Article: BREAKING: Red Sox Sign Walker Buehler To One-Year Contract

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

23 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Very reasonable take.

And I do get why wins still mean something to starting pitchers.  It's one of those things that's just kind of wired into them.  It's what these guys do for a living, after all.  And you will see managers sometimes trying to get the pitcher the win by getting him through the 5th inning.  OTOH you see managers throw that right out the window sometimes too.  

There were also a few times this century when it looked -- to my eyes -- like a Tito or Cora yanked a starter who they were irked with for some reason after 4 2/3s with a lead...  Only one out to go for a W? Take a seat and learn something, Meat.

But in this day of openers and two-times-through-the-order starters, win requirements should be adjusted to reward the most effective pitcher each day.

[notin]

17 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Maybe ERA is one of the things they factor into fWAR. I have no idea. As far as I know fWAR is just something that a guy with a website invented. As for which of your groups is best, it's all a matter of opinion.  As a rule, I would say that the guys with the best ERAs are usually the best pitchers. But there is something to be said for the guys who consistently win games. And there are pitchers who seem to have good stuff and good metrics, etc, but never really become big winners. In the end, winning is what matters most. 

And sometimes the guys with more wins just play on better teams.  
 

In 2005, Bartolo Colon had a 21-8 W-L record and used it to win the Cy Young Award.  Why? Johan Santana beat him in every single pitching star except wins.  Better ERA, better WHIP, better K/9, better BB/9.  Basically was a better pitcher.  But he was only 16-7.

A big factor there is Santana pitched for a Twins team that simply wasn’t very good, finishing 83-79.  While Colon won more games for the 95-67 Angels.

So was Colon really the better pitcher in 2005?  Or did he just pitch for a better team?

[Duran Is The Man]

6 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

There were also a few times this century when it looked -- to my eyes -- like a Tito or Cora yanked a starter who they were irked with for some reason after 4 2/3s with a lead...  Only one out to go for a W? Take a seat and learn something, Meat.

But in this day of openers and two-times-through-the-order starters, win requirements should be adjusted to reward the most effective pitcher each day.

there should definitely be a better way, and like Moon said, historical games could even be reanalyzed. 

[notin]

Just now, Duran Is The Man said:

there should definitely be a better way, and like Moon said, historical games could even be reanalyzed. 

There is and it’s been done.  That’s exactly what WAR is - the better way.  It’s not perfect and will probably be replaced by something even more involved.  But in its present state, it’s better than wins and ERA…

[Old Red]

35 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Let’s include war.

 

the top two War pitchers were……….drum roll…..

Sale and Skubal

Win leaders, ERA leaders, and K leaders also. That’s why ALL stats matter.

[notin]

14 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Win leaders, ERA leaders, and K leaders also. That’s why ALL stats matter.

One thing about wins, strikeouts and ERA is they all ignore the very important Innings Pitched stat.  (ERA does use it in the formula, but your ERA doesn’t get better with more IP.  In fact, very often the opposite.)  A pitcher who can continually pitch and keep himself on the mound is a rare and very useful thing.,.

[moonslav59]

5 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Winning is the most important thing for the team, no question.  But why should any one player be credited with the win? That's kind of a dumb idea in itself.  Pitchers have rarely contributed any run scoring to their teams, and run scoring is half the game.

 

Exactly! Very well said.

By not thinking Wins is an important stat to judge a pitcher by in no way diminishes how much wins matter for a team. Pitchers have a huge impact on winning, and SP'ers even more do, due to more IP. The more they prevent runs, the better they are and the chances of winning increases.

A pitcher can allow zero ERs and still get the loss. Nuff said.

[Old Red]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Exactly! Very well said.

By not thinking Wins is an important stat to judge a pitcher by in no way diminishes how much wins matter for a team. Pitchers have a huge impact on winning, and SP'ers even more do, due to more IP. The more they prevent runs, the better they are and the chances of winning increases.

