Revisionist History on Glavine

[nymr83]

]I believe that everyone here (other than you) believes that Wins and Losses are significant measures of pitching ability. Overrated, to be sure, and overly simplistic in the minds of many primitive analysts, but still somewhat useful, especially in large enough samples, to measure approximate and general effectiveness

i think Ws and Ls are the only meaningful measdure of a TEAM'S success/failure, but are close to WORTHLESS for an individual pitcher.

[Guest iramets]

Nymr83 wrote: ]I believe that everyone here (other than you) believes that Wins and Losses are significant measures of pitching ability. Overrated, to be sure, and overly simplistic in the minds of many primitive analysts, but still somewhat useful, especially in large enough samples, to measure approximate and general effectiveness i think Ws and Ls are the only meaningful measdure of a TEAM'S success/failure, but are close to WORTHLESS for an individual pitcher.

Really? Over a career, or a four-year period? Knowing nothing other W-L, you'd flip a coin to decide if you wanted to take a pitcher who went 48-48 over the past four years or one who went 96-0? Interesting. Note how this thinking allows you to remove any individual pitcher from bearing the brunt of criticism. Note, too, how the same logic that protects pitchers could easily be applied to teams: couldn't a 90-loss season be made to seem a credible showing by pointing out the great number of 1-run losses, bad luck, terrible umpiring calls, bad hops, ungodly injuries, etc. No? Why not? Because over a large enough sample, these things tend to even out somewhat--which is exactly why they have relevance over a large enough sample with individuals. Glavine's four years encompass close to a full season of games he pitched, and so are about as valid a statistical measure as that which you hold as a holy and incontrovertible measure of baseball effectiveness, a full season of games.

[nymr83]

i really meant over a season, they're a better but still not very good measure over longer periods. Ws rely way too much on run support, why not look at stats that don't?

]Note how this thinking allows you to remove any individual pitcher from bearing the brunt of criticism

if i want to criticize a pitcher i can look at his ERA, WHIP, etc, not how many runs his team has scored for him

[G-Fafif]

iramets wrote: [...]G-Fafif's original post in this thread[...]

Which, for the record, had nothing to do with wins as a barometer of effectiveness, just that I thought a Mets beat writer had created a context for Glavine's signing that didn't exist when it occurred.

[Guest Edgy DC]

This is about you. I just came into it because it's my job. There's nothing good coming from this. You know that.

[Guest iramets]

G-Fafif wrote: ="iramets"][...]G-Fafif's original post in this thread[...] Which, for the record, had nothing to do with wins as a barometer of effectiveness, just that I thought a Mets beat writer had created a context for Glavine's signing that didn't exist when it occurred.

And for the record, I was expanding on the general topic of Glavine's signing, and the retroactive amnesia most Mets fans choose to indulge themselves in regarding it. Didn't mean to imply that you've ever agreed with anything I've ever said.

What's so fucking hard about saying "Glavine's a colossal misjudgment, an awful disappointment, a huge mistake on the Mets' part"? Come on, everyone, say it along with me:

"Glavine's"

Come on, you in the back. Just say it.

You think if you admit that, you'll be saying something awful about yourself? Maybe, but we all have done some pretty foolish things in our time, or supported others doing foolish things in our names, but how on earth can we learn not to do stupid shit if we can't even articulate the nature of the stupid shit we've already done?

This is all about personal growth, folks. You're doomed to keep repeating these mistakes if you refuse to agknowledge having made them, and no one wants that, do they?

Do they? Oh, for Chrissakes, if you're all going to stand there like a bunch of dummies and refuse to say your lines in this little catechism of ours, this is going to be a very long night, boys.

I simply don't understand why you're identifying so closely with the Mets that any mistakes they've made, and that you've endorsed, are things you're committing to defending. No one thinks that Glavine pitched $40 million dollars worth from 2003 to 2006. Hell, his wife and agent (not the same person) probably are secretly appalled at how few games he won and how many awful games he threw. He simply was not worth that kind of money, not even close--would the Mets have done worse to keep, oh say, Mike Bascik around and save 39-odd million to spend on younger, more promising FAs than Glavine? Really? How much worse? Enough to wipe out the advantages to be gained by another, less hateful signing than Glavine? I don't think so.

I'm trying to show a simple object lesson here, one that the Mets should have learned from Mo Vaughan and Roberto Alomar and numerous other FA signings over the years--if these guys go seriously south, your ballclub will be messed up for years, unless you have the courage to bench (or trade or otherwise replace) them. For Glavine, this benching might have just meant thinking of him as a number 5 starter, which means getting four starters who are better than he is, or maybe it means swapping him out when his value seemed deceptively high (as it has at various points over the years, usually at the trading deadline), or maybe it means taking him out of the rotation if that's what you need to do to give a chance to your Kazmirs and Bannisters instead of treating THEM like disposible commodities.

But if you insist on seeing his 48-48 record as the fulfillment of your fondest hopes, there's just not that much I can do anymore, other than to rant here and be ignored.

[Guest iramets]

I think I'm going to stop posting for a while.

Don't think it's cuz I don't love every one of you, because I do. I just need a little time away, but meantime you can try to come up with rebuttals to my positions ("You suck, Ira" hardly counts as a rebuttal) and maybe we can continue our conversations when the environment around here is all squeaky-clean again.

Now, dont forget about me, y'hear?

[metsmarathon]

raise you're hand if you're endorsing the glavine signing as a great, super move that the mets should repeat again and again and again.

anybody? anybody at all? you over there... is your hand up? no, just stretching then... hmm... i wonder what all the fuss is over...

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nobody today, it seems. We were split at the time.

http://p079.ezboard.com/Fearful-predictions/fthecranepoolforumfrm35.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

rpackrat actually seemed to hint at the Delcos thesis.

[metsmarathon]

dang... must've missed that the first time around...

[Guest Edgy DC]

His money really seems like less to me than it did at the time.

KC, who didn't give a definite answer that I sussed, actually hinted strongly at Steve's current position also.

To summarize, with some of these answers quite lukewarm:

Yea A Bartlett Giamatti duan JonathanArcher/Iubitul LF MetFan63 Norrin Radd/Vic Sage old original jb RealityChuck Salamander Q/Bret/Doc/Ira Thirteen Yancy Street Gang

Nay Cookie Mom/Scarlet Knight Edgy DC Patrick McGoohan rpackrat Wide BeeGee/Johnny Dickshot

[Guest Kid Carsey]

Pretty funny that ira was in favor of Glavine.

Re-reading that link it makes me a little sad (or something) that I used to
be a much better poster that I am.

[duan]

can i just put on the record that I want to STOP being reminded of the fact that I thought we should have pursued Fonzie A LOT more vigorously than we did.