Payrod is a loser and he will never win anything.

[Scott Dierking]

This isn't about STANDINGS pal. This is about evaluating individual players and team stats like wins are useless for that. I honestly don't feel like teaching you how to look at stats so if you want to learn something i'm sure you'll be able to find some info.

Please=, teach me. What Pitchersd stat is MORE important than wins. Please, you seem to know so miuch more than anyone here. Enlighten the masses.

[madmike1]

Please=, teach me. What Pitchersd stat is MORE important than wins. Please, you seem to know so miuch more than anyone here. Enlighten the masses.

Please just do some research. You might learn something. If i know more then people here it's because i've done the research and i've learned what stats are important and which aren't.

[Scott Dierking]

Please just do some research. You might learn something. If i know more then people here it's because i've done the research and i've learned what stats are important and which aren't.

You already answered the question. You are unable.

Thanks for playing. Dodge a question enough, andit becomes painfully obvious you are wrong.

Just admit it next time. You look less the fool.

[madmike1]

You already answered the question. You are unable.

Thanks for playing. Dodge a question enough, andit becomes painfully obvious you are wrong.

Just admit it next time. You look less the fool.

LOL thats what a moron does. I've told you that i don't feel like explaining it to you but i'll try. Anyone saying that wins are a meaningful stat and then calling someone else a fool is about as funny as it gets. So for making me laugh here goes.

A WIN in a byproduct of many other things so looking at a WIN as a stat that means anything by itself is probably borderline retarded. You can pitch 5 IP give up 9 runs and still get a win. You can pitch 9 IP give up 1 run and get a loss. They don't take ANY peripherals into account. They don't take run support into account. They don't take defensive support into account. They don't take the team you're facing into account. They don't take bullpen support into account They really don't take ANYTHING into account expect luck and to a much smaller extent how good your team is.

The best pitchers will win games but it's not the wins that makes them great pitchers.

[Scott Dierking]

LOL thats what a moron does. I've told you that i don't feel like explaining it to you but i'll try. Anyone saying that wins are a meaningful stat and then calling someone else a fool is about as funny as it gets. So for making me laugh here goes.

A WIN in a byproduct of many other things so looking at a WIN as a stat that means anything by itself is probably borderline retarded. You can pitch 5 IP give up 9 runs and still get a win. You can pitch 9 IP give up 1 run and get a loss. They don't take ANY peripherals into account. They don't take run support into account. They don't take defensive support into account. They don't take the team you're facing into account. They don't take bullpen support into account They really don't take ANYTHING into account expect luck and to a much smaller extent how good your team is.

The best pitchers will win games but it's not the wins that makes them great pitchers.

You can talk about any stat in that manner.

Again, you fail to answer the question-WHAT STAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A W FOR A PITCHER?

It is good to know that CY Young and Walter Johnson were just so LUCKY in their career.

[madmike1]

You can talk about any stat in that manner.

Again, you fail to answer the question-WHAT STAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A W FOR A PITCHER?

It is good to know that CY Young and Walter Johnson were just so LUCKY in their career.

UH no you can't.

What stats are more important then wins? How about every other stat...

[Scott Dierking]

UH no you can't.

What stats are more important then wins? How about every other stat...

OK, name a stat more important than wins for a pitcher. I ask again, because you claim there are so many, yet you refuse to answer the question.

Know what that tells me.

[madmike1]

OK, name a stat more important than wins for a pitcher. I ask again, because you claim there are so many, yet you refuse to answer the question.

Know what that tells me.

name any other stat.

[Scott Dierking]

name any other stat.

Please, just name one. I am still waiting. Is WHIP more important than Wins?

Is it Mike?

[madmike1]

Please, just name one. I am still waiting. Is WHIP more important than Wins?

Is it Mike?

Yes it is.

Good Job Name another!

[Scott Dierking]

Yes it is.

Good Job Name another!

OK Max, you got me.

I admit it. I am a little slow to catch on.

