SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all B-R content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing B-R blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Baseball-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Andy and the gang, check out their new site High Heat Stats.
ShareThisYes, wins really are overrated!
Want to see a prime example of how most folks don't realize that Wins is one of the most overrated stats for pitchers?
Check out this article from ESPN.com by Enrique Rojas. It's about Pedro Martinez's stats from last year for the Phillies. Here's a quote:
"Martinez, 38, finished the 2009 season with a 5-1 record and a 3.63 ERA in nine starts for Philadelphia. The three-time Cy Young Award winner did not have the same success in the playoffs; he was 0-2 with a 3.71 ERA, including two starts against the New York Yankees in the World Series."
So, let's see. Pedro's ERA went up 0.08 runs against two of the best teams in baseball. But he didn't have the same success? I guess that's based on his record going from 5-1 to 0-2, even though his record has little to do with his performance.
Let's see. In Game 2 of the NLCS against the Dodgers he pitched 7 innings, gave up no runs, and got a no-decision. Yeah, just terrible.
In his first World Series start against the Yankees he gave up 3 runs in 6 innings, along with 2 walks and 8 strikeouts. Yeah, those quality starts are brutal. Pedro got the loss in that game.
In Game 6 he gave up 4 runs on just 3 hits (including a Hideki Matsui homer) and 2 walks. He got the loss again.
So he throws 7 shutout innings, another quality start, pitches to a cumulative ERA essentially identical to what he did in the regular season and...?
I realize I'm making a big deal out of just one phrase from Rojas' article. My point is just that it would seem that he picked that phrase based on wins alone without looking at the numbers in a little more detail, and that going by wins alone is a mistake.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 16th, 2010 at 12:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I think wins are a very accurate way of assessing pitchers against other pitchers. It's all a matter of perception. The way I perceive it, if a pitcher gets out-pitched by the other starter, he will take the loss, regardless of run support. Matt Cain has been known to get very little run support over the years. However, the guy he's up against does a better job shutting down his team than Cain does his opponents'. If a guy loses 20 games 2-1, he got out-pitched 20 times, in my opinion. That's just my perception.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
If you think that's bad, don't look at any of the CYA prior to 2006. You may want to strangle some puppies.
Or sportswriters.
Also: Reminder that those same dinosaurs who think a 21 game winning pitcher with a 3.80 ERA is a million times better than Zack Greinke last year still have HOF votes due to the retarded rules.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Does this Mr. Cain ordinarily face the same batters as the opposing pitcher?
June 16th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
It sounds like you're takling about losses and not wins Angel. Sure, losses taken are a decent way to judge a pitcher (although bad fielding aside)... you pitch poorly you lose. But, there are hundreds of ways a pitcher can get a win and not be worth it (an 11 to 6 win where the starter works 5 innings and gives up all 6 runs) or pitch great and not get a win at all (see above Pedro v Dodgers game).
I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but they are overrated. Because if everyone really felt it was so bad, we'd never talk about RBI's again either, which are just as much of a luck thing as getting a win. But, as with all stats, they can look great/terrible in a vacuum.... they need to be looked at in conjuction with other stats to become relevant.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Angel, I think your point has merit depending on how you look at it. It's true that at the end of the season, a pitcher's W-L record definitely tells you something about what happened. It does tell you that he got outpitched in a certain number of games, and outpitched his opponent in certain other games. I remember thinking about this during the early part of the recent Yankee dynasty when Andy Pettitte one year kept winning games despite an ERA well over 4--just seemed that the Yankees kept scoring 5+ runs when he pitched, and I said to myself--who cares what the reason if the team keeps winning when a certain pitcher pitches?
The issue for me is that a lot of these other issues are out of the pitcher's control. How his teammates bat, just which opposing pitchers he gets matched up against, etc. And as a result, past W-L record is not nearly as good an indicator of future performance as other simple measures such as ERA+ and WHIP.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Roy Halladay 2009 - 8-5 2.36
Cole Hamels 2008 - 14-10 3.09 !!!
Kyle Kendrick 2007 - 11-4 3.87...
June 16th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@Angel
That is extraordinarily foolish of you. Run support theoretically will not stay constant year to year. Hell, it won't stay constant week to week. Matt Cain's job is to limit his opponents' scoring. That is it. If he's not getting run support, that is not his fault. That is the fault of his offense and Brian Sabean, who appears to be trying to put together a terrible offense. He is doing his job. Do you want him to also hit in every spot in the batting order? What the hell do you expect these guys to do?
I've seen Albert Pujols blamed for the Cardinals not reaching the postseason sometimes, and it's the exact same logic. His job is to hit, and he hits better than anyone. Do you want him to PITCH, too?
Ridiculous.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
@Johnny Twisto
That's not the point. Does Tom Brady face the same defenses as his opponents? Did Patrick Roy face the same shooters as the other goalie? Cain (or any other "hard luck pitcher") faces the other starter like the previous two examples faced the other QB and goalie, respectively. If he gets beat, he was not the best pitcher on the field that day. I know I'm in the minority on this one. I just think if a guy gets out-pitched half the time, his record will display that fact.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Angel's not being foolish. You hear pitchers talk all the time about pitching "just well enough to lose." I think what he's trying to say is that wins and losses are, in the end, the thing that matters most as far as winning divisions and championships, so regardless of how players get there and other stats, he puts a certain emphasis on W and L.
It's not how I look at things, but I can see his point.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@Nick
Foolish? If you get out-pitched, you get the loss. If a pitcher loses 20 games, it means he got out-pitched 20 times. I don't think that is a foolish statement. In every other sport, we look at focal positions and stack them up against their opponent, was he better than the other guy? (Hockey is a good example) Was one goalie better than the other.
The only flaw to my argument is the effect a bullpen has on W and L's. If a bullpen blows a win, that skews the result, hence blows up my argument.
I love spirited debates. Call me wrong, don't call me foolish.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
6/5/10 - Tigers vs. Royals:
Hochevar: 7-6-1-1-2-10
Verlander: 7-5-2-2-3-4
Who pitched better in this game?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA201006050.shtml
June 16th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Wins are overrated. Three words: Nolan Ryan 1987. (8-16, 2.76 ERA. 270K in 211+ innings. Placed *5th* in CYA voting, where Steve Bedrosian won it with 40 saves.)
June 16th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I agree that Wins are highly overrated. If you had Joe Schlobotnik manage to win with a team behind him that included A-Rod, Hanley Ramirez and players of that caliber; and Randy Johnson in his prime losing with a team from Our Lady of the Poor School for the Blind's junior varsity squad, which hurler would you select for your fantasy team?
Maybe this is exaggerated, but you get the general idea.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@ Joe
Bringing up one example doesn't mean anything. There are dozens, hundreds, of examples for both sides of this argument. Congratulations on finding one of them.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Let's not completely discount the Win. The Win is the bottom line.
When a pitcher has a decent lead, they are supposed to start throwing more strikes and start pitching to more contact. In theory, it extends the length of their outing and settles for allowing a few runs instead of risking a big inning. Higher WHIP, higher ERA, lower K/9. It also takes advantage of offenses that are losing and put in the position of needing base runners, and taking more pitches looking for walks.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
As for the "foolish" comment, I have seen very few things written here that I would classify as foolish. Wrong, maybe; or overlooked, overstated, or misread; but very few comments have been "foolish".
Congrats, Nick. Based on that premise, you just made a pretty exclusive list!
