OT: The Importance Of Wins

[brett05]

Wins as an ability of a pitcher is stupid. There are too many factors outside of his control for it to be an effective measure of what a pitcher does for his team. At best it loosely coorelates to the ability of pitcher and the sooner we stop looking it to it as a measure of ability the better.

This thread comes from this quote said by dabs in another thread. What is the importance of wins for a pitcher? For me in the short term I think it's really overvalued. In the long term though I think it's undervalued. I'd like to get others take first before expanding on it.

 

[CSF77]

I believe there is a "the will to win" factor and a solid leader can inspire. Tebow factor. It doesn't replace talent but it can get others to give a shit about winning.

 

[beckdawg]

The rules for a win are too arbitrary in my opinion. A guy can pitch 6 innings give up 5 runs and as long as he has the lead he has a shot at getting the win. On the contrary, a guy could pitch 9 shutout innings then give up a run in the 10th an get a loss. Additionally, you can pitch 7 strong innings and get a ND because a reliever gives up your win. Take a pitcher like Felix Hernanedz. He's arguably the best pitcher of the last decade and his record is 110-86 which puts him on average of 12-10 each year. Win loss record is just a terrible indicator of how good a pitcher is.

 

[Chris J]

The "win" for a pitcher is a completely unnecessary stat. I think that people base their opinions about pitchers to much on stats. I think in like 2005, Bartolo Colon won the Cy Young award because he had 20 wins, even though Johan Santana had a better WHIP, Avg, and ERA.

Best three examples to illustrate why is a stupid stat.
-There was a game during this past season when Harvey faced Sale(i think) and the game went into the 9th tied at 0. Now those pitchers both got a No Decision but clearly worthy of a W
- Samardjiza tossed 7 innings allowing just one run to the Pirates but the Cubs got shutout and Shark got the loss. 7IP with 1ER is not deserving of a loss.
-A Pitcher for the Rays(dont remember who) was pitching against Baltimore earlier this year. He went 5innings and allowed 7ER and he got a WIN.

Tell me its not a useless stat

 

[nwfisch]

The "win" for a pitcher is a completely unnecessary stat. I think that people base their opinions about pitchers to much on stats. I think in like 2005, Bartolo Colon won the Cy Young award because he had 20 wins, even though Johan Santana had a better WHIP, Avg, and ERA.

Best three examples to illustrate why is a stupid stat.
-There was a game during this past season when Harvey faced Sale(i think) and the game went into the 9th tied at 0. Now those pitchers both got a No Decision but clearly worthy of a W
- Samardjiza tossed 7 innings allowing just one run to the Pirates but the Cubs got shutout and Shark got the loss. 7IP with 1ER is not deserving of a loss.
-A Pitcher for the Rays(dont remember who) was pitching against Baltimore earlier this year. He went 5innings and allowed 7ER and he got a WIN.

Tell me its not a useless stat

It's not a useless stat.

Good pitchers don't generally lose, and bad pitchers don't generally win. You have Rick Hellings and Ben Sheets that stray from that, but for the most part a 500 pitcher like Shark is a 500 pitcher.

 

[nwfisch]

In short, you can look at wins/losses and say well this guy is good, bad or somewhere in the middle, but a true analysis requires using all the stats/metrics available.

I don't think analyzing a pitcher by Ws/Ls is the best alone, but it can give a decent snapshot of what the pitcher has done.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I believe there is a "the will to win" factor and a solid leader can inspire. Tebow factor. It doesn't replace talent but it can get others to give a shit about winning.

Tebow for Governor!!!

 

[beckdawg]

In short, you can look at wins/losses and say well this guy is good, bad or somewhere in the middle, but a true analysis requires using all the stats/metrics available.

I don't agree really. I gave a great example of why in the Hernandez example. A 12-10 record would be an "average" pitcher and he's clearly better than that. If all you're looking at is a quick snapshot then just look at ERA and filter over innings pitched to produce starters for whatever point you are in the season. For example, right now you could filter 100 IP and look at ERAs to get an idea of who's decent and who's not. I'd still argue ERA isn't a complete picture as often FIP points out pitchers who were let down by their defense. But, if you're just looking at a simple way without much effort ERA is a much better indication than wins.

