Shimmering Wang
Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 8:18 PM
QUOTE (Sportsmack @ Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 6:05 PM)

Great argument for the strikeout, this is what I was looking for. Also, your last paragraph is spot on, and pretty much what I've been saying. Other than age, there is no difference between the two.
You seem to be stuck on "predicting" what
MAY happen. I know that I said that Duke will have a better ERA by the end of the year, but let's get back to what I've been trying to say. Duke has better numbers
right now.
He has a better ERA, and a better WHIP. Lincecum has 1 more win and 3 less losses, and I've already argued that W's and L's are more an indicator of a teams success more so than an individual pitchers. So let's stop trying to predict the future (unless you can give me a heads up on a nice 3 team parlay

), and tell me
why Lincecum is so superior in your mind.He's trying to explain using strikeouts/walks, and I tried using BABIP and K/BB and FIP. You answer the "who has been better so far" question by pointing to "ERA." Obviously all that REALLY matters is how many runs a pitcher gives up, but over a small sample size -- like say a year, or half-a-year -- a BETTER determinant of future success is, like Moneyball and Cain, etc., have argued is a statistic that takes K's, Walks, HR's, and BABIP, and combines them to give you a picture of what his ERA should be.
It's a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but once the hitter makes contact, the pitcher has little-to-no control over what happens to it, except with respect to groundball/flyball/HR. Seriously. I know it sounds goofy, but no pitcher -- no matter how dominant -- can control a hitter's batting average on, say, groudballs. It's so counterintuitive, but it's true. If, for example, Tim Lincecum's opponents hit .380 on groundballs, and Dukie's hit .210, it is not reflective of some disparity in their respective skill levels, but rather lucky or unlucky variance.
Strikeouts are important because, with a strikeout, the batter CAN NOT get a hit. It's the only way to ensure the opponent cannot reach base. I hear your argument about pitch counts, etc., but:
a) High strike-out rates probably have an overall POSITIVE (ie, they lower the number) effect on pitches/out (which is all that really matters, right?). They simply lead to MORE OUTS, which means fewer baserunners, and fewer pitches. Pitchers who pitch to contact might have some 3 pitch innings, but they will also give up 10 hits in 4 innings on occasion, which is really bad for pitch counts, obviously.

I forgot what point (

was.
I would argue that, so far this year, regardless of their respective ERA's, Tim Lincecum has been a better pitcher than Duke. Duke's ERA is better, but only because he has been the beneficiary of positive variance. I'd lay good money on Lincy having a lower ERA than Dukie over their next 100 innings pitched, or 500, or 1000. And, no offense, but anybody who'd back Dukie in that spot straight up would be suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pitching. Dukie has had a good year, but he's waaaay more likely to regress towards an upper mean than not.
Wang