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

[Baldkin]

It really depends on what you are using wins for.

 

To determine who is the better pitcher? To determine a hall of fame candidacy? To decide which pitcher to sign next year?

 

Personally, if I were running a baseball team, wins are pretty much the last stat that I would look at if I was going to sign a pitcher or not.

 

I'd much rather have had Bert Blyleven for the 80's than Jack Morris, even though Morris won more games, Blyleven was very much the better pitcher, Morris just played for better teams.

[ozzybourne]

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.

 

 

 

agreed. and add quality starts. those 3 stats--gs, innings, and qs--all lead to higher win totals, which equals durability, which leads to higher win totals. that is why it is a good stat--not the end all bert b. fans-- but a good and important one.

[heresrobin]

I can see how Wins would be an OK, quick measurement while looking at the overall career of a pitcher.

 

But when looking at Wins by a year-to-year basis or even over a span of a few years, I think just looking at Wins can be misleading. Then I would definitely take into consideration Run Support and Defense.

[trwi7]

agreed. and add quality starts. those 3 stats--gs, innings, and qs--all lead to higher win totals, which equals durability, which leads to higher win totals. that is why it is a good stat--not the end all bert b. fans-- but a good and important one.

 

No they don't necessarily lead to higher win totals.

 

Again, look at Sheets back in 2004.

GS- 34 (Only Brandon Webb, Roy Oswalt, Mark Buehrle, Livan Hernandez, Randy Johnson and Kenny Rogers had more.)

QS- 24 (Only Johan Santana, Jeff Weaver and Randy Johnson had more.)

IP- 237 (Only Mark Buehrle, Randy Johnson and Livan Hernandez had more.)

Yet Sheets still only won 12 games and lost 14. Why is that? Because his offense and bullpen sucked.

[TooLiveBrew]

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.

Every time the P W-L debate comes up, I think, 'there's nothing that anyone can say in support of W-L that will surprise me.' Every time I am wrong. I think Ennder's ranking of W-L as about 10th-most important is about right.

 

W-L, just like RBI/R/ERA, is a team stat. Its relevance to the individual is from a bygone era in which SP would make 40+ starts & throw well over 300 IP. Even then it was more accurately used as a team stat - and still is today.

 

 

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.

 

You claim people cherry-pick a small number of stats, but then say Smith should be in the Hall based on W & S -- two subpar methods by which to gauge success & impact. Especially W for a RP... yikes! The Save stat is one of the easiest in all of the pitching stats to obtain, by its definition. There isn't a P capable of hurling in MLB that shouldn't be able to get 3 outs before giving up 3 runs. There are certain save situations where it's obviously a much tougher situation than that, but too often there are saves picked up when your team is up 3.

[ozzybourne]

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.

Every time the P W-L debate comes up, I think, 'there's nothing that anyone can say in support of W-L that will surprise me.' Every time I am wrong. I think Ennder's ranking of W-L as about 10th-most important is about right.

 

W-L, just like RBI/R/ERA, is a team stat. Its relevance to the individual is from a bygone era in which SP would make 40+ starts & throw well over 300 IP. Even then it was more accurately used as a team stat - and still is today.

luke-it is a team stat. the question here was--i believe-- were wins relative to a pitchers value? are we all here playing GM as to who we want on our team, or how much we would pay them? the question was value, and does that mean getting the most bang for the buck, or paying for the going rate for front line pitchers. i say that the GM's of MLB pay for wins from their starters as an important stat, with close to .500 as the beginning mark. and the GM's set the value, not roto gods/stat hounds/mlb fans like us.

 

peripheral stats will help ben sheets, but if his innings, gs,qs, stats were higher, so would his wins=durability=santana payday.

 

that is value from wins.

 

 

[sbrylski]

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.

 

Just because we discuss the flaw doesn't mean we ignore the things he brings to the table. Of course people will gravitate toward the flaw, because that's the discussion point. If the Brewers are rumored to be acquiring a .420 OBPer who goes 20 for 40 in SB every year, the OBP will be noticed (and loved) but the SB rate will be the discussion. What else can you say about the good characteristics except that you like them?

 

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.

 

What is your basis for the value you place on statistics? If you base it on linear weights or analysis that actually place a value on them, there really isn't that much wiggle room on what is actually the most valuable, and even by how much. (still some though) I think partially educated stat users can't sometimes create the perception you have. And I don't consider myself fully educated either.

