# Wins and Losses Topic

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Bad_luck believes that advanced stats are everything.  What actually happens between the lines on the field is less important that the numbers that can be analyzed in a spreadsheet after the fact.
The problem with your very intelligent theory is that pitcher win/loss records don't tell you anything about what actually happened on the field.

Are you saying that wins and losses don't happen on the field?

Then where do they occur?

They are worthless for evaluating the pitcher's performance.
Except for that stupid "win or lose the game" thingee.
The team wins or loses the game. Assigning a W or an L to a pitcher doesn't tell you anything about what the pitcher did to contribute to the team's win or loss.
12/4/2012 11:16 AM

Does assigning WAR tell you anything about what player did to contribute to an individual win or loss?

12/4/2012 11:18 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:12:00 AM (view original):
This is amazing. I really can't believe how lucky I am to have stumbled upon the last dark corner of the internet where people still argue that a pitcher's win/loss record isn't completely worthless. What a treat. After this are you guys going to argue that the earth is flat? Or make the case for a geocentric solar system?

Because I can't take you seriously, I'm unsure when you're kidding or serious.

If a pitcher goes 21-4 for a .500 team, would you think he had a pretty solid year if you couldn't see any of his other stats?

12/4/2012 11:21 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Does assigning WAR tell you anything about what player did to contribute to an individual win or loss?

WAR is calculated, not assigned. And it's cumulative, so you can see how many fractions of a win a player contributed to an individual game.
12/4/2012 11:22 AM
You're the one who has taken a very solid argument to its ridiculous extreme. The pitcher win/loss record tells you that THE PITCHER GAVE UP LESS RUNS THAN HIS TEAM SCORED! Which is the goal of the game.

Now, being modern baseball fans, we are all perfectly aware that there are many factors that lead to wins and losses. ERA and adjusted ERA+ are superior measuring sticks. Pitchers can give up many runs and win, or give up 1 run and lose.

BUT! Pitchers pitch differently depending on the leverage in the game. If you've watched baseball, as I assume you have (because I'm not going to treat you like the ******* you've so far shown yourself to be), then you know in extremely tight games pitchers behave differently than they do in blowouts. Because they just want to win the game.

One's FIRST category when evaluating a pitcher should be a combination of ERA, ERA+, and to some extent, WHIP, K's and HRs allowed. But to treat W/L as worthless is dismissing another tool that you can use effectively to be able to fully evaluate a pitcher.
12/4/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:12:00 AM (view original):
This is amazing. I really can't believe how lucky I am to have stumbled upon the last dark corner of the internet where people still argue that a pitcher's win/loss record isn't completely worthless. What a treat. After this are you guys going to argue that the earth is flat? Or make the case for a geocentric solar system?

Because I can't take you seriously, I'm unsure when you're kidding or serious.

If a pitcher goes 21-4 for a .500 team, would you think he had a pretty solid year if you couldn't see any of his other stats?

I'm serious. This is an amazing find. If there was such a thing as a baseball archaeologist, they'd be all over this. It's like finding a lost civilization or like that terrible Brendan Fraser movie when he was in a bomb shelter for 30 years and thought he'd survived a nuclear war.
12/4/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Does assigning WAR tell you anything about what player did to contribute to an individual win or loss?

WAR is calculated, not assigned. And it's cumulative, so you can see how many fractions of a win a player contributed to an individual game.
What if he played well when they lost?   Does he get a fraction of  a win?
12/4/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:12:00 AM (view original):
This is amazing. I really can't believe how lucky I am to have stumbled upon the last dark corner of the internet where people still argue that a pitcher's win/loss record isn't completely worthless. What a treat. After this are you guys going to argue that the earth is flat? Or make the case for a geocentric solar system?

Because I can't take you seriously, I'm unsure when you're kidding or serious.

If a pitcher goes 21-4 for a .500 team, would you think he had a pretty solid year if you couldn't see any of his other stats?

I'm serious. This is an amazing find. If there was such a thing as a baseball archaeologist, they'd be all over this. It's like finding a lost civilization or like that terrible Brendan Fraser movie when he was in a bomb shelter for 30 years and thought he'd survived a nuclear war.

If a pitcher goes 21-4 for a .500 team, would you think he had a pretty solid year if you couldn't see any of his other stats?
12/4/2012 11:26 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Does assigning WAR tell you anything about what player did to contribute to an individual win or loss?

WAR is calculated, not assigned. And it's cumulative, so you can see how many fractions of a win a player contributed to an individual game.
That's cool.  Can you show me how that works?

