|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 23, 2013 12:52:48 GMT -5
Answer me this, Allen...between a pitcher who goes 18-7 with an ERA of 4.21 and one that went 13-14 with an ERA of 2.47, which would you say is better? Allen- Answer me this: If you want to win a pennant, which would you rather have? Me, I want to win games, not post a gaudy team ERA. Look, obviously ERA is a factor, I never said it wasn't. But W-L is a factor too, and a pitcher does have some control over it. People like Rog think a pitcher has as much control over W-L as he does the direction the wind blows on the day he pitches. |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 23, 2013 12:57:24 GMT -5
Answer me this, Allen...between a pitcher who goes 18-7 with an ERA of 4.21 and one that went 13-14 with an ERA of 2.47, which would you say is better?
~Dood
Boagie- when Allen and myself vouch for pitchers who can get wins, we don't really consider ERA. In my mind the question should be--who would you rather have someone who is 18-7 with a .247 ERA or someone who is 13-14 with a .247 ERA?
I'm not sure about you but I would much rather have the pitcher who can convert more of his decisions into wins.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 23, 2013 13:06:10 GMT -5
Answer me this, Allen...between a pitcher who goes 18-7 with an ERA of 4.21 and one that went 13-14 with an ERA of 2.47, which would you say is better?
Allen- Answer me this: If you want to win a pennant, which would you rather have? Me, I want to win games, not post a gaudy team ERA.
Look, obviously ERA is a factor, I never said it wasn't. But W-L is a factor too, and a pitcher does have some control over it. People like Rog think a pitcher has as much control over W-L as he does the direction the wind blows on the day he pitches.
Dood - since you didn't answer the question, that tells me you know what is really important but you're married to this antiquated narrative that wins/losses is so very important in evaluating pitchers. As Boagie says, it can be useful when you are deciding between two pitchers whose other stats are pretty close...but I don't know a manager in the game who would start Game 1 of the World Series, given the choice, with the 18-7, 4.21 ERA guy over the 13-14 2.47 ERA guy.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 23, 2013 13:06:25 GMT -5
I'm hoping over time that fans will take the stats for what they're worth, and realize that a lot of them were created to sell a book or a magazine.
---boly says---
Boagie, I soooooooooooo wish I could agree with you.
Thing is, I can't.
I don't give most "people" let alone "fans" enough credit to know when to come out of the rain.
And I base this on 30+ years of teaching and observing their PARENTS.
Sheesh!
We have become a "sound byte" culture, plain and simple.
And because of that people no longer question stuff. They don't have to. They simply wait for a "talking head" to tell them what to believe.
Further, schools are TEACHING children not to question, but rather simply believe what they're told.
This is not boly ranting, Boagie, this is fact.
When you don't question information, you don't research it to find out if it's true or not. You're taught to accept it at face value... and you do.
People "talk" about teaching children how to think. In fact, schools in California give the subject a lot of lip service.
But it's just Rhetoric, nothing more.
I've been on the "inside" for a long time, and I DON'T like what I see.
I really don't.
So, to summerize, if people are not taught to question, they won't.
If they don't question information, they accept it as is.
It's just like Al Gore's "The planet has a fever" Nonsense.
Even though they KNEW it was not true from the beginning, (and believe me, from the research I've seen and read, they DID--They cherry picked some facts to support the case, and ignored the rest. For example: Everyone talked about one pole shrinking... and IGNORED the fact that THE POLE doubled in size!!!!!), the moron made millions!
You want the bibliographies, let me know and I'll provide them.
And the public? They didn't question him or the rest of those perpetrating the hoax, they just ate it up.
Anyway, that's why I don't think fans will EVER wisen up.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 23, 2013 15:32:25 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of society as a whole. And in baseball that's true to an extent. Look at pitch count and the way pitching staffs are set up..nobody really questions if that's the right or wrong way to do things. You rarely see a pitcher pinch hit during a bunt situation when it would seem to make sense. These are things that should be questioned.
