Diamondbacks@Padres 4/18/2007-4/19/2007

[HollywoodLeo]

Jake is dealing.

PFF's tracker remains at 1

[padrefanforever]

YES IS DOES.............weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ........and as far as I'm concerned it can

[HollywoodLeo]

Jake has received 7 runs of support in 3 of 4 starts now.

[HollywoodLeo]

Jake's ERA has balooned to 2.49, though

[fetters]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you think a 1 hitter is a poorly pitched game if the opposing pitcher gets the W.

My main point is, however, that the fact that a pitcher can pitch a 1 hitter and get an L is what makes W/L an overrated stat.

Regardless of why the offense didn't provide him the run support (whether that be because they sucked or because the other pitcher pitched better) the fact remains that the pitcher pitched a 1 hitter, only gave up one run, but got an L.

In the meantime, somewhere else in baseball that day, there's probably some scrub who gave up 6 runs in 5 innings, but got a W because his offense scored 8 runs for him.

I realized after I made my last post, that I sort of strayed away from my original point. I guess I'm making two points. My original point was that Wins and Losses are not AS overrated as some people say they are.

There will always be games in which a pitcher pitched poorly and got a W, or pitched well and got an L. Thats part of the game. I'm not denying this which is why I say that sometimes the W/L doesnt do justice for the pitchers actual performance. But justified W's and L's are a lot more frequent than the unjustified ones which is why I consider it to be a valid stat.

If you look at career numbers...W's and L's are a pretty good indication of how well a pitcher has done. I said before, W/L's, in a way, clump all important stats for pitchers together. A pitcher with 200+ wins in his career probably isnt going to have a high ERA and probably didnt average 5 innings per start.

My second point was that sometimes you need to give credit to another pitcher, etc etc. I was making this point because there can be other factors in why a pitcher pitched poorly, or pitched well. Coors field, for instance. If Jeff Francis spends his entire career in Colorado and retires with 250 wins and a 4.5 ERA, I'd consider him to be one of the better pitchers of his era. Wins and Losses can tell stories that ERA's cant (the same way looking at the box score for a losing pitcher can soemtimes tell the story that his L couldnt) He pitched in a hitters park which inflated his ERA, but he consistently pitched better than his opponents and he should be recognized because of it.

Petco park is another park that can be a factor into why a pitcher pitched poorly or pitched well. David Wells has a decent ERA at Petco park in his career, but being the pitchers park that it is, his ERA could be better. This could be why he has a 3-7 record there for his career....maybe it is, maybe it isnt. Maybe his defense let him down 7 times, or maybe his offense was full of 2nd stringers so the regulars can get a day off. But the fact remains that 7 times in his career there was a pitcher who put up a better performance than he did.

This is the last time I'm going to comment on this, because I understand your point about how the stat can be overrated and we've beaten it to death and we both keep making the same points over and over again.

[HollywoodLeo]

I realized after I made my last post, that I sort of strayed away from my original point. I guess I'm making two points. My original point was that Wins and Losses are not AS overrated as some people say they are.

Some people probably go a tad overboard in trying to make the point.

There will always be games in which a pitcher pitched poorly and got a W, or pitched well and got an L. Thats part of the game. I'm not denying this which is why I say that sometimes the W/L doesnt do justice for the pitchers actual performance. But justified W's and L's are a lot more frequent than the unjustified ones which is why I consider it to be a valid stat.

Baseball is a team sport and takes a team effort to win (or lose) The pitcher has little to no control over how many runs his offense gives him. (little in the NL, none in the AL) To judge him off a stat that he doesn't have much control over is a bit much.

I disagree with the contention that the 'unjustified' wins/losses don't happen often enough.

There's just so many factors that are out of the pitcher's control that can affect him getting a W or an L for me to put half as much weight on the stat as a lot of others do.

If you look at career numbers...W's and L's are a pretty good indication of how well a pitcher has done. I said before, W/L's, in a way, clump all important stats for pitchers together. A pitcher with 200+ wins in his career probably isnt going to have a high ERA and probably didnt average 5 innings per start.

I do think W/L can be more legit as time goes on in the pitcher's career, though. I still think it's overrated, but over a longer period of time I feel it's not quite as skewed.

My second point was that sometimes you need to give credit to another pitcher, etc etc. I was making this point because there can be other factors in why a pitcher pitched poorly, or pitched well. Coors field, for instance. If Jeff Francis spends his entire career in Colorado and retires with 200 wins and a 4.5 ERA, I'd consider him to be one of the better pitchers of his era. Wins and Losses can tell stories that ERA's cant (the same way looking at the box score for a losing pitcher can soemtimes tell the story that his L couldnt) He pitched in a hitters park which inflated his ERA, but he consistently pitched better than his opponents and he should be recognized because of it.

I'd look at that Coors Field ERA and use that to say he was quite good, even if he had a losing record at Coors because he was constantly saddled with poor run support/better pitchers matching up against him.

ERA can be a bit skewed as well, but not nearly as much as the W/L stat.

Petco park is another park that can be a factor into why a pitched poorly or pitched well. David Wells has a decent ERA at Petco park in his career, but being the pitchers park that it is, his ERA could be better. This could be why he has a 3-7 record there for his career....maybe it is, maybe it isnt. Maybe his defense let him down 7 times, or maybe his offense was full of 2nd stringers so the regulars can get a day off. But the fact remains that 7 times in his career there was a pitcher who put up a better performance than he did.

David Wells was burned with lack of run support a lot in 2004, not to mention all 4 of Trevor's blown saves that year were on David Wells starts. (don't know how many of those were at PetCo, though. At least one of them was on opening day at PetCo)

This is the last time I'm going to comment on this, because I understand your point about how the stat can be overrated and we've beaten it to death and we both keep making the same points over and over again.

true.