moonslav59

Is it all that unusual? In the past 3 years (split seasons), I looked at the top SP pitchers by ERA (100+ IP in a season), and here is how many SP'er had 11 wins or less: 24 out of the top 60

Agreed. They must think some fans can't figure it out, so saying it keeps the sham working for them.

It does look like cutting costs was a major factor, and if it also allowed us to sign Giolito, then that helps, some.

Maybe not, but I'd have legit hopes.

LOL. I knew you'd come around! BTW, can anyone name any SP'er with 2500+ IP and a great ERA, who was not very good? How about a pitcher with 2500+ IP, and ERA over 4.50 who was a very good pitcher? Look at the list of exceptions for each stat.

Lets just look at the 29 pitchers who have 2,000+ IP since 2003 (last 2 seasons.) That's a pretty legit sample size. We see guys like Felix (5th best ERA at 3.42) with just a 169-136 record, while Porcello has the worst ERA at 4.40, but has a 150-125 record. Kyle Lohse has an almost identical ERA as Porcello (4.34) and IP, but waas 116-117. Aaron Harang had a better ERA than both but went 118-133. Hell Matt Cain had a very decent 3.68 ERA but went 104-118, while Jarrod Weaver was at 3.63 and went 150-98. Show me wild inconsistencies in the ERA- leaders of the last 20 seasons (2000+ IP) 63 Kershaw 75 Scherzer 76 Verlander 81 Price 82 Hamels 83 Greinke 84 C Lee & Felix 85 Sabathia 86 Lester & Cueto Who clearly doesn't belong? Who below them belongs? https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&type=1&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=&month=0&season1=2004&season=2023&qual=2000&sortcol=13&sortdir=default&pagenum=1

Not everything is about Sam.

There are many factors that affect ERA, too, but not to the same extent as W-Ls, and not to the same extent. Falty W-L rules. Run support (and how lucky those runs come, as in not all in 1-2 games) Defense behind the pitcher (not just measured by unearned runs) Strength of opponents faced, especially their line-ups. Park factors (mostly having to do with LHPs v RHPs or long ball pitchers vs GB pitchers and park dimensions.) How quickly your manager yanks you, even if you are doing well, but also when you are getting rocked.

More often than not, yes, but there are so many examples where it is not true, especially for pitchers on bad hitting, bad pens and or bad defensive teams, or who play on teams that score most of their runs in late innings, after the SP has left the game. While it's true we can find exceptions for every stat or metric praised by any of us, it just seems so much easier to find exceptions for W-L pitchers who were better or worse than their record indicated. This can even occur over a long career, so it often does not all "even out" as we go long term, something we say often about most stats. Nolan Ryan went 324-294 over 27 seasons. That's an average of 12-11. It never "evened out" for him. His 3.19 ERA and 2.94 FIP tell the story much better. Show me one pitcher who had a good ERA and his W-L record better described how good he was, and the same for a bad pitcher. Yes, good pitching leads to more wins, but "more" is relative, when you pitch for a team who scored 3 runs for you vs another pitcher who plays on a team that scores 6 for them. Over the long term a better pitcher, who pitches on a bad team) will win less and lose more than a worse pitcher ona team that scores way more when he pitches.

If we were talking vintage Sale, I'd take Sale, easily. I'd also think we'd make the playoffs in 2024.

The extension wasn't for huge money. While Grissom's value is highly speculative, in nature, Sale has gotten to the point where his value is highly speculative, too, and it's 1 year vs 5.

To me, better pitchers pitch more innings than most others, get batters to make more outs than most others and when batters do get on base, it is mostly singles or BBs rather than 2Bs, 3Bs and HRs. With batters, most of us realize all hits are not equal, so we value SLG% more than BA. SLG % also values HRs and XBHs. HRs are a traditional stat used by many to add value to batters with nearly the same BA. We also realize walks are better than making an out, so they should have some value, too. Maybe OBP gives BB's too much value, as they are not as good as a single, if the single advances a runner an extra base or leads to a run, but many of us value OBP more than BA. For this reason, I really value OPS, and therefore OPS Against for pitchers. To me, it is better than WHIP, since it counts 2Bs, 3Bs and HRs as worse than singles. I like ERA, but ERA- and ERA+ provide context that is hard for most of us to do in our heads with any precision. OPSA & ERA- are two stats I value more than wins or ERA. I'm fine with those who disagree. I'd like someone to explain why team record in starts is not more important than W-L records. It's all about the team winning, so why let dumb rules warp the final results of each game a starter starts?

It also doesn't explain why pre-arb and arb pitchers get paid less, even if they are better than FA pitchers.

Not at all. Would it change your view on two SP'ers, if the two players had identical ERA's, defense behind them and both teams went 23-10 in their starts, but one guy went 11-10, while the other went 20-10? Both pitched 94 mph+. Both pitched the same IP and went into the 6th inning the same amount of times. If you think one is better, can you explain why?

He should have said, "starting in 2025 and continuing...," but even that might not be true.

