Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):

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?

This is a sign of desperation from BL.

Good pitchers get a lot of opportunities. If a guy has 500 decisions, there's a real good chance 200 of them are losses. There are something like 48 200 loss pitchers in the history of baseball. Half of them are in the HOF because they also have 300+ wins.

Not desperate, that's my point. Pitchers who are good enough to stick around for a long time get a lot of wins and a lot of losses. That doesn't make w/l a useful stat.

Maybe you'd like to answer the question that tec refuses to answer. How is w/l useful?

OK, I checked. 45 have 200+ losses, 26 in the HOF. 9 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 15. A lot of them were old-time pitchers who got 50 decisions a year but, nonetheless, they were apparently pretty good in their time.

So you aren't going to answer either?

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?

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?

How is it useful to know that a guy was "pretty good?" Was Mr. 300-200 better than Mr. 270-210?

Like I said before, W/L record is like knowing only the country someone lives in. Other than situations where they are polar opposites, the information is not useful.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2016 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Like I said before, W/L record is like knowing only the country someone lives in. Other than situations where they are polar opposites, the information is not useful.

Please continue with your stupidity. It's so entertaining.

Is there even a 155-200 guy? I don't feel like checking but, I imagine, that very few of the 200 loss guys even have a losing record.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Is there even a 155-200 guy? I don't feel like checking but, I imagine, that very few of the 200 loss guys even have a losing record.

When was the last time we discussed a 150 win guy? I don't think anyone's every been like, "hey let's talk about Tom Candiotti."

But Tom Glavine? To me Tom Glavine is evidence A for the argument that wins are not only useless, but misleading. Glavine wasn't better than Mussina, but he's in the Hall because he has 300 wins. Mussina isn't because he has 270.

Well, I opened that one because I thought maybe you did the work. From tec:

"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."

That's where I came up with 155 win guy so maybe you should read some posts before spouting your BS. But I'm glad I opened your nonsense. I see you're turning the thread into a stump for "Mussina for HOF". Fair to say all the other blocked posts are "Kenny Lofton for HOF" posts?

You open all of them. Don't lie.

I'm not campaigning for Mussina. I'm pointing out that pitcher win/loss is, at best, useless and, at worst, misleading.

I'm pretty sure that both you and tec would agree that, in one season, an 18 win pitcher isn't automatically better than a 16 win pitcher. Over 20 or 25 year careers, a couple wins here and there (and holding on for a couple extra ****** seasons) gets one pitcher to the Hall and one excluded, without a meaningful difference in performance.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2016 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Is there even a 155-200 guy? I don't feel like checking but, I imagine, that very few of the 200 loss guys even have a losing record.

When was the last time we discussed a 150 win guy? I don't think anyone's every been like, "hey let's talk about Tom Candiotti."

But Tom Glavine? To me Tom Glavine is evidence A for the argument that wins are not only useless, but misleading. Glavine wasn't better than Mussina, but he's in the Hall because he has 300 wins. Mussina isn't because he has 270.

Glavine won 2 CYAs, and finished in the top 3 four other times. He also led the NL in wins 5 times (oops!). He also received MVP votes in five different seasons.

Mussina won zero CYAs, and finished top 3 only once. He led the AL in wins only once. Three seasons in which he received MVP votes.

You do understand that those are the kinds of things that HOF voters look at, don't you?

Oh I understand that that is what happens. I'm saying I disagree with it.

You realize that many Cy Young voters base their votes on win totals, right?

So when you say Glavine won Cy Young awards and had a lot of wins, you're really saying, "Glavine had a lot of wins and he had a lot of wins."

So you disagree with it. Does that make you right and the rest of the world wrong? Are you that conceited?