Why wins don't mean as much for pitchers anymorne...by Stark

[scs_paradise]

On Mike and Mike this morning, Jayson Stark was commenting on the old view that the voters of the Cy Young use to evaluate players, which is primarily wins.

 

His point was that wins shouldn't mean much anymore because back when the win stat was important you had pitchers pitching 18 complete games a year and it really represented the pitchers ability to beat a team. Now, with pitchers pitching 2 complete games a year and avg. 6 innings per game there are so many other factors which contribute to a win besides the starting pitcher.

 

I know this has been discussed around here many times but I don't think I had ever heard it put like this, I found it interesting, thought you might....

[CubinNY]

On Mike and Mike this morning, Jayson Stark was commenting on the old view that the voters of the Cy Young use to evaluate players, which is primarily wins.

 

His point was that wins shouldn't mean much anymore because back when the win stat was important you had pitchers pitching 18 complete games a year and it really represented the pitchers ability to beat a team. Now, with pitchers pitching 2 complete games a year and avg. 6 innings per game there are so many other factors which contribute to a win besides the starting pitcher.

 

I know this has been discussed around here many times but I don't think I had ever heard it put like this, I found it interesting, thought you might....

 

Just one of the many reason why wins aren't an important metric. However, they are not tottaly usless if used in the context of other variables.

[scs_paradise]

On Mike and Mike this morning, Jayson Stark was commenting on the old view that the voters of the Cy Young use to evaluate players, which is primarily wins.

 

His point was that wins shouldn't mean much anymore because back when the win stat was important you had pitchers pitching 18 complete games a year and it really represented the pitchers ability to beat a team. Now, with pitchers pitching 2 complete games a year and avg. 6 innings per game there are so many other factors which contribute to a win besides the starting pitcher.

 

I know this has been discussed around here many times but I don't think I had ever heard it put like this, I found it interesting, thought you might....

 

Just one of the many reason why wins aren't an important metric. However, they are not tottaly usless if used in the context of other variables.

 

Why is it then that sooo many people that are around baseball all the time don't see, what is to me, a very reasonable argument against giving as much credence to the win stat?

 

There are people around here who will say "a win is all that counts", how do you justify that statement when pitchers are so obviously less involved with the stat than other factors in the modern game?

[RockTheIvy]

On Mike and Mike this morning, Jayson Stark was commenting on the old view that the voters of the Cy Young use to evaluate players, which is primarily wins.

 

His point was that wins shouldn't mean much anymore because back when the win stat was important you had pitchers pitching 18 complete games a year and it really represented the pitchers ability to beat a team. Now, with pitchers pitching 2 complete games a year and avg. 6 innings per game there are so many other factors which contribute to a win besides the starting pitcher.

 

I know this has been discussed around here many times but I don't think I had ever heard it put like this, I found it interesting, thought you might....

 

Just one of the many reason why wins aren't an important metric. However, they are not tottaly usless if used in the context of other variables.

 

Why is it then that sooo many people that are around baseball all the time don't see, what is to me, a very reasonable argument against giving as much credence to the win stat?

 

There are people around here who will say "a win is all that counts", how do you justify that statement when pitchers are so obviously less involved with the stat than other factors in the modern game?

 

I think the idea of a win is difficult because the pitcher is involved with preventing the other team from scoring, and a team wins the game by scoring runs. It is similar, somewhat I guess, to a goalie in hockey or soccer getting credited with a win. But there are so many other factors (ie run support, park effects, defense, "luck") that go into the outcome of a baseball game that you can't use wins to compare pitchers. Many other stats, some even looked at by the "old school" give a much better understanding of how good a pitcher is.

[kente777]

"A win is all that counts."

 

This definitely is true for a team's standings, and probably true for the MVP award which goes to the player who best helps their team (TO WIN). However, when it comes to the Cy Young, stats are what should drive the award. Wins are one stat, but a pitcher can have a team loaded with offense and win 22 games in a year, but himself have a high 3 E.R.A. In this case, it was more of his teammates helping him get the win rather than him helping his team to win.

 

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What I find interesting is the same analysts who espouse win as the best metric for starting pitchers are the same guys that say you can't win without a good bullpen. Doesn't that in itself speak to the fact that it isn't entirely in the control of the starting pitcher to get a win.

