One of the first "projected" standings, Sox dead last

[NorthSideSox72]

Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins.

But... those more hidden factors, not easily reflected in peripheral stats, do indeed translate to more wins, all else equal.

 

Wins for a pitcher are not a great stat for evaluation, but they are also not quite completely meaningless. Sometimes, if its consistent, it can indicate something about that pitcher's make-up. You just need to get a better idea of context to judge.

 

[ptatc]

Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins.

 

We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree.

 

The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning.

 

Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats.

 

[YASNY]

We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree.

 

The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning.

 

Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats.

 

 

^ that!

[JorgeFabregas]

McDowell had a good ERA and decent WHIP. He also pitched a s***-ton of innings--he was in the top 3 in the league for innings pitched 5 times (probably why he flamed out young). You don't need the win stat to show how good he was.

[ptatc]

McDowell had a good ERA and decent WHIP. He also pitched a s***-ton of innings--he was in the top 3 in the league for innings pitched 5 times (probably why he flamed out young). You don't need the win stat to show how good he was.

 

he flamed out young due to a degernerative hip condition. Which is why the Sox wouldn't give him a long term contract.

 

[ScottyDo]

Apparently losing Vazquez, O-cab and Swisher = 20 game swing.

 

I don't buy it. We're a mid-80's team that can swing 8 games either way.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Apparently losing Vazquez, O-cab and Swisher = 20 game swing.

 

I don't buy it. We're a mid-80's team that can swing 8 games either way.

 

 

Colon's health pending, as it stands now the back end of the rotation is Colon, Richard, or Marquez. Maybe not 20 games, but unless these guys light up the world, and assuming Floyd didn't have a fluke year, I hope our offense relentlessly pours runs in. Cabrera was a big part of the 2008 team. Swisher struggled, but still hit the ball out the park and drew some walks. Vazquez, as frustrating as he may have been, is a better #4 than either of the three afore-mentioned. Dropping that and supplementing it with Betemit, Getz, Richard, Marquez etc. won't help-on paper. Not saying they won't. after all, Floyd did. I thought Ramirez would, but not as soon as he did. Now I'm just worried about their ability to achieve stability in that production.

 

I wish we would have held on to Masset. I can't be the only one to remember how he stiffled the Cubs mighty lineup.

 

We also lose Crede, who is a lamb, but nevertheless tore that s*** up early on in the season, and Uribe, who was a contributor, and a pretty big f***ing "Get out of Jail" spot. Now we have two, possibly three starters, two more unproven, and a guy who helped us win it but won't be able to until July. The infield, while Fields has been at third before, now features three positions filled by different guys than last year. Who the f*** plays CF? The Chevy truck that rolls out in between innings? I hope so cause since Anderson won't, thats probably the ideal alternative. Owens? How about just not fielding a man at all? For fear of being struck down by lightening I won't take the time to question whether CQ can strive to imitate Frank. It was great to witness, but can it happen again...?

 

 

[ScottyDo]

Colon's health pending, as it stands now the back end of the rotation is Colon, Richard, or Marquez. Maybe not 20 games, but unless these guys light up the world, and assuming Floyd didn't have a fluke year, I hope our offense relentlessly pours runs in. Cabrera was a big part of the 2008 team. Swisher struggled, but still hit the ball out the park and drew some walks. Vazquez, as frustrating as he may have been, is a better #4 than either of the three afore-mentioned. Dropping that and supplementing it with Betemit, Getz, Richard, Marquez etc. won't help-on paper. Not saying they won't. after all, Floyd did. I thought Ramirez would, but not as soon as he did. Now I'm just worried about their ability to achieve stability in that production.

 

I wish we would have held on to Masset. I can't be the only one to remember how he stiffled the Cubs mighty lineup.

 

We also lose Crede, who is a lamb, but nevertheless tore that s*** up early on in the season, and Uribe, who was a contributor, and a pretty big f***ing "Get out of Jail" spot. Now we have two, possibly three starters, two more unproven, and a guy who helped us win it but won't be able to until July. The infield, while Fields has been at third before, now features three positions filled by different guys than last year. Who the f*** plays CF? The Chevy truck that rolls out in between innings? I hope so cause since Anderson won't, thats probably the ideal alternative. Owens? How about just not fielding a man at all? For fear of being struck down by lightening I won't take the time to question whether CQ can strive to imitate Frank. It was great to witness, but can it happen again...?