[ozzybourne]

i wish i had his money anyway. its just not as much as santana's.

[ozzybourne]

my last thought on this thread--time to go sing karaokee--is this; what if the post said--

 

ARE PITCHING LOSSES AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF A PITCHER'S VALUE?

 

i'm pretty sure ben sheets fans would have something to say about this.

[logan82]

There was a save given out for the 30-3 game last year. Just pointing out how lame saves really are.

[TerraceReserved]

i say that the GM's of MLB pay for wins from their starters as an important stat, with close to .500 as the beginning mark. and the GM's set the value, not roto gods/stat hounds/mlb fans like us.

 

peripheral stats will help ben sheets, but if his innings, gs,qs, stats were higher, so would his wins=durability=santana payday.

So becuase some GM's place a high value on wins, that means we should consider it a good stat? I don't think so. It's possible for a person involved in baseball to be incorrect on the value of a stat. For the past 100 years, into the 90's and even today, albeit a lot less, baseball executives have relied on batting average to judge how good a hitter is. Does that mean they were right?

 

And as far as Sheet's GS, QS, IP leading to more wins, trwi just completely disproved that. That's what I don't get about the stat debates here. People present facts to support their viewpoint and then they're ignored by those who disagree.

 

[logan82]

I would think after last year we would all be a little skeptical about calling a start that only goes 6 innings "quality."

[rluzinski]

If people are saying that win totals are important with respect to what it says about durability, just look at IP. What we are really talking about is win% and what it says about a starting pitchers' overall performance. While it's obvious that a starting pitcher has a great deal of influence over whether his team is going to win a particular game, it's also obvious that there are many factors outside of his control. Now, for a starting pitcher with 1000+ innings, his win/loss record can generally represent career performance pretty well. But if you are talking about a win/loss record over a single season, there are many better ways to judge performance. The same goes for a pitcher who's gotten especially good or bad run support over his career.

 

None of this takes sabermetrics to prove. Just common sense.

[ozzybourne]

my last thought on this thread--time to go sing karaokee--is this; what if the post said--

 

ARE PITCHING LOSSES AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF A PITCHER'S VALUE?

 

i'm pretty sure ben sheets fans would have something to say about this.

again--the thread asks about a pitcher's value. easy to take one season or a bert bly. season for debate. the DEBATE is for a pitchers value, and that adds to the accurate value of a pitcher. wins add to the value of a pitcher.

 

wins alone are not an accurate measure of a pitchers value. the combination of what the wins mean with other stats do.

 

so what's the big deal?

 

 

[rluzinski]

I think we should start including positional player's win/loss record in our analysis of his performance.

[dadofandrew]

Wins do measure how many times a pitcher pitched 5+ innings and left with the lead. Usually, guys with a lot of quality starts also have a lot of wins, though you will find a hard luck guy in there, usually from a bad team.

 

I do pay attention to wins over the long haul, but I never look at losses, as if a guy has a good ERA, his L's would go away if he went to a better team, or just had better luck.

[logan82]

I think we should start including positional player's win/loss record in our analysis of his performance.

No kidding. I was thinking the same thing. We should trade Braun because we have had a losing record since he came up. He has to go.

[Big Reed]

Today's version of bert Blyleven could probably be said to be the White Sox Vazquez. he puts up great stats in about 7-10 categories, but he never seems to win as many games as he should. I can't really blame him or the White Sox bull pen. he just always seems to pitch a quality game and lose. Of all the White Sox starters, I like him the most. i'm not sure why. I just do.

 

I brought up lee smith because i knew many people would find flaws in his game. But if we were to look at just wins or just saves, we should be thinking of him in great terms. The save for a reliever means about the same as a win for a starter. 300 saves for a reliever is not as easy as some people would lead you to believe. and lee Smith had over 400. but despite that, we still don't think of lee Smith as a great reliever. Some would argue that Dan Plesac was just as good. Sure, saves are easy to come by. but they were just as easy to come by for Sutter as they were for Lee Smith. And it's not like Lee was on many championship or winning teams. Lee Smith was a closer for the Cubs. no game is a safe lead pitching for the Cubs.

 

But the fact remains, there is more to a pitcher than just wins and saves. however, we also must take into consideration who our audience is. To the casual fan wins are very important- probably the most important stat for a pitcher. however, to a stats geek or a real gm, wins are not as important as quality innings pitched.

