It's the best analogy we have.

But we can leave that out. I'll post again what I did earlier:

It basically comes down to whether you think emotions and the context of the game has an impact on players, or whether you think they have their craft so finely tuned by the time they become a professional that they are impervious to the emotions that should come with playing a competitive sport at the highest level.


I don't know which of the two ways is the correct way to look at it, honestly. I just know which way I look at it. These guys aren't robots.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Rolling eyes is for women and drama queens.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I don't disagree with that. I simply think that stats like ERA and the more advanced metrics also account for emotion. If there was ever a stat for adjusted runs allowed when discounting for emotion, you'd have a big gripe

_________________

Correcting an obviously understandable term in context is for people like Matt Spiegel.

_________________

Through the first 3 years of his career, when he was on the mound, Clayton Kershaw's Dodgers scored at a rate of 4.06 runs per 9 innings; He went 26-23 over that time.

Through the first 3 years of his career, when he was on the mound, Jose Quintana's White Sox scored at a rate of 4.02 runs per 9 innings; He went 24-24 over that time.

Since the first 3 years of his career, when he was on the mound, Clayton Kershaw's Dodgers scored at a rate of 4.57 runs per 9 innings; He went 100-37 over that time.

Since the first 3 years of his career, when he was on the mound, Jose Quintana's White Sox scored at a rate of 3.87 runs per 9 innings; He went 22-22 over that time.

I wouldn't use the word "control". I would say "effect". And there are two pitchers in the game at any given time so all runs scored are effected by pitchers. If Jose Quintana is so great he should allow less than the other guy most of the time regardless of what team he is on.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Are you trying to argue that Quintana is similar to Kershaw? I'd stick with saying Vazquez was better than Buehrle. It makes you seem less insane.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

I'm showing that a pitcher's run support can impact his won-loss record.

Of course it can, but not to the degree where a great pitcher has a losing record over 200 starts. If that's the case, he's not great.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Where's Bootstraps Max?

I believe your explanation of "half a run" being negligible is an oversimplification. I'm not a statistician, so I can't say for sure. I think a mean may be more applicable than a straight average.

Edit: I meant median, for christ sake. FF's double checking of every word is making me nervous.

_________________

That's idiotic.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists

I'm sorry that you meant runs allowed when you said runs scored. They're not exactly interchangeable though.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I am not married to wins as a stat for pitchers. But the fact is, Q keeps getting outpitched by his opponent.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

What? That all runs are allowed by one of the pitchers in the game?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Well, one team's run scored is another team's run allowed.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Thanks JORR. That's a tough concept, but I'm confident he'll get it eventually.

_________________

But his opponent gets to pitch to the White Sox starting lineup.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

And in most of his games he's pitching to a lineup that is marginally better than the Sox at best and that edge is nearly invisible in the space of a single game. If Quintana is really as good as he's supposed to be shouldn't he be able to pitch over .4 of a run?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

No

I think that's a lot more than you're representing it as.

_________________

JORR, seriously, stop pretending like I didn't show you the math on the difference in tenths of a run on distribution of actual runs scored. Or maybe you can't understand it?

As a refresher: A 4.1 R/G team will score 3 runs wayyyyy more often than will 4.5 R/G team, which is wayyyyy more likely to score 5 runs a game than 3.

This may be true. Blinded by science. And 2005.

It's not a matter of the math. Each player is an individual. There are plenty of pitchers who have winning records and play for low scoring teams. Because they're good pitchers.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

And a top pitcher will allow less runs wayyyyy more often than the mostly average guys he faces.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Clayton Kershaw was barely over .500 when his offense was as stagnant as Quintana's.

How many runs per game did the Marlins score for Fernandez?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

4.28 R/9 over the years he was active at the MLB level, 38-17 record.

Why are you looking at what the teams score when a particular pitcher is on the mound rather than overall scoring average? We know the team is scoring less when the Great Quintana pitches based on his W/L record. Your statement is just McCarverism masquerading as "advanced analysis".

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Why don't you want to talk about the runs per game afforded to a specific pitcher, and instead focus on overall run scoring? What could that possibly accomplish?

Is it because you know that there is a positive, non-zero, statistically significant correlation between run support and winning percentage? Of course you do, because I've painstakingly hashed this out for you countless times, but I am now convinced you are incapable of comprehending its significance. To be specific, 13% of a change in W/L% can be explained by a likewise change in Run Support.

It's OK, JORR, just know that you're wrong.