PDA

View Full Version : Wins for pitchers


santo=dorf
12-09-2006, 07:49 PM
What does the win stat of a starting pitcher tell you? How much stock do you put in it?

Dan the Man
12-09-2006, 07:53 PM
Maybe a little more than average. A guy like Clemens with the 'Stros can go 12-7 with a 2.40 ERA, but his team blows all his wins so he doesn't even win 15. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum, pitchers with great offenses can rack up a lot of wins with a high ERA, like Freddy winning 17 with a 4.50 ERA last year.

23Ventura
12-09-2006, 08:00 PM
I voted for strong, although I considered going with average. A pitcher's wins can sometimes be misleading because of other factors (run support, bullpen), but in general, the better pitchers win more games.

Daver
12-09-2006, 08:02 PM
I seldom look at win loss for pitchers, I look at innings pitched, a pitcher that goes over two hundred innings a season is a pitcher that is pitching well enough to be in the game in the seventh and the eighth innings of most of his starts.

23Ventura
12-09-2006, 08:09 PM
Maybe a little more than average. A guy like Clemens with the 'Stros can go 12-7 with a 2.40 ERA, but his team blows all his wins so he doesn't even win 15. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum, pitchers with great offenses can rack up a lot of wins with a high ERA, like Freddy winning 17 with a 4.50 ERA last year.
I agree with you here. I think if you look at wins in the short term, like 1 season, for example, they can be pretty misleading. I don't think you'll find anybody who would argue that Garcia had a better year than Clemens.

In the long term, I think the factors that affect a pitcher's win total even out. Any pitcher who ever won 300 games had to be pretty damn good. It's not like a mediocre pitcher could win that much just because of good run support.

Grzegorz
12-09-2006, 09:22 PM
What does the win stat of a starting pitcher tell you? How much stock do you put in it?

Looking at the number of wins a pitcher has is the equivalent of judging a woman by her figure; there is more than meets the eye.

For example, if I am a buyer and I see a pitcher with a high win total on a team that provides great run support I have to look at my own team to see if my team can support this pitcher through rough patches.

Durability, walks, goofer balls, & defense all play a part in evaluating a pitcher.

PKalltheway
12-09-2006, 09:53 PM
I say that they are a strong indicator, and I almost went with average myself. Wins are by no means worthless, but they don't mean everything either. You can be on a team with a good offense, but if you're a horse**** pitcher that gives up a lot of home runs and makes your offense work harder, you aren't going to win a lot of ballgames. *COUGH* Todd Ritchie *COUGH* Eric Milton *COUGH* If you don't give up gopher balls all of the time and keep your team in the game, you're going to win ballgames.

There are many more important statistics to a pitcher than wins, but the bottom line is that good pitchers win ballgames.

PaulDrake
12-09-2006, 09:59 PM
ERA+ is my favorite pitchers stat, but wins are more than just a little important too.

Myrtle72
12-09-2006, 10:15 PM
Wins are an important stat, but it definitely needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are so many other factors to think about (ERA, innings pitched, etc) that you can't just focus on that. Plus, I've seen so many games where the pitcher did excellent and the rest of the team kinda ****ed it up for him.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-09-2006, 10:40 PM
Wins are a team stat. A pitcher can be the best in the league and go 16-14 (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4288/splits;_ylt=AuvRhhIIAM7Jbor3cJ_PWemFCLcF?year=2004&type=Pitching) or he could be league average and have a bad year 2 years later and go 17-11 (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4288) with an ERA twice as high as the 16-14 season.

Sox It To Em
12-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Win-Loss records for pitchers mean next to nothing.

FedEx227
12-09-2006, 11:20 PM
I picked the second to last. It's still an indication of a player and his ability to stay in winning games, but if you base anything on wins it's just a bad more. ERA, ERA+, RA, IP, WHIP, K/9 are the real ways to judge a pitcher, IMO.

kittle42
12-10-2006, 10:44 AM
Win-Loss records for pitchers mean next to nothing.

They mean a lot for Jason Marquis, apparently.

