Zack Greinke (.744, 3.47)
Clayton Kershaw (.732, 3.68)
Max Scherzer (.719, 3.96)
David Price (.675, 3.95)
Stephen Strasburg (.643, 3.39)

Keep in mind, W/L% correctly labeling top pitchers as top pitchers does not mean that W/L% is actually good at deciphering who is good and who is not.

That's not a good argument. There's a big difference between a guy allowing one runner per inning and two. If you're talking about an offense that averages a quarter run more against ALL pitchers and today is facing ths guy you are arguing is one of the best, he should pitch right over that fraction 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

That's why I wanted to see it. Those are some of the best guys in the league. You WANT WL% to mean nothing so you dismiss it.

I'd like to see it flipped around too, are the bottom 5 guys in WL% just some unlucky good pitchers or are they down there because they are just innings eaters and every team needs 5 starters?

_________________

And that's not even what JLN is doing here. He seems to be making a case that if a starter allows more than his team scores he's likely to lose. No shit.

_________________
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

This isn't a good argument either. You are oversimplifying the effect a lineup has within a single game.

The Nationals this year have averaged 5.66 runs a game. The Braves have averaged 4.71. At first blush, it's easy to say "Oh, that's less than a run per game." But the reality is that the Nats aren't scoring one more run per game here and there. They also have games in which they score less than the Braves... and yet they still wind up with about 154 more runs per year. That is significant. That means they are MUCH more likely to explode and give a pitcher a huge cushion to work with. The average runs per game is a misleading stat because it's over so many games that it looks miniscule. Odds are that if a pitcher pitches for the Nationals, he is likely to pitch in at least 4 or 5 more games which he should easily win than he would if he pitched for the Braves. And a 5-game swing is the difference between 11-14 and 16-9.

_________________

No, 60% of W/L% being explained by something pitchers have literally no impact on (run support) does that all on its own.



(W/L%, FIP in observed range)

Andrew Cashner (.370, 3.84)
Jeff Samardzija (.408, 3.70)
Tom Koehler (.409, 4.47)
Ricky Nolasco (.436, 4.08)
Scott Feldman (.442, 4.10)

League average FIP over that time period is around 4.12, so Cashner and Samardzija are well above average, Nolasco and Feldman marginally above-average, and Koehler is below average. Two of the bottom-five are very unlucky, another two are solidly unlucky (league-average W/L% is .500), and one is about where he should be.

That doesn't sound like a statistic that is very good.

Do you not understand different kinds of averages? Did you not comprehend the significance of Quintana "averaging" 2.76 runs of support per start but still getting 2 actual runs or fewer in almost two-thirds of his starts? The league averages a little more than 3 marginal runs per game, which results in actual run distribution that is centered on 3-or-more runs per start, whereas Quintana's is centered on 2-or-fewer.

I don't even know Koehler The rest of those guys are meh but there is a certain value in eating innings.

So far WL% seems to be pretty decent to me to judge players. Certainly not in a half season or a couple months but when you give it a couple years, the good pitchers make themselves known. You've convinced me as much as JORR has. W/L forever!!!!!

_________________

You're completely ignoring the fact that there are other actual pitchers allowing less than Quintana in those games. "Run support" is nothing more than the opposing ERA.

_________________
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

Time doesn't make a bad statistic good. It's useless for one game then it's useless for 10 games or 100 games or 1000 games.

This is all a bit, right??

So who are the great starters with losing records?

_________________
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

That W/L record is "meaningless"? I sure hope so.

_________________
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

If Cub fans don't like Quintana, could I interest them in the other sexy name on the supposed trade market? How about a Chris Archer? He who owns a 3.57 career ERA (3.43 FIP). He who owns a 48-56 record and went 9-19 last season? Does that do anything for ya?

This is the CFMB quintessential no surrender debate. Nothing really compares outside of abortion arguments, and Jimmy Butler greatness threads.

_________________

No, I was a former W/L means nothing person and JORR eventually won me over. I'm also getting older and turning into an 'old man yells at clouds' type of guy.

_________________

But the opponents are different

Yeah. So what? They're all big league offenses capable of scoring ten runs in a game at times. I don't expect the "better" pitcher to allow more than the lesser guy over half the time.

The thing that separates the teams is the pitching. The Sox would have been the best team in baseball last year if there was a way for Sale to start every game. It would be like if the Bears had a four man quarterback rotation- Brady, Cutler, Siemian, and Bortles. They'd probably be 3-1 with Brady, 1-3 with Cutler, and 0-4 with each of the other two. If Brady could start all 16 they're a Super Bowl contender.

_________________
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

Unless Bradys 4 games were against great defenses like the Ny Football Giants (Stoneroses) and Cutler faces bad teams.

No, the rest of those guys are pretty good, as indicated by their above-average FIP figures. You don't just get to declare guys "meh" because it makes your argument look silly.

Granted, there is a far greater difference between the best and worst NFL defenses than between any two major league offenses. It's a difference that can be seen in the space of the game. If I only saw the Cubs play this last series I'd have the impression they were one of the best offenses in history.

_________________
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

Go ahead and like Shark's FIP. I'll go ahead and think he's a bad pitcher that eats up innings. He has a role in MLB. Every team needs someone to go out and throw 180 innings each season. If you're going to defend him after seeing him stink on both sides of town, I feel more confident than ever that I'm on the right side of history here.

_________________

I'll take the first group and you can have the second plus Mike Trout and Bryce Harper and my team kicks your ass.

_________________
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

Scott Feldman is pretty good because a certain stat says he is!!! Who is being silly here? The only useful thing he's ever done is being traded. He's the definition of meh.

_________________

That's not how this works.

How is that materially different from you saying guys are "meh" because their W/L% says they are?



Still you.



TIL above-average FIP is "the definition of meh". That's a mighty fine brain you have.

JORR, trying to be flippant, completely misses the entire point of this exercise. Imagine that.

JORR, there's a single thing you could admit to which would help clarify your stance. I'm not saying it'd make anyone agree with you, but it would at least clarify...

You think Major League hitters don't matter, correct?

_________________

Of course they matter. But we're discussing events within the minute space of a single game vs. a pitcher you keep insisting is among the best in baseball. If that were really the guy you're saying he is, he has a huge advantage vs. an offense that averages .5 more runs per game than his own admittedly anemic offense.

_________________
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

Put another way, if all of Babe Ruth's at-bats were against Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson, he wouldn't be Babe Ruth.

_________________
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