The Jake Arrieta Appreciation Thread

[TC in Mississippi]

Wins are important. Over the long haul. Not on the short term. Felix Hernandez broke through the myth of wins on the short term basis being important.

This is exactly why I hate the W stat for a pitcher. In order to understand it's importance you have to understand the nuance and in 2015 nuance is dead. Its murder remains unsolved. Those of us that know the game of baseball can tell the difference between when wins mean something and when they don't. I can remember a great win start for James Baldwin, of your boys, back in the day. I can't remember the year it was but he started the year 8-0 or 9-0 or something like that. The numbers did not back it up but fans wouldn't hear anything of it and very few people spoke about how numbers didn't always supports wins in those days. Of course he didn't pass the eye test either but that didn't seem to matter. He then proceeded to lose several in a row proving regression to the mean. Happens all the time and like I said for long time observers you really don't even need the stats as the eye test is more than enough.

Of course the other part of that is that over a career wins do matter. Great pitchers usually rack up a fair amount of wins unless they just happen to playe for lousy teams their whole careers and even then the wins equal out to a respectable level. King Felix has played for mostly bad teams but he's 143-101. Likewise there aren't any pitchers who have significantly outwon their stats over a long period of time either.

All of this is easily explainable but how many baseball fans do you know that can easily explained to? Granted there are more than a few of those that post here but try the ESPN boards or comments section some time. Most of them wouldn't know nuance if it rose from the dead and said boo. For exactly that reason I hate the W stat. Eliminate it and you eliminate the confusion. It stops stat heads from having coronaries and stops the stupid from using it when it doesn't apply.

 

[brett05]

If wins weren't important, then why does baseball still glorify it?

The HOF still recgonizes win totals...

Winning 20 games is still a great achievement. ..

How many times did we hear about Maddox winning 15+ games for X amount of years...


Yes i agree that a pitcher winning, losing, or ND comes down to many things team wise but there a reason why certain pitchers win 15 to 20 + games yearly over others and that because they give their team a better chance to win while their on the mound going deeper into games then the others..

So, i just disagree with anyone who discredits the importance of a pitcher win total. .. yes sometimes you can be a Felix Hernandez and have a team that lets you down, but for the most part a starting pitcher is as good or bad as his win/lost total indicates

I agree with you, but what you just did was argue for the validity of Wins over the long haul and not the short term. Maddux winning 15+ for X years it a long term number not a single season number. Wins does not tell you the story for a year. Look at Nolan Ryan. 8-16 with a 2.76 era in one of his seasons. Based on wins, he's at best a 5th starter. Of course he was the NL ERA leader so that invalidates the argument. Look at 20 game winners with bad era's. Johnny Sain 3.94 in 1950, Sammy Ellis 1965 3.79, 1966 Denny McLain 3.96, etc.

Wins have a value even in a single season. But it's below ERA. That I believe has been proven.

 

[brett05]

22 years. His high point in games started was 49. that is an avg of 37 over that span. CG was the norm. Would get 30 plus per. Totally different era. 400+ IP.

put it this way: 7356 IP he only SO 2803. 3.4 SO/9. FIP would have been 2.84 over his career.

He is the all time wins leader but he is also the all time loss leader also at 316.

If you really look at his body of work he fails to live up to his own award standards set by the modern age. What he has going for him is a different era of play.

The point is, everything you said about Cy was wrong except for career wins. He never won 37 games in a single season. Never once.

 

[brett05]

This is exactly why I hate the W stat for a pitcher. In order to understand it's importance you have to understand the nuance and in 2015 nuance is dead. Its murder remains unsolved. Those of us that know the game of baseball can tell the difference between when wins mean something and when they don't. I can remember a great win start for James Baldwin, of your boys, back in the day. I can't remember the year it was but he started the year 8-0 or 9-0 or something like that. The numbers did not back it up but fans wouldn't hear anything of it and very few people spoke about how numbers didn't always supports wins in those days. Of course he didn't pass the eye test either but that didn't seem to matter. He then proceeded to lose several in a row proving regression to the mean. Happens all the time and like I said for long time observers you really don't even need the stats as the eye test is more than enough.

