Judging by wins and losses

[RU Rah Rah]

An issue that seems to crop up again and again in threads covering a variety of topics: Can we judge a starting pitcher/manager/team by won-loss record? I almost get the feeling that some people never think it's a valid measure, regardless of the circumstance. But isn't it basically the bottom line of the game?

[zzzmanwitz]

I think don't think win-loss should ever be brought into consideration for a pitcher or coach. There are too many other variables that come into play for those two factors. Win-loss for teams is a decent way to look at the past, however, it really shouldn't be an issue in what is to be expected going forward. There are much better ways to measure future performance.

[Fatter than Joey]

Can we judge a starting pitcher/manager/team by won-loss record?

 

Absolutely. W/L's may not build the strongest case, but it is certainly data.

 

I almost get the feeling that some people never think it's a valid measure, regardless of the circumstance.

 

Like any stat/result, it has it's place.

 

But isn't it basically the bottom line of the game?

 

Yes. You can't get away from the fact that W/L's is how they award championships.

[cubfan1126]

Doesn't matter how good a team is (based on somebody's perception) because at the end of the season only 1 thing counts. Are they in the playoffs based on number of wins? And as it stands right now, somebody in the NL Central is going to lose out to an inferior team in the NL West. Well, maybe geography is more important than wins and losses.

 

When considering pitchers for the Cy Young, that is the first thing that's looked at. The winner is then honed from a group with similar w/l records.

[Thurston Fluff]

It certainly should be the prime factor in judging GM's. It should be considered in judging managers as well. We have to add in things like injuries and reasonable expectations along with them to judge actual abilities of them. When it comes to pitchers not so much. I never felt they should even count records for pitching.

[nate82]

Starting pitcher no. Since the win is not really in the hands of the pitcher only. You have to take into account the defense and other things that may prevent a pitcher from getting a win or a loss. Wins and losses are a very weak stat to say if a pitcher is doing good or not. You need to look at their WHIP and the runs scored for the starting pitcher. You can be a great starting pitcher and only have 5 wins and 15 losses on your record. Or you could be an average to below average pitcher and get 13 wins and 7 losses in a year. If the pitcher doesn't get run support they will have a lot less wins than pitchers who get a lot of run support.

 

Wins and losses are such a lousy stat for starting pitchers to determine how good they are. There are so many different factors that go into a win that are out of the control of the pitcher. I bet the percentage of wins and losses that are caused by a starting pitcher is smaller than all of the other factors that go into wins and losses for a starting pitcher.

 

You also can't judge managers on wins and losses either. What you can judge a manager is how the players are performing. I'm not talking about HR's, K's, or RBI's here. I'm talking about are the players being lazy on the field. Not backing up plays when they should be. Most of the time you can tell a manager has lost his team by looking at how the team is playing. The same holds true for any sport really. You shouldn't be judging a manager or a coach on how many wins and losses they have but more on the lines of how the players are performing on the field and their general attitude toward playing.

[davemakovec]

Doesn't matter how good a team is (based on somebody's perception) because at the end of the season only 1 thing counts. Are they in the playoffs based on number of wins? And as it stands right now, somebody in the NL Central is going to lose out to an inferior team in the NL West. Well, maybe geography is more important than wins and losses.

 

When considering pitchers for the Cy Young, that is the first thing that's looked at. The winner is then honed from a group with similar w/l records.

Those are very good points. There's always some schmuck who ranks very high in Cy Young voting because his team scored six runs per game when he started.

[TooLiveBrew]

My problem with using W-L for any individual is that it's a team stat. It always bugs/bugged the crap outta me when the four-letter network would show Favre's 'W-L record' -- Brett himself talked about how he thought it was silly in an interview.

 

However, as FtJ notes, it is a part of the resume that should be considered. For my personal considerations, W-L is way down on the list.

[crewcrazy]

Pitchers and managers do more to lose games than they do to win them, in my opinion. It's a lot easier to get a loss than it is a win when you're a pitcher -- if you give up 8 earned in 5 innings, you're probably going to end up with a loss; on the other hand, if you give up 1 or 2 earned in 7 innings, you could also lose if your team isn't scoring any runs. W/L records are easy to look at, but to me, it's like crediting NFL quarterbacks with W/L records (I actually saw a network trying to do that when talking about Tom Brady) -- there are just too many other factors to take the records as complete truth. If you get enough of a sample size, though, I think it can be used as one of the tools to decide how well a pitcher pitched (Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux pitched well enough in their careers to get 350+ wins, they're obviously good pitchers, but there are other numbers you can use as well).

[Fatter than Joey]

My favorite W/L stat:

 

In 1972 Steve Carlton won 27 games for a team that won 59.

