A thread about pitcher W-L records

[Bellhorn04]

Seems like this topic remains so hot that it should have its own separate thread.

Does a pitcher's W-L record still mean something?

Did it ever?

I don't think it means very much any more, and there have always been problems with it.  But I also concede that sometimes W-L records can be interesting, at least.

[Bellhorn04]

Even in olden days a pitcher's W-L record often wouldn't line up with their ERA and other vital stats.  Some famous examples:

1968

Bob Gibson 22-9 1.12

Denny McLain 31-6 1.96

Career

Nolan Ryan 324-292 3.19

Bert Blyleven 287-250 3.31

Andy Pettitte 256-153 3.85

Jack Morris 254-186 3.90

[dgalehouse]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Seems like this topic remains so hot that it should have its own separate thread.

Does a pitcher's W-L record still mean something?

Did it ever?

I don't think it means very much any more, and there have always been problems with it.  But I also concede that sometimes W-L records can be interesting, at least.

Almost every starting pitcher goes out there with the goal of winning. It's the competitive nature of the game. All pitchers realize this.  Of course, there are nuances and flaws in any system. The won-loss record needs to be looked at in conjunction with ERA and other stats, but to say it is meaningless is what I would call analytic snobbery. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, dgalehouse said:

Almost every starting pitcher goes out there with the goal of winning. It's the competitive nature of the game. All pitchers realize this.  Of course, there are nuances and flaws in any system. The won-loss record needs to be looked at in conjunction with ERA and other stats, but to say it is meaningless is what I would call analytic snobbery. 

It used to mean something when pitchers were throwing a lot of complete games.  Now the average start is a little over 5 innings.  That has a big impact.  Recognizing this fact doesn't make one a snob, IMHO.

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Even in olden days a pitcher's W-L record often wouldn't line up with their ERA and other vital stats.  Some famous examples:

1968

Bob Gibson 22-9 1.12

Denny McLain 31-6 1.96

Career

Nolan Ryan 324-292 3.19

Bert Blyleven 287-250 3.31

Andy Pettitte 256-153 3.85

Jack Morris 254-186 3.90

That’s where the eye test can come in just like with Crochet this year. The eye test is very telling on how Crochet has pitched this. Better than all the stats out there to your disposal.

[Bellhorn04]

The rules for determining a win or loss are totally arbitrary. 

There are 3 things out of the starting pitcher's control:

a) When his manager pulls him

b) How many runs his team scores

c) Whether the bullpen holds the lead or blows it

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

That’s where the eye test can come in just like with Crochet this year. The eye test is very telling on how Crochet has pitched this. Better than all the stats out there to your disposal.

I still have some old school left in me.  The first thing I look at is still the ERA.  

[dgalehouse]

In most cases, ( not all, but most)  the great pitchers were big winners who battled to get the W. No doubt, times have changed. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

49 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I still have some old school left in me.  The first thing I look at is still the ERA.  

Back when starting pitchers were expected to finish what they started, ERAs sometimes fluctuated because of a certain approach... 

Most complete game pitchers understandably tire in the last few frames, but some with a big lead also may take it easy and pitch to contact more. Throw less pitches, trust your defense to help end games quicker, save your shoulders and elbows for next time it's close.

There's really no way any stat can prove or disprove this theory -- just a little qualitative data: 

Bob Gibson had too much pride to ever ease up -- and his ERA in '68 was almost a run better than AL counterpart Denny McLain... who admitted he intentionally grooved pitches to old Mickey Mantle so the Yankee idol could homer in his final month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

I'm sure most pitchers feel a lot better, when their teams wins in a game they started, even if they were not all that good, more than a game the team lost, despite him doing fairly well (or slightly better than in the game they won.)

Of course, wins matter to a pitcher, and they like it more when they are assigned the win, and not some RP'er, who happened to be in the game, when the lead changed.

When I look at how good a pitcher has done, when compared to others, I don't look at a team stat or result. I look at how well the guy pitched over a long enough period of time to have a strong opinion.

