Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[Mike D.]

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

+1

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

Then you've missed some of the other threads on here talking about pitcher comparisons. To many of the modern statistician types, it seems most all older era players can't hold a candle to the modern era athletes, and how today they are all bigger, stronger, faster, etc. But I think that has a lot more to do with context of the times and eras, advances in medicine, nutrition, and technology, and maybe most importantly of all, money. The older era players didn't become rich playing baseball, and a majority would even often need off season jobs to get by. So they didn't go crazy with year-round training and push themselves beyond normal human activities to excel in their sports. Plus, teams didn't invest tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in players, nor offer them guaranteed contracts, like they do today, which pushes modern teams to pamper and restrict modern pitcher's activities so they don't injure or burn themselves out. And because of the financial rewards today's athletes can reap, many people now identify gifted children and push/prompt/steer them to intense and involved training programs early on so they have advantages and focuses in more prolonged and specific training than older era ballplayers ever had, or particularly needed.

And when you say your eyes glaze over when people talk about wins being important, it makes my eyes glaze over listening to people like you saying that they don't. You are most likely from a younger generation, not a baby boomer. So tell me honestly, when you buy a ticket to a game, or turn on the radio or TV to listen/watch your team play, do you root for them to lose or win? And if you root for them to win, please explain to me then how wins don't matter???

And I know baseball is an intricate and involved team game with a myriad of intricate things that can impact and effect a game's outcome, and are generally not ever decided by one single player or person. But think about it, of all the players in a ballgame, which one(s) arguably has the most influence and probably the greatest chance of being the ultimate deciding factor in a game's outcome.....a team's pitcher! Or more precisely, a team's starting pitcher, as they more often than not throw more pitches and go more innings in the games than any other pitcher. Hitters only get 3-4-5 at bats per game, on average. Fielders only get involved the few times in a game the ball is hit/thrown to them. But pitchers start and initiate every single play in the game when they start their windup and send the ball towards home plate. And obviously a pitcher does not control anywhere near all the factors that can significantly influence the ultimate outcome of a game, but the longer that starting pitcher stays in the game, and the more pitches they end up throwing, the more likely they will eventually have some significant impact on deciding a game, and as a result of that, whether or not they win.

I was merely pointing out how great older pitchers like Feller, Johnson, and Spahn have an obvious higher percentage of their games they pitched where it resulted in a won-loss decision for them, which to me is indicative of them having had a greater impact on more of their game's outcomes. And since they more often than not would win, that would mean those wins were also more likely or not because they had been the ones pitching in them till as late as possible in those games. Or are you still going to argue they got a lot of those wins more because they were lucky and won a bunch of games 9-8, instead of pitching and winning a lot of 1-0 shutouts? You do know you can see from their ERAs they didn't likely pitch in and win a lot of 9-8 games, right?

For modern pitchers like Darvish and DeGrom, they don't pitch as often, or as deep into games, as pitchers did in older generations. So I agree, they are less involved and likely to be the deciding factor in games they pitch in today. But that is not always the case for older generation pitchers. Put it another way, if wins are really so unimportant in regard to pitchers, that would leave it to all the other factors and players in a game being more responsible for the team's wins. So how do you then explain pitchers like Johnson, Feller, and Spahn generally having better overall winning percentages than the teams they pitched for? It can't be all luck, can it?

And that is the point. Certain pitchers just have that "It" factor where they somehow consistently win more games than other pitchers. And they aren't all strike out artists, or all throw 95+ MPH, or have superior fielding or hitting teams behind them. They just somehow get their teams wins. But despite all the well-meaning intentions and designs of advanced statistics, they still have no way to effectively measure and quantify that "It" factor that allows certain pitchers to succeed over others when it comes to racking up victories. But instead of acknowledging the inherent limitations of such statistics, especially when it comes to the cross-generational comparability of many advanced statistics in regard to pitchers, statisticians look at how they game is played today, and simply declare wins for pitchers don't really mean anything. That takes away and unfairly punishes and discounts the abilities of pitchers from older eras who went out there and just kept winning games.

