Brewer Patience = Wins, and a Capuano Stat

[rluzinski]

The results of Cappy's performance last year was unquestionably terrible. Whether the performance itself was terrible is up for debate. While some don't see the utility in making a distinction between the two, you have to when trying to predict future success.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I just wish we would trade Capuano in a package for Rolen so we wouldn't have to beat this dead horse into oblivion.

[logan82]

His job is to help the team win games and he didn't do that.

and Ben Sheets is a loser because he doesn't have a career winning record. Capuano had several games where he gave up 2 or fewer runs and was still tagged for a loss. If you go out and do that I see no way that you should be accountable for the loss. That's why W-L records are such garbage for judging pitchers and thus the CyYoung award. Capuano had some pretty horrible starts, but he also had some really good ones where the team did nothing to help him.

[gregmag]

Can he turn it around. Sure it's possible. Should the Brewers count on it? That's the question they have to answer. Many of you guys preaching patience with Capuano, are trying to move Braun off of 3B at all costs.

You're right to frame the question that way, but I think we have to state that question more precisely. Will Capuano "turn it around" such that he'll be a #2 starter again? That would seem to me like not such a good bet. Will he "turn it around" such that he'll be one of our five best starting pitchers, worth what we pay him, and not easily replaceable by someone better? That seems to me like a very good bet, and that's the modest -- but, IMHO, important and correct -- point that we "patience preachers" are making about him.

The Braun comment is one of the more mystifying apples-to-oranges comparisons I've seen in a while. Nobody advocates moving Braun to LF without finding a decent replacement at 3B, and one of the reasons the idea has gotten traction is that getting a good LF replacement seems no easier this offseason than getting a good 3B replacement. In contrast, replacing Capuano with a pitcher of similar ability (measured, as Ennder keeps insisting, by stats that accurately reflect ability) would present a challenge. Also, Braun's 3B defense hurt the team a lot more last year, within the scope of its influence, than Capuano's pitching; and Braun, unlike Capuano, has established no basis for believing he can do the job in question at the MLB level. I don't mean to dismiss the argument that we should be patient with Braun; although on balance I don't buy that argument, it's a lot more credible to me than the argument that we should give up on Capuano.

 

Greg.

[brettac1]

I'm not saying that this isn't a valid theory or whatever you want to call it, but this would kind of seem like common sense. If the opposing pitcher is walking more hitters than the Brewers' pitcher, chances are he's also getting hit more and giving up more runs. Especially when you're getting up into a large total of walks like 5+. I'm a huge lover of the base on balls, though, so I love it when any number supports their importance in winning games.

[TooLiveBrew]

Brett travels across time & space beyond our mere mortal comprehension level. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

Will Capuano "turn it around" such that he'll be a #2 starter again? That would seem to me like not such a good bet.

 

#2 in the NL? -- As if you ranked all the starters in the NL and a #2 was somewhere in the 20s -- probably not.

 

#2 on the Brewers? -- that could happen -- which I think speaks to the question marks on the Brewers staff. I think the only Brewer I feel confident in knowing what they will do is Suppan.

 

The results of Cappy's performance last year was unquestionably terrible. Whether the performance itself was terrible is up for debate.

 

Right -- The results WERE terrible. Trading Cappy after bad results seems to go against selling high/buying low.

 

While some don't see the utility in making a distinction between the two, you have to when trying to predict future success.

 

Agreed again, one of the things in particular that made me mad about Yost in 2007, was the way he handled Cappy. (July 8th specifically), Yost threw Cappy under the bus because of the Losses Cappy was racking up, when in fact 7-8-07 was squarely on Yost.

 

I understand and embrace what Russ/Ennder are saying -- and in a large part agree -- however the absolute reality is, is that our manager (Ned Yost through April/May 2008) WILL USE WIN/LOSSES as a predictive stat (as evidenced by putting Cappy in his doghouse in 2007). Now, is this smart? No, of course not -- but I think when our manager makes predictive moves based on stats like ERA or W/L it is only reasonable (if not prudent) that our fanbase reacts to what Yost does, and bases it's expectations based on Ned's historical actions.

 

If Cappy starts the season 1-4 with a 5+ ERA -- I don't care what his secondary stats are, -- he could be leading the NL -- and he will get the hook. Bank on it.

