So you know it’s evidence of nothing. See #77.

Nah

Exactly, like always.

What is there to say? I don't even know why you're so miffed. You made a post in which you said this:

"Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier..."

To which I suggested that perhaps a shortened season in which pitchers threw a third of their usual innings may have played a part in their brief outings the following year.

That upset you for your own reasons.

It’s not upsetting, there’s just no evidence for the contention, you acknowledge that, and it has nothing to do with the thesis: pitcher innings keep declining as it is recognized that facing the same batter gives the batter an advantage with each subsequent appearance. I have no idea what this digression is supposed to show since you don’t even argue it’s evidence of your original implication.

What evidence could I have? I'm not in the dugout am I? I'm not removing pitchers from games.

I suggested something and then told you why I was making that suggestion.

Okay. So how is this belief you have, with no evidence, relevant to the thesis?

You made a post in which you said this:

"Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier..."

To which I suggested that perhaps a shortened season in which pitchers threw a third of their usual innings may have played a part in their brief outings the following year.

I give up.

Told you I'm no mathematician

Some other observations about pitching statistics leading up to a down year in 2021. I'm going to stick to the American League only since Robbie Ray was the object of my discussion:

Strike Out Leaders:
2018: 290 K's Verlander
2019: 326 K's Cole
2021:248 K's Ray
2022: Cole is the current leader with 178 - final TBD

ERA leaders:
2018: 1.89 Snell
2019: 2.50 Cole
2021: 2.84 Ray
2022: Verlander is the current leader at 1.73 - final TBD

ERA+ leaders:
2018: 217 Snell
2019: 185 Cole
2021: 157 Ray
2022: Verlander is the current leader at 224 - final TBD

All this to say that AL pitching took a downturn during 2021. It doesn't prove why, but again, personally, I think that short season had something to do with it. I don't disagree that pitchers are pitching less innings. I think they were pitching with some rust too. Two years removed from the shortened season and quality seems to be improving.

Scott, I think you may be right, because you can blow a save and then get a no decision if you exit when the score is tied, or even blow a save and then get a win. And the odds of a lead change increase as you pitch mor innings. Maybe

I think team wins are importantthat's the name of the game. But the "pitchers win" stat isn't very telling by itself, since a win is a team stat.

I'm not trying to use it to belittle pitchers from prior eras by saying pitcher wins isn't a good stat. It was an only "OK" stat back then in that it tended to correlate if you played on a decent team (if you pitched well, you won more games). Today they throw fewer innings, (and I know nobody would use the way the game has evolved to belittle modern pitchers). But either way, pitcher wins aren't a great stat.

A few folks posted examples of pitchers who pitched well but didn't get a lot of wins. The other side of that is you can pitch 9 innings, and lose 1-0. You get a loss. Same pitcher can follow up that start by giving up 8 runs in 5 innings, but if the bullpen shuts down the other team and your team scores 9, you "win".

In that situation, how can a "pitcher win" be considered any kind of reliable indicator of how good a pitcher is?

Unless you believe in the "Jack Morris, pitching to the score" crap that his HOF advocates used to talk about, a better measure is the things a pitcher can actually control.

So, things like ERA, WHIP, K's, HRs, are better indicators. Some of the advanced stats like FIP try to take away the defense playing behind a pitcher (another thing he can't control).

And the thing is, if you're looking at modern stats of pitchers from other eras, they fare really well, as it's measuring these things.

For example, the top two pitchers all time by WAR happen to ALSO be the top two pitchers by pitcher wins (Young and Johnson). But they got the wins because they were great, they weren't great because they won a lot of games. If Young had played for a terrible team and won 300 games instead of 500 (with everything else staying the same, stat-wise), it wouldn't have meant he was a worse pitcher.

Anyway, that's my thinking on it.

If you look at the body of work DeGrom has put up the last few years, wins aside because the Mets have not supported him to a staggering degree, he is the single most dominant force probably since Koufax. I mean he comes back this year in his second start and nearly throws 6 perfect innings, striking out 12 of 17 batters he faced. And presumably not up to 100% strength. Crazy.

it is amazing how few games he has 'won' considering how good he is...

jose fernandez won like 17 of 19 games at home at some point on terrible marlins teams......even last place teams on the days their stud pitcher is pitching are considered playoff teams for that day.

