You appear to be too familiar or not familiar enough with circular logic.

No, I don't think so. At some point when you're always on the losing end of a close game, the problem is you. It may be hard to find the reason why. Maybe at some point a guy will look at the data and plot all the points on the a chart and see that in one runs games with two men on Quintana only hit his spot 22% of the time. I don't know. But for now I think W/L record does a reasonable job of telling you what kind of career a guy had. And I have nothing against Cain or Matlack or Gubicza. They all had times when they were good pitchers. Hell, Cain was one of the best for a season or so. But over their careers they were really just mediocre guys.

_________________
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

You only think it's circular because you're starting from a point of W/L record being meaningless. To you, that's absolute truth.

_________________
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

Let's try this simply.

We are trying to trying to see of a positive winning percentage correlates with being a "good" starting pitcher.

So we need to use other date to define what a good starting pitcher is. Once we use this other data to define what a good starting pitcher is, then we use the sample size of "good" starting pitchers to see how it correlates with a positive winning percentage.

So all parties need to ignore a positive winning percentage for the exercise to avoid circular logic.

Or we could just ignore the numbers you say define a good starting pitcher.

_________________
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

Here is an easy but hard task. Find where I said W/L record is meaningless. Whether in this thread or the other thread.

Hint, I never said that. I'd never say that W/L is meaningless.

This is going to get repetitive, but all I've really advocated for in this thread and the other is that the statement "no good starting pitcher with 200 starts has a negative win loss record" is false.

Like I said before, when I read that I was curious to see what the results would be. I had a strong suspicion that there were guys out there who would prove that statement false, and there are. I will even admit that I thought there would be many more.

So again, are there 50 of these guys out there? Not likely, at least not from what I can tell, but depending on you breadth of the word good, there are a dozen or so guys that break the JORR officially selected parameters that he chose.

You can pick the numbers you want, all of the numbers are fair game except W/L record because that is what we are trying to isolate as it correlates to good pitchers.

Christ, at this point it isn't even a baseball discussion, you clearly have no idea how to isolate a variable to determine correlation.

Still waiting for you to chime in on this one because I'm shocked that all these pitchers with shitbag careers could get Cy Young votes, but Chan Ho Park, who you called a really good pitcher couldn't get one measly Cy Young vote in his entire career.

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? I mean look at that slop up there and all of them placed in the top 5 at one time or another, yet Park couldn't even muster up one fucking vote? Do tell.

Okay, there's ambiguity in throwing around words like "good" or "bad". I would never call Matlack a bad pitcher. But he isn't really a good one either. He's fine. He's a .500 guy. I believe he's actually one game under. He had good seasons. I've cited Joel Horlen as the best guy I can think of with a sub-.500 career record. You can make a case for Matlack if you want. Gubicza was a really good pitcher. Then he got hurt and wasn't the same and stuck around losing for about eight years. Should we ignore that just because he was really good the first five years of his career? If he had quit when he got hurt, he'd be over .500 and I'd call him good.

But the heart of this debate is Jose Quintana and the idea that he is an elite hurler. If he were, he wouldn't be .500 over 140 career starts.

_________________
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

Don't Cy Young votes depend on who the other guys are? If a guy goes 25-0 with a 1.92 ERA and you go 18-4 with a 2.20 and he gets all the votes, does that mean you suck? Whatever anyone thinks about W/L record, number of Cy Young votes are certainly a terrible way to judge a pitcher's 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 haven't been talking about Quintana at all. Like I said at least twice. I was genuinely curious to see who was out there that had a good career with 200+ starts and a losing career record.

I've admitted that I thought there would be more guys. I've also submitted that the definition of "good" can be subjective. That's why I used other stats except wins and losses to try to define good. Matt Cain, right about 256th in career WAR, that's a good pitcher. You've admitted Mark Gubicza is a good pitcher he's 191 in career WAR.

Matlack, a guy that you don't think is good posted a 174 in career WAR, so if Gubicza is good, Matlack certainly is also. Matlack in 13 years and Gubicza in 14. They are the same guy basically.

It was a fun exercise for me initially. I was curious, so again I'm not sure why you're dying on this hill or equivocating about who is good or not, who got hurt and kept pitching, blah, blah, blah. You seem interested in baseball stats and history, I would have thought a guy like you is interested in true outliers like this. They are fun nuggets of information. But instead of acknowledging what is pretty obvious to any objective observer, Matlack/Gub/Cain all had good careers, you're posturing that these guys are turds while saying things like Chan Ho Park was a really good pitcher.

Chan Ho Park doesn't have 1/2 of the career WAR that any of the above three guys do. You're being silly at this point. All three of those guys are better than Park, you called Park really good, so at the very minimum those three guys are good.

Fuck, Park himself would probably admit that those three guys were better than he was. Especially if he passed 7th grade math.

Do you even know how the Cy Young voting works? "Get all the votes" What does that even mean?