 

The Braun comment is one of the more mystifying apples-to-oranges comparisons I've seen in a while.

 

Agreed -- No one wants to dump/non-tender/trade Braun -- only maximize his overall production

[Thurston Fluff]

and Ben Sheets is a loser because he doesn't have a career winning record. Capuano had several games where he gave up 2 or fewer runs and was still tagged for a loss. If you go out and do that I see no way that you should be accountable for the loss. That's why W-L records are such garbage for judging pitchers and thus the CyYoung award. Capuano had some pretty horrible starts, but he also had some really good ones where the team did nothing to help him.

Helping the team win and getting the win are two differant things. Cappy had far more horrible starts than good ones. The team also bailed him out on more occasions than they failed him.

 

Lets look at it by month since the losing started on may 13th

May 4 losses one in which he pitched well going 7 innings and giving up 2 runs. Three losses in which his longest outing was 5.1 inning and he gave up 6 earned runs. The other two were 4 innings and 4 earned. Hardly a run support problem for three of four losses.

June one no decision 7 innings and 2 earned. One 4 innings 6 runs. So 50/50 can be blamed on run support.

July of his 4 no decisions two were run support problems one was flat out ugly 3 innings 5 runs one was 3.1 and 1. His two losses 6.1/4 and 5.1/7. By my count that means 2 of his six games were run support issues 4 were his inability to get guys out.

August his max innings was 6.1 in which he gave up 5 runs. The rest 4/2, 5/4, 4.1/6,5/4, 6/5. That is not run support issues that is poor performance. September is harder to tell because he wasn't starting regualary but 2/1, 4/0, 5/1 and 5/3 looked ok except for one.

 

 

Only if you use the wrong tools to evaluate pitching. W's and ERA are team stats. During his losing streak Capuano had 3 games where he went 7 IP with 2 ER and didn't get a win, he had one where he went 8 IP with 1 ER and one with 5 IP 1 ER and didn't get the win in any of them.

Ennder as a stat guy you should know better than to cherry pick like that. As you can see above there are clearly instances like you said but by far the majority was him giving up more runs than the team could reasonably be expected to make up for. You also failed to note that while he did pitch well at times and didn't get the win he also pitched poorly and didn't get the loss. The offense may have been responsible for a couple of his losses but it was equally responsible for not saddling him with more losses. In fact more often than not if he had pitched reasonably well he would have been able to win more games because of the offense than lose because of it. The arguement for poor run support shows he was left high and dry but that stat is not as sound in this case as you might believe. Run support has a flaw in that a pitcher who gives up 5 runs in three innings yet the offense doesn't score until the fourth it appears he didn't get any run support. Yet, as happened with Cappy last year, he ended up with a no decision because after he got pulled for ineffectivness the offense went on to score. The offense may score 50 runs in the next 6 innings yet it will appear he didn't get any help from the offense. When a pitcher can't make it through 5 or 6 innings consitantly run support for that pitcher most likely will be lower simply because there are less innings for them to score in.

 

BTW I understand wins is a team stat but ERA? I don't see how that is a team stat. ERA and quality starts to me tell something of a pitchers past performance though I don't think it does anything to predict the future.

[istanbultaye]

ERA is a team stat because the defense behind him (which sucked) is a large player in the variation of it.

[Thurston Fluff]

ERA is a team stat because the defense behind him (which sucked) is a large player in the variation of it.

 

Yet Sheets had an identical ERA as the previous year and Vargas and Soup had fairly similar ones. Soup would be the best indicator of how much effect it could have since he went from great defense to poor. I get what you mean but that gets mitigated somewhat by factoring out errors causeing runs and the large increase in ERA compared to previous years verse the small ones other pitchers had should still allow us to know something about the type of year he had. I understand it isn't perfect but no single stat is so why the problem with it as in indicator of his subpar season being his fault? I have to disagree that it played a large part of the variation. Small one yes. I think catcher palys a larger one than team defense does for that stat.

[Ennder]

BTW I understand wins is a team stat but ERA? I don't see how that is a team stat. ERA and quality starts to me tell something of a pitchers past performance though I don't think it does anything to predict the future.