Mike,

I understand where you are coming from a little better, and do not disagree with your thinking. The thing is, there is no, one player that is totally responsible for a team winning or losing. It is a team game as you say. But an MLB pitcher is very much akin to an NFL quarterback, in that every single regular play in football starts with the ball in the quarterback's hands. Just like every single play in baseball starts with the ball in the pitcher's hands. And pretty much everything that happens then is a result of what the pitcher/quarterback does. And both are team games, and just like baseball, a quarterback does not have control over his defense, other players on the offense, special teams, and so on. But I've never heard anyone ever say that wins aren't an important stat for quarterbacks to show how good they are. Why is that, and why aren't both positions, pitcher and quarterback, apparently afforded similar responsibility and credit for team wins?

I think DeGrom is a great pitcher.......when he's healthy. But the problem is he isn't always healthy. And that's with him having the advantage of all the medical and technological advances and such that we have today. Were he to have been born and come to the majors back in the day of say Walter Johnson or Bob Feller, I seriously wonder if Degrom even makes it to a major league roster, or if he does, that he stays very long. Without the medical advances of today, he'd be asked and fully expected to pitch complete games, and as often and as long as other pitchers of that day. He gets by now primarily because of the limitations placed on his innings pitched, and pitches thrown. Used like that back then, and seeing how he can break down physically today, it seems pretty obvious to me that he would likely get injured from throwing like he does, and be quickly abandoned. A manager such as Connie Mack likely wouldn't keep someone like him on a roster back then if he couldn't rely on Degrom and he couldn't pitch deep into games, and pitch a lot of innings, without often coming up hurt or lame. Maybe some manager would keep him on a roster to fill in as a reliever for when his starting pitchers did tire later on in some games, but that may be it. And if he was used that way, and never really got a chance to win games, you probably wouldn't think or care much about him at all today.

Now take a Walter Johnson or Bob Feller and move them into today's game, where they didn't have to, and weren't expected to, pitch complete games and throw so many innings. Both of them could open up and not have to worry about pacing themselves so they could throw all those pitches and innings that they did. So how good would those two possibly be in today's game if they could go all out when they pitched? Scary to think how good those two guys were, and then realize that they probably paced themselves so they weren't pitching their best on every single pitch in every single game. Now let them pitch fewer innings, but go all out every single pitch. They had both exhibited phenomenal arm strength and durability in their long careers, so being able to pitch even harder over the fewer innings that would be asked of them doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think of a great pitcher as one that would do well and likely excel and help his team to win games, more than lose them. And that a truly great, all-time pitcher, would have success pretty much regardless of what period they were pitching in, at least since the modern era began around the beginning of the prior century. And in looking at pitchers like Darvish and Degrom, and then Johnson and Feller, I've got to say that I think Johnson and Feller would have a much better and realistic chance of also being successful and star/HOF caliber pitchers in today's game than Degrom and Darvish would ever have if they were trying to pitch back in Feller and Johnson's day.

Once again, the only thing that really, truly matters in a baseball game is if your team wins. And the greatest pitchers had/have that intangible "it" ability or trait, that no statistician can really measure or quantify with any of their advanced stats, to help their team to win. The only stat you can really look at to show or prove a certain pitcher had that "it" factor, is their wins. Period!!! Statisticians can try to call it luck, or try to give credit to other players on the team, or the opposing team's lousy offense or defense, or whatever, but then how do they truly explain why it is that only a certain select few pitchers always seem to be the same ones winning more games than everyone else, year after year after year? They can't, so they simply downplay wins and now try to convince everyone that wins never really mattered.

As Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!"

And along with that is another famous, anonymous quote, and universal truth, "The greatest ability is availability!"

Those two statements never have, and never will change or become irrelevant. And nothing any advanced statistician can say or do will ever prove them otherwise!

How many wins do you think Verlander would have this year if he was pitching for a last place team?

