He is 11 games over .500 for his career.

He was more than just very good for 2 seasons.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

He pitched 13 seasons and had a better than league average ERA over that span and a .520 winning percentage. He's not a Hall of Famer, but that's more than respectable. And Jose Quintana has a long way to go to equal it.

_________________
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

He was better than the average starter over the course of his career. It's good. I said "damn good". Let's not split hairs here. The man had a good career.

_________________
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 never made it to Shinnick's. I was at Lagunitas and Skylark.

_________________
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

it is relative to expectations. Garland had big expectations due to his talent and draft status. people kept waiting waiting...he never achieved what his talent suggested he could.

Quintana was cut by the Yankees, Sox pick him up for AAA fodder and he turns into a solid #3 starter. it's close to a baseball miracle.

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

Did Mallory do it?

_________________
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

Sorry I missed it!

_________________
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

Earlier you said this; So its fair to say that based on that statement, you clearly think Garland would have had at least similar stats on a far worse team.

_________________

There's more to it than that. How many times do I have to say "I don't know"?

I'm sure most people thought Samardzija was going over to Oakland and would go 8-1 or something the rest of the way. It just doesn't work that way. Ultimately, I think Samardzija is going to be one of the things that costs them the division title. Because he isn't that good. His W/L record could have told you that, but it's fashionable to ignore that information as "meaningless" these days. And as much as a lot of you want to insist otherwise, a starting pitcher's W/L record is information.

In 1972 Steve Carlton won 27 games for a team that won 59. If you're going to ask me if I think he would have won 30 that year in Oakland, I'll say probably not. The statistics aren't transferable.

_________________
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

Yeah but Carlton was just lucky and got enough run support on the days he pitched that season .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

But what does a win actually tell you about how well a pitcher pitched? I'd say it's next to nothing.

If you isolate wins and losses and look at two pitchers, one who won 10 games and lost 15 and the other who won 15 games and lost 10 it looks like the second pitcher was better.

That second pitcher could have won those 15 games by allowing 8 runs in each of them while his team scored 9.

The first pitcher could have lost 15 by allowing 1 run in each while his team scored 0.

Is the second pitcher made better because the rest of his team played well enough to overcome his terrible pitching? Is the first pitcher made worse?

I don't know what meaningful insight there is to be drawn from looking at a pitcher's win/loss total that doesn't then require one to look at some other statistic.

_________________

Look at it another way, Are there any really great pitchers out there with a shit career won loss record because they were unlucky enough to play for a crap team or got no "run support' everytime they pitched? Or any shitty pitchers with a great career won loss because they were lucky enough to get a lot of runs every time they pitched? Good / great pitchers have the record they have because they continually out pitched their opponents regardless of what else happened in the games they pitched. They pitched over mistakes, errors, wind blowing out, small parks, juiced balls , etc. Thats what made them great. Season to season there may be a few exceptions but for the most part, guys deserve the record they have . The good to great ones will always seem to win the close ones, Danks, Samardzija, Quintana find a way to lose them. That simple.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

YES, The teams, parks, exc does effect a pitchers career.

Michael William Hampton (born September 9, 1972) is a former American professional baseball player. Hampton played in Major League Baseball (MLB) as a pitcher from 1993 through 2010. He pitched for the Seattle Mariners, Houston Astros, New York Mets, Colorado Rockies, Atlanta Braves and Arizona Diamondbacks.

Hampton is a two-time MLB All-Star. He won five Silver Slugger Awards and a Gold Glove Award. He was the Most Valuable Player of the 2000 National League Championship Series, and he pitched in the 2000 World Series for the Mets.

Hampton became a starter for Houston in 1995, and kept his ERA under 4.00 for every season he was with the Astros. In 1999, Hampton had his best year. He broke through with a 22–4 record, best in the National League, and a 2.90 ERA. He picked up his first of five Silver Slugger Awards and narrowly finished second in National League Cy Young Award voting to Randy Johnson.