 

Bullpen support and defense heavily influence ERA as do random variance and parks, quality of batters faced etc. ERA shows almost no correlation season to season so it just is not a good stat for judging pitchers. Like I said earlier, something as simple as swapping Suppan's bullpen support and Capuano's basically swaps their ERA as well. Suppan moves up to a 4.97 ERA, Capuano down to a 4.44. So the bullpen has suddenly turned Capuano into an acceptable season and Suppan into a bad one with the switch. ERA is just not a good stat over 1 season.

[xisxisxis]

Like I said earlier, something as simple as swapping Suppan's bullpen support and Capuano's basically swaps their ERA as well. Suppan moves up to a 4.97ERA, Capuano down to a 4.44.

 

Unfortunately you can't assume that the bullpen situations were identical between Suppan and Capuano and therefore, the bullpen's results for each is just random and can be used to illustrate simple "luck" (or variation). You have to look to see if there was a trend during those games where the bullpen inherited an inning from each starter. Here is a summary of the game logs when each left a game during an inning and required the bullpen to assist:

 

 Capuano Status when left game 
Date Score Dec R in; runners; outs (R allowed by BP)
Apr 08 W 9-4 W 3 in; 1st/2nd; 1 outs (1)
Apr 16 W 10-6 W 1 in; 2nd/3rd; 2 outs (2)
Apr 21 W 6-4 W 0 in; 1st/2nd/3rd; 0 outs (3)
May 07 W 3-0 W 0 in; 1st/2nd; 0 outs (0)
May 18 L 1-8 L 0 in; 2nd; 1 outs (0)
Jul 03 L 2-6 - 0 in; 1st/2nd; 1 outs (0)
Jul 08 L 2-7 L 3 in; 1st/2nd/3rd; 1 outs (3)
Jul 13 L 6-10 - 2 in; 2nd/3rd; 0 outs (1)
Jul 28 L 2-5 L 0 in; 3rd; 1 outs (1)
Aug 07 L 4-11 L 2 in; 1st/2nd; 0 outs (2)
Aug 14 L 4-12 L 2 in; 1st/2nd/3rd; 1 outs (3)
Aug 19 L 6-7 - 0 in; 1st/2nd; 1 outs (0)

Suppan Status when left game 
Date Score Dec R in; runners; outs (R allowed by BP)
Apr 14 W 3-2 W 0 in; 1st/2nd; 1 outs (1)
May 05 W 6-3 W 2 in; 2nd/3rd; 2 outs (0)
May 21 W 9-5 W 1 in; 1st/2nd; 0 outs (0)
Jun 12 L 0-4 L 1 in; 1st/2nd; 1 outs (0)
Jun 17 L 9-10 - 4 in; 1st; 2 outs (0)
Jul 15 W 4-3 - 0 in; 1st; 0 outs (1)
Jul 31 W 4-2 - 0 in; 1st/2nd/3rd; 1 outs (0)
Aug 05 L 6-8 - 1 in; 1st/3rd; 2 outs (0)
Aug 11 W 7-4 - 0 in; 1st; 2 outs (0)
Aug 17 L 3-8 L 1 in; 2nd; 2 outs (0)
Sep 15 W 5-3 W 1 in; 2nd; 1 outs (1)

 

Clearly there is a difference in how each left the game. Capuano left 25 batters on in 12 games (~2.1 per game), while Suppan left 18 batters in 11 games (~1.8 per game). Capuano left with 9 outs in those 12 games (less than 1 out per game - 4 NO out games, 7 1 out, and 1 2 out game) while Suppan had 14 outs in 11 games (2 NO out games, 4 1 out, and 5 2 out games). Clearly when Suppan left a game he was taken out with a better chance for the bullpen to succeed. When Capuano was taken out he left very little room for the bullpen to make mistakes.

 

Did Yost have a quick hook for Suppan? In 7 of the 11 games he was replaced the other team had already scored. For Capuano the other team scored in 6 of 12. In the 7 games for Suppan, 11 runs were scored, while 13 runs were scored against Capuano in his 6 games. It appears that there's a minor trend toward Suppan staying to give up runs more often, but not left in too long to give up multiple runs, while Capuano was pulled more often before runs were scored, but left in longer after more runs were allowed.

