Uh, yeah you did:



Assclown.

"Run support" isn't offense. It's an excuse for a shitty pitcher.



Assclown.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

I love you man, but you're worse than LTG.

You're reading a newspaper at a diner? You're such an old guy.

_________________
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

The game isn't played in parts though. It's one game with two pitchers, not two separate games that are unrelated and then compared after the fact. I asked this earlier in the thread without getting an answer: If you took out the scoreboard and put the pitchers in seclusion between innings so they had no idea what the score of the game was, do you think that would have an effect on their W/L records?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

It was a taqueria. I do read the paper at the diner too though.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Some interesting names I found playing around with Baseball Reference's Play Index, here are sub- or barely-.500 modern pitchers, some choice stats, and their team's average RS/9 for the pitcher and R/G overall, where applicable:

Tyson Ross: .376 W/L%, 3.38 FIP (22nd in baseball in active years), 100 ERA+, 3.91 RS/9, 3.98 R/G

Chris Archer: .452, 3.45 (34th), 111, 4.06, 4.10

Michael Pineda: .457, 3.42 (32nd), 100, 4.27, 4.06

Alex Wood: .474, 3.32 (30th), 112, 3.81, 3.94

Matt Harvey: .517, 2.83 (4th), 129, 3.78, 4.05

Now here are some interesting .500+ modern pitchers in the same format:

Kazuhisa Ishii: .534, 5.06 (134th), 90, 4.85, 4.27

Horacio Ramirez: .533, 4.94 (153rd), 93, 5.67, 5.14

Dan Straily: .551, 4.81 (173rd), 94, 4.48, (too many teams to total, call it league average)

John Maine: .532, 4.70 (220th), 96, 5.73, (League Average)

Chris Tillman: .600, 4.45 (199th), 101, 4.92, 4.38

I guess Horacio Ramirez is just a better competitor than Matt Harvey and Chris Archer, right JORR?

If you really believed in your argument you wouldn't be desperately trying to make your point with guys who have 80 career starts.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Yup. Just use Aaron Sele if you need to.

_________________
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

Is 80 not a statistically significant sample size? Because it is. You just draw the line (and keep moving it, from 100, to 150, etc.) because you want to weed out all the careers that make you look like an idiot.

It's OK, though, your last resort will always be sample size (despite you decrying other that do it), and that's all I need to know I've got you on the run.

I've actually always said I'm comfortable with a 200 start sample. I don't think Quintana is going to have a .700 percentage over his next 48 starts. You're taking all these marginal cases to make your point. Besides I hardly think Harvey's 30-28 record makes me "look like an idiot." What makes someone look like an idiot is saying Vazquez had a better career than Buehrle or that Quintana is remarkabky similar to Kershaw.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Stay on point, JORR, we're talking about the statistical significance of starters with careers that run contrary to your asinine dogma on baseball. Grasping at straws like this only makes you look more desperate than you already are to not look clown shoes.

Whatever stats you are using that lead you to believe Quintana and Kershaw are similar, you should stop using them.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

This just in from JORR: Two is not indeed equal to Two, unless his gut says so.

Thank you for your input.

Here's some more modern pitchers, JORR:





And before you go there, I set the cut-off at 2000 to define "modern".

Where do you want to move the goalposts, now? More talk about Vazquez-Buehrle?

Do you even know what we're talking about?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Yes honey bun more than you do.

Keep on watching your 2017 Chicago White Sox and you will do this to yourself if you are smart enough. Oh Wait.

If you Cubs fans survived 2010-2014 I'm sure we'll be fine. The Subdivision appreciates your concern 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

As long a you know your place in baseball 2017 I am good with that.

You're not supporting your argument with those lists. For example, take Kenny Rogers. Your stats show him when he had made "only" 257 starts and had that high FIP and high "run support". The logical conclusion from your standpoint is that he would almost certainly post a worse winning percentage over his next 200 starts, right? But it didn't work out that way, did it?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

That depends on his run support. If the run support were removed (or lessened) from what it was during the observed period (5.75 RS/9, by the way), my model would predict his winning percentage to go down, as I posit his W/L% was artificially propped up by the offense power of his supporting batting lineup. This theory is backed up by all the evidence I have posted.

Is that the best you've got, one rather poor straw man of my argument? Just admit you may not be as knowledgeable on this subject as you once thought, and take your medicine. It's good for you.

$200 says that Quintana will finish the season (if healthy) multiple games over .500.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

It's not a straw man argument. Don't pretend that your implication isn't that those guys on List 2 got lucky with "run support". If that's the case how did Rogers make over 200 more starts and actually increase his winning percentage to .584? He must be luckier than Ryan Reynolds!

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Eeeeee I don't know about that. If they wait until the market heats up at the deadline, that could be more than half of his season's starts made for what could in all likelihood be a historically bad offense.

I'm pretty sure we have a bet on Quintana already. I don't know what thread it's in though and I don't remember the terms.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

This is true. It should be considered free money then for some lucky guy/gal.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

We negotiated but couldn't agree on the terms.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

You seem to misunderstand, and I worded it poorly: The "cut-off" of 2000 was working backward from 2016. So that is Kenny Rogers from 2000-onward. Admittedly it was a different run environment around that time, but he was still decidedly average at best when accounting for league and park effects.