Harry Dunne said:ERA like W/L tells part of the story, so in that sense it's "good", but it is arbitrary and subjective (and therefore flawed) and isn't nearly the best way to judge the effectiveness of a pitcher. Probably an off day (or offseason) argument though.tjack16 said:Harry Dunne said:I think he's better than you think he is. I don't think W-L or ERA are good metrics by which to judge a pitcher. Beyond that I think the less time we spend talking about arlington pitchers, the better.scrimp said:
I didn't say he was a scrub by any means. I understand all major leaguers are in the show because they are good. Gibson absolutely had a career night, but he's a average MLB pitcher at best. 8 year vet with a sub .500 W-L and 4.55 ERA, and the Astro's "stacked" lineup made him look like an all-star.
But like I said, I agree with you that career night or not, we need to do better against a guy like that.
W/L isn't a good metric, but ERA absolutely is.
For sure a good offseason debate. I look at ERA to determine how many runs they are likely to give up any given start ... just as a fan. Obviously if I was an analyst or scout I'd look at a lot more.