Most impressive pitcher thus far?

[snepp]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingFelix

Maybe I am just not following baseball closely enough anymore; and all the new stats they have to determine performance... but please explain to me how ERA is a "flawed stat." ERA measures how many runs you allow over nine innings. I thought for the most part, a pitcher's job was to keep runs from crossing the plate.

ERA measures how many earned runs the pitching and defense allow over nine innings, it's not necessarily indicative of what the pitcher actually did.

Groundballers allow a ton of unearned runs that don't get accounted for in ERA, do those runs mysteriously not count?

An excellent defense can make a pitcher look much better than what they are, does that make them better than one with superior stuff pitching on a poor defensive team? ERA says it does.

ERA doesn't distinguish between ballparks, it says a 4 ERA in San Diego and a 4 ERA in Cincinnati are the same.

[Chip Douglass]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingFelix

Really? Because I don't think you can call it luck when an AL pitcher has a 2.88 ERA.

It is when that ERA is mostly due to favorable batted ball peripherals and a very high strand rate. snepp did a good job covering its flaws, like its assumption that everything is equal or how it doesn't account for defense.

Welcome to the world of defense-independent pitching stats (FIP, xFIP, etc.). If you adjust for the things that pitchers can indeed control (strikeouts, walks, hit batters, and home-runs), you'll find that Pettitte is 21th in the AL in xFIP. 26th in K/9. 28th in K/BB ratio. 31st in BB/9.

Quote:

It's not like Pettitte is a flash in the pan either, he's been one of the game's best lefties for YEARS. The fact that he is doing this at 38 is pretty impressive.

No, he hasn't.

He's made a great career out of being a solid middle-of-the-rotation guy, but he's not even in the same universe as others lefties like Randy Johnson and Johan Santana.

Quote:

I'm the biggest Yankee ***** of them all but I can give credit when it's due. Pettitte has been surprisingly impressive this year.

And how much credit do you want me to give him?

I've already said he's improved from 2009, but he's nowhere near the most impressive pitcher in baseball.

[joshuar9476]

How about Johnny Cueto who is sporting a 9-2 record and a 3.39 ERA ... and he's not even leading our team in wins. Or better yet, how about Mike Leake who is 6-1 (and should be at least 8-1 if not for bullpen implosions in atl and phi), has a 3.53 ERA, and had never pitched an inning of professional ball before this spring. Now that's impressive.

[dalnet22]

Coors field.

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by joshuar9476

How about Johnny Cueto who is sporting a 9-2 record and a 3.39 ERA ...

Wins and ERA don't even come remotely close to telling the entire story.

[Porschebenz2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dislimb

Wins and ERA don't even come remotely close to telling the entire story.

I don't get it. According to most of you stats don't matter with pitchers.

[BatsareBugs]

Quote: Originally Posted by Porschebenz2001

I don't get it. According to most of you stats don't matter with pitchers.

Depends on the poster. Some like it more advanced, some like it basic, some don't even like it at all.

[Sportsforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by Porschebenz2001

I don't get it. According to most of you stats don't matter with pitchers.

I think one thing that is confusing is that no one is saying those stats don't matter. Wins/ERA do tell you something. The point is they aren't good indicators of how well a pitcher is pitching or will pitch in the future. The FIP stats show you how well a pitcher is pitching in the areas he CAN control. Wins/ERA tell you how well his TEAM, and to a lesser extent, he, has done.

For example, Kent Bottenfield was a journeyman pitcher who "broke" out and won 18 games for the Cardinals in 1999. Someone could look and see that he won 18 games and had a 3.97 ERA and think, "wow, he really did well." And his results were good. The problem is that his results were more a function of luck. He wasn't striking a lot of people out, he was walking quite a few, and gave up some homers. The ball was being put in play a lot. The truth is, he was getting a lot of run support AND his defense was making some plays behind him. No one would take away his 18-7 record...that's what he DID. However, anyone who expected him to continue that in 2000 and beyond would be disappointed because you can't maintain that performance over an extended period of time with that many balls being put in play + walks. Sure enough, Bottenfield never even came close to replicating that performance and was out of baseball soon after.

The key to remember is this: once a pitcher lets a ball be put in play (aside from homeruns) he has little to no control over the outcome. I know it's counterintuitive, but it's true...numbers don't lie.

I hope that helps...