GREAT NEWS ... A PICKLES THREAD

I had an ace once... then i lost it because my opponent had a higher card 4 cards later...

No, I really don't care to explain the obvious.

That sometimes offenses are more laxed when their ace is on the mound. Or to put it another way. There is less pressue to score more runs when the ACE is on the mound

Or

that pitchers really have nothing to do with the offensive production? (unless in the rare case they get a hit/HR themselves in the NL) 

I remember Pete mentioning something about Pitchers and wins..as if they had some signifcance...

sometimes offenses are more laxed when their ace is on the mound. Or to put it another way. There is less pressue to score more runs when the ACE is on the mound

Or

that pitchers really have nothing to do with the offensive production? (unless in the rare case they get a hit/HR themselves in the NL) 

I remember Pete mentioning something about Pitchers and wins..as if they had some signifcance...

Or even that players feel more pressure to play better for their Ace and give them run support so they begin to force things.

In other explanation can be two Brown haired and brown eyed people having a blond haired and blue eyed child.

There is almost always an exception to a rule.

I remember Pete mentioning something about Pitchers and wins..as if they had some signifcance...

_______________


Of course it has significance... you can pick one or two guys in a 100 years that pitched to awful luck their entire careers and would have had better W-L if they were on a better team.

I will argue that in the long run, over a season, Good pitchers win, bad pitchers lose!

Steve Carlton once one 25% of his teams entire wins for the season!!

        

I will argue that in the long run, over a season, Good pitchers win, bad pitchers lose!

--

Wins are a decent stat in a macro sense. An 18-game winner is almost always going to be a better pitcher than a 10 or 12-game winner.

But they lose value as a stat for differentiating pitchers of similar quality. That same 18-game winner is not necessarily better than a guy with 16 or 17 wins.

Don Sutton had more wins than Bert Blyleven. Don Sutton was not, on the whole, a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven. Not close, in fact.

Don Sutton had more wins than Bert Blyleven. Don Sutton was not, on the whole, a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven. Not close, in fact.


___________

Never watched either play except Blyleven at the end of his career.


I think we agree mostly... in a short run or over the course of a half season,  a guy can pitch to bad luck etc.


But, if you are a pitcher that gives up three runs, leaves the game in 6th inning and your bullpen blows it, you are not a quality starter IMO.

Generally speaking, gusy who win are better than guys who lose. 

If it was so normal to discount wins for a pitcher, we would have never had this debate about Felix two years ago.

         

If it was so normal to discount wins for a pitcher, we would have never had this debate about Felix two years ago.

--

Wins are not the first stat I'm looking at when I want to see how well a guy pitched in any given season. I don't discount them totally as a stat, but for a starting pitcher, I'm more interested in ERA (and ERA+), innings pitched, innings per start...

If you've got a pitcher you can depend on for 32 starts, 210 or so innings, and a good ERA, the wins will sort of take care of themselves.

A high school librarian who pursued a student for sex by bombarding him with cell phone photos of her bare breasts was arrested after he set up a sting operation with police.  The man, who goes by simply Brock said, in a statement..."she blonde...she's hot...she doesn't get hit on, and since I prefer menapausal women, I did the honest thing...I called the police"

see more at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york
/school-librarian-busted-sex-sting-
article-1.1261684