[dgalehouse]

I guess when a pitcher is up for a new contract or for arbitration, they don't want management telling them that they didn't win many games either. 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

Wins have always been the goal of the pitcher but now the optics of the game are skewed by insignificant metrics that force bad decisions on managers.  We've seen Snell pulled from a game he was dominating because of metric misinformation.  You can't measure heart real time so you must know the pitcher.  In my era, many decades ago I completely changed how I pitched when runners were on base to better prevent the runners from scoring.  I believed it led to more wins for the team.  That type of thinking seems to have passed with the advent of metrics.  Instead, the pitcher uses stats from historic games that may have been pitched by a completely different type of pitcher to tell what pitch and in what area of the strike zone and with what speed to throw the ball.  These poorly devised suggestions remove the gut feel of the pitcher at how to keep the runners from scoring.  If the pitcher was a robot throwing to robots, that approach might work.  In real life, the pitcher and his experience at getting batters out with runners on base is far more valuable than the normalized data provided by the metrics.  That's why in the old days, pitchers went longer in games and learned more about their stuff and how to use it to get batters out when they were under adversity.

Wins are important and often differentiate between the good pitchers and the not as good pitchers but as mentioned, the relievers are a huge problem.  If a starting pitcher leaves the game after five innings with the lead and the relievers blow the game then the offense comes back and wins the game, I believe the starter should get the win.  If they lose the game there should be a new statistic that counts games where the starter left the game after 5 innings with the lead.  The starters success should be counted by both wins and the new statistic.  Holds were invented for relievers, the starters need a new stat for games they should have won and they should get credit for games where the team won after blowing a lead the starter gave them.

As someone else said above, I'm still all about ERA and WHIP.  It's too bad the scorekeeping has declined so badly that errors are not being properly assessed.  It kills the ERAs and WHIPs on bad fielding teams like the Red Sox.  Devers alone may have raised the team ERA by half a point or more with all his misplays that didnt' create an error.  

I'm not sure there is an optimal way to weight Wins, I just know that I look for pitchers who know how to get out of jams by themselves and how many more games they typically win compared to those who struggle to stop rallies by the other team.

[moonslav59]

36 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

I guess when a pitcher is up for a new contract or for arbitration, they don't want management telling them that they didn't win many games either. 

And they don't ever say that.

[jdc69]

6 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The rules for determining a win or loss are totally arbitrary. 

There are 3 things out of the starting pitcher's control:

a) When his manager pulls him

b) How many runs his team scores

c) Whether the bullpen holds the lead or blows it

I think W/L used to actually mean more because starting pitching used to mean more. Relief pitching is now much more about what could happen instead of what is happening and they take the SP out before he has a chance to prove whether he can get out of a jam and get a win. I also think W/Ls are a source of pride for the SP and could be a carrot to make them perform better. As a way to evaluate a pitcher, I think it's valuable when in combination with ERA, not necessarily by itself though. Having said that it may be a good way to evaluate how a pitcher does when he doesnt have his best stuff or when the game is on the line. 

[moonslav59]

One pitcher in just 2 back-to-back seasons pretty much sums it all up:

Felix Hernandez:

2009: 19-5 2.49 (second in Cy Young Award)

2010: 13-12 2.27 (Cy Young Award)

He also had one 200 IP season, with a 3.45 ERA & a 9-11 record.

He led the league with a 2.14 ERA in 2014, but did not win the CYA, going 15-6 in 236 IP. The team went 22-12 in his starts. 7 of those losses were in gamed he let up 1-2 runs.

 

[Duran Is The Man]

10 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The rules for determining a win or loss are totally arbitrary. 

There are 3 things out of the starting pitcher's control:

a) When his manager pulls him

b) How many runs his team scores

c) Whether the bullpen holds the lead or blows it

wins aren't as important as they once were but they could be if how a win was awarded was changed. how a win is awarded now has to be one of the dumbest constructs in all of sports. Big Nate leaves the game after 8 innings with the Sox ahead 4-0, then Ryan Braiser comes in top o' the 9th walks the base loaded before allowing a grand slam. bottom of the 9th, Devers hits a lead off home run and .....Braiser gets the win. What. The. f***. dumbest gotdam thing in baseball. how the hell can anyone take something that stupid serious? 

[Jasonbay44]

Obviously you want your pitchers to get wins as it means your team is winning but I don’t value them much overall. If a pitcher is on a bad team there is a high likelihood that they will have a win/loss that doesn’t reflect their stats at all.

for example. Garrett Crotchet in his career has a  14-23 record despite having a 2.93 career ERA.