Wins do seem to go to pitchers who can pitch into the 7th inning more than just the 5th....may not apply to Degrom but you cant just say a pitcher has no control of their wins......there are a few things they can do... a few years ago they could hit and bunt as well instead of just K every time.

also a factor to consider is home starts versus the road.

road pitcher Starts, the pitcher always has the advantage for a Win because his lineup gets 3 more outs to get a a win versus the home pitcher as long as he completes the inning...if visting pitches 6 innings, his team gets 7 innings of at bats, while the home pitcher if pitches 6 innings only gets 6 offensive innings for his team to bat. I never thought that was fair statistically but amazing when you see these long home winning streaks....yeah home teams win more than away teams but i would gather getting the W is much more equal..

yeah, this a real headscratcher. A pitcher on the road, if pulled after his 6th inning, has pitched 18 outs and his team has batted 18 outs before the next pitcher enters the game. Not sure how this is an advantage, or as you said

That makes no sense.

I think for this one Jake was channeling Peter Chao.

Of note...the guy who has the record for "most career wins" ALSO has the record for "most career losses", and the guy with the 2nd most wins is #4 in losses.

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument. :)

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees. If you only looked at his record, you'd think winning 17 games is pretty good. But his ERA was 5.00.

I remember Jim Merritt one year winning 20 with an ERA into the 4s at a time that was pretty mediocre.

easy the visiting pitcher pitches 6 innings and his batters gets 7 innings to give him the lead.

the home pitcher pitches 6 innings and his batters get SIX innings to give him the lead.

So one pitcher's team gets 7 offensive innings to give him the win, the other one gets 6 innings for his team to give him a win

So no advantage i guess.

It can be argued that sometimes in some games, if the pitcher is worried about their ERA and is too fine with the strike zone perhaps he gives up more runs than a pitcher ok with giving up some runs for a sure chance for his team to win......cant punish a guy thats up 5 runs and says, who cares if give up 2 runs so we win the game ( and no chance to give up 6) instead of trying to give up 0 runs but then a chance the other team scores 6 to beat his team

And finished 4th in Cy Young voting while the ERA leader finished 7th.

Here you go: In this example both pitchers pitch 5 innings. both pitchers pulled after 5 innings.... The visiting pitcher can still get the win if his team scores in the 6th The home pitcher does not get the win if his team scores in the bottom of the 6th. Both only pitched 5 innings, yet one pitcher's team has SIX chances to give him the lead the other one FIVE chances.....(hence the argument about easier to get a 'WIN' when on the road)

This was found on the web for definition of a win


1. He pitches at least 5 innings (*). (This is why often when pitchers start to struggle in the 5th, their managers are reluctant to pull them if they are winning and try to squeeze another out or two out of them. Managerial decisions should never be based on impact to a player’s stats, but I’ll rant about that later – probably moreso in relation to the save rule).

2. His team assumes the lead while he is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which he is removed from the game. (e.g., he pitches 6 innings with the score tied, and his team scores in the top of the 7th, and a new pitcher comes in for the bottom of the 7th).

3. His team never relinquishes the lead.

4. And finally, his team wins the game. (Well, you knew that already)


If you pitch 5 innings on the road and you dont pitch the bottom of the 6th but your team takes the lead in top of the 6th, if that does not qualify you for a WIN then i stand corrected..otherwise continue on with not understanding

Livan Hernandez won world series MVP with a very high ERA but because he WON games.

2. His team assumes the lead while he is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which he is removed from the game. (e.g., he pitches 6 innings with the score tied, and his team scores in the top of the 7th, and a new pitcher comes in for the bottom of the 7th).

The bold is where you lose me.

The underlined means, to me, if he is pulled in, or even after completing, the 6th inning, nothing in the 7th counts for him as that is NOT the inning on offense in which he was removed unless he throws a pitch in that inning. Doesn't matter if he's home or away. Don't know how you're reading this but if you are getting something different out of it I need to find another meme!

If a pitcher finishes an inning (say the 6th) and a new pitcher starts the new inning (7th) the original pitcher isn't officially pulled until a new pitcher starts pitching.

You see it all the time...pitcher finishes the 8th, everyone knows the closer will take over, then the team scores 8 runs and the guy just off the bus pitches the 9th. The closer never pitched, so the scrub replaced the guy who finished the 8th.

