Are pitching wins an accurate measure of a pitcher's value?

[homer]

We've gone round and round on this is several threads and I want to see if we can collect both sides of the argument in one place.

 

Me personally, I think wins over a career can show a measure of success. I think if you look at most 300 game winners, they will most likely all have the anciliary stats proving they were good. Where I disagree with using wins a yardstick for worth is season to season. I can't say Vargas was better than Capuano in 2007 just because Vargas had more wins. It's not because he "knows how to win" its because he had more run support. Also, to compare pitcher A on team A with pitcher B on team B solely on wins discounts the effect a poor defense may have had on pitcher B

[Ennder]

Wins are a team stat. The pitcher has an influence on them by how well he pitches and how deep he goes into the games but his run support controls how much he wins more than anything the pitcher does himself.

 

Nolan Ryan only had a career winning percentage of .526. That doesnt' make him any less of a HOF pitcher, just means he had a lot of bad run support. A lot of HOF pitchers sit in the .500-.550 range for winning percentage because they weren't on dominant teams. Rollie Fingers had a .491 winning % and is in the hall.

 

Since this is fueled by the Ben Sheets comment in the other thread I'd add that since Sheets broke out in 2004 he is 40-35 for a .533 and since the Brewers stopped being one of the worst teams in baseball he is 28-21 for a .571. It isn't a fluke that as his team got better so did his record.

 

 

(added link to 'other thread' above --1992)

[sbrylski]

Also, to compare pitcher A on team A with pitcher B on team B solely on wins discounts the effect a poor defense may have had on pitcher B

 

ERA is the same way. But at least ERA takes out the offense component of pitching wins, which should have just about zero value in determining a pitchers worth. I don't buy that a pitcher pitches differently depending on the score. The goal in any situation is to get the batter out.

[sbrylski]

Nolan Ryan only had a career winning percentage of .526. That doesnt' make him any less of a HOF pitcher, just means he had a lot of bad run support.

 

To be picky, I think Ryan is a bad example. He really wasn't that great overall. My quick calculation has him ~220 runs above average over his career, and about 22 wins over .500. For his career, he was actually 32 wins over .500.

[PKBadger]

I think if you look at most 300 game winners, they will most likely all have the anciliary stats proving they were good.

 

I agree with that sentiment, but only because in order to hold down a rotation spot on a major league franchise for the 15-20 years necessary to reach 300 wins, you have to be pretty darn good. So for a career, I think it can be an effective benchmark. Season to season? No.

 

[Patrick425]

Wins are a team stat. The pitcher has an influence on them by how well he pitches and how deep he goes into the games but his run support controls how much he wins more than anything the pitcher does himself.

 

I agree with this completley. If I had the choice of two pitchers to add to the Brewers and pitcher A had a 3.00 ERA with 10 wins and pitcher B had a 4.00 ERA with 15 wins, all else being equal, I'd opt for pitcher A.

[jwill535]

This is a great example as to why you cannot only use stats to prove a point. There are so many variables that go into them that unless you really narrowing it down you are comparing apples and oranges. A catchers throwing percentage is another good example of this. Any catcher is going to have a great throwing percentage with Cappy on the mound. When Sheets is on the mound, Ivan Rodriguez wouldn't throw out alot of runner.

[BrewCrewForever]

I think wins certainly help make a pitcher look even better, but I think ERA, WHIP and innings may be a better way to look at how good a pitcher is.

[ozzybourne]

This is a great example as to why you cannot only use stats to prove a point. There are so many variables that go into them that unless you really narrowing it down you are comparing apples and oranges. A catchers throwing percentage is another good example of this. Any catcher is going to have a great throwing percentage with Cappy on the mound. When Sheets is on the mound, Ivan Rodriguez wouldn't throw out alot of runner.

what else besides stats would you use to prove a point in baseball terms? length of service/seniority? team leadership? stats in large measure determines a baseball players salary, especially after free agent eligible. read the box score--hello, it's stats. offensive stats, defensive stats...........

 

all the stats together get analyzed and then some. look at some of the stats available after the "money ball' era has started. especially with pitchers since they dont steal bases, drive in runs, etc. then there are splits-again stats. wins are an important stat, but not the only one.

