With all the stats in baseball, I've never seen one like this. Maybe it exists, but I've never seen it and I don't know what it's called. And if it doesn't exist, someone should name it and start tracking it. I want to see a starter's ERA vis-a-vis his opponents. It would be sort of like a +/- in hockey. For example, Pitcher A allows an average of .3 runs per start more than the guys he faces. (That's probably Jose Quintana.)

With all the stats in baseball, I've never seen one like this. Maybe it exists, but I've never seen it and I don't know what it's called. And if it doesn't exist, someone should name it and start tracking it. I want to see a starter's ERA vis-a-vis his opponents. It would be sort of like a +/- in hockey. For example, Pitcher A allows an average of .3 runs per start more than the guys he faces. (That's probably Jose Quintana.)

In any case, I think that if you saw a pitcher with multiple seasons of negative numbers in this statistic, it would be a lot less likely that people would make excuses for him, talking about his "bad luck" and "lack of 'run support'".

It would be the same thing.

He could be a very good pitcher on a team with a very bad offense.

He could give up one over 9, and his team cannot score any against the opposing pitcher.

Giving up one over 9 is excellent. He would still have a losing statistic.

JORR, you're saying for example the next time felix hernandez toes the rubber (3.38 ERA) if he's up against a guy with a 5.00 ERA you want him to be -1.62 or +1.62 as the overall stat? i think the stat would only apply to the pitcher who's leading in ERA at the time and since -1.62 is the same as +1.62 you'd have to sort that out....

but what about bullpens then? i guess since you're calling this an analogue to W/L it only matters for the SP but if you have a 6 inning pitcher versus a guy who regularly goes 7-8+ you might wanna factor bullpens in tho.

i think people naturally do this when they see a guy with a 2.something ERA up against a guy with a 4.something or 5.something ERA when they think "wow that pitcher with the lower ERA should win this" but i can see where your stat would be a nice frame of reference.... unless i'm getting it completely wrong.

This leads us right back into a core argument that a pitcher is or is not pitching against the other pitcher.
I am of the belief that the starting pitchers are not pitching against each other, rather, the offense of the other team. You are of the belief that the pitchers are pitching against each other.
There is an arguable merit to both sides of the coin.

JORR, don't you think there is a lot of luck in baseball? I do. Therefore, the only stats that matter are ones that have a pretty good sample size. In that case, the basic stats we use are pretty good.

Somewhat related, and I think we've discussed before, I'd like to see a modified ERA, as originally proposed by Mike Murphy (or he's the first person I heard suggest it). If a pitcher gave up a double, was taken out, and the relief pitcher allowed the runner to score, each pitcher would be charged with 0.5 run. Similarly, if a pitcher gave a triple, and the next pitcher allowed the run to score, it would be divided up 0.75 to the first pitcher and 0.25 to the second pitcher.

I agree it would be more accurate to charge each participating pitcher with a portion of the run.

A pitcher cannot give up a fraction of a run the same way a team cannot score a fraction of a run.

*SIGH* A full run has been scored. What's being assigned would not be a fraction of a run, but a fraction of the responsibility for said run.

Full runs are also scored in every MLB game every played as far as I know, and yet still we can come up with average runs scored for a team over the baseball season, and sometimes that number is a fraction.

Amazing how that works.

No shit. I'm happy you understand what an average is. But what you continually fail to acknowledge is that when the difference in average runs scored by two separate offenses is a fraction of a run, the difference between those teams is so thin as to be utterly insignificant and, in fact, impossible to measure within the space of a single real life game.

Last year, Colorado led the National League with 755 runs scored. 4.66 runs a game.

Last year, the Cubs scored 3.79 runs a game. Or 0.87 runs per game less.

The Colorado offense was highly praised. The Cubs offense was ridiculed all season.

Why?

Last year, Colorado led the National League with 755 runs scored. 4.66 runs a game.

Last year, the Cubs scored 3.79 runs a game. Or 0.87 runs per game less.

The Colorado offense was highly praised. The Cubs offense was ridiculed all season.

Why?

Did the Cubs pretty much have the best offense in the National League and had a couple of bad breaks in a couple games?

You are the worst sports poster on the board. You're essentially saying all 30 MLB teams have complete parity, since pretty much every team within each league has RS and RA within 162 of each other.

2014 Regular Season

Colorado and Arizona were the only RA outliers in the NL, and Colorado and Dodgers were the only RS outliers. And you've already given the reason why Colorado would be an exception for both.

So the worst team in the NL is as good as the best team in the NL in both offense and pitching/defense?

You have flawless logic. Impeccable. It is unfathomable how only you see this and everyone disagrees with you. You're just worlds ahead of the rest of baseball.

Stop trying to reflexively argue with me and think logically for a minute. If an offense averages .87 runs per game more than another offense, what does that actually mean beyond theory? A team can't score .87 runs in a single game. So sometimes that team may lose to the opponent by a run and sometimes they may beat them by two runs. The two run win isn't worth anymore than the one run loss. In any case, it's fair to expect that in most cases the wins of the high-scoring offensive team aren't occurring vs. great but unlucky pitchers, but rather against shitty pitchers, while most of the losses of the high-scoring team to a lower-scoring one are likely due to that offense facing superior starting pitchers.

Teams that score more runs and give up less runs win more than lose.

We're talking about 162 game seasons. Not 60 game seasons.

Also, there will always be anomalies.