 

What's more important? a pitcher striking out 18 players and throwing 152 pitches in the process? or pitching a 4 hit shut out with 2 kos and throwing only 85 pitches? Greg Maddux used to be able to throw 90 pitch shut outs. randy Johnson would throw 135-140 pitches for his 18 Kos.

 

what is the most important stat for a pitcher? wins? innings? ERA? pitches per game? Quality starts? complete games? Should one stat be weighted more than another? I remember there used to be a stat where you would compare a pitcher's winning percentage against his team's winning percentage. If the pitcher had a great winning percentage on a lousy team, he was said to be a great pitcher. but if the team's winning % was higher than the pitchers' , that pitcher was said to be lousy. the mark of a truly great pitcher is to be able to win 20+ games for a last place team. Steve Carlton once lost 20 games in one season. he also won 27 games and a Cy young award while pitching for the last place phillies. Carlton was just as good of a pitcher winning 27 games as he was when he lost 20. Well maybe not, but you get the point.

 

i think wins is an important stat. I think wins is more important than quality starts. i think having 50 shut outs is more important stat than 300 wins. I think having an ERA under 3 is important if it is a career ERA over the course of 15 years. i think all of the stats Jim Palmer produced are vastly over rated. call me crazy, but I thought Dave McNally was the better pitcher.

 

I think Sheets is a far superior pitcher than Cappy. but who has more wins?

[crewcrazy]

Judging pitchers solely on wins and losses is how Carl Pavano ends up making $10 million a year. It's fun to look at, but when Chien-Ming Wang is getting Cy Young votes just because he manages to win 18 games with like 6 runs of support every night, it gets a little ridiculous.

[bullox]

Wins do measure how many times a pitcher pitched 5+ innings and left with the lead.

How do SP wins measure that exact scenario when the bullpen blows the lead? They don't.

 

[Baldkin]

The save for a reliever means about the same as a win for a starter. 300 saves for a reliever is not as easy as some people would lead you to believe. and lee Smith had over 400. but despite that, we still don't think of lee Smith as a great reliever. Some would argue that Dan Plesac was just as good. Sure, saves are easy to come by. but they were just as easy to come by for Sutter as they were for Lee Smith.

This just isn't true.

Lee smith only had 3 seasons in his career where he pitched 100 innings. His first 3 full seasons (one of which was '82 and probably his best year). Sutter's career, he pitched in 661 games, and threw over 1042 innings (admittedly his career was short).Smith threw in 1022 games and pitched only 1289 innings. Their 162 game averages: Sutter: 68 games, 107 innings. Smith: 67 games, only 85 innings.

 

Anyway, I thought Smith was great, but his career ended at precisely the wrong time: Just after Eckersley and just as he's coming up for the HoF, guys are blowing by his career saves record.

[Time for a Miller]

My initial post added nothing important to the discussion and therefore I deleted it. I do not think wins are an accurate measure of a pitcher's "value" even if taken over an entire career. I think there are many better ways to analyze a pitcher's value. Maybe wins over a career can help predict a pitcher's value if it's assumed that a good pitcher will be recognized and go to high payroll team that can produce consistent run support.

[TooLiveBrew]

Career W totals are a nice testament to longevity... but then again, so are L totals. That's probably the simplest thing you can glean from W-L record - longevity.

[Gopher74]

Judging pitchers solely on wins and losses is how Carl Pavano ends up making $10 million a year. It's fun to look at, but when Chien-Ming Wang is getting Cy Young votes just because he manages to win 18 games with like 6 runs of support every night, it gets a little ridiculous.

Wang's a poor example. In the year he finished 2nd in Cy Young voting he had a 2.17 ERA in his wins, so it wasn't that he was getting a lot of run support, it's that he was a great pitcher that year. And in fact, last year when he also got 19 wins his ERA in those wins was 2.19.

 

And with Carl Pavano he had come off two 200 IP seasons, and in his FA year he threw 223 IP with a 3.00 ERA with a 1.17 whip.

 

I think that GM's are smart enough to understand that W's and L's only tell part of the story. Have Pavano stayed healthy, you could argue that he'd have been worth 10 million a year.

 

Bottom line, you can't win 18+ games unless you're a good pitcher, but a good pitcher can have a poor W/L record.

 

[endaround]

Tim Wakefield had 17 wins last year. And a 4.76 ERA.