I wouldn't go that far, but the point is valid that there are far better measures of a pitcher. But it's hard to deny that when a guy gets 20 wins in a year that he was very, very good. Chances are, his ERA wasn't 5.00+.
Again with this crap. You can pick out innefficiencies with every statistical category. He strikes 350 (but gave up 70 HRs, 15 of which were in key sitations) He had a 1.35 ERA (but everytime he took the mound his team had errors and 150 unearned runs scored when he pitched) He only walked 15 batters all year (but his ERA was a 9.00) You use many categories to get a taste for how a pitcher is doing but wins is an essential part of that.
But of all the categories, wins are the most inefficient and misleading. It is a statistic that depends less upon the pitcher's actual performance than any other metric.
Wins depend almost entirely on the rest of the team and therefore have very little to do with the pitcher's performance. A guy that goes 21-8 with an ERA of 4.25 is a lot worse than a guy that goes 12-10 with an ERA of 3.15. If a team wins 1-0 and the winning pitcher goes 5 innings, 7 hits, 0 K, 0 R and the losing pitcher goes 9 innings, 3 H, 12 K, 1 R, it is clear that the second guy pitched better even though he got the loss. Now, if you want to use adjusted wins, which takes other stuff out and is based just on the pitcher's actual performance, fine. But wins are not a good stat.
You make an extremely valid argument.. Now I am biased in the discussion because I loved Santana going back to his days coming out of the bullpen with the Twins, a pitcher's run support and defense have alot to do with his wins. How often does Santana get any run support when he pitches? Just look at his start against Atlanta the other night, how many errors? How many runs did the Mets score off Lowe? The other key is having a good bullpen, what did Santana not win 7 extra games last year because of the atrocious Met's bullpen? One interesting fact about Santana is that he didn't have a loss in the 2nd half of the season which has only been done by one other pitcher. Now that is also based on how a team plays but obviously you aren't going out and giving up 5 runs every game and your team outslugs them every time. Quite honestly right now Zack Greinke is the best pitcher in baseball, it's not just his start but look how he pitched down the stretch last year. I know alot of people in the Royals organization including some minor leaguers and everybody knew he was good but nobody knew he was going to be this good. I had a buddy who took live BP against him in spring training and he told me nobody could touch him, it was like the ball was invisible.
Greinke is pitching the best right now, but he has to do it for more than 7 or 8 starts before I'd call him the best in baseball. For me, it's either Santana, Webb, Peavy, Halladay, or Oswalt, in some order. Those guys have been consistently great for a while now.
While this is all true, you're just proving why you don't use wins or W/L % in any argument comparing the performance of pitchers. It relies on too many other factors. The bottom line is that ANY team wants a pitcher who can keep guys off base and go deep into games. This ability can only be seen indirectly with a stat such as wins. ERA is a little better, but even that relies on things like the range of the pitcher's defense. How many extra earned runs would Halladay give up each year if he had Jeter as his SS?
Jack Morris used to talk about pitching to the score of the game. If he was up 9-0 after 2 innings, he may throw way more fastballs than normal and give up some extra hits and runs for outs instead of nibbling like he might in a one-run game. Just sayin
Yes, but is any lead safe with the Yankees' pitching? I'm happy they're hitting, but I have no confidence...especially in the late innings with this bullpen.
Coke is not available tonight, so I really have no confidence in this pen. I think I read Bruney might be back next week.
This is very true... but what you would figure is that most pitchers will be in a similar number of situations, and the better ones would still have better success relative to the crappier ones. In other words, Jack Morris, pitching in a 9-0 game after two innings, might give up three runs throwing all fastballs, because even his predictable fastballs are pretty good. A lesser pitcher, though, when staked to a 9-0 lead, might give up five runs, and walk more guys because his command isn't as good, even when he's just trying to lay it over. And, of course, the same applies when both Morris and a lesser pitcher are in tight games. We expect that Morris, being the better pitcher, would have more success than a lesser pitcher at keeping hitters off the bases when trying to nibble.
