Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

Mike,

You're probably younger then me so, good for you. LOL

But now I'm lost. You had originally said that wins is pretty much a useless stat, but then you're now saying you agree wins are important. How can something so important, also be useless at the exact same time? It makes no sense at all. Wins, and the number of them a pitcher has, are in and of themselves a statistic. Please explain to me how you separate the two, as I do not get it.

I can sort of understand given today's modern game, and how pitchers rarely complete the games they start anymore and often get pulled early, that wins to modern pitchers may not be all that important, and less indicative of their worth as a pitcher because of their roles as specialists. But to my thinking, when you go back to the times of pitchers like Spahn, Feller, and Johnson, those guys were expected to start and complete every game they took the mound for, and those wins they had were the direct result of their prowess and success as pitchers. Those wins, that statistic they had, showed how good and important they were to their teams and their fans.

And that is the problem. Those that believe so much in these advanced stats throw out the statement that wins for pitchers is not important as sort of an all-encompassing statement that is generally perceived as covering all pitchers, from all eras. And to me. that is very clearly not the case when it comes to older generation pitchers. And that perception, along with other modern biases in advanced pitcher stats, is then used by some to further downplay the importance and ability of older generation pitchers. To the point where some will try to tell you old school pitchers aren't even good enough to hold the jockstrap of someone like Hyun Jin-Ryu. And every time I hear something like that, I just start ROFLMFAO.

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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!

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

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..

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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..

[cgjackson222]

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

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

his team gets 7 innings of at bats..

[G1911]

That makes no sense.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

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 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.

[packs]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

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

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?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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?

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..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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..

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.