However, I believe we have seen analysts step back from WAR. When WAR was still the new stat Rog would use it in almost every post. But now that many people have pointed out it's inaccuracies, even the stat geeks have decided to use it as a broad based ranking system at best. They still throw it out there now and then to sound smart, but they don't use it nearly as often as they did a few years back.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 24, 2013 9:04:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 24, 2013 9:14:03 GMT -5
Mark -- Answer me this, Allen...between a pitcher who goes 18-7 with an ERA of 4.21 and one that went 13-14 with an ERA of 2.47, which would you say is better? Allen- Answer me this: If you want to win a pennant, which would you rather have? Rog -- The answer here is obvious, Allen. Put in the same situation, it is virtually certain that the pitcher with the 2.47 ERA will win more games than the pitcher than the guy who went 4.21. How could he NOT? We're talking about the dfference of a run and three quarters per nine innings. You have pretty much disproven your point here, Allen. Allen -- Me, I want to win games, not post a gaudy team ERA. Rog -- Of COURSE the object for a team is to win games. I can't think of anyone will dispute that (although I believe you may have said the Giants sometimes try to fill the seats rather than win, which is another foolish idea). But guess what? Given a team that scores x-number of runs in a season, a pitching staff with a lower ERA will almost always win more games. The number of runs a team gives up DOES have something to do with its won-loss record, right? Allen -- Look, obviously ERA is a factor, I never said it wasn't. But W-L is a factor too, and a pitcher does have some control over it. Rog -- Of COURSE he does. Somewhere around a third. But do this, Allen: Go game-by-game and substitute the number of runs the 2.47 pitcher gave up in that game with the number of runs the 4.21 pitcher gave up, and see which pitcher comes up with the better won-loss record. Allen -- People like Rog think a pitcher has as much control over W-L as he does the direction the wind blows on the day he pitches Rog -- Perhaps you would share with us the name of the pitcher who has one-third control over the direction of the wind. Gee, Allen, when you use a lack of logic such as you use here, you make me doubt you on politics as well.  Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1968&page=2#ixzz2ctZYF0FN |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 24, 2013 9:19:12 GMT -5
Boagie -- However, I believe we have seen analysts step back from WAR. When WAR was still the new stat Rog would use it in almost every post. Rog -- I truly wish people would get it right here. It might help them to improve their opinions. WAR was old before I ever began using it, Boagie. And when I did begin to use it, I didn't use it in a high percentage of posts. In fact, I have stated here that I prefer Runs Above Replacement to Wins Above Replacement, although I'm not sure that is still the case. I'm not sure what you think of Eric Byrnes' knowledge of baseball, but he uses WAR a lot more than I do. If someone here wants to disagree with me, heck, that makes the stew more tasty. But at least get what I say and/or mean right. I don't mind being challenged on what I say or mean, but I HATE to get challenged on what I didn't say or mean. Do you blame me? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1968&page=2#ixzz2ctc7g3a3 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 24, 2013 9:27:43 GMT -5
Boagie -- But now that many people have pointed out it's inaccuracies, even the stat geeks have decided to use it as a broad based ranking system at best. Rog -- Heck, Boagie, no one has SAID that WAR is perfect. In fact, stats guys say just the opposite -- that it is a good guide, but it isn't absolutely perfect. It's kind of like when we see a guy hits .300 in a season, we say he was a good hitter that year. Certainly he isn't like an AWFUL hitter, but he may well have been a lucky one. The difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter is a hit every other week. As a hitting measurement, I personally like bases per out. It's certainly not perfect either, but it does give a good idea of the cost of success. Baseball is the only one of the four major sports that isn't governed by time. Instead of minutes, it's governed by outs. Remember, if a team makes no outs, it scores an infinite number of runs. There is no other sport in which a team can score an infinite number of "points." Hitters who make significantly fewer outs are almost always more valuable at the plate than those who make considerably more. That's because every time a team makes an out, it loses a piece of the game. And, clearly, the object isn't to lose. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1968&page=2#ixzz2ctdHHFKy |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 24, 2013 13:00:17 GMT -5
Mark -- Answer me this, Allen...between a pitcher who goes 18-7 with an ERA of 4.21 and one that went 13-14 with an ERA of 2.47, which would you say is better? Allen- Answer me this: If you want to win a pennant, which would you rather have? Rog -- The answer here is obvious, Allen. Put in the same situation, it is virtually certain that the pitcher with the 2.47 ERA will win more games than the pitcher than the guy who went 4.21. How could he NOT? We're talking about the dfference of a run and three quarters per nine innings. Allen- Not the scenario presented, Rog. We were presented with two pitchers, their records and their ERAs. Going on that, I'll take the 18-7 guy with the high ERA. You have pretty much disproven your point here, Allen. Allen- Not at all. I merely went with the parameters presented. You decided they didn't fit your narrative or show your desired results, so your own interpretation. Allen -- Me, I want to win games, not post a gaudy team ERA. Rog -- Of COURSE the object for a team is to win games. I can't think of anyone will dispute that (although I believe you may have said the Giants sometimes try to fill the seats rather than win, which is another foolish idea). Allen- Again, not at all. Happily, they've been able to pretty much do both,. But hook the owners up to a polygraph and ask them if they'd rather average 10K fans a game and win it all, or sell out every game and finish third. But guess what? Given a team that scores x-number of runs in a season, a pitching staff with a lower ERA will almost always win more games. The number of runs a team gives up DOES have something to do with its won-loss record, right? Allen- One would think, but again, that wasn't the scenario presented. Allen -- Look, obviously ERA is a factor, I never said it wasn't. But W-L is a factor too, and a pitcher does have some control over it. Rog -- Of COURSE he does. Somewhere around a third. But do this, Allen: Go game-by-game and substitute the number of runs the 2.47 pitcher gave up in that game with the number of runs the 4.21 pitcher gave up, and see which pitcher comes up with the better won-loss record. Allen- Again Rog. In the scenario presented the W-L was a given. The question didn't allow for what would happen most of the time, what is the most logical conclusion. The parameters were already set out. |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 26, 2013 2:29:57 GMT -5
--boly says---
Mark, I agree with you; good pitching does make hitters look incompetent.
Except I didn't think Lester was sharp at all.
As I said, he was all over the place with his pitches.
Dood - Lester was "all over the place" Saturday in LA too, walking 4 in 7.1 innings. But he only gave up 3 hits and 1 earned run too. I believe they call that being effectively wild.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 10:19:06 GMT -5
--boly says--- Mark, I agree with you; good pitching does make hitters look incompetent. Except I didn't think Lester was sharp at all. As I said, he was all over the place with his pitches. Dood - Lester was "all over the place" Saturday in LA too, walking 4 in 7.1 innings. But he only gave up 3 hits and 1 earned run too. I believe they call that being effectively wild. Rog -- I find the old saw that good pitching beats good hitting to be intriguing, in that it becomes almost self-fulfilling. If the good pitching does indeed beat good hitting, clearly that shows something. And if the good pitching DOESN'T beat good hitting, the good pitcher was simply off his game, so the pitching that was beaten wasn't truly good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1968&page=2#14279#ixzz2d5YcxfEu |
|
