Neyer on Stros getting hosed

People hate the Astros. They get no respect. Look at Oswalt who last year was the only pitcher in the NL to win 20 games and is on pace to win 20 games this year, but nobody talks about him as one of the best pitchers in baseball or a Cy Young candidate.

 

First of all, stop focusing on wins... a pitcher can never directly control how many wins he has... the offense and bullpen will always play a major factor in that. He can control his ERA... which is why this year, with a 2.54 ERA, Oswalt and Clemens are having their best full seasons ever.

I definitely think Oswalt deserves more national cred... but at least he's out there producing year after year (as opposed to some pitchers who get all the hype in the world... Prior and Wood... but never make it to the diamond). The best thing Oswalt can do is to continue to go out there, perform up to his abilities, and he'll be laughing as the only player enshrined into Cooperstown to never have been to an all-star game before. (even though, techinically, this will be his first... cause he WILL win the fan vote).

 

ERA is more important than wins, but Wins do count for something. The media prefers to vote for players on winning teams who go out and help their teams into the post-season. His ERA has always been terrific and winning does show something. If Clemens was Oswalt's age with his stuff he might have more wins because he would go deeper into games. Clemens is no doubt the best pitcher in baseball right now, but Oswalt is in the top 5.

 

Roy gets plenty of national play. He hasn't so far this season because the Astros have only just recently begun playing well. It's easy to overlook good players on bad teams. But before the season, I think I recall hearing Gammons predict Roy to win Cy Young...and the thread you are posting in has an reference to a national baseball guy on ESPN saying Roy got jobbed. Sounds like he is getting national attention to me.

 

Well, you can pitch terrible and have a low era, so why is it important to focus on era more than wins. era is only one part of pitching. You could easily make the argument that a win is more repsenative of all the things a pitcher must do to be successful. And that era is irrelevant.

 

you know what...i agree with this. in measure. i think they're both important. but if a pitcher CONSISTENTLY gets outdueled by the other guy, that's a problem with the pitcher, as well as his offense. every game is a different situation....and not an "aggregate" situation.

 

First - Roy Oswalt has 11 wins so far this year - only three NL pitchers have more.

Secondly -

huh? I couldn't disagree more - and given the experience of this years team - I would expect an Astros fan to disagree as well.

Roger Clemens' 2nd, 3rd and 4th starts of the season featured 21IP, and no runs given up - earned or otherwise. He also got three no-decisions - you would hold that against him. That's three wins he should've gotten - except that his offense didn't provide. That is my problem with any argument putting wins over ERA - wins are massively reliant upon your teammates - and you end up punishing or rewarding a pitcher for factors beyond his control.

Consider Oswalt as well - he's got seven losses on the year. At least four of them are losses that he recieved only because our anemic offense gave him only one run of support in those games. Should Roy Oswalt have done something different? Heck, one of those games was in an AL Park.

Stop focusing on wins, it's not Roy or Roger's fault our offense had Burke, Lane, Ausmus and Everett taking a ton of at-bats.

 

Pueldfor

I'm not slamming our guys. Oswalt and Clemens, in particular have been amazing. And I give them credit for outdueling guys. But I think wins are important. I feel the same way about ERA as I do about OBP...you can't look at it alone. You just can't. You can't take any number alone and judge a guy's total worth. Wins are part of the equation. Sometimes it's tough luck. But that should balance out. I'm certainly not repeating the notion that ERA is irrelevant. It's not. It may be MORE important than wins. But from outing to outing, you seek to outduel the guy on the other side of the field who is pitching. That's measured with wins and losses.

But I'm really not applying that to this current crop...because they are winning, frankly.

 

I'm going to be honest, I disagree with anything that says as far as pitcher's go that wins are in any way similar in import to ERA and other measuring sticks.

I believe that teams and teams alone win games - and to give credit, or take it away - based upon factors beyond a pitcher's control clouds the issue. Individual pitcher accomplishments are accurately measured in ERA, WHIP, etc, etc

Consider Roger Clemens against just about any Cardinals starter. Roger has only won seven games. There are four Cardinals starters that have won more games than him - Jason Marquis, Chris Carpenter, Mark Mulder and Matt Morris - and Suppan has won the same number of games. They've outdueled their opponents as many, or more times than Roger has - but their individual performances compared to Roger have been laughable.

Even considering wins in the equation here seems silly - because it's easier to outduel your opponents when you have the best offense in the NL, rather than the worst. And it gives them credit for the performances of Albert Pujols, Jim Edmonds, et al and detracts from Roger Clemens for the performances of Adam Everett, Brad Ausmus, Jason Lane, etc, etc.