I guess it COULD be argued, but I don't think of baseball of a game of intentions, it's a game of results. If you give up 5 runs, that's always worse than giving up two, which is always worse than giving up zero. :)

Mike,

That is exactly why even the greatest pitchers don't win every game. Unlike some athletes that don't have to rely upon others to win, say someone like Usain Bolt. In his prime, as arguably the greatest sprinter of all time, Bolt never lost. But even the greatest pitcher of all-time can't control all the variables and factors and will end up losing a fair share of games. But because they are so great, they will have an overall larger influence on the games they pitch in and their outcomes. So in the end, despite all the other players, circumstances and just plain dumb luck, the greatest pitchers will invariably end up winning the most games over their seasons/careers.

It is dumbfounding how such logical and common sense knowledge and thinking seems to escape a vast multitude of the people who follow baseball and put their faith into advanced statistics. Regardless of all other players in the games, pitchers have the most direct impact and influence on how well their team does in every game they pitch in. So over time, statistically speaking, those pitchers should end up having the greatest impact of anyone on whether or not their team will win. And as such, the greater the pitcher, the more likely their impact will lead to their team winning. Ergo, the greater pitchers should over time and their seasons/careers, end up winning more games than those pitchers who are not as good. So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness.

That is how I look at it. If others want to think and believe differently, so be it.

Early Wynn won 300, Pedro maybe 220. Wynn better than Pedro?

Wins have a lot to do with who you're pitching for. I once read a cogent analysis that if Mathewson had pitched for the Senators, he would have won 50 fewer games (it may have been even more) and if Johnson had pitched for the Giants, he would have won 50 more.

Wynn and Livan are both among my favorite pitchers. Not a whole of natural gift but a whole lot of eating up innings and persistence. Wynn just refused to quit before he got to 300.

Off the top of my head, Ned Garver comes to mind as the most unlucky winner for a career. 12% better than the league ERA for his career, but a 129-157 record. Off memory his Tigers finished 5/8 in the AL a couple times and that was as close as he came to a good team. There’s probably someone with an even worse record relative to his performance.

As an attorney, I thought you were supposed to be very aware of and adept at understanding and using words. Please, re-read the second to the last line I wrote in my previous post.

"So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness."

I very specifically said I felt wins was an important statistic to HELP measure and define a pitcher's greatness. That one little word, HELP, is critical to understanding the meaning of what I was saying. I did not ever say, nor ever imply, that the gross number of wins alone that a pitcher had was the one and only measure of how great they are, or as the one and only way to compare pitchers. Thank for you either not comprehending what I actually wrote, or trying to put words in my mouth or meanings to my comments, that I never said or intended!

Peter, the logical reason for Early Wynn winning so many more games than Pedro Martinez couldn't possibly be because Wynn started 611 games in his career, and relieved in another 80, while Pedro only started 409 games during his career, while relieving in 67 others, could it?

I had been saying all along how the older generation pitchers generally started more games, and pitched way more innings, than their modern counterparts, so it is no surprise to me when the likelihood of future 300 game winning pitchers, or a pitcher winning 30 games in a single season, seem remote at best, if not entirely out of the question anymore. It doesn't mean we still don't have great pitchers today, and the fact that they tend to win more often than they lose absolutely helps to show and define that. But I never said or implied anything along the lines of Cy Young being the "greatest" pitcher of all time just because he won more games than anyone else. I think we both know that Pedro's career won-loss percentage was much, much higher than Wynn's, .687 versus .551. As I said, wins HELP measure and define the great pitchers. And in this case, those wins Pedro had got him that unbelievable won-loss career percentage, so what I had been saying still stands. I am not arguing as to which of the two, Wynn or Martinez, is the better pitcher. As far as I am concerned, they were both great. I'll leave it to you to decide which one you think is the better pitcher though. They pitched in different eras, under different circumstances, influences, and context. I've argued and suggested before that advanced statistics seemingly fail to completely take the context and differences into full consideration when they try to measure and compare players from different eras as to who may have been the better player/pitcher. I would rather limit trying to make such comparisons to only being between players/pitchers of similar eras. At least that way the biases and shortfalls of modern advanced statistics don't get in the way to muck things up

Now if your comment/question was just supposed to be a funny and/or slightly sarcastic like joke, then I apologize. But then in the future, please try to remember to add a sarcasm emoji, or an LOL after your comment/question, or write in blue colored letters, so I can understand the context of where you are coming from. Thank you.

