Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

Mike,

I understand where you are coming from a little better, and do not disagree with your thinking. The thing is, there is no, one player that is totally responsible for a team winning or losing. It is a team game as you say. But an MLB pitcher is very much akin to an NFL quarterback, in that every single regular play in football starts with the ball in the quarterback's hands. Just like every single play in baseball starts with the ball in the pitcher's hands. And pretty much everything that happens then is a result of what the pitcher/quarterback does. And both are team games, and just like baseball, a quarterback does not have control over his defense, other players on the offense, special teams, and so on. But I've never heard anyone ever say that wins aren't an important stat for quarterbacks to show how good they are. Why is that, and why aren't both positions, pitcher and quarterback, apparently afforded similar responsibility and credit for team wins?

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

[packs]

In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees. If you only looked at his record, you'd think winning 17 games is pretty good. But his ERA was 5.00.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees. If you only looked at his record, you'd think winning 17 games is pretty good. But his ERA was 5.00.

I remember Jim Merritt one year winning 20 with an ERA into the 4s at a time that was pretty mediocre.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I remember Jim Merritt one year winning 20 with an ERA into the 4s at a time that was pretty mediocre.

And finished 4th in Cy Young voting while the ERA leader finished 7th.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

And finished 4th in Cy Young voting while the ERA leader finished 7th.

Livan Hernandez won world series MVP with a very high ERA but because he WON games.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

2. His team assumes the lead while he is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which he is removed from the game. (e.g., he pitches 6 innings with the score tied, and his team scores in the top of the 7th, and a new pitcher comes in for the bottom of the 7th).

The bold is where you lose me.

The underlined means, to me, if he is pulled in, or even after completing, the 6th inning, nothing in the 7th counts for him as that is NOT the inning on offense in which he was removed unless he throws a pitch in that inning. Doesn't matter if he's home or away. Don't know how you're reading this but if you are getting something different out of it I need to find another meme!

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

2. His team assumes the lead while he is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which he is removed from the game. (e.g., he pitches 6 innings with the score tied, and his team scores in the top of the 7th, and a new pitcher comes in for the bottom of the 7th).

The bold is where you lose me.

The underlined means, to me, if he is pulled in, or even after completing, the 6th inning, nothing in the 7th counts for him as that is NOT the inning on offense in which he was removed unless he throws a pitch in that inning. Doesn't matter if he's home or away. Don't know how you're reading this but if you are getting something different out of it I need to find another meme!

If a pitcher finishes an inning (say the 6th) and a new pitcher starts the new inning (7th) the original pitcher isn't officially pulled until a new pitcher starts pitching.

You see it all the time...pitcher finishes the 8th, everyone knows the closer will take over, then the team scores 8 runs and the guy just off the bus pitches the 9th. The closer never pitched, so the scrub replaced the guy who finished the 8th.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Don't know how you're reading this but if you are getting something different out of it I need to find another meme!

Scott, Please keep the memes coming, they are CRACKING ME UP!!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

2. His team assumes the lead while he is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which he is removed from the game. (e.g., he pitches 6 innings with the score tied, and his team scores in the top of the 7th, and a new pitcher comes in for the bottom of the 7th).

The bold is where you lose me.

The underlined means, to me, if he is pulled in, or even after completing, the 6th inning, nothing in the 7th counts for him as that is NOT the inning on offense in which he was removed unless he throws a pitch in that inning. Doesn't matter if he's home or away. Don't know how you're reading this but if you are getting something different out of it I need to find another meme!

so now you see the light...

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

It can be argued that sometimes in some games, if the pitcher is worried about their ERA and is too fine with the strike zone perhaps he gives up more runs than a pitcher ok with giving up some runs for a sure chance for his team to win......cant punish a guy thats up 5 runs and says, who cares if give up 2 runs so we win the game ( and no chance to give up 6) instead of trying to give up 0 runs but then a chance the other team scores 6 to beat his team

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

It can be argued that sometimes in some games, if the pitcher is worried about their ERA and is too fine with the strike zone perhaps he gives up more runs than a pitcher ok with giving up some runs for a sure chance for his team to win......cant punish a guy thats up 5 runs and says, who cares if give up 2 runs so we win the game ( and no chance to give up 6) instead of trying to give up 0 runs but then a chance the other team scores 6 to beat his team

