Re-sign Contreras, trade Vazquez mid-season

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:10 PM)

Who is better, pitcher A who goes 21-4 with a 7.50 ERA and 2.00 WHIP or pitcher B who goes 10-7 with a 1.00 ERA and .90 WHIP?  And yes, these are extremes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that have to do with my question?

 

Yes they are extremes, but they are also very unlikey to happen.

[Felix]

What does that have to do with my question? 

 

Yes they are extremes, but they are also very unlikey to happen.

It has nothing to do with your question, it has to do with your line of thinking on the value of wins.

 

And they aren't that extreme. Look at Roger Clemens last year, 13-8 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP, while Jeff Francis went 14-12 with a 5.68 ERA and 1.62 WHIP, and before you say "Coors Field effect", he was worse on the road than at home. According to wins, Francis was the better pitcher. According to everything else, Clemens was.

 

IMO, Clemens was clearly the best pitcher in the league. I don't like the guy, and would have voted against him in the Cy Young out of hate, but he had the best year out of any pitcher in the league. Is that shown by his win total? No. Why? Because his team gave him no run support.

 

And to answer your original question, there is nothing wrong with pitching at the same level of your opponent, as long as you get the win. But just because you get the win doesn't mean you are the better pitcher.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:01 PM)

It has nothing to do with your question, it has to do with your line of thinking on the value of wins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh? So why bother quoting it? I'm not like Hawk Harrelson where I think wins are the be all, end all stats of a pitcher.

 

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:01 PM)

And they aren't that extreme.  Look at Roger Clemens last year, 13-8 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP, while Jeff Francis went 14-12 with a 5.68 ERA and 1.62 WHIP, and before you say "Coors Field effect", he was worse on the road than at home.  According to wins, Francis was the better pitcher.  According to everything else, Clemens was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, a 5.68 ERA is not close to a 7.5 ERA, and a WHIP of 1.62 is not close to a WHIP of 2.00. Also, a 14-12 record is nowhere close to a record of 21-4.

 

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:01 PM)

And to answer your original question, there is nothing wrong with pitching at the same level of your opponent, as long as you get the win.  But just because you get the win doesn't mean you are the better pitcher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You already pretty much made my point of pitching to the level of your opponent. You point out Roger's awesome's numbers, yet you also mention the lack of run support. Don't you think if Roger got a few more runs during his outings his ERA and WHIP would increase? If he got a 6-0 lead in the 3rd inning, why should he try to strike everybody out and not allow a single base runner? Isn't that asking for a bit much?

"But just because you get the win doesn't mean you are the better pitcher."

Well I'm guessing that's not the case 95% of the time if you are judging games on a case to case basis. Two games I can think of where the losing pitcher pitched a better game than the winning pitcher was Freddy's one hit loss, and Garland's outing against Santana back in 2004.

[Felix]

Huh?  So why bother quoting it?

Because I'm replying to you, not someone else who might have posted inbetween my post and yours.

 

Don't you think if Roger got a few more runs during his outings his ERA and WHIP would increase?

No, I don't. Why would they increase? This is major league baseball, you don't loosen up on the mound just because you are up 6 runs, and if you do, you aren't going to last very long. If this is what you were talking about in the other post, then I disagree very much so, and must have misunderstood it.

 

"But just because you get the win doesn't mean you are the better pitcher."

Well I'm guessing that's not the case 95% of the time if you are judging games on a case to case basis.

Games are not decided alone by pitching. Hitting plays a big part of it too, and Roger Clemens proved it last year. In each and every one of his losses, was he the worse pitcher? Not necessarily, since the Astros offense likely often made the other pitcher look good. In those cases, was it the pitchers good pitching, or the hitters incompetent hitting? The Astros were 11th in the National League in runs scored. If they were 1st, what do you think Clemen's win/loss record would have been?

 

And I'm not really going case to case (Although its true that if you win the game, you aren't necessarily the better pitcher. You could very well be, but it's not absolute.), but more towards end of the season statistics. Francis had 14 wins, Clemens had 13. Since Francis had more wins, does that make him the better pitcher?

 

If you do go case to case, you need to take into account the quality of the offense they are facing. For example, Brandon McCarthy dominated both the Rangers in Texas and the Red Sox in Boston last year. If another pitcher were to have dominated the Twins (I use the Twins because they were last in the AL in runs last year), would it have been just as impressive a pitching job? Would that then make McCarthy and the other pitcher on the same level of pitching? No, because the Rangers and Red Sox are dominant offensive teams, especially when playing in their homeparks. The Twins, on the other hand, are pathetic on offense.