Scott, Please keep the memes coming, they are CRACKING ME UP!!!

The beauty of all this is that everyone's entitled to their way of thinking, and what we're arguing about isn't all that important, so that's good. :)

I just don't understand why we'd cling to a stat that does an OK job of showing greatness, when there other better ones. And it's not like we're we're talking FIP, or some crazy calculus...but things like ERA tell you a lot more about how well a pitcher performed than pitcher wins.

These aren't crazy assertions of a fringe. It's basically consensus now that pitching wins CAN provide some info, but they're far from the best way to show...especially if you say, want to look across eras. I mean, did the 5 best pitchers in history all pitch before 1930?

Defensive much? I just asked your opinion. Pedro obviously was greater at his peak but Wynn (note the pun lol) contributed a lot more career wins so I was asking how you valued that.

so does the visiting pitcher who pitched and completes the bottom of the 6th, his team hits in the tops of the 7th and takes the lead (and leads rest of game and wins the game) get credited for win even though zero pitches in bottom of 7th? I thought that pitcher gets credited for the win, if not then I stand corrected

right wins arent the main thing but they can be an important factor....AVAILABILITY to pitch more innings may lead to more WINS and also not tax the bullpen.

I actually dont think ERA is all that, i think WHIP is a better factor but thats a whole other thing..

So think 1952boyntoncollector is actually correct (sorry I doubted you).

According baseballreference: "A pitcher receives credit for all the runs that his team scores in a half inning in which he is replaced by a pinch hitter or pinch runner. Since no new pitcher has been put into the game, the most recent pitcher receives the credit."

I think something like this actually happened last night where Cleveland, the road team scored in top of the 10th to take the lead 4-3. Cleveland's De Los Santos was the pitcher in the 9th inning, and gave up 2 runs to make the score 3-3 going into the 10th. Cleveland scored in the top of the 10th and Detroit did not score. So De Los Santos got a blow save AND the win.

Shows how ridiculous wins can be for a reliever.

I know that De Los Santos didn't start the game, but the same principle of "pitcher of record" applies, I believe.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like last night's game wasn't the best example after all, as De Los Santos didn't give up any runs. But he still did get a win for a run that occured in an inning after he pitched.

right so all of those 'makes no sense' arguments seem to now 'make no sense'

I know for fantasy baseball for money, if i have 2 pitchers to choose from and can only start 1 and everything else is the same, i would start the road pitcher versus a home pitcher due to being able to get 3 more outs on offense if they both pitch an equal amount of innings. again correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear the road pitcher has a better chance at a 'win' i am not sure of any other statistic where one pitcher gets 3 more outs to improve on a statistic where another pitcher can do the same amount of work (pitch equal amount of the same innings) and doesnt get 3 more outs.

Isn't that scenario only true if a pitcher throws a complete game?

This is correct. I don't understand what is confusing. A visiting pitcher who pitches 6 innings isn't replaced until the bottom of the 7th inning. Any runs scored from the 1st through the top of the 7th are credited to him.

A home pitcher who pitches 6 innings is replaced in the top of the 7th. Any runs scored from the 1st to the bottom of the 6th are credited to him.

With the DH, there really isn't any pinch hitting for a pitcher anymore, but it is correct that if a pitcher is hit for and removed, any runs scored in that half inning are credited to him.

What is confusing to me is that a visiting pitcher can get a win because of runs that occur in the inning after he pitched, even if the pitcher does a poor job. It just makes the win meaningless because it is so ill-deserved.

There have been articles written about how meaningless a stat the win can be. Take, or instance, this article: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/w...iest-solution/ that mentions that it is somewhat ridiculous that a starting pitcher needs to pitch 4 innings to get a win (in a 9-inning or more game), but a reliever only needs to get one out to get a win, even if they blow a save in the process.

