league.   That is a pretty tight range.  Can you imagine taking a class in college where students who scored 95% on a test were given A's and students who scored 85% were given F's?  

     

    We think of .280 hitters as effective and .250 hitters as weak spots in the lineup (unless they have some serious power).  But the difference between the two hitters is only 3 hits per 100 at-bats.  A batter usually gets about 100 at-bats a month (or maybe a few less), so is the difference between being considered effective and ineffective about 3 hits per month, or less than 1 hit per week?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Felix had a great year. No question his won / loss record would have been better if he pitched for a better team. I have no problem with him getting the award.

    But if they reversed teams, and Buchholz pitched in Seattle, with the Seattle defense, and Felix pitched in Fenway, with our defense, Buchholz would've had a far better ERA.

     




       We could go on and on with if this , if that and the other thing. There are many variables both pro and con , but the variables apply to metrics just as much as to traditional stats.  My whole point is that if you look at a pitcher's won / loss record in conjunction with his ERA , you will get a good idea of his value. ERA is a telling stat, but it is also true that a pitcher has to go out and win games. Sometimes they just have to battle and out-duel the opposing pitcher.  The obsession with things like WHIP is very overrated.

     



    WHIP is a way better indicator of a pitcher's skillset than W-Ls. To me, it is just as valuable as ERA. OBP against is about the same as WHIP, and Slg% against takes into consideration XBHs. I'd value both of those stats more than ERA or W-Ls.

    If I had to choose 3 stats to jusge a SP by, I'd go with (not in any order):

    1) WHIP or Opps OBP

    2) Opps Slg%

    3) ERA+

     

    W-Ls would be like 20th on my list, behind team record in GS'd.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    WAR doesn't take into account what a player is making (see Trout). It assigns value to a player based on their WAR though. for example, Jacobys 2011 season was valued at ~40Million if i remember correctly. Trouts 2012 season is probably in the ballpark of that too.

    WAR does not "assign value". Some people use WAR to assign a monetary value to the amount of wins a player contributed over a set line of a "replacement player" value.

     



    i could swear on fangraphs that they have a value section with the WAR ratings (hitting, defense, baserunning)  that also includes "value". Maybe that is just fangraphs determination and has nothing to do with WAR. if so, my mistake

     



    I think they do convert the WAR number to monetary value, but that is not the purpose of WAR per se.

    WAR is the estimated differential of wins above a replacement level player. It's a noble attempt at putting everything into one number. It is not perfect, but neither is trying to juggle 3-4+ stats in your head along with subjective views of defense, baserunning and differing influences like park factor.

    I often use OPS as a comparative stat. I know it is flawed. I know OBP is worth more than Slg% at creating runs, but it's still better than using one or the other. A better stat may be to add OBP+OBP+SLG%/3 as a better indicator of overall hitting value.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Maybe some of you love to play around with the stats more than you like to win. There are winners and there are losers. How many base runners a pitcher allows means nothing if the runs do not score. A top pitcher will raise his game in certain situations. I think  some of you have so much fun with the numbers game that you miss what it is all about.  I guess that I am hopelessly old fashioned and traditional in my thinking. But I know that results are what matters. The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning. You can over analyze things until the cows come home , but in the end , it is all about winning or losing. To say that a pitcher's won / loss record does not matter is ridiculous. You better hope that your top pitchers have good won \ loss records. No matter what the metrics may say , there are moments when winners rise to the occasion, and losers choke and make excuses. That is all I know.  ( Well , it is not all I know . I do know some other things . )  Good Night. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    W/L for pitchers would be more meaningful if the method for assigning the W or L in each game was fairer.  In yesterday's game, Dempster should have gotten the win, not Bailey. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    You'll never hear me say that the team's W-L record isn't by far the most important stat.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Maybe some of you love to play around with the stats more than you like to win.

    Saying I don't value the designation of a win or a loss to a pitcher means I do not value wins above stats is just plain ludicrous. 

    Wins and losses are team stats. Sure, a SP has a big part of who wins or losses, and I do still value the stat, but run support varries so much between starters, and many circumstances way beyond a pitcher's control play into the decision on who is awarded the win or loss.