[YASNY]

I agree. Wins, in and of themselves, are not the end all stat for pitchers. In fact, WHIP, ERA, etc aren't either. In my opinion, you cannot measure the quality of a single ballplayer by any stat or combination of stats. There are 9 men on the field at any given time. Those nine men affect the performance of the pitcher, as well as the hitter. As an example, would Dye's GWRBI base hit in Game 4 of the WS been a base hit if Luis Aparcio or Ozzie Smith would had been at SS?

 

Still, the fact remains that the number one objective of any pitcher that takes the mound is to win the game. You cannot discount guys that have a knack for winning the game without being 'lights out' all the time. There are pitchers that can win without their best stuff and there are pitcher that have great stuff that never learn the knack of winning. There are things like intestinal fortitude, competiveness, savvy and determination that can't be measured by any stat ... but the 'W' stat will give some indication.

[DBAHO]

Stating the bleetin obvious here;

 

Never mind all the rumors you might be hearing about the Sox trading a starting pitcher. Williams said again that he has no intention of dealing any of his six starters.

 

“The only way I’d do it is for a young, high-ceiling guy who’s already in the big leagues and can start for us for the next five or six years,’’ Williams said. “And I’m not talking about a run-of-the-mill kind of guy, so that deal doesn’t exist.

 

“I’ll never say never, but who’s going to trade you that guy? We looked into it months ago and it just didn’t exist for obvious reasons.

 

“We will stand pat with what we have and consider ourselves very fortunate that we have an option if we have any unforeseen issues with our starters.’’

 

So is that Francisco Liriano or Felix Hernandez we're gettin then?

[SSH2005]

I agree.  Wins, in and of themselves, are not the end all stat for pitchers.  In fact, WHIP, ERA, etc aren't either.  In my opinion, you cannot measure the quality of a single ballplayer by any stat or combination of stats.  There are 9 men on the field at any given time.  Those nine men affect the performance of the pitcher, as well as the hitter.  As an example, would Dye's GWRBI base hit in Game 4 of the WS been a base hit if Luis Aparcio or Ozzie Smith would had been at SS? 

 

Still, the fact remains that the number one objective of any pitcher that takes the mound is to win the game.  You cannot discount guys that have a knack for winning the game without being 'lights out' all the time.  There are pitchers that can win without their best stuff and there are pitcher that have great stuff that never learn the knack of winning.  There are things like intestinal fortitude, competiveness, savvy and determination that can't be measured by any stat ... but the 'W' stat will give some indication.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great point. Garland doesn't finish last season with a 3.50 ERA if he has the Cubs' infield defense playing behind him.

[GoodAsGould]

Great point.  Garland doesn't finish last season with a 3.50 ERA if he has the Cubs' infield defense playing behind him.

 

well maybe when Perez and Hairston are in the infield..

[Jordan4life_2007]

Stating the bleetin obvious here;

So is that Francisco Liriano or Felix Hernandez we're gettin then?

 

I'm glad Kenny's not messin around. I don't care if he's 34. You don't trade a pitcher of Jose's caliber without getting something damn good in return.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 10:22 PM)

And I'm not really going case to case (Although its true that if you win the game, you aren't necessarily the better pitcher.  You could very well be, but it's not absolute.), but more towards end of the season statistics.  Francis had 14 wins, Clemens had 13.  Since Francis had more wins, does that make him the better pitcher?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is your point? I already said I don't use wins in a season to compare pitchers. So no, Francis was not the better pitcher last year because his ERA was higher, gave up more baserunners, and despite having more wins, played on a loser team in a lot of pressureless games.

 

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 10:22 PM)

If you do go case to case, you need to take into account the quality of the offense they are facing.  For example, Brandon McCarthy dominated both the Rangers in Texas and the Red Sox in Boston last year.  If another pitcher were to have dominated the Twins (I use the Twins because they were last in the AL in runs last year), would it have been just as impressive a pitching job?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look at that too. When I saw Cliff Lee finishing 4th in the Cy young, I couldn't stop laughing considering he did most of stat padding against the Royals. I would say Brandon's performance was more impressive than the guy who puts up the same line (or maybe a little bit better) against the Royals.

[Dam8610]

So is that Francisco Liriano or Felix Hernandez we're gettin then?

 

I know that's sarcastic, but I wish one of those GMs was stupid enough to do it.