Posted by sjpoker on 5/29/2016 12:09:00 AM (view original):
The best (and it's not perfect) stat for pitching comparisons IMO is ABA. WHIP is too imperfect. And ERA has its own issues.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):
They weren't "pretty much the same." They were exactly the same. Their win/loss added nothing.

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but that's true for all other pitchers. Once you have things like games started, innings, ERA, WHIP (and maybe some k/bb/hr rates), pitcher win/loss adds nothing of value. And, if you don't have those other pieces of info, win/loss is too inexact to tell you anything useful, other than maybe the most extreme situations. And in those extreme examples, you're still guessing.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 5/29/2016 12:09:00 AM (view original):
The best (and it's not perfect) stat for pitching comparisons IMO is ABA. WHIP is too imperfect. And ERA has its own issues.

ABA?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):
They weren't "pretty much the same." They were exactly the same. Their win/loss added nothing.

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but that's true for all other pitchers. Once you have things like games started, innings, ERA, WHIP (and maybe some k/bb/hr rates), pitcher win/loss adds nothing of value. And, if you don't have those other pieces of info, win/loss is too inexact to tell you anything useful, other than maybe the most extreme situations. And in those extreme examples, you're still guessing.

Oh, that's fascinating.

So what you're saying is that looking a multiple stats tells you a lot more about a player than looking at one single stat?

I guess that would make anybody who focuses on a single stat, like WAR, look like a ******* idiot. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):
They weren't "pretty much the same." They were exactly the same. Their win/loss added nothing.

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but that's true for all other pitchers. Once you have things like games started, innings, ERA, WHIP (and maybe some k/bb/hr rates), pitcher win/loss adds nothing of value. And, if you don't have those other pieces of info, win/loss is too inexact to tell you anything useful, other than maybe the most extreme situations. And in those extreme examples, you're still guessing.

Oh, that's fascinating.

So what you're saying is that looking a multiple stats tells you a lot more about a player than looking at one single stat?

I guess that would make anybody who focuses on a single stat, like WAR, look like a ******* idiot. Wouldn't you agree?

Great. So can we put away the pitcher win argument or do you want to continue to argue that the stat is useful?

Using multiple stats is always preferred. WAR is a nice shorthand because it includes offense and defense but I don't have a problem including other stats with it.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):
They weren't "pretty much the same." They were exactly the same. Their win/loss added nothing.

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but that's true for all other pitchers. Once you have things like games started, innings, ERA, WHIP (and maybe some k/bb/hr rates), pitcher win/loss adds nothing of value. And, if you don't have those other pieces of info, win/loss is too inexact to tell you anything useful, other than maybe the most extreme situations. And in those extreme examples, you're still guessing.

Oh, that's fascinating.

So what you're saying is that looking a multiple stats tells you a lot more about a player than looking at one single stat?

I guess that would make anybody who focuses on a single stat, like WAR, look like a ******* idiot. Wouldn't you agree?

Great. So can we put away the pitcher win argument or do you want to continue to argue that the stat is useful?

Using multiple stats is always preferred. WAR is a nice shorthand because it includes offense and defense but I don't have a problem including other stats with it.

Pitchers W/L for starting pitchers is useful at a broad level. Anybody who understands baseball would agree. Baseball is a game for smart people. It's OK that you don't understand it.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):
They weren't "pretty much the same." They were exactly the same. Their win/loss added nothing.

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but that's true for all other pitchers. Once you have things like games started, innings, ERA, WHIP (and maybe some k/bb/hr rates), pitcher win/loss adds nothing of value. And, if you don't have those other pieces of info, win/loss is too inexact to tell you anything useful, other than maybe the most extreme situations. And in those extreme examples, you're still guessing.

Oh, that's fascinating.

So what you're saying is that looking a multiple stats tells you a lot more about a player than looking at one single stat?

I guess that would make anybody who focuses on a single stat, like WAR, look like a ******* idiot. Wouldn't you agree?

Great. So can we put away the pitcher win argument or do you want to continue to argue that the stat is useful?

Using multiple stats is always preferred. WAR is a nice shorthand because it includes offense and defense but I don't have a problem including other stats with it.

Pitchers W/L for starting pitchers is useful at a broad level. Anybody who understands baseball would agree. Baseball is a game for smart people. It's OK that you don't understand it.

Please explain how it is useful.

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.