Blind Comparison Thread

[Chewbaccer]

BTW, how'd you like Chief Wahoo's schvanz?

Tasted good. Luckily we own the Marlins.

 

[DragonfromTO]

kind of, but i actually wanted to compare it to QS... Cause again, i think there is something to a pitcher who wins besides just their offense...

I kind of think it is similar to sac flies for hitters... How they often change their approach and or swing to get the runner in...

I think playing with the lead some pitchers may change their approach, might get a little lazy or whatever... other players seem to step up their game...

Now i have no proof to this... just an observation i have... and why i still like the W/L%...

This takes me back to Joe Sheehan's "Jack Morris Project". Joe had heard for so long that this was what Morris was doing when he pitched, so he looked at every single individual game of his career to see if there was any pattern to when he did/didn't give up runs. Long story short, if Jack was changing the way he pitched depending on game situations (and I would think that it's very likely that he was, at least to some degree) that change wasn't showing itself in the results anyway.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Onto the next blind comparison:

PITCHER A: 254-186 record, 3824 IP, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 1.78 K/BB, 43.8 WAR, 32.8 WAR7
PITCHER B: 245-193 record, 4000 IP, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+), 1.27 WHIP, 1.84 K/BB, 49.5 WAR, 33.5 WAR7

Both played virtually all of their careers during the same era/time frame.

 

[navamind]

Onto the next blind comparison:

PITCHER A: 254-186 record, 3824 IP, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 1.78 K/BB, 43.8 WAR, 32.8 WAR7
PITCHER B: 245-193 record, 4000 IP, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+), 1.27 WHIP, 1.84 K/BB, 49.5 WAR, 33.5 WAR7

Both played virtually all of their careers during the same era/time frame.

Paging @dougplayer...









B. I knew who the players were immediately. I need to get out of my mother's basement.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Onto the next blind comparison:

PITCHER A: 254-186 record, 3824 IP, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 1.78 K/BB, 43.8 WAR, 32.8 WAR7
PITCHER B: 245-193 record, 4000 IP, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+), 1.27 WHIP, 1.84 K/BB, 49.5 WAR, 33.5 WAR7

Both played virtually all of their careers during the same era/time frame.

please give me QS% and GS

 

[Omar 382]

Who the hell cares about QS?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Who the hell cares about QS?

i do...

 

[Omar 382]

I'm not saying they're as meaningless as saves or wins, but why do you like them? They're fundamentally flawed from being based on ERA from my perspective.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'm not saying they're as meaningless as saves or wins, but why do you like them? They're fundamentally flawed from being based on ERA from my perspective.

best stat there is to show consistency... and i have no problem with the flaw... Don't consider it a flaw...

But what is better than knowing how often a pitcher has a GOOD enough game to theoretically win?? and how often they do it in their career??

If you saw the first blind comparison i asked for QS% and WAR7... i think they are ultimately the opposite stat, one is a good indicator of how dominant the pitcher was at their peak, the other is a good indicator of how consistent they were start to start through out their career or season...

 

[Omar 382]

I get your intention- you want to count how often a pitcher pitched well, but you have two problems: One- QS% doesn't tell you how often a pitcher was dominant. A pitcher with QS 60% of the time could have far more if he had 200 stars than a guy with 80% QS with 5 starts. Two, your measure of a pitcher pitching "well" is skewed at best. Is a pitcher good if in 6 innings he gives up 8 hits and walks, strikes out one batter, and has a 0% HR/FB ratio because he's in Petco.

I think your best bet is downloading a programming language and counting how many seasons (which are less prone to outliers than individual stats) a pitcher has with ~180 IP and a FIP- of 80 or lower.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I get your intention- you want to count how often a pitcher pitched well, but you have two problems: One- QS% doesn't tell you how often a pitcher was dominant. A pitcher with QS 60% of the time could have far more if he had 200 stars than a guy with 80% QS with 5 starts. Two, your measure of a pitcher pitching "well" is skewed at best. Is a pitcher good if in 6 innings he gives up 8 hits and walks, strikes out one batter, and has a 0% HR/FB ratio because he's in Petco.

I think your best bet is downloading a programming language and counting how many seasons (which are less prone to outliers than individual stats) a pitcher has with ~180 IP and a FIP- of 80 or lower.

I don't care about dominance... Just care about consistency... the dominance is shown by other stats... Like i said, QS% is the best stat that shows consistency IMO... and that is all i use it for... Other stats will do other things while also strengthening each stat i look at...

 

[Villain]

QS are excellent for fantasy baseball points. Otherwise, throw them away.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Onto the next blind comparison:

PITCHER A: 254-186 record, 3824 IP, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 1.78 K/BB, 43.8 WAR, 32.8 WAR7
PITCHER B: 245-193 record, 4000 IP, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+), 1.27 WHIP, 1.84 K/BB, 49.5 WAR, 33.5 WAR7

Both played virtually all of their careers during the same era/time frame.

I'd go with B given the information I have.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

QS are excellent for fantasy baseball points. Otherwise, throw them away.

funny, i am the opposite... I kind of dislike QS for fantasy, but love the stat for real life...

 

[Villain]

funny, i am the opposite... I kind of dislike QS for fantasy, but love the stat for real life...

If you're looking for a way to find consistency, try using graphs instead of single numbers.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If you're looking for a way to find consistency, try using graphs instead of single numbers.

WHY?? I am a numbers person, not a graph person... and i have accepted that all stats are flawed, so why penalize a stat that does a certain thing very well just because you think it is flawed...

Hell, OPS is very flawed on the offensive side, but we use it all the time... and honestly, it is flawed for a similar reason QS is, it is because they were keeping it simple...

 

[Villain]

WHY?? I am a numbers person, not a graph person... and i have accepted that all stats are flawed, so why penalize a stat that does a certain thing very well just because you think it is flawed...

Isn't my thinking a stat being flawed the most perfect reason to penalize it?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Isn't my thinking a stat being flawed the most perfect reason to penalize it?

Well, not really... Since no single stat should be used as the all ultimate stat, finding ways to use a stat is what they are for...

and the more stats you use the better... I have never said QS is the best stat, but i do think it is the best stat out there to measure consistency... and until there is a better one, i will be using it... I feel like QS gets a bad wrap because people can't look past the 4.5 ERA... But don't realize that ERA is irrelevant to the stat...

But again, if you can show me a percent stat that shows consistency better, than i am happy to use it instead... But remember, the first rule for a successful stat is for it to be easy to use and easy to understand...

 

[Omar 382]

WHY?? I am a numbers person, not a graph person... and i have accepted that all stats are flawed, so why penalize a stat that does a certain thing very well just because you think it is flawed...

Hell, OPS is very flawed on the offensive side, but we use it all the time... and honestly, it is flawed for a similar reason QS is, it is because they were keeping it simple...

OPS is far more useful than freaking quality starts

 

[Omar 382]

Well, not really... Since no single stat should be used as the all ultimate stat, finding ways to use a stat is what they are for...

and the more stats you use the better... I have never said QS is the best stat, but i do think it is the best stat out there to measure consistency... and until there is a better one, i will be using it... I feel like QS gets a bad wrap because people can't look past the 4.5 ERA... But don't realize that ERA is irrelevant to the stat...

But again, if you can show me a percent stat that shows consistency better, than i am happy to use it instead... But remember, the first rule for a successful stat is for it to be easy to use and easy to understand...

?????