Dan the Man
12-10-2006, 10:59 AM
Looking at the number of wins a pitcher has is the equivalent of judging a woman by her figure; there is more than meets the eye.
That is nice. An attractive woman can be a total piece of work but men will still got after her, just like a with a lot of wins can make a ton of dough even though he sucks (see:Jason Marquis).

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2006, 01:00 PM
I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of important or not important. Obviously, winning is the only thing that matters. It's a part of the picture, but only a part. Stats are like the Blind Men and the Elephant (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3). Each tells you something, but none tell you everything.

MHOUSE
12-10-2006, 08:13 PM
Pitcher W-L records can be very misleading, but I said a strong indicator. I think that a relief pitcher's W-L totals are almost completely meaningless, but overall the better starting pitchers win more games over the course of two or three seasons. The devil's advocate would look at 2006 Jason Marquis who had 14 wins and an ERA over 6.00 and was pretty awful all year. I think things like bullpen and run support even out. Garcia had a couple of hard-luck losses a year ago and then this summer won 1-0 against Anthony Reye's one-hitter. Next year maybe Reyes will sneak a win away from someone. It all evens out and the more talented pitchers move to the forefront.

PaulDrake
12-11-2006, 09:45 AM
I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of important or not important. Obviously, winning is the only thing that matters. It's a part of the picture, but only a part. Stats are like the Blind Men and the Elephant (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3). Each tells you something, but none tell you everything. Excellent. I wish I'd thought of that.

jabrch
12-11-2006, 01:00 PM
I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of important or not important. Obviously, winning is the only thing that matters. It's a part of the picture, but only a part. Stats are like the Blind Men and the Elephant (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3). Each tells you something, but none tell you everything.

Very well said.

sox1970
12-11-2006, 01:06 PM
I look at quality starts more than anything. Chances are if a pitcher is giving the innings, and keeping the runs allowed low, they're also going to get the win.

mccoydp
12-11-2006, 01:29 PM
I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of important or not important. Obviously, winning is the only thing that matters. It's a part of the picture, but only a part. Stats are like the Blind Men and the Elephant (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3). Each tells you something, but none tell you everything.

I agree. It makes a difference which way you look at the question. If you're evaluating the pitcher as a whole, then his wins aren't the end-all-be-all of his effectiveness. However, if you're looking at how valuable a pitcher is to his team, then the wins become very important. From the team's perspective, I don't care how many runs a pitcher gives up if he wins 18-20 games.

But...on the flip side...if I'm looking at acquiring a pitcher on the open market, 18-20 wins by that same pitcher may not translate into 18-20 wins on my team, because the run support may not be there. That when ERA, K/BB ratios, WHIP, etc. comes into play.

The perspective that you use really matters. Gosh, I've gone crossed-eyed. :redneck

FedEx227
12-11-2006, 04:32 PM
I agree. It makes a difference which way you look at the question. If you're evaluating the pitcher as a whole, then his wins aren't the end-all-be-all of his effectiveness. However, if you're looking at how valuable a pitcher is to his team, then the wins become very important. From the team's perspective, I don't care how many runs a pitcher gives up if he wins 18-20 games.

But...on the flip side...if I'm looking at acquiring a pitcher on the open market, 18-20 wins by that same pitcher may not translate into 18-20 wins on my team, because the run support may not be there. That when ERA, K/BB ratios, WHIP, etc. comes into play.

That's just it. Not alot of people can make that distinction. They translate 16 wins on a first-place team to meaning that he'll get 16 on any other team. You have to look at much more in evaluating a player on the open market.

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 04:51 PM
That's just it. Not alot of people can make that distinction. They translate 16 wins on a first-place team to meaning that he'll get 16 on any other team. You have to look at much more in evaluating a player on the open market.Honestly, I don't think that many people are that dumb. But most people also recognize that even on a good team, 18+ wins is not accidental, especially when the pitcher does that multiple times.

FedEx227
12-11-2006, 05:27 PM
Honestly, I don't think that many people are that dumb. But most people also recognize that even on a good team, 18+ wins is not accidental, especially when the pitcher does that multiple times.