A pitcher can allow zero ERs and still get the loss. Nuff said.

A pitcher can allow zero earned runs,  and still get the loss is true. Also a pitcher can give up 6 earned runs,, and still be the winning pitcher. I’m not disputing everything that’s been said, and agree with most, but all I’m saying is that there so many variables that goes in to how good a starting pitcher is, and W-L is ONE of them. Like I mentioned before that Houck was a better pitcher than Bello this past season, but Houck was 9-10, and Bello was 14-8. There were a lot of variables that went into the difference, but I bet Houck would have rather been 14-8 than 9-10, and that starting pitchers care about their W-L than  others do on here. Like I said Houck, and Bello, and Sale, and Skubal were on two sides of the spectrum on how to judge a pitcher. How two different people judge things, and how deep they delve into the different variables could be the difference of an average fan, and a real diehard who wants, and needs every stat they can get.   BOTH ways work.

[notin]

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

A pitcher can allow zero earned runs,  and still get the loss is true. Also a pitcher can give up 6 earned runs,, and still be the winning pitcher. I’m not disputing everything that’s been said, and agree with most, but all I’m saying is that there so many variables that goes in to how good a starting pitcher is, and W-L is ONE of them. Like I mentioned before that Houck was a better pitcher than Bello this past season, but Houck was 9-10, and Bello was 14-8. There were a lot of variables that went into the difference, but I bet Houck would have rather been 14-8 than 9-10, and that starting pitchers care about their W-L than  others do on here. Like I said Houck, and Bello, and Sale, and Skubal were on two sides of the spectrum on how to judge a pitcher. How two different people judge things, and how deep they delve into the different variables could be the difference of an average fan, and a real diehard who wants, and needs every stat they can get.   BOTH ways work.

Plenty of things go into many pitcher stats.  But of all the pitching stats out there, none of them are less revealing about a pitcher than W-L record.  If I asked everyone on this forum to get examples of this, we could all easily get a dozen unique ones.  If I tried the same thing with ERA, would anyone be able to find a single example?

[Old Red]

30 minutes ago, notin said:

Plenty of things go into many pitcher stats.  But of all the pitching stats out there, none of them are less revealing about a pitcher than W-L record.  If I asked everyone on this forum to get examples of this, we could all easily get a dozen unique ones.  If I tried the same thing with ERA, would anyone be able to find a single example?

I have Never said a pitchers W-L record is the most important stat on determining how good a pitcher is. I have said it’s one of them.  I don’t really care where it ranks on the totem poles. I have always said that is where I start, and then go from there. That’s what works for me. What works for you, and others is totally different, and that’s fine too. To say a W-L record is less revealing of a pitcher of all the stats out there is not always true as was with Sale, and Skubal this past year. Same with their ERA this past year, and. the same with their other stats. We’ve gone through this many times on which stats are most important to whomever is looking, and analyzing things, and everyone has different needs, and interest, but like I said IMO a pitcher cares what their W-L looks like.

[notin]

37 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I have Never said a pitchers W-L record is the most important stat on determining how good a pitcher is. I have said it’s one of them.  I don’t really care where it ranks on the totem poles. I have always said that is where I start, and then go from there. That’s what works for me. What works for you, and others is totally different, and that’s fine too. To say a W-L record is less revealing of a pitcher of all the stats out there is not always true as was with Sale, and Skubal this past year. Same with their ERA this past year, and. the same with their other stats. We’ve gone through this many times on which stats are most important to whomever is looking, and analyzing things, and everyone has different needs, and interest, but like I said IMO a pitcher cares what their W-L looks like.

You didn’t, but others have.

I can argue W-L record is less revealing than any other stat, even in the case of Sale.  If it isn’t the least reveling stat, what is?   Sale was 18-3 because he was dominant. He wasn’t dominant because he was 18-3.

