Judging by wins and losses

[Fatter than Joey]

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

 

It's telling of his career though. Ryan walked a lot of batters, and got hit pretty good. He often wasn't the best pitcher on the staff.

[Oldcity]

Yeah, Ryan refused to pitch to contact, which is why he had a ton of walks and losses as well. I actually think he's pretty overrated in general.

[RU Rah Rah]

Yeah, Ryan refused to pitch to contact, which is why he had a ton of walks and losses as well. I actually think he's pretty overrated in general.

He's an interesting case. Carlton, too. They had almost exactly the same career WHIP -- a very pedestrian 1.25. All-time (100+ career decisions), they rank 258th and 259th in that category.

 

[Fatter than Joey]

I actually think he's (Ryan) pretty overrated in general.

 

Agreed. I think he was a great pitcher, but he wasn't near as good as Seaver or Carlton.

 

He's an interesting case. Carlton, too. They had almost exactly the same career WHIP -- a very pedestrian 1.25.

 

Carlton won 4 Cy Youngs, and was probably the best pitcher in the game around 1980. Then he flamed out and was a crappy pitcher for a few years. Ryan on the other hand had some really good years in TX in the twilight of his career. Ryan finished his career strong, Carlton didn't.

[zurch1818]

Don't get me wrong, it should not be used to judge how well a pitcher pitches -- it does not consider run support given to the pitcher, and there are better ways to judge a pitcher (see above). IMO the W-L record is an outdated stat. When pitchers were expected to complete the game, a W-L record could better define how the pitcher pitched. Granted the is still based off of many other uncontrollable variables (defense, offense support, managing), but someone else couldn't blow their "win" as they can now. Capuano was a victim of that last year. He left a couple games and the bullpen blew his "win". This gets me thinking....................Is there a stat that shows how many of your "wins" were blown by the bullpen?

[homer]

Wins is a fine stat to judge a team. But for pitchers it's really low on the list for me. If a guy like Rick Helling can get 20 wins with a 4.41 ERA and a 1.32 WHIP and Sheets gets 12 wins with a 2.70 era and a .985 WHIP there's something inherently wrong with the stat as a measuring stick.

 

Like most stats, it has to be taken in context with other metrics.

[rluzinski]

Ii don't completely ignore a pitcher's win/loss record, since it's neat to look at. There are way better ways to measure the quality of starting pitcher performances, though.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Yeah the whole Win/Loss concept for pitchers is still fun to follow. I like to see who's in line for the win in each game. Don't goalies have Win/Loss records in hockey or am I mistaken?

[nate82]

Yeah the whole Win/Loss concept for pitchers is still fun to follow. I like to see who's in line for the win in each game. Don't goalies have Win/Loss records in hockey or am I mistaken?

Yes and ties also I believe.

 

[RU Rah Rah]

I wonder which stat the pitchers themselves value -- the one statistical category they really want to win (contract benchmarks aside).

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I wonder which stat the pitchers themselves value -- the one statistical category they really want to win (contract benchmarks aside).

Probably ERA. Especially for starters.

[Fatter than Joey]

wins I would say with 90% certainity

[jazzytrav]

I would say it comes down to the ones that mean more money...Wins and then ERA. I have no doubt closers are more concerned with saves than any other stat.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

So GM's are really that dumb to pay out contracts based on Wins over ERA?

[mothershipconnection]

Managers are hard to evaluate. Obviously, W/L doesn't tell the whole story, as I could have led the best teams in history to a playoff berth while a legendary manager could not have gotten the 02 Brewers above .500. Looking at aggregate production above and beyond PECOTA or other such projections may be a decent place to start, but it all takes in past performance under (typically) the same manager. It's easier to judge at the beginning of a manager's tenure when the team is stable from before the change, but it's hard to say what effect he's having in the middle of an unbroken data path.

It all comes down, IMO, to a series of decisions and matchups. Did he start the wrong platoon member often? Did he trot a guy out for the 7th who's proven many times to flop after 6th even though he has a good bullpen? Did he ride out a crappy regular when a (AAA) proven young player rotted on the bench? Did he bunt or call for shifts that the data show to be counterproductive?

