Posted by bad_luck on 12/6/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):
I don't know, I don't think you understand it.
The LI changes depending on the situation.
I don’t have the best grasp on this particular statistic. But because it’s a counting stat, if someone does have a high LI, they are probably more likely to have a higher WPA. Unless the average WPA for pitchers is 0, which I’m assuming (incorrectly?) that it isn’t.
However, this is beside the point. We aren’t arguing what’s a better statistic. If you want to, I’d tell you that ERA is better, FIP is better, WHIP is better, K/BB is better. I’d argue that K/9 is worse, that BB/9 is worse, that IP is worse, that GS is worse, that HBP is worse, that Balks are worse, that IBB are worse, the GB/FB ratio is worse. By definition, a stat is not meaningless if there are other stats that actually mean less when comparing pitchers.
We are arguing if wins can be used to compare players. It can. I will assume that a pitcher who is 20-10 is better than a pitcher who is 17-13. Most of the time, I'l be right. And I am sure that the pitcher who is 280-180 is better than the pitcher who is 240-200. I will also assume that anyone who won 20 games pitched very well in high leverage situations. If you isolate any statistic, you can find instances when that particular stat “lies.” If you want to say “I don’t need W-L record, it’s meaningless to me” then that’s fine, I can argue that any particular stat is meaningless when I have so many other stats at my disposal. If this thread was "what's the value of ERA when comparing pitchers?" I could say "completely meaningless," argue that with every other stat at my disposal, I don't need it, and call you "completely retarded" (your words) when you argue you do.