Usually. Quintana is probably the one (or at least the biggest) outlier in this. He is probably the one guy over the last few seasons where you could honestly say he has pitched better than his career record shows.

But my point is that you can have a very average...or even below average...pitcher on a Bronx Bombers type team easily be over .500 for 5 or 6 consecutive seasons. The offense scores so many runs, no matter the opposing pitcher, that this average pitcher will be gifted wins.

Now how do you compare him to a pitcher that is just barely over .500 W-L on a non-playoff contender, and who gets no run support.

You look at other statistics like ERA, FIP, WHIP, K/BB, etc.

Why not just start there? You have access to that information from the beginning. It doesn't need to be a "tie breaker." In fact, it overrules W/L simply because a pitcher can only account for how he handles the other team's 9. He cannot lift his own team's bats on his shoulders and carry them.

Simply put...if a pitcher on my team gives up 2 runs every 9 innings and goes 0-33 on the year, he is still a Cy Young candidate. And possibly a Cy Young winner.

Then he needs to demand a trade.

JORR is pretty adamant in Jose Quintana not being good...being a "losing pitcher."

This only enhances my view... which seems to be the accepted view in 2016 and onward.

Side note...

I had to explain SLG% to my dad yesterday...and he said "I don't see the point - why not just use BA?"

I wanted to hit him.

The guy you describe has never existed. Just show me one starting pitcher with 250+ career decisions and a losing record that you would call "good".

This is a fair point.

Stop fucking judging Quintana, or any other pitcher, until they have 250 goddamn decisions then, yeah?

That wasn't tough.

Cubs will trade you Hendricks, a winning pitcher, for Quintana, a losing pitcher, right now. Should be an easy decision for you.

GM JORR would want a lot in return for this losing pitcher.

A look at their game logs would make Shelby a terrible comparison to Quintana. A pitcher that gives up 1 run or less in 26% of their starts and 2 runs or less in 60% and 4 runs or less in 90% of their starts would be more valuable than a guy who mixes great starts with absolutely awful performances.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/887 ... son=2016_2

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/9176/gamelog/

Miller allowed two or less in 2/3 of his games last year. But he wasn't a good pitcher. You thought he was because of what he allowed. The fact that nearly every guy he faced on the same day, in the same park, with the same weather, the same hitter's background, and the same plate umpire pitched better than he did gave you the real answer. But don't feel bad, LaRussa was fooled too.

Miller allowed two or less in 2/3 of his games last year. But he wasn't a good pitcher. You thought he was because of what he allowed. The fact that nearly every guy he faced on the same day, in the same park, with the same weather, the same hitter's background, and the same plate umpire pitched better than he did gave you the real answer. But don't feel bad, LaRussa was fooled too.

First 17 starts: 108 IP, 2.07 ERA, .584 OPS. His record was 5-4, but more importantly his team was 9-8. That seems hard to believe when you're only giving up 2 ER per 9 IP.

Except you believe that a guy who gives up 5 and wins is just as good as a guy who gives up 1 and wins.

His statistics tell you exactly how good he was.

His W/L record is a statistic.

No. It does not represent an occurrence within the game being played.

It is a performance metric, at best.

One that has been found to be flawed.

No. It does not represent an occurrence within the game being played.

It is a performance metric, at best.

One that has been found to be flawed.

Back before even you were a child, folks involved in baseball had no superior ways of analyzing pitchers...so Wins ... and then Quality Starts...were used be necessity.

Today's front offices aren't signing pitchers based on Wins. Scouts aren't recommending kids get drafted / signed based on Wins.

Judging a pitcher by wins would be similar to investing in a company based on amount of employees.

It's not hard to believe when he's a fucking loser.

Seriously, I think a lot of your viewpoint (and Nas') is informed by living your entire lives in an era of unprecedented offense. The baseball you know is expecting a team to be able to score six at will and if they don't the poor pitcher didn't get "support". But that isn't how baseball has been throughout most of its history. Guys allow two and lose all the time. They're not as good as guys who allow one and win.

You would simply be the single worst MLB front office employee in the game.

And possibly an average one in 1950.

I believe a pitcher that gives up 2 runs or less 60% of time and 4 runs or less 90% of the time isn't a bad or losing pitcher.

I never said Quintana was a "bad" pitcher. He is a losing pitcher. That is indisputable as of June 1, 2016.

Sometimes he is. Unless you believe that scoring conditions are the same for all games.

A good comp for Quintana is Joel Horlen. Look him up. I'm sure you'll see his numbers and think he was a lot better than he really was.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

I don't know many people who believe that a losing pitcher is good or average.

I was just thinking of Horlen. He didn't have anyone on his team who could hit.

You're a guy who thinks at least one losing pitcher is "great".

What would you call him besides a loser?

Now we're getting somewhere. Horlen pitched for mostly good teams (and a couple really bad ones). The reason his team didn't hit is closely related to the reason he allowed so few runs. It was very difficult to hit in Comiskey Park at that time. His low ERAs and WHIPs belied the fact that he was a rather ordinary pitcher which was illustrated by his W/L record.

I wonder if anyone here wants to argue that Joel Horlen was a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter.