And That's a White Sox Winner !!

[greg775]

Just now, kitekrazy said:

 Greg you are a class act when it comes to the abuse you take here.  If you left some people here could not deal with the void of harassing you.

Thanks Kite. I appreciate that.

[kitekrazy]

18 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I stopped watching the games in order to preserve some sanity so appreciate the recap.   Box makes Lopez look like he battled but was wild as usual, how'd he look for anybody watching?

 I've started watching Milb more.  It does help me from the doomsday attitude.   If this rebuild doesn't work out I may move away from White Sox baseball until changes in ownership and philosophy.   The last time I went through abandon all hope was the Balt./Indy Colts in the 80's.  All it took was for the owner to die.  Do you think Hawk fans would have experienced 2 Cups if old man Wirtz was alive?

[greg775]

1 hour ago, kitekrazy said:

 I disagree.  There have been 20 game winners on average and below average teams.   When a certain guy is on the mound that brings team confidence.  There are also great pitchers always around the .500 mark and stay that way even going to a much better team.  Q hasn't really lit up the NL like I thought he would.  It shouldn't be the decisive factor for the CY but the top 3 in determining.

The disintegration of the W/L record has made its was to the modern baseball world though. I never look at W/L records anymore even though Stoney will mention record. He was mentioning Gio's a lot early. It used to be necessary before going to a game to see a pitcher's record. At this stage of the season a 14-8 record or something was a good pitcher.

[Jerksticks]

1 hour ago, greg775 said:

The disintegration of the W/L record has made its was to the modern baseball world though. I never look at W/L records anymore even though Stoney will mention record. He was mentioning Gio's a lot early. It used to be necessary before going to a game to see a pitcher's record. At this stage of the season a 14-8 record or something was a good pitcher.

Even with W/L there are intangibles that people refuse to acknowledge since it can’t be quantified.  That’s idiocy to write off the stat completely.  Just like it’s idiocy to put much stock in it.  All the stats do is tell us stuff.  It never hurts to listen. 

[ptatc]

19 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Even with W/L there are intangibles that people refuse to acknowledge since it can’t be quantified.  That’s idiocy to write off the stat completely.  Just like it’s idiocy to put much stock in it.  All the stats do is tell us stuff.  It never hurts to listen. 

exactly. people too easily fall in love with the newest toy and exclude all others when in reality they should be taking information from all of them.

I call this the continuing education syndrome in the PT profession.

it's amazing that once you go to a course to learn about something new that all of a sudden almost all of your patients have this issue when you have never seen it before. 

[Jose Abreu]

15 minutes ago, ptatc said:

exactly. people too easily fall in love with the newest toy and exclude all others when in reality they should be taking information from all of them.

I call this the continuing education syndrome in the PT profession.

it's amazing that once you go to a course to learn about something new that all of a sudden almost all of your patients have this issue when you have never seen it before. 

You absolutely should be taking information from multiple sources of data, yes. It's just a better idea when those data points are something the actor can actually control, which is why W/L record is largely ignored for pitchers. If you want to use it in conjunction with statistics, it's not my place to tell you that you can't, but I would at least suggest that it be weighted less than basically anything else you examine. 

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Jose Abreu said:

You absolutely should be taking information from multiple sources of data, yes. It's just a better idea when those data points are something the actor can actually control, which is why W/L record is largely ignored for pitchers. If you want to use it in conjunction with statistics, it's not my place to tell you that you can't, but I would at least suggest that it be weighted less than basically anything else you examine. 

It is on the lower end but I would weight it heavier than many others. There is still value in having a pitcher pitch long enough in games to accumulate a win. Unfortunately the value that you are discussing has helped to shape the starting pitcher role into the shorter outings and wearing out the arms of pitchers today. 

Yes, I know I'm old and this value isn't present due to the stats that show you win more games when everyone just tries to strike everyone out. However, as injuries pile up using this philosophy,  I think they may start to swing towards the NBA version of load management. I just hope it's to adjust the effort in a game and not to a 6 man staff to decrease the load. There really aren't enough MLB quality pitchers now, let alone if all team try to forgo to a 6 man rotation. 