     

    There are winners and there are losers. How many base runners a pitcher allows means nothing if the runs do not score.

    Wrong. Maybe his runners didn't score because he has a fantastic SS behind him who turned "an impossible" DP to end the inning, while another pitcher has a weak SS who didn't even get to the ball and 2 runs score-m all earned, and the team loses- "his loss".

    A top pitcher will raise his game in certain situations.

    Yes, and he induces a DP ball that is not turned into a DP due to sub[par fielding behind him. I guess he should have struck the next 2 guys out in your mind.

     

    I think  some of you have so much fun with the numbers game that you miss what it is all about.  

    You guess wrong, and this attitude really irks me. I love the game of baseball, and I played it for many years before blowing out my knee and settling on softball for another decade or so. Just because someone uses stats to prove or support his position does not mean they can't enjoy watching a game. I love all the nuances of baseball- many of which are not captured by stats, data, or analysis.

    I guess that I am hopelessly old fashioned and traditional in my thinking. But I know that results are what matters. The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning. You can over analyze things until the cows come home , but in the end , it is all about winning or losing. To say that a pitcher's won / loss record does not matter is ridiculous. You better hope that your top pitchers have good won \ loss records. No matter what the metrics may say , there are moments when winners rise to the occasion, and losers choke and make excuses. That is all I know.  ( Well , it is not all I know . I do know some other things . )  Good Night. 

    Following your logic, shouldn't team wins in your starts be the bottom line? Isn't it all about the team winning? you doing what it takes to keep your team in it? To me the team record in your starts is more important (but still down on the list) than a pitcher's W-L record. 

    It's all about wins, right?

    Good morning.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    W/L for pitchers would be more meaningful if the method for assigning the W or L in each game was fairer.  In yesterday's game, Dempster should have gotten the win, not Bailey. 



    And pitchers yanked after 4.2 IP and 1 ER get a ND, while some other pitcher let's up 2 ER in 2 IP gets it. Crazy!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Promise4you2's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    The new metrics are not meant to, nor were they ever menat to, take the place of old school stats or scouts.  They are intended to enhance and deepen our understanding of the game when used along with the traditional methods.

     

    exactly

     

     




    Exactly.  So, I don't understand why people (not you) want to disregard the new stats. 

     

    They give you a much deeper understanding of a player's performance and value than the traditional stats alone.

     

     




    A players value cannot always be measure by metrics. I rememeber playing little league ball, I was the star, the kid that played the last inning because he was on the team was also my friend. he made me smile, he made me play better and he never complained because he sat on the pine. He made me better. What metrics can account for that? the mental part of the game can never ever be measured kimmi. just my thoughts!

     



    Exactly, but just because someone pays attention and uses stats, does not mean they don't realize how much of this great game is not captured by stats or data or metrics.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Are Productive outs on any of these 100's of stats? Where a Player who plays the game right sacrifices his stats, for the benefit of the team, to win. Probably not, you never see these, unless you watch or listen to the game. Victorino yesterday, knowing infield was back to give run, worked hard just to get an out. What was important, a Run was scored.
    Nothing against stats, for quick reference, but nothing like watching the Ballplayers Play. Too many things happen in a Ballgame that will never show up on any stat sheet.



    Eactly, and just because a person like and uses stats does not mean they don't realize that much of this great game is not captured by any stat, data or metric.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.

     



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

     

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.




    A pitcher throwing a no hitter and losing is so rare that it is preposterous to use it as an example.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In the early days of Baseball, there was a lot more to be said about who got the Win or Loss. Not just because they didnt have these metrics. It truly meant more. That was the game back then. If the pitcher got tired he'd switch positions w/ someone else to finish the game. I'd hate to see WAR back then (Eeewww). The expectations were different to say the least.

     


    This argument has been around before sabermetrics. And it's, IMO, a good discussion. What's the consensus on when W/L record for SP became increasingly less meaningful? Was it 40+ years ago when the Save was introduced? Was it after WWII when relief pitchers became more common? Because most times I look at a Win as the duly-noted, icing on the cake for a SP. But that's not to say is hasn't been an interesting evolution. 

     

     

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Maybe some of you love to play around with the stats more than you like to win.

