Let’s say we have 2 pitchers, who pitched an equal number of innings in a very large sample.
Bob gets a fairly conventional mix of outs and runners, ending up in him being 17% more effective than the league at not giving up earned runs, his primary job.
Carl is K heavy, relying on the whiff. Because of his control problems, the whiffs come with lots of walks, that end up turning into runs scored off of him. He ends up being 12% more effective than the league at not giving up earned runs, his primary job.
Would we be offended, emotional, or upset to see someone observe that Bob and Carl produced pretty similar value? Would we complain that somebody used career value as a basis to compare these two pitchers values in this first place? Would we postulate that a single game frame is more important than 5,300 innings when it comes to evaluating performance? Arguing from conclusion almost inevitably leads to really bad arguments.
|