Who Has the 2nd Best 1-2 Punch in Baseball?

[wayne1218]

How's this Wayne:

Guy A- 12 Wins and an ERA of 3.47

Guy B- 10 Wins and an ERA of 2.04

Who do you want? Again point proven, with neither guy being anywhere near 40.

Should i bump post 37 for you? If you want me to choose, give me all the numbers, NOT your chosen ones.

[mavskidd02]

K's, WHIP, BB, IP


Why focus on one thing, Era? Why? Because that is the one you chose. They are ALL part of the reason Beckett is a better pitcher. Not just Era

There it's bumped, what's your point?

Guy B also has more Ks and more IPs than A and less hits than guy A.

[mavskidd02]

A - 3.47 era / 64Ks / 137.1 IPs / 133 HA / 12 WINS

B- 2.04 era / 146 Ks / 141 IPs / 128 HA / 10 WINS

There's all your stats put together.

[wayne1218]

A - 3.47 era / 64Ks / 137.1 IPs / 133 HA / 12 WINS

B- 2.04 era / 146 Ks / 141 IPs / 128 HA / 10 WINS

There's all your stats put together.

Give me B. The power is staggering when you look at K difference. He has also given up less hits in more innings pitched. You didn't show Walks or Whip but i'm guessing by those numbers, B is well ahead in both of those 2. Based on all the numbers, B is clearly a better pitcher.

[mavskidd02]

Give me B. The power is staggering when you look at K difference. He has also given up less hits in more innings pitched. You didn't show Walks or Whip but i'm guessing by those numbers, B is well ahead in both of those 2. Based on all the numbers, B is clearly a better pitcher.

Exactly, and if a person focuses on wins, you would never know any of that.

[wayne1218]

Exactly, and if a person focuses on wins, you would never know any of that.

Who is focusing on wins anyway? I never did understand that point to begin with. You were focused on Era so you are no better than the guy focused on wins. There are many numbers to focus on when looking at a pitcher, not just one.

[mavskidd02]

Who is focusing on wins anyway? I never did understand that point to begin with. You were focused on Era so you are no better than the guy focused on wins. There are many numbers to focus on when looking at a pitcher, not just one.

My original point at the start of this was that ERA was more important than wins. That is a point I made to frank. And a point I still contend to be true.

How me and you ended up in an argument, I don't know. But that always seems to happen somehow.

[wayne1218]

My original point at the start of this was that ERA was more important than wins. That is a point I made to frank. And a point I still contend to be true.

How me and you ended up in an argument, I don't know. But that always seems to happen somehow.

Franks stat was right on the money and the numbers were not made up. He took the top 2 (As we listed here) and broke them down. Who knows, who cares what their Era is. They are the best 2 Pitchers on the team for many reasons and the end result is wins. There is a reason why most of the duo's have a great record and the others are below .500 combined. I don't care and couldn't tell you if they have the top 2 era's on each team and they probably don't but they "Win" for a reason, and a lot of them. That's what makes them the best 1-2 punch on the team. Franks stat said plenty and it showed why we used the guys we did in the poll.

[mavskidd02]

Franks stat was right on the money and the numbers were not made up. He took the top 2 (As we listed here) and broke them down. Who knows, who cares what their Era is. They are the best 2 Pitchers on the team for many reasons and the end result is wins. There is a reason why most of the duo's have a great record and the others are below .500 combined. I don't care and couldn't tell you if they have the top 2 era's on each team and they probably don't but they "Win" for a reason, and a lot of them. That's what makes them the best 1-2 punch on the team. Franks stat said plenty and it showed why we used the guys we did in the poll.

- I never said it was incorrect.

He responded to my post of the ERAs, and said that they don't show much. I replied that (IMO) they show more than a pitcher's wins. I posted some stats to contribute to the thread and Frank did as well. Read post #31 and #33. It was a statement and response between me and Frank.

You say you don't care about the ERA stat, that's great. I could care less about the pitcher's wins stat.

[wayne1218]

- I never said it was incorrect.

He responded to my post of the ERAs, and said that they don't show much. I replied that (IMO) they show more than a pitcher's wins. I posted some stats to contribute to the thread and Frank did as well. Read post #31 and #33. It was a statement and response between me and Frank.

You say you don't care about the ERA stat, that's great. I could care less about the pitcher's wins stat.

Well, Based on your team (Atlanta) and Era, your Best 3 Pitchers are Soriano, Logan and Jurrjens.

Based on wins it is Vazquez, Lowe and Jurrjens.

You should care more about wins because if you could keep A or B out of the Atlanta groups above, i'm pretty sure you would choose B and the guys with the "Wins".

[mavskidd02]

Well, Based on your team (Atlanta) and Era, your Best 3 Pitchers are Soriano, Logan and Jurrjens.

Based on wins it is Vazquez, Lowe and Jurrjens.

You should care more about wins because if you could keep A or B out of the Atlanta groups above, i'm pretty sure you would choose B and the guys with the "Wins".

That's great, but like I posted with other guys, that doesn't always hold true. And more often than not, at the end of the year, the top 5 guys in ERA, are a lot better pitchers than the top 5 guys in Wins. (Starters not relievers, because their body of work is much a smaller sample.)

You have preference to wins, and I do to ERA.

[wayne1218]

That's great, but like I posted with other guys, that doesn't always hold true. And more often than not, at the end of the year, the top 5 guys in ERA, are a lot better pitchers than the top 5 guys in Wins. (Starters not relievers, because their body of work is much a smaller sample.)

You have preference to wins, and I do to ERA.

I prefer guys that win. I don't care if your era is 3.00 or 4.00, if you have a great record, you are doing what you are doing for a reason. A great Era doesn't get you 300 wins and at the end of your career, Win/Loss records define a pitcher. Era is looked at but the 1st thing is wins. There are many different era's in the hall of fame based on what you say (Starters) but they all have one thing in common that got them there and it is wins.

[mavskidd02]

That's great. However, I think wins are a team effort. If you pitch great but your team doesn't put a run across and you lose, that's a team thing. If you pitch awful, but your team explodes offensively and you win, that again is a team thing.

But an ERA strictly displays a pitcher. And if I need to judge a pitcher's talent, I'd be looking at ERA far before his W-L record. and that, initially was what this was all about, right? The Best 1-2 Punch. The Best Pitchers, not the Best Teams.

[wayne1218]

Ask any starter in baseball if he would rather be (15-5) 4.00 Era or (10-10) 3.00 Era and see what they would all choose. Then tell me which matters more.

Also, take the Top 50 starters in Wins All Time and take the Top 50 pitchers in Era All time and tell me which list has more Hall of Famers. I guarantee it's wins and don't worry, there will be a minimum games pitched or innings pitched too.

I agree that Era is huge but it is ridiculous to disregard Wins when talking about a Pitcher.

[mavskidd02]

Never said to disregard it. I simply find it a more valuable tool in evaluating a pitcher than wins.

Point being:

Grienke
Cain
Haren
Carpenter
Lincecum

vs.

Beckett
Marquis
Wainright
Cain
Wakefield


Which group would you rather have in your rotation?