Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
A win is important to the team. The point being made is that a win doesn’t mean the pitcher pitched well. It only means the team won.
|
It also doesn't mean the pitcher pitched badly, or that if he hadn't pitched as well as he did that they wouldn't have possibly lost, either.
For the umpteenth time, of all the people on the field, in the dugout, part of the front office, or sitting in the stands, the one and only person that is directly involved in every single play, and as a result has the most influence on the outcome of every single game they are in, is the pitcher. And the longer they pitch, the more overall influence they will have as to the outcome of that game. Which is why it is the starting pitchers, who generally pitch more innings in every game they appear in than anyone else, that will have the most overall influence and impact on whether or not their team ultimately wins.
And I've also stated various times that the pitcher alone does not determine if their team wins or loses, but over the course of a season/career, all the other variables and factors that take part in determining who wins should, and will, average out so that the thing that has the most overall influence on the outcomes of each game should come out and prevail as the factor that actually does end up determining the winner of most games, and that one factor with the most influence is who is the starting pitcher!
I've also repeatedly said that when it comes to pitchers, especially starting pitchers, they have some "it" factor that allows certain of them to against all odds and other factors somehow rise up and prevail and win more ballgames than their peers and competitors. There is no one single type or style of pitcher that alone is so successful in winning. If there was, every single pitcher would try to emulate and pitch that exact same way. But they all aren't necessarily able to throw close to 100 MPH, to throw at and hit a gnat's eyelash at will, or throw a curveball that literally always drops off the table, yet they still win more often than not somehow. And that more or less sums up and explains how it then must come down to that "it" factor.
And you can take all the advanced statistics you can come up with to try and measure and quantify what goes into that "it" factor, but there is no one, all-encompassing measure anyone can ever develop or come up with that can or ever will explain "it", except that they win!!! So rather than trying to point to WHIP, ERA, and other statistical factors as an explanation for a pitcher's success and greatness, why not just admit that they are great because they win? Then if you really must start arguing and comparing them, maybe begin looking at those statistics that are based/developed off their wins to do so, like their won-loss percentage. But it is still impossible, and to me somewhat ridiculous, to even try and expect to be able to even somewhat accurately compare pitchers from different eras because of all the factors and context that make those eras different.
But even when the pitchers are supposedly from around the same era, it is still extremely unlikely to accurately be able to measure and compare them. Just like the poster who mentioned Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson possibly winning 50 more, or fewer, games over their careers had they switched the teams they pitched for. That is where the factor about pitching for a better, or worse, supporting team can impact how many games a pitcher wins. But in this specific comparison, you also have to remember that Mathewson pitched entirely in the dead ball era, whereas Johnson started pitching in the dead ball era, and completed his career pitching in the live ball era. In fact, to Johnson's credit he was voted as the league MVP twice, once during the dead ball era, and once during the live ball era. Now that says a lot about his ability and flexibility in changing and adapting to differing factors, and his ability to achieve success in both eras. In other words, that "it' factor prevailing once again!