 

You also can't judge managers on wins and losses either.

 

I disagree -- If a team should win 81 games, and they win 85 or 75, the first place I would look is at the manager.

[zzzmanwitz]

I disagree -- If a team should win 81 games, and they win 85 or 75, the first place I would look is at the manager.

 

That's different, you are looking at wins from projection, not wins and losses. If the Nats win 81 games and the Red Sox won 81 games, would you say the managers did an equal job?

[Glennron]

The perfect example of why valuing W-L so much can be bad is Sheet's 2004 season. I know everyone knows about it, but out of all the SP's who received votes for NL Cy Young, he was 2nd in ERA, 2nd in WHIP, and 2nd in K's. Actually, Randy Johnson led all of those categories but lost the Cy Young cause his record was "only" 16-14 while Roger Clemens was 18-4.

[RU Rah Rah]

In 1972 Steve Carlton won 27 games for a team that won 59.

Totally sickening season on the mound. 346 IP! 30 CG! .993 WHIP!

 

 

 

[Thurston Fluff]

I disagree -- If a team should win 81 games, and they win 85 or 75, the first place I would look is at the manager.

 

The highest projection I saw for the Brewers was 86 wins. the Brewers are on pace for 87 now and have already played the toughest part of their schedule. It will likely go up after the next ten game home stand against lesser teams. If they reach the all star break on a 90 or so win pace does that make Ned a decent manager so far this year?

[TooLiveBrew]

I would agree that Yost is about average when compared around the league, yes. Watching other teams, it just makes me feel lucky when I see so many hit-&-runs & too much small-ball. I actually like that part about Yost.

 

Fwiw, the first place I look when a team outperforms its expected W-L is the players. They have a much larger effect on the outcomes.

[TheCrew07]

I don't mind discussing wins and losses in the proper context, that is what any game is about after all. There's too much stat backlash around here the last year or two. It shouldn't matter what stat is used if it's used in the proper context, so many times people moan about the stat and miss the point the poster was trying to make. For example if a pitcher has been horrible over his last 7 starts it doesn't what stat or metric you use, they all pretty much tell you the same thing. Certain people almost make using the "proper" stat a crusade, and it turns people off.

[RU Rah Rah]

I bet the percentage of wins and losses that are caused by a starting pitcher is smaller than all of the other factors that go into wins and losses for a starting pitcher.

So you're saying (I think?) that the SP's own performance is the least determinant factor in whether he gets a W or L?

 

[Invader3K]

I don't like the idea that the projected W/L is considered by some to be the team's "real" record, practically. Then you hear about how if they won more games, they performed over their projection. Maybe the projection was just wrong?

 

Win-Loss is extremely important, but it doesn't factor in for things like injuries.

[lukevan]

Judging by wins and losses is the reason ESPN still follows the Rockies 2008 season.

[Oldcity]

To me, it holds more water when evaluating managers than pitchers. Wins/Losses can sometimes give you an indication, but when I want to evaluate a pitcher, I don't even consider W/L.

 

That season by Carlton is just unreal.

[pretendastronaut]

Wins/Losses for a SP are overblown in my opinion. I think Capuano last season is a pretty good example. A lot of noise got made about his 11 (or whatever the final number was) consective losses last year, and the implication is that he was a horrible pitcher, but in reality Capuano made a lot of good starts in that stretch where he either got absolutely no run support or got a ND. His W/L record was not really a great indicator of how he pitched.

 

That's not to say he was a stellar pitcher all season through, but his record just doesn't indicate how he pitched.

[jazzytrav]

I almost get the feeling that some people never think it's a valid measure, regardless of the circumstance.

 

Like any stat/result, it has it's place.

This is exactly right...it has it's place. If you're judging a pitcher on how many wins he gets in a season, I don't think you're getting a statistic that really means anything. But at some point, when a pitcher has several 15-20 win seasons in a row, then we can probably assume that pitcher is doing something right. If you look at the all-time leaders in wins for pitchers, I don't think it can really be argued that those pitchers didn't have much to do with those 300+ wins.

[Thurston Fluff]

Nolan Ryan had a career 526 win %. Does that mean he was only a slightly above average player?

[RightFieldCoder]

That makes Ryan tied for the 511th best pitcher ever. Babe Ruth's career 671 means Ruth was a way better pitcher than Ryan could ever hope to achieve.

[jazzytrav]

That makes Ryan tied for the 511th best pitcher ever. Babe Ruth's career 671 means Ruth was a way better pitcher than Ryan could ever hope to achieve.

And obviously the "win" statistic has changed over the years as the position has changed. I figured that was implied.