June 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
"Does Tom Brady face the same defenses as his opponents? Did Patrick Roy face the same shooters as the other goalie?"
Nope. It's just as wrong to judge quarterbacks and goalies by wins and losses as it is pitchers. Any athlete in a team sport should be evaluated on the basis of how well he does the things that are under his control.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
@Joe
Verlander had a 1-0 lead when Hochevar left the game. That's about as perfect example of my perspective as there is.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@Joe, Hochevar did not deserve to win the game when he left trailing...
June 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
The more I look at that game, the more valuable the point becomes. Hochevar left losing 1-0. When Verlander stepped on the mound in the 8th, the game had changed. He was up 4-0, rather than 1-0. Thus, what he needed to do changed. As someone stated earlier, his approach may have changed. He vanquished Hochevar but got a couple meaningless runs painted on him by his bullpen. But, he had put-pitched Hochevar and got the win. The win is all it is about. In a one game playoff, give me Verlander over Hochevar.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Wins do matter most. I have heard Andy Pettite state that he pitches differently in a 6-1 game than a 1-1 game. Andy Pettite wins. Doc Gooden would win. Certain pitcher's know how to win, regardless of ERA or runners on base. Thanks, and I am a SABR guy. The deviation in last year's CY Young voting is flat out a bad thing. It basically comes down to... can't see the forest for the trees.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Well, Angel - as a goalie myself I think that you are in error. I do NOT face the opposing goalie. I face the opposing shooters. A pticher does NOT face the opposing pitcher, he faces the opposing hitters. A QB does NOT face the opposing QB (at least not since Sammy Baugh was leading the NFL in passes intercepted, on defense). He faces the opposing defense.
It's interesting that the one sport where everyone faces everyone else all the time - basketball - there is no such thing as individual wins or losses. It's only the team. I think it's high time that baseball went that route and did not assign individual wins, losses, or saves to particular pitchers. We already have a hundred ways to measure their relative contributions, same as hitters, and if the team wins or loses, who cares which of six pitchers was the guy lucky enough to be around when his team took the lead for the last time? He was most likely sitting on the bench when it happened anyway! At least in hockey the goalie routinely plays the entire game, and even then it's ridiculous to say he was "outplayed" when he makes 54 saves and loses 2-1.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Steve Carlton gets too much credit for winning 27 games on a "bad" team. The team was good when Carlton pitched. Pitchers control their destiny. If he leaves with the lead after 6 innings and his team blows the lead.... well he should have pitched deeper into the game to get the lead. And, over the course of a season and career this will happen. If you isolate on a particular game there will be unfairness.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
"That's not the point. Does Tom Brady face the same defenses as his opponents? "
It's absolutely the point. If I allow three runs to an all-star team, and you shut out a bunch of little leaguers, you did not "out-pitch" me. Your team outplayed mine, because your first baseman is Albert Pujols and mine is Linus Van Pelt.
"The deviation in last year's CY Young voting is flat out a bad thing. "
What deviation would that be?
June 16th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
"In a one game playoff, give me Verlander over Hochevar."
Who wouldn't? Anybody would take Verlander, because he's clearly established himself as the better pitcher over the course of his career. If Verlander had gotten shelled in that one game, I would still take him over Hochevar in a one-game playoff.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
@ Angel
A win is pointless. A pitcher can go 9 innings without giving up a run, game goes into extra innings, a reliever comes in and the pitcher's team scores a run. The reliever, who threw 1 inning, gets the win, the pitcher who pitched 9 scoreless gets none. That pitcher had nothing to do with his teams offensive performance(well, a little in the NL). He is not "outpitched" by the other side. He has limited control over how many runs his team scores. Of all the stats to rate a pitcher, wins and saves are two of the worst. There are much, much better ways to judge a pitchers value. Again, Nolan Ryan didn't get "outpitched" in 1987...his team scored 648 runs all year and their star offensive player Kevin Bass. Bob Welch wasn't a better pitcher than a lot of guys in 1990, he just had a great offense (and great bullpen to protect his lead). The A's scored an average of 6.1 runs a game when Welch was on the mound. Bob had NOTHING to do with those runs being scored. He actually would of had to have pitched very badly to not have won a ton of games.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Maybe if Andy wasn't so biased the Mets would have more wins!
June 16th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Grrr! Mets!
June 16th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Instead of saying wins are over-rated, perhaps it should be losses or no-decisions are over-rated. The argument I see most often is that a pitcher did not deserve a loss or no-decision. A point could be made for that, but pitchers do EARN wins.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Wins are overrated but that doesn't mean they don't have SOME value. I just don't think that a guy with 20 wins is nessecarily as effective as a guy with 10, depending on a lot of tanglibles such as run support, stadium, etc.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
When I first read your post Angel I didn't think you had much of an argument but the more I hear you out the more I understand where you are coming from. You should consider running for office because you have swayed my vote a little bit
)
June 16th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Wins were a stat originally created when each team had 2 maybe 3 pitchers in their entire roster. These guys would pitch every pitch of every game they started. Therefore, if the team won the game, then they were creddited with a with a win. This seems pretty fair to me.
However these days, when a pitcher might pitch 7 IP of shutout baseball just to have his bullpen blow the lead in the 8th or 9th inning and have him be robbed of a win (yes I am aware in this situation, the starter is not creditted with the loss.)
There should be another stat for starting pitchers who left the game in the lead, only to have it blown
June 16th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@Jim
You could look at quality starts but I understand that this can still leave some holes.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
@23
Carlton recieved 3.83 runs per game of support in the games he pitched in '72. This is a pretty average amount.
Saying someone recieves "too much" credit for having a 1.97 era and 300+ks is a little rough on old lefty dont you think?
June 16th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Jim
I think the point if post #23 was that Carlton was dominant, regardless of his team. He controlled his own destiny in winning 27 games, the rest of his team was irrelevant. Carlton would have won 27 games regardless of which team he pitched for. He receives extra credit because the team was so bad the other 4 days.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I go back to an example I've brought up on this topic in other recent threads. Johan Santana's recent performances are a perfect example of this issue. So far this year, he's pitched the following games:
4/17 @STL: 7 IP, 0 ER. ND, because nobody scored until the 19th. Frankie Rodriguez blew the save in the 19th, and got the win when the Mets scored again in the 20th.
5/13 @FLA: 7 IP, 0 ER. ND, because he allowed a run to score on an error, and left with the score tied 1-1.
5/28 @MIL: 8 IP, 0 ER. ND, because the Mets couldn't score any runs for him and lost on a walk-off HR in the bottom of the 9th.
6/2 @SD: 7 IP, 0 ER. ND, because Frankie Rodriguez blew the save with 2 outs in the 9th, and the Mets lost in extras.
6/15 @CLE: 7 IP, 4 ER. W, because the Mets backed him up with 7 runs.
Yup, he was really outpitched in all those games where he didn't give up any runs, but he pitched way better last night when he gave up four.
(BTW, different Joe than the Joe from comment #11)
June 16th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@Joe #36
Santana was good enough to get no decisions. If he was a worse pitcher, he'd have been 1-4 in that stretch. His opponents should get credit for matching him. Both deserved to win and neither deserved to lose those games...thus the no-decisions.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Let's look at a couple of Johan's starts from last year:
4/12 @FLA: 7 IP, 0 ER, 3 H, 13 K. L, because he allowed two runs on an error, and the Mets lost 2-1.
