Posted by burnsy483 on 12/6/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/6/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Well, it's a counting stat. The more playing time you get, the higher the number. But it's a +/- type thing, so just being in more high leverage situations doesn't automatically lead to a higher number, as failure in those situations brings the number down.

Fangraphs definition

Right, but pitchers generally succeed more often than they fail.

So?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/6/2012 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/6/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/6/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Well, it's a counting stat. The more playing time you get, the higher the number. But it's a +/- type thing, so just being in more high leverage situations doesn't automatically lead to a higher number, as failure in those situations brings the number down.

Fangraphs definition

Right, but pitchers generally succeed more often than they fail.

So?

So if Verlander has the highest WPA it doesn't necessarily mean he's better in high-leverage situations. It probably means he has the most opportunities.

If he wasn't good in the high leverage situations, his WPA would be a lot lower.

I think you might need this too

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-WPA?urn=mlb,209597

Pitchers generally succeed. They get outs often than not. So if theyre in more of these situations than others, they succeed more often, and the score will be higher.

I'm still waiting for your point.

Who is better in high leverage situations - the pitcher who batters hit .250 off, (25 for 100) or the guy who batters hit .200 off, (15 for 75)?

From my understanding, the first pitcher will have a better WPA.

I don't know, I don't think you understand it.

The LI changes depending on the situation.

For example, Verlander pitched a low leverage game on 6/19/12 and got very little WPA for it. On 4/16/12 he pitched a high leverage game and got over 0.5 WPA for it.

Conversely, he pitched a low leverage game on 7/15/12 and got 0.45 WPA for it.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/6/2012 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by inkdskn on 12/6/2012 7:08:00 PM (view original):
OK.

Do you think w-l has more value than allowing a person to guess how a pitcher performed, e.g., in 'high-leverage' situations?

That's the only point that I think has been made by pro-w/l posts here. I don't put much value in that because the guess is likely to be incorrect for a myriad of reasons. Do you see more in it than that?

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. But yes, I think W-L record has more value than allowing anyone to guess how a pitcher preformed.

Your examples thus far have shown how, in theory, a guy with a higher ERA and better w/l could reasonably be called a better pitcher than someone else with a better ERA, but worse w/l. However, their stats don't inherently reflect that--the scenarios require explicit knowledge of how both guys threw in different game situations all year (in other words, the guy with the better ERA and worse w/l could easily have been better 'when it mattered,' as you know).

Could the w/l of the two pitchers be consistent with the scenarios you describe? Sure, the guy who threw better 'when it mattered' may well get more wins. However, could the exact opposite also be true? Yes. W/L doesn't actually tell you any of the hypotheticals you've brought up.

Your posts suggest that a reasonable person can guess that a pitcher with a better w/l record 'pitched to the situation' better than someone else who had a worse w/l but better ERA. And while that's true, that guess is at least as likely to be wrong than correct.

Please explain what value you see in w/l beyond that. The fact w-l is a function of so many things completely beyond a pitcher's control (managerial attitude, bullpen, offense), renders using w/l as a useful metric to measure individual performance useless in my eyes, particularly when w/l shows higher correlation to them than to effective pitching.

His average LI for 2012 was 1.03, slightly above average (1.00).

Your posts suggest that a reasonable person can guess that a pitcher with a better w/l record 'pitched to the situation' better than someone else who had a worse w/l but better ERA. And while that's true, that guess is at least as likely to be wrong than correct.

Statistically it is FAR more likely to be correct.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/6/2012 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Your posts suggest that a reasonable person can guess that a pitcher with a better w/l record 'pitched to the situation' better than someone else who had a worse w/l but better ERA. And while that's true, that guess is at least as likely to be wrong than correct.

Statistically it is FAR more likely to be correct.

Yes, I'm assuming this to be true.  I'm not doing a study on it, if you want to, go nuts.