I Know We Shouldn't Count on Wade Miller, But...

[nilodnayr]

However there might be such pitchers that "keep you in the game". Will Marquis do that? I don't know. I do not look at advanced stats like ERA+ because frankly I never took the time to understand them. What I do look at is ERA. Which is simple for me to understand.

 

An interesting note. When I look at Marquis history, when he pitches close to a ful season. The first couple of years he did that in Atlanta he had good years, then a down year, first couple for St. Louis had good years, then a bad year. Is it crazy to think when he first "takes" to a pitching coach he does well, but then he goes into his old habbits? Maybe it's possible he "took" to Larry and will pitch a couple of good years. I know this is a different take on it, but I like to look at psychology in baseball sometimes.

 

By the way, I'm sorry I went off topic. But I think this is relevant to the recent discussions. .

 

Here is a very good explanation of ERA+

 

Its a really easy stat to understand.

[nilodnayr]

 

it's funny how most if not all of the people who actually get paid to run baseball teams put value in the # of wins by a pitcher-similar to batting average for a hitter.

 

And why does that make it right? Is there no value in questioning the commonly perceived notion? The Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, does that mean they are right? Its funny that the the President is a bithering idiot, but hey, we re-elected him, so everything he says and thinks must be right (and Im a Republican).

 

Do you blindly agree with everything your boss or manager or CEO says? Well they are getting paid to run the company, so how could they be wrong?

the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe can be disproven while the value of wins by a pitcher is based on pure opinion. i just happen to value the opinion of people who have actually participated in major leauge baseball above people that will never participate other than being spectators. who knows more about flying a plane-a seasoned pilot or a guy who messes around with a flight simulator on his pc? questioning the value of a commonly perceived notion and saying that someone is a fool if they disagree with you are two totally different things.

 

A pitcher is awareded a win if he leaves the game after the fifth inning and his offense has scored at least one run and has the lead and his team keeps the lead through the end of the game. Therefore the pitcher and his defense must allow less runs than his team scores on offense before the game is over and in games inwhich he does not complete, he must rely on his relievers and defense to not allow the other team to take the lead at any point. THERE, by explaining how a win is awarded, I disproved that it is a good stat to value a pitcher. How much of that verbage is about the pitcher and how much is about other factors?

[XZero771679666304]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

A lot of "baseball people" say a lot of stupid things. It's just not logical at all. You are either effective, or you are not. Wins and losses are a byproduct largely dependent on the offense, not the pitcher. This isn't about sabremetrics or statistics. It's stone cold logic.

 

If your offense isn't scoring, is their some bit of arcane baseball knowledge that will allow you to counteract it? Of course not. You can pitch as well as you can, nothing more. A great pitcher can learn to minimize the damage when he doesn't have his "A" game, but that is knowing how to pitch, not "knowing how to win".

 

A pitcher can go out and pitch the best he can, be it with stuff, or with guile. Unfortunately, he is dependent on his team to win the game for him, because no matter how well he pitches, it won't put runs on the board.

 

I am not one who dismisses all things that cannot be quantified. I believe a hitter can psyche himself out, or shrink his strike zone and become more selective in clutch situations. Clutch or not clutch has a very real explanation.

 

But the whole notion of "knowing how to win" is bunk. Total, unadulterated myth. An attempt by some to inject more into the equation than is actually there. A pitcher can use any method, any strategy, any knowledge to shut down the opponent. But in the end, it's just knowing how to pitch. He won't ever win games on his own merit. There is no logical argument to the contrary.

[nilodnayr]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

If you are using an outcome to measure the value of an individual player and as a predictor for future outcomes then you must ascertain how much influence that individual player has on the outcome. Pitchers have a significant influence over the outcome of a win, but so does their offense , their defense, and luck. If you look at ERA, you get a better idea of a pitchers value by eliminating their offense. If you look at DIPS, you get a better idead by eliminating their defense. If you look at component ERA, you get a better idea by eliminating some luck. If you look at ERA+ you get a better idea by eliminating park factors and comparing to the league. Obviously the game is not played in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you have to value individual players using team statistics. Wins are a poor statistic in quanifying a pitchers value to a team because it is an outcome that a pitcher has a minority of influence upon. I dont understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

Steve Stone was really good at knowing what pitches would be thrown in what situations, but other than that from all the comments he has made post-Cubs, he has shown that he is not the baseball genius we all thought he was.

 

that's your opinion but i think it safe to say that he knows quite a bit more about pitching and pitchers by far than anyone on this board.