 

Overall the bullpen allowed 3 inherited runs to score when Suppan pitched, while 16 inherited runs scored against Capuano. A majority of those runs (9) scored in 3 games where he left with the bases loaded and 1 (2 games) or no (1 game) outs. Oddly enough 6 of the 16 scored in games Capuano won. The lone game where Capuano left with 2 outs and 2 runners on and the bullpen let both runners in, but Capuano won the game. I think it's clear that Capuano wasn't simply the victim of poor bullpen support. When he left a game during an inning it was often with men on base and few outs. Suppan received better support, but he also left fewer on with more outs. Simply the bullpen was setup to succeed more when Suppan left the game then when Capuano left. In the long stretch where Capuano couldn't buy a win, he often left with many runners on and 0 or 1 outs. That simply can't be hand waived away as bad bullpen support.

 

I fully expect Capuano to have better numbers this year than last, but I am not so sure it's a slam dunk and it's not clear that his problem was purely bad luck with poor bullpen support. Capuano created the problem that led to many of the inherited runners that were allowed to score by the bullpen.

[Ennder]

The samples are so small that you cannot possibly break it down that way. That is really stretching things. Capuano could easily put up another 4.50+ ERA, the expected range with someone of his skills is like 3.75 -5.00. I just find it baffling that people are trying to judge pitchers using ERA instead of stats that show strong correlation from season to season.

 

This isn't just about Capuano, it is about how people evaluate pitchers in general. If you are using ERA to judge a pitcher over 1 season you are making a mistake, pure and simple.

 

The ERA correlation from season to season averages 0.25. That basically means there is almost no correlation from year to year. ERA is not predictive of future success. In fact K/9 is just as strong a correlation compared to ERA as ERA is. If you know nothing else about a pitcher except his K/9 you can predict his next seasons ERA as well as if you knew just the previous seasons ERA.

[molitor fan]

Now THAT is some awesome research. Well, done Xisxis.

[And That]

The samples are so small that you cannot possibly break it down that way. That is really stretching things.

I agree. What you'd have to do to judge how quickly a manager hooks a certain pitcher objectively is, you'd have to gather the relevant pitching data over at least 3 or 4 years, set a median, and then base a manager's interactions with pitchers on that median. Or, that's how I would do it.

Nice try, though, David.

[gregmag]

I had been wondering about the nature of the situations that the bullpen inherited from Capuano and Suppan. I do think David's excellent analysis compels caution as to the particular point that Ennder made about swapping Capuano's and Suppan's bullpen support. I don't think you can fairly dismiss David's analysis based on sample size, because he's simply looking more precisely at the sample on which Ennder relied for his point.

 

However, I don't think David's analysis in any way undermines Ennder's broader argument -- that assessing Capuano's future value based on his W/L and ERA would dramatically undershoot the mark, that luck more than ability accounts for the difference between Suppan's record/ERA and Capuano's last year. I don't think Ennder needed the bullpen swap point to support that argument, so I don't think David's marginal weakening of that point hurts the argument.

 

Greg.

[xisxisxis]

I don't think you can fairly dismiss David's analysis based on sample size, because he's simply looking more precisely at the sample on which Ennder relied for his point.

 

Exactly. I also didn't make a definitive argument based on those small numbers. I merely indicated trends, which make the argument that the bullpen was a prime culprit in the "luck" that Capuano had in 2007 weaker. For Capuano, I do believe that a significant proportion of the runners inherited by the bullpen and scored were probably the fault of Capuano's, but I can't make a clear statement that X of 16 were due to Capuano and the remainder due to poor bullpen performance. A larger study involving all of the Brewer starters for 2007 might give a better idea as to a trend, but may still be under powered to give a definitive answer. Pooling data from multiple years becomes complicated due to changes in bullpen personnel, but that could be addressed with enough data and time.

 

However, I don't think David's analysis in any way undermines Ennder's broader argument -- that assessing Capuano's future value based on his W/L and ERA would dramatically undershoot the mark, that luck more than ability accounts for the difference between Suppan's record/ERA and Capuano's last year. I don't think Ennder needed the bullpen swap point to support that argument, so I don't think David's marginal weakening of that point hurts the argument.

