Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jacob deGrom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by milladrive View Post

    Apologies for my ambiguity. Cougar inferred correctly.

    I'm of the opinion that there should be no minimum at all.

    The way I see it, if a reliever can throw one pitch at any point in the game and get the Win, the starter shouldn't be penalized just for being the first pitcher in the game.

    Add to that the fact that a starter can get the Loss with a single pitch, and it's always seemed inherently inequitable to me.

    But I think another argument has entered the picture these days. Starters are going fewer and fewer innings as the years go by, and it likely won't be long before they are regularly removed before the 15th out, no matter how well they're pitching.

    At very least, I think it shouldn't be 5 innings anymore. But if I had my druthers, the minimum would be eliminated entirely.

    And btw, I am absolutely disgusted with the way the role of starter has devolved in the 21st Century. I yearn for the days when a guy stayed in the game until he lost his stuff, at which point a reliever would come in to finish. ...and hopefully HE had his stuff that day. The removal of a strong starter to play this Russian Roulette Relief that's become standard just irks me.

    But, I still think some things should adapt to the changing times, and an antiquated pitching qualifier is one of them.
    I'll co-sign every word of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post

    How about be higher than 33rd in 2021 in pitches per start? In the lowest pitches per start era in baseball history, by far? And he was 18th last year in pitches per start.

    How about fighting hard to stay in the game? Has he ever done that when the manager comes out, or tells him he's pulled between innings?
    This is quite the cherry-pick. deGrom ranks 4th in MLB in innings per start. It almost sounds like you would be more impressed if he were less efficient and needed more pitches to get through those innings.
    Last edited by GiambiJuice; 05-16-2021, 05:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • milladrive
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    Are you advocating for more or fewer innings for the win?
    Apologies for my ambiguity. Cougar inferred correctly.

    I'm of the opinion that there should be no minimum at all.

    The way I see it, if a reliever can throw one pitch at any point in the game and get the Win, the starter shouldn't be penalized just for being the first pitcher in the game.

    Add to that the fact that a starter can get the Loss with a single pitch, and it's always seemed inherently inequitable to me.

    But I think another argument has entered the picture these days. Starters are going fewer and fewer innings as the years go by, and it likely won't be long before they are regularly removed before the 15th out, no matter how well they're pitching.

    At very least, I think it shouldn't be 5 innings anymore. But if I had my druthers, the minimum would be eliminated entirely.

    And btw, I am absolutely disgusted with the way the role of starter has devolved in the 21st Century. I yearn for the days when a guy stayed in the game until he lost his stuff, at which point a reliever would come in to finish. ...and hopefully HE had his stuff that day. The removal of a strong starter to play this Russian Roulette Relief that's become standard just irks me.

    But, I still think some things should adapt to the changing times, and an antiquated pitching qualifier is one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cougar
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    Are you advocating for more or fewer innings for the win?
    I inferred fewer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    There's not much more he can do.
    How about be higher than 33rd in 2021 in pitches per start? In the lowest pitches per start era in baseball history, by far? And he was 18th last year in pitches per start.

    How about fighting hard to stay in the game? Has he ever done that when the manager comes out, or tells him he's pulled between innings?

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by milladrive View Post

    I think that's closer to the point: It's become of lower significance for starters as they go less and less far into the game. The fewer pitches one throws, the less control one has over the game's outcome.


    On a somewhat related note, I've long believed that the 5-inning minimum for starters' Wins should be eliminated. Forgetting that Losses can be had with one pitch (thus I think wins should be accomplished just as easily), as time goes by, and starters pitch less and less, I think 5-innings to qualify for a Win is antiquated and should go.
    Are you advocating for more or fewer innings for the win?

    Leave a comment:


  • milladrive
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    W/L is also a function of a starting pitcher's ability to pitch in the clutch (i.e. when there are tough circumstances).

    W/L for a reliever is low significance though.
    I think that's closer to the point: It's become of lower significance for starters as they go less and less far into the game. The fewer pitches one throws, the less control one has over the game's outcome.


    On a somewhat related note, I've long believed that the 5-inning minimum for starters' Wins should be eliminated. Forgetting that Losses can be had with one pitch (thus I think wins should be accomplished just as easily), as time goes by, and starters pitch less and less, I think 5-innings to qualify for a Win is antiquated and should go.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Amazing something as straight forward as wins and losses can be manipulated into seeming complicated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post

    But deGrom has pitched phenomenally well in tough circumstances and has little to show for it because his team just doesn't score for him (his ERA in losses and No Decisions is BY FAR the lowest in MLB over the past few seasons). There's not much more he can do.
    Agreed.....

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    W/L is also a function of a starting pitcher's ability to pitch in the clutch (i.e. when there are tough circumstances).
    If one believes that "pitching to the score" is a thing then I suppose so.