 

[brett05]

The problem with ERA is it is just that a number. 3.29 is an era. Over how much, no one knows. 300 wins though is also a number and says a lot about the quality of a pitcher.

 

[beckdawg]

The problem with ERA is it is just that a number. 3.29 is an era. Over how much, no one knows. 300 wins though is also a number and says a lot about the quality of a pitcher.

Hence why i said you filter it over IP for whatever a starter should have pitched at that point in the season. Additionally, if someone has 300 wins their ERA is probably pretty decent considering that's hall of fame level. It's not like someone is going to have a 5 ERA and win 300 games.

To illustrate my point about wins, Jeremy Guthrie has 15 wins tied for 9th in the majors with a 4 ERA. Clearly he's not the 9th best pitcher in the league. But, if we're using wins as a measuring stick then he is. Conversely, if you filter qualified starters and sort by era in the top 20 the only names with a bad win loss are Stephen Strasburg, Felix Hernandez, Chris Sale, Andrew Cashner, and Travis Wood and you could make the argument for those pitchers being top 20.

 

[brett05]

Hence why i said you filter it over IP for whatever a starter should have pitched at that point in the season. Additionally, if someone has 300 wins their ERA is probably pretty decent considering that's hall of fame level. It's not like someone is going to have a 5 ERA and win 300 games.

To illustrate my point about wins, Jeremy Guthrie has 15 wins tied for 9th in the majors with a 4 ERA. Clearly he's not the 9th best pitcher in the league. But, if we're using wins as a measuring stick then he is. Conversely, if you filter qualified starters and sort by era in the top 20 the only names with a bad win loss are Stephen Strasburg, Felix Hernandez, Chris Sale, Andrew Cashner, and Travis Wood and you could make the argument for those pitchers being top 20.

1) your argument initially was ERA over Wins. I think you've come to the side of Wins over ERA.
2) You adjust to ERA over a period of time. Not a bad thing at all and given enough time very valuable, maybe even more than Wins, but now it's two stats, not one.
3) You are right that there isn't going to be a 5+ era with 300 wins. That's a case for Wins, not ERA, right?

Some (not saying you are though you might be) try to say wins don't matter in the quality of a pitcher. In the short term, perhaps it doesn't (Steve Carlton says hi), but in the long term it says a lot.

 

[beckdawg]

1) your argument initially was ERA over Wins. I think you've come to the side of Wins over ERA.
2) You adjust to ERA over a period of time. Not a bad thing at all and given enough time very valuable, maybe even more than Wins, but now it's two stats, not one.
3) You are right that there isn't going to be a 5+ era with 300 wins. That's a case for Wins, not ERA, right?

Some (not saying you are though you might be) try to say wins don't matter in the quality of a pitcher. In the short term, perhaps it does (Steve Carlton says hi), but in the long term it says a lot.

I've not come over to wins. My point is era leads to wins not the other way around. Wins can be heavily misleading as has been discussed here. On the other hand, generally someone with a low ERA will be a pretty good pitcher if you account for sample size which is why I brought up IP. And a pitcher like king felix can be a good pitcher with an average W/L record. If that's all you look at then you'll miss guys who lack run support or have terrible bullpens behind them.

If you look at this link, it's easy to defend most of the guys on here. Some like Cashner and Wood might be higher than you expect based off their FIP/xFIP but there really isn't a bad pitcher there. But as I said, if all you want is a quick glance at who the best pitchers have been without digging deep into it, ERA over qualified innings is a much better indicator. As such, I really don't put stock in W/L.

 

[brett05]

I've not come over to wins. My point is era leads to wins not the other way around. Wins can be heavily misleading as has been discussed here. On the other hand, generally someone with a low ERA will be a pretty good pitcher if you account for sample size which is why I brought up IP. And a pitcher like king felix can be a good pitcher with an average W/L record. If that's all you look at then you'll miss guys who lack run support or have terrible bullpens behind them.

If you look at this link, it's easy to defend most of the guys on here. Some like Cashner and Wood might be higher than you expect based off their FIP/xFIP but there really isn't a bad pitcher there. But as I said, if all you want is a quick glance at who the best pitchers have been without digging deep into it, ERA over qualified innings is a much better indicator. As such, I really don't put stock in W/L.