Good one. I finally figured it out. Mad Mike is here just toi drive up post counts. Real Good one.

Is he a bot? A bot that just spouts nonsensical babble to elicit responses. Good one.

You had me going. Shame on me.

[madmike1]

OK Max, you got me.

I admit it. I am a little slow to catch on.

Good one. I finally figured it out. Mad Mike is here just toi drive up post counts. Real Good one.

Is he a bot? A bot that just spouts nonsensical babble to elicit responses. Good one.

You had me going. Shame on me.

Do you take pride in having no idea what you're talking about?

[Scott Dierking]

Do you take pride in having no idea what you're talking about?

It is so enlightening to know that Chien Ming Wang was such a worse pitcher than Randy Johnson last year (who you admit was horrible) because his WHIP was worse.

You must be worried to have a pitcher carry around a 1.31 WHIP. Horrible.

19 wins be damned. He sucks.

[madmike1]

It is so enlightening to know that Chien Ming Wang was such a worse pitcher than Randy Johnson last year (who you admit was horrible) because his WHIP was worse.

You must be worried to have a pitcher carry around a 1.31 WHIP. Horrible.

19 wins be damned. He sucks.

see this is where stupid people who don't know anything about stats screw up. Is WHIP an important stat? Yup. Is it THE only stat that means anything so that you can say that every pitcher with a better WHIP is better? No.

[madmike1]

Acctually i never said that Johnson was horrible. I was against trading him.

[Scott Dierking]

see this is where stupid people who don't know anything about stats screw up. Is WHIP an important stat? Yup. Is it THE only stat that means anything so that you can say that every pitcher with a better WHIP is better? No.

Mike, you can cease with the name calling, only small minded people do that. You don't want to be accused of that.

Reminder, it was YOU that agreed WHIP was MORE important to a pitcher than Wins.

So tell again Mike, what stat is MORE important than WINS for a pitcher. We both now seem to agree WHIP isn't.

Is it Strikeouts?

[madmike1]

Mike, you can cease with the name calling, only small minded people do that. You don't want to be accused of that.

Reminder, it was YOU that agreed WHIP was MORE important to a pitcher than Wins.

So tell again Mike, what stat is MORE important than WINS for a pitcher. We both now seem to agree WHIP isn't.

Is it Strikeouts?

First of all you called me a fool pal so don't get on your high horse.

Your argument makes zero logical sense. Just because whip is more important then wins DOES NOT mean that whip is the only stat that matters. You are AMAZINGLY oversimplifying this. Your post would only make sense if they only kept 2 stats on pitchers WHIP and Wins. LOL

[Scott Dierking]

First of all you called me a fool pal so don't get on your high horse.

Your argument makes zero logical sense. Just because whip is more important then wins DOES NOT mean that whip is the only stat that matters. You are AMAZINGLY oversimplifying this. Your post would only make sense if they only kept 2 stats on pitchers WHIP and Wins. LOL

Mike, I have tried and tried and tried to get you to name a stat that was MORE important than wins for a pitcher. You refused. So I threw one out-WHIP-and you said it WAS more important.

And then you said it wasn't-Go figure.

No you are saying it is again. Man, you make Sybil look normal.

Come back tomorroiw, when you understand what you are trying to say. i am sick of piling Max's post counts up when arguing with someone who can't admit he doesn't know what he is trying to say.

[madmike1]

Mike, I have tried and tried and tried to get you to name a stat that was MORE important than wins for a pitcher. You refused. So I threw one out-WHIP-and you said it WAS more important.

And then you said it wasn't-Go figure.

No you are saying it is again. Man, you make Sybil look normal.

Come back tomorroiw, when you understand what you are trying to say. i am sick of piling Max's post counts up when arguing with someone who can't admit he doesn't know what he is trying to say.

please show me where i said that WHIP IS NOT as important as wins buddy. I understand EXACTLY what i'm trying to say. It's you who is making moronic assertions not me.