So forgive me for being totally skeptical when I hear people saying that wins don't really matter for pitchers. Last I looked, the Cy Young Award given to the best pitchers in each league every year is named after the winningest pitcher of all time. And the awards are usually given to pitchers that have close to, if not the most, wins every season. And I've never heard of a Cy Young winner with a losing record, can you name me one? And generally the "Ace" of each team's pitching staff is the pitcher with the most wins. And even in today's modern game, when it comes to contracts and paydays, it seems the pitchers with the most wins or best winning records almost always get re-signed, or get to play the free agent lottery, and end up with the most money of all the other pitchers out there.

But wins don't mean much of anything and are pretty useless, aren't they?

[JollyElm]

This is where the tidal wave of stats ruins the enjoyment of the game for me. Born in Queens, I was an absolute Mets fanatic from the moment I took my first breath, and that zealotry continues unaffected to this day. My only care with regards to deGrom (love that lower case first letter) is that he stays healthy for the rest of the season and helps bring that trophy back home!!! I hope to heck he makes it to the Hall of Fame one day, but the goal is to win the championship in 2022. Everything else is just pointless debate, as there is no right answer at this point no matter how many acronymed stats you throw around. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. We're watching him right now, just like we did with Seaver and Doc Gooden. Those guys were the topics of these same types of debates during their great careers, and both won championships for us. However, only one ended up in Cooperstown.

I don't give a flying fig what his WAR is. We watch him play right in front of us, so no (yawn) 'advanced' stats are necessary. He's a crazy good pitcher who risks injury anytime he moves his arm (knock on wood), unfortunately. We Metties fans know this and just hope he has some good karma headed his way (and the team scores some frickin' runs for him!!!).

LGM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant over.

[Mike D.]

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

[Mike D.]

Total aside on Cy Young...I always found it interesting that for most all-time major league records, they start counting in the 20th century with the formation of the American League.

But not with Young. Maybe it's because 500+ wins is such a cool number. Maybe it's because he had so many wins BEFORE 1900, and that his career was split fairly well between the two centuries, and it was the NL so not like he got them in a semi-major league... but it feels a bit inconsistent.

Again, not trying to take anything away from a clearly great pitcher, or question the good old days any, but it's odd.

Young won 266 games from 1890-1899, and 245 from 1900-1911.

[G1911]

I’m not a big fan of pitcher wins as a stat for modern players. I think it had some value when pitchers were expected to hurl 9 innings.

The problem with DeGrom isn’t that he has 78 wins, it’s that he is 78-53 and his record reflects his tiny career. He is not incredibly unlucky with wins, he’s 34 and has pitched less than 1,300 innings. Even with pitchers seeming to barely throw anymore, his innings count is far, far below his pears. I think it unlikely he ends up in the Hall. He’d have to pitch well beyond when most all pitchers are out of the league.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

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.

[Jim65]

Pitcher wins are important, they are just not a fair judge of a pitchers effectiveness, they usually have more to do with run support. Is a pitcher who wins a 9-8 game better than a pitcher who loses a 1-0 game?


In 1987 Nolan Ryan lead the NL in ERA but finished 8-16, lack of run support

In 1968 Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA but lost 9 games, lack of run support .

In 1988 Joe Magrane lead the majors with 2.18 ERA but finished 5-9, David Cone was 2nd with 2.22 ERA but finished 20-3. Was Cone better or was it run support?

For old time pitchers, in 1910 Ed Walsh lead the league with a 1.27 ERA but finished 18-20. Was Walsh bad or was it lack of run support?

[packs]

Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with a 13-12 record. Jacob DeGrom was 11-8 the year he won his second. He was 10-9 for his first.

I really don't think anyone cares about wins anymore. Julio Urias was the MLB's only 20 game winner last year. He finished 7th in Cy Young voting.

And for the purists; there IS in fact a Cy Young winner with a losing record. Eric Gagne was 2-3 the year he won the Cy Young.

[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!