Red Mosquito

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Chris_H_2 wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Do you have a source for this as it relates to my question? Because it sounds like you're just pulling this out of your ass.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Do you have a source for this as it relates to my question? Because it sounds like you're just pulling this out of your ass.

baseball games on the radio, pre... say WW2? were, basically im in NY watching the game, I send a cable telegram to you in Chicago that says "DiMaggio Single 1 RBI" you then proceed to do the play-by-play over the radio... "and the pitch... (you then hit to bats together to make a crack sound) swing and a drive into left center field and a run comes in as DiMaggio gets another hit" I wanna say some of these games were even "re-broadcast" (literally made up the next day)

I got no reference for it, but I know ive heard Uecker talk about the old stats / radio broadcast numerous times. In those days, when they literally made games up based on the box score... a Win would be a key stat in describing if a pitcher was on/off in those days.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

its definitely a good debate... whats harder? facing a good team with great run support, or pitching 1-0 games every time out...

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

Joesanity wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

its definitely a good debate... whats harder? facing a good team with great run support, or pitching 1-0 games every time out...

Pitching a bunch of 1-0 games. The room for error is so small.

I hate the argument about pitchers for losing teams have nothing to play for so the pressure isn't there. How about the fact that this is their job and they're playing for new contracts or just playing for pride and proving that they are in fact that damn good every time out regardless of whether they're in a pennant race or not.

And another note going back a page or so to the wins argument. "Knowing how to win" is how we end up with stupid arguments about Jack Morris deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.

Wins prove nothing when evaluating pitchers.

numbers wrote:None of us are saying it's an end all be all stat, we are just saying it isnt irrelevant, which is what many sabermetrics guys do.

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

I'd say to answer your question, a hitter is only going to be involved in 4-5 plays a game - perhaps 1/8 of the game. A pitcher will be involved with at least 1/2 the outs - more like 2/3s. That's a big difference. A pitcher's contribution to a single game is much greater than a hitter's.

philpritchard wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

I'd say to answer your question, a hitter is only going to be involved in 4-5 plays a game - perhaps 1/8 of the game. A pitcher will be involved with at least 1/2 the outs - more like 2/3s. That's a big difference. A pitcher's contribution to a single game is much greater than a hitter's.

But that's comparing the pitcher to an individual hitter. A pitcher's contribution in a game is significantly more than a hitter's, but there are 9 hitters in the game.

A pitcher's job is to put the team in the best position possible to win a game. He has a huge amount of control over that, and he can do that by preventing the other team from scoring runs (though obviously defense factors in, as well). He has no control over whether or not the team actually wins the game. That's why wins should have little to no impact on evaluating a pitcher. The number of runs he allows (also the number of hits, walks, Ks, etc.) will show you how well he did at giving his team a chance to win. Wins will show how often his offense backed him up and his bullpen held the lead.

vegman wrote:So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:He most certainly has some control over whether his team wins. But now we're just repeating the same arguments...

EJ wrote:

vegman wrote:So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

EJ wrote:

vegman wrote:So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

numbers wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

EJ wrote:

vegman wrote:So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

Agreed.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!