5/11 vATL: 6.1 IP, 0 ER. L, because he allowed a two runs on two separate errors, and the Mets lost.
Just wanted to add some examples where instead of just getting a no decision, he was actually saddled with the loss.
And re: Carlton in '72, Angel, I think it's safe to say that if he wasn't on such a bad team, he would've won MORE than 27 games that year.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
@Joe Re: Carlton '72 (27-10)
He lost 2 games 2-1, and 3 games where he allowed 3 runs. If he was as good as Johan, he'd finished 27-5 (kidding).
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1972-schedule-scores.shtml
June 16th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@Angel
I think Joe pretty much summed it up.
He DOES deserve extra credit because he played on a such a horrible team, that he couldn't afford to give up that second or third run in most games. He didn't even have a very good defense behind him so he was forced to strikeout (and he did, early, and often)
June 16th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Angel
I find several tough luck losses that year for Carlton, including an 11 inning (!) 2-1 loss to atlanta, and several games where he went over 8 innings with none or 1 run given up and recieved either a no decision or the loss
June 16th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
"There should be another stat for starting pitchers who left the game in the lead, only to have it blown"
There is, "Wins Lost," and you can easily look that up on this site. Zack Greinke and Johnny Cueto are tied for the lead with 4 lost wins this season. Roy Oswalt had the most last season, 7.
June 16th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
@Jim
"I find several tough luck losses that year for Carlton, including an 11 inning (!) 2-1 loss to atlanta, and several games where he went over 8 innings with none or 1 run given up and recieved either a no decision or the loss"
On those days, neither pitcher deserved the loss, nor did they deserve the win. It's a zero-sum game. His record reflects his dominance. 27 times, he was the best pitcher in the park that day. 10 times, not so much.
June 16th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
[...] Read the original here: Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive » Yes, wins really are … [...]
June 16th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Your arugment is valid ONLY if you consider pitching to be the dominant aspect of the game.
Consider this: A game ends 2-1 after 19 innings. Was this due to pitching dominance or due to lackluster offense?
June 16th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Angel, I think the point that myself and others on this thread are trying to make is simply that a pitcher's win-loss record can be very deceptive, and not really give you a good indication of how well they pitched, and there are other stats that can give you a better, more accurate picture.
Consider two AL starting pitchers seasons from the late 90's / early 2000's. One pitcher went 15-10. The other pitcher went 11-15. Quick, which pitcher would you take, just based on that?
Now how about if I tell you that the first guy was Charles Nagy for the 1998 Indians, who had a 5.22 ERA, a 91 ERA+, and a 1.502 WHIP, and the other guy was Mike Mussina for the 2000 Orioles, who had a 3.79 ERA, a 125 ERA+, and a 1.187 WHIP. Now which one would you take?
June 16th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
"Now how about if I tell you that the first guy was Charles Nagy for the 1998 Indians, who had a 5.22 ERA, a 91 ERA+, and a 1.502 WHIP, and the other guy was Mike Mussina for the 2000 Orioles, who had a 3.79 ERA, a 125 ERA+, and a 1.187 WHIP. Now which one would you take?"
I'm making a micro argument, and others are making a macro argument. Of course, you'd prefer to have Mussina despite his worse record. My point is that Mussina's record indicates that he was not the better pitcher in those specific games he pitched in that season. He was out-pitched very often. Actually, history will point out that Mussina was a .500 pitcher in big games (playoffs), a virtual tossup (6-6 with the offensive powerhouse Yankees). In the above scenario, Nagy was the anomaly, Mussina wasn't that far from an accurate picture as to how I perceive him.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml
June 16th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Orel Hershiser in 1989 led the league in both ERA+ and losses. I know Nolan Ryan's 1987 season has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating - he led the league in ERA, ERA+, K's, H/9, K/9, and K/BB, but only went 8-16. Steve Trachsel in 2006 went 15-8, but he only had an 88 ERA+ and a 1.597 WHIP.
All of these examples just tell you that however often these guys were 'the better pitcher in those specific games [they] pitched in that season', their true performances and values aren't really indicated by their records.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Oh, and really? You're honestly saying that in your eyes, an 11-15 record for Mussina is about right? That he wasn't really a valuable pitcher in his career because he had a 7-8 career postseason record? Seriously? Are you joking?
June 16th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
"My point is that Mussina's record indicates that he was not the better pitcher in those specific games he pitched in that season. He was out-pitched very often."
His team was outplayed very often.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
@Joe
What I am saying is that he got out-pitched very often in that 11-15 season and in his playoffs seasons. A 2-1 loss is still a loss, is it not? I personally don't place much stock in specific numbers that say "that was good enough to win". I look at what happened and if the guy gets the win, he was good enough to do it. If a guy leaves the game with his team trailing, regardless of the score, he was not good enough. It's a zero sum game. One guy pitches good enough to win, the other doesn't. Taking into account entire season statistics is not a perfect indicator because as someone stated earlier, pitchers pitch differently based on circumstances, opponent, ballpark, etc... I ascribe more value to wins but when it is all said and done, that's all that really matters.
I love these debates....
June 16th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
"their true performances and values aren't really indicated by their records"
And there are literally thousands of pitchers whose W-L recrod is indicitive of their "true performace and value." The system is flawed, for sure... but it's not impossibly wrong. Find one season that doesn't match up with the percieved value doesn't prove anything. Because, yet again, given the time, I can find you 50 seasons where it matches up, in the 2000's alone.
If you don't think wins are that important, don't look at them. And vice versa. That's the beauty of stats, they are there, take from them what you want.. they only mean what you make them mean.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
It's pretty simple, you could have a 3.00 ERA and play for the Pirates, or a 4.00 ERA and play for the Yankees, and end up with an identical W-L record. Wins and losses aren't the tell-all for a good pitcher.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
ERA isn't a tell all either!!!! If you had crappy fielders playing behind you you'd give up more runs!
June 16th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
just wondering, angel, do you believe in RBI as an effective way to measure a hitters ability? i think its the same as wins in the fact that its completely based on situations, and it represents the team better than the player. sure, it can give you a GENERAL idea of how the player is, but it can be very off sometime.
ps- studies have shown that "clutch" hitting is completely random
June 16th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Thomas, my point is exactly that you have to look at the overall picture, look at the other stats, to verify whether or not a pitcher's win-loss line 'matches up' with their true performance. Wins and losses in a vacuum tell you decidedly less about a pitcher's true performance than other metrics.
And if you gave up more runs because of crappy fielders playing behind you, in theory many of those runs would be unearned, thereby not impacting your ERA much. That's why it's 'ERA' and not just 'RA'. (I'm not trying to say that ERA is the be all and end all either).
June 16th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Angel, you may be surprised, but I have a soft spot for your argument. When it comes to something like a season-ending award, it really does matter that Player A had, say, 135 RBI while Player B only had 105 - even if Player A just had a better team around of him. But Player B may still be the better player in most respects, and thus if you had to choose one to play for you in the next season, may be easily the better choice.
But pitching wins? If the idea is to see who outpitched whom, the win/loss is often just wrong. The rest of the team could just stink at hitting. They could commit errors. They could be the Royals. To automatically say you'd take the winning-er pitcher is to bungle, as you admit re: Nagy/Mussina. What you'd really be saying in that case is that given the choice between Nagy and Mussina, you'll take the Indians' batting order (sixth most runs in AL in '98) and not Baltimore's (11th most runs in AL in 2000).
In 1996 Mussina's ERA was a full run higher than in 2000; he had fewer strikeouts, more walks, more homers allowed - and went 19-9 instead of 11-15. Obviously not better pitching! OH - Baltimore scored 150 more runs in '96 than in '00. But the Mussina on 2000 was one run better per game; he had the misfortune of doing it for a crumbling ball club. He promptly made the greatest adjustment in his pitching career - he signed with the Yankees. In '04, '05, AND '07, he was average or worse and still managed a winning record each time. What pitching!
June 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
* OH - From the Odd Coinky-dinks File: Both the '98 Indians and the '00 Orioles were managed by Mike Hargrove. He must have really turned into a terrible manager in two years.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
@56
Please read my posts 4 & 52.
Also, they aren't errors if your fielders aren't good enough to get to the ball. If you have horrible, or slow, corner outfielders for example they wouldn't make as many plays... but that doesn't mean errors would go up. Look at Pat Burrell for example.....
June 16th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Thomas, no worries. In my post #56, I was simply responding to the point you seemed to be making in your post #52. To me, you sounded there like you were defending the common perception of the value of a pitcher's win-loss record as spot on. I'm simply saying that that common perception is too high.
As for the bad fielding issue, true, not all plays that aren't made would be errors, but theoretically, a poor defense will commit more errors than a good defense. Either way, this isn't the main point we're discussing here, so I'll leave it alone.
The main point I'm trying to show is the one made by Andy in his initial post - simply that a pitcher's win-loss record isn't really the best indicator of a pitcher's performance, and that other metrics - ERA being one of them, ERA+, WHIP being others - are better indicators.
June 16th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I understand what you are saying, but look at it this way-
Bob Friend 197-230 3.58
Red Ruffing 277-225 3.80
Does that mean Bob Friend deserves the HOF as well?
Also you have to take account the era the pitcher pitches in. RR did make the Top 10 in ERA 8 times while BF made it in only 5 times. That has a lot to do with it as well.
June 16th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Actually if a score is made on an error I don't think it affects the pitcher's ERA unless the pitcher makes it himself.
June 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
@Cubbies #55
"just wondering, angel, do you believe in RBI as an effective way to measure a hitters ability? i think its the same as wins in the fact that its completely based on situations, and it represents the team better than the player. sure, it can give you a GENERAL idea of how the player is, but it can be very off sometime.
ps- studies have shown that "clutch" hitting is completely random"
- Apple and Oranges. In the 1991 playoffs Jack Morris outdueled John Smoltz in the WS. Morris deserved the win, Smoltz deserved the loss. You can pitch great and still deserve a loss. That's the crux of my argument.
June 16th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Smoltz didn't get the loss in that game. Alejandro Pena did.
June 16th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I'd say what that means, if anything, is that Ruffing was the ace of a Yankees team that won 6 championships, and excelled in World Series play, while Friend toiled for a Pirates team that only made the World Series once during his tenure, and he floundered in his one appearance on the national stage. Because of those differences, their respective legacies are a little skewed. Ruffing probably seems a bit better than he actually was, and Friend seems a bit worse. If Friend had pitched for the Yankees of the 30's and Ruffing for the Pirates of the 50's, who knows? Their career ERA+, WHIP, and WAR are actually quite similar.
And a run that would otherwise be unearned is still unearned even if it was the pitcher who comitted the error.
June 16th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Here's an exercise in wins; make out of it what you will.
There are two pitchers, pitcher A and pitcher B.
Now, in a given year, if one goes 15-12 and the other goes 17-10 we all know you can't necessarily read into that that the winningest one is better, right? But how about over time?
Let's look at A and B-
over a ten year period from the first season they're both in the league, pitcher A outwins pitcher B each and every season (except one when they have the same amount of wins). I ask, which pitcher was better?
You might say, well, did A play for a better team than B? I say, no, B's team actually played in three World Series in that time, and A's only one. Having said that, though, they both played on teams that were most often in contention those ten years; both good teams. You may ask, well, what about their other stats? I'd say, well, pitcher A led the majors (not just his league) in ERA+ twice, whip twice, and K's/BB, and his own league in several other categories in addition to posting 25+ wins three times in that period. Pitcher B led the majors in ERA+ once, and led his league in a few other things, and never won more than 22 games during this period. Pitcher A even had more shutouts over the period than B, although pitcher B is remembered as a shutout kinda guy.
After 10 years, pitcher A got sick and was never the same again. They are both in the hall of fame, although, oddly enough, pitcher B went in directly and pitcher A had to wait two years.
Most of the posts on at sites like baseball fever say that pitcher B was the better pitcher, in spite of the above stats. What do you guys think?
June 16th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Indy, you're obviously talking about Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal. I think we can all agree that they were two of the best pitchers of their era. Gibson is remembered extra fondly for his incomparable 1968 season. And it should not have taken Marichal 3 tries to get into the HOF. But they both won their fair share of games. I'm not really sure how this relates to the discussion of wins being overrated.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Since we spend so much time on stats, I have a good one to look up.
Since this is comment #67, what is the record for B-R Blog comments?
And yes, Wins are an important statistic; but as the old saying goes, "Getting there is half ther battle". These other stats are important in trying to foresee future performance.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
In the battle of Angel vs The World, Angel is winning. The World needs to try a little harder. None of you are actually attacking his central point.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I have one major problem with attacking Angel's theory.
The Problem? At least in part, I do agree with him -- which make refutation nearly impossible.
My only contention is that wins, while important, must be considered along with stats to define other variables, such as run support, quality of opponents...heck, even such things as ballpark factor and weather tendencies have to be taken into account.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
In the battle of Angel vs The World, the two sides aren't really fighting. Angel's talking about one thing, and The World is talking about something else. Angel admitted as much in his comment #47. He's simply defining a starting pitcher getting a win as 'he did a better job than the other starting pitcher of getting his team in a position to win the game that day', and a starting pitcher getting a loss as the opposite. The World is simply saying that that may be all well and good, but it's not the most useful stat to use to evaluate a pitcher's performance over a period of time. I don't think that point is being debated. But we debate nonetheless, because that's what we do.
)
June 16th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
My point with the story is that wins ARE important, but they are not a defining statistic (nor should they be). Angel was saying that a pitcher who lost the game was not the best pitcher that particular night, but that's not always the case. If you're a completely average pitcher facing completely average pitchers, and you pitch for a team that scores 3 runs a game, and you pitch every day against a team that scores 5 runs a game, you're gonna lose a lot of games because of your offense.
I suppose Harvey Haddix is the ultimate example- he retired 36 straight batters and took the loss in his near perfect game. You cannot, simply cannot, pitch better than he did. It's not possible (especially since the Braves were apparently stealing his signs that night too). I refuse to believe he was not the better pitcher because he did not get the win.
I also refues to believe that a pitcher who goes 20-10 with a team that wins 110 games is automatically better than a pitcher that goes 16-14 with a team that loses 110.
Wins ARE important- but they don't tell the neat and simple story that many people wish them too.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I plan on writing more on this topic, but I'd like to point out small, rather unique-feeling flaw in Angel's argument: A big problem with W-L is that it doesn't include no-decisions; if someone goes 9-1 with one ND, they're probably a better pitcher (outdueling their opponent) than someone who goes 9-1 with 20 NDs, at least if we're going strictly on records.
