Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bob let's do a simple hypothetical. Let's just assume, counterfactually in today's game, complete games. Pitcher A wins 7-5. Pitcher B loses 2-1. Who was more effective?

[packs]

ERA is not an advanced metric and it is the easiest way to determine how effective a pitcher is. No GM on earth is going to prefer to have a 17-11 Randy Johnson with a 5.00 ERA on their team over a 10-9 Jacob deGrom with a 1.70 ERA.

[Jim65]

Its funny how some fans think wins are the most important pitching stat, yet those same fans bring up run support or bad luck to explain why Nolan Ryan didn't have a better winning percentage compared to other HOF pitchers.

[BobbyStrawberry]

What do you all think about the QS stat vs. W?

[packs]

Depends how you feel about giving up 3 runs in 6 innings. Doesn't exactly smell like a quality start to me.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

What do you all think about the QS stat vs. W?

I don't like the QS stat. 3 runs in 6 innings is a 4.50 ERA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I don't like the QS stat. 3 runs in 6 innings is a 4.50 ERA.

Agreed. All it means is by the time you leave your team hasn't been blown out yet. Plus it doesn't recognize that the way pitchers are being used nowadays, some 4 or 5 inning performances can be pretty valuable if they shut the other team down.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed. All it means is by the time you leave your team hasn't been blown out yet. Plus it doesn't recognize that the way pitchers are being used nowadays, some 4 or 5 inning performances can be pretty valuable if they shut the other team down.

so should modify quality start like they have different standards for saves

5 innings with zero runs should be a QS for example......i belive if you pitch the last 4 innings you get a save in a lot more ways than you can if only pitch the 9th

[BobbyStrawberry]

I'm not a huge fan of it either... The arguments I've heard supporting its usefulness are that 1) it requires the starter to go deeper into the game to get it, 2) it removes the dependency on what your team's offense is able to do, and 3) they don't get rewarded to, say, the guy who comes in and gets two outs after the starter is pulled in the 5th (or whatever the case may be). Just putting it out there... but yes, calling 4.50 ERA "quality" is questionable at best, IMO

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob let's do a simple hypothetical. Let's just assume, counterfactually in today's game, complete games. Pitcher A wins 7-5. Pitcher B loses 2-1. Who was more effective?

Depends, was the score 7-0, so the pitcher didnt care about some of the runs

dont need to draw in the infield with man on third and no outs when up 7-0

ground ball to third, easy throw home for out with 80 percent chance but 100 percent chance for an out by throwing to first to avoid a crooked number...

yes wins for pitchers arent biggest thing ever but you cant punish a pitcher for giving up runs because his team is up and the team cares more about the win than some runs...heck they let players take 2nd base in the 9th and it doesnt count as a steal but if he scores on a hit it counts as run?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Depends, was the score 7-0, so the pitcher didnt care about some of the runs

dont need to draw in the infield with man on third and no outs when up 7-0

ground ball to third, easy throw home for out with 80 percent chance but 100 percent chance for an out by throwing to first to avoid a crooked number...

yes wins for pitchers arent biggest thing ever but you cant punish a pitcher for giving up runs because his team is up and the team cares more about the win than some runs...heck they let players take 2nd base in the 9th and it doesnt count as a steal but if he scores on a hit it counts as run?

Thanks Jake for responding to Peter's silly question for me. He's just asking a ridiculous question hoping that some knucklehead that doesn't know any better will respond that the guy who lost 2-1 must have been more effective because he only gave up 2 runs, while the other pitcher who gave up 5 runs wasn't as good. He's just trying to throw shade on the idea that wins are the most important thing to indicate a pitcher is a great by taking a single game to convince others I don't know what I'm talking about. He's trying to cherry pick a one game situation to raise doubt against what I've already said can only be shown over seasons or an entire career. Even the greatest pitchers of all time have an occasional off day. That is just being human!

He knows better though, and he also knows he didn't give us anywhere near enough information to ever possibly make an informed response to his question. What he does know is that a lot of people on here don't really pay attention and think when they see and read stuff that is posted. It is the same kind of crap comments/questions that political pundits on both sides put out that are half-truths and false information, just looking to get ignorant people to believe them without ever really using their heads and actually thinking.

To further condemn Peter's question as irrelevant to this topic, what if the 5 runs the winning pitcher gave up were all unearned, while the losing pitcher gave up two earned runs? Or alternatively, what if these were two late season games, and pitcher A was up against a team aggressively going after a playoff spot and trying to clinch home field advantage, and the opposing team had the league leading home run and RBI hitters in their lineup, as well as having the highest team batting average in the majors. Meanwhile, pitcher B was up against a team that had already clinched a playoff spot, so the opposing manager sat all his regular veteran players and put an entire team of AAA and AA call-ups out on the field for the whole game. And even though they only scored 2 runs against pitcher B, they had 12 hits off him, but due to some great defensive plays by pitcher B's teammates, and some baserunning and communication screw-ups by the opposing team, his opponents failed to score even more runs that they really should have.