I think years of team control is very important and valuable. We have seen what happens when team control runs out of our best players- they go and we don't replace them, too often. On Grissom. I see him as being a much better prospect than Yorke or DHam- the only two guys we have that are MLB ready for the all important 2024 season. I also see him as a 2Bman who can hit 15-20 HRs in 2024, and maybe more as he matures. The guy averages 65 XBHs per 162 games in the minors w 30 SBs. He was an okay defender at SS, which should mean he ends up plus on D at 2B, after an adjustment period. I'm a hug Sale fan. I hated to see him traded. I think he might have a great season, but I've felt like that for many years without seeing much success. I like the extension the Braves gave him, and if we had extended him, I might feel different about the trade, but I doubt we would have done that. I'm not happy Sale is gone. I am very happy with Grissom's promise, and if can be okay, this year, good next year and very good for 3 more, I think it's a good trade. I also think the outlook for our 2024 season plays a role in my choice. If we sign Monty, I will like the Sale-Grissom trade less, because I would not view 2024 as a punt season, anymore.

Sale for 2024, but I'll take 5 years of a very good Grissom over 1 year of an excellent Sale is a punt season.

Indeed, and it took a long time for fans to accept ERA as a very important indicator of talent and production. Guys like Felix Hernandez are grateful to the awakening by many.

Take the other typical traditionalist stat, BA. Of course it has significant meaning and offers support for determining a player's value. It has a few flaws like who is scoring errors vs hits, how do differing park dimensions hurt or help one batter over another and then deeper things like how good or bad were the pitchers and fielders each batter faced over a season or career. Sure, BA leaves our walks, so many prefer OBP, but that does not change the meaning of BA. The thing is, these are relatively minor, when compared to what rules dictate who gets a win or loss. Some example point to absurd awarding of wins and losses. A scorer who rules a clear hit an error does not affect a player's BA all that much, oer a season or career, and almost all batters have the same thing happen to them at maybe the same rate. Now that pitchers are yanked earlier and earlier, it's harder for SP'er to get the win, due to an arbitrary rule set decades ago. Also, a pitcher can leave the game with a shut out or with a2-1 lead in the 6th, 7th or laters, and the next guy allows the tying run, and that guy gets the win, if the team's offense brings the team back to the lead by the end of the game. It is a highly flawed system of determining who gets the win. All this happens, even before you get to other factors like run support, defensive support and the same old park factors/strength of opponent issues are introduced to the equation. It's an absurd example, but some pitcher could pitch 33 CG 1 run starts and be 0-33. No batter can hit 33 out of a 100 and have a BA of .200 or .400.

...and saves and blown saves.

If a pitcher lets up 2 ER in 5 IP, every start of the year, his ERA would be 3.60. The QS stat is 3 ER in 6 IP or a 4.50 ERA. Which looks better to you?

We have a lot of players who have some very good upside potential. Many have already proven they can be very good, in recent years or for long parts of recent years. Some are based on speculation, minor league numbers of scouts' projections. Of course, many of these same players are capable of doing blah or poorly, and have recent sample sizes of neutral to highly negative stretches. In my case, whenever spring comes around, I tend to get more optimistic and see the bright side as perhaps being more probable than it really is. Maybe, part of what makes baseball the best sport of all is that it starts in spring. I've showed how Bello, Gio, Crawford, Pivetta and Houck have all had good to great full seasons or 20+ GS stretches, in the last 2-3 years. That should offer some hope that some sort of confluence of good things happening can occur. Our pen has enough talent and promise to be both good and somewhat deep. Our defense is a bit more speculative, but I have to think Grissom at 2B should be better than the worst in MLB in 2023. A healthy Story is 100 times better than Kike & Co. Yoshida at DH, most games, should improve LF defense, and the more Rafaela plays CF over Duran, the better chance our CF D improves. The rest seems about even. Our offense is a little speculative, too, especially Grissom, Rafaela, Abreu and second full seasons from Casas & Wong. Story is question mark, as are O'Neill & Yoshida. I'm still waiting for Devers to put together a career year as he enters his prime. I like our offense, this year, as much or more than last year, despite the loss of Turner and Duvall. (Dugo has a 100 OPS+, so I think his loss on O has been overblown.)

Agreed, and same with Sale and or Gio.

Every stat or metric is flawed, and I think we all know this. We feel the win stat is more flawed than others, for various reasons. It's fine to disagree. I feel the arbitrary rules set up on how to determine who gets the win is a major ding against using wins as a major factor in determining which SP'ers are better than others. (I hope nobody looks at W's and L's for RP'er evaluations.) The rules are a joke, IMO. There are other factors that make this stat not as important as others, but clearly team wins matters the most. It's just that it's a team stat. So many combined reasons can go into every win and loss. At least with something like BA, there are minimal contexts needed, such as scorer determinations on errors v hits and park factors + variations in strength of pitchers faced, which is very hard to factor.

They equate disagreeing with "not accepting others opinions." We totally understand the points being made. We accept their opinions as being opinions. We offer our opinions, which disagree, and somehow, we are being unreasonable. We know that nobody thinks wins is the be all-end all. We disagree that is should be the first thing looked at, just as others disagree fWAR, ERA_ or OPSA should be the first thing. I'm fine with anyone who disagrees with my first looks at numbers. I'm just offering my opinions and defendining them with as much evidence as I can provide. Somehow, this bothers people to no end.