Two other sort of tangential problems: 1) the 5-innings-to-qualify-for-a-win rule flies in the face of your argument 2)your argument really seems to apply almost exclusively to starting pitchers, leaving out relievers
June 16th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Juan Marichal received run support as good as anyone in the history of baseball. While they were teammates, Marichal received much better run support than Gaylord Perry. Perry was a terrible hitter while Marichal was OK, but that doesn't account for the difference.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
"I plan on writing more on this topic, but I'd like to point out small, rather unique-feeling flaw in Angel's argument: A big problem with W-L is that it doesn't include no-decisions; if someone goes 9-1 with one ND, they're probably a better pitcher (outdueling their opponent) than someone who goes 9-1 with 20 NDs, at least if we're going strictly on records.
Two other sort of tangential problems: 1) the 5-innings-to-qualify-for-a-win rule flies in the face of your argument 2)your argument really seems to apply almost exclusively to starting pitchers, leaving out relievers"
I admit the bullpen aspect does throw a wrench in my argument, unless you argue that a great starter finishes games. I won't make that argument because that's not the way the game is managed these days. Many potential wins are blown by bad bullpens.
However, I will continue to argue that a starting pitcher has control whether or not his team loses a game. As in the Santana example above, a no-decision is a stalemate. Neither pitcher deserved a win more than the other, and neither deserved the loss. There's nothing wrong with a no-decision. I think a pitcher who is 15-5 is much better than a guy who goes 20-15 (assuming equal number of starts) based on win percentage. The guy who only lost 5 games did not put his team in position to lose games as often as the 15 game loser. Like the Santana example, although he did not win the games he at least matched his opponent.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
"My point is that Mussina's record indicates that he was not the better pitcher"
Reading this post is like someone arguing with a special needs kid. Your argument makes sense only if every offense is created equal....which they aren't. At all. If Mussina was facing the 90's Indians, with Albert Belle, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, ect is very different from playing a team with a lineup of Joe Randa, Jose Offerman and Mike McFarlane. You can be much better pitcher and still lose! I don't know how you can't understand this.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Here's my problem with Angel's theory: A pitcher that pitches for a bad team enters every game handicapped. It's just not an even playing field. While the opposing players that Ryan faced in '72 changed from outing to outing, the guys who had his back, his offense and defense, stayed the same miserable bunch. The only way that you could fairly say that Ryan was outpitched is if Ryan and the opposing pitcher both faced the same miserable Angels lineup. But, they didn't. That's not the way that baseball is played and since Angel's theory is based on the semantics of a baseball statistic it's flawed. It's like saying you're smarter than me when you got an A on a 3rd grade math test and I got a C on a trig exam. The majority of the time Wins are a good indicator of how well a pitcher pitched, but there are many, many exceptions.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
We are now up to #78. Close to the record yet?
June 16th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I realize after reading my post that I put '72 Angels when it should have been '87 Astros. My bad.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I like post 70 and post 4 are mostly the same.... we're all just talking in circles...
mainly posting to add a number... (stat padding!!!!!)
June 16th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Excellent post. Wins and W/L record are extremely unreliable and overrated stats in which to judge a pitchers productivity.
There's so much luck and so many variables in W/L record that it's problems should be self evident: Run Support, Your teams's defense, Your Bullpen, Luck, Strength of the opponent's offense, Strength of opponent's starting pitcher, Luck,
Is Tyler Clippard a great pitcher because he has a 8-3 record? Phil Hughes is having a very good year with his 132era+ but his 9-1 record has a lot to do with his league leading 8.3 runs/per game. Usually the runs/per game leader gets about 6.5 runs/per game. There's no way the Yankees will maintain that rate so when Clippard stops getting 8.3 runs/per game Baseball writers will assume that Phil Hughes is struggling when he gets a loses a few games not because he's pitching poorly but because he's not getting the same run support.
@61
Ruffing/Friend is a great example of how terrible W-L record is when you judge pitchers. If you look just at their W/L record it looks like Ruffing was just a much better pitcher than Friend, but if you look a little deeper, Their very similar. You can make a case that Bob Friend is a HOF, he certainly better than some pitchers already enshrined in the HOF.
Remember Friend pitched for some terrible Pirate teams of the mid to late 50's, Ruffing pitched for some of the greatest offensive teams in baseball history.
As far as Friend/Ruffing goes They're actually quite similar when you look at it. Ruffing had a career ERA+ of 109, Friend had a 107era+. Ruffing had a career 53.6WAR, Friend had a 48.9 careerWAR but Ruffing pitched about 700 more innings in the big leagues.
At their peaks they were very similar pitchers: Friend had 37WAR in his top 7 seasons, Ruffing had 35.2WAR in his top 7 seasons.
Friend had (2)-6+WAR seasons, (3)-5+WAR Seasons, (0)-4+WAR Seasons. Ruffing had (2)-6+WAR Seasons, (2)-5+WAR Seasons, (2)-4+WAR Seasons.
Ruffing was better than Friend but not by much.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Even on the micro level of the individual game, I don't buy the assumption that the pitcher who has allowed more runs and garners the loss has necessarily been outpitched. It is entirely possible to pitch better than your opponent and yet still allow more runs and lose the game--even if the quality of the lineups faced is equal. A pitcher who has struck out more batters than his opponent, walked fewer, and allowed fewer hard-hit balls, has by all intents and purposes outpitched his opponent, since he has done a better job of the things that are under a pitcher's control. But if a few of the weakly-hit balls he allows happen to find holes, and most of his opponent's hard-hit balls happen to find his fielder's gloves, that might be all it takes for the superior pitcher to end up on the losing side of a one-run game. Luck will always be part of the game, and will always be capable of turning superior performances into losses and inferior performances into wins.
June 16th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
A Hall of Fame post I made a couple of years ago has the most comments of any post, I think. 155. See it here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/462
June 16th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Hypothetical example game. Starter A, pitching for the home team, throws 8 shutout innings. Starter B, pitching for the road team, throws 8 innings and gives up 3 runs. The home team brings their closer in in the top of the 9th, and he promptly gives up 4 runs. The road team brings their closer in in the bottom of the 9th, and he closes out the 4-3 win. Now, Starter B will get the win in this game. Did he 'deserve to win' and 'outpitch' Starter A? Hmm ...
Un-hypothetical, very real example game. Starter A (lets call him A. Hawkins), pitches a no-hitter, but gives up 4 runs and loses the game because his defense loses a couple of fly balls in the sun with two outs in the 8th inning. Did he 'deserve to lose' and 'get outpitched'? Hmm ...
June 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Starter A does not get the loss, he did not deserve to lose. Starter B out-pitched the other team, totally deserves his W. The closer (we'll call him...Mariano), deserves the L. It's a zero-sum game.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
It was fun guys. Agree to disagree.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
"However, I will continue to argue that a starting pitcher has control whether or not his team loses a game. "
No one disputes that. He does not, however, have complete control, yet he alone is credited with a decision.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Angel, that is the best aspect of this venue -- we can "agree to disagree" without taking offense.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
"Instead of saying wins are over-rated, perhaps it should be losses or no-decisions are over-rated. The argument I see most often is that a pitcher did not deserve a loss or no-decision. A point could be made for that, but pitchers do EARN wins."
Not all the time. In fact, a LOT of the time they don't.
I think the best way to evaluate a stat is determine if you were making up said stat TODAY, would you use the same definition?
When the win was created, baseball was much different. Both pitchers pitched the entire game, so whichever team won, that pitcher got the win, and the other got the loss. While some things like run support were out of his control, it was still SORT OF reasonable.
I think if you developed a modern version of a win, you'd define it a bit differently. As of now, say Pitcher X pitches 8 innings and gives up zero runs, but his team has also scored no runs. He is relieved in the 9th inning by Pitcher Y who pitches ok but gives up a run. Then their team wins the game in the bottom of the 9th on a two run walkoff single. By the current definition, Pitcher Y gets the victory for some strange reason even though it's clear Pitcher X did more to earn it.
I have to think if one were developing the pitching stat of a "win" today (and it had never previously existed) then you'd award the win to the pitcher who contributed most to the victory. In this case, Pitcher X.
What's always seemed EXTREMELY silly to me about a win is a pitcher can actually blow the save and ruin the starter's chance to pick up a win, but can in the exact same game, get the win himself. Even if he never pitches another inning or never even pitches effectively.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
You could assign wins and losses based on who got the most or least Win Probability Added during the game (easily available on the B-R boxscores). So in Rich's example, the starting pitcher would clearly have more WPA than the reliever.
I'd rather leave wins and losses as they are, for consistency's sake. Regardless their utility, the numbers are woven into the historical fabric of the game. It's up to us to consider what they mean. Personally, I'd give almost zero attention to W-L record when considering the CYA. I would consider them in an MVP debate. I think a pitcher could go 0-20 for a terrible team with awful luck, but have a 1.50 ERA and be the best pitcher in the league. But I would not support him for MVP, because his team simply didn't win any games when he played. I know many (on both sides of the debate) would disagree with that, but that's how I currently feel.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Rich,
that a good point you brought up. I think the whole notion of W/l for pitchers came during the 19th century from boxing.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:50 am
I don't see anything wrong with Rojas' comment. I think the key word here is "success". Granted, he may have performed at the same level he did during the regular season but 0-2 is nowhere near as successful as 5-1. If Rojas isn't referencing how well Martinez did, then this commentary is pretty much on point.
June 17th, 2010 at 5:58 am
As far as the whole thing about Pedro Martinez, it's all how you look at it. Certainly he was just as effective in the postseason, as shown by his ERA, but because he was not able to pitch his team to victory, he did not reach the same level of success. It's just a matter of semantics really.
June 17th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Well those are valid points, #92 and #93. Success is winning and he didn't win.
Oh well, I guess this entire post is invalid
June 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
It comes down to this, in my opinion: "Wins/Losses" are team stats attributed to individual players.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Well, Pedro did not enjoy the same success. Success is related to outcome. He PERFORMED the same, if not better (based on quality of opponents) but his outcome was worse and, thus, less successful.
Do I think the writer was using this type of nuance? Heavens no. But I do think it's fair to attach "success" to outcome, as long as we realize that outcome is not necessarily directly correlated to individual performance.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I need to just stop arguing this but I simply can't!
"Certainly he was just as effective in the postseason, as shown by his ERA, but because he was not able to pitch his team to victory, he did not reach the same level of success. It's just a matter of semantics really."
Pedro Martinez does not make up his entire team. His TEAM was not as successful in the postseason! Which makes sense, the teams in the postseason are the best teams in baseball. Your logic on this is like saying that Andruw Jones had a good 2008 because his team won the division! No. He had a terrible year, the team one in spite of him. Sometimes, a pitcher is great and the team loses. It has nothing to do with the pitcher, it has everything to do with the other 24 players that make up the team not playing well.
How is this not understood?
June 17th, 2010 at 10:06 am
The big problem with judging a pitcher by W/R record, is the W/L are essentially a team accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. Once a pitcher releases the ball, he has little to no influence on the outcome of the play.
That would be like the NFL judging Quarterbacks by a teams W/L record. Fran Tarkenton is one of the all-time leading passers in NFL history, his teams had a 124-109 record. Does that make him a mediocre quarterback? Warren Moon is another HOF QB, his teams had a 102-101 record. Dan Fouts another HOF quarterback had a 86-84 team record. Would anyone make a claim that Jay Schroeder or Jeff Hostetler were better QB's because they had better W/L records?? of coarse not, but in baseball it's the norm with pitchers.
As far as the word "Success" what's often forgotten is that it's a relative term. The definition of success is, "A favorable or desired Outcome" so it's open to interpretation. If Greg Smith's goal was to to be a stockbroker and make $150,000 a year and he only made $130,000, then by his interpretation, he was a failure. If Tim Jones goal was to be a social worker and earn $30,000, and he earned $30,000 and became a social worker then by his interpretation, he was a success. It would be invalid to assume that Greg Smith was "successful" simply because he earned much more money than Tim Jones.
The same goes for Pedro in 2010. If you judge his regular season to be a success, and then he roughly repeats his performance in the post-seasons, then by definition what he did in the post-season should also be scene as a success regardless of his W/L record. Pedro & the Phillies were successful in the regular seasons but Only Pedro was successful in the post-season.
Here's another analogy, Carlos Ruiz hit .333/478/.722 in the 2009 World Series. Would you refer to his performance as "Unsuccessful" simply because the Phillies lost??
June 17th, 2010 at 10:37 am
The issue with "good enough to win" or "good enough to not lose" is that it assumes a variable measuring tool for different teams. Let's get away from some of the extreme examples and look at some single game examples:
Pitcher A plays for a team that averages 3 runs a game, and Pitcher B for one that averages 5 runs a game, and for simplicity assume their team defense is equal. Both pitchers go 9 innings and come out of the game with the score ties 4-4. In this case, neither pitcher dominated, and both have a similar line for the game, but did they pitch equally? The answer is no, of course, because the challenge level of the teams they're facing is different, and because runs scored are not only based on the performance of the pitcher, but also on the performance of the opposition. In this particular game, one pitcher gave up one more run than would be expected from a perfectly average pitcher, and the other one less. In this case, they both end up with no decisions, despite one having a better-than-average performance and one a worse-than-average performance.
Take the same two pitchers, and suppose that Pitcher A gives up 5 runs, and Pitcher B 3 runs, both going the full 9 innings. In this instance, both pitchers give the same performance that a perfectly average pitcher would be expected to give, but Pitcher B gets the win. Is it fair to say he pitched better in that game, when all both pitchers did was perform at an average level against teams of differing quality?
Suppose both pitchers average 4.00 runs per game, with equal bullpens. Neither guy dominates other teams, but both are consistent. At mid-season, Pitcher A is 5-8 and Pitcher B is 8-5. Did pitcher B have the better half? If those pitchers are traded for each other, and continue to pitch the same way, which pitcher is likely to have the better record in the second half? It's a lot more challenging to win, or avoid losses for a team that can't hit than it is to do so for the Yankees.
If we don't adjust for the challenge level of getting a win for events outside of a pitcher's control, then why not go a step further. Who had the better season:
Pitcher A: 18-6, 3.50 ERA in 170 IP at AAA
Pitcher B: 14-10, 3.30 ERA in 170 IP in MLB
June 17th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Isn't there a stat where if you plug in league average everything we can figure out how many games a team may have been expected to win. Couldn't we do this for individual players?
