Originally posted by no1marauder
If ERA was sooooooooooooooooo important, the best pitcher in each league would get the Ed Walsh, not the Cy Young. I've yet to hear a manager or player say, "We're hoping his ERA is under X this year"; I have heard them say many times "We're hoping he can win Y number of games".
How a pitcher who wins almost the same amount of games and the AL. he'd have a higher ERA. FACT). Your ignorance of the game is palpable.
Boy, you are so full of it and you are toooooooooooooooooo dumb to realize it. Your remarks are ridiculous regarding ERA and wins. I hope you are a good attorney, because you would suck as a litigator and your damn sure don't understand baseball management. Is that clear enough for you? Stop badgering and shut up for once and listen.
A pitcher cannot win a game by himself......period! This is a no brainer.
If a pitcher can hold the opposition to a smaller number of runs than his team can score, and if he is the pitcher of record at the time the lead was obtained, and if they never relinquish that lead until the completion of the game and if that pitcher (we are assuming a starting pitcher here) pitches at least 5 full innings, he can qualify for a win. Surely you agree with these facts. Now, would you agree that if a pitcher threw an entire season and maintained an ERA under 2.00 for that entire year, that he would be a very good pitcher, regardless of his W-L record. Any answer other than "yes" there will show you to be a certifiable idiot.
Tell me which of these guys is the better pitcher:
21 games started ERA 1.69 wins 11
27 games started ERA 2.91 wins 12
30 games started ERA 3.44 wins 13
32 games started ERA 3.20 wins 16
34 games started ERA 2.76 wins 8
I am not aware of a single "baseball man" in management that would ever state that we hope "x" player wins "x" games. They will say say we hope "we" win "x" games. Now if the pitcher is effective, he "gives us a chance to win". If the team sucks offensively, a great and dominating pitcher can suffer through no run support and no wins, while another pitcher benefits from 8 runs everytime he goes out, even though he gives up 6 runs. Now, by your premise, you suggest that the pitcher with 17 wins and a 6.00 ERA is a better pitcher than the guy who gets 10 wins and a 2.90 ERA. Hogwash!!! The better pitcher (the one with the low ERA) either pitched in bad luck, got no run support or a combination of the two. The other guy who won all of the games was lucky as hell.
In your arguement regarding Petitte and Zambrano, Petitte has more guile than does Zambrano. Zambrano is a bull who tries to intimidate and overpower hitters. He is young and still learning. Petitte has lost some zip off his fastball due to age and surgery, but he is smart and will keep the ball in play. Regarding the ERA differences between the leagues, it is roughly a one run variant. A 2.80 ERA in the NL equates to about a 3.80 ERA in the AL for the reasons you mentioned regarding the extra hitter. However, pitchers will realize 1-2 more wins per year in the AL vs the NL because of being allowed to stay in the game due to the DH. FACT!! In the NL, managers are faced with the dilemma of having to hit for the pitcher in the 6th or 7th inning during a rally, or giving up the offense potentially in order to leave him in the game pitching. So it isn't black and white matter of fact as you present it. It is a combination of factors.
And, your Yankee bias screams loudly through your posts, but the Yanks are in deep trouble, and they know it. So deep, in fact, they have discussed bringing Barry Bonds over. I seriously doubt that they reach the playoffs this year. In fact, it is quite possible that the AL East may have only one team in the playoffs this year. I think Chicago and Minnesota may both make it, which means Boston or Tampa could be the lone rep from the east. I think Oakland and Texas will both fade in the west. IMO.