Instead, this and other articles suggest that "If we're going to continue to pretend a team stat is assigned to an individual pitcher, give the win to the pitcher who, in the discretion of the official scorer, did the most to contribute to the team victory. In nearly every case, it's pretty clear....If it's not easy and obvious, that's OK with me. They make tough judgement calls on errors vs. hits all the time. "

If winning isn't the main thing, then why do they play the game?

They're not in some little league that doesn't keep score and hands out participation trophies to everyone at the end of the season.

A win is important to the team. The point being made is that a win doesn’t mean the pitcher pitched well. It only means the team won.

This. Now of course over the course of a long career it's going to balance out most likely and there is a strong correlation between winning a lot of games and being a great pitcher. But over a shorter period of time, wins has a LOT to do with your run support.

It also doesn't mean the pitcher pitched badly, or that if he hadn't pitched as well as he did that they wouldn't have possibly lost, either.

For the umpteenth time, of all the people on the field, in the dugout, part of the front office, or sitting in the stands, the one and only person that is directly involved in every single play, and as a result has the most influence on the outcome of every single game they are in, is the pitcher. And the longer they pitch, the more overall influence they will have as to the outcome of that game. Which is why it is the starting pitchers, who generally pitch more innings in every game they appear in than anyone else, that will have the most overall influence and impact on whether or not their team ultimately wins.

And I've also stated various times that the pitcher alone does not determine if their team wins or loses, but over the course of a season/career, all the other variables and factors that take part in determining who wins should, and will, average out so that the thing that has the most overall influence on the outcomes of each game should come out and prevail as the factor that actually does end up determining the winner of most games, and that one factor with the most influence is who is the starting pitcher!

I've also repeatedly said that when it comes to pitchers, especially starting pitchers, they have some "it" factor that allows certain of them to against all odds and other factors somehow rise up and prevail and win more ballgames than their peers and competitors. There is no one single type or style of pitcher that alone is so successful in winning. If there was, every single pitcher would try to emulate and pitch that exact same way. But they all aren't necessarily able to throw close to 100 MPH, to throw at and hit a gnat's eyelash at will, or throw a curveball that literally always drops off the table, yet they still win more often than not somehow. And that more or less sums up and explains how it then must come down to that "it" factor.

And you can take all the advanced statistics you can come up with to try and measure and quantify what goes into that "it" factor, but there is no one, all-encompassing measure anyone can ever develop or come up with that can or ever will explain "it", except that they win!!! So rather than trying to point to WHIP, ERA, and other statistical factors as an explanation for a pitcher's success and greatness, why not just admit that they are great because they win? Then if you really must start arguing and comparing them, maybe begin looking at those statistics that are based/developed off their wins to do so, like their won-loss percentage. But it is still impossible, and to me somewhat ridiculous, to even try and expect to be able to even somewhat accurately compare pitchers from different eras because of all the factors and context that make those eras different.

But even when the pitchers are supposedly from around the same era, it is still extremely unlikely to accurately be able to measure and compare them. Just like the poster who mentioned Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson possibly winning 50 more, or fewer, games over their careers had they switched the teams they pitched for. That is where the factor about pitching for a better, or worse, supporting team can impact how many games a pitcher wins. But in this specific comparison, you also have to remember that Mathewson pitched entirely in the dead ball era, whereas Johnson started pitching in the dead ball era, and completed his career pitching in the live ball era. In fact, to Johnson's credit he was voted as the league MVP twice, once during the dead ball era, and once during the live ball era. Now that says a lot about his ability and flexibility in changing and adapting to differing factors, and his ability to achieve success in both eras. In other words, that "it' factor prevailing once again!

Everything you're talking about re: evaluating how good a pitcher is can be determined with the ERA and WHIP stat. You never need to look at wins to know how effective a pitcher is.

Bob let's do a simple hypothetical. Let's just assume, counterfactually in today's game, complete games. Pitcher A wins 7-5. Pitcher B loses 2-1. Who was more effective?