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, Jasonbay44 said:

Obviously you want your pitchers to get wins as it means your team is winning but I don’t value them much overall. If a pitcher is on a bad team there is a high likelihood that they will have a win/loss that doesn’t reflect their stats at all.

for example. Garrett Crotchet in his career has a  14-23 record despite having a 2.93 career ERA.

And that's a very good example.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

And that's a very good example.

King Felix 2010-13: 52-45, .536 Win %, 2.95 ERA, 129 ERA+, 1.136 WHIP, 893 K, 239 BB, 919 IP, 16 CG, 21 bWAR

3 AS Games

1 CY, CY votes in 3 years, MVP votes in 3 years

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It seems like even Cora is on the new school wagon trying to dilute or eradicate the emphasis on pitcher wins.

How many times has he replaced Bello with a lead in the 5th inning? Three or four? Sometimes, AC takes the ball when Bello is just one out away from qualifying for W.  Last time, Bryan ran off the mound with the ball when he saw Jefe coming.

I thought it was Cora's way of sending a message to Bello for pushing his pitch count so high, going to 3-and-2 too much, and not putting batters away (Francona used to yank Buchholz with a lead in the 5th, probably for the same issue). 

But Cora did the same thing in Giolito's last start. Maybe he's making a point; it can't always be about analytic department match-ups, can it? (check that: that is the point).

[jdc69]

They also usually talk more about the wins and not much the losses. "Joe Shmoe is a 20 game winner with a 3.75 ERA." I would like to see a stat that incorporates it all, W/L and no decisions. Maybe 0 points for losses, 1 point for no decision and 2 points for wins to get one number. How can you evaluate the difference between someone that is 20/10 in W/L and 10/5?

[Bellhorn04]

8 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

It seems like even Cora is on the new school wagon trying to dilute or eradicate the emphasis on pitcher wins.

How many times has he replaced Bello with a lead in the 5th inning? Three or four? Sometimes, AC takes the ball when Bello is just one out away from qualifying for W.  Last time, Bryan ran off the mound with the ball when he saw Jefe coming.

I thought it was Cora's way of sending a message to Bello for pushing his pitch count so high, going to 3-and-2 too much, and not putting batters away (Francona used to yank Buchholz with a lead in the 5th, probably for the same issue). 

But Cora did the same thing in Giolito's last start. Maybe he's making a point; it can't always be about analytic department match-ups, can it? (check that: that is the point).

It's the LOOGY factor.  The LOOGY still exists in spite of the 3 batter rule, because if you bring your lefty in with 2 outs and he gets the out, the 3 batter rule is nullified.

Cora has done the 4.2 inning LOOGY move a few times this year including in that Giolito start.  

[mvp 78]

Who had the better season:

Pitcher A: 21 wins, 3.48 ERA, 222 IP, 2 CG, 0 SHO, 215 H, 43 BB, 26 HR, 157 K, 1.159 WHIP, 122 ERA+, 4.0 bWAR

Pitcher B: 16 wins, 2.87 ERA, 231 IP, 3 CG, 2 SHO, 180 H, 45 BB, 22 HR, 238 K, 0.971 WHIP, 155 ERA+, 7.2 bWAR

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's the LOOGY factor.  The LOOGY still exists in spite of the 3 batter rule, because if you bring your lefty in with 2 outs and he gets the out, the 3 batter rule is nullified.

Cora has done the 4.2 inning LOOGY move a few times this year including in that Giolito start.  

Also, if the order is L/R/L, you can just pitch around the second batter and lift the reliever after the second LHB. 

[jdc69]

8 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

It seems like even Cora is on the new school wagon trying to dilute or eradicate the emphasis on pitcher wins.

How many times has he replaced Bello with a lead in the 5th inning? Three or four? Sometimes, AC takes the ball when Bello is just one out away from qualifying for W.  Last time, Bryan ran off the mound with the ball when he saw Jefe coming.

I thought it was Cora's way of sending a message to Bello for pushing his pitch count so high, going to 3-and-2 too much, and not putting batters away (Francona used to yank Buchholz with a lead in the 5th, probably for the same issue). 

