Chan Ho Park was a really good pitcher. He struck out 200 batters more than once if I'm not mistaken. That in an era when batters had PEDs coming out of their eyeballs and many knowledgeable people believe the ball was juiced.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

No sir. He was 44-42.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

And it could very well have nothing to do with how well you pitched in the game.

Let's go back to the Harvey Haddix 13 inning game that he received the loss in.

Did Haddix pitch a good game or not?

I meant to say before he came to Texas. I'm operating on about 3 hours of sleep and lots of whiskey and cigars.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

You're both wrong, he was 49-49 in Philly.

If Chan Ho Park, a guy who never received one Cy Young vote is a really good pitcher, seems pretty intuitive that Matt Cain, a guy who was a top 10 Cy Young finisher in two seasons is at the very least a good pitcher.

Changed "very" to "really"

Chan Ho Park, now there's a guy who had more bad seasons than good.

HAHAHAHAH, Chan Ho Park a really good pitcher from the same mouth as the guy who is trying to say Cain hasn't been a good pitcher.

No, I'm right. I've never said a single thing about decisions with regard to relievers except that any decision is generally a bad thing for a closer.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Did Burdette pitch a good game or not?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Chan Ho Park had about ten seasons as a rotation starter and he was good in almost all of them. Do you come to this site just to have me beat your fucking brains in?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

He was good from 1997-2001.

That's about it.

_________________

He was really good in that period, but I'd call him a good starting pitcher from about '96 to '05. Yeah, he had high ERAs and got good "run support" pitching in Texas in the heart of the steroid era. But even when he broke down at the end he was a competitor.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Here is RS/9 charted as a predictor of W/L% for pitchers from 2000 to present, minimum of 500 IP:



Here is FIP- charted as a predictor of W/L%, same parameters:



The data-set is comprised of 425 pitchers and encompasses more than 400,000 innings across almost 67,000 starts. The numbers average out to about 6 innings per Game Started, which tells me there's a good number of relievers in there biasing the data, but I'm not good enough at conditional formatting in Google Docs to extract them out (I'm guessing some kind of "if, then" with a ratio of IP to GS to weed out the part-time starters, I'm open to suggestions).

Nope you're wrong. Reference the original post. It said losing record in Philly. Says nothing about starter vs. reliever. Just says record.

What was his record in Philly?

Are you back for more? Really? Nas and I have had this discussion for a long time. He's well aware that I don't consider W/L record for relievers pertinent. In his glee to declare Padilla a loser in Philly, he overlooked that he had a winning record in his starts. That happens. I've done it occasionally too during other arguments. No big deal. But I'm not wrong.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Wait, which is it. Is he a good pitcher or a REALLY good pitcher. In the span of one page in this thread you've already stepped in your own railcar full of bullshit.

Amazing that Chan Ho Park a really good pitcher never even got even ONE single vote for Cy Young. Just astounding.

Look at this cavalcade of misfits that have received at least One Cy Young Vote:

Mike Moore (3rd Place Cy Voting 1989)
Jim Abbott (3th Place Cy Voting 1991)
Rich Dotson (4th Place Cy Voting 1983)
Larry McWilliams (5th Place Cy Voting 1982)

Yet the REALLY good, (or is he just "good") Chan Ho Park couldn't get one single Cy vote in his entire career?

You want to have a private chat with Nas, do it in a private forum, otherwise expect others to read what is written and respond to it.

I've got enough trouble parsing through your bullshit so to try and read your mind would be a Herculean task.

You're welcome to respond in any threads at CFMB, but the fact is, my post in question was in direct response to Nas. So go fuck yourself.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Here are Park's top eight seasons as a starting pitcher by games started:

2001: 35 Starts 218 K's 114 ERA+
1998: 34 Starts 191 K's 109 ERA+
2000: 34 Starts 217 K's 132 ERA+
1999: 33 Starts 174 K's 82 ERA+ (yuk)
1997: 29 Starts 166 K's 115 ERA +

You'll probably want to avert your eyes Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark Style

2005: 29 Starts 113 K's 76 ERA+ (hint, this sucks)
2002: 25 Starts 121 K's 83 ERA+ (hint, this is awful)
2006: 21 Starts 96 K's 84 ERA+ (hint, whatever is marginally above awful, this is it)

If you want to stretch it to 10 it does not help (see I know what "about" means, unlike yourself).