[chitownsportsfan]

12 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

You absolutely should be taking information from multiple sources of data, yes. It's just a better idea when those data points are something the actor can actually control, which is why W/L record is largely ignored for pitchers. If you want to use it in conjunction with statistics, it's not my place to tell you that you can't, but I would at least suggest that it be weighted less than basically anything else you examine. 

I swear to god if the pitcher "win" was called anything but "win" people would let the fuck go much easier.  The pitcher doesn't win the game he literally cannot by himself in the AL.  So how about we give a win to whoever has the game winning RBI?  That would at least make some sort of sense.

It's a garbage stat and does not in any way describe a pitcher's contribution to a team.

[Jose Abreu]

5 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It is on the lower end but I would weight it heavier than many others. There is still value in having a pitcher pitch long enough in games to accumulate a win. Unfortunately the value that you are discussing has helped to shape the starting pitcher role into the shorter outings and wearing out the arms of pitchers today. 

Yes, I know I'm old and this value isn't present due to the stats that show you win more games when everyone just tries to strike everyone out. However, as injuries pile up using this philosophy,  I think they may start to swing towards the NBA version of load management. I just hope it's to adjust the effort in a game and not to a 6 man staff to decrease the load. There really aren't enough MLB quality pitchers now, let alone if all team try to forgo to a 6 man rotation. 

I agree with your overall point, especially the bold part, and that's why I like looking at innings pitched per start alongside hit rate, home run rate, strikeout rate, walk rate, and then the more advanced batted ball metrics. I get where you're coming from and I know what value you're trying to identify that many of the newer stats admittedly do not always capture. There are just other methods of discovering that value that I prefer to use. 

[ptatc]

22 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I agree with your overall point, especially the bold part, and that's why I like looking at innings pitched per start alongside hit rate, home run rate, strikeout rate, walk rate, and then the more advanced batted ball metrics. I get where you're coming from and I know what value you're trying to identify that many of the newer stats admittedly do not always capture. There are just other methods of discovering that value that I prefer to use. 

Everyone has their preferences.  I look at some of the ones you mentioned but one I really like  that doesnt get enough attention is SIERRA.

[greg775]

3 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

You absolutely should be taking information from multiple sources of data, yes. It's just a better idea when those data points are something the actor can actually control, which is why W/L record is largely ignored for pitchers. 

I don't want to fight. However, your basic premise is something very very rudimentary. Everybody has known for years, decades that a pitcher can't completely control W/L record, yet it was perhaps THE most important factor in a pitching winning Cy Young (prior to the emergence of closers). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce some pitchers have very tough luck in trying to rack up wins, instead get no decisions. Yet again ... forever it was THE bench mark for starters along with ERA of course.

Bruce Sutter won Cy Young in 1979. Before that ... all W/L and ERA. McCormick 22-10, 2.85; Gibson 22-9, 1.12; Seaver 25-7, 2.21; Gibson 23-7, 3.12; Fergie 24-13, 2.77; Carlton 27-10, 1.98; Seaver 19-10, 2.08; Marshall 15.21 withi 21 saves, 2.42; Seaver 22-9, 2.38; Jones 22-14, 2.74; Carlton 23-10, 2.64; Gaylord Perry 21-6, 2.73; then Sutter.

Then after Sutter and 37 saves it was all W/L and era cept for relievers: carlton 24-9, 2.34; Fernando V 13-7, 2.48 (strike); Carlton 23-11, 3.11; John Denny 19-6, 2.37; Sutcliffe 16-1, 2.69; Gooden 24-4, 1.53; Mike Scott 18-10, 2.22; Bedrosian 40 saves; Hershiser 23-8, 2.26; Davis 44 saves; Drabek 22-6, 2.76; Glavine 20-11, 2.55; Maddux the next four years all based on wins and era; Smoltz 24-8, 2.94; Pedro 17-8 1.90; Glavine 20-6, 2.47; Randy Johnson next four years all wins/losses and era based; gagne 55 saves in 2003;  then clemens, carpenter, webb, peavy, lincecum twice in a row; halladay, kershaw, dickey, kershaw twice in a row; arrieta, scherzer twice all based on WL and era. last year deGrom more on the advanced stats. 10-9, 1.70

I can do the AL pitchers next if you wish. Even last year's snell at 21-5, 1.89 was traditional W/L and era. In 2010, felix hernandez won 13 and lost 12 so that was ignored cause of his era and strikeouts and he won it; Aside from that, all W/L and ERA cept for Eck's 51 saves; willie hernandez's 32 saves; rollie fingers 28 and sparky lyle's 26. Aside from relievers and Felix hernandez, all cy Young winners based on W/L, ERA.