I guess it COULD be argued, but I don't think of baseball of a game of intentions, it's a game of results. If you give up 5 runs, that's always worse than giving up two, which is always worse than giving up zero.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

Mike,

That is exactly why even the greatest pitchers don't win every game. Unlike some athletes that don't have to rely upon others to win, say someone like Usain Bolt. In his prime, as arguably the greatest sprinter of all time, Bolt never lost. But even the greatest pitcher of all-time can't control all the variables and factors and will end up losing a fair share of games. But because they are so great, they will have an overall larger influence on the games they pitch in and their outcomes. So in the end, despite all the other players, circumstances and just plain dumb luck, the greatest pitchers will invariably end up winning the most games over their seasons/careers.

It is dumbfounding how such logical and common sense knowledge and thinking seems to escape a vast multitude of the people who follow baseball and put their faith into advanced statistics. Regardless of all other players in the games, pitchers have the most direct impact and influence on how well their team does in every game they pitch in. So over time, statistically speaking, those pitchers should end up having the greatest impact of anyone on whether or not their team will win. And as such, the greater the pitcher, the more likely their impact will lead to their team winning. Ergo, the greater pitchers should over time and their seasons/careers, end up winning more games than those pitchers who are not as good. So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness.

That is how I look at it. If others want to think and believe differently, so be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Early Wynn won 300, Pedro maybe 220. Wynn better than Pedro?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wins have a lot to do with who you're pitching for. I once read a cogent analysis that if Mathewson had pitched for the Senators, he would have won 50 fewer games (it may have been even more) and if Johnson had pitched for the Giants, he would have won 50 more.

[G1911]

Wynn and Livan are both among my favorite pitchers. Not a whole of natural gift but a whole lot of eating up innings and persistence. Wynn just refused to quit before he got to 300.

Off the top of my head, Ned Garver comes to mind as the most unlucky winner for a career. 12% better than the league ERA for his career, but a 129-157 record. Off memory his Tigers finished 5/8 in the AL a couple times and that was as close as he came to a good team. There’s probably someone with an even worse record relative to his performance.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Early Wynn won 300, Pedro maybe 220. Wynn better than Pedro?

As an attorney, I thought you were supposed to be very aware of and adept at understanding and using words. Please, re-read the second to the last line I wrote in my previous post.

"So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness."

I very specifically said I felt wins was an important statistic to HELP measure and define a pitcher's greatness. That one little word, HELP, is critical to understanding the meaning of what I was saying. I did not ever say, nor ever imply, that the gross number of wins alone that a pitcher had was the one and only measure of how great they are, or as the one and only way to compare pitchers. Thank for you either not comprehending what I actually wrote, or trying to put words in my mouth or meanings to my comments, that I never said or intended!

Peter, the logical reason for Early Wynn winning so many more games than Pedro Martinez couldn't possibly be because Wynn started 611 games in his career, and relieved in another 80, while Pedro only started 409 games during his career, while relieving in 67 others, could it?

I had been saying all along how the older generation pitchers generally started more games, and pitched way more innings, than their modern counterparts, so it is no surprise to me when the likelihood of future 300 game winning pitchers, or a pitcher winning 30 games in a single season, seem remote at best, if not entirely out of the question anymore. It doesn't mean we still don't have great pitchers today, and the fact that they tend to win more often than they lose absolutely helps to show and define that. But I never said or implied anything along the lines of Cy Young being the "greatest" pitcher of all time just because he won more games than anyone else. I think we both know that Pedro's career won-loss percentage was much, much higher than Wynn's, .687 versus .551. As I said, wins HELP measure and define the great pitchers. And in this case, those wins Pedro had got him that unbelievable won-loss career percentage, so what I had been saying still stands. I am not arguing as to which of the two, Wynn or Martinez, is the better pitcher. As far as I am concerned, they were both great. I'll leave it to you to decide which one you think is the better pitcher though. They pitched in different eras, under different circumstances, influences, and context. I've argued and suggested before that advanced statistics seemingly fail to completely take the context and differences into full consideration when they try to measure and compare players from different eras as to who may have been the better player/pitcher. I would rather limit trying to make such comparisons to only being between players/pitchers of similar eras. At least that way the biases and shortfalls of modern advanced statistics don't get in the way to muck things up

