Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[Banedon]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

[David]

Yes, because of the nature of the game, W-L will often wind up doing a decent job of being representative of how well a pitcher has done. It will also often do a bad job of painting the picture.

 

You're never going to be in this theoretical situation where you can only look at the W-L record. Why even bother with such a flawed and inherently inferior stat?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Well, it's something different entirely if you're superman diving into first base. That might be just as fast or slightly faster, but you're going to kill yourself doing that 9 times out of 10. You're essentially throwing yourself headlong at a rock.

[Banedon]

Well, it's something different entirely if you're superman diving into first base. That might be just as fast or slightly faster, but you're going to kill yourself doing that 9 times out of 10. You're essentially throwing yourself headlong at a rock.

 

I get that...and I've acknowledged that risk of injury is a great reason for not sliding into first. I'm simply arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of the "you get there faster by running through the base" myth/fact.

[UK1679666180]

Yes, because of the nature of the game, W-L will often wind up doing a decent job of being representative of how well a pitcher has done. It will also often do a bad job of painting the picture.

 

You're never going to be in this theoretical situation where you can only look at the W-L record. Why even bother with such a flawed and inherently inferior stat?

 

Because for right or wrong it is still a stat that is commonly accepted as an important stat for a pitcher.

[Banedon]

Yes, because of the nature of the game, W-L will often wind up doing a decent job of being representative of how well a pitcher has done. It will also often do a bad job of painting the picture.

 

You're never going to be in this theoretical situation where you can only look at the W-L record. Why even bother with such a flawed and inherently inferior stat?

 

Because for right or wrong it is still a stat that is commonly accepted as an important stat for a pitcher.

 

But that's the whole argument. That it's wrong that it is an important stat.

[UK1679666180]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

 

You can say that about every stat that isn't what you consider the most valuable stat.

 

What value does OBP have when I can look at EqA?

[SouthSideRyan]

Well, it's something different entirely if you're superman diving into first base. That might be just as fast or slightly faster, but you're going to kill yourself doing that 9 times out of 10. You're essentially throwing yourself headlong at a rock.

 

I get that...and I've acknowledged that risk of injury is a great reason for not sliding into first. I'm simply arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of the "you get there faster by running through the base" myth/fact.

 

I think it'd help to stop using the word slide. It's distracting becuase sliding clearly doesn't make a guy get there faster(intense scientific studies aside) I can accept a debate over diving into the base, not sliding.

[Banedon]

Well, it's something different entirely if you're superman diving into first base. That might be just as fast or slightly faster, but you're going to kill yourself doing that 9 times out of 10. You're essentially throwing yourself headlong at a rock.

 

I get that...and I've acknowledged that risk of injury is a great reason for not sliding into first. I'm simply arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of the "you get there faster by running through the base" myth/fact.

 

I think it'd help to stop using the word slide. It's distracting becuase sliding clearly doesn't make a guy get there faster(intense scientific studies aside) I can accept a debate over diving into the base, not sliding.

 

Good point. My visualization of it may not match others'.

[Banedon]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

 

You can say that about every stat that isn't what you consider the most valuable stat.

 

What value does OBP have when I can look at EqA?

 

Well for one, many, many more people know what OBP is.

 

This isn't a "this stat is better than that stat" for me. It's just that I think W/L gives more misinformation than valuable information and can actually be more hindrance than help.

[UK1679666180]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

 

You can say that about every stat that isn't what you consider the most valuable stat.

 

What value does OBP have when I can look at EqA?

 

Well for one, many, many more people know what OBP is.

 

This isn't a "this stat is better than that stat" for me. It's just that I think W/L gives more misinformation than valuable information and can actually be more hindrance than help.

 

It goes back to application of it, if applied properly, it does have value.

[Tracer Bullet]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

 

You can say that about every stat that isn't what you consider the most valuable stat.

 

What value does OBP have when I can look at EqA?

 

Well for one, many, many more people know what OBP is.

