Dear Cubs - don't let the Maddux option vest

[CubinNY]

Only the best baseball minds in the world?

 

who?

[bleedcubbieblue]

[i didn't want to get into this argument again. Suffice to say, that wins don't mean much when evaluating a pitcher. The argument that Wood has only won 14 games is tired and old and if you use that as an evaluation for Wood's talent or performance, you're simply being shortsighted.

 

WHIP, .BAA, QS, ERA, BB:K ratio, k/9 are all more important numbers for a Starter than Wins (though the last 2 are not that much of a bigger deal)

 

If wood didn't have the lowest Run Support of Cub pitchers from 2001-2003, he would have won many more than 14 games in a season.

 

By your rationale, Maddux is better than Clemens this year because he has more wins.

 

Wins matter for the HOF, Cy Young award, and maybe the All-star game. That's it. OF all the stats I listed, WHIP and .BAA are the most important tools in judging the effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

Actually, you are making the assumption that I am not taking those things into consideration. What it does show is that Greg Maddux knows how to win, and more specifically, in the game he is pitching in. The same cannot be said about Kerry Wood, and while that argument is old and tired, it is still fact. Maybe Kerry should think about changing his name to Gregory Maddux, so the players will score more runs for him! (shrug??) While I will agree that Kerry always seems to get shortchanged in his starts he makes, the great pitchers adapt and still get the W's, regardless of runs scored for him. While Kerry has had his moments, he never really has broken thru on a consistent basis. This is directly connected to his durability, or lack there of, and the fact that he can't seem to keep his pitch count down enough, to be in the game to collect the W when the offense does score.

 

BTW, and if you asked, I don't think Maddux is a better pitcher than Clemens, but I do know 2 winners when I see them, and they both are.

 

BCB

[imb]

Only the best baseball minds in the world?

 

who?

 

Are you being serious? Bill James, Rob Neyer, etc etc...

 

These guys know pitching, why dont you ask them what they think about "wins" describing how good a pitcher is.

 

Maybe you'd be more comfortable talking to Joe Morgan.

[badger1679666666]

I didn't want to get into this argument again. Suffice to say, that wins don't mean much when evaluating a pitcher. The argument that Wood has only won 14 games is tired and old and if you use that as an evaluation for Wood's talent or performance, you're simply being shortsighted.

 

WHIP, .BAA, QS, ERA, BB:K ratio, k/9 are all more important numbers for a Starter than Wins (though the last 2 are not that much of a bigger deal)

 

If wood didn't have the lowest Run Support of Cub pitchers from 2001-2003, he would have won many more than 14 games in a season.

 

By your rationale, Maddux is better than Clemens this year because he has more wins.

 

Wins matter for the HOF, Cy Young award, and maybe the All-star game. That's it. OF all the stats I listed, WHIP and .BAA are the most important tools in judging the effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

Actually, you are making the assumption that I am not taking those things into consideration. What it does show is that Greg Maddux knows how to win, and more specifically, in the game he is pitching in. The same cannot be said about Kerry Wood, and while that argument is old and tired, it is still fact. Maybe Kerry should think about changing his name to Gregory Maddux, so the players will score more runs for him! (shrug??) While I will agree that Kerry always seems to get shortchanged in his starts he makes, the great pitchers adapt and still get the W's, regardless of runs scored for him. While Kerry has had his moments, he never really has broken thru on a consistent basis. This is directly connected to his durability, or lack there of, and the fact that he can't seem to keep his pitch count down enough, to be in the game to collect the W when the offense does score.

 

BTW, and if you asked, I don't think Maddux is a better pitcher than Clemens, but I do know 2 winners when I see them, and they both are.

 

BCB

 

Actually it shows that the Braves knew how to win, that he got run support, and that he had a good bullpen. In this day and age (and the 90's) very few pitchers have more than 5 complete games in a season anymore. The Braves had great pitching, good offense, and a real good pen. That's why Glavine Smoltz and Maddux had so many wins.

 

If you gave Wood that kinda run support and pen, he'd have 85-90 wins by now in his career.

Edited July 11, 2005 by badger

[CubinNY]

Only the best baseball minds in the world?

 

who?

 

Are you being serious? Bill James, Rob Neyer, etc etc...

 

These guys know pitching, why dont you ask them what they think about "wins" describing how good a pitcher is.

 

Maybe you'd be more comfortable talking to Joe Morgan.

 

Yes I am serious. And yes I've read James and Neyer. To my knowledge neither James nor Neyer has ever written that wins are an unimportant stat when judging a pitcher. They've said they are a team stat and not an individual stat so they are dependent on others. They never said they are unimportant or useless. Like I wrote before they are just another quantitave method for making a qualitative judgment.

 

I don't think anyone this side of Morgan would say that wins were the only way to judge a pitcher, however that does not make them useless either.

 

I suggest a lot of the people who advocate that wins are unimportant to take a few statistical analysis classess. Sometimes a little bit of knowldege is a bad thing when a person uses the knowldege incorrectly.

[imb]

Yes I am serious.

 

And wrong.

[CubinNY]

Yes I am serious.