[Arsis]

talking about wins as a stat? Nowadays it also depends on how good the relief is. what about an amazing pitcher who pitches 8 innings only to have the relievers screw him out of a win. A string of those and a 20 win pitcher turns into a 16 win guy. So the guy has a 0.50 era and leads the league in strikeouts but sucks cause it's all about the wins? makes no sense to me.

[Scott Dierking]

talking about wins as a stat? Nowadays it also depends on how good the relief is. what about an amazing pitcher who pitches 8 innings only to have the relievers screw him out of a win. A string of those and a 20 win pitcher turns into a 16 win guy. So the guy has a 0.50 era and leads the league in strikeouts but sucks cause it's all about the wins? makes no sense to me.

The name of the game is winning. Bottom line is all that counts.

[Barton]

The name of the game is winning. Bottom line is all that counts.

It doesnt mean pitcher A is better than pitcher B because he has more wins. Wins is a team stat.

Clemens lead the MLB in 2005 in era at 1.87 w/32 games started and had 13 wins - nuff said.

Wins is not a good way to judge a pitchers value. Mike is actually right on this one, there are alot of other stats for pitchers that are far more importantthan "wins", like ERA and ERA+. Not sure why mike didnt say that though.

[madmike1]

The name of the game is winning. Bottom line is all that counts.

That is what a 5 year old would say. Next you are gonna say that it's better then score more runs then the other team. What insight. The STAT wins does nothing to show how well a pitcher enabled his team to win games or how he will continue doing that in the future. There is a stat WRAP(Wins above replacement player) which does a decent job of guessing that but i doubt you've heard of that.

[madmike1]

Wins is not a good way to judge a pitchers value. Mike is actually right on this one, there are alot of other stats for pitchers that are far more importantthan "wins", like ERA and ERA+. Not sure why mike didnt say that though.

I told him that wins is the least important stat for pitchers followed closely by saves and that every stats he can name is less important then wins and ERA and ERA+ would logically fall into that group.

[The Troll]

You could put anyone else in that situation and the result would be the same as Jeter.

If you put anyone in KC they are not going to the the HOF. Ortiz, Bonds, Ramirez, Soriano it doesn't matter. If you don't have talent around your nubmers are going to suffer.

That did not stop Carlos Beltran from putting up better numbers than Jeter ever has whenever he was in Kansas City.

The Royals were just the most extreme example. It's hard to argue that Jeter hasn't been in the absolute most perfect situation he could be in for his entire career.

[The Troll]

Which player did a better job for his team?

Pitcher A 17-9 (32 starts) with a 5.40 era and a WHIP of 1.36 The team was 22-10 in his starts

or

Pitcher B 12-12 (32 starts) with an era of 3.20 and a WHIP 1.05? The team was 16-16 in his starts?

I hate to agree with madmike (REALLY REALLY hate to), but he's right here.

It is not Pitcher B's fault that he either a.)plays on a ****ty team, or b.)gets no run support. He clearly outplayed Pitcher A by a wide margin. And he DID do a better job for his team. His teammates, OTOH, did an awful job for him.

[madmike1]

That did not stop Carlos Beltran from putting up better numbers than Jeter ever has whenever he was in Kansas City.

The Royals were just the most extreme example. It's hard to argue that Jeter has been in the absolute most perfect situation he could be in for his entire career.

What utility is there in comparing a outfielder to a SS? That makes no sense at all. Jeter's numbers are clear. he's a hall of famer and he would be no matter what team he played for.

Jeter is also a better hitter then Beltran is for what thats worth. His OBP OPS and OPS+ are all better then Beltran's.

[The Troll]

What utility is there in comparing a outfielder to a SS? That makes no sense at all. Jeter's numbers are clear. he's a hall of famer and he would be no matter what team he played for.

I disagree. Completely. Jeter would only be a Hall of Famer if he played for New York or Boston. If he played for the Pirates, he would just be another good player.

