![]()  | 
	€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides.  | 
| 
	 | 
| 		
			
			 | 
		#1 | 
| 
			
			
			
			 Doing The Job 
			
		
			
				
			
			
			Join Date: Aug 2006 
				Location: In a state 
				
				
					Posts: 3,956
				 
				
				![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()  | 
	
	
	
	
		
		
		
		 Take out the closers, the victory bonus points and the weight given to so-called "wins," and I'll bet he is in the top ten. 
		
	
		
		
		
		
			Did this formula predict Felix Hernandez's Cy Young last year? 
				__________________ 
		
		
		
		
	
	Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
Submit to Quotes 
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
			
		
	 | 
| 		
			
			 | 
		#2 | |
| 
			
			
			
			 . 
			
		
			
			
			Join Date: Feb 2005 
				
				
				
					Posts: 13,354
				 
				
				![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()  | 
	
	
	
	
		
		
		
		 Quote: 
	
 And it is important to keep in mind that Bill James is not saying his formula reflects how pitchers SHOULD be judged (got knows he's not a fan of wins as an important stat), just that the formula does a pretty good job of predicting how people will vote. But if we limit the formula as you describe above: 1. Clayton Keshaw - 67.4 2. Roy Halladay - 66.3 3. Cliff Lee - 73.8 4. Tim Lincecum - 63.2 5. Cole Hamels - 58.5 6. Matt Cain - 53.0 7. Johnny Cueto - 52.1 8. Tim Hudson - 48.7 9. Hiroki Kuroda - 47.9 10. Ian Kennedy - 47.3 Note this assumed that in addition to removing the wins part of the formula you'd also remove the losses part. If the losses part is kept in then Lincecum would fall behind Hamels.  | 
|
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
Submit to Quotes 
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
			
		
	 |