Sure this ground has been covered, but it always starts with someone saying “I don’t like WAR because…”

Also some pitchers might care about their W-L records.  But some undoubtedly don’t, especially since MLB and BBWAA stopped using them to determine awards and teams stopped paying for them.   Whether or not you think they do is irrelevant, and the reality is sweeping generalizations are incorrect more often than not…

[Old Red]

24 minutes ago, notin said:

You didn’t, but others have.

I can argue W-L record is less revealing than any other stat, even in the case of Sale.  If it isn’t the least reveling stat, what is?   Sale was 18-3 because he was dominant. He wasn’t dominant because he was 18-3.

Sure this ground has been covered, but it always starts with someone saying “I don’t like WAR because…”

Also some pitchers might care about their W-L records.  But some undoubtedly don’t, especially since MLB and BBWAA stopped using them to determine awards and teams stopped paying for them.   Whether or not you think they do is irrelevant, and the reality is sweeping generalizations are incorrect more often than not…

I guess one of my questions is why do you have to rank stats in the first place? It’s true Sale was dominant with K’s, low H/IP, low ERA, which all helped to the 18-3 record.  IMO more pitchers than you think care about ALL their stats, which includes their W-L record. IMO Houck would have rather swapped records with Bello this year than to say he was a better pitcher.

[Duran Is The Man]

3 hours ago, notin said:

There is and it’s been done.  That’s exactly what WAR is - the better way.  It’s not perfect and will probably be replaced by something even more involved.  But in its present state, it’s better than wins and ERA…

i was talking about a better way to define Wins.

[notin]

4 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i was talking about a better way to define Wins.

I think stop calling them “wins” and find another term.  Or define a pitcher by QS rather than wins.  

[Duran Is The Man]

1 minute ago, notin said:

I think stop calling them “wins” and find another term.  Or define a pitcher by QS rather than wins.  

oh, i get it, i was just saying that there needs to be a better way to quantify a "win". it's BS the way the do it now.. it's been around since the beginning, so i don't think it's going away.

[notin]

19 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I guess one of my questions is why do you have to rank stats in the first place? It’s true Sale was dominant with K’s, low H/IP, low ERA, which all helped to the 18-3 record.  IMO more pitchers than you think care about ALL their stats, which includes their W-L record. IMO Houck would have rather swapped records with Bello this year than to say he was a better pitcher.

Would Houck be a better pitcher if he was 14-8?  Of course not.   Thats sort of the point. 
 

Sale dominated his way to the Triple Crown and his 18-3 record.  But if you look at Shota Imanaga, he was 15-3 and not nearly as dominant despite similar W-L records.  Hunter Greene was 9-5 and was pretty dominant on his own.  But W-L record shows none of this…

[Old Red]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

Would Houck be a better pitcher if he was 14-8?  Of course not.   Thats sort of the point. 
 

Sale dominated his way to the Triple Crown and his 18-3 record.  But if you look at Shota Imanaga, he was 15-3 and not nearly as dominant despite similar W-L records.  Hunter Greene was 9-5 and was pretty dominant on his own.  But W-L record shows none of this…

No Houck would not be a better pitcher in theory, but IMO he would still rather have the 14-8 record. I agree with the rest, and once again many things go into any pitchers W-L record. I just don’t rank any of the reasons, or stats in any order of importance. That works for me, and your way works for you.

[mvp 78]

On 12/29/2024 at 12:59 PM, moonslav59 said:

I would like to see the "Win" rules be updated, and I guess we could go back and retroactively change awarded wins from the past, if we wanted to (unofficially.)

I still think "wins" would still not capture who pitches better. 

Run support is a major factor in a pitcher getting a win or not, and that has nothing to do with his skills, and it never will, no matter what the rules are.

Maybe they don't have to "award" a win at all to a pitcher? 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Maybe they don't have to "award" a win at all to a pitcher? 

The standings that chart wins and losses say New York, Baltimore, Boston... not Rodon, Burnes, Bello.

