W/L has very little use in determining a player's value. Anybody who has watched Quintana pitch since he came into the league knows that he's not what people associate with a .500 pitcher. You can pitch for awful teams your entire career, but because your team never scored more than 2 runs per game, you wind up 10 games under.

People need to first use the eye test. People like Silvy, who have never watched more than 30 seconds of White Sox baseball, just throw things out there, like "ehhh, he's not really established yet."

Second, use peripherals. How's his control? Does he miss bats? Does poor fielding behind him hurt?

W/L is rather useless. It's like +/- in hockey. It holds muted value. It's not completely useless, but you can only truly interpret it when incorporating other variables.

I agree with your point in chief.

However, for a pitcher acquired for a championship run, W/L is really the ONLY thing that matters. There are no moral victories.

People need to first use the eye test. People like Silvy, who have never watched more than 30 seconds of White Sox baseball, just throw things out there, like "ehhh, he's not really established yet."

I'm not saying that there are HOF guys out there screwed over. I never said that. But Quintana is a prime example. Why do people want to look at his W/L as some sort of barometer (it's pronounced thermometer) of success? He played for awful teams and had incredibly low run support. Had he pitched on a winning club, he'd have a string of 17-6 seasons, not 11-11 seasons.

So he couldn't overcome the high-stress environment of knowing that he had to be his best to win.

That doesn't sound like a stud pitcher. It sounds like a nice #3.

There's no evidence to support that.

Had he pitched on a winning club, he'd have a string of 17-6 seasons, not 11-11 seasons.

Sure I do.

He won 48% of his games with the Sox.

That's nothing but speculation, and I believe incorrect.

You're right, we'll never know, but I believe that assessing a pitcher's value on W/L is speculative as well. Just look at Zach Davies. 11-5. Must be great! Wainwright 10-5, but having a poor season.

Can you give me an example of the guy you describe?

Let's not look at a 16 decision sample. Quintana has started 170 big league games. There was another guy on the same "terrible" teams that produced a .600 winning percentage. One of the reasons the teams were terrible is because their second best starter couldn't produce winning records.

JORR, a reasoned poster, should know that Quintana is a better pitcher than some .500 fodder that's around the league.

JORR, a reasoned poster, should know that Quintana is a better pitcher than some .500 fodder that's around the league.

That's nothing but speculation, and I believe incorrect.

JORR, a reasoned poster, should know that Quintana is a better pitcher than some .500 fodder that's around the league.

Wins is the original made up stat. It tells you absolutely nothing about how a pitcher permformed in a game.

Haven't I demonstrated to you, multiple times, the relationship between run support and W/L% for pitchers who are average-or-better in their peripherals?

That's right, I have:



Pitchers with good peripheral stats can have their W/L% impacted by as much as 40% (44% with a polynomial relationship) by the linear relationship between run support and W/L%.

It tells you the most important thing- if he pitched better or worse than the guy(s) he faced.

There's no evidence to support that.

Looking at wins and losses to evaluate a player is extremely simplistic. It's fine at the end of a career because it's such a large sample size. But GM's would be dumb to use it as an indicator of future performance. There are better indicators.

As opposed to the evidence he'd have a 17-6 record if he pitched for a
winning team?

Not necessarily true. Bullpens blow leads, errors lead to extended innings, no run support = much lower likelihood of winning.