Jake "The Bulldog" Peavy on evaluating pitchers

[Eminor3rd]

I swear I'm not trying to start a rehash of an unpopular debate on pitcher wins, though I'm aware it may happen, but it's the offseason and I thought this was interesting coming from the mouth of Jake Peavy, who has a reputation for being a gritty old schooler:

 

Part of an article asking players about which stats that should be used to evaluate pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...itchers-part-2/

 

Jake Peavy, Boston Red Sox righthander: “The two stats I’d look at to assess how good somebody is would be their ERA and walks-and-hits-to-innings-pitched. Their ERA would be second to their WHIP. ERA can be directly affected by the ballpark you play in and the teams you face on a regular basis, not to mention the defense you take the field with. WHIP is the most telling tale of your craft.

 

“As far I’m concerned, Wins shouldn’t even be a pitcher stat. This is the problem I have with wins and losses. Tonight, people are going to look up at the scoreboard and see John Lackey has a record of 8-11. I hate that they’re going to look at that, because some fans are going to think, ‘Man, Lackey is only 8-11.’ It has zero reflection on what he’s done this year. John Lackey has had a hell of a year. What they should have up there is the numbers that matter. It would not hurt my feelings one bit if Wins disappeared. I know that’s not going to happen, but why is it such a big stat when pitchers have so little control over it?”

 

Also, from Tyler Flowers:

 

Tyler Flowers, Chicago White Sox catcher: “It’s not wins. It’s definitely not losses. Right now, my brain would go to WHIP. Limiting the number of opportunities for runs to score per inning seems like a good measuring stick for pitchers as a whole. And not just for starters, maybe even more so for relievers. If you can have a WHIP around 1.00, the chances of you giving up multiple runs are slim. If you’re a guy with a WHIP approaching 2.00, you’re obviously doubling your chances of giving up runs.

 

“I’d say ERA is kind of up-and-down. For the most part, if you’re a solidified starter, you’re going to have a lower ERA, although those do fluctuate every year. Sometimes that’s based on the defense behind you, and the division and league you’re in.”

[chw42]

I swear I'm not trying to start a rehash of an unpopular debate on pitcher wins, though I'm aware it may happen, but it's the offseason and I thought this was interesting coming from the mouth of Jake Peavy, who has a reputation for being a gritty old schooler:

 

Part of an article asking players about which stats that should be used to evaluate pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...itchers-part-2/

 

 

 

Also, from Tyler Flowers:

 

Peavy's the last guy I'm expecting to say what he said.

[Eminor3rd]

Peavy's the last guy I'm expecting to say what he said.

 

Yeah, me too! I figured it would be something like, "Man I gotta say all that matters is a win. A good ol' W. Whatever I gotta do to grind out a win, even if it lands me in a hospital, I will do. If my team doesn't hit for me, I gotta put the fire in them to grind up and hit more. Wins are everything and nothing else will ever matter."

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

I think run support is a nice place to start when considering questionable W/L records.

[chw42]

Yeah, me too! I figured it would be something like, "Man I gotta say all that matters is a win. A good ol' W. Whatever I gotta do to grind out a win, even if it lands me in a hospital, I will do. If my team doesn't hit for me, I gotta put the fire in them to grind up and hit more. Wins are everything and nothing else will ever matter."

 

I think last year (where he went under .500, but pitched really well) really convinced him that W-L is bulls***. But he probably knew that beforehand.

[LittleHurt05]

I think last year (where he went under .500, but pitched really well) really convinced him that W-L is bulls***. But he probably knew that beforehand.

 

In 2008 he went 10-11 with a 2.85 ERA. I imagine that Padres offense didn't always provide the best run support.

[hogan873]

I've always thought that ERA and WHIP were better stats to see how a pitcher is doing compared to looking at wins. Look at Chris Sale this season for example.

 

One thing that Steve Stone says a lot that I disagree with (and for the most part he's a smart baseball guy) is that you don't look at the ERA of a closer. You look at their saves to chances. I don't like this because even if a guy has 20 saves out of 22 chances but has an ERA of 6.00, it shows that he has the tendency to give up runs. Which means that there's a higher chance of blowing saves than if his ERA is 3.00.

