Forums

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

5/31/2016 12:46 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Knowing that a pitcher went 300-200 for a career is useful. One can deduce he was a pretty good pitcher.

Knowing that a pitcher went 155-200 for a career also is useful. Once can deduce he was a pretty mediocre pitcher.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's an explanation of how W/L can be useful.

It's also another question that you dodged.

Just saying that something is useful is not an explanation for why something is useful. Are you a seven year old?

The entire point of this discussion is that win/loss record doesn't actually tell you anything about how good a pitcher was. A pitcher was 270-153. Was he better than a pitcher that was 219-100? Don't know. Me neither. Obviously you need other stats. Once you add in those other stats, W/L adds nothing, it's useless.

5/31/2016 12:49 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 152 32 129

Prospect

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Knowing that a pitcher went 300-200 for a career is useful. One can deduce he was a pretty good pitcher.

Knowing that a pitcher went 155-200 for a career also is useful. Once can deduce he was a pretty mediocre pitcher.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's an explanation of how W/L can be useful.

It's also another question that you dodged.
Just saying that something is useful is not an explanation for why something is useful. Are you a seven year old?

The entire point of this discussion is that win/loss record doesn't actually tell you anything about how good a pitcher was. A pitcher was 270-153. Was he better than a pitcher that was 219-100? Don't know. Me neither. Obviously you need other stats. Once you add in those other stats, W/L adds nothing, it's useless.

Good God almighty, you have to be the stupidest person to ever have access to the internet.

OF COURSE W/L record tells you something about the pitcher. A pitcher who is 270-153 for his career very likely has been pretty good, a well above average pitcher for many years. Unless you TRULY BELIEVE that MAYBE he was a league average pitcher. In which case, you have to be pretty stupid to actually believe that.

Which you seem to be.

Is that your argument? It sounds like it is, because you keep going back to the idea that you CANNOT DETERMINE ANYTHING about a pitcher based on W/L alone.

Do you think that I've been arguing that W/L is THE MOST IMPORTANT stat for a pitcher?

5/31/2016 1:06 PM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

OK, this needs to end.

BL is saying, if two pitchers have 30 decisions and one is 18-12 while the other is 16-14, you really need more info. I think the same could be said if one has a 4.23 ERA while the other had a 4.02 ERA. Therefore, I think he's right. Where he flies off the rails is when he claims he really doesn't know if 270-153 was more effective than 219-100. The problem here is that one of them won 69% of his games while the other won 64% of his games. Unfortunately, the "better" pitcher had over 100 less decisions. He stops comparing apples to apples because it doesn't work for him. Both of those guys were pretty good. Now, if he said "I don't know if 270-153 guy was better than 153-270 guy", he's an idiot. But this is where tec comes in. That's the sort of example tec is giving and BL is taking the bait but trying to jumble it out so it works for him.

Both of you should step away from the computer. And that's coming from a guy with 44k posts.

5/31/2016 1:30 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 152 32 129

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

I WIN!!!

5/31/2016 1:32 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Knowing that a pitcher went 300-200 for a career is useful. One can deduce he was a pretty good pitcher.

Knowing that a pitcher went 155-200 for a career also is useful. Once can deduce he was a pretty mediocre pitcher.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's an explanation of how W/L can be useful.

It's also another question that you dodged.
Just saying that something is useful is not an explanation for why something is useful. Are you a seven year old?

The entire point of this discussion is that win/loss record doesn't actually tell you anything about how good a pitcher was. A pitcher was 270-153. Was he better than a pitcher that was 219-100? Don't know. Me neither. Obviously you need other stats. Once you add in those other stats, W/L adds nothing, it's useless.
Good God almighty, you have to be the stupidest person to ever have access to the internet.

OF COURSE W/L record tells you something about the pitcher. A pitcher who is 270-153 for his career very likely has been pretty good, a well above average pitcher for many years. Unless you TRULY BELIEVE that MAYBE he was a league average pitcher. In which case, you have to be pretty stupid to actually believe that.

Which you seem to be.

Is that your argument? It sounds like it is, because you keep going back to the idea that you CANNOT DETERMINE ANYTHING about a pitcher based on W/L alone.

Do you think that I've been arguing that W/L is THE MOST IMPORTANT stat for a pitcher?

I guess we disagree on the definition of useful. To me, knowing that a pitcher was "likely pretty good" and nothing else is useless. If he was someone that pitched long enough to get to 270 wins, we probably know that on name value alone.