Entering the final year of his contract, Hampton was dealt to the New York Mets in the wake of his big season. He went 15–10 with a 3.12 ERA and helped the Mets greatly in the postseason. With two wins and no earned runs in two starts, Hampton was named the MVP of the 2000 NLCS

The Colorado Rockies signed Hampton to an expensive, long-term contract on December 9, 2000. It was the largest contract in sports history at the time. Hampton went a disappointing 14–13 with a 5.12 ERA in 2001, his pitching clearly affected by Coors Field. Like his predecessor Darryl Kile, Hampton succumbed to control problems. The next season was even more of a disaster for the highly paid Hampton, as he went 7–15 with his ERA climbing to 6.15.

Oh captain, Mike Hampton.

Right. The more wins a pitcher has the likelier it is that he is probably a good pitcher. But if you're trying to determine why someone is a good pitcher you're going to have to look at more than just wins and losses for reasons you just described.

_________________

So which way are you arguing this?

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

My biggest issue is assigning an individual statistic for the performance and an entire team.

No one takes quarterback "win/loss" records seriously. Why should it be any different in baseball?

_________________

It seems to have gone right over his head that pitching in Colorado was likely the cause of his ERA skyrocketing.

_________________
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

Because a baseball team is radically different depending upon the starting pitcher. It would be like if each quarterback only played every third game.

_________________
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

4.51 In any era is not good...if your career ERA is in the fours...n your are above 500 you are just lucky as shit that your lineup outhit your poor performance .

I will be disappointed if Quintana isn't better than Garland ..Garland was a buster...I don't give a shit if he was over .500

_________________

You are mistaken.

_________________
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 Could be mistaken ...I never knew about Carlton winning 27 of his teams 59.

What era would 4.51 ERA rank a pitcher in the top 50?

_________________

In a given season? There have been years where 3+ led the league. I think Early Wynn was the ERA champ with a 3.20 or something in the 50s. When Garland posted that 4.51 his adjusted ERA (ERA+) was 105 which suggests he was 5% better than the average AL pitcher. Wes Ferrell was over 4 for his career and he had a .600 winning percentage. it's not because he got lucky with "run support". The high ERA was just a condition of when he pitched (the 30s).

_________________
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 thought all that matters to you guys are the W/L records. Who cares if he pitched in COL. His opponent for that day also pitched in COL, According to you that shouldn't be a factor. Pick a lane and stick in it. A great pitcher (according to your past statements) wins the game, no matter what other factors he might be facing, lack of run support, batters park, whatever. Winners win....... Unless offcourse they pitch in COL? Come on JORR, you can do better then that.

So that's why they pitched to Abreu with a base open. Francona knew the Swamp Donkey would come thru with a big hit.

All a win tells you is that a pitcher happened to pitch long enough and allow fewer runs than the other team's pitcher on a particular day. Anyone looking at how effective a pitcher is can start by looking at win totals, but as soon as you compare one pitcher to another the usefulness of win/loss totals becomes less meaningful because so many other factors are necessarily added into that comparison.

In 1993 something called John Burkett went 22-7 for the Giants. That same year Greg Maddux went 20-10. Why did Burkett win more and lose less than Maddux when by every measurable account Maddux was the better pitcher?

_________________

Here is the list:

In the AL from 1901 thru 2013

Lefty Grove 3.08 1930
Early Wynn 3.20 1950
Freddy Garcia 3.05 2001
John Lackey 3.01 2007

In the NL 1876-2013

Ted Breitenstein 3.18 1893
Pink Hawley 3.18 1895
Warren Spahn 3.01 1961

249 total season 7 times or 2.811%

as to Garland's 2003 4.51 ERA
the AL league average ERA was 4.52
Jon ranked 27th out of 39 among AL ERA qualifiers

_________________

That tells you a lot, doesn't it?

I'm watching this game right now and I'm trying to figure out which guy- Noesi or Kluber- isn't getting run support and which guy deserves to get run support.

_________________
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

Thats exactly what his job is.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

Damn it Robin bring in the lefty! Oh yeah. You don't fucking have one!!!