newper wrote:
I'm going to give you guys a bit of yes and no here. One issue with golf is that it is an individual sport with a hundred guys all starting the event and only one wins. So for a single tournament, the guy who wins is obviously the best. And the course difficulty is different, so you can't easily compare between tournaments by using a raw number like strokes. (In baseball, they account for this by using stats like ERA+ and WHIP+ which take venue difficulty and talent level of the year into account.)
Sure, there are more variables in baseball, more noise, if you will, but let's pretend that the different courses are the different lineups and ballparks. Even in the same golf tournament, we've seen guys go out in the morning under great conditions and other guys tee off later in the day when some different weather has swept in. I've never heard anyone say, Tiger lacked "wind support". It's similar in that neither pitcher is actually competing directly against each other, they are facing two different lineups and neither are golfers competing directly as they are both actually going against the course.
newper wrote:
I think it is much more apples to apples to compare a pitcher to a QB. Both have a great deal to do with the outcome, but both also have other teammates that influence the game. It seems like you are saying that you would prefer a QB on a team that won a game 14-10 vs a QB that lost a game 28-35. Even though the first QB may have only had 200 yards passing and 0TDs and 2 INTS while the second guy had 386 yards passing, and 3 TDs and 1 INT. I realize we are just making up stats here, but where do you land on the similarity in the importance of W/L for QB vs W/L for a starting pitcher?
I think that's a decent comparison, except the difference between two football defenses in the space of a game is much greater than two baseball offenses within a single game. You can watch a quarter of the '85 Bears defense and a quarter of the '15 Bears defense and you aren't going to have much doubt which one was better. In fact, it will be obvious that one is far superior. You can't tell the difference between the high-scoring Red Sox and the pathetic White Sox offenses in a single game or even a series, as last week's meeting clearly illustrates. And sure, you could make a case that Erik Kramer was a better quarterback than Dan Marino in 1995, but you'd look as silly as someone who kept insisting that Javy Vazquez was a better pitcher than Mark Buehrle.
newper wrote:
As far as context goes, if I have a guy who finishes 3rd each year in ERA for 10 years behind guys who ony pop up for 1st or 2nd in ERA for 2 or 3 years in that time frame, then yeah, I want the guy who finished 3rd. I don't think there's any inherent value in finishing 1st in any stat on any given year/event. You're looking for trends that place him in the top over multiple years/events.
The guy who pitches in Colorado or Texas is at a huge disadvantage vs. a guy who pitches in Oakland or Dodger Stadium when it comes to posting a low ERA. If you take Jon Lester and put him in a Rockies uniform, I have no doubt he is going to have a higher ERA. Are you saying that would mean he "got worse"? He'd be exactly the same guy and I would bet that his W/L record would be similar to what it has always been because his opposing pitchers would face the same conditions he is facing. The ERAs are more relative than the wins and losses.