 

 

[hauser42]

Since this is fueled by the Ben Sheets comment in the other thread I'd add that since Sheets broke out in 2004 he is 40-35 for a .533 and since the Brewers stopped being one of the worst teams in baseball he is 28-21 for a .571. It isn't a fluke that as his team got better so did his record.

Sheets also has been injured during this time so he might have more wins to this total and the Brewers might have won a division last year if he would have been healthy all year.

 

Wins are only part of the equation when looking at a pitcher, and how well he is performing.

(pared back long quote --1992)

[logan82]

Yup wins matter. Vargas at 11-6 was almost as good as Sheets at 12-5. Only one win difference.

[JohnBriggs12]

Ben Sheets and Roy Oswalt both came up in 2001. Oswalt is 112-54 while Sheets is 73-74.

 

By some statistical analysis it could be said that Sheets is the equal of Oswalt. But the object isn't winning statistical battles it's winning. Therefore Oswalt has been considerably more valuable to the Astros than Sheets has been to the Brewers. The job of the starting pitcher is to hold the opponent to fewer runs than his team scores while he is on the mound whether that means 6 runs, 4 runs, 3 runs, 2 runs, 1 run or 0 runs. Most of those pitchers considered all time greats did this consistently. Now over the course of any particular season, factors such as run support, bullpen effectiveness (more so in the past 30 years) and luck play a part one way or another but over a career these tend to even out to some degree.

 

When your teams "ace" only wins 12 games it puts quite a burden on the rest of the team to get the 78 or so more wins needed to get to the 90 usually needed to get to the postseason.

[trwi7]

Ben Sheets and Roy Oswalt both came up in 2001. Oswalt is 112-54 while Sheets is 73-74.

That's nice. Now look at the teams winning percentages. Oswalt's teams were much, much better than Sheets' teams.

[TerraceReserved]

Now over the course of any particular season, factors such as run support, bullpen effectiveness (more so in the past 30 years) and luck play a part one way or another.

Runs support, bullpen, and luck play a HUGE role in a pitchers win/loss record. Why acknowledge that and and then say this:
When your teams "ace" only wins 12 games

Sheets had absolutely no control over his win total. A pitchers job is to let up as little runs as possible. Sheets did that, and he happened to do it very well. Unfortunately for him, the offense and bullpen didn't do well behind him. Why would someone still use wins to judge a pitcher when the stats flaws are so obvious?

[ozzybourne]

Ben Sheets and Roy Oswalt both came up in 2001. Oswalt is 112-54 while Sheets is 73-74.

That's nice. Now look at the teams winning percentages. Oswalt's teams were much, much better than Sheets' teams.

over the last 3 years the brewers ahve won 239 games, while the astros have won 244.

 

over the last 3 years sheets has won 28 games, while oswalt has won 49 games.

 

so what is your point? jonny briggs is correct.

[heresrobin]

Oswalt has 21 more wins over the last three years because he has started 36 more games over the last three years...and because he is better than Sheets. If you gave Sheets an additional 36 starts to match Oswalt's, Sheets would probably have another 16 wins or so, giving him a total of 44 wins.

 

I don't see how JB's statement proves that wins are a good pitching stat. All his statement proves is that Oswalt is a better, more durable pitcher who has pitched 36 more games than Sheets has over the last three years. I don't think that anybody would argue that Oswalt has been a better, more valuable pitcher than Sheets.

[TerraceReserved]

over the last 3 years the brewers ahve won 239 games, while the astros have won 244.

 

over the last 3 years sheets has won 28 games, while oswalt has won 49 games.

 

so what is your point? jonny briggs is correct.

 

 

Not quite. Over the past 7 years, Houston has scored 5355 runs, for an average of 765 a year. In that time, Milwaukee has scored 4972 runs, for 710 a year. The runs that Houston scored play a large part in his number of wins.

 

And besides, the point is moot. I don't think anyone would argue that Sheets has produced more by any statistical measure. He has a career 3.07 ERA to Sheets' 3.83. Sheets has 1229 IP, Oswalt has 1413 IP. Oswalt has a career FIP of 3.36 and Sheets a 3.76.

