"Kill the Win"

[Tim]

Fangraphs Article

 

Meatballs, each and every one of them.

 

My favorite is CJ Wilson:

I can understand why, if you’re in a fantasy league, you don’t want wins to be a limiting factor to how your team does. But baseball is about real wins, so it’s a real stat. A win also doesn’t assume anything, unlike a sabermetric stat like xFIP. If you’re going to kill a classic stat, the classic guys should be able to kill one of the saber stats. It’s all about context.”

[Guest]

Interesting that most of those guys came up with arguments against the win yet still all ended up saying keep it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I very much agree. Back when the guy who started the game finished the game, or at least went 7-8 innings on average, it made some sense. But even then, when the guy on the tail end do a 1-0 game gets a L or the guy on the winning side of a 13-11 game got the W, it's meaningless.

 

Also, the specifics are dumb. A SP must go at least a full 5 for a W, but can hypothetically throw a single pitch and be eligible for an L. (Say the first pitch he throws goes yard, he hurts his shoulder in the process, and the final score is 0-1.) But I digress.

 

Meanwhile, a reliever can come in, inherit a 3 run lead, then give up a quick 4, and finish the inning. Then his team comes to bat, scores 2-3 of their own, and they win. The reliever gets the W.

 

Bottom line is that the Quality Start should become far more of a thing.

[Guest]

I used to care about this a lot.

 

I remember getting super worked up in an argument with some guy 10 years ago or so when he insisted that 2004 Estes >>>>>>>>> 2004 Randy Johnson.

[Clem Fandango]

Wilson is right about context though. There's nothing wrong with wins as a statistic, it's the perception of its value in determining a players worth which is messed up. There's still too many people who use it to define pitcher success, and that's the problem, not the stat.

[Guest]

Wilson is right about context though. There's nothing wrong with wins as a statistic, it's the perception of its value in determining a players worth which is messed up. There's still too many people who use it to define pitcher success, and that's the problem, not the stat.

 

The stat is stupid and pointless. What's its actual purpose?

[sneakypower]

Wins are good for fantasy baseball

[SouthSideRyan]

I wouldn't say they're all meatballs.(few if any actually) Each of them seem to understand the limitation, but just like the tradition.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say they're all meatballs.(few if any actually) Each of them seem to understand the limitation, but just like the tradition.

The simplicity of reaching to be a 20 win pitcher is appealing to them all. Most of them probably don't care about the difference between a 12 and 14 win season, but that 20 mark has significance to players and they don't want to lose that, along with the career milestone numbers like 250/300.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wilson is right about context though. There's nothing wrong with wins as a statistic, it's the perception of its value in determining a players worth which is messed up. There's still too many people who use it to define pitcher success, and that's the problem, not the stat.

 

The stat is stupid and pointless. What's its actual purpose?

 

Yeah, it's not like it's on the level of things like batting average or even RBI's, which are misused but are still actually telling you something and have some value. Pitching W/L basically tells you nothing.

[Guest]

Wilson is right about context though. There's nothing wrong with wins as a statistic, it's the perception of its value in determining a players worth which is messed up. There's still too many people who use it to define pitcher success, and that's the problem, not the stat.

 

The stat is stupid and pointless. What's its actual purpose?

 

Yeah, it's not like it's on the level of things like batting average or even RBI's, which are misused but are still actually telling you something and have some value. Pitching W/L basically tells you nothing.

Worse, it can be completely misleading. If it told you nothing, that would be better.

[Andy]

I used to care about this a lot.

 

I remember getting super worked up in an argument with some guy 10 years ago or so when he insisted that 2004 Estes >>>>>>>>> 2004 Randy Johnson.

I got into a very heated argument with a Mets fan back in I think 2008. Johan Santana was something like 9-8 for the season with a sub-3 ERA and he was blaming Johan for not getting more wins.

[Derwood]

The people who put a lot of weight into pitcher W-L are the same people who put weight into a starting QB's career W-L

[jersey cubs fan]

The people who put a lot of weight into pitcher W-L are the same people who put weight into a starting QB's career W-L

 

I do not think this is true because lots of people care about pitcher W-L records but comparatively few people care about QB W-L record. People talk about QB super bowls or lack thereof. They talk about yards and touchdowns and interceptions and playoff records. But I do not hear a lot about QB regular season records. There is some, but it doesn't really compare to pitcher records.

[Guest]

The people who put a lot of weight into pitcher W-L are the same people who put weight into a starting QB's career W-L

 

I do not think this is true because lots of people care about pitcher W-L records but comparatively few people care about QB W-L record. People talk about QB super bowls or lack thereof. They talk about yards and touchdowns and interceptions and playoff records. But I do not hear a lot about QB regular season records. There is some, but it doesn't really compare to pitcher records.

 

yeah

 

it's not even all that close really

[jersey cubs fan]

The people who put a lot of weight into pitcher W-L are the same people who put weight into a starting QB's career W-L

 

I do not think this is true because lots of people care about pitcher W-L records but comparatively few people care about QB W-L record. People talk about QB super bowls or lack thereof. They talk about yards and touchdowns and interceptions and playoff records. But I do not hear a lot about QB regular season records. There is some, but it doesn't really compare to pitcher records.

 

yeah

 

it's not even all that close really

To be honest, I hear/see more about pitcher win totals rather than record. If somebody went 18-5 or 18-15 he's an 18-game winner.