[Shawon12]

like many topics, moderation is the key. A Win should not be the defining stat for a pitcher, but it shouldn't ignored either.

 

Wins do separate the good from the bad. A bad pitcher will, over time, either not pitch enough innings or leave without the lead, and thus, not earn many wins.

 

A good pitcher will pitch enough innings and, over time, leave with the lead, thus making himself vulnerable to forces out of his control.

 

Run support is critical, but it will not consistantly make a bad pitcher good. Therefore, the Win stat has value, but it should be used in moderation.

[frostwyrm]

It's embarrassing that such a stupid stat carries such weight in the supposed "thinking man's sport".

[ConstableRabbit]

"A win is all that counts."

 

This definitely is true for a team's standings, and probably true for the MVP award which goes to the player who best helps their team (TO WIN). However, when it comes to the Cy Young, stats are what should drive the award. Wins are one stat, but a pitcher can have a team loaded with offense and win 22 games in a year, but himself have a high 3 E.R.A. In this case, it was more of his teammates helping him get the win rather than him helping his team to win.

 

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

 

Well put.

[kente777]

like many topics, moderation is the key. A Win should not be the defining stat for a pitcher, but it shouldn't ignored either.

 

Wins do separate the good from the bad. A bad pitcher will, over time, either not pitch enough innings or leave without the lead, and thus, not earn many wins.

 

A good pitcher will pitch enough innings and, over time, leave with the lead, thus making himself vulnerable to forces out of his control.

 

Run support is critical, but it will not consistantly make a bad pitcher good. Therefore, the Win stat has value, but it should be used in moderation.

 

While there is truth to what you say, I still contend that a pitcher's win total is affected more by other variables than say his ERA. For example, a pitcher can pitch a shutout most of the game, yet lose because he got no run support. Remember Clement? Additionally, a pitcher can pitch lousy, but have a St. Louis type of offense and come away with the win. Or, a pitcher can lose a game by defensive snafus. On and on.

 

In contrast, a pitcher's ability to get the ball over the plate, or get a high amount of strikeouts, or be tough to hit against has few (if any) outside factors other than the pure ability of the pitcher.

 

I'd take a 15-13 pitcher with a 2.87 ERA any day as opposed to a 21-10 pitcher with a 3.89 ERA.

 

Ken

[Warren Brusstar]

There is a sigular credible argument from the "wins have value" folks, although it's not really an argument for wins per se, it is instead an argument against ERA, OPS against, or other similar run prevention metrics as the sole method of valuing pitchers. The argument is this: anyone that has played the game knows that a pitcher pitches differently with a 10 run lead than he does with a 1 run lead. With a 10 run lead, a pitcher endeavors to throw as many strikes as possible because a solo HR won't really hurt his chances of winning, while walking hitters creates the potential for a big inning. In contrast, a pitcher with a one run lead must pitch more carefully because a solo home run will cost his team the lead, while a walk, in context, is not as damaging.

 

Thus, pitchers on great offensive teams may have slightly higher ERA's because they more often pitch with big leads. The SABR community -- of which I am a part -- seems disinclined to acknowledge this issue, most likely because there is no good way to quantify its effect on a pitcher's ERA. In Joe Sheehan's column today (in which he chided the BBWA for giving the Cy Young Award to Colon), he observed that Bartolo Colon received 6.0 runs per game, while Johan Santana received 4.7 runs per game. Sheehan argued that Santana was better in every way that a pitcher can control, including that his ERA (2.87) was better than Colon's ERA (3.48). He's right. But because it did not support his argument, Sheehan failed to point out that one of the reasons why Colon's ERA is higher is because he more often pitched with big leads. (It stands to reason that Colon more often pitched with big leads because his team averaged 1.3 more runs per game than Santana's team) How much of the .6 run difference in ERA can be explained by this fact? Probably not very much (and there's no good way to quantify it in any event). But at the very least, the fact that pitchers may pitch differently with big leads is enough to conclude that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was not necessarily a more effective pitcher thatn a pitcher with a 3.10 ERA pitching in front of the same defense in the same ballpark.

[bc2k]

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

 

So only strike out pitchers should be awarded the Cy Young?

[K-Town]

There is a sigular credible argument from the "wins have value" folks, although it's not really an argument for wins per se, it is instead an argument against ERA, OPS against, or other similar run prevention metrics as the sole method of valuing pitchers. The argument is this: anyone that has played the game knows that a pitcher pitches differently with a 10 run lead than he does with a 1 run lead. With a 10 run lead, a pitcher endeavors to throw as many strikes as possible because a solo HR won't really hurt his chances of winning, while walking hitters creates the potential for a big inning. In contrast, a pitcher with a one run lead must pitch more carefully because a solo home run will cost his team the lead, while a walk, in context, is not as damaging.

 

Thus, pitchers on great offensive teams may have slightly higher ERA's because they more often pitch with big leads. The SABR community -- of which I am a part -- seems disinclined to acknowledge this issue, most likely because there is no good way to quantify its effect on a pitcher's ERA. In Joe Sheehan's column today (in which he chided the BBWA for giving the Cy Young Award to Colon), he observed that Bartolo Colon received 6.0 runs per game, while Johan Santana received 4.7 runs per game. Sheehan argued that Santana was better in every way that a pitcher can control, including that his ERA (2.87) was better than Colon's ERA (3.48). He's right. But because it did not support his argument, Sheehan failed to point out that one of the reasons why Colon's ERA is higher is because he more often pitched with big leads. (It stands to reason that Colon more often pitched with big leads because his team averaged 1.3 more runs per game than Santana's team) How much of the .6 run difference in ERA can be explained by this fact? Probably not very much (and there's no good way to quantify it in any event). But at the very least, the fact that pitchers may pitch differently with big leads is enough to conclude that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was not necessarily a more effective pitcher thatn a pitcher with a 3.10 ERA pitching in front of the same defense in the same ballpark.

 

 

Presto.

 

Good post. It's not all black & white.

[kente777]

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

 

So only strike out pitchers should be awarded the Cy Young?

 

You have very selective reading. Read what I said again.

 

Ken

[bc2k]

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

 

So only strike out pitchers should be awarded the Cy Young?

 

You have very selective reading. Read what I said again.

 

Ken

 

Okay, I did. It reads the same.

[kente777]

1) ERA (in case you don't know...this means "earned run average." This is how many earned runs a pitcher gives up in a 9 inning game. )

 

2) Walk to Stikeout RATIO (in case you don't know, this means how many strike outs to how many walks a pitcher gets. This shows us how good of control a pitcher has.)

 

3) Opponents batting average against pitcher (in case you don't know, this is how well a batter can hit against a particular pitcher. This just doesn't mean strikeouts, but a pitcher's contol in not allowing walks, and the ability to pitch strategically in order to force a batter out of his comfort zone. This often leads to outs thus improving ones earned run average.)

 

Where in these three criteria that I listed do you get the impression that I believe strike outs is the most important item???? In fact, nowhere do I mention "strikeout." I mention "strikeout to walk ratio." Big difference.

 

Dude, I shouldn't even have to explain this because everyone else here can read. I only did to show you that you formulated something in your mind without fully reading my post, and then you still defend your ignorant post. I even used proper punctuation (commas) to show you that I used a series. (In English grammar, a series is a group of nouns that are used to draw similarities between).

 

Ken

[Careless]

To me, overall ERA, walk to strike out ratio, and opponents batting average against a pitcher are much more indicative of a CY Young deserving pitcher than simply wins.

 

Ken

 

So only strike out pitchers should be awarded the Cy Young?

 

You have very selective reading. Read what I said again.

 

Ken

 

Okay, I did. It reads the same.

Then it's either a reading comprehension problem or you don't know what the terms used mean. Good low-strikeout pitchers will throw few balls and walk very few people. as a result, they will have high K:BB ratios. Example: Buehrle, with a 3.75:1 ratio.

[bc2k]

1) ERA (in case you don't know...this means "earned run average." This is how many earned runs a pitcher gives up in a 9 inning game. )

 

2) Walk to Stikeout RATIO (in case you don't know, this means how many strike outs to how many walks a pitcher gets. This shows us how good of control a pitcher has.)

 

3) Opponents batting average against pitcher (in case you don't know, this is how well a batter can hit against a particular pitcher. This just doesn't mean strikeouts, but a pitcher's contol in not allowing walks, and the ability to pitch strategically in order to force a batter out of his comfort zone. This often leads to outs thus improving ones earned run average.)