...No I can't do it, I'm not that smart.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Another thing to consider is this: If the better pitcher is the one with the better W/L record, then by definition it should follow that the better pitching team is the one with the better W/L record. Yet, I don't think that anybody would argue that the 1999 Indians were a great pitching team, or that they were a better pitching team than the 2003 A's, or that they compared with any of the Braves teams from that era, teams with similar records. When we evaluate these teams, we see the 1999 Indians, correctly, as a great hitting team with enough pitching to win, and the 2003 A's as a great pitching team with enough hitting to win. People have no difficulty looking at a team like the A's of the last few years as a pretty good pitching team that hasn't been successful due to a lack of hitting, or that the Rangers of the A-Rod years could really hit, but lacked quality pitching.
Should we consider the pitching equal for all 92-70 teams, regardless of the hitting, or is it better to accept that, like with teams, an average pitcher on a team with great hitting can have the same record as a great pitcher on a team with average hitting without being deemed equally successful at his job?
June 17th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Yup, there are neutralized stats. There has been some debate (paging Johnny Twisto) about the accuracy of the calculation that B-R uses, but it's not a bad start.
On any pitcher's page, click on the 'more stats' next to his main pitching stats, then scroll down until you see the 'neutralized stats' section.
For example, here is a link to Andy Pettitte's neutralized stats.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:47 am
The best pitchers give up the least runs, wins do not correlate well with least runs given up, therefore wins are not a good way to rank the best pitchers.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@89
I've always believed that if a starter goes 6 complete innings, regardless of what happens after he leaves, it's HIS game, and thusly should be saddled with the win or the loss. That way we don't have to have this debate because than we can all just agree that wins don't tell us much.
Seriously though...
Wins, in a vacuume, are a nice quick and dirty stat. Baseball is not played in a vacuume and we should be assigning percentage of wins to all players that got into a given game (isn't this WAR?). We can rebuild the win. We (well, you guys) have the technology.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
This is WAR all right.
June 17th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
This is one long semantics argument. Angel (Side A) is arguing that the word "performance" is defined as the objective W/L/ND. Most everyone else (Side B) is defining the word "performance" as a subjective statistical analysis. Meanwhile Side A is arguing that the stats don't indicate good performance and Side B is arguing that a win doesn't indicate good performance. So everyone is right because they're analyzing the other side's arguments using their own base definition. I declare this thread a ND.
(for the record, I'm in the Side B camp - I define performance as accumulated stats)
June 17th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
WilsonC, an obvious but excellent point. I'd love to hear the studio talking heads fumble around with that one.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Okay, one more thing...
All the analysis I see about average run support per game and the like are missing the point. The players do not play in a simulator. They know the score.
Example: Pitcher A takes a 4-0 lead into the 9th gives up 4 runs in the inning and the team eventually loses 5-4. He had control of the ball after it left his hand, he had the win in his grasp. Pitcher B allows 5 runs in the first, then pitches 7 shutout innings and his team comes back in the 9th to win 6-5. Pitcher B pitched better than pitcher A even if all the stats are identical. The run support is irrelevant. Pitcher B deserved the win, pitcher A deserved the loss (but gets a no-decision) because he blew his game. I understand that this website is all about statistical analysis, I guess I'm the Cito Gaston.
And a question? If a pitcher has a career record of 125-25, could you tell whether or not he was a good pitcher? Okay, another pitcher has a career ERA of 3.00. Can you tell me how he was in his era without analyzing the average ERA for his era, his run support...etc?
June 17th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@108
Nice try, but neither is a definitive yes or no.
That's like saying:
I have an even temperment, does that make me a nice guy?
I have alot of patience, does that make me a nice guy?
Before you answer...
There have been plenty of documented seriel killers that are both patient and maintain an even temperment.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
WINS IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, COLLECTIVELY. WHATELSE?
June 17th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Angel, do you think Jack Morris was a guy who "knew how to win"?
Because people that have actually broken down his career start by start have found no evidence of that. He didn't pitch any better in tight games or big situations, and he had no special ability to preserve leads once he had them. He won a lot of games because he was a good pitcher for teams that scored a lot of runs. That's it. I'm just preemptively throwing Morris out there, because he's the guy who is inevitably identified as someone with a special "winning" skill, and I think you mentioned him earlier. But he didn't have some special ability to only give up runs when it didn't matter, artificially inflating his ERA. One World Series game ain't proof of anything.
Do pitchers adjust their approach based on the situation? Of course. But pitchers cannot see the future, don't know how many runs their team is going to score, and don't let up when they have a big lead. You're not going to find pitchers who consistently shut teams down when they have to, and allow runs when it doesn't matter. For the most part, a pitcher's W-L record will be dependent on his runs allowed and his run support. There might be a few guys who over a long career out-perform or under-perform those expectations. There is some evidence Bert Blyleven won fewer games than should be expected. But the effects are minimal. If it is a "skill," like clutch hitting, it is exceedingly difficult to identify and the results vary greatly from year to year.
Can you identify a pitcher under age 30 who you believe wins more games than one would expect from his ERA and run support? And do you expect he will continue to do so over the next five years?
June 17th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
@108: "Pitcher B deserved the win, pitcher A deserved the loss (but gets a no-decision) because he blew his game"
Playing devil's advocate for a minute, your premise thus far has been that a pitcher cannot deserve to win a game and then subsequently lose it because by definition a loss is a failure on his part. The opposite then must be true because if one pitcher deserves the win and gets the win the other pitcher invariably deserved to lose and got the loss. Here, you claim the possibility of deserving to lose and ending up with a ND. In this case he had a L performance but ended up with a ND, therefore his W/L record isn't a fair representation of his performance.
I know that's a small little thing to pick at, but it leads me to my next question: we know a pitcher can deserve to win and deserve to lose (whatever your definition of 'deserve' may be), but can a pitcher deserve to get a ND?
June 17th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
@108
In that particular example, I'd take Pitcher A over Pitcher B easily.
The stats don't tell the whole story in either case. For Pitcher B, he struggled early and then pitched great for 7 innings, and deserves credit for settling down after the first inning, but that doesn't erase the fact that he put his team in a position where they needed to battle back from a massive deficit to win. No matter how well he pitches after the first inning, the only way he doesn't lose that game is if his offense does a superb job, which in this example they do. Suppose instead of someone hitting a ninth inning HR to give his team the lead, the opposing center fielder makes a great catch to rob him for the third out and he loses. Pitcher B's out of the game icing his shoulder, yet somehow, whether or not the opposing defense makes that play dictates whether the pitcher deserves a win or a loss?
Pitcher A's the opposite. He pitched 8 strong innings, only to fade in the ninth. Did he just fall apart in the last inning? If so, why did the manager leave him in long enough to give up four runs. Did the opposition string together a series of bloop hits on quality pitches? Sometimes you just need to credit the other hitters. Was it his team's defense that fell apart? Unlike with pitcher B, who may have just gotten off to a rough start, a situation like Pitcher A is almost certainly a case where the responsibility for the loss is divided. If he's still pitching well in the ninth but either his defense abandons him or the other team just beats him, he still pitched well enough to deserve a win. If he's not pitching well, the manager deserves at least part of the blame for a slow hook.
Take another example:
Pitcher A, who plays for a weak hitting team, is facing Pitcher B, who plays for the best hitting team in the league. Pitcher A gives up one run in the second, on a fly ball that the left fielder misplayed, and then mows down this offensive juggernaut for seven innings of two-hit ball. Pitcher B's a little shaky from the beginning, walking a couple batters before getting out of a jam in the first. In the third inning, he walks the pitcher with two outs, hits the leadoff batter, and fails to cover first on a play that the first baseman fields, loading the bases. He gets out of the inning when his RF leaps at the wall to make a spectacular catch. He walks another couple batters in the fourth, and three more in the fifth to load the bases with one out. He then gives up a hard liner that the second baseman stares on a dive, then doubles up a runner to end the inning. The walks drove up his pitch count, driving him from the game, but his bullpen closes out the last four innings of the game cleanly for the win.
