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