Krukie called out...

[DiamondMind]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

[flyseye]

I think in all of these Wins arguments, there's a subtle grammatical issue behind most of the disagreement.

 

Wins are not a meaningless statistic -- a good pitcher is more likely to get Ws than a worse pitcher. Wins are the point of baseball, like every sport. Thus, a good pitcher will often get a fair amount of wins.

 

Wins are a virtually meaningless tool of stat analysis. As David said, "Why use inferior tools when superior tools are readily available for everyone." Wins add virtually no meaning to the statistical value of a pitcher (due to all of the non-pitcher factors; and look at all the comparative and qualifying words in my description above...), whereas other stats can give a more varied, accurate picture of that player's performance.

 

I pretty much agree with this .

 

Meaningless= totally without value.

 

Lets say all you know about pitcher Joe Blow is that he went 20-9 for the year. At the very least you can glean from this limited information :

 

Joe Blow was probably healthy the entire year, one of the most important factors in evaluating a pitcher. You don't really think there were better offers for Rich Harden than the somewhat pathetic one we gave do you ? Of course not. Simply because Harden, despite his fantastic numbers, is unlikely to win very many games because he is only capable of limping to the mound for 5 innings at a time, 15 times a year at best. So we have determined that Joe Blow probably managed to at the very least stay healthy, simply by his won-loss record. This fact alone removes the win statistic from the meaningless category.

 

2. That despite anything else, Joe Blow managed to go 5+ innings at least 20 times. No small feat. Nothing earth shattering, but still not in anyones definition I have ever met as " meaningless".

 

3. That more than likely Joe Blow at least, somehow, someway, managed to keep his team in the game a significant number of times. Once again, earth shattering info? No. Meaningless ? No again.

 

If you look at the previously mentioned Bert Blyleven, and look only at his 279 or whatever wins, you can, at minimum, assume that over his career he managed to stay relatively healthy, and pitched well enough for a long period to keep a job at the major league level. This is not meaningless information. It has value. Do inquiring minds want to know more ? Sure. But the information is far from meaningless.

[DiamondMind]

I think in all of these Wins arguments, there's a subtle grammatical issue behind most of the disagreement.

 

Wins are not a meaningless statistic -- a good pitcher is more likely to get Ws than a worse pitcher. Wins are the point of baseball, like every sport. Thus, a good pitcher will often get a fair amount of wins.

 

Wins are a virtually meaningless tool of stat analysis. As David said, "Why use inferior tools when superior tools are readily available for everyone." Wins add virtually no meaning to the statistical value of a pitcher (due to all of the non-pitcher factors; and look at all the comparative and qualifying words in my description above...), whereas other stats can give a more varied, accurate picture of that player's performance.

 

I pretty much agree with this .

 

Meaningless= totally without value.

 

Lets say all you know about pitcher Joe Blow is that he went 20-9 for the year. At the very least you can glean from this limited information :

 

Joe Blow was probably healthy the entire year, one of the most important factors in evaluating a pitcher. You don't really think there were better offers for Rich Harden than the somewhat pathetic one we gave do you ? Of course not. Simply because Harden, despite his fantastic numbers, is unlikely to win very many games because he is only capable of limping to the mound for 5 innings at a time, 15 times a year at best. So we have determined that Joe Blow probably managed to at the very least stay healthy, simply by his won-loss record. This fact alone removes the win statistic from the meaningless category.

 

2. That despite anything else, Joe Blow managed to go 5+ innings at least 20 times. No small feat. Nothing earth shattering, but still not in anyones definition I have ever met as " meaningless".

 

3. That more than likely Joe Blow at least, somehow, someway, managed to keep his team in the game a significant number of times. Once again, earth shattering info? No. Meaningless ? No again.

 

If you look at the previously mentioned Bert Blyleven, and look only at his 279 or whatever wins, you can, at minimum, assume that over his career he managed to stay relatively healthy, and pitched well enough for a long period to keep a job at the major league level. This is not meaningless information. It has value. Do inquiring minds want to know more ? Sure. But the information is far from meaningless.

 

This post is full of win and I really hope it shuts some people up, at least temporarily.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

 

Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player.

[flyseye]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

 

Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player.

 

So then, to follow your logic, a player with a high amount of wins = an above average player, making the win statistic far from meaningless ?

[David]

I think in all of these Wins arguments, there's a subtle grammatical issue behind most of the disagreement.

 

Wins are not a meaningless statistic -- a good pitcher is more likely to get Ws than a worse pitcher. Wins are the point of baseball, like every sport. Thus, a good pitcher will often get a fair amount of wins.

 

Wins are a virtually meaningless tool of stat analysis. As David said, "Why use inferior tools when superior tools are readily available for everyone." Wins add virtually no meaning to the statistical value of a pitcher (due to all of the non-pitcher factors; and look at all the comparative and qualifying words in my description above...), whereas other stats can give a more varied, accurate picture of that player's performance.

 

I pretty much agree with this .

 

Meaningless= totally without value.

 

Lets say all you know about pitcher Joe Blow is that he went 20-9 for the year. At the very least you can glean from this limited information :

 

Joe Blow was probably healthy the entire year, one of the most important factors in evaluating a pitcher. You don't really think there were better offers for Rich Harden than the somewhat pathetic one we gave do you ? Of course not. Simply because Harden, despite his fantastic numbers, is unlikely to win very many games because he is only capable of limping to the mound for 5 innings at a time, 15 times a year at best. So we have determined that Joe Blow probably managed to at the very least stay healthy, simply by his won-loss record. This fact alone removes the win statistic from the meaningless category.

 

2. That despite anything else, Joe Blow managed to go 5+ innings at least 20 times. No small feat. Nothing earth shattering, but still not in anyones definition I have ever met as " meaningless".

 

3. That more than likely Joe Blow at least, somehow, someway, managed to keep his team in the game a significant number of times. Once again, earth shattering info? No. Meaningless ? No again.

 

If you look at the previously mentioned Bert Blyleven, and look only at his 279 or whatever wins, you can, at minimum, assume that over his career he managed to stay relatively healthy, and pitched well enough for a long period to keep a job at the major league level. This is not meaningless information. It has value. Do inquiring minds want to know more ? Sure. But the information is far from meaningless.

 

Except that all of this can be determined, and determined with more precision and certainty, by looking at other numbers, numbers that are found in the same places you would go to find their record.

 

It's a joke stat that shouldn't even be kept, but I digress.

[David]

Not to mention the ridiculous arbitrary stipulations written into the W-L rule in order for a PITCHER to be awarded a win that the team achieved.

 

It's almost as stupid as the QS stat.

[TruffleShuffle]

Except that all of this can be determined, and determined with more precision and certainty, by looking at other numbers, numbers that are found in the same places you would go to find their record.

 

It's a joke stat that shouldn't even be kept, but I digress.

 

it's a stat that shouldn't mean nearly as much as it does to many people, but it's been a part of baseball for 130 years... no reason it should go away.

[David]

Except that all of this can be determined, and determined with more precision and certainty, by looking at other numbers, numbers that are found in the same places you would go to find their record.

 

It's a joke stat that shouldn't even be kept, but I digress.

 

it's a stat that shouldn't mean nearly as much as it does to many people, but it's been a part of baseball for 130 years... no reason it should go away.

 

that's about the best case one could make for keeping it around.

 

That's fine. I can ignore it and old timey people can keep looking to it. I just wish more people knew what it really means.

[flyseye]

Why do you keep bringing up that the information can be gotten elsewhere ? What does that have to do with a stat being meaningless or not ? You are simply putting a spin on this that means nothing.

 

I demonstrated without question that you can glean much information by simply looking at a pitchers won/loss record. This alone proves that won/loss records are not totally meaningless. Actually, if looking only at a single stat, won/loss probably tells you as much about a pitchers overall performance over a season, or a career, than any other single stat. Nothing else tells you much of anything without at least combining that info with innings/games pitched.

 

EVERYBODY ( except maybe Kruk and Morgan) knows that there are more accurate ways to judge a pitcher. This is hardly a revelation to most. That fact doesn't render won/loss records totally meaningless.

 

Look, I am through discussing this. I have never read/heard a single person who's opinion I value make the inane blanket statement " wins are meaningless " in the context with which it is used by some. That is because they do not want to sound foolish.

 

Edit: FWIW I agree 100% with Truffle's statement "it's a stat that shouldn't mean nearly as much as it does to many people ". This is very true. Still doesn't =meaningless.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

 

Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player.

 

So then, to follow your logic, a player with a high amount of wins = an above average player, making the win statistic far from meaningless ?

 

Yeah, that's missing the point. Yes players who accumulate a whole lot of PAs in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad player out there that often.

 

Players who accumulate a lot of wins in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad pitcher out there that often.

 

Let me know next time somebody cites PAs as proof that somebody's good.

[flyseye]

 

 

Players who accumulate a lot of wins in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad pitcher out there that often.

 

Let me know next time somebody cites PAs as proof that somebody's good.

 

Wow, this is a mess. Your first sentence simply states yet another example of the win stat not being totally meaningless.

 

As for your second sentence, you have already done a fine job of that yourself. In your failed attempt to be clever, you have, in fact, shown an example where even PA's are not meaningless.

 

I really am done now.

[imb]

seriously though, wins are meaningless. i thought we were all better than this. i don't like any one particular stat when it comes to any baseball player, but as far as measuring pitchers, it's near the bottom of the barrel.

[SouthSideRyan]

Everything in the world tells us something. Nothing is "meaningless" Is it okay if we stop calling things meaningless and call them really really stupid?

[David]

Everything in the world tells us something. Nothing is "meaningless" Is it okay if we stop calling things meaningless and call them really really stupid?

 

Seriously, what a ridiculous argument. It's like if I said "Neifi is worthless," and someone else is like, "No he's not. He got hits and threw guys out sometimes."

[javy knows my name]

Yikes. New guy has 18 posts and half of them are defending pitcher W/L record.

Also, maybe I read this wrong, but it sounded like you were addressing the Blyleven comment as if his win total was an overestimation of his abilities. It is, of course, a gross underestimation because the man played on some of the worst teams in baseball for the majority of his career and all that's keeping him out of the HOF is his inability to reach a completely arbitrary number of a meaningless counting stat.

[flyseye]

Jeez, you guys aren't even any fun. Where's Lowblow when you need him.

 

I give you proof of a few things that can be determined by looking only at a pitchers won/loss record. And the best you can come up with is a completely irrelevant " I thought we were better than this", yet another pointless Neifi reference , and a cheap shot comment about the " new guy " accented with a totally needless and not at all effective "yikes", while at the same time twisting my position into one where I am DEFENDING the won/loss record, which you are all intelligent enough to know is not true. Well at least none of you stooped to using any smiley faces.

[David]

Jeez, you guys aren't even any fun. Where's Lowblow when you need him.

 

I give you proof of a few things that can be determined by looking only at a pitchers won/loss record. And the best you can come up with is a completely irrelevant " I thought we were better than this", yet another pointless Neifi reference , and a cheap shot comment about the " new guy " accented with a totally needless and not at all effective "yikes", while at the same time twisting my position into one where I am DEFENDING the won/loss record, which you are all intelligent enough to know is not true. Well at least none of you stooped to using any smiley faces.

 

It's not pointless. It illustrated my point effectively. :P :mrgreen: :) :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

[MPrior]

Everyone's just arguing semantics. I suppose, strictly speaking, that wins are not truly "meaningless" if you think that the ability to loosely extrapolate some educated guesses about a pitcher's performance from them gives them meaning. However, if you define meaning as having some intrinsic value on its own, then pitcher wins are meaningless. It's a team-based statistic that is determined by a set of nearly entirely arbitrary circumstances. The only "meaning" wins and losses have is given to them by the (very loose) correlation they have with other more direct reflections of a pitcher's value. So it really depends on how you think about "meaning."

 

But all of that is pointless. Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness. Whether or not they're "meaningless" is largely irrelevant.