 

What my analysis indicates is that there isn't a clear smoking gun that we can point to and account for a majority of the W/L and ERA deviations we see with Capuano. Suppan and Capuano had the same defense behind them so it's harder to make a clear argument that they suffered disproportionately. If they did, I would predict the effect was modest and didn't account for a majority of the deviation. One area that needs to be investigated (and I don't plan on having another blocked mainline that requires several hours of plumber time again in the near future so someone else will need to look at this) is how the opponents each faced during the year are different. Capuano could have faced better offenses and worse parks on average than Suppan. Capuano may have faced better right-handed teams while Suppan faced more mediocre left-handed teams. Capuano may have pitched more frequently in games where starters were not rested (game after a day off, etc.), Suppan in games where starters were more likely rested (day game after night game, etc.). I do believe that Capuano's numbers are skewed by "luck", but I don't think it's due mostly to 1 type of variation and most likely a combination of multiple factors. Given the fact that so many variables go into the equation leading to performance (especially for a pitcher) I can live without have a clear answer.

[Thurston Fluff]

The ERA correlation from season to season averages 0.25. That basically means there is almost no correlation from year to year. ERA is not predictive of future success. In fact K/9 is just as strong a correlation compared to ERA as ERA is. If you know nothing else about a pitcher except his K/9 you can predict his next seasons ERA as well as if you knew just the previous seasons ERA.

I was very explicit in saying it doesn't work to predict future success. I simply said it was a valid tool to use in determining if someone had a decent season.

Something that should be mentioned is the type of bullpen support you get patially depneds one what type of situation you leave the game in as well. For example if you leave the game in the 4th down by 5 runs with a runner on you probably are not going to get the best reliever. They tend to be used in late close games. So I think it's fair to see how many times a starter manages to pitch well enough to get to the better relievers. After all it may be the relievers fault letting inherited runners score but it is the starter fault if he couldn't get to the point where a manager fellt he should use the best reliever.

So let's take Cappy vs Soup. I'll take April - August since Cappy wasn't starting all of Sep.

Soup had 0 games under 4 innings. Cappy had three.

Soup had one game where he didn't get to the 5th. Cappy had 5.

Soup had 10 games under six innings. Cappy 6.

 

It's fairly obvious when a pitcher has that many games where he can't make it as far as the 5th that his ERA will be effected by the reliever. Yet it is equally apparant that much of that is due to his own ineffectiveness. Had Cappy made it to the later innings more consistantly he would have had better bullpen support. So while there are external factors involved with ERA some of them are not as random or due to luck as you suggest.

But agian since it seemed to have been missed before in my rambling I'm not saying ERA is useful for predicting. Simply that is is useful with telling something from the past. The ERA of Cappy's 07 season as valid as any single measure as saying Cappy had, be it bad luck, ineffectiveness or whatever, a bad year.

[rluzinski]

I agree that you can't just swap Suppan's and Cappy's relief help so simply. It does highlight how much a starting pitcher's ERA is affected by the bullpen, however. Of course, ERA is also greatly affected by errors, defense in general, and just plain ol' luck. It's a pretty slippery number over 200 IP. It just doesn't work very well.

[Thurston Fluff]

Is there a single stat anywhere that is completely independant of outside forces? I doubt it. So why is ERA so much worse looking back on something than any other stat? All pitchers stats are dependant on defense and the catcher who calls the game at the very least. The degree which relievers effect the ERA seems to me to be at least partially the responsibilty of the starter which is more than can be dsaid of who the cathcer or the fielders are.

Again I understand the problem of using it for predictive purposes but in the case of Cappy's 07 season it seems to parallel his overall disappointing season. Unless of course the arguement is he didn't have a bad season. I realize some are argueing his numbers show he will likely return to respectability which I agree with. I don't think anyone is argueing he really didn't have a subpar season. We just seem to be debating why it was subpar.

[homer]

"Is there a single stat anywhere that is completely independant of outside forces? I doubt it."

 

No, but there are others that are less dependent on outside forces than ERA is.

 

FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.)

[Ennder]

K/9, BB/9, GB% all show high correlation year to year, those are the stats you use to judge whether a pitcher pitched poorly. If a number shows almost no correlation year to year it generally means that it is driven more by outside factors than by player skill. ERA is a 'team stat', so much of what goes in to it is outside the pitchers control that it shows extremely weak correlation season to season.

