Jacob DeGrom has almost no shot at the HOF, discuss...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I guess I don’t understand why a pitcher’s teams offenses effects his pitching ability? They have no control over that. The way to remove that from the stats is easy…ignore W/L record.

FIP only counts those things a pitcher can control (walks, strikeouts, home runs) and tries to ignore those it can’t (non-HR batted balls), but you are right that it’s hard to completely remove every variable from baseball. No stat is perfect.

Baseball is a funny game. If there’s a runner on third with 1 out and the hitter flies out to CF, he has succeeded. Same situation, except with two outs, and he’s failed.

That's the funny thing though, especially in today's modern game where starting pitchers are routinely pulled from games, unlike 60+ years ago and further back. If you have a better (or worse) offense, and then take into account the bullpen as well, I think it would directly effect a manager's decision as to when to pull or leave in a starting pitcher, thus potentially impacting how well they do and what goes into their statistics. Also, someone pitching with a strong offense will likely pitch differently when they more often pitch from a lead, or have confidence their team can score and get them back into a game if they go down a run or two. It is simple human nature that anyone would likely be affected to some degree by their knowledge and confidence in the offense behind them, and the relievers following them. And the manager's also have a huge impact. If a starting pitcher knows his manager has a quick or slow trigger on pulling him early, depending on the game situation, that will likely impact a pitcher's performance as well.

And starting pitchers are arguably the player with the most impact on whether or not a team wins or loses a game, like quarterbacks in football, yet statistics try to remove the importance of wins in measuring pitchers. I fully understand the thinking and logic behind that rationale, but also know that regardless of all the variables, the fact that some pitchers win more often than others tends to demonstrate they have some ability that is superior to, or lacking in others. I've long felt that statistics can't effectively measure this "it" factor that some great pitchers have, so these statisticians simply put down such pitcher's undeniable success when it comes to being able to win, and try to attribute it to other factors they have less, or no, control over. And this is especially true when looking at pitchers from back in the days when relief pitchers were rarely used. And in those instances where starting pitchers went for complete games, they had a decidedly much greater impact on whether or not their teams won a game than if they only pitched 5-6-7 innings of a game. Yet, is there any statistical measure that can give starting pitchers who finish games and get the win their "due" over other starters who almost always pitch fewer innings, and then have to rely upon their offense and bullpen to insure they get the win? Unfortunately, I don't believe so. And this is likely a function of the bias built into statisticians who look at the modern game as a basis for their statistical formulas and equations, and through stubbornness or ignorance (or likely a combination of both) have likely greatly discounted (or outright ignored) the contributions of early pitchers who pitched complete games to make sure their teams won.

People talk about there being a nostalgic bias that gives players from long ago more due than they are truly deserving off, especially when comparing them to modern players and the way the modern game is played. A lot of people, especially statisticians and so-called data scientist types, will tell you that players from earlier eras are absolutely and without a doubt nowhere near as good as modern players of today. But I've often wondered if this isn't the result of an equal, or even greater, modern bias, as opposed to the often maligned nostalgic bias, that all baseball statistics seem to inherently contain, especially when it comes to pitchers!

When the whole, sole purpose of playing the game is to win, how can anyone go along with statistics that seek to remove the importance of a starting pitcher from earlier eras going the distance to get that all important win in comparing them to modern pitchers who don't have the same impact on a game's outcome? It is a true modern bias that statisticians will argue is correct, simply because it fits the era they are from and fulfills the narrative they want it to be. On some level I look at this type of modern bias as similar to how many people may view the value of modern cards, where you have Trout, Brady, and Lebron James cards going for millions of dollars for artificially created rarities. Whereas I would think many on this forum would argue that there are so many more vintage cards that are deserving of higher values than these modern cards due to the fact their rarity is not a prefabricated occurrence, and that there is an inherent bias with these current superstar athletes and players because everyone knows and still sees them competing today. Unfortunately, the world today is all about the here and now, social media, and what/who is known as being hot today, like James, Brady, and Trout. Not everyone knows, or ever cared, about the history of the game, and the people that played back in the day. It demonstrates a similar modern bias, much like modern statistics, IMO.