You think Kershaw has a near .700 winning percentage because of "run support"?

Greinke was a dominant pitcher in the lesser league. He had one good season in the AL.


You think Kershaw has a near .700 winning percentage because of "run support"?

He's a better pitcher than Greinke, but not that much better to explain the wide disparity in winning percentage. If you put him on the White Sox for the full scope of his career, does he have the same winning percentage?

He's a better pitcher than Greinke, but not that much better to explain the wide disparity in winning percentage. If you put him on the White Sox for the full scope of his career, does he have the same winning percentage?

No but you're barking up the wrong tree with this one. He will never admit that a teams offense affects a pitchers winning percentage.

1-0 does not win 65% of the time. 'Scoring first' is fake news because it could be 1 run, 2 runs, 10 runs.

The team scoring first wins over 65% of the time. That's a fact.

You're talking about how it's essential the pitcher hold the other team scoreless and I'm talking about a pitcher keeping a team in the game. Scoring first can be a solo HR or it can be a crooked number.

My theory has always been crooked numbers win games. Indeed, a pitcher needs not give up crooked numbers. And a 1-0 inning does not win 65% of the games. I guarantee it.

The 1-0s are part of the 65%. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That allowing three runs is worse than allowing one?

An end of inning 1-0 score isn't a 65% win probability. In fact, a 1-0 game in the first 3 innings probably means very little. Maybe fractionally better than 50%. So I'm saying the 65% figure is misleading because 1 run very often leads to 2 and 3 within the same inning. In other words, a very good pitcher is also one who can get out of jams and prevent more runs. A guy who loses 1-0 doesn't and shouldn't be pissed about the 1 run. You'd be the only pitcher on the planet who would.

How is a fact misleading? The simple fact is that the team scoring first wins 65% of the time. Thus it follows that a starting pitcher's first goal should be to hold the opponent scoreless until his team has scored. It's a winning recipe.

Which pitcher in a 1-0 game should be complaining about a "lack of run support?"

Probably not, because the AL- at least at the time- was a much tougher league.

But my opinion on the subject of "run support" is well known here. It doesn't really exist. "Run support" is just the lower ERA of guys you insist aren't as good as the pitcher you are promoting.

Each game is a separate entity. The object isn't to allow the least runs possible or limit baserunners. It's to allow less runs than the guy(s) pitching for the opposing team. The most important thing any starting pitcher can do is hold the opposition scoreless at least until his own team scores. The team that scores first wins about 65% of the time.

When does Jamie Moyer get in?

If you think that Kershaw wouldn't have won as many games as a Sock as he did with the Dodgers because the AL was tougher, then it seems that you agree that wins can come from factors outside of a pitcher's control.

If you do agree with that, you should see the problem that many of us have with wins as a stat. They are just too dependent on factors that are not related to a pitcher's performance.

I would argue that most people that "have a problem" with placing a high value on a starter's winning percentage have come to their belief based on repeatedly being informed that winning percentage is "meaningless" by the Joe Sheehans and Brian Kenneys of the world.

This whole argument we're having is sort of moot but also an argument that belongs in 1985. Pitchers are trained that getting in jams after two trips through the lineup as "well, I guess I'm done". There's no reason for Peralta to fall apart last night other than he was trained to fall apart.

Yes, the 6 pitchers from each team are the most important players in a game.

I considered the AL to be a tougher league during most of Kershaw's career due to the presence of the DH. However, if you think the AL had better pitching than the NL through most of Kershaw's career, and Kershaw would have fewer wins as Sock than a Dodger, you're still admitting that a certain number of wins are just dumb luck. Imagine a guy who pitched for the Mets in the 90's and had to face the Braves' rotation on a regular basis. He would have fewer wins than someone who had the same: strikeout rate, walk rate, and hard hit rate who pitched for the Tigers during that same period of time due to happenstance (not pitching in the NL East).

Also, imagine Mike Clevinger put up the exact same E.R.A. and innings pitched as he did this year, for the 2005 White Sox. Don't you think he would have more wins than he did this year?

Sure. There's noise in every number. Guys get lucky with ERA and Ks too. But over enough time, a starter's W/L record tells you more about his ability as a pitcher than any other single number. Those that don't think so trade Dansby Swanson for Shelby Miller or sign Jeff Samardzija to silly contracts.



I have no idea.

It's not a bad stat and you do a good job advocating for it, but you're discounting the amount of "noise" it contains.

Of course I admit that. Obviously the score of the game affects the pitcher's winning percentage.

If the guy you think is so great can't limit his opponents to less runs than the pitchers he faces who you supposedly think are not so great, then maybe your opinion is just wrong.

Bro I love ya man, you know this, but most of your baseball thoughts are just terrible. I'm sure you're great at whatever it is you do for a living, which I can only assume isn't baseball commentary because you make enough money to buy a bike, but baseball talk is not a strength of yours.

My argument destroys the silliness people repeat like parrots that W/L record is meaningless. So of course, insults are the only way to "win."

The real problem with "run support" is that the people using the term are almost always defending a guy who allowed more of it than a guy they don't believe is as good.

Of course this stupid argument started with quintana so I'll just ask... why did quintana win at a clip of more than .100 points with the Cubs while also allowing 3/4 of a run more?

He was pitching in an inferior league. That should be obvious.