Starting pitchers are yanked earlier than ever, even guys who are effective. So it seems dumb that a starter who throws four solid innings gets no credit, and then a reliever who only goes two or one frame gets the win.

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

The standings that chart wins and losses say New York, Baltimore, Boston... not Rodon, Burnes, Bello.

Starting pitchers are yanked earlier than ever, even guys who are effective. So it seems dumb that a starter who throws four solid innings gets no credit, and then a reliever who only goes two or one frame gets the win.

Makes zero sense. I'm not sure any pitcher deserves a win in that scenario. If a starter throws a QS? Maybe. W/L is completely meaningless for a pitcher IMO. ERA isn't perfect, but it's way better than wins or saves. 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Maybe they don't have to "award" a win at all to a pitcher? 

No other team sports "award" a win to a single player.

A pitcher can let up 8 runs, while a batter hits 3 grand slams, but guess which player is the only one with a chance at the win?

[Bellhorn04]

38 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

No other team sports "award" a win to a single player.

A pitcher can let up 8 runs, while a batter hits 3 grand slams, but guess which player is the only one with a chance at the win?

For a few years MLB was actually tracking "game-winning RBIs" using the same principles as the "winning pitcher" rules (the RBI that puts you ahead to stay) before abandoning it.  

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

For a few years MLB was actually tracking "game-winning RBIs" using the same principles as the "winning pitcher" rules (the RBI that puts you ahead to stay) before abandoning it.  

Horrible. 

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

Horrible. 

Yeah, when MLB gives up on something, you know it's pretty bad. 

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

No other team sports "award" a win to a single player.

A pitcher can let up 8 runs, while a batter hits 3 grand slams, but guess which player is the only one with a chance at the win?

Goalies

[dgalehouse]

On 12/30/2024 at 12:22 PM, notin said:

And sometimes the guys with more wins just play on better teams.  
 

In 2005, Bartolo Colon had a 21-8 W-L record and used it to win the Cy Young Award.  Why? Johan Santana beat him in every single pitching star except wins.  Better ERA, better WHIP, better K/9, better BB/9.  Basically was a better pitcher.  But he was only 16-7.

A big factor there is Santana pitched for a Twins team that simply wasn’t very good, finishing 83-79.  While Colon won more games for the 95-67 Angels.

So was Colon really the better pitcher in 2005?  Or did he just pitch for a better team?

Notin, The same argument could be used both ways. I could say that one guy had better numbers in most categories, but the award went to the other guy because the baseball writers valued his wins. And playing on a winner always helps, just as in the MVP voting. And I am not by any means saying that wins and losses are the only thing to go by. Just saying that wins have been pretty much disregarded by most of the analytics folks. And I disagree with that. 

[Hugh2]

I feel the further back in time you go, the more W/L mattered for CY Youngs.  

My favorite example is 1993.  Probably the first year I was fully 100% invested in baseball.  Both Randy Johnson and Kevin Appier had superior seasons in almost every way; every way except wins. 

Johnson and Appier won 19 and 18 games respectively but McDowell won 22. 

In the spirit of the argument I empathize with the stance that all stats matter, and they most certainly do.  While I also belong to the camp that WINS/LOSSES are a poor barometer of how good a pitcher is, I think you'd be hard pressed to ever find a very very very good pitcher with a losing record. I think a better argument would be that wins and losses on their own are a s***** way to evaluate a pitcher, which they are. 

There was a period of time when record was a deciding factor and that is no longer the case.  As it should be. 

[Bellhorn04]

There was certainly a time when looking at W-L records could be a lot of fun.

Wilbur Wood had the following W-L records from 1971 to 1975:

22-13

24-17

24-20 😁

20-19

16-20

[notin]

On 12/31/2024 at 9:56 AM, moonslav59 said:

No other team sports "award" a win to a single player.

Hockey awards wins and losses to goalies…

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

Hockey awards wins and losses to goalies…

Soccer/Football goalies too.