 

And wrong.

 

Prove it.

[badger1679666666]

Yes I am serious.

 

And wrong.

 

Prove it.

 

I think it's pretty intuitive that using a team stat to rate a pitcher is pretty dumb. Especially when stats like WHIP, QS, ERA (though errors play into it, but not a huge part), .BAA are almost solely based upon the pitchers performance. Yes, the range of defense plays a small role in those numbers, but they are not affected by the team as much as wins are.

 

Therefore by logical conclusion, wins are the LEAST useful stat in judging a pitchers effectiveness.

 

That is, if you subscribe to logic and reasoning.

 

It would be just as logical to evalute set up men NOT predominantly by their ERA's, but by inherited runners scored, WHIP, .BAA, but yet again, not wins/losses. Because that's how you judge how good they are. You don't use team stats.

[imb]

Yes I am serious.

 

And wrong.

 

Prove it.

 

Hahah, why? So we can sit here and argue for an hour? I got an idea, I'll go argue with a brick wall, it will be just as much fun.

 

It's pointless. You've heard it all before. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've made your outdated opinion heard. If you want to continue believing that wins are an effective way to measure a pitchers worth, be my guest. Someone has to be wrong.

[CubinNY]

Yes I am serious.

 

And wrong.

 

Prove it.

 

Hahah, why? So we can sit here and argue for an hour? I got an idea, I'll go argue with a brick wall, it will be just as much fun.

 

It's pointless. You've heard it all before. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've made your outdated opinion heard. If you want to continue believing that wins are an effective way to measure a pitchers worth, be my guest. Someone has to be wrong.

 

IMB you've got a bad problem here on this board of bullying people. Well I won't be bullied by you.

 

1. I never made any of the claims you attribute to me. I never said they are an effective way to measure a pitcher's worth. I said they are just another piece of evidence.

 

2. I asked you to back up what you say with facts and you come back with this pathetic post. You are a smart guy, do some work.

 

There are lots of people like you who blinding follow what the "in crowd" says. I've got an idea try thinking and do some research.

[Geech]

I never said they are an effective way to measure a pitcher's worth. I said they are just another piece of evidence.

 

How are they another piece of evidence if they aren't an effective metric?

 

You know, I've taken statistical analysis classes and I never saw the chapter on why wins were a useful stat for measuring pitcher ability. Maybe I was gone on those days?

[imb]

Well, it appears that we are at an empass then.

 

I've got and idea try thinking and do some research.

 

Hahah, I'll pretend this was a joke. What makes you think I haven't? Following the in crowd? Hahaha.

[CubinNY]

I never said they are an effective way to measure a pitcher's worth. I said they are just another piece of evidence.

 

How are they another piece of evidence if they aren't an effective metric?

 

You know, I've taken statistical analysis classes and I never saw the chapter on why wins were a useful stat for measuring pitcher ability. Maybe I was gone on those days?

 

I teach statistics.

 

You are making an assumption that they are not an effective metric

 

Data are data, they are neither bad nor good. They just are. It the qualitative evaluation that we do with the data that determines there fitness.

 

In baseball wins and losses matter. Now, when judging a pitcher wins/looses are probably not the best way to judge whether or not the pitcher was effective. However, there probably is not only one metric to use. If that is the case then one has to look at other sources of evidence. Among those sources are wins, ERA, WHIP, etc. I think the best way to judge a pticher is to look at all the data and weigh evidence.

 

What kills me here is the rigid thinking that wins are tottaly unimportant.

[imb]

I think we pretty much believe the same thing (looking at all metrics), only you seem to care about W/L record, at least a little bit, while I don't care if I ever see that stat line outside of fantasy baseball.

[CubinNY]

IMB and others,

 

I sent an e-mail to Rob Neyer and below is his reply:

 

 

On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Neyer, Rob wrote:

 

I wouldn't say they're *completely* worthless. But close. Very close.

-rob

 

-----Original Message-----

From: robneyer@bosco.seanet.com [mailto:robneyer@bosco.seanet.com] On

Behalf Of webserver@robneyer.com

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:33 PM

To: Neyer, Rob

Subject: robneyer.com contact form

 

 

----------------------

Hey Rob,

 

I was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. I know wins

are a team stat and not an individual stat for a pitcher. But my

question is this: Are wins/losses a useless (or unimportant) stat when

judging a pitcher's worth.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Dave Bicard

Long suffering Cubs fan

 

Just thought I'd pass this along in the interest of fairness

[JC]

I've always thought that a pitcher with a high career win total could tell me two things:

 

1. The pitcher is durable; and,

2. The pitcher was likely better than he is worse as most teams go through cycles of goodness, and if he maintained a high win total, he must have been good even when the team wasn't.

 

Alright, I apologize to those who endured reading that last terrible explanation that I wrote. It had to be deleted.

 

In short, I believe that while you can accurately determine that a pitcher with high career win totals to be a good pitcher, the assessment that a pitcher who has low career win totals (and corresponding high loss totals) provides false positives that a pitcher is bad.

 

Regardless, hanging your hat on single season W/L records is ridiculous, i.e. Kerry only winning 14 games as a high means he isn't good.

