Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):
That makes more sense in comparing a season. Career wins is another story.

Well, again, only good pitchers stick around long enough to get a lot of wins. The best pitchers have a lot of losses for the same reason. That doesn’t make it a good stat.

No dummy. They will almost always have a lot more wins than losses and consistent winning cannot be underappreciated. Same for those that pitch a lot of innings consistently. You really are a dolt.

George Pipgrass was 102-73 for his career. Was he a good pitcher?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):
That makes more sense in comparing a season. Career wins is another story.

Well, again, only good pitchers stick around long enough to get a lot of wins. The best pitchers have a lot of losses for the same reason. That doesn’t make it a good stat.

Those best pitchers with a lot of losses. Do they have a lot of wins too? Remember, I'm still new at the stats only philosophy so I need all the guidance I can get.

Yep

So the best pitchers also have lots of wins. So it might be safe to assume that pitchers consistently winning are good pitchers? Because they need to win to accumulate a lot of wins. Then, if a pitcher ends up with a lot of wins each season, he should be considered a good pitcher?

Again, sorry for all the noob stat-guy questions. Just trying to make sense of it all.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/23/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
George Pipgrass was 102-73 for his career. Was he a good pitcher?

Only if the stats say so.

And it's Pipgras.

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/23/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):
That makes more sense in comparing a season. Career wins is another story.

Well, again, only good pitchers stick around long enough to get a lot of wins. The best pitchers have a lot of losses for the same reason. That doesn’t make it a good stat.

Those best pitchers with a lot of losses. Do they have a lot of wins too? Remember, I'm still new at the stats only philosophy so I need all the guidance I can get.

Yep

So the best pitchers also have lots of wins. So it might be safe to assume that pitchers consistently winning are good pitchers? Because they need to win to accumulate a lot of wins. Then, if a pitcher ends up with a lot of wins each season, he should be considered a good pitcher?

Again, sorry for all the noob stat-guy questions. Just trying to make sense of it all.

It’s also safe to assume that pitchers who amass a lot of loses over the course of their career are good pitchers.

The fact that a correlation exists isn’t a good reason to use a bad measurement.

its not safe to assume anything based on wins and losses. They are useless stats, I thought?

Posted by wylie715 on 12/23/2017 8:02:00 PM (view original):
its not safe to assume anything based on wins and losses. They are useless stats, I thought?

Well, ok, if you’re going to nit-pick. It isn’t an assumption. Great pitchers tend to be among the career leaders in losses.

But also in wins.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/23/2017 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/22/2017 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Is a stupid stat for stupid people.

Unsuprisingly, tec loves it.

This indicates that you think Mussina/Glavine are stupid people. Did you change your mind?

BL?

BL?

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/23/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
George Pipgrass was 102-73 for his career. Was he a good pitcher?

You are a moron. 102 wins does not signify consistent winning. Please move out of your mother's basement.

Cy Young had almost 200 more wins than losses. I would say he was a great pitcher. Yes, those that pitch a lot of innings will have losses too but will generally have a lot more wins.

That doesn’t change the fact that pitcher W/L is a bad measurement.

For example, Tom Glavine has significantly more wins than Curt Schilling. Curt Schilling was a better pitcher than Tom Glavine.

Nobody said more wins equals better pitcher. People are stating that a pitcher with a lot of wins was most likely a good pitcher.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/24/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
For example, Tom Glavine has significantly more wins than Curt Schilling. Curt Schilling was a better pitcher than Tom Glavine.

Glavine pitched many more innings, won more Cy Young awards, had more Cy Young award shares, and made more all star teams. There is no question Schilling's peak was higher but Glavine's was much longer.

The really truly funny thing to me here is Schilling is this generations Catfish Hunter except with an inverted career arc.

Both were workhorse right handed pitchers with great control (leading to low whips) who gave up a bunch of home runs. Both had sub 2.00 ERAs in their wins and terrible ERAs in their losses. Both were key pitchers on multiple world series winners who were simply outstanding in the post season for those teams.

The difference is that Catfish was all those things in his 20s but was basically done at 30 because his body broke down. Schilling's 20s were injury plagued (surgery in '94 and 95) and by the end of 29 YO season there was no reason to think he was on a track for a HOF career and then was great in his 30s.