Julio Urias Topic

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/27/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I was talking about wiley in this case...
first of all, its wylie, not wiley and second of all, I was kidding when I said who cares about wins. Wins do mean something, but they are not all that matters.
5/28/2016 12:34 AM
Posted by sjpoker on 5/27/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/27/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):
I never said he has middle-of-the-road stuff. I said he doesn't have 3 plus-plus pitches. I'm saying he has Zach Greinke stuff, not Clayton Kershaw stuff.

If anything, the Cliff Lee comp makes my point for me. I think most fans would agree that he basically made something very close to the most he could have out of his arm. Cliff Lee won 1 Cy Young award and, barring a wildly unexpected career renaissance, is likely not a HOF candidate. He has 143 career wins and that's likely it for him.

Again, those numbers are good. But I think if you asked a bunch of Dodgers fans how they'd feel about Urias winning 143 games in his career, they'd mostly think you were horribly lowballing the guy. I'm not saying I don't like him, but I think people get too excited about prospects. They're called prospects for a reason, and the highest-touted guys fail to live up to expectations far more often than not. This seems like a particularly egregious case because of the relatively limited upside to Urias relative to a lot of top pitching prospects.
Again. Dahsebedeter says Urias doesn't have 3 ++ pitches but the people who know say he does.

And you say you 'feel' like he's gonna be average. But - again - others in the know say he's special. He has a feel for the zone.

That said, I generally agree with what you are saying. But your fixation on wins is retarded. If you don't think so, google "Nolan Ryan 1987' and then get back to me about how great wins are.

And this is for BL - you're ******* right if you think that if dahs comes back with anything about 'Nolan Ryan 1987' I will absolutely make the argument that he was the best pitcher in baseball that year - no matter what WAR and ERA+ say about it.
Show me where I said he's going to be average. I don't know if you're being intentionally dense or if you're really this dumb.

Also, I've made the exact same 1987 Nolan Ryan argument, in this forum, discussing Cy Young contenders. But over larger sample sizes wins are a reasonable quick and dirty approximation for how much value a pitcher contributed. If you know a starting pitcher had well under 200 wins you know there would have to be fairly exceptional circumstances for him to be a HOFer. Sandy Koufax makes sense - he retired at 30 from injury but had 3 Cys in his last 4 seasons. Cliff Lee got pushed out due to injury at what, 37 or so? And 1 Cy.

Sure, win counting doesn't necessarily inherently say how good you were. But it contains information. Given that there are no 20th-century SPs with as few wins as Cliff Lee in the HOF, it certainly feels significant. There are 57 guys, if you include Cy Young and not Dennis Eckersley. They all won at least 150 games. Even Eck won 197 games. In fact, of the 57 guys, only Koufax, Joss, and Dizzy Dean won fewer than 189 games. They were all basically out of MLB before their 31st birthdays for varying reasons. Dean, at least, probably shouldn't be in at all.

Cliff Lee's career wins are significant in a discussion of how close he was to being HOF-worthy, whether you like it or not. They don't inherently disqualify him, but they're a huge hint.
5/28/2016 1:04 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2016 10:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2016 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):
BL has said multiple times that wins for pitchers are meaningless.
Which is true. It's a pointless stat.
Right.

If all you know is that a starting pitcher went 21-3 for a season, there's absolutely no way to determine if he's any good or not.

Right?
You can guess that he was probably pretty good. But you don't know for sure. And you don't know how good he was. Seems like a dumb way to make an evaluation.

If a guy threw 200 inings with a 3.10 ERA and and 1.03 WHIP, do you learn any more about his performance by knowing his record? I don't think so. Was he better if his record was 16-8 instead of 12-11?
5/28/2016 1:22 AM
"But you don't know for sure".

So if you were presented with two pitchers, and all you were told was that one went 21-3 and the other went 2-17, there would still be some doubt in your mind on who had the better season?
5/28/2016 7:08 AM
This is retarded. I think I've said this before.

There are no ****** 200 win pitchers or, in individual seasons, 20 win pitchers.
5/28/2016 7:18 AM
I know.

I just like to see him keep saying it.

Does that make me a bad person?
5/28/2016 7:29 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/28/2016 1:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by sjpoker on 5/27/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/27/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):
I never said he has middle-of-the-road stuff. I said he doesn't have 3 plus-plus pitches. I'm saying he has Zach Greinke stuff, not Clayton Kershaw stuff.

If anything, the Cliff Lee comp makes my point for me. I think most fans would agree that he basically made something very close to the most he could have out of his arm. Cliff Lee won 1 Cy Young award and, barring a wildly unexpected career renaissance, is likely not a HOF candidate. He has 143 career wins and that's likely it for him.