Of course the other part of that is that over a career wins do matter. Great pitchers usually rack up a fair amount of wins unless they just happen to playe for lousy teams their whole careers and even then the wins equal out to a respectable level. King Felix has played for mostly bad teams but he's 143-101. Likewise there aren't any pitchers who have significantly outwon their stats over a long period of time either.

All of this is easily explainable but how many baseball fans do you know that can easily explained to? Granted there are more than a few of those that post here but try the ESPN boards or comments section some time. Most of them wouldn't know nuance if it rose from the dead and said boo. For exactly that reason I hate the W stat. Eliminate it and you eliminate the confusion. It stops stat heads from having coronaries and stops the stupid from using it when it doesn't apply.

Ah James Baldwin. He starts off 2000 7-0 and makes the AS team. His era thru that was good at 2.51, but Sox fans knew James Baldwin. No one thought much of him around me. He had wins, but we all knew James Baldwin. Just atrocious.

I don't want to eliminate wins, but it deserves a much lower standard than is being trumpeted. That Cy Young tracker stat is insane.

 

[Jntg4]

The point is, everything you said about Cy was wrong except for career wins. He never won 37 games in a single season. Never once.

He said he averaged 37 starts

 

[CSF77]

The point is, everything you said about Cy was wrong except for career wins. He never won 37 games in a single season. Never once.

37 was games started. That era was the complete game era. Didn't have pens to waste wins

 

[brett05]

I missed that. Thanks both of you. Still, I am awaiting any case to be made on the value of a win in the short term.

 

[Bear Pride]

I think you have to look at it this way, imo. Throw the stats out, they are too close for all three. What are the exceptional things that each have done that sets them apart? Jake and Kershaw have thrown No hitters. Jake and Zack have sub 2 ERA's. That, imo, gives Jake two things compared to one each for the others.

The kicker is Zack and Kershaw have the benefit of each others performance on the same team. Lastly, Jake historic 2nd half ERA seals the deal, imo. All three are deserving, but Jake has more exceptional (non stat) feats.

I say Jake wins it myself.

 

[brett05]

I think you have to look at it this way, imo. Throw the stats out, they are too close for all three. What are the exceptional things that each have done that sets them apart? Jake and Kershaw have thrown No hitters. Jake and Zack have sub 2 ERA's. That, imo, gives Jake two things compared to one each for the others.

The kicker is Zack and Kershaw have the benefit of each others performance on the same team. Lastly, Jake historic 2nd half ERA seals the deal, imo. All three are deserving, but Jake has more exceptional (non stat) feats.

I say Jake wins it myself.

Zach and Clayton both have long scoreless streaks. Zach has never had an era over 2.00. Jake has Jon who has pitched extremely well since his rough start. Jake also has a better offense and one could argue the Manager of the Year and Rookie of the Year on his team.

It's close, but it's not as easy as you make it out by ignoring the non stat accomplishments of others.

 

[CSF77]

Meh thinks Brett doesn't value wins due to being a sox fan. Must be the reason for sticking it out.

 

[Boobaby1]

If Jake throws another gem and is 22-6 with a 1.80 ERA or a tad lower, and Greinke happens to take a loss at the end going 18-4 or stays the same at 18-3 with a 1.72, then what?

It is Greinke's to lose IMO, but this could very well go down to the last game that they pitch.

 

[brett05]

Meh thinks Brett doesn't value wins due to being a sox fan. Must be the reason for sticking it out.