Once you have the other stats to actually determine how good he was, knowing his W/L record adds nothing to the discussion. If you see a line like this:

240 IP, 4.04 ERA (101 ERA+), 1.25 WHIP...you aren't going to think the pitcher had a great year. If I tell you he went 21-6 that year, does that change your opinion? It doesn't for me. He was still just average for that season.

That's what I mean by useless. His record could have been 25-0 (or 0-25) and it would not have changed my opinion of his performance.

5/31/2016 1:38 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 152 32 129

Prospect

Here's my final post on this. Which is not about W/L, but about BL:

BL seems to have a massive superiority complex. He presents his opinions with an air of authority, as an indisputable truth, because I believe he thinks that he is somehow smarter than most everybody else here. He loves his new age baseball stats, he feels that he has some sort of special insight into baseball that few others have because of how he has embraced these stats, and that this application of his "special knowledge" in threads such as this one shows that he has a much more in depth and complete understanding of the game than most everybody else.

Unfortunately, for him, he doesn't. He keeps allowing himself to fall into the same old trap of eventually saying something that's utterly retarded, and then not knowing how to retreat. Examples are things like "Kenny Lofton should be in a HOF conversation because of his career WAR", and "a pitcher's W/L record is completely meaningless". When others challenge him for making these statements, he's unable to back down and admit "well, maybe that wasn't the smartest thing I've ever said". Instead, he doubles down and often follows up with a twisted argument, one that takes the original premise, turns it into something else (deflection?), and then jumps with both feel down into the rathole.

His obsession with advanced stats trumps all other knowledge about the game. If it's not covered by a stat, or is not embraced by the new-age baseball thinkers and writers, then it's either not important, or just flat-out wrong. There's no grey area in his thinking, it's all "my way, or the wrong way". And it's this stubborn adherence to this mode of thinking that makes him the source of amusement or mockery. And his lack of self-awareness doesn't allow him to realize this.

And this trait goes beyond baseball. His thoughts about politics and social matters are also influenced by this air of superiority, as we've seen in the other forums. "Rioting and lawless behavior is an effective way to bring about social change" was another classic case of saying something idiotic, refusing to back down, and then going down the rathole.

5/31/2016 5:21 PM (edited)

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Disdain for pitcher W/L is not a new-age thing, retard.

Pitcher W/L is useless.

5/31/2016 1:56 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 152 32 129

Prospect

5/31/2016 2:01 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

What happened to "here is my final post?"

5/31/2016 2:02 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 152 32 129

Prospect

5/31/2016 2:03 PM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

5/31/2016 2:03 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Knowing that a pitcher went 300-200 for a career is useful. One can deduce he was a pretty good pitcher.

Knowing that a pitcher went 155-200 for a career also is useful. Once can deduce he was a pretty mediocre pitcher.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's an explanation of how W/L can be useful.

It's also another question that you dodged.
Just saying that something is useful is not an explanation for why something is useful. Are you a seven year old?

The entire point of this discussion is that win/loss record doesn't actually tell you anything about how good a pitcher was. A pitcher was 270-153. Was he better than a pitcher that was 219-100? Don't know. Me neither. Obviously you need other stats. Once you add in those other stats, W/L adds nothing, it's useless.
Good God almighty, you have to be the stupidest person to ever have access to the internet.

OF COURSE W/L record tells you something about the pitcher. A pitcher who is 270-153 for his career very likely has been pretty good, a well above average pitcher for many years. Unless you TRULY BELIEVE that MAYBE he was a league average pitcher. In which case, you have to be pretty stupid to actually believe that.

Which you seem to be.

Is that your argument? It sounds like it is, because you keep going back to the idea that you CANNOT DETERMINE ANYTHING about a pitcher based on W/L alone.

Do you think that I've been arguing that W/L is THE MOST IMPORTANT stat for a pitcher?
I guess we disagree on the definition of useful. To me, knowing that a pitcher was "likely pretty good" and nothing else is useless. If he was someone that pitched long enough to get to 270 wins, we probably know that on name value alone.

Once you have the other stats to actually determine how good he was, knowing his W/L record adds nothing to the discussion. If you see a line like this:

240 IP, 4.04 ERA (101 ERA+), 1.25 WHIP...you aren't going to think the pitcher had a great year. If I tell you he went 21-6 that year, does that change your opinion? It doesn't for me. He was still just average for that season.

That's what I mean by useless. His record could have been 25-0 (or 0-25) and it would not have changed my opinion of his performance.

This.

5/31/2016 2:05 PM