ERA is not an advanced metric and it is the easiest way to determine how effective a pitcher is. No GM on earth is going to prefer to have a 17-11 Randy Johnson with a 5.00 ERA on their team over a 10-9 Jacob deGrom with a 1.70 ERA.

Its funny how some fans think wins are the most important pitching stat, yet those same fans bring up run support or bad luck to explain why Nolan Ryan didn't have a better winning percentage compared to other HOF pitchers.

What do you all think about the QS stat vs. W?

Depends how you feel about giving up 3 runs in 6 innings. Doesn't exactly smell like a quality start to me.

I don't like the QS stat. 3 runs in 6 innings is a 4.50 ERA.

Agreed. All it means is by the time you leave your team hasn't been blown out yet. Plus it doesn't recognize that the way pitchers are being used nowadays, some 4 or 5 inning performances can be pretty valuable if they shut the other team down.

I'm not a huge fan of it either... The arguments I've heard supporting its usefulness are that 1) it requires the starter to go deeper into the game to get it, 2) it removes the dependency on what your team's offense is able to do, and 3) they don't get rewarded to, say, the guy who comes in and gets two outs after the starter is pulled in the 5th (or whatever the case may be). Just putting it out there... but yes, calling 4.50 ERA "quality" is questionable at best, IMO

Depends, was the score 7-0, so the pitcher didnt care about some of the runs

dont need to draw in the infield with man on third and no outs when up 7-0

ground ball to third, easy throw home for out with 80 percent chance but 100 percent chance for an out by throwing to first to avoid a crooked number...

yes wins for pitchers arent biggest thing ever but you cant punish a pitcher for giving up runs because his team is up and the team cares more about the win than some runs...heck they let players take 2nd base in the 9th and it doesnt count as a steal but if he scores on a hit it counts as run?

so should modify quality start like they have different standards for saves

5 innings with zero runs should be a QS for example......i belive if you pitch the last 4 innings you get a save in a lot more ways than you can if only pitch the 9th

so now you see the light...

Segwaying back to my weighty note on Vogelbach...I identify with both he and Big Sexy as I'm 6-1, 325 myself.

I'm so glad Bartolo hit his Dinger before quit letting pitcher hit...perhaps that was why?



I Can't go to the beach for two reasons:

People gather on my shady side

and

Saying, 'Hurry! He can't breath!' - they try to push me back into the water.



Thank you very much...I'll be here all week...be sure to tip your waitresses.


.

Thanks Jake for responding to Peter's silly question for me. He's just asking a ridiculous question hoping that some knucklehead that doesn't know any better will respond that the guy who lost 2-1 must have been more effective because he only gave up 2 runs, while the other pitcher who gave up 5 runs wasn't as good. He's just trying to throw shade on the idea that wins are the most important thing to indicate a pitcher is a great by taking a single game to convince others I don't know what I'm talking about. He's trying to cherry pick a one game situation to raise doubt against what I've already said can only be shown over seasons or an entire career. Even the greatest pitchers of all time have an occasional off day. That is just being human!

He knows better though, and he also knows he didn't give us anywhere near enough information to ever possibly make an informed response to his question. What he does know is that a lot of people on here don't really pay attention and think when they see and read stuff that is posted. It is the same kind of crap comments/questions that political pundits on both sides put out that are half-truths and false information, just looking to get ignorant people to believe them without ever really using their heads and actually thinking.

To further condemn Peter's question as irrelevant to this topic, what if the 5 runs the winning pitcher gave up were all unearned, while the losing pitcher gave up two earned runs? Or alternatively, what if these were two late season games, and pitcher A was up against a team aggressively going after a playoff spot and trying to clinch home field advantage, and the opposing team had the league leading home run and RBI hitters in their lineup, as well as having the highest team batting average in the majors. Meanwhile, pitcher B was up against a team that had already clinched a playoff spot, so the opposing manager sat all his regular veteran players and put an entire team of AAA and AA call-ups out on the field for the whole game. And even though they only scored 2 runs against pitcher B, they had 12 hits off him, but due to some great defensive plays by pitcher B's teammates, and some baserunning and communication screw-ups by the opposing team, his opponents failed to score even more runs that they really should have.

However, I do also take exception to your comment that wins for pitchers are not the biggest thing ever. If they aren't, then what is the one biggest thing for pitchers then?

