Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record. You also need more info than ERA. Or ERA+, or whatever.
I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher. But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes. I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible. I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.
As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at. Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose. It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
If a stat tells us absolutely nothing, why not ignore it?
Because it doesn't tell us absolutely nothing. I could repeat what it tells us but, as I said "repeat", that seems absolutely pointless.
Ignoring a stat because you don't like it is dumb. Which, quite honestly, describes you.
Do you use w-l records when evaluating closer performance? e.g.,
who was better:
closer who went 0-6 (w-l) with 45/51 saves/opps , 1.50 ERA
closer who went 1-0 (w-l) with 45/51 saves/opps, 1.50 ERA
with every other stat in the history of the world identical.
Do you ignore w-l record because it's dumb, and say they both ruled, or do you conclude the 1-0 guy was a better pitcher?