2004: 16 Starts 63 K's 92 ERA+ (a career renaissance!)
1996: 10 Starts 119 K's 107 ERA+ (not a bad season for a relief pitcher, which what he primarily was here.

So yeah, it's painfully obvious that you can't find about ten seasons where Park was a good starting pitcher. In fact if you take out the 1996 season, where he was primarily a reliever, you've got nine starting pitching seasons (again, I know what about means) and in 5 of them (that's more than 50%) he had a worse than average ERA.

Chan Ho Park a "really good pitcher". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You'll have to excuse me now, I've got to go to the hospital to have a doctor put the brains back into my head.

_________________

Still waiting for the answer to this on Cain where you said he had more bad seasons than good, unless you're too chicken shit to respond:

Here are Cain's seasons

2005: 46 IP 30 K's 185 ERA+
2006 190 IP 179 K's 108 ERA+
2007 200 IP 163 K's 123 ERA+
2008 217 IP 186 K's 117 ERA+
2009 217 IP 171 K's 147 ERA+ (AS Game Appearance)
2010 223 IP 181 K's 124 ERA+ (12th in Cy Young Voting WS Ring)
2011 221 IP 177 K's 121 ERA + (AS Game Appearance 8th in Cy Young Voting)
2012 219 IP 193 K's 126 ERA +(AS Game Appearance 6th in Cy Young Voting WS Ring)
2013 184 IP 158 K's 86 ERA +
2014 90 IP 70 K's 83 ERA +
2015 60 IP 71 K's 65 ERA +
2016 57 IP 41 K's 75 ERA +

I'll grant that 2013-2016 were not good seasons (bad if you will), so you've got to tell me which of the 3 seasons from 2005-2012 he wasn't a good pitcher for him to have more bad seasons than good seasons.

What's actually ironic/funny is that guy that you perceive Chan Ho Park to be (but wasn't), is who Matt Cain was in actuality.

13 IP, 0 ER, 12 Hits, 0 BB.

It was a great fucking game.

Now you answer my question.

2007 and 2008 he wasn't good.

He had 4 very good seasons.

_________________

Of course he did. But it's not germane to the discussion. It's a single game. Every pitcher loses a game here or there he and his fans think he ought to have won. And sometimes they win one they should have lost. Haddix has about a .550 career winning percentage. That's who he is. A good pitcher. I'm sorry he lost his perfecto in the 13th.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Want to try again

2008? 5th in the NL in IP, 1st in Games Started, 8th in K's, 9th in WAR.

2007? 200+ Innings with a 123+ ERA, just for reference Chan Ho Park, a guy who an expert deemed to be a very good pitcher, only had one season that was better than this. Also, not for nothing, if this doesn't qualify for a good season than Mark Buehrle only had 4 good seasons in his career. Sad...

Except Buehrle never lost 2/3 of his decisions over a two year period. How good can a guy really be when so many other guys pitch better than he does?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

No I don't want to try again.

He was not good in 2007 and 2008. Any attempt to say otherwise is balderdash.

_________________

One Post is very calm.

_________________

So don't you think that over the course of 120+ years of professional baseball that a handful of pitchers, who were good and pitched for a long time might have had the misfortune of being on the wrong side of too many of those games.

Here is what I don't get. You're dying on the hill that Matt Cain didn't have a good career. Or Jon Matlack, or Mark Gubicza. Those guys all had good careers.

The reason I jumped into the thread is you posed the question. Name a good starter with 200+ starts and a losing record. I was genuinely curious to see who I could find. And in all honesty there aren't a whole bunch, but there are a few. You know the things that would qualify as "outliers", they happen. You're the guy that picked the parameters. I just did the looking.

I mean why not, say: "you know what, while not that many, there are a few starters who had good careers with a losing record." It doesn't invalidate whatever arguments you are trying to make, it just means that the artificial parameters you set didn't comport to what you asserted.

And if you look at the guys who break your stupid mold, it isn't like they are a bunch of games over .500. Gubicza 4 games under, Matlack 1 game under, Cain 7 games under. I can't help the parameters you picked, I just applied the data to them.

I'll be the first to admit depending on how far you want to stretch the definition of good, there probably aren't more than 10-20 guys that don't fit into your parameters. It wasn't like these guys jumped out all over the place, but they are out there.