[KingCubsFan]

I wouldn't say they're all meatballs.(few if any actually) Each of them seem to understand the limitation, but just like the tradition.

The simplicity of reaching to be a 20 win pitcher is appealing to them all. Most of them probably don't care about the difference between a 12 and 14 win season, but that 20 mark has significance to players and they don't want to lose that, along with the career milestone numbers like 250/300.

I think a lot of players equate the stat with longevity/durability, which is something they all strive for. If you win 18 or 19 games in a season, chances are you threw a lot of innings and pitchers take pride in that. And if you get to 250 wins, that means you were at least pretty good for a long period of time.

[Guest]

The people who put a lot of weight into pitcher W-L are the same people who put weight into a starting QB's career W-L

 

I do not think this is true because lots of people care about pitcher W-L records but comparatively few people care about QB W-L record. People talk about QB super bowls or lack thereof. They talk about yards and touchdowns and interceptions and playoff records. But I do not hear a lot about QB regular season records. There is some, but it doesn't really compare to pitcher records.

 

yeah

 

it's not even all that close really

To be honest, I hear/see more about pitcher win totals rather than record. If somebody went 18-5 or 18-15 he's an 18-game winner.

And over a larger total, it has a little more significance than individual games. It's probably pretty hard to win 18+ games and not have it mean good things for your pitcher and team. So that's why players like it. Over a career, reaching something like 250 wins is impressive even if a guy on the 90s braves has an inherently easier time than a guy in the 90s Cubs. And that's probably why you see pitchers want to hold on to the stat despite its flaws. They want a quick and easy career milestones.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I wouldn't say they're all meatballs.(few if any actually) Each of them seem to understand the limitation, but just like the tradition.

The simplicity of reaching to be a 20 win pitcher is appealing to them all. Most of them probably don't care about the difference between a 12 and 14 win season, but that 20 mark has significance to players and they don't want to lose that, along with the career milestone numbers like 250/300.

I think a lot of players equate the stat with longevity/durability, which is something they all strive for. If you win 18 or 19 games in a season, chances are you threw a lot of innings and pitchers take pride in that. And if you get to 250 wins, that means you were at least pretty good for a long period of time.

 

This is pretty much the only time wins can be somewhat useful. You can't get 250 wins by getting lucky all the time. Sure, it helps if you're on a team that scores a ton of runs. But that many wins shows an ability by a pitcher to keep his team competitive over a long period of time.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say they're all meatballs.(few if any actually) Each of them seem to understand the limitation, but just like the tradition.

The simplicity of reaching to be a 20 win pitcher is appealing to them all. Most of them probably don't care about the difference between a 12 and 14 win season, but that 20 mark has significance to players and they don't want to lose that, along with the career milestone numbers like 250/300.

I think a lot of players equate the stat with longevity/durability, which is something they all strive for. If you win 18 or 19 games in a season, chances are you threw a lot of innings and pitchers take pride in that. And if you get to 250 wins, that means you were at least pretty good for a long period of time.

 

This is pretty much the only time wins can be somewhat useful. You can't get 250 wins by getting lucky all the time. Sure, it helps if you're on a team that scores a ton of runs. But that many wins shows an ability by a pitcher to keep his team competitive over a long period of time.

But there are so many more effective ways to show that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Worse, it can be completely misleading. If it told you nothing, that would be better.

 

I don't think that's true. If you get pitchers at random and I get to pick the ones with the most wins, I'm getting on average better pitchers. It has some correlation with quality.

[Geech]

Worse, it can be completely misleading. If it told you nothing, that would be better.

 

I don't think that's true. If you get pitchers at random and I get to pick the ones with the most wins, I'm getting on average better pitchers. It has some correlation with quality.

 

The stat can still be misleading though. Cy Young arguments based upon win totals are proof of that.

[SouthSideRyan]

Worse, it can be completely misleading. If it told you nothing, that would be better.

 

I don't think that's true. If you get pitchers at random and I get to pick the ones with the most wins, I'm getting on average better pitchers. It has some correlation with quality.

 

The stat can still be misleading though. Cy Young arguments based upon win totals are proof of that.

 

It's not 2003 anymore.

[chopsx9]

Are we not over bitching about the significance of wins as a stat? Anybody that it really matters to understands its limitations. Is maintaining it preventing some other stat from being calculated? Do we really care if some meatball who watches 4 games a year doesn't understand that. Like someone posted earlier it's not 2003 anymore or is this just an exercise lording a pinch of understanding over the unwashed masses. There is no more precarious position than that of the person perched upon the point of their paste and paper pyramid of greater enlightenment. I certainly would never argue that wins were a particularly meaningful stat - however I would absolutely argue that saying they are completely meaningless is false - lots of stats can be misleading if not given the proper context. I would also wager some decent money that 10 years from now that some sabermetric stats or calculations that are taken as gospel now will be lying in heaps at the bottom of that pyramid of enlightenment.

[Geech]

Worse, it can be completely misleading. If it told you nothing, that would be better.

 

I don't think that's true. If you get pitchers at random and I get to pick the ones with the most wins, I'm getting on average better pitchers. It has some correlation with quality.

 

The stat can still be misleading though. Cy Young arguments based upon win totals are proof of that.

 

It's not 2003 anymore.

 

Wins are terrible stat no matter what year it is.