 

well not to be a hyocrit, but Steve Stone wants to be a general manager, but its funny that those guys who get paid to decide who a general manager is haven't exactly hired Steve yet.

 

Harold Reynolds knows quite a bit more about hitting and hitters (and hitting on women) than anyone on this board, but that doesnt mean I have to be a sheep and follow his opinion that valuing a player on runs scored is the way to go.

[XZero771679666304]

 

well not to be a hyocrit, but Steve Stone wants to be a general manager, but its funny that those guys who get paid to decide who a general manager is haven't exactly hired Steve yet.

 

Harold Reynolds knows quite a bit more about hitting and hitters (and hitting on women) than anyone on this board, but that doesnt mean I have to be a sheep and follow his opinion that valuing a player on runs scored is the way to go.

 

My opinion of Stone has taken a nose dive in the past year or so. I thought he was a baseball genius for years, but after hearing much of what he has said recently, I can't say I still believe that, or even close.

 

But in general athletes invariably try and inject some superstition and athletic mysticism into the games they play. Having experience, or having been good at something does not make you an expert. One only has to listen to guys like Morgan and McCarver to realize that.

[A New Era]

However there might be such pitchers that "keep you in the game". Will Marquis do that? I don't know. I do not look at advanced stats like ERA+ because frankly I never took the time to understand them. What I do look at is ERA. Which is simple for me to understand.

 

An interesting note. When I look at Marquis history, when he pitches close to a ful season. The first couple of years he did that in Atlanta he had good years, then a down year, first couple for St. Louis had good years, then a bad year. Is it crazy to think when he first "takes" to a pitching coach he does well, but then he goes into his old habbits? Maybe it's possible he "took" to Larry and will pitch a couple of good years. I know this is a different take on it, but I like to look at psychology in baseball sometimes.

 

By the way, I'm sorry I went off topic. But I think this is relevant to the recent discussions. .

 

Here is a very good explanation of ERA+

 

Its a really easy stat to understand.

 

Thank you, what about the other stuff? K9/B ~~ I think that means balls and strikes per nine innings.

[UK1679666180]

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

That's more under the realm of poise and maturity moreso than (an intangible) a greater ability to win.

 

That ability doesn't factor over the course of the season to say that a 15 win pitcher is one that has a greater poise over someone that won 10 games compared to the pitcher's actual production and run support.

Edited January 13, 2007 by UK

[UK1679666180]

 

Thank you, what about the other stuff? K9/B ~~ I think that means balls and strikes per nine innings.

 

BB per 9= (BBs/IP)*9

K per 9=(K/IP)*9

[Backtobanks]

My only comment on using wins to evaluate a pitcher is that I don't care how good our starting pitching is, but if they average 15-17 wins each, the Cubs will be in the playoffs.

[nilodnayr]

However there might be such pitchers that "keep you in the game". Will Marquis do that? I don't know. I do not look at advanced stats like ERA+ because frankly I never took the time to understand them. What I do look at is ERA. Which is simple for me to understand.

 

An interesting note. When I look at Marquis history, when he pitches close to a ful season. The first couple of years he did that in Atlanta he had good years, then a down year, first couple for St. Louis had good years, then a bad year. Is it crazy to think when he first "takes" to a pitching coach he does well, but then he goes into his old habbits? Maybe it's possible he "took" to Larry and will pitch a couple of good years. I know this is a different take on it, but I like to look at psychology in baseball sometimes.

 

By the way, I'm sorry I went off topic. But I think this is relevant to the recent discussions. .

 

Here is a very good explanation of ERA+

 

Its a really easy stat to understand.

 

Thank you, what about the other stuff? K9/B ~~ I think that means balls and strikes per nine innings.

 

THT has a good glossary.

Its also a great website to visit daily to read their interesting articles.

[Outshined_One]

Stats like ERA+ and OPS+ are simple. The higher over 100 a player is, the better he is. It's another one of those useful stats that compare players' performances to other players in their era.

 

So, a 120 ERA+ would make Wade Miller a well-above average pitcher compared to his peers.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I would like to go on record here in January and echo a comment Tim has made several times--I expect a breakout season in 07 for Angel Guzman. In the ideal scenario, Miller shows he's healthy, making him tradeable for other needs during the season, and The Gooz claims the #5 spot for himself. This would offer the added bonus of giving Sean Marshall a full season in AAA, which IMO, he needs (if for no other reason to build up durability and refine his breaking ball).

 

If Prior is actually healthy and effective, then all bets are off, but that would be a lovely problem to have. Needless to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Gooooooozzzzz..........