Now if your comment/question was just supposed to be a funny and/or slightly sarcastic like joke, then I apologize. But then in the future, please try to remember to add a sarcasm emoji, or an LOL after your comment/question, or write in blue colored letters, so I can understand the context of where you are coming from. Thank you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

As an attorney, I thought you were supposed to be very aware of and adept at understanding and using words. Please, re-read the second to the last line I wrote in my previous post.

"So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness."

I very specifically said I felt wins was an important statistic to HELP measure and define a pitcher's greatness. That one little word, HELP, is critical to understanding the meaning of what I was saying. I did not ever say, nor ever imply, that the gross number of wins alone that a pitcher had was the one and only measure of how great they are, or as the one and only way to compare pitchers. Thank for you either not comprehending what I actually wrote, or trying to put words in my mouth or meanings to my comments, that I never said or intended!

Peter, the logical reason for Early Wynn winning so many more games than Pedro Martinez couldn't possibly be because Wynn started 611 games in his career, and relieved in another 80, while Pedro only started 409 games during his career, while relieving in 67 others, could it?

I had been saying all along how the older generation pitchers generally started more games, and pitched way more innings, than their modern counterparts, so it is no surprise to me when the likelihood of future 300 game winning pitchers, or a pitcher winning 30 games in a single season, seem remote at best, if not entirely out of the question anymore. It doesn't mean we still don't have great pitchers today, and the fact that they tend to win more often than they lose absolutely helps to show and define that. But I never said or implied anything along the lines of Cy Young being the "greatest" pitcher of all time just because he won more games than anyone else. I think we both know that Pedro's career won-loss percentage was much, much higher than Wynn's, .687 versus .551. As I said, wins HELP measure and define the great pitchers. And in this case, those wins Pedro had got him that unbelievable won-loss career percentage, so what I had been saying still stands. I am not arguing as to which of the two, Wynn or Martinez, is the better pitcher. As far as I am concerned, they were both great. I'll leave it to you to decide which one you think is the better pitcher though. They pitched in different eras, under different circumstances, influences, and context. I've argued and suggested before that advanced statistics seemingly fail to completely take the context and differences into full consideration when they try to measure and compare players from different eras as to who may have been the better player/pitcher. I would rather limit trying to make such comparisons to only being between players/pitchers of similar eras. At least that way the biases and shortfalls of modern advanced statistics don't get in the way to muck things up

Now if your comment/question was just supposed to be a funny and/or slightly sarcastic like joke, then I apologize. But then in the future, please try to remember to add a sarcasm emoji, or an LOL after your comment/question, or write in blue colored letters, so I can understand the context of where you are coming from. Thank you.

Defensive much? I just asked your opinion. Pedro obviously was greater at his peak but Wynn (note the pun lol) contributed a lot more career wins so I was asking how you valued that.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

That is how I look at it. If others want to think and believe differently, so be it.

The beauty of all this is that everyone's entitled to their way of thinking, and what we're arguing about isn't all that important, so that's good.

I just don't understand why we'd cling to a stat that does an OK job of showing greatness, when there other better ones. And it's not like we're we're talking FIP, or some crazy calculus...but things like ERA tell you a lot more about how well a pitcher performed than pitcher wins.

These aren't crazy assertions of a fringe. It's basically consensus now that pitching wins CAN provide some info, but they're far from the best way to show...especially if you say, want to look across eras. I mean, did the 5 best pitchers in history all pitch before 1930?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The beauty of all this is that everyone's entitled to their way of thinking, and what we're arguing about isn't all that important, so that's good.

I just don't understand why we'd cling to a stat that does an OK job of showing greatness, when there other better ones. And it's not like we're we're talking FIP, or some crazy calculus...but things like ERA tell you a lot more about how well a pitcher performed than pitcher wins.