How many fractions of a win did Mike Trout contribute to the Angels on September 3?
12/4/2012 11:28 AM
Sure, I could guess he had a great year. But it's just a guess, because pitcher W/L is completely worthless.

If I told you he had an ERA of 1.50 over 220 innings, you'd know he had a great year, regardless of his W/L.
12/4/2012 11:29 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Sure, I could guess he had a great year. But it's just a guess, because pitcher W/L is completely worthless.

If I told you he had an ERA of 1.50 over 220 innings, you'd know he had a great year, regardless of his W/L.
Would you care to find any examples of 21-4 pitchers on losing teams who didn't have a great year?

Hell, let's make it easier.   Find a 16-10 pitcher on a sub .500 team that didn't have a great year.

The point, in case you're missing it, is that W-L record isn't the be all to end all but history tells us that a good W-L record pretty much indicates a solid year.   And I'm quite sure that there are many examples of pitchers with poor W-L records pitching really well.    Nonetheless, pitchers who accumulate wins generally pitch well thus making W/L a little more valuable in evaluating performance than "completely worthless".
12/4/2012 11:34 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Does assigning WAR tell you anything about what player did to contribute to an individual win or loss?

WAR is calculated, not assigned. And it's cumulative, so you can see how many fractions of a win a player contributed to an individual game.
What if he played well when they lost?   Does he get a fraction of  a win?
Can I get an answer to this one now?
12/4/2012 11:34 AM
Your reliance solely on ERA implies a faulty assumption: that a pitcher is more or less consistent the entire year.

Fictional Pitcher A: 20-8, 3.50 ERA, had a stretch where he couldn't command the fastball, but he's an ace, so his manager left him in when he was getting rocked, trusting him to get out of it. He gave up 30 runs over 5 starts, and lost them all. But the rest of the year he went 20-3 with a 1.60 ERA. Those 5 starts really rocked his ERA, but it was still a fantastic year.

Fictional Pitcher B: 14-11, 3.20 ERA, had a really nice season, consistently pitching well in games. Being a rookie, the couple of times that he got into trouble early, the manager pulled him to limit the damage, and it saved his ERA.

I contend that Pitcher A's season was superior. If you take Pitcher B in this situation, then I want you to go GM the other teams in the division, because we will beat you.
12/4/2012 11:38 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Sure, I could guess he had a great year. But it's just a guess, because pitcher W/L is completely worthless.

If I told you he had an ERA of 1.50 over 220 innings, you'd know he had a great year, regardless of his W/L.
Would you care to find any examples of 21-4 pitchers on losing teams who didn't have a great year?

Hell, let's make it easier.   Find a 16-10 pitcher on a sub .500 team that didn't have a great year.

The point, in case you're missing it, is that W-L record isn't the be all to end all but history tells us that a good W-L record pretty much indicates a solid year.   And I'm quite sure that there are many examples of pitchers with poor W-L records pitching really well.    Nonetheless, pitchers who accumulate wins generally pitch well thus making W/L a little more valuable in evaluating performance than "completely worthless".
Great. Pitcher A went 12-7. Pitcher B went 11-12. Pitcher C went 11-15. Who was the best pitcher?

COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

But thanks, I had no idea people this dumb still existed. I needed this entertainment today.

12/4/2012 11:40 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Sure, I could guess he had a great year. But it's just a guess, because pitcher W/L is completely worthless.

If I told you he had an ERA of 1.50 over 220 innings, you'd know he had a great year, regardless of his W/L.
Would you care to find any examples of 21-4 pitchers on losing teams who didn't have a great year?

Hell, let's make it easier.   Find a 16-10 pitcher on a sub .500 team that didn't have a great year.

The point, in case you're missing it, is that W-L record isn't the be all to end all but history tells us that a good W-L record pretty much indicates a solid year.   And I'm quite sure that there are many examples of pitchers with poor W-L records pitching really well.    Nonetheless, pitchers who accumulate wins generally pitch well thus making W/L a little more valuable in evaluating performance than "completely worthless".
Great. Pitcher A went 12-7. Pitcher B went 11-12. Pitcher C went 11-15. Who was the best pitcher?

COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

But thanks, I had no idea people this dumb still existed. I needed this entertainment today.

This is where being a rational person is helpful.

I can look at those records and say "Hmmmm, I'd probably need more info.   One more win but with 4 and 7 less decisions seems to indicate that he didn't pitch in as many games or he didn't stick around long enough to get decisions."

A non-rational person just screams "COMPLETELY WORTHLESS!!!!"

Any luck finding that 16-10 pitcher on a sub .500 team that didn't have a great year?

12/4/2012 11:46 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...28 Next ▸
Wins and Losses Topic