 

Where in these three criteria that I listed do you get the impression that I believe strike outs is the most important item???? In fact, nowhere do I mention "strikeout." I mention "strikeout to walk ratio." Big difference.

 

Dude, I shouldn't even have to explain this because everyone else here can read. I only did to show you that you formulated something in your mind without fully reading my post, and then you still defend your ignorant post. I even used proper punctuation (commas) to show you that I used a series. (In English grammar, a series is a group of nouns that are used to draw similarities between).

 

Ken

 

I wasn't trying to post ignorantly, sorry.

 

Back to baseball, wouldn't it be unfair to penalize a groundball pitcher who has a good strikeout:walk ratio but obviously doesn't strike out as many as a power pitcher who also has a good strikeout:walk ratio?

[Warpticon]

1) ERA (in case you don't know...this means "earned run average." This is how many earned runs a pitcher gives up in a 9 inning game. )

 

2) Walk to Stikeout RATIO (in case you don't know, this means how many strike outs to how many walks a pitcher gets. This shows us how good of control a pitcher has.)

 

3) Opponents batting average against pitcher (in case you don't know, this is how well a batter can hit against a particular pitcher. This just doesn't mean strikeouts, but a pitcher's contol in not allowing walks, and the ability to pitch strategically in order to force a batter out of his comfort zone. This often leads to outs thus improving ones earned run average.)

 

Where in these three criteria that I listed do you get the impression that I believe strike outs is the most important item???? In fact, nowhere do I mention "strikeout." I mention "strikeout to walk ratio." Big difference.

 

Dude, I shouldn't even have to explain this because everyone else here can read. I only did to show you that you formulated something in your mind without fully reading my post, and then you still defend your ignorant post. I even used proper punctuation (commas) to show you that I used a series. (In English grammar, a series is a group of nouns that are used to draw similarities between).

 

Ken

 

I wasn't trying to post ignorantly, sorry.

 

Back to baseball, wouldn't it be unfair to penalize a groundball pitcher who has a good strikeout:walk ratio but obviously doesn't strike out as many as a power pitcher who also has a good strikeout:walk ratio?

 

Why would it be? Strikeouts are sure outs. Ground balls can produce base hits, advanced runners, or errors. It's not punishing one; it's rewarding the other, as it should be.

[K-Town]

1) ERA (in case you don't know...this means "earned run average." This is how many earned runs a pitcher gives up in a 9 inning game. )

 

2) Walk to Stikeout RATIO (in case you don't know, this means how many strike outs to how many walks a pitcher gets. This shows us how good of control a pitcher has.)

 

3) Opponents batting average against pitcher (in case you don't know, this is how well a batter can hit against a particular pitcher. This just doesn't mean strikeouts, but a pitcher's contol in not allowing walks, and the ability to pitch strategically in order to force a batter out of his comfort zone. This often leads to outs thus improving ones earned run average.)

 

Where in these three criteria that I listed do you get the impression that I believe strike outs is the most important item???? In fact, nowhere do I mention "strikeout." I mention "strikeout to walk ratio." Big difference.

 

Dude, I shouldn't even have to explain this because everyone else here can read. I only did to show you that you formulated something in your mind without fully reading my post, and then you still defend your ignorant post. I even used proper punctuation (commas) to show you that I used a series. (In English grammar, a series is a group of nouns that are used to draw similarities between).

 

Ken

 

I wasn't trying to post ignorantly, sorry.

 

Back to baseball, wouldn't it be unfair to penalize a groundball pitcher who has a good strikeout:walk ratio but obviously doesn't strike out as many as a power pitcher who also has a good strikeout:walk ratio?

 

Why would it be? Strikeouts are sure outs. Ground balls can produce base hits, advanced runners, or errors. It's not punishing one; it's rewarding the other, as it should be.

 

Or, result in a double-play, which a strikeout surely won't.

 

For the most part, an out is an out, regardless of how it's induced.

[TB_11]

There is a sigular credible argument from the "wins have value" folks, although it's not really an argument for wins per se, it is instead an argument against ERA, OPS against, or other similar run prevention metrics as the sole method of valuing pitchers. The argument is this: anyone that has played the game knows that a pitcher pitches differently with a 10 run lead than he does with a 1 run lead. With a 10 run lead, a pitcher endeavors to throw as many strikes as possible because a solo HR won't really hurt his chances of winning, while walking hitters creates the potential for a big inning. In contrast, a pitcher with a one run lead must pitch more carefully because a solo home run will cost his team the lead, while a walk, in context, is not as damaging.

