Running MLB Thread, Part the Fourth, 2007

I'll take the empirical data over anyone's lyin' eyes.

Easiest thing to do as a starter is pitch with a half-dozen runs in the pocket.

They aren't giving up homers left and right in this circumstance.

The only difference is that if they get behind in the count, they will make sure to throw a strike (i.e. a meatball)

I see a lot of shutouts or games with 1 or 2 runs allowed by the best pitchers in blowouts.

The best pitchers don't allow runs, or baserunners for that matter, and eat up innings.

Still waiting for that defense of Smoltz over Brown in 1996.

I won't hold my breath.

 

Another crock of shit from you.

 

OK, dude.

You don't know shit about shit, but whatever.

 

Of course, ERA doesn't mean nearly as much for a reliever. And ERA - obviously - doesn't count unearned runs ...

 

ERA also doesn't count who's backing up the pitcher. John Olerud at first was probably worth .1 at least to every starter on the staff. God only knows how many runs Junior saved in center when he was in his prime.

But that's the problem...God only knows...which is why eyeballs have some worth in evaluation, despite the declarations of He Who Must Be Obeyed.

 

ERA is the MOST telling/significant of the stats.

I will assume that all this mealy-mouthed search for exceptions counts as agreement.

 

Just curious, but who appointed you to decree which stats are most important from on high?

I mean, I don't think anyone even disagrees that ERA is important. But might not WHIP be just as important, depending on the circumstances?

No single statistic does more than if can do -- measure one specific thing. I fail to see how you can decree one formula to be holistic.

 

The first tenet of the game, before baselines were drawn, was that the winning team would be the one that scored more runs.

 

This is why I agreed that you can't just use one statistic. I don't know why you would want to. Obviously, there are guys who show their skills better through other statistics. Aaron Harang was one of those last year. He had a fairly high ERA, but he was helping the Reds by going deep in so many games and giving them a chance to win most of the time.

But give me a guy with an ERA over four in the NL or over 4.50 in the AL and he's nothing more than a mediocre pitcher even if he is giving his team a lot of innings.

Still, the pitcher's job is the same as anybody on the team, to help the team win. But his role is to keep the other teams from scoring runs. And he has more control over ERA than he does over wins.

 

Laughable. Especially since ERA doesn't exactly measure runs allowed.

But I'll play.

But that logic, why not just go by wins?

 

That's what the dumbfuck baseball writers do in determining the Cy Young.

The only stat on a pitcher's docket that potentially has more to do with team success than ERA is Run Support.

ERA is the only one of the two, though, that shows a pitcher's ability.

 

And of course, you're using the same logic.

The league a pitcher plays in, his home park, his defenses range, his home official scorer all also affect his ERA without measuring his effectiveness.

It's a useful stat. It is not singular.