I'm not sure. We can see a strong relationship between K% and ERA here, but you can make the same case for GB% and presumably BB%, XBH%, HR%, etc as well. So, in regards to your earlier question, maybe those are some other stats we can look at. I do agree with John's premise that K (/9, %, whichever) gets valued disproportionally higher in many cases. At the end of the day, you can find many ways to skin the cat. Right or wrong, the Twins seem to prefer GB% and BB% over the others. However, while the Twins have found pitchers good at GB% and BB%, they are really bad at K% and arguably not good at XBH% (although more defense dependent). It seems logical that you have to be at least marginally capable in all of those areas to be better than marginally effective. It's far beyond my skill level, but is it possible to find some sort of exponential equation to value a pitcher based on being good at some or several of these that also de-values being really bad at some? Park and defense factors would be a challenge, but ie - (GB% + or - from league average)^exponent + (K% + or - from league average)^exponent + ...