[Geech]

You are making an assumption that they are not an effective metric

 

Actually, I was responding to this statement that you made:

 

I never said they are an effective way to measure a pitcher's worth.

 

You berated IMB for assuming that you thought wins were an effective metric, so I then assumed that you thought they weren't.

[Soul]

If a pitcher had a record on the order of 1-15, for example, what would that tell you?

 

Assuming I know nothing else about the guy, it would probably indicate:

 

1) His team is terrible.

 

2) He is a member of that team.

 

3) Ergo, he is probably not very good, either.

 

Wins & Losses for a pitcher aren't a chief statistic. But when you see huge disparities in W/L it does imply some things about the pitcher---because at a certain point, the major pitching measurements feed wins & losses to a some degree so it's highly unlikely you will find a great pitcher with an atrocious record.

 

And vice versa.

[Illini Iceman]

I never said they are an effective way to measure a pitcher's worth. I said they are just another piece of evidence.

 

How are they another piece of evidence if they aren't an effective metric?

 

You know, I've taken statistical analysis classes and I never saw the chapter on why wins were a useful stat for measuring pitcher ability. Maybe I was gone on those days?

 

I think they have some effectiveness as a metric in the case of Maddux. If you watch Maddux pitch you see some of the reason he gets a lot of wins. When he gets the lead he starts going right at hitters and not getting behind in counts. This makes it less likely that he will walk hitters and put guys on base that can then be driven in and reduce the lead.

 

Wood, on the other hand, is very aggravating to watch with a lead because he still walks guys and works deep into counts and does things that make it a) easier for the other team to catch up and b) harder for him to go long enough into the game to win. With Wood it seems like he concentrates better when it is 0-0 or otherwise low scoring game.

 

I don't think this is true of all pitchers, so for most maybe W/L is not a very useful stat. However, for Maddux I think he knows so well how to pitch with a lead and manages the game so much better from ahead that it makes it that much easier for him to pile up wins.

 

There are probably no stats to back this up but it is just my impression from watching both of them pitch a lot of games.

[neely crenshaw]

wins may not be a great indicator but maddux has always won at least 16 games. many with the braves, and yes that helps but he has also done originally with the cubs and now again with the cubs. this cubs teams are average. he is on target to win 16 again and his best time of year is approaching. he has kept us in the race the last 2 years while various other stud pitchers miss time. he and z both won 16 last year...no one else was close- not prior,clement,rusch,wood..and again this year no one else is on target to win 16. his era is higher but he does a great job. i haven't looked this year but last year his era in his wins was very, very good. unfortunately he had a couple outings early that he was shelled. if i remember right his era minus his first 3 starts was 3.30ish.

it would be nice to trade him to a contender like san diego because i think he would excel at petco park- no cheap hrs in that park(and that is his down fall) but if not i think we owe him his option. he came here and took less upfront to help the club...if we want other players to think about doing the same then we better not "screw" someone as classy as maddux out of his deserved money.

[1wizard]

OK, let me ask you all a question. If a player has an era of say 5 something yet continues to qualify for wins are you going to pull him out of the rotation because he has a bad ERA or WHIP?

 

 

 

I know that wins are a team stat, but the pitcher still has to be effective enough to garner consideration for that win. And it is not like Maddux is pitching on a team that is giving him unbelievable run support on a nightly basis. Trust me he is no Kent Bottenfield :lol: (try to explain that one season to me or the Angels)

 

And for anyone who has played sports at a competitive level knows that wins are the only thing that matter in the end. And some athletes seem to have a knack for winning with what is preceived to be subpar athleticism, talent, and "stuff." The point is Maddux is a winner.

 

Before I get ripped to shreds, my point of view is that if a pitcher is winning games despite having an era of 5 you do not pull him out of the rotation. Moreover, if the guy has had 17 straight season of winning 15 games or more coupled with Cy Young awards and HOF credentials, you do not bench him for monetary reasons.

[Derwood]

I'm late to this discussion....

 

Without reading every page of posts, I'll simply say that the guy certainly isn't what he was in the 90's, but he does lead the team in wins right now. I think his off day experiences with the young pitchers are invaluable.

[TruffleShuffle]

The phrase "Maddux knows how to win" is pointless. Maddux *knew* how to pitch like one of the best pitchers in baseball. From 1992-2002, an 11 year stretch, he was among the top 8 in the NL in ERA; in all but one of those years he was among the top 4 in the NL in ERA. Combine that with his durability and a good Braves offense and bullpen, and he was pretty much a lock to win 15 games every year. Since 2002 however, his ERA (and ERA+) have been markedly worse. He's continued to win games, but his winning the last couple of years owes a lot more to good fortune from run support than it does the quality of his pitching. His durability, of course, helps him get wins simply because he makes 33 starts a year.

 

His stats this year continue to suggest he's regressing and is little more than an average pitcher with a great career behind him. You can probably count on him to be on the mound every 5 days next season and to pitch like an average major league starter, but if that's all you want for $9M per year then you're throwing your money away.

[ricktheripper]

..

[ricktheripper]

..