    Saying I don't value the designation of a win or a loss to a pitcher means I do not value wins above stats is just plain ludicrous. 

    Wins and losses are team stats. Sure, a SP has a big part of who wins or losses, and I do still value the stat, but run support varries so much between starters, and many circumstances way beyond a pitcher's control play into the decision on who is awarded the win or loss.

     

    There are winners and there are losers. How many base runners a pitcher allows means nothing if the runs do not score.

    Wrong. Maybe his runners didn't score because he has a fantastic SS behind him who turned "an impossible" DP to end the inning, while another pitcher has a weak SS who didn't even get to the ball and 2 runs score-m all earned, and the team loses- "his loss".

    A top pitcher will raise his game in certain situations.

    Yes, and he induces a DP ball that is not turned into a DP due to sub[par fielding behind him. I guess he should have struck the next 2 guys out in your mind.

     

    I think  some of you have so much fun with the numbers game that you miss what it is all about.  

    You guess wrong, and this attitude really irks me. I love the game of baseball, and I played it for many years before blowing out my knee and settling on softball for another decade or so. Just because someone uses stats to prove or support his position does not mean they can't enjoy watching a game. I love all the nuances of baseball- many of which are not captured by stats, data, or analysis.

    I guess that I am hopelessly old fashioned and traditional in my thinking. But I know that results are what matters. The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning. You can over analyze things until the cows come home , but in the end , it is all about winning or losing. To say that a pitcher's won / loss record does not matter is ridiculous. You better hope that your top pitchers have good won \ loss records. No matter what the metrics may say , there are moments when winners rise to the occasion, and losers choke and make excuses. That is all I know.  ( Well , it is not all I know . I do know some other things . )  Good Night. 

    Following your logic, shouldn't team wins in your starts be the bottom line? Isn't it all about the team winning? you doing what it takes to keep your team in it? To me the team record in your starts is more important (but still down on the list) than a pitcher's W-L record. 

    It's all about wins, right?

    Good morning.



    Of course it is a team win , but the pitcher is the biggest part of that. That is why the pitcher is given the win or loss.  I don't put all my faith in a pitcher's won / loss record. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that you also have to look at ERA when evaluating a pitcher's effectiveness.  If a pitcher has a good won / loss record and a low ERA, he is a top pitcher , no matter what WHIP may say.  Over the course of time , the best pitchers will be the ones with the best records and / or the lowest ERAs.  I know there is value in all of the available stats , but to suggest that a pitcher's won / loss is no more relevant than the color of his underwear , is beyond inane and preposterous. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.

     



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

     

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.

     




    A pitcher throwing a no hitter and losing is so rare that it is preposterous to use it as an example.

     



    there are examples every day of pitchers throwing great outings who shouldn't be attributed to the loss and yet still recieve one. That's why it's dumb. it's a team stat being assigned to an individual. a win/loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Interesting that in evaluating starters moonslav prefers WHIP, opposing slugging percentage, and ERA+, but apparently sees little value in innings pitched. 

    Me, I don't care so much about WHIP or opposing slugging percentage, but do care a lot about ERA and innings pitched, and I think the reasons for that would be obvious. 

    No way to measure it, but I also like a pitcher with toughness, who holds up well when his teammates butcher a play or the opposing team gets a lucky hit or the umpire is calling pitches inconsistently. 

    I entirely agree there are a lot of imponderables like how good the defense is, how solid the catcher is, how hot the other team's lineup is, how good the pitching coach and manager are, etc. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.

     



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

     

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.

     




    A pitcher throwing a no hitter and losing is so rare that it is preposterous to use it as an example.

     

     



    there are examples every day of pitchers throwing great outings who shouldn't be attributed to the loss and yet still recieve one. That's why it's dumb. it's a team stat being assigned to an individual. a win/loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher.

     




    A pitcher throwing a good game and losing is part of the game. The opposing pitcher probably was a little better. Only one can get the win. It is always interesting to watch two great pitchers go head to head. This is the last time that I am going to reiterate that ERA must be looked at along with wins and losses. A pitcher who consistently pitches well will have a good ERA. To say that a win / loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher is simply not true.

     

Share