Seems to me we now know why Stoney mentions wins and losses so much, folks.

 

[ron883]

25 minutes ago, Tony said:

Wait, I’m sorry, I want you to be clear here...what is your point? That baseball writers in the past...used W/L’s to rate pitchers....you’re admitting the stat is flawed...but because it was used in the past....it’s still valid now? 

At least he removed any doubt that he can use baseball reference instead of asking people to look up stats for him

[greg775]

29 minutes ago, Tony said:

Wait, I’m sorry, I want you to be clear here...what is your point? That baseball writers in the past...used W/L’s to rate pitchers....you’re admitting the stat is flawed...but because it was used in the past....it’s still valid now? 

Sir, My point is, believe it or not, W/L and simple ERA still are the standards for Cy Young. deGrom looks like one of the only outliers. Also, sir, closers still are in the running if they get a lot of saves. Of course strikeouts could be used as well for starters but look at all the winners. They are either starters, sir, with great W/L records and great ERAs or closers with a ton of saves. Almost no exceptions! Yes in the old days it was automatic, but you see the same pattern nowadays for the most part. What do you say to this research, sir??

[ptatc]

7 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I swear to god if the pitcher "win" was called anything but "win" people would let the fuck go much easier.  The pitcher doesn't win the game he literally cannot by himself in the AL.  So how about we give a win to whoever has the game winning RBI?  That would at least make some sort of sense.

It's a garbage stat and does not in any way describe a pitcher's contribution to a team.

I disagree. It gives you a good idea of his value to the win from the pitching aspect. Of course it's not the only thing and it is on the lower 3nd of the stats as discussed but it has value regardless of the actual term.

I know most dont agree and never will as I've been arguing this point for 5 years with people on here who continue to fall in live with each new stat as they arrive. ignoring  stat is doing a disservice to the evaluation l

[Soxbadger]

8 hours ago, ptatc said:

exactly. people too easily fall in love with the newest toy and exclude all others when in reality they should be taking information from all of them.

I call this the continuing education syndrome in the PT profession.

it's amazing that once you go to a course to learn about something new that all of a sudden almost all of your patients have this issue when you have never seen it before. 

This concept always reminds me of Good Will Hunting.

 

[greg775]

54 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I disagree. It gives you a good idea of his value to the win from the pitching aspect. Of course it's not the only thing and it is on the lower 3nd of the stats as discussed but it has value regardless of the actual term.

I know most dont agree and never will as I've been arguing this point for 5 years with people on here who continue to fall in live with each new stat as they arrive. ignoring  stat is doing a disservice to the evaluation l

I listed virtually all the Cy Young winners since the 60s and over 90 percent of them won it because of W/L and ERA. What does that tell the naysayers???? Wins and losses have been considered pretty damn important by baseball's decision makers!

[kitekrazy]

1 hour ago, greg775 said:

I listed virtually all the Cy Young winners since the 60s and over 90 percent of them won it because of W/L and ERA. What does that tell the naysayers???? Wins and losses have been considered pretty damn important by baseball's decision makers!

 Yep and some have won 20 games on losing teams. See Wilbur Wood.  I also see why wins shouldn't be the top factor as some have been snubbed because of team record.  Odd that we are seeing fewer 20 game winners even with the amount of bullpen usage.

[hogan873]

6 hours ago, greg775 said:

I listed virtually all the Cy Young winners since the 60s and over 90 percent of them won it because of W/L and ERA. What does that tell the naysayers???? Wins and losses have been considered pretty damn important by baseball's decision makers!

For starting pitchers, ERA is a more indicative stat than W/L.  All of the winners you listed had low (even very low) ERAs to go along with their nice W/L records.  I don't agree that wins and losses are the most important stat for decision makers.  GMs and other front office folks are smart enough to look at at everything about a pitcher.  To say that they care about wins and losses primarily is a great exaggeration.  