Bait in the Cubs/Sox hater thread.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I was driving most of the day today and listened to my share of MLB radio on Sirus/XM. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every expert, writer or current player or manage they asked all said it would be Arrieta. That doesn't make them right it just goes to prove that the guy to leave the last, best impression will likely win this thing. I've never wavered in my assessment that it could to any of three and not be a bad choice. I just think the tide has turned. I think it all comes down to Jake's last start. If he's superhuman again he wins it regardless of what Greinke does Sunday.

 

[Bear Pride]

Zach and Clayton both have long scoreless streaks. Zach has never had an era over 2.00. Jake has Jon who has pitched extremely well since his rough start. Jake also has a better offense and one could argue the Manager of the Year and Rookie of the Year on his team.

It's close, but it's not as easy as you make it out by ignoring the non stat accomplishments of others.

My point was no shot at Lester at all, but as long as you bring it up, Lester did have a rough start. He also had a good 2nd half, and while Lester did pitch well the 2nd half, Jake pitched a 'historic' .89 during that 2nd half.

Btw, that would be a stat that is best in history for a 2nd half era, while Zach's awesome era is 2nd to Maddox. I think you're underestimating how important finishing is. And while Jake is finishing like a winner, Zach is being held out to "save" his stats.

Lastly, something no one is talking about, and is just a 'gut' feeling for me, is the fact that Jake did not even get the all star nod. I believe there will be people that feel he deserved that, and have that in their mind when voting.

Oh, and there is also the fact that the Cubs play in the best division in baseball, with the 3 best records.

 

[TL1961]

I think you have to look at it this way, imo. Throw the stats out, they are too close for all three. What are the exceptional things that each have done that sets them apart? Jake and Kershaw have thrown No hitters. Jake and Zack have sub 2 ERA's. That, imo, gives Jake two things compared to one each for the others.

The kicker is Zack and Kershaw have the benefit of each others performance on the same team. Lastly, Jake historic 2nd half ERA seals the deal, imo. All three are deserving, but Jake has more exceptional (non stat) feats.

I say Jake wins it myself.

Please explain what this means.

 

[TL1961]

This discussion has become nonsense.

Compare PITCHING stats.

That means the following are completely moot: The offense, the manager, the rookie, the teammate on the pitching staff.

NONE of those things will play any factor in voters' choice.

 

[brett05]

I was driving most of the day today and listened to my share of MLB radio on Sirus/XM. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every expert, writer or current player or manage they asked all said it would be Arrieta. That doesn't make them right it just goes to prove that the guy to leave the last, best impression will likely win this thing. I've never wavered in my assessment that it could to any of three and not be a bad choice. I just think the tide has turned. I think it all comes down to Jake's last start. If he's superhuman again he wins it regardless of what Greinke does Sunday.

On my way home espn chicago all had zach. Stark and gammons and kurjian (sp) all said most voters consider the whole season and they had zach

 

[Diehardfan]

This discussion has become nonsense.

Compare PITCHING stats.

That means the following are completely moot: The offense, the manager, the rookie, the teammate on the pitching staff.

NONE of those things will play any factor in voters' choice.

It's nonsense because the only one's who give a shit are the fans. Ask Areitta what's the most important thing on his plate....it damn sure isn't the Cy Young. I think he might be looking at a game coming up in about a week or so. That game is the season....CY Award is eye candy.

 

[brett05]

This discussion has become nonsense.

Compare PITCHING stats.

That means the following are completely moot: The offense, the manager, the rookie, the teammate on the pitching staff.

NONE of those things will play any factor in voters' choice.

Agreed

 

[Parade_Rain]

Zach and Clayton both have long scoreless streaks. Zach has never had an era over 2.00. Jake has Jon who has pitched extremely well since his rough start. Jake also has a better offense and one could argue the Manager of the Year and Rookie of the Year on his team.

It's close, but it's not as easy as you make it out by ignoring the non stat accomplishments of others.

LOL. Making excuses for Jake about having the ROY and MOY? How about this one? Greinke and Kershaw are backed by a team with an outrageous payroll.