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.