Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Everyone was so geared up for a debate between the Best Pitcher and the one with the most wins. And we're still having the debate even though as-of-now those are the same guy.
And if there was a pitcher with 7 WAR and an 7-17 record, Scherzer should still win.
People should stuff those arguments until there is a basis for them.
The game is about contributing to actual wins, not imaginary winlets.
There is a basis for the arguments: the Win is a very arbitrary statistic,
Chris Sale and his 6.2.
Yes. The game is about contributing to actual wins, not imaginary winlets.
Not that it really hurts your point about Clemens deserving to win that year, but Guidry had a sub-2 era in 1978.
Let's say we've got Pedro in 1999/2000, with all the component stats the same. He's pitching this year in the AL for the Red Sox. And since it's a lower run-scoring environment let's just knock his ERA down to 1.43 or something. Where is the line that lets him win the Cy Young against Scherzer?
wins is too situational dependent (goes too far in giving total credit to a pitcher even when his performance was not crucial to the team win).
So? Your "side" acts as if this is some kind of trump card, as opposed to a mere construct upon which to build a pretend model.
A winning pitcher is, at the very least, associated with actual wins. Prima facie, that matters -- at least in the real world, as opposed to Baseball Fantasia.
I'm not confident enough that Trout's 10 WAR is better than an 8 WAR season
Yes. The game is about contributing to actual wins, not imaginary winlets
Well then, why are people making anti-win arguments when the guy with the most wins is the best pitcher?
What if pitcher x strikes out every batter he faces, but his team scores no runs all year, leading to x finishing 0-0 with 900 Ks in 300 IP?
When a “journalist” cites an unnamed source is that a license to make up quotes? I seriously doubt that a credible sabermetrician working for a team has any interest whatsoever in pitcher w/l records. What possible use is that to a team other than in contract negotiations (where they try and convince a pitcher’s agent that his client’s stellar w/l record means nothing or his lousy w/l record suggests he’s not any good).
I mean, is this the biggest non-debate out there at the present time?
And isn’t virtuall everything “vanishingly small” but non-zero? And as Tango says, if there is any skill at pitching to the score or the game situation in general or anything else that is independent of implicit and explicit runs allowed metrics, no one with a shred of baseball intelligence is going to use a pitcher’s w/l record to tease those things out. No one.
Can we just say that whatever shred of information there is in a pitchers w/l record over and above a RA metric, no analyst is going to use it for anything with respect to evaluating pitching, other than in the nebulous, free floating world of awards and HOF consideration where anything goes and the “wow” factors count. No analyst. Not even Rosenthal’s made up friend.
He may have an actual source, but again, I seriously doubt that he is having a two-way conversation about pitcher w/l records within his front office, unless they have nothing better to do. Even more than that (maybe he IS trying to explain to them how they should completely, 100% ignore it), I doubt that he is “learning something from them” about the value of pitcher w/l records.
My somewhat limited but not zero experience with journalists is that even with named sources or people that they interview, they make up quotes. They are not actual quotes, but paraphrases put into quotation marks.
With unnamed and anonymous sources, my guess is that much of what they attribute to them is made up, in order to make their story more interesting.
So, when I said, “made up friend,” I was being hyperbolic and not literal. There probably is a friend/source, but I don’t think he said what Rosenthal said he said. At least not in so many words.
I am somewhat of a cynic when it comes to these things, but I also have a very good built-in B.S. detector…
But the Cy Young Award was designed with a specific purpose to honor the league's best pitcher.
And "best" is context-dependent.
Schercer vs. Kershaw is closer than I'd imagined. Scherzer has the better road ERA, FWIW. He also has a much higher K rate despite not facing pitchers all the time, and a better K/BB ratio.
It's also dependent on how you frame the argument. Most people who use the term "best" won't explicitly admit to doing it, but they frame the argument in a way that automatically excludes relief pitchers because of the way they are used - even though the CYA doesn't exclude relief pitchers from consideration.
Why? Rivera was the best pitcher in baseball at preventing runs, wasn't he?
How's Kershaw going to get "screwed over"? Each league has its own CYA and he and Scherzer are in different leagues.
Can a relief pitcher, having a season like Rivera in 2005 or Kimbrel in 2012 (or Eric Gagne in 2003, when he did win the award), legitimately be considered to be the best pitcher in the league? It's clear to me that most people who make the argument about the award being for the "best" pitcher weither haven't thought through the full implications of their argument, or (IMO more likely) have made the decision up front that a relief pitcher, solely because of the way that he is used, can't possibly be the best pitcher in the league.
Mariano Rivera is without question the best relief pitcher of our era, if not the best relief pitcher ever. He's also gotten Cy Young Award votes exactly six times in his career
The purpose of the hypothetical wasn't to suggest a serious evaluation of the two anyway; it was to set up a straw man to show that "the intelligentsia" is smarter than the imaginary people they think are "overly fixated" on Scherzer's wins. In other words, "the intelligentsia" is going to #### on Scherzer's wins whether or not real life obeys.(*) If real life doesn't obey, they'll concoct a fantasyland in which they can do it. Which works well, given how accomplished they are at concocting fantasylands.
Kershaw is a real pitcher, pitching right now in the majors at the same time as Scherzer. Comparing the two is an entirely valid exercise.
Exactly, and if people didn't feel the need to tie as many baseball discussions as possible to the awards it might be a more common one.
People need structure to organize their arguments and thoughts. You can't just say 'we should talk about more players and have interesting conversations outside of the context of awards' without explaining what specific conversations are going to happen, how they're going to be started and then continued, and why people will join in on them.
Because it's REALLY hard to bring together a large group of people to focus on a single question. And the reason why we often talk about awards is because they do that for us. It's a point of reference we all share, thus giving us easy fodder for talking.
It's the same reason you can always talk with people about the weather but often find it difficult to start a conversation about macroeconomics.
That, incidentally, is part of the reason the Kill the Win stuff is so prevalent right now. It became directly relevant to an awards conversation for a bit and so it rocketed up the agenda for a lot of people.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.7137 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed