Bill James

The beauty of baseball is in its numbers. We know the important numbers. For example, Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, which was then eclipsed by Hank Aaron who went on to hit 755 home runs despite never hitting 50 home runs in a season. And while Ruth did, he never had to play for a team called the Indianapolis Clowns as a second rate show act in the Negro Leagues.
We know that Ruth hit 60 home runs, and eventually, in 1961, he was passed by Roger Maris who hit 61 in 162 games instead of 154. We thank Ford Frick for reminding us of that distinction. Then, in 1998, Mark McGwire hit 70 and 3 years later, Barry Bonds hit 73. He would eventually go on to hit 762 though we seem to forget about his records in light of BALCO and look for a suitable replacement at the top of the numbers that are remembered.
We know that in 1968, Denny McClain won 31 and within a few years, he was made useless in baseball despite leading the league with 24 wins the next year. Nobody has come close since then. We know that same year that McClain was phenomenal, Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA despite only winning only winning 22 (he lost 9, but was named the MVP and Cy Young winner for 28 complete games and 268 whiffs). His movement was nasty and violent, a combination that comes out in the money shot porn of MLBTV's baseball history, but doesn't show up in the sheer numbers of baseball.
Thus, it becomes necessary that someone develops statistics that truly represent the power and effectiveness of a player as a whole. For the 31 wins that McClain got in that season, he had a 1.96 ERA and 280 strikeouts. Bob Gibson had 12 less Ks, .84 less ERA, and 9 less wins. Only one category is better, but somehow, his WAR (wins above replacement) is 11.9 compared to McClain's 5.9.
Who would you rather have? I know who I would rather have on my team. Watching him interviewed on MLBTV with Tim McCarver at his side and Bob Costas wearing the bib to catch drool (I'd be salivating to hear the story of Gibson plunking Pete LaCock in an old timers' game NEARLY A QUARTER OF A CENTURY after he drilled Gibson's final pitch for a grand slam as well).
But in the end, we need numbers to show us what season is better, and when we need those, we go back to Bill James, the stat guru of all stat gurus, whose contributions showed us how to create different statistics in baseball, which went on to show us how to create the definitive stats in baseball. And that's what the beauty of this game is. Frankly, it's a new revolution in sports and statistics. Hell, now we have Fan Graphs so amateur stats geniuses can make their own stats.
And it's all beautiful.
And it's the numbers that make the game fantastic.
Where would we be without them?

Ross Ohlendorf

I've said before; I'll say it again. There is no way that baseball money is real. As I continue to look for gainful PART TIME employment to contemplate my 3/4 time employment in the educational world, I see that Ross Ohlendorf's win loss record is truly as deceptive as... well, not quite Nolan Ryan difference, but let's say better than league average as he floats with a 4.05 ERA in his role of the King of non-support.
To think that a pitcher who is 1-11 can get a nearly $2million raise from roughly league minimum ($435,000) to just over $2million is quite a dream and it would definitely make Horatio Alger proud. However, in a celebration of getting one over on Pittsburgh with a little help from the arbitration team, we take a look at some other great losers who got to hang out a little longer due to the tangible things that aren't told by a win loss record.
Hall of Famer Steve Carlton in 1973 went 13-20 for the Phillies. Phil Neikro fared a little better in 1979 as he won 21 for Atlanta while losing 20.
Mike Maroth may have lost 20 for the 2003 Tigers, but his 9 wins were more than 20% of his teams 43 TOTAL wins. This does a lot to stop the bleeding (or at least provide a healthy dose of morphine) for a team that pretty much stank up the whole place until they convinced Ivan Rodriguez that a lot of money can rebuild a team, which is true because it took the Tigers from last in 03 to the World Series losers in 06.
Prior to that, in 1980, Brian Kingman was 8-20 for an Oakland team that wasn't that bad (they had a winning record), but they just couldn't win for Kingman who posted a sub 4 ERA in spite of the lack of love he was shown from his teammates.
Denny McClain was the last 30 game winner (31) in 1968 and led the league in wins the following year, but by 1971, he was washed up when he got his 20 losses.
Louis Tiant was a 20 game loser in 1969, but he became a dominant force for Boston a few years later. Everyone forgot that Mel Stottlemyre was a 20 game loser as he became a Yankee pitching coach. Hall of Famer Robin Roberts also lost 20, but he still won nearly 300 for his career.
And if misery loves company, let us not forget that 2 of the 5 greatest pitchers in baseball history (Walter Johnson and Cy Young) have 20 stapled to their otherwise incredible records. Then again, this was a time where losing 20 seemed to be all but expected.
So perhaps if the Pittsburgh fire sale comes around this year, maybe bright lights will beam down and escort Ohlendorf to a team that can get him at least 5 runs a game. Who knows? He could be a 10-game winner!