 

Thus, pitchers on great offensive teams may have slightly higher ERA's because they more often pitch with big leads. The SABR community -- of which I am a part -- seems disinclined to acknowledge this issue, most likely because there is no good way to quantify its effect on a pitcher's ERA. In Joe Sheehan's column today (in which he chided the BBWA for giving the Cy Young Award to Colon), he observed that Bartolo Colon received 6.0 runs per game, while Johan Santana received 4.7 runs per game. Sheehan argued that Santana was better in every way that a pitcher can control, including that his ERA (2.87) was better than Colon's ERA (3.48). He's right. But because it did not support his argument, Sheehan failed to point out that one of the reasons why Colon's ERA is higher is because he more often pitched with big leads. (It stands to reason that Colon more often pitched with big leads because his team averaged 1.3 more runs per game than Santana's team) How much of the .6 run difference in ERA can be explained by this fact? Probably not very much (and there's no good way to quantify it in any event). But at the very least, the fact that pitchers may pitch differently with big leads is enough to conclude that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was not necessarily a more effective pitcher thatn a pitcher with a 3.10 ERA pitching in front of the same defense in the same ballpark.

 

Fair enough - I think a difference in ERA of .10 could be explained by pitchers having to pitch in different "pressure" situations. But Santana's ERA was 2.87 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.40) while Colon's ERA was 3.48 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.19). That discrepancy, plus Santana's advantage in K/9 (9.25 vs 6.35 for Colon), I think give Santana the edge in the Cy Young voting.

 

FWIW, the two pitcher's BB/9, HR/9, and IP were basically even.

[Warren Brusstar]

There is a sigular credible argument from the "wins have value" folks, although it's not really an argument for wins per se, it is instead an argument against ERA, OPS against, or other similar run prevention metrics as the sole method of valuing pitchers. The argument is this: anyone that has played the game knows that a pitcher pitches differently with a 10 run lead than he does with a 1 run lead. With a 10 run lead, a pitcher endeavors to throw as many strikes as possible because a solo HR won't really hurt his chances of winning, while walking hitters creates the potential for a big inning. In contrast, a pitcher with a one run lead must pitch more carefully because a solo home run will cost his team the lead, while a walk, in context, is not as damaging.

 

Thus, pitchers on great offensive teams may have slightly higher ERA's because they more often pitch with big leads. The SABR community -- of which I am a part -- seems disinclined to acknowledge this issue, most likely because there is no good way to quantify its effect on a pitcher's ERA. In Joe Sheehan's column today (in which he chided the BBWA for giving the Cy Young Award to Colon), he observed that Bartolo Colon received 6.0 runs per game, while Johan Santana received 4.7 runs per game. Sheehan argued that Santana was better in every way that a pitcher can control, including that his ERA (2.87) was better than Colon's ERA (3.48). He's right. But because it did not support his argument, Sheehan failed to point out that one of the reasons why Colon's ERA is higher is because he more often pitched with big leads. (It stands to reason that Colon more often pitched with big leads because his team averaged 1.3 more runs per game than Santana's team) How much of the .6 run difference in ERA can be explained by this fact? Probably not very much (and there's no good way to quantify it in any event). But at the very least, the fact that pitchers may pitch differently with big leads is enough to conclude that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was not necessarily a more effective pitcher thatn a pitcher with a 3.10 ERA pitching in front of the same defense in the same ballpark.

 

Fair enough - I think a difference in ERA of .10 could be explained by pitchers having to pitch in different "pressure" situations. But Santana's ERA was 2.87 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.40) while Colon's ERA was 3.48 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.19). That discrepancy, plus Santana's advantage in K/9 (9.25 vs 6.35 for Colon), I think give Santana the edge in the Cy Young voting.

 

FWIW, the two pitcher's BB/9, HR/9, and IP were basically even.

 

I don't disagree. Santana clearly should have won the Cy Young. My point is only that ERA and other run preventation metrics do not correlate 100% with effectiveness (which can be defined only as helping your team win baseball games). Of course, ERA is leaps and bounds better than Wins as a tool to measure effectiveness. It's just not perfect.