[A New Era]

My mind and hopes are on Hill having a stellar year. Then Gooz. Nonetheless, I hope somebody has a breakout year, I don't care who it is. Miller, Gooz, Prior. Somebody, plz.

[10man]

no team in all of baseball has a lock on health for their rotation. none. all teams are in the same boat regarding the unpredictability of how good the starters will be. at this point the cubs are no worse or better than any team. we just hope for the best health possible with what we have and barring that there is pretty good depth on the team now.

 

and i know that no one wants to count on Prior as a lock for this year's rotation but i will go out on a limb here and predict that Mark will be back in form this year and will pitch around 200 innings this season.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I would like to go on record here in January and echo a comment Tim has made several times--I expect a breakout season in 07 for Angel Guzman. In the ideal scenario, Miller shows he's healthy, making him tradeable for other needs during the season, and The Gooz claims the #5 spot for himself. This would offer the added bonus of giving Sean Marshall a full season in AAA, which IMO, he needs (if for no other reason to build up durability and refine his breaking ball).

 

If Prior is actually healthy and effective, then all bets are off, but that would be a lovely problem to have. Needless to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Gooooooozzzzz..........

 

A super scenario would be that Guz has his break-out season. Prior is effective and healthy and Miller regains the form he had in Houston. At the same time, Marquis is able to maintain an ERA near 4.50. The Cubs could then trade some of the excess. Guzman performing well with his price would be extremely valuable as he'd still be cheap. Teams might also take a bite on Marquis, and the Cubs could move Guzman into that spot....and Miller would be a nice trade chip to a team needing a one-year stopgap in a penant race.

 

While the liklihood of all that happening is slim, I'm in an optimistic mood right now.

[BigbadB]

I always like to use this example to disprove the value of wins.

 

In 2004, Brandon Webb went 7-16 with an ERA+ of 124 in 208 IP.

In 2004, Russ Ortiz went 15-9 with an ERA+ of 104 in 204 IP.

 

Brandon Webb ERA that year: 3.59

Russ Ortiz ERA that year: 4.13

 

Brandon played on one of the worst teams in the 21st century. Ortiz played on a very good scoring Atlanta team.

 

If you didn't have the names listed, which players stats would you rather have on your team? Also, Russ Ortiz is a 20 game winner, Brandon Webb is not.

 

Heck, Russ Ortiz' 15-9 is almost as good as Carlos Zambrano's 16-8. Carlos had an ERA+ of 165 that year. Wins are close, but that's the only thing close about them.

 

Heck again, Jason Marquis won 14 games last year with a 6.02 ERA and a 73 ERA+.

 

Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood AND Mark Prior all would be 20 game winners at this stage of their careers if they played for even a semi-decent team at scoring runs.

 

That same year, Greg Maddux was 16-11 with a 4.02 ERA. Matt Clement was 9-13 with a 3.68 ERA. Matt had a better ERA+ as well.

 

Maddux gave up 4 earned runs or more in 12 games. Clement gave up 4 earned runs or more in 9 games. Clement gave up 2 runs or less in 15 starts. Maddux gave up 2 runs or less in 17 starts.

 

Given this information, is there any possible way to take this information and come to any conclusion whatsoever that one pitcher would end the season 16-11, and the other would end up 9-13?

 

Given this information, can you look at the wins and losses between the two players, and determine that the guy who won 16 games was clearly the better pitcher that year?

 

I sure can't.

[mg420]

I always like to use this example to disprove the value of wins.

 

In 2004, Brandon Webb went 7-16 with an ERA+ of 124 in 208 IP.

In 2004, Russ Ortiz went 15-9 with an ERA+ of 104 in 204 IP.

 

Brandon Webb ERA that year: 3.59

Russ Ortiz ERA that year: 4.13

 

Brandon played on one of the worst teams in the 21st century. Ortiz played on a very good scoring Atlanta team.

 

If you didn't have the names listed, which players stats would you rather have on your team? Also, Russ Ortiz is a 20 game winner, Brandon Webb is not.

 

Heck, Russ Ortiz' 15-9 is almost as good as Carlos Zambrano's 16-8. Carlos had an ERA+ of 165 that year. Wins are close, but that's the only thing close about them.

 

Heck again, Jason Marquis won 14 games last year with a 6.02 ERA and a 73 ERA+.

 

Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood AND Mark Prior all would be 20 game winners at this stage of their careers if they played for even a semi-decent team at scoring runs.

 

That same year, Greg Maddux was 16-11 with a 4.02 ERA. Matt Clement was 9-13 with a 3.68 ERA. Matt had a better ERA+ as well.

 

Maddux gave up 4 earned runs or more in 12 games. Clement gave up 4 earned runs or more in 9 games. Clement gave up 2 runs or less in 15 starts. Maddux gave up 2 runs or less in 17 starts.

 

Given this information, is there any possible way to take this information and come to any conclusion whatsoever that one pitcher would end the season 16-11, and the other would end up 9-13?

 

Given this information, can you look at the wins and losses between the two players, and determine that the guy who won 16 games was clearly the better pitcher that year?

 

I sure can't.

so your logic is that because one pitcher with 7 wins had a better year than a pitcher with 16 wins, the # of wins are meaningless in determining a pitchers value?

[baseball7897]

I would like to go on record here in January and echo a comment Tim has made several times--I expect a breakout season in 07 for Angel Guzman. In the ideal scenario, Miller shows he's healthy, making him tradeable for other needs during the season, and The Gooz claims the #5 spot for himself. This would offer the added bonus of giving Sean Marshall a full season in AAA, which IMO, he needs (if for no other reason to build up durability and refine his breaking ball).

 

If Prior is actually healthy and effective, then all bets are off, but that would be a lovely problem to have. Needless to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Gooooooozzzzz..........

 

What makes you think he will have a breakout season in 07?

[nilodnayr]

so your logic is that because one pitcher with 7 wins had a better year than a pitcher with 16 wins, the # of wins are meaningless in determining a pitchers value?

 

His logic is that even though a pitcher can pitch well, he does not have anywhere near complete control over whether his team wins or loses. Wins are a TEAM stat and therefore are a much better way to display a team's value than an individual component of that team. A pitcher has the most control over the outcome of a win or loss than any other person on the team and hence some idiot a hundred and fifty years ago decided to award the pitcher a win or loss. Wins are not meaningless in determining a pitcher's value, just a poor way to do it.

[davearm]

If you can grasp why there's no such statistic as "winning hitter" or "winning fielder", then you can begin to comprehend why it's pretty silly to name a "winning pitcher".

 

And from there, it's a short trip to understanding why wins and losses are a poor way to measure a pitcher's performance.

[BigbadB]

so your logic is that because one pitcher with 7 wins had a better year than a pitcher with 16 wins, the # of wins are meaningless in determining a pitchers value?

 

My logic is that wins really have very little factor in determining a pitcher's value.

 

Let's go back and review Matt Clement some more.

 

In 2003, Clement went 14-12 with a 4.11 ERA. ERA+ was 103.

In 2004, Clement went 9-13 with a 3.68 ERA. ERA+ was 123.

In 2005, Clement went 13-6 with a 4.57 ERA. ERA+ was 96.

 

Clement pitched for a really good Boston team in 2005. His record reflects that.

 

2005 Run Support for Clement starts= 6.02

2004 Run Support for Clement starts= 3.86

2003 Run Support for Clement starts= 4.24

 

There is definitely a correlation between wins and run support. Run support is completely out of the pitcher's control. But, without good run support, his record will suffer. With excellent run support, the pitcher will have a much better record.

[Balsa]

I would like to go on record here in January and echo a comment Tim has made several times--I expect a breakout season in 07 for Angel Guzman.

I would also like to inquire about this statement. What about Angel Guzman leads you to believe this is his breakout season? If anything, I expect him to be regaining arm strength in AAA.

[fromthestretch]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

I guess Nolan Ryan forgot how to win in 1987, when he went 8-16 despite leading the league in ERA (142 ERA+). Jim Palmer apparently didn't know how to win in 1974 when he went 7-12 with a 3.27 ERA (105 ERA+). On the flip side, Bobby Witt was an expert in the field of winning in 1996, going 16-12 despite his 5.41 ERA (93 ERA+). Same with Steve Trachsel last year with his 15-8 record and 4.97 ERA (87 ERA+).

 

Over the course of a career, a good pitcher will most likely win more often than not, unless he spends his entire career on a very lousy team. Even then, he'll probably be over .500. However, I don't believe in the idea that pitchers "know how to win." Certain pitchers have the ability to keep their composure during tough innings or even tough at-bats. They know how to pace themselves and when to reach back for a little something extra. That's not knowing how to win, it's knowing how to pitch.

 

If you truly do value wins as an individual statistic, how much emphasis do you put on wins "earned" by a reliever? A guy can come into a game, cough up the lead, and have his team score enough runs to get the lead back before he's removed from the game and still get credit for the win.