    But deGrom has pitched phenomenally well in tough circumstances and has little to show for it because his team just doesn't score for him (his ERA in losses and No Decisions is BY FAR the lowest in MLB over the past few seasons). There's not much more he can do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post

    Yes, in some cases a pitcher's W/L record will accurately reflect his contribution to his team's wins and losses. But usually this is not the case, there are simply too many factors outside of the pitcher's control (primarily run support and defense).
    W/L is also a function of a starting pitcher's ability to pitch in the clutch (i.e. when there are tough circumstances).

    W/L for a reliever is low significance though.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    They are not perfect, but still a good tool IMO.

    For example, everyone rages against Felix Hernandez's 2015, where he had a 18-9 record with a 108 ERA+. However I rate this as a fantastic season. In 31 total starts, he had 20 starts with 2 or fewer earned runs, 13 with one or fewer runs. In these 20 starts, 19 were "quality" starts and the other was with 5.2 innings pitched. He received 16 wins for these starts (also one loss).

    What doomed his seasonal ERA (and then the ERA+) is that he was left in to get HAMMERED in four starts, where he gave up 10, 8, 7, 7 earned runs. He received a well deserved loss in all these games. The next highest number of earned runs he gave up in a game was 4.

    In short, his record reflected his season - he cost his team those four games by pitching terribly, but in those other 20 games, he pitched great. I would much rather my pitcher have that type of distribution pattern than to give up 3 runs in 7 innings each time out for the same general ERA.

    Again, as I've said before, it is the timing and shape of the pitcher's earned runs which are at least as important to their effectiveness as compared to the volume of runs.

    W/L by no means is a perfect tool. It can be subject to flukes, particularly in a single season. However, for a career I find it to be a great tool.

    I will say, that in the modern era, deGrom's and Don Drysdale's W/L for their careers are the most misleading due to fluky run support and bullpens.
    Yes, in some cases a pitcher's W/L record will accurately reflect his contribution to his team's wins and losses. But usually this is not the case, there are simply too many factors outside of the pitcher's control (primarily run support and defense).

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    Since 2018:

    Most starts with 6+ IP, zero or 1 run allowed, resulting in a loss or No Decision:

    21 - Jacob deGrom
    10 - Max Scherzer
    10 - Patrick Corbin

    Most starts with 7+ IP, zero or 1 run allowed, resulting in a loss or No Decision:

    15 - Jacob deGrom
    7 - Walker Buehler
    6 - two pitchers tied

    Wins are a terrible tool for judging pitchers these days.
    They are not perfect, but still a good tool IMO.

    For example, everyone rages against Felix Hernandez's 2015, where he had a 18-9 record with a 108 ERA+. However I rate this as a fantastic season. In 31 total starts, he had 20 starts with 2 or fewer earned runs, 13 with one or fewer runs. In these 20 starts, 19 were "quality" starts and the other was with 5.2 innings pitched. He received 16 wins for these starts (also one loss).

    What doomed his seasonal ERA (and then the ERA+) is that he was left in to get HAMMERED in four starts, where he gave up 10, 8, 7, 7 earned runs. He received a well deserved loss in all these games. The next highest number of earned runs he gave up in a game was 4.

    In short, his record reflected his season - he cost his team those four games by pitching terribly, but in those other 20 games, he pitched great. I would much rather my pitcher have that type of distribution pattern than to give up 3 runs in 7 innings each time out for the same general ERA.

    Again, as I've said before, it is the timing and shape of the pitcher's earned runs which are at least as important to their effectiveness as compared to the volume of runs.

    W/L by no means is a perfect tool. It can be subject to flukes, particularly in a single season. However, for a career I find it to be a great tool.

    I will say, that in the modern era, deGrom's and Don Drysdale's W/L for their careers are the most misleading due to fluky run support and bullpens.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Since 2018:

    Most starts with 6+ IP, zero or 1 run allowed, resulting in a loss or No Decision:

    21 - Jacob deGrom
    10 - Max Scherzer
    10 - Patrick Corbin

    Most starts with 7+ IP, zero or 1 run allowed, resulting in a loss or No Decision:

    15 - Jacob deGrom
    7 - Walker Buehler
    6 - two pitchers tied

    Wins are a terrible tool for judging pitchers these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by milladrive View Post

    I for one am not part of the analytics crowd. Most of it is over my head, in fact. But I can easily recognize why a pitcher's wins and losses mean little on the grand scale. I stopped using W/L to judge a pitcher's worth a long time ago, before I'd ever even heard of WAR.

    deGrom and the Mets have simply exposed how little W/L means for pitchers.
    Even a hidebound traditionalist like me recognized years ago that W/L records without context are meaningless. When Felix (The King) Hernandez won the CYA a dozen years ago I thought that would put the W/L argument to rest. Guess not.
    Last edited by ol' aches and pains; 05-14-2021, 05:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X