Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
doesn't TFA state that Scherzer would be a 13-8 pitcher without the "luck" wins. So I guess the article linked is saying that Scherzer has not been a great and deserving pitcher
His current win-loss record is more likely to reflect an appropriate 13-8 mark--I’m guessing, in case you were wondering if I used any science for that-- which would then be unimpressive through the eyes of Jim Leyland.
How does Sale have more WAR? That's absurd.
And Scherzer's huge lead in WHIP -- 0.940 to 1.055. And Scherzer's lead in K's/9 -- 9.9 to 9.5.
How does Sale have more WAR?
I don't really care about WAR, other than to the extent that it might explain why people have set up the win strawman with Scherzer. Sale's WAR lead helps clear up the motivation for the strawman -- though even if Sale didn't lead in WAR some zealots would still be shitting on Scherzer for having so many wins.
So...you brought up WAR in order to respond to an argument that no one was making, in order to clarify that the argument they weren't making is actually a stand-in for a different argument they're also not making?
The next night, his job might be to give up less than one run. The job is context-dependent.
A pitcher's job is to not give up hits, or walks, or even allowing the batter to make good contact on a pitch.
Throw the ball so the batter can't hit it cleanly, but not in a way that walks the batter.
But, not knowing anything else, given the choice of a 19-1 and a 10-10, that choice should be obvious.
There's no reason why the Tigers offense should be attached to Scherzer's performance.
I wasn't wondering. Of course there are adjustments; if there weren't, Sale wouldn't have more WAR. But those adjustments are silly, if they wind up giving Sale more WAR than Scherzer given Scherzer's advantage in essentially every meaningful category.
But maybe you just mean the evaluation of Scherzer's performance shouldn't be tied to the Tigers offense.
You realize bWAR is innings pitched, runs allowed, park factors, and team defense adjustment right? You don't have to wonder anything. Sale's pitched 187.2 innings and given up 70 runs, Scherzer's pitched 190.1 innings and given up 64 runs. So before the adjustments, Scherzer's been like .63 WAR better. Sale's defense is estimated to have cost him 3 runs this year, while Scherzer's cost him 2, so we're down to .53 difference. B-R also says that Cellular Field inflates offense more than Comerica does and that makes up the gap*. By WAR, the two have been within a run of eachother this year. Scherzer has more strikeouts, Sale has fewer walks and a better K:BB ratio. The only stat that favors Scherzer is W/L.
A starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team scores ten in the first hasn't done as good a job, properly measured, as a starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team hasn't scored in those six innings.
Scherzer leads Iwakuma in essentially every category, too. His ERA's better, his WHIP's way better, his K rate's way better, his HR rate is way better and on and on.
Do you know how Fangraphs differs in its calculation of WAR (seeing as it has Scherzer up 5.7 to 4.7)?
Still give it to the same guy, but just realize the shortcomings (or quirks) of the stat.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Wins and losses were not compiled in the early days of Major League Baseball. Henry Chadwick began the practice of awarding pitching wins in the 1885 Spalding Guide, but this did not catch on immediately. The two main publications of the 1890s, The Sporting News and Sporting Life used different criteria to attribute wins, an issue which only became more complex as the use of relief pitchers expanded and complete games began to decline in number.
In 1903, when National League President Harvey Pulliam hired John Heydler to be the league secretary, the young Heydler made it one of his goals to standardize scoring practices, and in particular for the attribution of wins. He issued guidelines to official scorers that required a starter to pitch "the majority" of a ballgame to be eligible for a win. There were a number of exceptions to this however, for example if a pitcher left a game early with his team enjoying a big lead, or if he left because of an injury (which led to pitchers making sure to tell reporters that they had been removed from the game after giving up a pair of hits with a a one-run lead in the 5th because they had an upset stomach or had felt a twinge in their elbow, and for no other reason), and so on. The league president would often overturn the decision of the game's official scorer. The latter was a particular problem in the American League, where President Ban Johnson would make such decisions on what appears in retrospect to be whims and personal bias, rather than any set criteria. Game 2 of the 1929 World Series, in which George Earnshaw was credited with a win while pitching only four innings, is an example of the practice of the time (in this case, the prevailing American League scoring practice of the time was followed).
As the use of relief pitchers continued to expand, confusion only grew, as scorers began to interpret the "majority of the game" provision more liberally, crediting the starter with the win when he had pitched more than any reliever even if that amounted to only three innings or so. Finally the modern rule was adopted before the start of the 1950 season, and while there are a couple of games every year in which the identity of the winning pitcher is left to the discretion of the official scorer, the five-inning rule for starters is now the universal norm and there are no more aberrant wins attributed.
ANd thus it follows, that there is really no way to tell if someone is 9-9 with a low ERA if he's really a good pitcher or was just pitching in low run environments. There's no way to really tell is there?
so you'd have to argue that a pitcher's distribution of ballparks effected him much differently than it would effect the average pitcher over a large sample size.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.5999 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed