No one is asking him to. But Sale (and every other big league pitcher) understands he is in a game where an opposing pitcher is attempting to do the same thing he is: shut down the other team.

In a vacuum, all those ancillary numbers are great. But when another, supposedly lesser, guy is able to produce numbers similar to, or better than, those of the "great" pitcher every time they are in the same game, perhaps a reexamination of our perceptions is in order.

I realize the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the offense. That ignores the fact that an offense's numbers are being created by facing other pitchers. It also ignore the fact that in most games the difference between two big league offenses is a mere fraction of a run, something that cannot be scored in a single game. Pitching is hitting. Hitting is pitching. And, in the case of the 2013 White Sox, we're talking about a team that is one of the weakest in overall offensive production.

For the record, I'm uncomfortable with Chris Sale becoming the poster boy for this argument. As I said earlier, if he continues to produce the ancillary numbers he is, he will have a winning record. There has never been a pitcher who has and hasn't.

Finally, scoring is lower than it has been in over twenty years. On Saturday night alone there were seven shutouts and seven one-run games. Within that context, we probably shouldn't be expecting a team to produce a whole lot of "run support". And if our ace can't allow less "run support" for the other pitcher, maybe, just maybe, he isn't an ace after all.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Neither 1 nor 2 is perfect, but I prefer POV # 2 because it reflects better how the pitcher performed within the context of the games he pitched.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

No. And people always knew that. Even back in the dark ages of the 70s when we were all stupid and and players were slow, tiny, and white. What's new and mindlessly accepted is the concept that the runs a guy bats in are "meaningless" and a less than proper representation of his skills.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Orr, you are looking sillier by the minute on this issue.

_________________

You should worry about your own silliness. If you were capable of making a cogent argument the way I am, you'd look a lot less silly yourself.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This argument is getting old. Everyone is dug in on their position.


Interestingly enough, I believe both sides would agree on the quality of most pitchers, they just arrive at the conclusion by different vessels.


JORR has already admitted that Winning pct is less poignant in the post LaRussa era, that a good enough compromise

I would rather have you think I am silly than be the way you are in this thread

_________________

You're right.

Now if only you could admit that a perfect game is better than allowing 2 baserunners.

_________________

With the way offenses have been down and starters have been pitching, we might be starting to see more complete games than we have in awhile. Sale and the Sox seem to be on the cutting edge of that. It may also simply be a function of having a bullpen with Troncoso and Purcey.

Bryan, I think you know how much I detest the running game. But that philosophy was developed in the "steroid era" or "lively ball era", whatever you want to call it. When so many games are so low-scoring and decided by a single run, suddenly the value of an out is decreased. The risk of running becomes worth the reward of scratching across a run.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I don't take literary criticism from illiterates.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Ive never denied its more effective.

27<29

I just find the 20 Strikeouts to be more dominating.

And from my philosophical standpoint each game is exactly the same- a win in a game in which the starting pitcher covered all 27 outs. All the other shit is great for table talk and exciting to see, but it's the stuff that is really meaningless.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Peeps, with you having knelt before the altar of Theo you need to embrace 20K>Perfection. Thank you and welcome to Cubbie nation.

Maybe Jerry could send out another survey to settle this once and for all.

_________________

wood had the help of the umpire on that game too. it was ridiculous. not to mention the steroids.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Did that contaminate his WHIP?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I don't really like Scott in Davenport but this is a decent article.

http://beyondthescorecard.blogspot.com/ ... hewin.html

_________________

That's a really good article, although the one thing I would point out- and here is where he and I would come to slightly different conclusions- is that he glosses over the fact that, as he says, "pitchers with Game Scores of 60 were racking up no-decisions or losses in droves". This simply suggests that offense is down. Obviously. High pitcher's game scores equal a dearth of offensive production. Pitching is hitting. Hitting is pitching. His conclusion is that somehow the losses are "unfair". While my conclusion is that if the same guy continuously ends up on the losing end of a double high game score, the reason might actually be him.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

There you go manipulating quotes again. He actually says;

_________________

I'm sorry for misquoting him so terribly, Frank. Why don't you sub in his exact words and see that it in no way changes the content or meaning of what I wrote? You really seem desperate. I'm not sure why. Most of the world seems to agree with you.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

There, Frank. I made sure the quote was exact. That's only proper. I'm not sure how you think it affects the content of my post in any way.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I did put in his exact words, because you simply said that pitchers were, "losing in droves", which is not what was said. It was that pitchers who were pitching quite well were losing OR getting no decisions. You conveniently left the latter part out.

_________________

It does affect it, but only marginally.

_________________

It's not convenient or relevant to my position at all.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

mmmm hmmmmm.

_________________

I don't read anything that lengthy. Only peons and low-level lawyers have to read shit that long.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

You think a 20 year kid from Assbackwardsaldotius, Texas was taking Steroids, or even knew where to get Steroids in 1998, so he had to be taking them in HS, pretty much in order to get used to such control with such amazing power. Plus the guy looked like a string bean, even skinnier than he looks now.

If you want to tell me later in his career he used, I wouldnt agree, but I have no reason to give him the benefit of an excuse. He had surgeries and needed a lift to come back. I would put him in the same basket as every other guy that juiced after a surgery and felt his career slipping away.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

you don't think elite high school athletes in TX take PEDs?...ha ha ha ha...

who knows if he was or wasn't. I assume they all are and that way I'm not disappointed. I remember watching that game.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Elite Athletes Today in the Dallas area for sure are on roids, but not from the area he is from, it is tumbleweed action in the East Plains.

he was throwing high 90's as a Sophomore, before he was recruited in HS to go to one of those HS that probably have roids in the Dallas area in the lunch rooms.

So, to now say that roids help your breaking ball? I just dont know.

I would guess Chris Sale has been throwing hard since Sophomore year in HS too, as I think we can agree that muscle is not where he gets his power from.

Some guys have that sling motion that cant be taught and like it or not Wood had it.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Frank Thomas was 255 in 8th grade, but that won't shut up certain critics. who knows?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest