From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Cone, Clemens, Ks (Was Re: Dream Team
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:48:52 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <16c8lrINNgld@malibog.hal.COM> rc@hal.COM (Rolland Crunk) writes:

>I am *not* a Mets fan and never have been. Yes maybe my leaning towards
>David Cone is based on his superior strikeout numbers. But if a batter
>strikes out, there is no possibility of him to:

>	1. Get a base hit
>	2. Advance a base runner 
>	3. Reach base on an error

All true.  But so what.  It doesn't matter how the batter makes an out,
only if the batter makes an out.  Maybe if you don't try and strike out
as many batters, you'll give up less home runs. Maybe Cone would be a
better pitcher - and I'm not joking - if he struck out less people.

Strikeouts are stylistic points, albeit ones that bode well for the future.
But having lots of strikeouts doesn't make one a better pitcher than
one's RA.   

>How does a particular stadium have any effect on how many batters a
>pitcher stikes out? A better pitching mound? Yeah right...

Bzzzzzzzzzt.  But thanks for playing.

There are large park effects on strikeout totals, boosting or decreasing
strikeout totals by up to 10%  The major factor is visibility - lights at
night, hitting background, etc.  How you see does tend to have an influence
on whether you can hit the ball, you know.

None of that changes the fact that Cone strikes out a heck out a lot of
people, of course.

>Cone is 29 years old. Nolan Ryan is 45; why is it inconceivable that he
>is beginning to show what he is capable of?

Oh, its not inconceivable.  Unlikely, yes (especially after Jeff Torborg's
use of him this year), but not inconceivable.  But you can't judge a
pitcher on what may happen; you have to judge him on what he's accomplished.
If you want to say "David Cone will be better than Roger Clemens in the next
few years," I'd disagree, but I wouldn't consider it an irrational prediction.
But saying that he is a better pitcher now indicates that there is some
evidence that he's performed better than Roger.  And there isn't.  Cone was
may have been a bit better in 1988 (and that's debateable when you factor
in the DH and the parks), but Roger's been way better ever since, every
year. 

>And what collection of statistics are important for a pitcher?

Preventing runs.  Period.  Runs Allowed isn't perfect, because it doesn't
take into account bullpen effects or a team's fielding.  Looking at hits
and walks allowed can add a little to an analysis, since the bullpen
doesn't influence those totals and the pitcher may just have had very bad
timing in giving up his hits.  But a 2.45 RA pitcher with 100 Ks is no
worse than a 2.45 RA pitcher with 200 Ks (everything else being equal, of
course).

>I guess the bottom line is wins since everything else means nothing
>to the team (I don't really believe this). Problem is, the pitcher 
>is only one person and the rest of the team has to perform in order 
>for him to win.

Which is why every analyst type here completely ignores pitchers' W-L
records; they're not at all a good rating of a pitchers' performance.  

 ERA? Yeah this stat is a pretty good indicator of how 
>well a pitcher is doing, however it can be a bit misleading and slight 
>variations really don't mean too much.

I don't think ERA is ever really misleading, but as I said above, its 
certainly not perfect.  And no, there's not much difference between
a 2.45 ERA and a 2.60 ERA (over a season).

 If you are playing in a fantasy 
>league, then the method of calculation for pitching scores determines who
>the best pitcher is. Problem is this is just fantasy and there are
>many variations on how scores are calculated. For example, here are 
>scores (save column deleted) from last week for the league I am in for a 
>few of the top starting pitchers:

I'm not sure what the relevance of a fantasy baseball rating system has
here.  

>The point I am trying to make is that statistics can be used in any
>way that one wants to in order to support their opinion. I place
>a lot of weight on strikeouts (see reasons given at the beginning 
>of this message), innings pitched (pitcher normally gets yanked
>when he gets in trouble), and ERA.

But you still have yet to present any reason why you think a pitcher
with a 200 strikeouts is more valuable than a pitcher with 100 strikeouts
who did an equally good job preventing runs.

As I've said elsewhere, strikeouts are very important in projecting
a pitcher's future.  Pitchers who strike out a lot of batters are far
more likely to consistently succeed in the majors.  But that's the
future.  In terms of the past, the only accomplishment worth talking
about is preventing runs.

>Finally, my opinion that David Cone is (currently) the best pitcher in
>either league with Roger Clemens second is just that. My opinion (yeah
>I've got one too). You don't have to like it and I'm not gonna spend a 
>lot of time trying to justify it or convince anyone else.

The point is this:

             Clemens   Cone
1988           2.93    2.22
1989           3.13    3.52
1990           1.93    3.23
1991           2.62    3.29 
1992           2.20    2.75


Clemens pitches in a league with a DH and in a great hitters' park.  Cone 
pitches in a league without a DH (add .3-.4 to his ERAs) in a great pitchers'
park (when comparing to Clemens, multiply Cone's ERA by 1.08). 

There just isn't a viable comparison here.     

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball