Burnett exits game with injury

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yeah I never liked that transaction and thought they overpaid immensely for a guy that was like 49-50.

 

His W-L record isn't really the issue. At all.

or any pitcher for that matter.

 

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel :D

 

Thanks for defending yourself. I've never seen a bad pitcher win games consistantly. It's only one stat, but one that gets dismissed to often by stat boys.

 

I've seen a lot of good pitchers not win games consistently. You'll also notice that when this topic is brought up you never see wins brought up as a point that proves a pitcher's positive value. It's only in instances where pitchers don't have a win total do people question their worth, which makes your "bad pitcher consistently winning games" comment less germane to the discussion.

[indifferent]

Yeah I never liked that transaction and thought they overpaid immensely for a guy that was like 49-50.

 

His W-L record isn't really the issue. At all.

or any pitcher for that matter.

 

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel :D

 

Thanks for defending yourself. I've never seen a bad pitcher win games consistantly. It's only one stat, but one that gets dismissed to often by stat boys.

 

I've seen a lot of good pitchers not win games consistently. You'll also notice that when this topic is brought up you never see wins brought up as a point that proves a pitcher's positive value. It's only in instances where pitchers don't have a win total do people question their worth, which makes your "bad pitcher consistently winning games" comment less germane to the discussion.

 

I actually agree with the new poster, wins are still a fairly important stat. I tend to think pitchers of Zambrano's stature are less the norm than 4.00 ERA pitchers (as an example) with better win/loss record. K/9, WHIP, pure Ks for the season don't mean much unless a starting pitcher can throw at least 30 starts. Not to mention a pitcher like Mulder whose K/9 and WHIP apparently is rising, but those stats have been for awhile and he still knows how to win ballgames. I think some credit has to go to guys that know how to win.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I actually agree with the new poster, wins are still a fairly important stat. I tend to think pitchers of Zambrano's stature are less the norm than 4.00 ERA pitchers (as an example) with better win/loss record. K/9, WHIP, pure Ks for the season don't mean much unless a starting pitcher can throw at least 30 starts. Not to mention a pitcher like Mulder whose K/9 and WHIP apparently is rising, but those stats have been for awhile and he still knows how to win ballgames. I think some credit has to go to guys that know how to win.

 

I don't think it's too terrible to use wins in conjunction with other players to show that a player has been consistent, but you don't see that when the topic arises. It's only when trying to discredit pitchers that you see it, and in the cases it's brought up it's basically the only knock against the pitcher. I can't agree that a pitcher deserves credit for "winnability", there's just too many variables outside the pitcher's control that matter a lot for it to be worthwhile.

[frostwyrm]

Every discussion of pitchers' W-L records increases the sum total of stupidity in the universe.

[Illini Iceman]

A relieved Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi said Saturday night that a problem with scar tissue in pitcher A.J. Burnett's right elbow caused him to pull himself out of a game earlier in the day.

 

 

The team was told by doctors to rest Burnett for at least five days and then try to have him resume his normal throwing regimen.

 

Thestar.com

 

Why is it that when pitchers on other teams shut down for 5 days they are then able to resume their normal throwing regimen but when a Cubs pitcher gets shut down like this they say he has lost arm strength and his progress gets pushed back about 2-3 weeks (e.g. - Mark Prior)?

[srbin84]

A relieved Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi said Saturday night that a problem with scar tissue in pitcher A.J. Burnett's right elbow caused him to pull himself out of a game earlier in the day.

 

 

The team was told by doctors to rest Burnett for at least five days and then try to have him resume his normal throwing regimen.

 

Thestar.com

 

Why is it that when pitchers on other teams shut down for 5 days they are then able to resume their normal throwing regimen but when a Cubs pitcher gets shut down like this they say he has lost arm strength and his progress gets pushed back about 2-3 weeks (e.g. - Mark Prior)?

 

I just read the article and came here to post that if it was the Cubs and Prior he would be out at least a month.

[USSoccer]

A relieved Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi said Saturday night that a problem with scar tissue in pitcher A.J. Burnett's right elbow caused him to pull himself out of a game earlier in the day.

 

 

The team was told by doctors to rest Burnett for at least five days and then try to have him resume his normal throwing regimen.

 

Thestar.com

 

Why is it that when pitchers on other teams shut down for 5 days they are then able to resume their normal throwing regimen but when a Cubs pitcher gets shut down like this they say he has lost arm strength and his progress gets pushed back about 2-3 weeks (e.g. - Mark Prior)?

 

Because, unlike other MLB teams, we have Dr. Nick Riviera as our head trainer.

[Blueheart05]

A relieved Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi said Saturday night that a problem with scar tissue in pitcher A.J. Burnett's right elbow caused him to pull himself out of a game earlier in the day.

 

 

The team was told by doctors to rest Burnett for at least five days and then try to have him resume his normal throwing regimen.