And Shawn mentioned Ortiz, Manny, Soriano, and Bonds in the post I quoted. None of those guys play shortstop and three of them are outfielders. Maybe you should read the post I quote as well before you reply to me next time.

[madmike1]

I disagree. Completely. Jeter would only be a Hall of Famer if he played for New York or Boston. If he played for the Pirates, he would just be another good player.

And Shawn mentioned Ortiz, Manny, Soriano, and Bonds in the post I quoted. None of those guys play shortstop and three of them are outfielders. Maybe you should read the post I quote as well before you reply to me next time.

Manny and Bonds would be Hall of Famers no matter what team they played for. Ortiz probably got too late a start and we'll see about soriano. His theory, however about players being affected in the lineups they hit in is wrong though. The only stats that are effected by the rest of the team are stats that are team dependent such as RBI's and Runs. Those are bad ways to judge any player. It's been proven that meaningful stats like OPS SLG and OBP don't change much from lineup to lineup.

The idea that Jeter is a product of the winning that his teams have done is absurd. If anything all the winning has made him UNDERRATED. He's going to cakewalk to 3000 hits which is a free pass into the hall. But even if he didn't have that, Jeter is still one of the best hitting SS's of all time. He's a MUCH better hitter then Cal Ripkin was. You won't find ANY shortstops with an 851 OPS career that aren't in the hall of fame and that has NOTHING to do with who he plays for.

[The Troll]

Manny and Bonds would be Hall of Famers no matter what team they played for. Ortiz probably got too late a start and we'll see about soriano. His theory, however about players being affected in the lineups they hit in is wrong though. The only stats that are effected by the rest of the team are stats that are team dependent such as RBI's and Runs. Those are bad ways to judge any player. It's been proven that meaningful stats like OPS SLG and OBP don't change much from lineup to lineup.

The idea that Jeter is a product of the winning that his teams have done is absurd. If anything all the winning has made him UNDERRATED. He's going to cakewalk to 3000 hits which is a free pass into the hall. But even if he didn't have that, Jeter is still one of the best hitting SS's of all time. He's a MUCH better hitter then Cal Ripkin was. You won't find ANY shortstops with an 851 OPS career that aren't in the hall of fame and that has NOTHING to do with who he plays for.

Do you really think the bolded idea holds water with Hall of Fame voters? It doesn't. They are going to look at stats like runs, RBIs, homers, All-star game appearances, etc.

I see the "3,000 hits" argument used to favor Jeter's case a lot. If Jeter played in an offense that wasn't as powerful as the Yanks' have been, then he would not have nearly the numbers of at-bats that he has. He also would have never been rewarded with a Gold Glove for his average fielding, and if he played for Pittsburgh or Kansas City, you really think he'd have chalked up 7-All Star appearances? He also would have never had his postseason heroics, which has vaulted him into legend status according to most Yank fans.

No, if he played in Pittsburgh or Kansas City, he'd have under 2,000 hits, no Gold Gloves, maybe three or four All-Stars, and no WS rings. That's pretty damn good, but a Hall of Famer it ain't.

[madmike1]

Do you really think the bolded idea holds water with Hall of Fame voters? It doesn't. They are going to look at stats like runs, RBIs, homers, All-star game appearances, etc.

I see the "3,000 hits" argument used to favor Jeter's case a lot. If Jeter played in an offense that wasn't as powerful as the Yanks' have been, then he would not have nearly the numbers of at-bats that he has. He also would have never been rewarded with a Gold Glove for his average fielding, and if he played for Pittsburgh or Kansas City, you really think he'd have chalked up 7-All Star appearances? He also would have never had his postseason heroics, which has vaulted him into legend status according to most Yank fans.

No, if he played in Pittsburgh or Kansas City, he'd have under 2,000 hits, no Gold Gloves, maybe three or four All-Stars, and no WS rings. That's pretty damn good, but a Hall of Famer it ain't.