 

The big difference is you are being result oriented and I am not. If I'm playing texas hold em and I play 52o I'm making a mistake, the results over a few hands might look good or bad but I'm playing poorly regardless. ERA is looking at the results, peripherals are looking at how the guy actually pitched.

 

In 2006 Peavy pitched very well, he ended up with a 4.10 ERA. He was still an ace because his peripherals were strong, he just let in more runs than normal which is a result. To me judging a pitcher by ERA is the same as judging them by W's. Obviously W's are even less in the players control but both of them are so full of noise that over 1 season the results just aren't that meaningful.

 

Last year Brad Penny put up a 3.03 ERA yet he pitched worse than in 2006. He just happened to barely let in any HR's. You'll say that was just good pitching but when only 2% of your fly balls leave the park for half the season it is just small sample variance, not skill, it is something that won't last long term.

 

We just look at pitching very differently.

 

Also as a side note, pitching behind the same defense doesn't mean each pitcher gets hurt by the defense the same amount at all. Sometimes Braun overthrows with 2 out and nobody on and it is no big deal. Sometimes he misses a play that isn't called an error and leads to a 3 run inning. Those things don't come anywhere close to evening out for all pitchers over a single season.

 

I'll try to illustrate the difference in thinking one more way.

 

Pitcher A - 6 IP, 4 ER, 2 H, 1 BB, 1 HBP, 1 HR, 9 K, L

Pitcher B - 6 IP, 1 ER, 7 H, 4 BB, 1 HR, 2 K, W

 

Which pitcher had the better game, I'll answer Pitcher A every time, I'm guessing you'd answer pitcher B and that is the difference in how we evaluate pitching.

[xisxisxis]

I'll try to illustrate the difference in thinking one more way.

 

Pitcher A - 6 IP, 4 ER, 2 H, 1 BB, 1 HBP, 1 HR, 9 K, L

Pitcher B - 6 IP, 1 ER, 7 H, 4 BB, 1 HR, 2 K, W

 

Which pitcher had the better game, I'll answer Pitcher A every time, I'm guessing you'd answer pitcher B and that is the difference in how we evaluate pitching.

 

But does anyone in their right mind judge a pitcher based on 1 game? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Where we may be having a difference is in semantics. For me:

 

Which pitcher had the better GAME? Pitcher B.

Which pitcher is probably the better PITCHER? Probably Pitcher A.

 

You can't simply ignore results. Was Pitcher B's game pretty? NO. Were his peripherals good? No, they're ugly. Did his team win? Yes. When the comparison is a win versus a loss then it's clear to me, the rest is just style points. Now if Pitcher A's team hadn't lost I would be inclined to go with him, or if he gave up fewer ER and no decision. I just think the bottom line is the result when looking at a single instance. When evaluating future performance it's more important to look at peripherals. You don't have to use the same yardstick to measure the width of a room and the distance to the moon.

[homer]

You can't simply ignore results. Was Pitcher B's game pretty? NO. Were his peripherals good? No, they're ugly. Did his team win? Yes. When the comparison is a win versus a loss then it's clear to me, the rest is just style points. Now if Pitcher A's team hadn't lost I would be inclined to go with him, or if he gave up fewer ER and no decision. I just think the bottom line is the result when looking at a single instance.

 

I think we'd need a bit more information to judge who had the better 'game'. Sure pitcher B's team 'won' and that's the whole point, but without knowing what his bullpen did or how good his defense was they may have won in in spite of his performance.

[Ennder]

You can't simply ignore results. Was Pitcher B's game pretty? NO. Were his peripherals good? No, they're ugly. Did his team win? Yes. When the comparison is a win versus a loss then it's clear to me, the rest is just style points. Now if Pitcher A's team hadn't lost I would be inclined to go with him, or if he gave up fewer ER and no decision. I just think the bottom line is the result when looking at a single instance. When evaluating future performance it's more important to look at peripherals. You don't have to use the same yardstick to measure the width of a room and the distance to the moon.

 

This is exactly where we differ, I look at those two and it is clear that pitcher A pitched a better game, it isn't even close. The results matter for the team, not for the individual. Whether or not the pitcher gave up runs or got the W has nothing to do with how well he pitched. The pitcher can only control so much of the game, the rest is out of his hands. Like I said, we view things very differently so we won't ever agree on it.