[Dick Allen]

I've always thought that ERA and WHIP were better stats to see how a pitcher is doing compared to looking at wins. Look at Chris Sale this season for example.

 

One thing that Steve Stone says a lot that I disagree with (and for the most part he's a smart baseball guy) is that you don't look at the ERA of a closer. You look at their saves to chances. I don't like this because even if a guy has 20 saves out of 22 chances but has an ERA of 6.00, it shows that he has the tendency to give up runs. Which means that there's a higher chance of blowing saves than if his ERA is 3.00.

Yes, but if a closer gets lit up once or twice, his ERA isn't going to be pretty. As for WHIP, ironically the guy who led the AL in that category this season, also led the AL in wins.i really think this thread was started to start trouble, but I would think andy sabr guy and Hawk when listing their top 20 pitchers would have a very similar list.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Yes, but if a closer gets lit up once or twice, his ERA isn't going to be pretty. As for WHIP, ironically the guy who led the AL in that category this season, also led the AL in wins.i really think this thread was started to start trouble, but I would think andy sabr guy and Hawk when listing their top 20 pitchers would have a very similar list.

 

I don't think it's starting trouble, I think it's a thread that can breed healthy debate.

 

It's amazing looking at these pitcher's responses and seeing the different thoughts. There are a few pitchers who are aware of FIP, but don't quite understand what it means or says, and frankly they don't have to. Scott Feldman's response is really candid too and shows he understands the concept, basically stating that ERA can be overrated, and it's true. You can have a guy go out there and put up 7 IP, 4 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 10 K and it's going to be considered a great outing by the SABR community but his ERA gets lit up. Typically in a situation like that, he's going to end up with a pretty good outing, but he likely just gave up one or two big hits when they were able to string a few together against him. Meanwhile, you can see a guy go out and put up 6 IP, 6 H, 2 ER, 4 BB, 4 K and while he should have given up more, he was able to work his way out of trouble. Eventually, these things even out.

 

The pitcher who probably has the deepest knowledge of sabermetrics is also the one with the most unique response - Brian Bannister stating that Z-Cont% is the most important. For a pitcher, it's probably true - if you can throw pitches in the strike zone and have guys miss, you are going to be incredibly successful, assuming you can locate. On the contrary, if everything you throw in the zone is getting hit, eventually they'll start making good contact and you are going to end up getting knocked around. I think that's the foundation for a pitcher, and everything else is just indicative of performance.

[hogan873]

Without getting into the advanced statistics, I think that WHIP is a stat that most people (players and fans alike) can look at and understand the importance. A pitcher could have a low ERA and a high WHIP, but that would mean he gets into trouble a lot and somehow works his way out of it. But, it's the potential is what grabs my attention. A high WHIP, regardless of ERA, means that the pitcher has the potential to give up a lot of runs. Sooner or later that high WHIP is going to catch up to that pitcher.

[Dick Allen]

One reason wins aren't as important when judging starting pitchers today as they were in the past is because bullpens are used way more. It used to be the starting pitcher's game to win or lose almost every start.

Still, a guy who constantly wins 12-15 games every year, is going to be a good pitcher. The other advanced numbers while maybe not every year, will overall fall right into place.

 

I think one of the poster boys for wins vs. ERA was Jack Morris, although he had several really good years ERA-wise. But one thing Morris gave you was a ton of innings, so while his ERA was a little higher than some, he was providing a lot of value saving the bullpen, so getting those wins (and losses) while eating innings, provided value.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

Yes, but if a closer gets lit up once or twice, his ERA isn't going to be pretty. As for WHIP, ironically the guy who led the AL in that category this season, also led the AL in wins.i really think this thread was started to start trouble, but I would think andy sabr guy and Hawk when listing their top 20 pitchers would have a very similar list.

 

Come on man, I just saw something I thought was interesting related to White Sox players. It's the freakin offseason. I would have put it in a catch-all if there was one. I'm not an internet troll. Next time I'll just post again in the BASHING DE AZA thread.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

Come on man, I just saw something I thought was interesting related to White Sox players. It's the freakin offseason. I would have put it in a catch-all if there was one. I'm not an internet troll. Next time I'll just post again in the BASHING DE AZA thread.