If jeter played for an offense that wasn't as powerful as the yankees he would've also been a no 3 hitter most of his career which would've given him more RBI chances. It goes both ways. The bottom line is that Jeter deserves to be in the hall even if he had never played in a playoff game. He's one of the best hitting SS of all time and those numbers would be no different if he played on any other team. You have a point that the Hall of Fame voters are pretty clueless on what stats to vote on but he'd get that 3000 hit number no matter what team he played for too which will only validate what was already a hall of fame career.

[The Troll]

If jeter played for an offense that wasn't as powerful as the yankees he would've also been a no 3 hitter most of his career which would've given him more RBI chances. It goes both ways. The bottom line is that Jeter deserves to be in the hall even if he had never played in a playoff game. He's one of the best hitting SS of all time and those numbers would be no different if he played on any other team. You have a point that the Hall of Fame voters are pretty clueless on what stats to vote on but he'd get that 3000 hit number no matter what team he played for too which will only validate what was already a hall of fame career.

The difference is that if Jeter played for another team, he would not have 2,150 hits. And if he hit in the 3 hole, like you suggest, he would have EVEN LESS at bats, which would make him even FURTHER away from 3,000 hits. Jeter will turn 33 years old and has averaged 194 hits per season. If he maintains his current pace, he will be 37 years old when he reaches his 3,000th hit. And it's highly unlikely that he will maintain his current pace as he reaches his mid-thirties. And that's on the Yankees, a team on which he has averaged 613 ABs in 151 GP per season over his full-time career. In contrast, Hanley Ramirez, who hit LEADOFF and played in 158 games this season, had only 20 more at-bats than Jeter's career average. In seven less games. Therefore, if Jeter hit in the 3-hole, or even 2-hole for another team, he would have less than 2,000 hits, and he would probably have to play into his early-40's to reach 3,000.

[Scott Dierking]

I hate to agree with madmike (REALLY REALLY hate to), but he's right here.

It is not Pitcher B's fault that he either a.)plays on a ****ty team, or b.)gets no run support. He clearly outplayed Pitcher A by a wide margin. And he DID do a better job for his team. His teammates, OTOH, did an awful job for him.

You can't make that distinction.

All things are not equal. Pitcher A may have played in Wrigley where the wind was blowing out in 75% of his starts.

The fact remains, he did enough to make his team win. That is the bottom line. You can't just take stats out of context and say because of those, one is better AND THEN totally discount Wins. That is the bottom line stat.

There are many variables that can affect stats.

[The Troll]

You can't make that distinction.

All things are not equal. Pitcher A may have played in Wrigley where the wind was blowing out in 75% of his starts.

The fact remains, he did enough to make his team win. That is the bottom line. You can't just take stats out of context and say because of those, one is better AND THEN totally discount Wins. That is the bottom line stat.

There are many variables that can affect stats.

But the statistics show that he did less to help his team win. It is not indicative of a pitcher's perfomance whenever he gives up 2 runs over 8 innings, but doesn't win the game because his offense didn't show up. Look at Roger Clemens. In the past couple years, he has lost a ton of games 1-0. You are telling me with a straight face that Randy Johnson pitched better than him because his team won 10-7?

Low ERA, low WHIP, and a high K/BB ratio are what seperates the good pitchers from the others. Not a statistic that is heavily reliant on factors that the pitcher has zero control over. If Clemens and Johnson switched teams, do you think RJ would have won 17 games and Clemens 7?

And what about blown saves? Are those also the SP's fault?

[Scott Dierking]

To further my point about WHIP and ERA and how those can be as meaningless stat as Wins.

Look at the case of Darryl Kile and Mike Hampton. Look at their stats prior to Colorado, and at Colorado. Their WHIP and ERAs ballooned.

Did that make them worse pitchers? Not necessarily. They just had differenjt elements (variables) that affected their stats.

Baseball is not playede in a vaccum. All stats can not be compared on an equal stsatus. That is why to put total emphasis on one set of stats, and reject WINS (THE PURPOSE OF THE GAME!), is pedestrian thinking