In a message dated 7/11/2003 9:19:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a > pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. > A pitcher has only one function on a team. > No-hitters, strikeouts, "stuff", they're all > meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping > runs off the board. Bob was telling me about > strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of > those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The > third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a > no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. > That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we > talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and > park context). As you get more sophisticated we can > talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or > VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these > wonderful tools that people have invented to measure > exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to > take into account all these varying factors that go > into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can > tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of > these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was > really great. > Well its not that I remember him. I do of course he drove me crazy beating my > beloved invincible Yankees. It is what others have said about him. Experts who have > played with him or against him or who have broad experience. They all say he was the > best for that 5 year period. As to the other stuff the key is not in fact keeping > runs off the board. The key is winning games. Now it is true that it is often hard > to measure the value of an individual in a team game so all sorts of statisitical > surogates are devised. But that is all they are. Koufax's reputation is based on his > performances in big games over that 5 year period. No comes close. Pedro and Maddux > have had chances but they could not win on their own. Roger self destructed several > times before his success in New York. Koufax won those games with very little > support from his team. He did not need it. As to things like no hitters shutouts and > complete games. They are indicators of dominance. They tell us that he was so good > that he could put himself in position to have a sufficient number of times to have 4 > in 5 years. Think about it this way. Suppose a pitcher has the stuff to pitch a no hitter on a given day. What are the odds he will succeed? 1 in 3, 1 in 6? So to get 4 in 5 years you have to pitch well enough to get the no hitter 15-25 times. I don't have the stats in frount of me but I remember that he had whole bunches of 1 and 2 hitters (almost no-hitters) in there. Back to ERA: My contention is that based on all that is know about Koufax; his skill his strength and his mental toughness he would have had the same ERA now as he did then. That he and Pedro both have the best ERA possible for pitchers. What the rest of the league did against each other was irrelevant. They were all overmatched. By the way I thing Tom Seaver a pretty knowledgable baseball guy who had some knowledge of Koufax growing up in California has said he thinks Koufax was the best pitcher ever. > =====
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
