Right but the point is Morris might be smart enough to pitch to the score...so the lesser pitcher may give it his all even when winning 9-0 and ends up winning 9-1...Morris wins 9-5.....who knows, again im just pointing things.
Well, intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate directly with talent. (In fact, I think it might be the opposite.) But, really, even the dumbest of pitchers know to pitch to the score. It's the kind of thing that pitching coaches and managers love to remind pitchers of multiple times in between innings. Unless your coaches at every level have been equally dumb, it's very unlikely that was the case.
dude youre caps took it right up the ass tonight....didnt even show up huh? Fuck that wise ass Ovechkin
Pleasantly surprised about the Yankees' hitting and pitching tonight. OK, it was against an unknown pitcher, but unknown pitchers usually kill them. Nice going tonight, Yanks.
I wasn't disagreeing with him? I was agreeing with his points.... it's an indication but it's not the end all say all indication. Lots of guys win twenty games but there are always lots of very good pitchers who don't win twenty games very year.
not to make too much of it, but a win tonight might be very big in getting this team turned around. C.C on the mound with achance to win a series against the first place Jays. We need to get this done.
I really don't think a win tonight marks any sort of turnaround. Not to disparage the first place Jays because it's amazing what they've done so far, but their pitching is weak. Last night Brett Gardner hit his first home run in 72 games. That's not exactly a coincidence. On the other hand, we kept baseball's highest scoring team to 2 runs, which is a significant feat for the pitching staff. CC having a good night tonight will be a positive sign as well. But the Red Sox are still the team-to-beat in the AL East.
Richmond crumbled like a Chips Ahoy cookie last night....he was awful. We need a bounce back game against Fat Albert tonight...to take this series.
I know. The point is that there are too many variables for it to be a reliable statistic, and it should be weighted accordingly.
No they don't. Using your own example you cite later, a pitcher can pitch 9.0innings and win the game 1-0. Did the team do more than the pitcher that night? Or better yet...the pitcher pitches 9.0 innings and the team wins 4-1. They only had 1 hit and that hit was a grand slam, did they do more effort? I think you are misinterpreting "win" in the context of a pitcher. you are strictly interpreting "win" as how well the team performs when this pitcher pitches. but it should be amended to be the pitcher pitched well enough to win the game.
These examples miss the bigger picture. When you are trying to compare two different pitchers and you use wins as the point of comparison, you are neglecting to take into account the actions of the rest of the team in each of those games that each pitcher won/lost. This does not provide an accurate picture of a pitcher's performance. Or rather, there are far more accurate methods to judge a pitcher's performance... methods that don't require one to rely on the performance of the team's offense on any given day. ETA: Here's a good example: You're putting a team together. Which pitcher would you rather have from 2008? Pitcher A: 11-14 Pitcher B: 15-11 Going by wins, you're saying you'd rather have Pitcher B on your team. Here is something else for you to look at, though. Their ERA: Pitcher A: 2.85 Pitcher B: 4.77 Well, gee. I guess Pitcher B just knows how to pitch to win the game. Except Pitcher A is Cy Young winner Jake Peavy, playing on the shittiest hitting team in the league... the Padres. Pitcher B is Bronson Arroyo, pitching for the Reds, who score 67 more runs during the season. Congratulations. You're building your team around Bronson Arroyo.
Ok, and the other guy went 9 and gave up 1 run. Didn't he pitch well enough to win most games? Say on the same night a pitcher goes 5 innings and gives up 10 runs, but his team wins 11-10. Should he get a win while the guy that went 9 get a loss? Wins are a terrible stat. They just are. Get over it already.
???? I'd appreciate you read my posts before you enter an argument with me... I typed this one page earlier I'm not arguing that wins are the ONLY measure of a pitcher's performance. I'm disagreeing with devil when he says wins are a horrible stat.
I read your post, and I undersatnd that you are not arguing that they are the ONLY measure of a pitcher's performance. But in the context of comparing two pitchers, wins are practically useless, given the wealth of additional information that can be extracted about how well a pitcher does his job. They are certainly not an "essential stat." They're misleading more than anything else. It's the difference between measuring how fast something is moving by using an atomic clock, an expensive stopwatch, or counting "One-Mississippi, Two-Mississippi." Given the first two options, the third is pretty horrible. Is there SOME value to it? Sure. And there is SOME value to wins. Just nowhere near as much as most people put on it. Those examples you used are rare enough, and can be so easily confounded by other input that it is a better choice to simply not use wins.
But we weren't comparing two pitchers. The discussion was about a single pitcher's performance. If you argue Santana v. Lee for the 2008 season. Would you take Lee or Santana? Your point is you take Santana. Why? B/C he is the better pitcher overall in the long run. But the discussion never ventured that far.
Anything is possible. My thing is, winning series against the Orioles and the Blue Jays, both teams with very little pitching and a lot of offense (who does that sound like?) isn't much of a barometer for this team's success. I've said it even during my worst rants that this team will win 90+, and that most of those wins will come against the bottom 2/3 of the league. Yes, yes, that's only natural given how many times you'll actually play against teams in the bottom 2/3 of the league, and of course they should beat those teams anyway. The point of course, is that if they can't beat teams like the Red Sox, Tampa Bay, and LAA on a regular basis, then all the wins in the world against the Orioles, and the A's become useless when the leaves change color. I'd love to be optimistic about this team, but let's be honest, what has it shown us so far? The starting pitching has been fair to good, with some spots of atrocious. The pen has been atrocious to fair, with some spots of good. The hitting has been either awesome or non-existent. There is zero consistency with this team. I can't get excited over that.