I would agree that we're worse off right now, but I'm not sure of the extent of it. I don't think we're any worse off in center field now than we were last year. Swisher had a few good games and a good two-week-long streak, anyone should be able to duplicate that type of production. hell, BA 2006 was close. The back end of the rotation is certainly not great but we put up with richard/contreras there last year and came out of it okay. crede was injured most of last year and Uribe can defend but he couldn't ever hit so if Josh Fields is at all productive, he's probably at least a wash. MI is a question mark, to be sure, but I think we have enough talent to fill the 2b spot competently. At least enough to take over for what we lost with o-cab. that is to say, an okay average, decent speed, and slightly above average defense.

 

Yeah, we did have some players perform to an unexpected level last year, but they were also players with unknown ceilings so its very possible they could repeat that this year. overall, I stand by my mid-80's assessment

[knightni]

Who the f*** plays CF? The Chevy truck that rolls out in between innings?

Does it count as an out if the ball falls into the bed or is it required to go inside the cab?

[iamshack]

We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree.

 

The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning.

 

Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats.

 

I think the problem with this argument is no one has really figured out a way to analyze or quantify the idea that many pitchers will "pitch to the score." Now I know many people will argue that because of the emphasis on peripherals in the free agent market, pitchers no longer pitch to the score, but rather, always try to produce the best statlines for themselves, I think the argument still has plenty of merit. Over the course of 36 starts, it certainly seemes beneficial to pitch to the score a bit rather than to always attempt to produce the best peripheral statistics. While some stats in earlier starts may suffer from trading outs for runs at times, the cummulative effect might indeed prove to be beneficial in later starts because of wear and tear and fatigue avoided in earlier starts.

 

I am sure that some team or teams has figured out a way to quantify this or more adequately recognize the difference between pitchers that pitch to the score and those that get the majority of their wins simply when their offense produces several runs, but I am not aware of a stat that has been widely disseminated to the public which articulates as much.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Well, I guess there's no point in tuning in now is there?

[lostfan]

But... those more hidden factors, not easily reflected in peripheral stats, do indeed translate to more wins, all else equal.

 

Wins for a pitcher are not a great stat for evaluation, but they are also not quite completely meaningless. Sometimes, if its consistent, it can indicate something about that pitcher's make-up. You just need to get a better idea of context to judge.

I would concede that wins, over the course of a career, do have some value. I can't think of any s***ty pitchers that have 300 wins for example. At the same time, you have guys like Schilling who pitch their ass off, but lose a lot of games 2-1 because their team blows. Which probably hurts their chances at the Hall (and I think Schilling is a HOF pitcher, he has been straight $$ in the postseason and has great career numbers, except wins).

 

But for a single season, I think it's entirely fair to say wins are a completely worthless stat and don't tell you anything because there are variables that can swing it too far in either direction. A really good pitcher can get 11 wins, a really mediocre one can get 18 wins.

[ptatc]

I would concede that wins, over the course of a career, do have some value. I can't think of any s***ty pitchers that have 300 wins for example. At the same time, you have guys like Schilling who pitch their ass off, but lose a lot of games 2-1 because their team blows. Which probably hurts their chances at the Hall (and I think Schilling is a HOF pitcher, he has been straight $$ in the postseason and has great career numbers, except wins).

 

But for a single season, I think it's entirely fair to say wins are a completely worthless stat and don't tell you anything because there are variables that can swing it too far in either direction. A really good pitcher can get 11 wins, a really mediocre one can get 18 wins.

 

In a single season I would agree. Any pitcher can have a lucky season, just ask Steve Stone a mediocre pitcher with one great Cy Young season. Any pitcher can also have a hard luck season where they lose a number of 1-0 or 2-1 games.

 

This is why I think that wins and "intangible things play a role just as the numbers do. The smart GM or fan even should combine both of the "scout view" and number.

 

I think Schilling may be a bad example because he was such an ass that players tried to lose for him. I'm just kidding but he's right up there with Bonds, Sheffield and Clemens in attitude and personality with Sheffield slightly edging the others.

 

[lostfan]

In a single season I would agree. Any pitcher can have a lucky season, just ask Steve Stone a mediocre pitcher with one great Cy Young season. Any pitcher can also have a hard luck season where they lose a number of 1-0 or 2-1 games.

 

This is why I think that wins and "intangible things play a role just as the numbers do. The smart GM or fan even should combine both of the "scout view" and number.

 

I think Schilling may be a bad example because he was such an ass that players tried to lose for him. I'm just kidding but he's right up there with Bonds, Sheffield and Clemens in attitude and personality with Sheffield slightly edging the others.

Probably a bad example, but those 3 are also HOFers too. JMO.