[David]

Everyone's just arguing semantics. I suppose, strictly speaking, that wins are not truly "meaningless" if you think that the ability to loosely extrapolate some educated guesses about a pitcher's performance from them gives them meaning. However, if you define meaning as having some intrinsic value on its own, then pitcher wins are meaningless. It's a team-based statistic that is determined by a set of nearly entirely arbitrary circumstances. The only "meaning" wins and losses have is given to them by the (very loose) correlation they have with other more direct reflections of a pitcher's value. So it really depends on how you think about "meaning."

 

But all of that is pointless. Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness. Whether or not they're "meaningless" is largely irrelevant.

 

Especially when you have FAR better methods of determining it available. The fact that many people still use it as the main way to determine a pitcher's worth is probably what frustrates me most about it and is why I dislike the stat so much.

[wade]

It's simple. There are more confounding variables regarding wins as a response variable in measuring pitchers than many other response variables, such as WHIP, HR/9, K/9, etc.

 

(I'm taking an intro to Stats class and I'm using this thread as homework :D )

[nilodnayr]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

 

Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player.

 

So then, to follow your logic, a player with a high amount of wins = an above average player, making the win statistic far from meaningless ?

 

Yeah, that's missing the point. Yes players who accumulate a whole lot of PAs in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad player out there that often.

 

Players who accumulate a lot of wins in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad pitcher out there that often.

 

Let me know next time somebody cites PAs as proof that somebody's good.

 

aka selection bias

[wade]

Wins are about as good as PAs are for batters over a career.

 

Wow, um, no.

 

Look through the career leaders in PAs and find me a below average player.

 

So then, to follow your logic, a player with a high amount of wins = an above average player, making the win statistic far from meaningless ?

 

Yeah, that's missing the point. Yes players who accumulate a whole lot of PAs in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad player out there that often.

 

Players who accumulate a lot of wins in their career are going to turn out to be good players because nobody's going to run a bad pitcher out there that often.

 

Let me know next time somebody cites PAs as proof that somebody's good.

 

aka selection bias

 

Ooh, I haven't had that yet.

[flyseye]

Everyone's just arguing semantics. I suppose, strictly speaking, that wins are not truly "meaningless" if you think that the ability to loosely extrapolate some educated guesses about a pitcher's performance from them gives them meaning. However, if you define meaning as having some intrinsic value on its own, then pitcher wins are meaningless. It's a team-based statistic that is determined by a set of nearly entirely arbitrary circumstances. The only "meaning" wins and losses have is given to them by the (very loose) correlation they have with other more direct reflections of a pitcher's value. So it really depends on how you think about "meaning."

 

But all of that is pointless. Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness. Whether or not they're "meaningless" is largely irrelevant.

 

Well it is relevant if you have people stating they are meaningless. I agree with everything you said, and agree that to some extent I was just arguing semantics. I still feel I made a relevant point.

 

To take this one step further, what I have gathered from reading numerous sources is this : Won loss records, as a measuring statistic are meaningless for relief pitchers, and a poor stat to judge a starters effectiveness. Bill James actually went so far as to state :

 

""However, I would have trouble now with my original argument

that the pitcher has no ability to win, other than what is reflected in his runs allowed. There may in fact be some ability to win, in the way the old-time baseball guys imagined that there was. There may be some pitchers who have some ability to win games 3-2 and 9-8. Sabermetrics has traditionally discounted

the existence of this ability at any level. I would now argue that it may exist at some fairly low level.""

 

He goes on to explain that his initial method was flawed, but I will not get into that here.

 

Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness is a statement with which I would never argue. Wins are meaningless on the other hand I find quoted a lot by people who read stats, quote stats, but do not fully understand them. It certainly is the new cliche. That does not make it correct.

[David]

It's not a misunderstanding. It's a figure of speech.

 

Almost all absolute terms are exaggerations in practice, to some extent.

 

How many things that you call "worthless" are actually truly worthless? But if you want to make an argument about how wins aren't TRULY 100% meaningless when you know that the people who say they are aren't truly claiming that they have zero meaning to the letter of the dictionary definition of the word, go ahead.

 

I don't disagree with your original point. I'll leave it at that.