 

Oswalts been better, no doubt about it. His team has also scored more runs behind him. Bringing up that example doesn't prove anything toward the validity of W/L records.

[Ennder]

Over the past 3 years Oswalt has the 2nd most wins in all of baseball and Sheets has been hurt part of all 3 years. So yeah I'm not too surprised they don't compare. Oswalt also had possibly the best defensive SS in the last 100 years playing behind him (yes many think Everett is better than Ozzie was). Oswalt is a great pitcher, that doesn't mean Sheets isn't because he cannot match a .645 W% over the last 3 years. Very few pitchers in the history of the game match that.

[hauser42]

Ben Sheets lack of durability kills him when you look at him and other top pitchers over the last 3 seasons. He has a ton of great other stas out there that gets pointed out by his backers.

 

Like I said wins have to be part of the process when looking at how good a pitcher is, along with other stats that have been to the forefront lately.

[ozzybourne]

who will make more money--a pitcher with who averages 16 wins 3 years in a row or a pitcher who averages 9? the wins stat is important to MLB executives who determine pay, the same guys who run arbitration. so you're saying it is not important in determining the validity of w/l records? and big contracts after career years that included a big win total? yes gm's will pay for talent, but sheets will make a lot more money next year if he wins 18 games instead of 10.

[Ennder]

I dunno, if you ask me to write a paper comparing two pitchers and decide which is the better guy W's are about the 10th or 11th thing I'd talk about. Yeah they are a stat but just not a big one for me.

 

GM's do all kind of dumb things, using that as an excuse for Ws being a good stat just isn't a good argument(see Zito, Barry). I'm sure players who have won gold gloves make more each year even when they shouldn't have won them. Doesn't make it right.

 

I certainly wouldn't go after a Zito, Garland type because they are a 'proven winner'. They played on good teams and got wins but the other stats are just more important for judging how good they actually are or will be in the future and that is what I'm concerned with.

[ozzybourne]

I dunno, if you ask me to write a paper comparing two pitchers and decide which is the better guy W's are about the 10th or 11th thing I'd talk about. Yeah they are a stat but just not a big one for me.

 

GM's do all kind of dumb things, using that as an excuse for Ws being a good stat just isn't a good argument(see Zito, Barry). I'm sure players who have won gold gloves make more each year even when they shouldn't have won them. Doesn't make it right.

right or wrong it's reality. and not an excuse. if wins are so low on the importance list for you and others, you are mistaken. as j briggs pointed out , the win stat represents more--like durability and dependability. it is one of a few things that evaluate a pitcher.

[Ennder]

Yes and I would evaluate durability by itself before looking at Ws at all. I'd look at things like K rate, BB rate, GB% first off. Then I'd look at factors like the leagues they played in, the parks they played in and the defense behind them to try to get a realistic judgement of how much of their talent was the environment they pitched in.

 

Then I'd look at their health over their career. Then maybe a look at how consistent they were, were they good over the entire career or just for the peak etc.

 

I might even look at how they did with runners, HR/FB on etc to see if they had interesting career rates for that kind of thing.

 

Then finally after looking at all of that stuff I might throw out W's because to be honest everything I just mentioned above does a better job of judging a pitcher than an arbitrary stat like Ws which is one of the weakest stats evaluating a pitcher there is. A great pitcher on bad teams will W less than a good pitcher on amazing teams, that is the simple truth.

 

So like I said, maybe the 10th or 11th thing I'd look at. Kind of like super bowl rings for judging a QB.

[Big Reed]

obviously oswalt has been the better pitcher than Sheets. the stats clearly reflect it.

 

I like to look at Bert Blyleven and Lee Smith. Anybody who was around during the years Blyleven pitched will say without reservation he was one of the top 10 pitchers in his day - maybe top 5. He was certainly a more feared pitcher than Don Sutton. Nothing against Sutton, but Bert was a lot better pitcher than him. bert didn't win 300 games. he should have. He should also be in the hal l of fame. but, he's not.