In all my posts and comments, I've again and again put forth my logic, facts and scenarios to try and show how the "it" factor that the great pitchers have to be able to win is apparently immeasurable using even advanced statistics. And as such, for all the different pitchers, with all their different styles and ways of pitching, through all the years and different eras, the one irrefutable fact throughout the entire history of baseball has always been that the pitchers who are considered as the greatest by the sport and its fans is that they WIN!!!

I've heard and seen enough people on here simply saying I'm wrong and that pitcher's wins aren't that important. But I have yet to see one person put forth even a tenth of the info, logic, facts or effort that I have, in an attempt to present and prove that something else is more important over the entire history of baseball for pitchers than their wins. Just hearing people basically saying, "I'm right, and you're wrong." to disprove my thinking, with no actual facts or info presented, and no alternative they can present and support, just makes me disappointed.

That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of a pitchers effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

Right not sure why cares about unearned runs, except some unearned runs are worth more than others..if your team should of gotten the third out after getting the first 2 men out..giving up 7 straight hits and all the runs unearned seems silly or at least getting the 'L" shouldnt be silly when you lost the game 7-2 because of all the hits. Stats arent perfect

I also think betting odds are very important as it factors into your teams total ability, if you start 10 games and your team was +180 in every start and another pitcher was -300 and the underdog pitcher's team only lost 1 more game due to large part because of their starting pitching, that underdog pitcher would rate higher to me even if 'lost' one more game.

Sort of like in foootball if a NFL team in a 17 game season was an UNDERDOG every single game and only won 3 games but covered the spread the other 14 times how can that coach get fired.. talk is cheap, put money where your mouth is..

I just love stupid comments like this saying absolutely nothing to prove anything. :rolleyes:

"That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of pitcher effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

Exactly WTF does "that" mean. Once again, no evidence, logic, facts, proof, etc., and nothing to even show exactly what statements or comments they are supposedly referencing to or disagreeing with. And what exactly was it that was proven wrong? Just another typical, "I'm right, and you're wrong." argument by those that prove or say absolutely nothing.

Very good illustration. I'm sure that Ryan had the mentality that he had to go for the strikeout, because he didn't have 'the Three B's behind him. Palmer had all the advantages.

I miss pitchers going deeper into games, but, because they no longer do, aces like Scherzer can toss a gem, only to get a ND or L.


Clearly Wins as an mark of the best starting pitchers has gone by the way-side. Felix Hernandez got his CY with a 13-12 season and DeGrom won his with 10 and 11 wins.

These changes in the way the Game is played have made all the additional statistics viable and necessary.


However, for an old-school guy like myself, they give me headaches like the exit velocities of ground-balls that get through the infield.

Launch Angle, Barrel Pct.; Spin Rate,

Think I'll go play some PONG and read a good book.

Bob, the sad part is you believe your incoherent ramblings to be actual arguments stating facts. If you read my post about 1988 and Joe Magrane and David Cone, you would see what I am talking about.

You talk about wins defining a pitchers effectiveness, then you talk about unearned runs?

You get defensive when people disagree with you. You ignore when others present evidence, then claim that they never presented evidence in the first place. Then you play the victim?

It's a much more pleasant place with his ramblings on your blocklist.

Gee-why does that sound so very familiar?



By the way, does anyone agree with me when I think unearned runs created by the pitcher's fielding errors should be listed as earned runs? Wouldn't that add more credence to saying how important the ERA stats is?


.

That and wild pitches.

Who else is in your top 5 with Brooks and Belanger?

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808


Give it up for Mr. Bundy! Pitched 5 innings...didnt appear in the 6th...yet his team scored a run so his 5 innnings and 4 earned gave him the W.

glad to see his team gets 6 innings of at bats, but the home pitcher would of only had 5 innings of at bats had he pitched 5 innings......

right i have also argued that 1 inning closers dont below in the HOF except maybe rivera...there are tons of SPs that could of closed ....why does a closer get to the HOF with 1/7th of the pitching a starter gets..


i dont see career pitch hitters go into the HOF even though best at what they do for the position.