 

A great defense can lower a pitcher's ERA. A poor one can raise his ERA. A great catcher can lower a pitcher's ERA. The lineups a pitcher faces can cause a difference in ERA (like in the AL East where there are 3 good offenses as opposed to NL west or east where offenses aren't as good). ERA is also effected by the park you pitch in most. Numbers no matter where you get them can be effected by other factors.

 

It's true that there are no perfectly objective stat in baseball, nor any sport for that matter. But there is a matter of degree when it comes to outside influences. The factors that influence ERA is much smaller that of win totals, for example. That's why starting pitchers are much more consistent with their year-to-year ERAs than win totals.

Besides, there's almost no good defensive stats. Which makes it really difficult to argue how much it factors into the ERA. As for park factors, baseballrefence.com has park-adjusted ERAs that you can look up. It does indeed provide a better gauge of a pitcher's ability. Too bad mainstream media doesn't use it.

 

Will you be my agent?

Sincerely,

Fifteen Game Winner Jeriome Robertson

 

I'm not going to try and analyze Jeriome Robertson, because who has time for that, but If you look at Jeriome Robertson, the interesting thing there is that he was 15-10 and by most accounts was considered an asset. Nobody was willing to say he was great, but for his one and only major league season, most people would say he faired well at that point. He's really only one year removed from 15-10. But that was just one rookie season. You can't base much on that, however,

look at his minor league stats where he played for 10 years.
69-56 3.81

His winning percentage in the minors was .552 and his winning percentage in the majors was .571 (16-12). Not that far off statisically. Yet his era is way off in the majors. I'm not saying that means anything, I'm just poimting it out.

Of note, In Spring training he was.
6-3 3.89

This doesn't say much either, but again, the numbers are nearing consistentcy. He wins more than he loses.

It would not be crazy to predict that Jeriome were in the majors now he would still be a slighly above .550 pitcher.

Maybe none of us can explain it, but the reality is, he finds a way to win. That is pitching. I don't think it was just luck over the last 10 years.

In his case, the win stat actually seems fairly reliable to predict a 15-10 season.

 

This has to be one of the most ridiculous posts here in awhile.

Jeriome freaking Robertson?!?!? He was the bonafied DEFINITION of a AAAA pitcher (a guy with decent minor league numbers, but could never hack it in the big league.

"but the reality is, he finds a way to win..." No, the reality was that the Astros scored more runs for him in his starts than any other pitcher on the roster in 2003. Did he have a lot to do with that? No... unless you're gonna some how BS the correlation that "the astros players who watch him pitch while they're on the field are put more at ease, and are able to concentrate better in the box."

You're spending time arguing his W-L #'s from ST and AAA when the reality is, he could have been 0-20... but if he had a 3.something ERA, he would have been called up or made the team. Do you honestly think we would have traded a proven "15-game winner" who was relatively young in the very next off-season??? The reality is that he was LUCKY to have won those 15 games... hands down. And in the end, if he's such a great pitcher... tell us what MLB roster he's on right now.

ERA has other factors that don't depend on pitching alone... but W-L have NOTHING to do with the pitcher alone... nothing. If a starting pitcher is 1-10 with a low ERA, I will still take that pitcher every single time... but if he's 10-1 with a high ERA, you have to scrutinize.

 

its not that people hate them....its more that people dont really think about them much. Take it from a big fan who has lived out of state for 20 yrs....its sort of like the way you probably think about the Twins or A's...you don't unless you bet on them or they are playing your team.

 

I agree that people don't hate us. We are just treated like a small market team, but I would think the team would have more recognition with all the playoff appearances we have had over the past 10 years. We are one of the hottest teams in baseball, but they don't talk about us much on BBTN. The A's are getting credit for streaking and I want Houston to get that attention. I was very bitter when I made that comment. I still can't believe Ensberg was not selected.

 

Well, in fairness, on BBTN on Sunday, Steve Phillips did mention the As and the Astros as two teams back in the playoff race. They also gave Morgan NL player of the week.

 

I am on the side of both being very important. I think it is perfectly acceptable to consider either Willis or Clemens for the starter in the all-star game. Both have low ERAs and both deserve it.

In favor of Wins not being as important, I will remind people of 2 former Astros, Nolan Ryan and Mike Scott. Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history and only won 20 games twice in his career. In 1986, Scott was the best pitcher in baseball and only went 18-10 and that was for a playoff team.

 

I've been happy with the respect that Morgan has received from ESPN. Bowa put him in his starting lineup for the all-star team, and many others say he should have been there.