 

Thestar.com

 

Why is it that when pitchers on other teams shut down for 5 days they are then able to resume their normal throwing regimen but when a Cubs pitcher gets shut down like this they say he has lost arm strength and his progress gets pushed back about 2-3 weeks (e.g. - Mark Prior)?

 

In all fairness, it isn't the same situation. Burnett was pitching in an actual game and Prior has yet to reach that point in his conditioning.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel

 

So what you're telling me is that a pitcher with a great ERA, great peripherals, but who does not have a great W-L record is not only not "clutch," but he isn't successful?

 

I don't see the logic.

 

So, if we can we should try to trade for Bartolo Colon over Johan Santana? I mean Colon had 20 wins so he was a "success," Santana only dominates him in every other category but just wasn't as clutch as Colon.

 

Next I'll be hearing how he "doesn't know how to win!!!!!11111" And about how he couldn't rouse his teammates to hit the ball (you know, the other half of winning a game), meaning no one likes him, he's a cancer, he's not clutch, and again...doesn't know how to win or create a winning atmosphere.

 

I love this talk so much.

[Monco]

Colons not exactly Glendon Rusch here.He did have a great season.

[BWcubs21]

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel

 

So what you're telling me is that a pitcher with a great ERA, great peripherals, but who does not have a great W-L record is not only not "clutch," but he isn't successful?

 

I don't see the logic.

 

So, if we can we should try to trade for Bartolo Colon over Johan Santana? I mean Colon had 20 wins so he was a "success," Santana only dominates him in every other category but just wasn't as clutch as Colon.

 

Next I'll be hearing how he "doesn't know how to win!!!!!11111" And about how he couldn't rouse his teammates to hit the ball (you know, the other half of winning a game), meaning no one likes him, he's a cancer, he's not clutch, and again...doesn't know how to win or create a winning atmosphere.

 

I love this talk so much.

 

 

Come on now, your late to the conversation, we have already established that I am an idiot :) People were ripping me because I mentioned his record and they turned around and said it doesnt matter at all, well I do happen to think it does matter...to each their own opinion I guess.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Colons not exactly Glendon Rusch here.He did have a great season.

 

Does that mean it was better than Santana's?

[jjgman21]

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel

 

So what you're telling me is that a pitcher with a great ERA, great peripherals, but who does not have a great W-L record is not only not "clutch," but he isn't successful?

 

I don't see the logic.

 

So, if we can we should try to trade for Bartolo Colon over Johan Santana? I mean Colon had 20 wins so he was a "success," Santana only dominates him in every other category but just wasn't as clutch as Colon.

 

Next I'll be hearing how he "doesn't know how to win!!!!!11111" And about how he couldn't rouse his teammates to hit the ball (you know, the other half of winning a game), meaning no one likes him, he's a cancer, he's not clutch, and again...doesn't know how to win or create a winning atmosphere.

 

I love this talk so much.

 

 

Come on now, your late to the conversation, we have already established that I am an idiot :) People were ripping me because I mentioned his record and they turned around and said it doesnt matter at all, well I do happen to think it does matter...to each their own opinion I guess.

 

haven't read the whole thread, but can't anyone explain the concepts without being a condscending jerk to the new guy?

 

BW we've been told all our lives that wins for pitcher are important and it really seems like it is important, but it really is not. pitchers tend to have alot of wins when they are good pitchers, so it often is a convenient measuring stick, but wins have little to do with how good a pitcher is.

 

same can be said of rbi and runs scored. those are really team stats that only reflect tangentially on the players ability. the best way to see this phenomena is not to look at crappy players having good stats, but to look at how often players who are really good don't have good numbers in these catagories, and that happens all the time. being a Cub fan, you have seen it over and over with the Win totals of Zambrano and Wood, and to a lesser extent, Prior. the most brazen example is Roger Clemens last year. 32 starts of 1.87 ERA, and he only "won" 13 games.

 

on the rbi side, contemplate this. if Derrick Lee batted in the eight hole, and performed the exact same in ave/obp/slg, he probably would have had more rbi than he did in the three hole, because the 1 and 2 hole hitters were on base so rarely. his obp plus slg was probably 200 points above Carlos Lee, but Derrick trailed him in RBI. those rbi totals reflect more on Brady Clark, Corey Patterson, and Neifi Perez than the Lees.

[jjgman21]

sort of back on topic...I simply cannot believe that so many posters advocated getting Burnett when Wood and Prior were already a part of the rotation. could you imagine this place if Hendry signed Burnett and this was the third shutdown out of the big 4?

[srbin84]

sort of back on topic...I simply cannot believe that so many posters advocated getting Burnett when Wood and Prior were already a part of the rotation. could you imagine this place if Hendry signed Burnett and this was the third shutdown out of the big 4?

