No, I'm not. Obviously sometimes multiple pitchers combine to allow less than Quintana. I'm not criticizing Quintana's workload. That has value.

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

So is your point that those guys are overrated, CJ Wilson seems to be the only one to stand out on that list though.

Maybe run support is a function of a team playing their ass off when they know a stud is on the mound??

_________________

Oh, come on, Hank.

_________________

Juice's stats clarify a lot of this discussion.

No, it's that most of those guys are well above .500. In fact....



For this data set, more than 60% of W/L% is explained by per start Run Support.

They are also well above .500 because they are some of the best pitchers in MLB.

_________________

I don't really see anyone arguing as such except maybe 312.

The argument is simply that Quintana's W-L record isn't reflective of how good he is. I don't even understand how it's controversial unless someone is literally saying W-L record is the only indicator of pitcher performance.

The references to hall of fame pitchers don't even make sense. I think most agree that over an entire career, W-L records have a large enough sample to tell you how good the pitcher is, so quoting lifetime stats in defense of W-L isn't really even addressing the argument. But a couple seasons can absolutely be skewed.

Jake Arrieta has the 8th most wins in the NL this year. How many think he has been the 8th best pitcher in the NL?

_________________

Except that doesn't explain the correlation between W/L% and per start run support. These are all guys that have been good enough to throw 700 innings in the MLB in the last 5 seasons, so we should expect there to be little to no correlation to their W/L% and true run support, if W/L% was as good an indicator of pitching skill as others believe it to be.

When is it fair to use W/L? Only at the end of a career? This isn't a single season sample size. I typically like my pitchers to win more games than they lose. I'm old fashioned though.

_________________

Just out of curiosity, in the same sample (700 IP in the last 5 seasons) who are the top in WL%?

_________________

Dont do that.

Unless you're ready to say a 3.01 ERA and 4.00 are equal too. Or that a 1.99 Whip is the same as 1.01

One thing is for certain. Anyone that ever complains about the tedious nature of any basketball thread while ignoring this is full of shit.

_________________

What are you trying to do? Compare hall-of-famers or make an educated about whether you would want a particular player (predicting their future success)? If it is the latter, I would never use W/L, personally. I'm not old fashioned though.

_________________

Here's a logical compromise. Anyone willing to take it, and end the thread?

_________________

I find this to be completely tedious, too, but I can't stop responding sometimes.

_________________

Hitters relax and hit better when the ACE is on the mound cause its WIN DAY

That's misrepresenting it though. .99 is a hell of a lot more concrete than .28 when it comes to a full run scored.

_________________

This argument boils down to one thing. Do you believe all offenses are pretty much the same? If so, JORR makes sense. If not, he doesnt.


That's the real argument.

I'll accept this rather than assume Kershaw is only good because he has the best run support over his career.

_________________

I feel the same way about the hoops talk. Something tells me I will be longing for the days of a good Jimmy Buckets diss session come Dec. Wont have the same bang with him playing in Minnesota. It's a certain irony with having him Thibs and Taj all in the same spot though

_________________

Correct. This is the other argument I've made in this discussion. If that theory is true, then why do teams even try to obtain good hitting? Just dedicate all your resources to starting pitching. After all, over the course of an average game, Ronny Cedeno probably produces a similar number of runs as some college chick.

_________________

It sucks when those pesky stats get in the way of your point!

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

They aren't all the same but a pitcher doesn't only go up against the #1 runs scored team every single start.

_________________

LTG is right and I want to document I tire of this as much as Butler top ten talk.

_________________
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

So we're in agreement that Quintana isn't an elite pitcher. He's a good middle of the rotation guy.

If so, great.

_________________

Yeah, if people want to concede that Quintana is just a guy and not worthy of what we gave up... I'm fine with that.

_________________

I have no opinion on the matter. I've only seen him pitch once and didn't know he existed prior to that.

_________________

I hate you.

_________________

Then your opinion should be that he's a HOF! 12Ks 0.00 ERA!!

_________________

I used to think that Quintana was a statistical anomaly where he actually was a lot better than his W-L record suggested. I can think of at least three times right off the top of my head where Ventura played the righty-lefty bullpen match ups late in a game, and the Sox lost 2-1 instead of winning 1-0.

Having watched Q over the last 2-3 pretty dreadful seasons of Sox baseball, he generally gives runs right back when the Sox score, and he definitely as trouble pitching over a defensive mistake.

You can do a lot worse than Jose Quintana in your rotation, but I predicted him to be a 2-4 pitcher with the Cubs and even thought he is 50% of the way to w wins, I don't expect him to be above .500 this season for the Cubs. His other numbers will probably be pretty good though.

_________________