And his team could come back later in a game, and nullify a loss.

As a stat guy, aren't you a believer in stuff like that evening out over time?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Maybe for a career. But not over a single season.

I don't know if this was stated, and I'm not sifting through 19 pages to find out. Theoretically, a pitcher can go 9.0 IP, 0 ER, 27 K, 0 BB every start and have a 0-30 record on the year. That should tell you how meaningful W-L is.

_________________
-- source

But more importantly, it just denies the fact that it's truly telling you if a pitcher got outdueled, or not. He could get outdueled, or outduel, and that wouldn't be reflected in the W/L. Making W/L meaningless when it comes to describing if a pitched got outpitched or not.

JORR--2
Win/Loss Haters--0

So far the W/L haters have had a good thread but no run support at all. JORR's TWTW is thru the roof right now .810 for those counting at home...

_________________

Theoretically a team can go 162-0. That should tell you how meaningful playing every game is.

_________________

Not even close, Hank.

_________________
-- source

Jimmypasta will show up tonight in relief and blow the lead for JORR.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I thought we were making up ridiculous scenarios.

_________________

Even if you tone RG's example down a bit, he's still got a point. In a more realistic scenario, a pitcher can go start five games over a month or so and give up 2, 1, 1, 2, 3 run(s) in each game. At the end of the five games, he could be 5-0, 0-5, 3-2, 2-3, 1-5, and so on.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

I think the point is that over time it will even out. If you consistently allow 2 runs per game you will be a winning pitcher.

_________________

Possibly, but this negates JORRs point that Sale is having a bad year because he is under .500. He's not talking about Sale's career... he's talking about his year. Half of his year, actually. Not enough time for anything to even out.

Hasnt he said multiple times that he expects him to finish around .500 by the time the season is over. Is .500 considered a good year for a pitcher with Sale's talent? I would think for a pitcher like Sale being .500 is having a bad year. Doesnt mean he's a bad pitcher.

_________________

Yea, I mean this is the crux of the argument. Everyone looking at anything but his W/L record believes he is already having a great year despite his record.

JORR has made this same point 3 or 4 times already in this thread.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Dude, someone else re-brought up the fact that stuff should even out. I was pointing out it wouldn't this season, which is what the entire discussion is based on.

I look at it like saying a guy who handed off 35 times and threw 3 pick-6's in a game his team won is a winning QB. Which is why in football, nobody lists QB W/L numbers readily. Doesn't all that even out? No, no it doesn't... which is why a team victory factor is not included in QB ratings. It allows you to have other information to look at that tells you how he actually performed in the game.

Guys, this isn't really all that complicated.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

I would like to Apologist a beer over Jake Westbrook's next start. Let's have a Cards meet up. I'll bring the jorts.

_________________
-- source

But a good QB will consistently lead a team to victories. Just like a good pitcher will consistently lead his team to wins. They will always be outliers to both sides of the argument but if you are a great pitcher or a great QB your team will win more often than it loses. If it doesnt maybe you arent great...

_________________

If you were a real fan, you would actually go to the game.

_________________

Truth be told, I will be in attendance at Saturday's Cardinals/Cubs game.

_________________
-- source

I don't think either of actually live in St. Louis..

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

Not necessarily. There are many times during the NFL season where a QB has a great game and his team still losses due to bad defense, bad special teams play, or a fumble. If he throws a great pass to a WR, who starts running downfield and then fumbles the ball, is that the QB's fault? No way. Thats something he has zero control over.

_________________

This is an "over time" argument. Tough to say what Chris Sale will do over time. Not really the issue here.


If 5-8 means Sale isn't great, that would mean if you put him on the free market there wouldn't be much interest. Which is obviously not the case. If Sale was available via trade, he would net a ridiculous package of players. Because everyone knows he's pitching REALLY well.

Stafford just got a ridiculous contract, and he is 1-23 against teams that finished with winning records.

Yep, he just isn't having a very good year.



And that one win is probably against the Bears isn't it?

_________________

Of course not, it wont always be perfect but Brady, Rodgers and Brees arent leading teams to 3-13 seasons. That isnt a coincidence.

Bad QBs and bad pitchers will always ride the coattails of a great team, but great pitchers and QBs dont usually end up being losers.

_________________

Not well enough.

_________________