[pcq]

5 hours ago, kitekrazy said:

 Yep and some have won 20 games on losing teams. See Wilbur Wood.  I also see why wins shouldn't be the top factor as some have been snubbed because of team record.  Odd that we are seeing fewer 20 game winners even with the amount of bullpen usage.

At 24-20 I guess Woody ate a few innings. Carlton won 27 for the worst team around. 

[greg775]

4 hours ago, hogan873 said:

For starting pitchers, ERA is a more indicative stat than W/L.  All of the winners you listed had low (even very low) ERAs to go along with their nice W/L records.  I don't agree that wins and losses are the most important stat for decision makers.  GMs and other front office folks are smart enough to look at at everything about a pitcher.  To say that they care about wins and losses primarily is a great exaggeration.  

I don't hear the stat people clamoring about ERA when discussing pitchers. Is ERA indeed still safe? As far as what I said with my posting of all those pitchers, I would think if you look at all those starting pitchers who won, I bet most of their W/L was better than the runnerups. I didn't look at all the contenders. But like I said even in the past few seasons except for Felix Hernandez and deGrom you could point to W/L as being the deciding factor in Cy Young. 

I'd be interested in hearing from the advanced statters which pitchers listed did not deserve it despite great W/L records and ERA. I'm trying to say advanced stats are more important to the GMs in designing shifts defensively and  baseball strategy (training everybody to hit home runs or strikeout; demanding they not steal bases) than they are to color announcers in the game.

[hogan873]

4 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I don't hear the stat people clamoring about ERA when discussing pitchers. Is ERA indeed still safe? As far as what I said with my posting of all those pitchers, I would think if you look at all those starting pitchers who won, I bet most of their W/L was better than the runnerups. I didn't look at all the contenders. But like I said even in the past few seasons except for Felix Hernandez and deGrom you could point to W/L as being the deciding factor in Cy Young. 

I'd be interested in hearing from the advanced statters which pitchers listed did not deserve it despite great W/L records and ERA. I'm trying to say advanced stats are more important to the GMs in designing shifts defensively and  baseball strategy (training everybody to hit home runs or strikeout; demanding they not steal bases) than they are to color announcers in the game.

Advanced stats are MUCH more important to front office folks than TV announcers.  And that's really the way it should be.  Whether announcers are talking about a hitter or a pitcher, they're going to talk about the information that appeals to their audience.

As far as ERA, I think it's still a very good indicator of a pitcher's performance; especially starting pitchers.  I hear Stone say often that ERA doesn't matter as much for closers.  I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can understand it.  For a starter who may throw 180-210 innings in a season, a low ERA is a true indicator that they are a good pitcher.  Wins and losses are too often controlled by bad defense and/or no offensive support.

[mqr]

11 hours ago, ptatc said:

I disagree. It gives you a good idea of his value to the win from the pitching aspect. Of course it's not the only thing and it is on the lower 3nd of the stats as discussed but it has value regardless of the actual term.

I know most dont agree and never will as I've been arguing this point for 5 years with people on here who continue to fall in live with each new stat as they arrive. ignoring  stat is doing a disservice to the evaluation l

The value of the Win number is purely descriptive, in an unnecessarily specific way . There's nothing it tells you that something else doesn't communicate more reliably. 

If anything it makes me wish there was something better to parse out game to game performance. 

[greg775]

48 minutes ago, mqr said:

The value of the Win number is purely descriptive, in an unnecessarily specific way . There's nothing it tells you that something else doesn't communicate more reliably. 

If anything it makes me wish there was something better to parse out game to game performance. 

Modern baseball is crazy. They are going to have to develop new ways to determine if a player is good or not that don't involve boring techno advanced stat digits. Pitchers going five innings or six is ridiculous. Nobody can go deep in games. Four pitcher no hitters? Wow. I wonder how many one pitcher no hitters we're going to have in the future? It's going to take awfully low pitch counts to pull it off. I bet 110 pitches is the ultimate max. That's about 12 pitchs an inning. I guess it's do-able,

Edited August 6, 2019 by greg775

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, mqr said:

The value of the Win number is purely descriptive, in an unnecessarily specific way . There's nothing it tells you that something else doesn't communicate more reliably. 

If anything it makes me wish there was something better to parse out game to game performance. 

I would say the opposite. it is a summary of a number of things so you dont need to delve into the minutia all the time.