Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only people that would legitimately make a case against him would be those that either dislike him personally or who greatly overvalue wins, a stat that is largely based on team support around you rather than individual performance.
I realize that with today's five man staff and the huge workload expected of the bullpen, wins don't come as easy for starting pitchers.
With that said, wins are still (and have always been) a good measure of a pitcher's value. Good pitchers get wins despite where they play ... look no further than Robin Roberts, Nolan Ryan, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins for proof, to name just a few.
I realize that with today's five man staff and the huge workload expected of the bullpen, wins don't come as easy for starting pitchers.
With that said, wins are still (and have always been) a good measure of a pitcher's value. Good pitchers get wins despite where they play ... look no further than Robin Roberts, Nolan Ryan, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins for proof, to name just a few.
The above flies in the face of modern metric analysis. In the evaluation of pitchers, the emphasis has shifted from focus on factors the pitcher does not control, and onto those elements of his craft which he does control. Wins are the product of a combination of scoring runs and preventing runs. The pitcher is not responsible for scoring runs, and is only partly responsible for preventing them. The rest of that responsibility rests with the defenders.
A pitcher win has some value, but it is deceptive because of the noise...those other elements of responsibility which he does not control.
It is especially archaic to cling to wins as the indicator of quality since 2000 and the Voros McCracken discovery that pitchers have very little to do with how frequently balls in play are converted into outs. That led to the development of DIPs (Defensive Independent Pitching) of FIPs (Fielding Independent Pitching) which evaluates pitchers on the basis of those actions and outcomes for which they are entirely responsible. Those are strikeouts, walks and home runs yielded.
If you had to choose a free agent pitcher for your team and the choices were one guy who was 18-11 with a 2.80 ERA but a 3.55 DIPs ERA, and a pitcher who was 13-16 with a 3.20 ERA but a DIPs ERA of 3.10, you would be foolish to choose the first guy on the basis of more wins. The second guy had the better year, that he had fewer wins was the result of factors he did not control.
It is difficult sometimes to let go of familiar assumptions, but if you wish to know who was the better pitcher and who would be more valuable on your club, looking at wins is not the way to go any longer.
The above flies in the face of modern metric analysis. In the evaluation of pitchers, the emphasis has shifted from focus on factors the pitcher does not control, and onto those elements of his craft which he does control. Wins are the product of a combination of scoring runs and preventing runs. The pitcher is not responsible for scoring runs, and is only partly responsible for preventing them. The rest of that responsibility rests with the defenders.
A pitcher win has some value, but it is deceptive because of the noise...those other elements of responsibility which he does not control.
It is especially archaic to cling to wins as the indicator of quality since 2000 and the Voros McCracken discovery that pitchers have very little to do with how frequently balls in play are converted into outs. That led to the development of DIPs (Defensive Independent Pitching) of FIPs (Fielding Independent Pitching) which evaluates pitchers on the basis of those actions and outcomes for which they are entirely responsible. Those are strikeouts, walks and home runs yielded.
If you had to choose a free agent pitcher for your team and the choices were one guy who was 18-11 with a 2.80 ERA but a 3.55 DIPs ERA, and a pitcher who was 13-16 with a 3.20 ERA but a DIPs ERA of 3.10, you would be foolish to choose the first guy on the basis of more wins. The second guy had the better year, that he had fewer wins was the result of factors he did not control.
It is difficult sometimes to let go of familiar assumptions, but if you wish to know who was the better pitcher and who would be more valuable on your club, looking at wins is not the way to go any longer.
Nah. I'm not saying wins are the be all to end all, but they still mean a lot. Good pitchers get their wins. Give me the 2.80 ERA and 18 wins ...
How do you explain away pitchers who won a lot of games playing for mostly bad teams?
Gladly, I will beat you with my 13 win guy with the better DIPs.
Quote:
How do you explain away pitchers who won a lot of games playing for mostly bad teams
The same way one explains pitchers who lose a great many games playing for good teams. It is luck, it is chance, it is factors beyond the control of the pitcher.