In this case, Pitcher A, by far, out-pitched Pitcher B, yet gets the loss. Pitcher A faced the better offense and dominated them, whereas Pitcher B got himself into all kinds of trouble, and had to be bailed out by his defense and his bullpen. Which pitcher is more deserving of the win here? Should the answer change if Pitcher A's team hits a two run double in the bottom of the ninth, with both starting pitchers already hitting the showers?
June 17th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
@Angel
What can a pitcher do (not his team, just the pitcher) to earn a win? Let up minimal runs. Why even look at wins when there is an arbitrary statistic (ERA) to fairly and effectively measure this ability?
@Johnny Twisto
I completely agree, "clutch" is not a skill in baseball.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
@Angel
You can easily and extremely accurately assess how good the 3.00 ERA pitcher is; what more can you ask for than a prediction of how many runs a pitcher will let up?
June 17th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Angel. Are you serious with your thoughts on Cain? Now i'm a die hard Giants fan who's seen every Cain start. Dude your talking outta your butt here. One game he threw a 2 hitter AND LOST because his team DID NOT SCORE. He (like Zito the year before) got the LOWEST RUN SUPPORT IN ALL THE MAJORS LAST YEAR. I believe it was a measley 2.1 a game.
"If he gets beat, he was not the best pitcher on the field that day. I know I'm in the minority on this one"
yes you are because there's no logic to your thoughts. None what so ever...NONE. Here's a thought look at Cain's league batting average against.
it tells you all you need to know. they don't get much hits off of him. he's losing game 2-1...1-0.
really I don't like to put people down but really I have to ask...how old are you? because your logic was 3rd grade.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
"Pitcher B deserved the win, pitcher A deserved the loss (but gets a no-decision) because he blew his game"
dude really how old are you? seriously. What if pitcher B's team DIDN'T score them runs? Dude come on. No better yet what if those runs scored were errors caused by the fielders? so on and so on.
I'm open for debate and all but there actually HAS TO BE ONE. If youre just here to start stuff then say so but really....
a pitcher depends on the offense to win him games. His wins and loses will depend solely on the amount of runs he limits a team to and the amount of runs his team can score.
there's no special trick or "little things" a guy does to win games. that just down right 1909 baseball talk.
but if you don't like stats I feel you in that. But its fans like you who read money ball and missed the whole point. Money isn't the face of sabermetrics. To me the A's use sabermetrics to DEVAULE a players ability so they won't have to PAY THEM. they say stolen bases aren't good...the A's say this not sabermetrics. Why? Because a guy like scott podesidkintwsnos (yeah i can't spell his name and i don't care to) will ask for 10 million for doing nothing more than stealing bases.
you and joe morgan missed the whole point.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
The Win isn't as valuable a stat as it used to be because starting pitchers don't pitch deep into games very often anymore. Traditionally, a pitcher who got a win would usually pitch a complete game, so yes, getting a lot of wins was an accurate measure of how good a starting pitcher was; it indicated that he pitched better then the other guy for the whole game. Nowadays most managers pull even their best pitchers after 6 or 7 innings and then use specialized bullpens, often bringing in 4 or 5 relievers to pitch 3 innings. When 5 pitchers are pitching in a close game, it is basically meaningless who gets the win. While it is fair to say that today a pitchers win/loss record is an overrated indicator of his effectiveness, people should understand that this is due to changes in the way teams are managed, NOT a flaw in the original reasoning which led statisticians to value pitching records.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Malcolm, that's an excellent point. As starters' IP drops and more pitchers are used in the game, fair and meaningful distribution of wins and losses decreases.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Gabe-114, just to clarify, I'm not saying that "clutch" (however one defines it) is not a skill. I'm just saying that it's very hard to identify, and many players identified as "clutch" will not appear as "clutch" in subsequent seasons. As Bill James described in his "Underestimating the Fog" essay, the variance in clutch performances exceeds the effect of clutch performance, so it's hard to identify.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:19 am
If you want to judge pitchers, why not choose the stats which are the best predictors of future performance? W/L is a horrible predictor relative to ERA, and ERA is not very good compared to ERA+. DICE, despite eliminating a significant component of some pitcher's games (the ability to generate weak balls in play) does about as well as ERA+ because it is fielding independent. So it seems to me that DICE and ERA+ are pretty good numbers to look at, while Wins or Win/Loss, without a lot of extra analysis beyond the raw numbers, simply don't tell you enough to distinguish between a decent pitcher who got great average run support, and a should be HOFer that got terrible run support (blyleven). Or rather, sometimes they give the wrong answer.
I really don't get the 300 win fetish. On the one hand, writers talk about how we'll never see 300 again, which is bs, in my opinion. It's getting rarer and it may die out one day if the game keeps changing in the direction it is now, but it's still quite possible for a guy with a 20+ year career on mostly good teams to win 300. OTOH, lots of pitchers from the 50s and 60s are in the hall with well under 300 wins, back when it was supposedly so much easier to do. But suddenly if you start your career in the 70s or later, 280ish isn't enough? What? I wouldn't vote for TJ or JK personally, but there are lesser pitchers with fewer wins in the hall from previous eras when it was supposedly easier to accumulate wins.
So if it's so hard now to get 300, why don't we cut some guys who almost made it some slack? and if it isn't, then stop talking about how Glavine will be the last one ever.
June 18th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Michael, you keep mentioning DICE, and I don't recognize that abbreviation. Is it another name for DIPS ERA, or FIP?
Also, we don't always care about predicting future performance, sometimes we want to evaluate the performance that already happened. Still, though, Wins don't necessarily describe that very well either.
June 19th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The fatal flaw in simply assigning the team's win or loss to the pitcher - even if both pitchers pitched the complete game - is that each pitcher faces a completely separate set of batters. Run support IS relevant. Defensive support IS relevant. If the pitcher is relieved, needless to say, THAT's relevant.
ERA was introduced for a very good reason. Its was apparent even long ago that pitchers on better teams would rack up wins even if they weren't that good while better pitchers on poorer teams might not win that often. ERA would rectify that and then you could see who the better pitchers really were regardless of how good or bad the teams they were on. How that could escape someone at this stage of statistical baseball evolution is rather odd.
June 29th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
If wins are over-valued, then where does that put the save? Less valuable a barometer for pitcher effectiveness than the Game-Winning RBI was for hitters, I'd say.
I think wins are way more valuable a measure of pitcher quality than the save.
A reliever should have to face the tying/losing run to qualify for "saving" a game.
Perhaps starters should get a "game pitched to a lead after seven", or some such certification for their efforts.
Or, maybe, we could accept that it all evens out -- more or less -- over the course of a long career. The truly great pitchers will win their share of the time. And the "just-good-enough-to-not win" won't.
Any proof in the pudding there? After all, there are plenty of pitchers who still managed to win a truckload of games for lousy teams.
Look at Walter Johnson. The Senators managed just 10 winning seasons during his 21-year career. And most of the time, he was the one that put them over the top.
Cream rises to the top.