Are wins overrated as a pitching stat?

[Marky Mark]

I always hear commentators and analysts talking about the amount of wins a pitcher has in relation to how good that pitcher is. I feel like this is true to an extent but is not always accurate.

 

For example, Jon Garland had 8 wins prior to last year's all star break while carrying an atrocious 5.37 ERA.

 

On the other hand Mark Buehrle this year has a mere 4 wins with a 3.39 ERA including two complete games already.

 

Because Mark has half the wins should we rethink whether he pitching better than pre-allstar break Garland '06?

 

Would you guys agree with me that the amount of wins a player has can be deceptive to how good that player is?

 

I feel like this issue is just like MVP voting. If Morneau or Howard was on the Royals they probably wouldn't be voted MVP because they'd be on a losing team. How does that make you less valuable as a player? Just like how are you a better player if your team has a better offense and bullpen that gets you statistical wins more easily than a player who doesn't have that backing?

 

I don't know what my point is, I'm just wondering if anyone agrees with me.

[IlliniKrush]

Yes. Very.

 

/End thread.

[Kalapse]

From yesterday's Winner thread:

 

Jose Contreras: 5-8

Equivalent: Carlos Silva (MIN) (5-8)

 

Mark Buehrle: 4-4

Equivalent: Brian Bannister (KC) (4-4)

 

John Garland: 4-5

Equivalent: Aaron Cook (COL) (4-5)

 

Javier Vazquez: 3-5

Equivalent: Matt Chico (WAS) (3-5)

 

John Danks: 4-6

Equivalent: Kameron Loe (TEX) (4-6)

 

I actually like to take it one step further. I'm all for abolishing the W/L record of pitchers altogether. It's a meaningless statistic that does nothing but confuse people who don't know what to look for when using statistics to evaluate player performance.

 

F*** Jeriome Robertson, seriously.

 

Who would you rather have?

 

PITCHER A: 8-7 w/ 4.90 ERA, 1.50 WHIP

or

PITCHER B: 2-8 w/ 3.46 ERA, 1.31 WHIP

 

If someone were going by wins, which people like Hawk Harrelson tend to do, they would probably take player A.

[WHarris1]

lol f***KKKKKKKKKK WINS

[Kalapse]

Judging a pitcher's success based on their win total is like judging a hitters success based solely on his batting average.

[WHarris1]

Judging a pitcher's success based on their win total is like judging a hitters success based solely on his batting average.

At least a hitter controls his average.

[Kalapse]

At least a hitter controls his average.

Very true but it's also one of the most misleading stats you'll find and despite the fact that it doesn't tell you much about it hitter it's still the most prominently used statistic out there. Like last year Jim Thome hit .204 in close & late situations which is something you'd see a lot during a baseball broadcast leading you to believe that he was bad when it mattered most. But while he wasn't getting a lot of hits close & late his .393 OBP & .527 SLG tells you that he was actually getting on base 39% of the time which is excellent and 53% of the time he comes to the plate in those situations he's getting a base.

 

It's like when Robinson Cano hit .297 his rookie year but at the same time had an IsoD of 23. That sucks.

[WHarris1]

Very true but it's also one of the most misleading stats you'll find and despite the fact that it doesn't tell you much about it hitter it's still the most prominently used statistic out there. Like last year Jim Thome hit .204 in close & late situations which is something you'd see a lot during a baseball broadcast leading you to believe that he was bad when it mattered most. But while he wasn't getting a lot of hits close & late his .393 OBP & .527 SLG tells you that he was actually getting on base 39% of the time which is excellent and 53% of the time he comes to the plate in those situations he's getting a base.

 

It's like when Robinson Cano hit .297 his rookie year but at the same time had an IsoD of 23. That's not productive.

There is no doubt it is misleading, and in that sense it's a perfect comparison. I guess that angle I was taking is that there is no offensive stat that can possibly compare to wins in terms of awfulness.

[Kalapse]

I guess that angle I was taking is that there is no offensive stat that can possibly compare to wins in terms of awfulness.

Definitely agree with that.

[Gene Honda Civic]

GW RBI, which used to be a big one.

[Bonderman38]

I say wins is like comparing runs scored for a hitter.

 

You control when you get on base, but you don't control if you get knocked in. Just like the pitchers control their preformance, but not their offenses.

[santo=dorf]

I think wins for a pitcher's career can be a little beneficial. Obviously a player isn't going to win 250 or 300 games if he isn't a good pitcher. There have been cases where a player gets tons of run support leading to cheap wins throughout one season (Cliff Lee,) or a journeyman pulls a 20 win season out of his ass (Loaiza) but you don't see players do that consistenly over a 15 year career.

Edited June 27, 2007 by santo=dorf

[Felix]

I say wins is like comparing runs scored for a hitter.

 

You control when you get on base, but you don't control if you get knocked in. Just like the pitchers control their preformance, but not their offenses.

I like the comparison, but runs scored also has a lot to do with the runner (going from first to third, scoring on a double from first, etc.).

 

It's pretty obvious wins are a crappy way to evaluate a pitchers individual performance.

[whitesoxfan101]

Matt Cain and his 3.38 ERA fell to 2-9 today, whereas Roy Halladay and his 4.25 ERA are 9-2. Carlos Silva and his 3.98 ERA in the AL is 5-8, and Claudio Vargas and his 4.29 ERA in the NL is 6-1. I could keep going but you get the point.

Edited June 27, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[Sox It To Em]

There is no doubt it is misleading, and in that sense it's a perfect comparison. I guess that angle I was taking is that there is no offensive stat that can possibly compare to wins in terms of awfulness.

 

*cough* RBIs *cough*

 

And, yeah, W-L records are all but meaningless. Jeff Suppan has the same amount of wins as Johan Santana. I will grant that a pitcher's offense behind him tends to even out over the course a career- you can't luck your way to 300 wins. Still, that doesn't mean much, because there's a ton of way better statistics that can be used to judge a pitcher's career. They could completely do away with keeping track of pitchers' W-L records and I wouldn't complain.

 

Batting average is another stat that needs to be mentioned. It isn't nearly as worthless as RBIs or pitcher's W-L records, but it's vastly overrated. Placido Polanco hit .295 last year, but walked a grand total of seventeen times and had a mere 23 extra base hits. Adam Dunn hit .234 last year, but walked a whopping 112 times and had 64 extra-base hits, forty of which were homers. Who is more valuable? The answer is Adam Dunn, by more than 150 OPS points. But if you were to look at their batting averages, you'd get a different idea.

 

And this is not a statistic, but I also hate it on TV how they say stuff like "the hitter is four for seven lifetime against this pitcher," as if seven at-bats means something.