 

I don't think it would be as bad as Rusch being the third of the big 4 to get hurt.

[BWcubs21]

BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success.

 

Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel

 

So what you're telling me is that a pitcher with a great ERA, great peripherals, but who does not have a great W-L record is not only not "clutch," but he isn't successful?

 

I don't see the logic.

 

So, if we can we should try to trade for Bartolo Colon over Johan Santana? I mean Colon had 20 wins so he was a "success," Santana only dominates him in every other category but just wasn't as clutch as Colon.

 

Next I'll be hearing how he "doesn't know how to win!!!!!11111" And about how he couldn't rouse his teammates to hit the ball (you know, the other half of winning a game), meaning no one likes him, he's a cancer, he's not clutch, and again...doesn't know how to win or create a winning atmosphere.

 

I love this talk so much.

 

 

Come on now, your late to the conversation, we have already established that I am an idiot :) People were ripping me because I mentioned his record and they turned around and said it doesnt matter at all, well I do happen to think it does matter...to each their own opinion I guess.

 

haven't read the whole thread, but can't anyone explain the concepts without being a condscending jerk to the new guy?

 

BW we've been told all our lives that wins for pitcher are important and it really seems like it is important, but it really is not. pitchers tend to have alot of wins when they are good pitchers, so it often is a convenient measuring stick, but wins have little to do with how good a pitcher is.

 

same can be said of rbi and runs scored. those are really team stats that only reflect tangentially on the players ability. the best way to see this phenomena is not to look at crappy players having good stats, but to look at how often players who are really good don't have good numbers in these catagories, and that happens all the time. being a Cub fan, you have seen it over and over with the Win totals of Zambrano and Wood, and to a lesser extent, Prior. the most brazen example is Roger Clemens last year. 32 starts of 1.87 ERA, and he only "won" 13 games.

 

on the rbi side, contemplate this. if Derrick Lee batted in the eight hole, and performed the exact same in ave/obp/slg, he probably would have had more rbi than he did in the three hole, because the 1 and 2 hole hitters were on base so rarely. his obp plus slg was probably 200 points above Carlos Lee, but Derrick trailed him in RBI. those rbi totals reflect more on Brady Clark, Corey Patterson, and Neifi Perez than the Lees.

 

 

Thanks, I dont really mind that they were being "condscending jerks" as you put it, its actually funny when people get really worked up on message boards and I didnt really take it in a negative way from people, just as a way that I can expand my knowledge of the game. So I appreciate you explaining things for me. Its sorta like thinking that the world is flat all of your life and then one day being told its round, its hard to dismiss what you grew up thinking about the game in a day. But I get what you are talking about and where your coming from.

Also this is more to other people, I never said that a pitcher who wins 20 games one year (never shown that before, like a fluke) but has an ERA approaching or over 4 is better than someone like Santana or Zambrano (or at-least I never meant to). I meant that you had to factor wins into the equation and that it was the most important fact and carried more weight in the equation than other stats. I no longer think that it is a big factor, but I still think you have to use it as a small factor in evaluating pitchers.

[BigbadB]

No cheating by looking this up. I am copying the game log from a pitcher in the last 5 years. Tell me what this pitchers record should resemble. By the way, instead of ERA, I'm using all runs scored while this pitcher was on the mound.

 

April game 1- 7 innings, 1 run

April game 2- 7 innings , 0 runs

April game 3- 7 innings, 0 runs

April game 4- 7 innings, 0 runs

April game 5- 7 innings, 3 runs

 

5 starts in April, 4 runs given up. What should this pitchers record be? 4-1 or maybe even 5-0? No argument from me on either one.

 

May game 1- 7 innings, 2 runs

May game 2- 7 innings, 0 runs

May game 3- 8 innings, 1 run

May game 4- 6 innings, 3 runs

May game 5- 5 innings, 0 runs

May game 6- 8 innings, 2 runs

 

6 starts in May, 8 total runs given up. Combined with April, this guys Runs Averaged per start is just a hair over 1 run a game. Dominant. What should this guys record be at this stage? Just for fun, let's give him 2 losses, to make him 4-2 for the month. 8-3 so far for the year?

 

June was just as strong as April and May. This pitcher gave up 4 runs in his first start in June, but only 1, 0, 2, and 1 in his other 4. In other words, I'm not going to continue this chirade. By the end of June, Roger Clemens (in 2005) had an ERA of 1.50 and his record after 16 starts was 6-3, when arguably he could or should have had at least 12 wins. Of those 16 starts, he gave up more than 2 runs only 3 times.

 

Wins are a metric of of evaulating a pitcher, but a very poor one.

