I'm trying, but the logic is hard to follow.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
And pitchers don't contribute to that?

Finally.

Pitchers do contribute to team wins and losses but the pitcher W/L record doesn't give us any idea as to what degree they contributed.

Posted by mfahie on 12/4/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mfahie on 12/4/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I guess I don't shout loud enough, seeing as how not one of my questions has been answered.

How about this to parallel your beautiful example earlier:

Pitcher 1: 3.40 ERA, Pitcher 2: 3.31 ERA, Pitcher 3: 3.46 ERA

Do we know categorically which was better? No way, we don't have enough information. But in bad_luck's world that means:

Pitcher ERA: UTTERLY WORTHLESS!!!!

Pitcher 2 allowed less runs. Assuming a similar amount of innings, saying he was the better pitcher isn't a stretch.

You can't do the same with W/L records. Kershaw was arguably the best pitcher in the NL this year and had a 14-9 record.

Pitcher W/L record is completely worthless and the world would be a better place if it disappeared. 

But you don't know how many innings they pitched, or what their W/L record is, or how many strikeouts or saves they had. You have no idea because you only have ERA. Obviously, it's not enough information.

The more INFORMATION we have about a pitcher's performance, the better we are able to judge it. Including W/L record.

But I should know much, much better than to discuss reasonable, balanced ideas on the internet. The internet is full of insane morons with radical extreme positions.

The idea that pitcher W/L records are meaningless is radical and extreme???

Maybe in 1991.

You know why people that play for teams that lose a shitload don't make the HOF? Because no one cares about them. Except stat nerds and people that followed that team as a kid.

You know why Jack Morris is still in HOF discussion? Because won a shitload. Do you know why he won a shitload? Because he was good. Do you know how I know he was good? Because I saw him pitch.

Now, if I go back to university stats class circa 1988, I'll have some interesting bad luck like discussions with pencil necks, but sometimes you see what you see and you know what you know. Sometimes, stats are for figuring out the price of my car insurance and not who's a HOFer.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
And pitchers don't contribute to that?

Finally.

Pitchers do contribute to team wins and losses but the pitcher W/L record doesn't give us any idea as to what degree they contributed.

You know except when a pitcher has a bunch of wins for a bad team.   Then we can kind assume he had a good year.   Unless, of course, you've found that fictional 16-10 pitcher for a sub .500 team that actually had a bad season. 

HE HIT HOMER! HOF
HE GET WINS! LOTS! HOF

It's that easy, really. I don't want to visit it and see a display on Ralph Zizziburg, who was really good and the stats say that had he made the major leagues, he would have been 302-213 based on his antipcated WAR before a band saw chopped off three of the fingers off his left hand.

I'm going to the hockey hall of fame.

I hope there's a display for the 6' 5" plodding defenseman who scored 6 goals in a career that spanned 23 seasons, and had a plus/minus of +365

HE WAS A JOY TO WATCH! ESPECIALLY THAT TIME HE POKED CHECKED THAT GUY IN 1992, AND CLEARED THE PUCK TO THE NEUTRAL ZONE!!!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
And pitchers don't contribute to that?

Finally.

Pitchers do contribute to team wins and losses but the pitcher W/L record doesn't give us any idea as to what degree they contributed.

You know except when a pitcher has a bunch of wins for a bad team.   Then we can kind assume he had a good year.   Unless, of course, you've found that fictional 16-10 pitcher for a sub .500 team that actually had a bad season. 

So, under the best case scenario, pitcher win/loss record can allow us to "kind [of] assume that he had a good year."

Awesome.

Seems like a very useful stat.

REMEMBER THAT SS WHO HAS THE 2ND BEST FIELDING PCT AND BEST RANGE FACTOR OF ALL TIME, AND HIT A CAREER.195 WITH ONE INSIDE THE PARK HOME RUN?!?! I HOPE HIS BUST IS COOPERSTOWN!!!!!!!!!!

As useful as most.   Or you can scream "COMPLETELY USELESS" like a drooling idiot. 

About as useful as FIP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Why ignore something that tells a part of the story?    I don't think anyone is saying it tells the whole story but it is worthy of a paragraph that is the book of the game.

This.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
To those who picked "worthless" - your team has a big game, and your options are 2 pitchers.  You have A) 14-14, 3.20 ERA or B) 20-8, 3.35 ERA.  Who are you picking?

...