O/T Best Starting pitcher of all time.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So in a game you need to win you'd start 1996 Roger Pavlik over 1987 Nolan Ryan? Wins are nice, but they do not even begin to tell the story of how effective a pitcher is.

+1

Wins should just be a part of the equation; to ignore the other components isn't logical.

[Hankphenom]

You know where my vote went, but there should be more votes for Satchel Paige and Bob Feller.
Hank Thomas

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So in a game you need to win you'd start 1996 Roger Pavlik over 1987 Nolan Ryan? Wins are nice, but they do not even begin to tell the story of how effective a pitcher is.

If Roger Pavlik will give me a win and Ryan won't then I'll take Pavlik all day long.

Originally Posted by Robextend

+1

Wins should just be a part of the equation; to ignore the other components isn't logical.

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

Rotisserie baseball has ruined how people look at stats. If you play for a team which doesn't score many runs, your ERA is going to be lower than if you played for a team which scores a lot of runs. This is true in most cases.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Brendan

If Roger Pavlik will give me a win and Ryan won't then I'll take Pavlik all day long.

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

Rotisserie baseball has ruined how people look at stats. If you play for a team which doesn't score many runs, your ERA is going to be lower than if you played for a team which scores a lot of runs. This is true in most cases.

I think you are missing the point. The point is that if Roger Pavlik and Nolan Ryan got the same run support, Nolan Ryan would have many more wins.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brendan

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

And that's why TEAMS are measured by wins but players are judged by their individual stats.

Do you seriously want Ray Oyler as your starting shortstop because his team won a World Series? Or Miguel Tejada, whose teams never even won a postseason series?

Tabe

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Tabe

And that's why TEAMS are measured by wins but players are judged by their individual stats.

Do you seriously want Ray Oyler as your starting shortstop because his team won a World Series? Or Miguel Tejada, whose teams never even won a postseason series?

Tabe

You're suggesting I believe that if A.J. Burnett gets a loss, it's CC Sabathia's fault. Of course not. But when a pitcher pitches, it's his job to win the game, whatever the circumstances are. I don't care if your ERA is two- if you can't consistently give up less runs then the other team scores then you aren't a good pitcher. Each day a pitcher goes out there his goal is to get a win for his team. Not pitch a shutout. Not keep his WHIP under 1. Sure, he wouldn't mind getting a shutout, but he knows as long as he keeps the other team under their score he's fine.

Sure, we can speculate that if a certain pitcher got more run support he would have gotten more wins. Thing is, he didn't. There's no way to know something that didn't happen.

By the way, right now I'd take Ray Oyler over Miguel Tejeda. (I know he's deceased)

edited to add- I'm talking about starting pitchers- not position players and relief pitchers.