[logan82]

Wins is a fine stat to judge a team.

Even then you have to look at more than just wins and loses. W/L record will tell you who had better results, but not who was a better team. Take last year for example. The Brewers finished just behind the Cubs in the standings. Obviously if there is a big gap in W/L record it is easy to tell who is better, but even a difference of 5 wins is pretty small when you are talking about 2 teams inthe same division that play each other 12 times a year.

 

Just my opinion, but W/L record tells you who had better results and that's about it. It doesn't tell who is better or who will be better.

[RU Rah Rah]

Just my opinion, but W/L record tells you who had better results and that's about it. It doesn't tell who is better or who will be better.

But if you don't judge by results, how do you define "better"?

 

[owbc]

I have no problem judging a team by wins and losses, as long as it's over the long haul. By the end of the season, it's safe to say that most of the breaks have evened themselves out. The only legitimate argument is the unbalanced schedule.

If you can't rank teams by wins after 162 games, when can you?

[cubfan1126]

Perfect example of why not to judge pitchers by W/L occurred in the Cubs game last night.

 

In the IGT someone pointed out that Dempster is 9-0 at home, 0-3 on the road.

 

He left after the 6th last night leading 5-2. Marmol comes in striking out the first 2 on 6 pitches, then gives up a walk, a single, and a HR; 5-5 and Dempster remains 0-3 on the road. Top of the next inning Fontenot homers, Cubs win, and Marmol gets the win. Go figure!

[jazzytrav]

Dempster just isn't a road winner http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm fine with W-L as a team stat. Obviously I have no problem using it to look at what happened to or for a team, but it's when you try to use it to look at what is likely to happen (especially applied to individuals), no thanks.

[logan82]

RU Rah Rah wrote:

But if you don't judge by results, how do you define "better"?

 

Which team had more talent. I know the Cubs had a better record, but were they really a better team than the Brewers last year. Given the same talent that every team had last year would the standings end up the same? Would the D-Backs win 90 games again or were they lucky last year?

 

Do things really even out over the course of a season though? I don't think the Brewers have played as good as their record shows to this point. Should we expect the Brewers to fall back to somewhere around .500 in one win games by the end of the season? I wouldn't think so.

[owbc]

But then how do you define 'talent'?

 

The Cubs won the division, so IMO, they are the more talented team. Winning close games isn't pure luck, it involves fundamentals, a solid bullpen, and (to an extent) managing. Even if one team has a higher OPS and lower ERA than the other, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are more talented.

[TooLiveBrew]

That's the tricky question. The Cubs won the division, so to me, they played/executed better and/or had the better results. That doesn't mean -- to me -- that they're any more or less talented, but over the course of 162 games, the more talented teams typically have the better results.

 

For example, I think the Brewers got lucky to hang on & win last night. I don't think we necessarily played better than the DBacks, but that last hot shot happened to go right at Branyan, game ending double-play. That's a W, but I don't think you necessarily can say 'The Brewers are more talented than the Diamondbacks because the Brewers won'. I personally think our offense is better & their pitching is better.

[logan82]

But then how do you define 'talent'?

 

The Cubs won the division, so IMO, they are the more talented team. Winning close games isn't pure luck, it involves fundamentals, a solid bullpen, and (to an extent) managing. Even if one team has a higher OPS and lower ERA than the other, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are more talented.

The Cubs finished better than we did by one at bat last year. If a couple more games head to head swing either way last year, we could very easily have won the division by 4 games or been out by 6 games at the end of the year. If the Cubs had played consistent all year last year, the division might have been closer all year with them absolutely burring us in the 2nd half.

 

The season is filled with teams playing well and bad throughout the year. I think over 162 games teams will play close to their true talent, but I believe that there could easily be a 5 win difference between 2 teams with equal talent.

 

If things really even out, the Brewers should be expected to start losing a bunch of one run games and finish with around a .500 or worse record in one run games and overall. I don't think that is the case. We should be expected to be close to .500 in whatever remaining 1 run games we encounter.