When I say you have come over to Wins it's purely in the context of Wins to ERA. The importance long term is clear.

The Quest is for one stat, you keep using multiple. We agree on the short term wins aren't so telling, but long term you agree seem to agree it is. Felix will get over 200 wins in his career if he remains healthy even with the Mariners. That says good pitcher. No one debates better ways on telling value by using multiple stats. The debate is on using only one stat and is the stat Wins that stat. What tells someone that the pitcher was great? I think Wins isn't getting its due.

 

[beckdawg]

When I say you have come over to Wins it's purely in the context of Wins to ERA. The importance long term is clear.

The Quest is for one stat, you keep using multiple. We agree on the short term wins aren't so telling, but long term you agree it is. Felix will get over 20 wins in his career if he remains healthy even with the Mariners. That says good pitcher. No one debates better ways on telling value by suing multiple stats. The debate is on using only one what tells someone that the pitcher was great? I think Wins isn't getting its due.

If you want one individual stat use WAR. I don't really see the problem with using IP with regard to ERA. You have to account for sample size or else you end up with relief pitchers included in a sampling where you're looking at starters. And in the case of fan graphs, they automatically filter out unqualified players so it's not like you have to do anything when viewing their stats.

 

[nwfisch]

I don't agree really. I gave a great example of why in the Hernandez example. A 12-10 record would be an "average" pitcher and he's clearly better than that. If all you're looking at is a quick snapshot then just look at ERA and filter over innings pitched to produce starters for whatever point you are in the season. For example, right now you could filter 100 IP and look at ERAs to get an idea of who's decent and who's not. I'd still argue ERA isn't a complete picture as often FIP points out pitchers who were let down by their defense. But, if you're just looking at a simple way without much effort ERA is a much better indication than wins.

But when analyzing Hernandez's career, we can look at a few things.

1. Is the 12-10 an outlier?
2.. How good were the Mariner teams he pitched on?
3. The role the DH has played in his career.
4. Steroid questions

You see what I'm saying?

 

[brett05]

If you want one individual stat use WAR. I don't really see the problem with using IP with regard to ERA. You have to account for sample size or else you end up with relief pitchers included in a sampling where you're looking at starters. And in the case of fan graphs, they automatically filter out unqualified players so it's not like you have to do anything when viewing their stats.

WAR isn't a stat, it's a metric IIRC. It's also not a consistently defined metric nor is it easy to compute.

ERA is a stat, so is IP. Combined they count as two stats.

 

[beckdawg]

But when analyzing Hernandez's career, we can look at a few things.

1. Is the 12-10 an outlier?
2.. How good were the Mariner teams he pitched on?
3. The role the DH has played in his career.
4. Steroid questions

You see what I'm saying?

All I'm saying is it's a lot easier to look who had a 3.20 career ERA and say yeah they are probably a pretty good pitcher than to look at a 110-86 record. For example, AJ Burnett is 110-94 with a 4.05 ERA over the same time period and has a career ERA of 4. It's a lot easier to look at each pitchers ERA and tell the difference than it is based off W/L record.

 

[beckdawg]

WAR isn't a stat, it's a metric IIRC. It's also not a consistently defined metric nor is it easy to compute.

ERA is a stat, so is IP. Combined they count as two stats.

Now you're just being semantic. If you want to be that way fine, wins are useless out of context without losses. For example, if I tell you someone has 12 wins without knowing how many losses that information isn't really useful. Someone who's 12-12 like Feldman is no where as good as someone who is 12-6 like Jose Fernadez.

 

[CSF77]

I'm personal to WHIP. Keeping guys off base leads to lower ERA and a better chance at winning games.

 

[brett05]

Now you're just being semantic. If you want to be that way fine, wins are useless out of context without losses. For example, if I tell you someone has 12 wins without knowing how many losses that information isn't really useful. Someone who's 12-12 like Feldman is no where as good as someone who is 12-6 like Jose Fernadez.

It's not semantics in the least. You tell me two pitchers have 12 wins. I say both pitchers are not good. You say Feldman and Fernandez. I say two pitchers that aren't in the top 500 at this time. I'd be right and all from just wins.