Do you know that each voter gets to assign first, second, third, fourth, and fifth place votes? You know that right? SO getting "all the votes" is impossible unless every voter put the same guy for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

I don't think you even know how the voting works.

I'm just shocked that Park, a really good pitcher couldn't even scrounge up a measly 3rd place vote when you had career punching bags like Mike Moore, Dotson, and Abbott all dudes who sucked managed to not only get a vote, but enough votes to place in the top 4. I'm not trying to judge a career here, I'm just looking for your explanation as to why three fucking bums could scrounge up a Cy Young vote or two but the really good Chan Ho Park never even got one in his entire really good career.

JORR killing it again.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Don't wins and losses depend on who your guys are (runs) and who the other guy is (opposing pitcher)?

Do you know what the word "unanimous" means?

_________________
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

The reality is he has only factored in the decision in half his starts despite give up 4 or more runs in like 13 of those starts. I challenge you to find me a pitcher that you believe is great that has consistently won despite getting no run support. That guy just doesn't exist. I'm not talking about a guy for 1894 either.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Your guys are generally capable of averaging within a fraction of a run as much as the guys who are batting against you. Of course, there are occasional exceptions. If you're a good pitcher, shouldn't you be better than the opposing pitcher most of the time?

_________________
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

The reason he isn't getting "run support" is because there are guys pitching better than he is. You act as if "run support" is magic and not dependent upon a guy pitching better than Quintana.

_________________
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, it means all the first place votes.

Again, you realize that when someone is the unanimous Cy Young, other people still get votes?

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/25976344//

Verlander takes AL Cy in unanimous vote

Verlander received every one of the 28 first-place votes cast by two members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America in each AL city -- good for 196 points. The Angels' Jered Weaver received 17 second-place votes and was second in the voting with 97 points, followed by James Shields of the Rays with 66 and CC Sabathia of the Yankees with 63.
Verlander's Detroit teammate, closer Jose Valverde, finished fifth with 28 points, including three third-place votes and one for second place.

They're not facing the same conditions. That's really clear. Can you list the great pitchers who won without much run support?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Whatever. Are you really trying this stupid semantic argument? The number of votes a guy gets for Cy Young depends on the other pitchers. It's a lot tougher to get votes with Maddux, Glavine, Brown, Smoltz, Schilling, etc. all pitching at the same time as you are.

_________________
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

Again, this gets back to why I got trapped in your schooner full of bullshit in the first place. If you're a good pitcher with a long career you'll be better than the opposing pitcher most of the time. Despite this, there are a few outliers who have more than 200 games started yet have a losing record, but still were good pitchers. A few of their names are Cain, Matlack, and Gubicza.

No not whatever, you're too fucking stupid or uninformed to know how the Cy Young voting works.

It isn't semantics, it's facts.

You mean your "great" pitcher is facing an offense that averages a quarter or a half a run more than the offense my shitty pitcher is facing and your guy can't overcome that fraction and beat him most of the time?

I don't even acknowledge "run support" as a real thing. It's just what the opposing pitcher allows. But I'm sure I can find guys who have good records with less than average "run support" if I look into it. I would guess off the top of my head that Francisco Liriano might be one.

_________________
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, those are guys who had good seasons and bad ones. More bad than good. When looking at their careers they are mediocre overall.

Do you think Phil Niekro was the tenth best pitcher of all time?

_________________
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

Here are some guys that didn't have any trouble getting votes during Park's prime:

1997: Denny Neagle
1998: Al Leiter
1999: Kevin Millwood, Jose Lima, Mike Hampton
2000: Rob Nen, Darryl, Kile
2001: Matt Morris, Jon Leiber

Not exactly clown car full of Hall of Famers. So again, I'm shocked that all these pitchers with shitbag careers could get Cy Young votes, but Chan Ho Park, who you called a really good pitcher couldn't get one measly Cy Young vote in his entire career.

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? I mean look at that slop up there and all of them placed in the top 5 at one time or another, yet Park couldn't even muster up one fucking vote? Do tell.

They all had good seasons, didn't they? This Cy Young vote thing is very odd.

_________________
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 still don't understand, you're on record saying that Chan Ho Park is a really good pitcher. It's a JORR approved fact, he's a really good pitcher.

Yet Park, this really good pitcher in a career span that mirrors Matlack and Gubicza and was LONGER than Cain, wasn't even worth 1/2 of what those guys were. So again, if Park is a really good pitcher, as proffered by JORR, then certainly at the very lease Matlack and Gubicza and Cain were good pitchers.

Edited for bad quote.

But not really good like Chan Ho. Shit, I mean Park couldn't even get one of the LA guys to give him a token 3rd place vote and Moore, Dotson, Abbott, and shitbags like that are racking up top 3 type finishes in the voting.

Is Mark Gubicza's career record better than that of his teams'?

_________________
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