Hey I totally agree. That's why I continue to defend Jon Garland whenever I talk to people from other towns. They continue to claim he gets lucky, plays for a good team, but if a man has had 12-13 wins for five straight years he's doing something right. While he doesn't blow you away with great WHIP or K/9 ratios, he continually keeps his team in the game.

And don't think everyone is that smart. Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, Russ Ortiz, Aaron Sele and Jose Lima are a few recent indicators of organizations valuing wins much too heavily. All those mentioned had great W-L records, but terrible ERAs. Organizations threw money at them and most are completely worthless at this point in their careers.

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 05:37 PM
When I was growing up ERA, wins, IP, CG (yes, complete games) H/IP and K/IP were probably the most predominant ways to gauge a pitcher, in that order. Even though things like IP and CG have gone the eay of the 8-track and LP, I still use them to judge pitchers.

Carlton, Seaver, Wood, Gibson, Koosman, Morris, Ryan, Palmer, and others were the benchmark I watched, which later turned to Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, etc.

I still like to use the old formula, except for CG's because they hardly exist.

santo=dorf
12-11-2006, 06:05 PM
I look at quality starts more than anything. Chances are if a pitcher is giving the innings, and keeping the runs allowed low, they're also going to get the win.
QS is pretty flawed too.

6 IP, 3 ER = 4.5 ERA and a quality start
8 IP, 4 ER = 4.5 ERA and not a quality start.

A player can also go 6 inning giving up less than 4 ER, come out in the 7th or 8th, have their manager mishandled the pen and lose a quality start. It also doesn't take in account the number of hits and walks given up in an outing.

downstairs
12-12-2006, 10:10 AM
Wins are almost completely irrelevant. The only time it could possibly become relevant is if you somehow calculate it against the team's total W/L... but that would be a complicated equation to make it relevant.

I mean think about it... a pitcher has 0% (in the AL and nearly 0% in the NL) of a chance to affect his team's offense. Scoring runs is a fairly major part of winning, no?

He also has very little affect on defense. You could argue that a "ground ball pitcher" is good with a good infield defense- but again, he's not the infield defense!

Also- a lot of managers now try to "preserve a win" for a pitcher for God knows what reason.

I don't think I remember any pitcher's W/L record... and I generally don't even look at them during the year.

The only year that even comes to mind is when Steve Carlton had some 20+ wins for a God-awful Philly team. I think he won 30% of their games or something? That has to count for something.

But come on- a 20 win pitcher on a 100 win team... vs. a 10-10 pitcher on a 100 loss team? How could you even compare the two to see who is better?

downstairs
12-12-2006, 10:15 AM
Honestly, I don't think that many people are that dumb. But most people also recognize that even on a good team, 18+ wins is not accidental, especially when the pitcher does that multiple times.

No, they're not accidental. You could say they only indicate that the pitcher is probably not terrible. He's either average or great.

But in a game where (for example) 1 extra hit per 20 at bats dramatically changes the quality of a hitter.... a stat which gets you only in the general area of "he's average to great" is pretty irrelevant.

Ol' No. 2
12-12-2006, 10:28 AM
No, they're not accidental. You could say they only indicate that the pitcher is probably not terrible. He's either average or great.

But in a game where (for example) 1 extra hit per 20 at bats dramatically changes the quality of a hitter.... a stat which gets you only in the general area of "he's average to great" is pretty irrelevant.A mediocre pitcher might get lucky one year (see Loaiza, Esteban). A pitcher winning 14 games or so on a good team might be considered average in comparison with the league as a whole. But even on a good team, back-to-back 18+ win seasons is not chopped liver. Consider that on a 90+ win team the starting rotation will usually combine for about 75 wins. One-fifth of that is 15 wins, which means 18 wins makes him above average on his own team, which, if it's a good team, certainly has above avearge pitching. So he's above average on an above average staff. Mediocre pitchers simply do not win that many games consistently no matter what team they're pitching for.