These aren't crazy assertions of a fringe. It's basically consensus now that pitching wins CAN provide some info, but they're far from the best way to show...especially if you say, want to look across eras. I mean, did the 5 best pitchers in history all pitch before 1930?

right wins arent the main thing but they can be an important factor....AVAILABILITY to pitch more innings may lead to more WINS and also not tax the bullpen.

I actually dont think ERA is all that, i think WHIP is a better factor but thats a whole other thing..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right wins arent the main thing but they can be an important factor....AVAILABILITY to pitch more innings may lead to more WINS and also not tax the bullpen.

I actually dont think ERA is all that, i think WHIP is a better factor but thats a whole other thing..

If winning isn't the main thing, then why do they play the game?

They're not in some little league that doesn't keep score and hands out participation trophies to everyone at the end of the season.

[packs]

A win is important to the team. The point being made is that a win doesn’t mean the pitcher pitched well. It only means the team won.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

A win is important to the team. The point being made is that a win doesn’t mean the pitcher pitched well. It only means the team won.

This. Now of course over the course of a long career it's going to balance out most likely and there is a strong correlation between winning a lot of games and being a great pitcher. But over a shorter period of time, wins has a LOT to do with your run support.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

A win is important to the team. The point being made is that a win doesn’t mean the pitcher pitched well. It only means the team won.

It also doesn't mean the pitcher pitched badly, or that if he hadn't pitched as well as he did that they wouldn't have possibly lost, either.

For the umpteenth time, of all the people on the field, in the dugout, part of the front office, or sitting in the stands, the one and only person that is directly involved in every single play, and as a result has the most influence on the outcome of every single game they are in, is the pitcher. And the longer they pitch, the more overall influence they will have as to the outcome of that game. Which is why it is the starting pitchers, who generally pitch more innings in every game they appear in than anyone else, that will have the most overall influence and impact on whether or not their team ultimately wins.

And I've also stated various times that the pitcher alone does not determine if their team wins or loses, but over the course of a season/career, all the other variables and factors that take part in determining who wins should, and will, average out so that the thing that has the most overall influence on the outcomes of each game should come out and prevail as the factor that actually does end up determining the winner of most games, and that one factor with the most influence is who is the starting pitcher!

I've also repeatedly said that when it comes to pitchers, especially starting pitchers, they have some "it" factor that allows certain of them to against all odds and other factors somehow rise up and prevail and win more ballgames than their peers and competitors. There is no one single type or style of pitcher that alone is so successful in winning. If there was, every single pitcher would try to emulate and pitch that exact same way. But they all aren't necessarily able to throw close to 100 MPH, to throw at and hit a gnat's eyelash at will, or throw a curveball that literally always drops off the table, yet they still win more often than not somehow. And that more or less sums up and explains how it then must come down to that "it" factor.

And you can take all the advanced statistics you can come up with to try and measure and quantify what goes into that "it" factor, but there is no one, all-encompassing measure anyone can ever develop or come up with that can or ever will explain "it", except that they win!!! So rather than trying to point to WHIP, ERA, and other statistical factors as an explanation for a pitcher's success and greatness, why not just admit that they are great because they win? Then if you really must start arguing and comparing them, maybe begin looking at those statistics that are based/developed off their wins to do so, like their won-loss percentage. But it is still impossible, and to me somewhat ridiculous, to even try and expect to be able to even somewhat accurately compare pitchers from different eras because of all the factors and context that make those eras different.

But even when the pitchers are supposedly from around the same era, it is still extremely unlikely to accurately be able to measure and compare them. Just like the poster who mentioned Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson possibly winning 50 more, or fewer, games over their careers had they switched the teams they pitched for. That is where the factor about pitching for a better, or worse, supporting team can impact how many games a pitcher wins. But in this specific comparison, you also have to remember that Mathewson pitched entirely in the dead ball era, whereas Johnson started pitching in the dead ball era, and completed his career pitching in the live ball era. In fact, to Johnson's credit he was voted as the league MVP twice, once during the dead ball era, and once during the live ball era. Now that says a lot about his ability and flexibility in changing and adapting to differing factors, and his ability to achieve success in both eras. In other words, that "it' factor prevailing once again!