Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you really want to continue trying to discuss baseball after posting this?

Yes. No one would know for sure. Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly.

How is starting pitcher W/L useful?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you really want to continue trying to discuss baseball after posting this?

Yes. No one would know for sure. Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly.

How is starting pitcher W/L useful?

" Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly."

On an individual game bases, that may be true. Over the course of a season, or a career, no.

Unless you're assuming that a 2-17 pitcher pitched great 17 times and lost, and poorly twice but won. But, that would be stupid.

But please. Continue to dazzle us with your superior knowledge of baseball.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you really want to continue trying to discuss baseball after posting this?

Yes. No one would know for sure. Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly.

How is starting pitcher W/L useful?

" Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly."

On an individual game bases, that may be true. Over the course of a season, or a career, no.

Unless you're assuming that a 2-17 pitcher pitched great 17 times and lost, and poorly twice but won. But, that would be stupid.

But please. Continue to dazzle us with your superior knowledge of baseball.

So a pitcher that gets a lot of losses over his career is a bad pitcher? Yes or no.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you really want to continue trying to discuss baseball after posting this?

Yes. No one would know for sure. Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly.

How is starting pitcher W/L useful?

" Getting a win doesn't require the pitcher to actually pitch well. Getting a loss doesn't require that a pitcher pitch poorly."

On an individual game bases, that may be true. Over the course of a season, or a career, no.

Unless you're assuming that a 2-17 pitcher pitched great 17 times and lost, and poorly twice but won. But, that would be stupid.

But please. Continue to dazzle us with your superior knowledge of baseball.

So a pitcher that gets a lot of losses over his career is a bad pitcher? Yes or no.

How would I be able to tell knowing only how many losses he has?

So losses don't tell you anything?

Not by themselves, no.

Do you think they do?

Not at all. They're useless. As are wins.

So it's useless to know that a guy went 21-3 in a season because, according to you, there's a chance he might be a really ****** pitcher?

Why do you continue to insist on presenting yourself as a massively stupid person in these forums?

Is it because you're massively stupid?

It's useless because it doesn't add anything. Sure, he was probably good. Was he better than guy with 17 wins? No one knows.

Why do you think w/l record is useful?

This is so sad.

Please stop doing this to yourself.

So you aren't going to answer?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):

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.

I already have.

You obviously don't understand, since you've already stated that you have no idea if a pitcher who went 21-3 for a season had a better or worse season than a pitcher who went 2-17.

Maybe you shouldn't try to participate in baseball discussions.

This.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/26/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing - I don't think Urias has 3 plus-plus pitches. I think he has one plus-plus pitch (the change). I think a plus plus breaking ball is hard and late. Urias throws a big slow curve. He throws it about as well as you can throw a slow curve - with excellent control and, most remarkably at his age, exceptional consistency - so maybe it's a + pitch. Probably so. But not ++. Similarly with his fastball, he commands it to both sides of the plate very well, but most of the time it sits around 93-94 without a ton of movement. A ++ fastball is at least a couple miles faster than that or with big movement. His change, however, fades like a mofo. And he paints with all 3.

Comps for Urias are still pretty solid. I'm basically thinking about command and control lefties who had a little more stuff than your average command and control lefty and added in an elite change. Tom Glavine and Johan Santana come immediately to mind. Those are solid comps, one a HOFer and one who was on pace to be a borderline HOFer until injuries derailed his career. Dodgers fans might also put Ryu in the same category, which is probably fair, though he had a little better fastball and a little less change. But we always tend to remember the best-case scenarios since they make the biggest impressions.

If I had to pick a pitching prospect right now to bet on to win 200+ games, I'd take Urias, hands down. But if I had to pick a guy to go to the HOF, I'd still take Giolito. He has much bigger stuff - harder heat, sharper breaking ball. He has more elite potential. I don't know that I'd ever be able to bring myself to trade one for the other if I had either of them - too much to like about each one, and you do tend to get caught up in the prospects of the guy you have.

So it all started from this. Wins don't matter, but 200 wins is a milestone usually hit by good, consistent pitchers. Dahs and I both agree that Urias could be, and probably will be, a good, consistent pitcher