Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[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!

[packs]

Everything you're talking about re: evaluating how good a pitcher is can be determined with the ERA and WHIP stat. You never need to look at wins to know how effective a pitcher is.

[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.

[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.

[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..