But Cora did the same thing in Giolito's last start. Maybe he's making a point; it can't always be about analytic department match-ups, can it? (check that: that is the point).

Yes it all sounds very communist. Do it for the system, not for yourself.

[Bellhorn04]

16 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

Yes it all sounds very communist. Do it for the system, not for yourself.

Communist system, capitalist pay checks.

[mvp 78]

Let's look at when Bello was lifted.

Last game: 77 pitches, runner on 3b, tie runner coming to the plate in Christian Yellich (849 OPS vs RHP this year), at some point you want Bello to work through tough outings and maybe this is the one time to give it a shot, but I think Cora was doing anything he could to not get swept at that point as they had just dropped the first two games to the Brewers

5/23: 87 pitches, pulled after 4, there's just no way he's getting through 5 here

5/18: 92 pitches, pulled after 4.1 AND 7 ER, Newcomb came in and got a double play to get out of the inning

5/13: 92 pitches, pulled after 4.2 with runners at the corners and Sox nursing 1 run lead, clean up hitter is due up, Wilson gets out of it 

5/8: 90 pitches, pulled after 4.2, Sox up 2, runners at 1st and 2nd, Adolis Garcia up, Slaten gets out of it

Maybe you give Bello a shot against the Brewers, but Breslow had already limited him to 80 pitches prior to the game apparently. IDK. Which game do you want to fault Cora for? None of the pulls seem punitive? Seems like a manager trying to win to me. 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's not punitive, but not letting Bello work out of those jams isn't rewarding him, either. 

I did say the point was the match-ups, but isn't confidence a factor in the development of young pitchers? 

To put it another way, does Bello ever look overconfident?

[notin]

Pitcher W-L is pretty much meaningless when talking about how good a pitcher is.  Back in the Ol’ Hoss Radbourne days, it was all they had.  But pitchers back then threw 300+ IP regularly and bullpens were made of starting pitchers on their days off. Also pitchers back then chewed tobacco bricks, guzzled whiskey, and punched out carriage horses.

ERA came along but was never meant to replace W-L; as teams started having dedicated relief pitchers, ERA was developed to measure THEIR effectiveness not only as pitchers but also compared to starters, which is why it is scaled to 9 innings.  ERA is now probably the most widely recognized pitching stat, and certainly carries more weight than wins with most (almost all?) fans. It’s not without flaws, however.  It’s influenced by defense and ballpark, both of which are not in the pitcher’s control.  Being on a team with the best lineup also helps, since you never face them.  I mean, facing Aaron Judge a few teams probably wouldn’t ruin Max Fried’s season.  But never facing him certainly helps.

I look at the 2005 Cy Young going to Bartolo Colon when Johan Santana clearly out pitched him.  But Colon pitched for the ALCS runner up Anaheim Angels while Santana pitched for a s***** Twins team.  So Bartolo got more wins, which was the only stat where he surpassed Santana.  I know some like to say “but the goal is to win.”  But get real.  Think Colon gets more wins than Santana if their teams were reversed?

[jdc69]

45 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Let's look at when Bello was lifted.

Last game: 77 pitches, runner on 3b, tie runner coming to the plate in Christian Yellich (849 OPS vs RHP this year), at some point you want Bello to work through tough outings and maybe this is the one time to give it a shot, but I think Cora was doing anything he could to not get swept at that point as they had just dropped the first two games to the Brewers

5/23: 87 pitches, pulled after 4, there's just no way he's getting through 5 here

5/18: 92 pitches, pulled after 4.1 AND 7 ER, Newcomb came in and got a double play to get out of the inning

5/13: 92 pitches, pulled after 4.2 with runners at the corners and Sox nursing 1 run lead, clean up hitter is due up, Wilson gets out of it 

5/8: 90 pitches, pulled after 4.2, Sox up 2, runners at 1st and 2nd, Adolis Garcia up, Slaten gets out of it

Maybe you give Bello a shot against the Brewers, but Breslow had already limited him to 80 pitches prior to the game apparently. IDK. Which game do you want to fault Cora for? None of the pulls seem punitive? Seems like a manager trying to win to me. 

 

They talk about Bello trying to be perfect with his pitches but don't the Red Sox value strike out outs, over contact outs? That will produce more pitches per inning, which puts arm stress on the whole staff by the end of the year.