My favorite example of the value of wins comes from the the 2011 All Star Game. Tyler Clipper was brought in to pitch in the 4th inning with the NL down 1-0. There were two outs and a runner on secondbase. The batter smacked a base hit to the outfield on Clipper's third pitch, but the runner was thrown out at the plate trying to score, ending the inning. In the bottom of the inning the NL scored 3 times and established a lead it never relinquished. The winning pitcher? Tyler Clippard. He was the pitcher of record when his team took the lead for good.
So, Clipper faced one batter, threw three pitches, gave up a base hit...and he is the winner.
That is how meaningful wins may be.
My position is strongly backed by advanced research. If you wish I will provide you with links.
Is your position something more than "because I said so?" If so, please provide links to any research you feel supports your position.
Gladly, I will beat you with my 13 win guy with the better DIPs.
The same way one explains pitchers who lose a great many games playing for good teams. It is luck, it is chance, it is factors beyond the control of the pitcher.
My favorite example of the value of wins comes from the the 2011 All Star Game. Tyler Clipper was brought in to pitch in the 4th inning with the NL down 1-0. There were two outs and a runner on secondbase. The batter smacked a base hit to the outfield on Clipper's third pitch, but the runner was thrown out at the plate trying to score, ending the inning. In the bottom of the inning the NL scored 3 times and established a lead it never relinquished. The winning pitcher? Tyler Clippard. He was the pitcher of record when his team took the lead for good.
So, Clipper faced one batter, threw three pitches, gave up a base hit...and he is the winner.
That is how meaningful wins may be.
My position is strongly backed by advanced research. If you wish I will provide you with links.
Is your position something more than "because I said so?" If so, please provide links to any research you feel supports your position.
Wow ... one rare occurrence and you're considering it gospel.
Still waiting for you to tell me which pitchers won a lot of games playing for mostly bad teams.
I posted some already: Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Nolan Ryan. How about Phil Niekro? Steve Carlton won 27 games in 1972 for a Phillies team that won 59. Bert Blyleven. Walter Johnson. I don't believe Juan Marichal pitched for many good Giants teams. Tom Seaver pitched for a lot of bad teams and he got his wins. Great pitchers get their wins. Be jealous.
I'm still waiting for you and Grandstander to show me some 'great' starting pitchers who didn't win a lot of games ...
You guys rely too much on "what ifs and ifs ..." "If this guy played here, he'd hit ..." "If this guy batted before/after this guy ..." "If this guy pitched for so and so and had this bullpen ..."
Too much bs and too many 'ifs.'
Guess what? If my aunt had b*lls, she'd be my uncle.
Generally speaking, show me a guy who knocks in or scores a lot of runs and I'll show you a productive offensive player. Show me a guy who wins a lot of game or has a nice ERA and I'll show you a productive pitcher. The game is about scoring runs and preventing runs.
Personally, I don't think guys like you enjoy the game. I think you enjoy picking the numbers apart, trying to discredit productive players.
Last edited by 2002 Subaru; 12-04-2016 at 09:34 AM..
Subaru,
I will not invest any more time after this post because it is pointless to try and teach someone something when that person has no interest in learning. You have demonstrated a strong preference for conventional wisdom and cliches over cognitive knowledge. If you change your mindset and show some indication that you would like to learn something about the advanced understanding of baseball statistics, I will help you.
You requested an example of of a great starting pitcher who didn't win a lot of games.
In 1987 this pitcher compiled 211 innings and led the NL in ERA with a 2.76 mark. He struck out 270 batters, best in the league. His strikeout to walk ratio was 3:10, also leading the league. His 11.5 strikeouts per nine innings pitched also led the league. His FIPs ERA of 2.47 also led the league.
Beyond any question this man was the best pitcher in the National League that season. However, he finished 5th in the CY Young voting behind four guys with higher ERAs. The most strikeouts any of those four had were 80 fewer than our fellow.
The reason he didn't win the CY Young he so clearly earned? His record was 8-16.
Because I hate to see loose ends in the form of misinformation...
2002 Subaru had written:
Quote:
I don't believe Juan Marichal pitched for many good Giants teams.
Marichal pitched for SF for fourteen seasons, 1960 through 1973. The Giants were sub .500 in only one of those seasons, 1972. Overall they were 1235-1012, .549 ball which is an average of an 89-73 record. They finished first once and second five times during the sixties when there were no divisions, just two ten team leagues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