Again, those numbers are good. But I think if you asked a bunch of Dodgers fans how they'd feel about Urias winning 143 games in his career, they'd mostly think you were horribly lowballing the guy. I'm not saying I don't like him, but I think people get too excited about prospects. They're called prospects for a reason, and the highest-touted guys fail to live up to expectations far more often than not. This seems like a particularly egregious case because of the relatively limited upside to Urias relative to a lot of top pitching prospects.
Again. Dahsebedeter says Urias doesn't have 3 ++ pitches but the people who know say he does.

And you say you 'feel' like he's gonna be average. But - again - others in the know say he's special. He has a feel for the zone.

That said, I generally agree with what you are saying. But your fixation on wins is retarded. If you don't think so, google "Nolan Ryan 1987' and then get back to me about how great wins are.

And this is for BL - you're ******* right if you think that if dahs comes back with anything about 'Nolan Ryan 1987' I will absolutely make the argument that he was the best pitcher in baseball that year - no matter what WAR and ERA+ say about it.
Show me where I said he's going to be average. I don't know if you're being intentionally dense or if you're really this dumb.

Also, I've made the exact same 1987 Nolan Ryan argument, in this forum, discussing Cy Young contenders. But over larger sample sizes wins are a reasonable quick and dirty approximation for how much value a pitcher contributed. If you know a starting pitcher had well under 200 wins you know there would have to be fairly exceptional circumstances for him to be a HOFer. Sandy Koufax makes sense - he retired at 30 from injury but had 3 Cys in his last 4 seasons. Cliff Lee got pushed out due to injury at what, 37 or so? And 1 Cy.

Sure, win counting doesn't necessarily inherently say how good you were. But it contains information. Given that there are no 20th-century SPs with as few wins as Cliff Lee in the HOF, it certainly feels significant. There are 57 guys, if you include Cy Young and not Dennis Eckersley. They all won at least 150 games. Even Eck won 197 games. In fact, of the 57 guys, only Koufax, Joss, and Dizzy Dean won fewer than 189 games. They were all basically out of MLB before their 31st birthdays for varying reasons. Dean, at least, probably shouldn't be in at all.

Cliff Lee's career wins are significant in a discussion of how close he was to being HOF-worthy, whether you like it or not. They don't inherently disqualify him, but they're a huge hint.
Win counting is a very broad indicator. If someone has 300 wins then they - can't - possibly be mediocre. But using it as a basis of standard comparison is retarded.
5/28/2016 9:32 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2016 7:08:00 AM (view original):
"But you don't know for sure".

So if you were presented with two pitchers, and all you were told was that one went 21-3 and the other went 2-17, there would still be some doubt in your mind on who had the better season?
I would guess that the first pitcher was better but I wouldn't know for sure.
5/28/2016 10:09 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2016 7:08:00 AM (view original):
"But you don't know for sure".

So if you were presented with two pitchers, and all you were told was that one went 21-3 and the other went 2-17, there would still be some doubt in your mind on who had the better season?
I would guess that the first pitcher was better but I wouldn't know for sure.
Expanding on this, no stat is perfect or, by itself, tells you everything you need to know. But I don't think anyone would disagree that some are much better than others. A pitcher's win/loss record is so inexact that it is worthless as an evaluation tool.
5/28/2016 11:01 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2016 7:08:00 AM (view original):
"But you don't know for sure".

So if you were presented with two pitchers, and all you were told was that one went 21-3 and the other went 2-17, there would still be some doubt in your mind on who had the better season?
I would guess that the first pitcher was better but I wouldn't know for sure.
"I wouldn't know for sure".
5/28/2016 12:23 PM
And neither would you. You'd be guessing.
5/28/2016 12:28 PM
In the history of baseball, can someone find me an example of a ****** 21-3 or outstanding 2-17 pitcher?
5/28/2016 12:44 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
And neither would you. You'd be guessing.
Well, since I understand baseball (unlike you), my "guess" would likely be pretty accurate.
5/28/2016 12:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In the history of baseball, can someone find me an example of a ****** 21-3 or outstanding 2-17 pitcher?
What's their FIP?
5/28/2016 12:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In the history of baseball, can someone find me an example of a ****** 21-3 or outstanding 2-17 pitcher?
Well I can't speak to the extremes that you phrased that, but I queried a few things and -

Vern Kennedy CHA 1936 went 21-9 and he wasn't the most effective pitcher. He was actually pretty bad.
also -
Kenny Rogers 2004 18-9
Roxie Lawson 1937 18-7
Ray Kremer Pit 1930 20-12
Aaron Sele Tex 1999 18-9
Kevin Tapani CHN 1998 19-9

The guys were at least league average or better but had horrendous records -
Gene Schott Cin 1937 4-13
Jim Pastorius Bro 1908 4-20
Frank Allen Bro 1913 4-18

So I do think that while wins can 'reasonably' show effectiveness, they are hardly the best indicator.

5/28/2016 1:29 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...16 Next ▸
Julio Urias Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.