Quote:
Originally Posted by holes573
No, I wouldn't.
A bad pitcher in my analysis is one with poor overall ratings (which supposedly are amalgamations of all of their capabilities). In terms of the overall 20-80 rating, I defined a bad pitcher as someone with an overall rating of 43 or less (many of which had overall ratings in the 30's). In both of your cases, the overall rating (45 and 47) would be in my medium category.
A couple of notes: In my first analysis, I defined these with 100% accurate ratings. And, in my second analysis, I used the Projected WAR estimate for each pitcher (which was shown above).
The reason I used these two ratings is that I was predicting their overall performance, not their walks, strikeouts, etc. So, I chose two predictive measures of overall performance.
|
This is what giving screenshot examples of your pitchers would be great. We have no idea what you are considering good, medium, or bad. Cause like I said and math said, overall is just not a great rating for pitchers. You might have some dude with extreme GB that is doing his job keeping the ball in the park and on the ground, but has no stuff or control.
Cause even though this dude is rated a 43, he can be a viable pitcher by getting guys to hit into groundballs and double plays. He really is not going to strike many out and might walk guys, but he is probably going to get out of jams because of being able to keep the ball in the park and on the ground.
There is more to look at with pitchers than overall and potential, so that's why I am saying, give us some examples of the dude you are calling bad because they might not be as bad as you think.