 

This isn't a "this stat is better than that stat" for me. It's just that I think W/L gives more misinformation than valuable information and can actually be more hindrance than help.

 

It goes back to application of it, if applied properly, it does have value.

 

Can you give an example of a proper application? Your argument above seems to break down into "if I know 2 pitchers' WL record over a sufficient number of starts, I'll be able to guess which one was better (as supported by other stats)." If WL alone doesn't tell you which pitcher is better at anything, what does it tell you? If you could say "W/L tells me X about a pitcher that I can't get easily from any other stat" I'd say it has value. But the only defense of it seems to be that it can help you guess which player is better, sometimes, but might also make you guess wrong.

[Derwood]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

 

What if Pitcher X was on the Yankees during that span and Pitcher Y was on the Royals?

[Bruno7481]

"good pickoff moves" from LHPs. They're all balks, all of them.

 

 

Another frustrated right hander....

 

They aren't all balks. I got away with some things in college, but they weren't all balks. You'd be surprised how many guys, even at the college level, react to your head movement. I love being LH and having the ability to disrupt a runner's timing at first.

[Cynosure]

I really have to add another one right here.

 

This annoying screaming little gremlin who has shrieked "LETS GO CUBBIES" the WHOLE game.

 

And this terrible WGN broadcast where I can hear conversations in the background.

[third eye]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

 

That's fine...but I can get that same generalized "who's better than who" info from ERA, right?

 

So what value does the Win/Loss record give you that I can't get from another stat?

 

You can say that about every stat that isn't what you consider the most valuable stat.

 

What value does OBP have when I can look at EqA?

 

Well for one, many, many more people know what OBP is.

 

This isn't a "this stat is better than that stat" for me. It's just that I think W/L gives more misinformation than valuable information and can actually be more hindrance than help.

 

It goes back to application of it, if applied properly, it does have value.

 

 

Question, without stating my opinion regarding W/L as a stat - How effective was Kevin Tapani as a pitcher in 1998?

[ConstableRabbit]

Fans booing on inside pitches where the batter overreacts and it wasnt even close.

[kujay]

Fans booing on inside pitches where the batter overreacts and it wasnt even close.

 

And fans booing when a pitchers throws over to the first the first time. And maybe even the second time.

 

After that, boo all you want.

[flyseye]

 

 

 

Question, without stating my opinion regarding W/L as a stat - How effective was Kevin Tapani as a pitcher in 1998?

 

Answer: Not very.

 

Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ?

[kujay]

 

 

 

Question, without stating my opinion regarding W/L as a stat - How effective was Kevin Tapani as a pitcher in 1998?

 

Answer: Not very.

 

Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ?

 

That's not the point. It never has been. Nobody is saying wins don't matter. Of course they do.

 

Just that W-L is not an accurate stat for judging the worth of pitchers.

[OleMissCub]

Admiring balls you hit. When you hit the ball, just start running, please.

[flyseye]

 

 

 

Question, without stating my opinion regarding W/L as a stat - How effective was Kevin Tapani as a pitcher in 1998?

 

Answer: Not very.

 

Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ?

 

That's not the point. It never has been. Nobody is saying wins don't matter. Of course they do.

 

Just that W-L is not an accurate stat for judging the worth of pitchers.

 

It is the only point, at least mine, if you read the thread.

[CuseCubFan69]

Admiring balls you hit. When you hit the ball, just start running, please.

 

You know baseball history pretty well OMC....who was the first player (One that made it a habit) to do this?

[Tracer Bullet]

 

 

 

Question, without stating my opinion regarding W/L as a stat - How effective was Kevin Tapani as a pitcher in 1998?

 

Answer: Not very.

 

Question: Which of Tapani's 19 wins would you say " don't matter " ?

 

In determining whether he was a good pitcher that year? None of the Ws matter.

[sneakypower]

people complaining about players posing for HRs

 

if they could hit a ball 400 feet, they'd admire it too

 

its like watching yourself in a mirror during sex