 

lee Smith is the all time saves leader. Sure, he gave up a lot of homers. but he did the job he was paid to do. lee Smith was better than Sutter and gossage. but they both are in the hall and Smith is not even close. All three pitchers are from the same era. Smith is a little more recent. For Smith, winning and saving games was not enough. people also expected him to have a low ERA. he got the job done. That should be enough - but it's not.

 

This is why I have such a big headache with stats. if you don't use the wins stats, you could make a very good case that bert Blyleven deserves to be in the hall of fame. he has great stats for complete games, era , Kos and shut outs. But his win /los s stats isn't worthy of induction.

 

On the other hand, Lee Smith had great stats for wins and saves and Kos for a reliever. but his ERA was just a tad too high.

 

People always looks for a single stat that will find a fault in a player rather than the 5-10 stats that make the player look great. people always look for a fault. if a player is a great base stealer, people look for his OBP or slug% and say he's bad. if he has a high average, people point out his numerous Kos. if he has a 370 batting average, wh y should we care if he struck out 145 times and only walked 45 times? but the fact is, we do. no matter how good a player is, we always find some sort of flaw.

 

Notice, i said we , and not you. I am as guilty as everyone else. I have my favorite stats. However, my favorite stats are not other people's favorite stats. That's my biggest problem with stats. Some people love OBP. I thinks it's OK, but I don't think it should be used against a guy like crawford or Pierre to say they are bad players, just because neither has a .400 OBP.

 

i used to love stats. but then people like ross perot came around and twisted every stat that existed for their own spin/purpose. Bill James is no different. Bill James sells a lot of stats books. Which are the best stats? and what can we use them for? I will give Bill James credit in that his player predictions for the last 10 years have been pretty accurate. but his player stats would never have predicted what teams have played in the world series the last 10 years. Based on stats alone, james would never have predicted the white Sox would win a world series or that Colorado and Houston actually made it to the world series or that the Yankees would be on the outside looking in.

 

Player stats and being able to predict them are important. But sometimes a player is better than his stats. you know it and the other team knows it. Sheets is a lot better pitcher than Vargus. I once led my basketball league in FT shooting. I was 2 for 2. if a team wanted to foul somebody on my team, I'm quite sure they would go against my stats and foul me if the game was on the line.

 

As I've gotten older, stats no longer are as important to me as they once were. we've invented some great new stats. but do these new stats translate into wins or championships? or do they just fill up new books with new stats to talk about? In my day, we didn't have the VORP stat. has the creation of that stat made the brewers a better team? or Fielder a better player? If Fielder's VORP was better than pujols' I'd still prefer Pujols. I'd still prefer the championships the cardinals, marlins and dbacks have won to being a very fiscally responsible franchise with a great farm system. i've seen a lot of baseball players with some really great stats come and go. Was Yount better than Yaz? Was Molitor better than Carew? Was Gibson better than Seaver? frankly, it doesn't matter to me. The only stat I really care about is a brewers' world series championship.

 

Pitching wins is a nice stat to measure a pitcher's worth. but so are a lot of stats. In the end, the player's worth is really measured by how much you personally like him. If you hate somebody like Barry Bonds or Pedro Martinez, their stats will never be good enough for you. you will always find fault with them - a flaw - and a stat to prove it. Rather than looking at their career stats, you'll look at what they did lately to find flaws. But if you truly like a player suc h as bill hall or ben Sheets, you will use those same stats to say how great your favorite player will be, and you will make up excuses as to why their past stats did not reflect their greatness. I think Gibson was a far better pitcher than Seaver. I can find stats to prove my case and I'm sure others can find stats to disprove them. So in the end, if your favorite player didn't generate the stats you wanted or expected, that doesn't mean he's a worthless player. That just means he's a player and sometimes stats don't tell the total picture of why you like him.

 

remember, all players have faults and flaws. if you really like a certain player, don't stop liking him just because of his stats. stats are great. but the game of baseball is so much greater!

[heresrobin]

In trying to measure durability and dependability, wouldn't it be better to look at Games Started and Innings Pitched, and then comparing those amounts to league averages for starters, rather than using Wins?

I could see how Wins could very loosely tell me if a pitcher is durable or not over the course of time. But I think you should dig deeper than that. To me, Wins are just too team dependent when trying to delve into evaluating an individual pitcher.