K's are important, but it is not that much greater than a groundball, "No one ever Ked into a doubleplay." Strike outs also mean the pithcer has to throw more pitches and can't go as deep into a game, it has down side.
frog99 wrote:K's are important, but it is not that much greater than a groundball, "No one ever Ked into a doubleplay." Strike outs also mean the pithcer has to throw more pitches and can't go as deep into a game, it has down side.
Well I don't think K's are important whatsoever, but your points don't really back my opinion up. THey aren't important because they're already factored in. No matter how you do it, the idea is to allow as few runs as possible. That should be the only crieria you base pitchers on; how good they were at allowing as few runs as possible. Of course, to understand how good a pitcher is at allowing as few rusn as he does, you have to consider how he compares to other pitchers of his era, as well as how many IP he pitches. The deeper a guy pitches into a game, the harder it is to keep your ERA low. K's have absolutely nothing to do with ranking pitchers. Somebody mentioned that K pitchers allow the ball to be put inot play less often, which therefore means less chances for errors and therefore unearned runs. But that idea was shot down when I looked at the 4 best K pitchers of this generation and compared them to the 4 worst K pitchers who are actually good (4 I could think of; I believe Moyer, Radke, Maddux, and somebody else). It showed that, in that instance, there is not a positive correltaion between K's and less UER's. Pitchers with more K's actually allowed MORE unearned runs than those who don't throw a lot of K's. ERA+, amount of unearned runs relative to yuor teams defense, and amount of IP per start are the only factors to be taken into consideration when judging pitchers as far as I'm concerned.
I stick by my opinion that K's are meaningless in ranking pitchers. I've yet to see a valid argument of why they should be considered.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
frog99 wrote:K's are important, but it is not that much greater than a groundball, "No one ever Ked into a doubleplay." Strike outs also mean the pithcer has to throw more pitches and can't go as deep into a game, it has down side.
Well I don't think K's are important whatsoever, but your points don't really back my opinion up. THey aren't important because they're already factored in. No matter how you do it, the idea is to allow as few runs as possible. That should be the only crieria you base pitchers on; how good they were at allowing as few runs as possible. Of course, to understand how good a pitcher is at allowing as few rusn as he does, you have to consider how he compares to other pitchers of his era, as well as how many IP he pitches. The deeper a guy pitches into a game, the harder it is to keep your ERA low. K's have absolutely nothing to do with ranking pitchers. Somebody mentioned that K pitchers allow the ball to be put inot play less often, which therefore means less chances for errors and therefore unearned runs. But that idea was shot down when I looked at the 4 best K pitchers of this generation and compared them to the 4 worst K pitchers who are actually good (4 I could think of; I believe Moyer, Radke, Maddux, and somebody else). It showed that, in that instance, there is not a positive correltaion between K's and less UER's. Pitchers with more K's actually allowed MORE unearned runs than those who don't throw a lot of K's. ERA+, amount of unearned runs relative to yuor teams defense, and amount of IP per start are the only factors to be taken into consideration when judging pitchers as far as I'm concerned.
I stick by my opinion that K's are meaningless in ranking pitchers. I've yet to see a valid argument of why they should be considered.
There's a whole thread on K's as an argument. I'll go look it up.
frog99 wrote:With all of the Roger Clemens talk, i wanted to see what the cafe thought.
And yes, Nolan Ryan is not inculded on purpose, Just look at the numbers: the walks, the ERA, the winnning percentage. The numbers just aren't there.
how can you not include ryan? hes the second bes pitcher ever next to sandy koufax. he doesnt have a good win percentage because he played on crappy teams for most of his carreer.
frog99 wrote:With all of the Roger Clemens talk, i wanted to see what the cafe thought.
And yes, Nolan Ryan is not inculded on purpose, Just look at the numbers: the walks, the ERA, the winnning percentage. The numbers just aren't there.
how can you not include ryan? hes the second bes pitcher ever next to sandy koufax. he doesnt have a good win percentage because he played on crappy teams for most of his carreer.
frog99 wrote:With all of the Roger Clemens talk, i wanted to see what the cafe thought.
And yes, Nolan Ryan is not inculded on purpose, Just look at the numbers: the walks, the ERA, the winnning percentage. The numbers just aren't there.
how can you not include ryan? hes the second bes pitcher ever next to sandy koufax. he doesnt have a good win percentage because he played on crappy teams for most of his carreer.
You're joking right? The 2nd greatest? You actually believe he was greater than:
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Christy Mathewson
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Steve Carlton
Warren Spahn
Tom Seaver
Pete Alexander
Randy Johnson
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by frog99 » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:47 pm 
The Glory Days.