However, I do also take exception to your comment that wins for pitchers are not the biggest thing ever. If they aren't, then what is the one biggest thing for pitchers then?

In all my posts and comments, I've again and again put forth my logic, facts and scenarios to try and show how the "it" factor that the great pitchers have to be able to win is apparently immeasurable using even advanced statistics. And as such, for all the different pitchers, with all their different styles and ways of pitching, through all the years and different eras, the one irrefutable fact throughout the entire history of baseball has always been that the pitchers who are considered as the greatest by the sport and its fans is that they WIN!!!

I've heard and seen enough people on here simply saying I'm wrong and that pitcher's wins aren't that important. But I have yet to see one person put forth even a tenth of the info, logic, facts or effort that I have, in an attempt to present and prove that something else is more important over the entire history of baseball for pitchers than their wins. Just hearing people basically saying, "I'm right, and you're wrong." to disprove my thinking, with no actual facts or info presented, and no alternative they can present and support, just makes me disappointed.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

To further condemn Peter's question as irrelevant to this topic, what if the 5 runs the winning pitcher gave up were all unearned, while the losing pitcher gave up two earned runs?

That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of a pitchers effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

[rats60]

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

Very good illustration. I'm sure that Ryan had the mentality that he had to go for the strikeout, because he didn't have 'the Three B's behind him. Palmer had all the advantages.

I miss pitchers going deeper into games, but, because they no longer do, aces like Scherzer can toss a gem, only to get a ND or L.


Clearly Wins as an mark of the best starting pitchers has gone by the way-side. Felix Hernandez got his CY with a 13-12 season and DeGrom won his with 10 and 11 wins.

These changes in the way the Game is played have made all the additional statistics viable and necessary.


However, for an old-school guy like myself, they give me headaches like the exit velocities of ground-balls that get through the infield.

Launch Angle, Barrel Pct.; Spin Rate,

Think I'll go play some PONG and read a good book.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

Who else is in your top 5 with Brooks and Belanger?

[1952boyntoncollector]

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808


Give it up for Mr. Bundy! Pitched 5 innings...didnt appear in the 6th...yet his team scored a run so his 5 innnings and 4 earned gave him the W.

glad to see his team gets 6 innings of at bats, but the home pitcher would of only had 5 innings of at bats had he pitched 5 innings......

[packs]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808


Give it up for Mr. Bundy! Pitched 5 innings...didnt appear in the 6th...yet his team scored a run so his 5 innnings and 4 earned gave him the W.

glad to see his team gets 6 innings of at bats, but the home pitcher would of only had 5 innings of at bats had he pitched 5 innings......

Why would this not be the natural order of things? The visiting pitcher doesn't have to pitch the bottom half of the 9th if their team is losing after the top half either. You could make the same argument that the home team should be able to have a chance to pad their stats and get guys some more hits or home runs, etc.

The game is over after the top half of the 9th if the home team is winning because it wouldn't make sense for them to bat. It's not an advantage. It's practical.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Jim65

That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of a pitchers effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

Right not sure why cares about unearned runs, except some unearned runs are worth more than others..if your team should of gotten the third out after getting the first 2 men out..giving up 7 straight hits and all the runs unearned seems silly or at least getting the 'L" shouldnt be silly when you lost the game 7-2 because of all the hits. Stats arent perfect

I also think betting odds are very important as it factors into your teams total ability, if you start 10 games and your team was +180 in every start and another pitcher was -300 and the underdog pitcher's team only lost 1 more game due to large part because of their starting pitching, that underdog pitcher would rate higher to me even if 'lost' one more game.

Sort of like in foootball if a NFL team in a 17 game season was an UNDERDOG every single game and only won 3 games but covered the spread the other 14 times how can that coach get fired.. talk is cheap, put money where your mouth is..

[BobC]

I just love stupid comments like this saying absolutely nothing to prove anything.

"That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of pitcher effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

Exactly WTF does "that" mean. Once again, no evidence, logic, facts, proof, etc., and nothing to even show exactly what statements or comments they are supposedly referencing to or disagreeing with. And what exactly was it that was proven wrong? Just another typical, "I'm right, and you're wrong." argument by those that prove or say absolutely nothing.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

I just love stupid comments like this saying absolutely nothing to prove anything.

"That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of pitcher effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

Exactly WTF does "that" mean. Once again, no evidence, logic, facts, proof, etc., and nothing to even show exactly what statements or comments they are supposedly referencing to or disagreeing with. And what exactly was it that was proven wrong? Just another typical, "I'm right, and you're wrong." argument by those that prove or say absolutely nothing.

Bob, the sad part is you believe your incoherent ramblings to be actual arguments stating facts. If you read my post about 1988 and Joe Magrane and David Cone, you would see what I am talking about.

You talk about wins defining a pitchers effectiveness, then you talk about unearned runs?

You get defensive when people disagree with you. You ignore when others present evidence, then claim that they never presented evidence in the first place. Then you play the victim?