 

Look at Roger's April once again. He ended up going 1-1 for the month with a 1.03 ERA. After May, he was 3-3. Yes, 3-3. He didn't even have a winning record with his 1.30 ERA. That's just ridiculous. That's because Houston's offense sucked when he was on the mound. So, the theory that a good pitcher knows how to win is inaccurate. A pitcher cannot control how well or how poorly his team will hit and score. There have been dominant pitchers that always pitched for bad teams who don't have good winning records because the offense didn't put him in enough positions to win games.

 

Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL last year, and it's not even arguable. Yet, he only won 13 games. In April, Clemens threw 3 straight shut outs, and he ended up with no record at all in those 3 games, as his team lost all 3 games 1-0 after he left the game.

 

Can you arguably say a good pitcher knows how to win when the greatest pitching in the world will not guarantee him a win? His offense has too much of an impact of whether he wins or loses.

[srbin84]

Saying a pitcher with a bad W-L record and a great ERA, K/BB ratio and WHIP is not as good as a pitcher with the same stats or worse but a better W-L record seems like the same thing as saying had Jordan played for the Clippers, he wouldn't have been as good of a player.

[BigbadB]

Saying a pitcher with a bad W-L record and a great ERA, K/BB ratio and WHIP is not as good as a pitcher with the same stats or worse but a better W-L record seems like the same thing as saying had Jordan played for the Clippers, he wouldn't have been as good of a player.

 

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships.

 

Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs.

Edited March 20, 2006 by BigbadB

[indifferent]

While Clemens was the most absurd abberation, I'll add three thoughts.

 

1. Wins is a more useful tool to the team in gauging pitchers than as a means of evaluating the said pitcher (if that makes any sense at all).

 

2. If a pitcher has a low ERA and great peripherals, but can only offer you 20 starts then a counting stat like wins (and IP) shows that.

 

3. Just as pitchers receive low run support or shoddy bullpen support, a pitchers ERA over the course of the season can be comprised of some great games and some real stinkers (i.e. Matt Morris of 04 and 05). So you have some consistency issues there. Similar to piling on batters stats in garbage time, does it really help a team out when you're pitching lights out on a day you you get 7 runs of support, but choke up that extra run in a close one? I know a pitcher can't control this, but it affects the team.

 

This is where another unpopular stat was contrived, the quality start. A means to determine how consistent a pitcher is within the capsule of a single game.

 

I also wouldn't place wins in the top 5 stats to gauge a pitcher, but I wouldn't discount it either.

[goonys evil twin]

2. If a pitcher has a low ERA and great peripherals, but can only offer you 20 starts then a counting stat like wins (and IP) shows that.

 

Wins wouldn't show you if a guy started 20 times or 33 times. Games started would tell you that. Look at G and IP if you are interested in his ability to produce over time.

[srbin84]

Saying a pitcher with a bad W-L record and a great ERA, K/BB ratio and WHIP is not as good as a pitcher with the same stats or worse but a better W-L record seems like the same thing as saying had Jordan played for the Clippers, he wouldn't have been as good of a player.

 

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships.

 

Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs.

 

Yeah, I know the Bulls had a bad supporting cast in Jordan's early years, but the question is whether people would have regarded him as one of the greatest players ever if he played for a bad team every year.

[indifferent]

2. If a pitcher has a low ERA and great peripherals, but can only offer you 20 starts then a counting stat like wins (and IP) shows that.

 

Wins wouldn't show you if a guy started 20 times or 33 times. Games started would tell you that. Look at G and IP if you are interested in his ability to produce over time.

 

But there is a correlation, as a pitcher with a lower win total might not have started many games.

 

I get your point though, might as well go directly to the source.

[BigbadB]

2. If a pitcher has a low ERA and great peripherals, but can only offer you 20 starts then a counting stat like wins (and IP) shows that.

 

Clemens started in 32 games and pitched in a total of 211 innings last year. He had 11 no decisions. At least 4 of those no decisions were games he left having given up zero runs. His 13-8 record doesn't tell you he started 32 games.

 

If Clemens pitched for a better offensive team than the horrible Houston Astros last year, he would have been a 20 game winner easily. Kerry Wood could have been a 20 game winner in 2003 with better run support, or at the very least, a better bullpen.

[srbin84]

2. If a pitcher has a low ERA and great peripherals, but can only offer you 20 starts then a counting stat like wins (and IP) shows that.

 

Clemens started in 32 games and pitched in a total of 211 innings last year. He had 11 no decisions. At least 4 of those no decisions were games he left having given up zero runs. His 13-8 record doesn't tell you he started 32 games.

 

If Clemens pitched for a better offensive team than the horrible Houston Astros last year, he would have been a 20 game winner easily. Kerry Wood could have been a 20 game winner in 2003 with better run support, or at the very least, a better bullpen.

 

It makes Clemens' 13-8 record even more impressive. He was probably the MVP of the Astros last year because even an average pitcher would probably have went something like 7-15.