And this response isn't trying to rekindle trouble?

[Eminor3rd]

As far as the actual topic goes, I think Jake really nailed it in his last paragraph. Basically, pitcher wins are loosely correlated with good pitching, so much so that there are dozens of "outliers" every year where the stat is essentially lying to us about the one thing it's supposed to do, which is tell us who was the most valuable pitcher. No one disputes that it correlated better with performance in the past, but the game changes, and it really just doesn't work at all anymore. So that's why people are trying to find better ways to measure it. I don't understand why people get upset about that.

[Eminor3rd]

And this response isn't trying to rekindle trouble?

 

No, I'm just defending myself against you having just accused me of trolling. What am I supposed to say?

[Texsox]

I believe you have to look at the complete picture instead of looking at any stat in isolation. While I believe we've historically over used W-L record, I also believe there is a danger in underusing it. When you think about a pitcher that "gets the job done" are you thinking WHiP or WiNS? Do you want a guy that shouldn't be winning but somehow it keeps happening (winning ugly) or a pitcher that is pitching much better than his record and appears snake bit (losing pretty)? We know that both are due to regress to the mean. And eventually you want the guy with better overall stats, but at that moment . . .

[Eminor3rd]

I don't think it's starting trouble, I think it's a thread that can breed healthy debate.

 

It's amazing looking at these pitcher's responses and seeing the different thoughts. There are a few pitchers who are aware of FIP, but don't quite understand what it means or says, and frankly they don't have to. Scott Feldman's response is really candid too and shows he understands the concept, basically stating that ERA can be overrated, and it's true. You can have a guy go out there and put up 7 IP, 4 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 10 K and it's going to be considered a great outing by the SABR community but his ERA gets lit up. Typically in a situation like that, he's going to end up with a pretty good outing, but he likely just gave up one or two big hits when they were able to string a few together against him. Meanwhile, you can see a guy go out and put up 6 IP, 6 H, 2 ER, 4 BB, 4 K and while he should have given up more, he was able to work his way out of trouble. Eventually, these things even out.

 

The pitcher who probably has the deepest knowledge of sabermetrics is also the one with the most unique response - Brian Bannister stating that Z-Cont% is the most important. For a pitcher, it's probably true - if you can throw pitches in the strike zone and have guys miss, you are going to be incredibly successful, assuming you can locate. On the contrary, if everything you throw in the zone is getting hit, eventually they'll start making good contact and you are going to end up getting knocked around. I think that's the foundation for a pitcher, and everything else is just indicative of performance.

 

Z-Contact is interesting, but it still doesn't give us a whole picture. It's true to say that if a pitcher has a super low Z contact, he is doing something very right, but if that guy is walking 6 batter per 9, he still may not even be able to cut it as a starter. On the other hand, missing bats isn't the only way to be successful.

 

He makes a good point on why it's a great thing to look at, but I can't see how it works as the single most important indicator of a pitcher's performance. I think whatever that stat is has to be bigger in scope.

[Eminor3rd]

I believe you have to look at the complete picture instead of looking at any stat in isolation. While I believe we've historically over used W-L record, I also believe there is a danger in underusing it. When you think about a pitcher that "gets the job done" are you thinking WHiP or WiNS? Do you want a guy that shouldn't be winning but somehow it keeps happening (winning ugly) or a pitcher that is pitching much better than his record and appears snake bit (losing pretty)? We know that both are due to regress to the mean. And eventually you want the guy with better overall stats, but at that moment . . .

 

I think you're totally right about looking at tons of things, I'm just not sure that W-L really has anything to add to that equation. I think it's easy for people (myself included) to get caught up on the name -- after all, wins are all that matters -- but team wins and pitcher wins are different statistics. It's team wins that matter, and with the number of no decisions increasing every year, tWins and pWins are becoming less and less linked.

 

I guess I'd put it this way: what do pWins tell us about a pitcher's performance that some other stat doesn't tell us better? Maybe the whole concept of "single best statistic" isn't even valid -- if we assume that we need to use several numbers, where does pWins fit in? I'm not sure it does at all.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[southsider2k5]

And this response isn't trying to rekindle trouble?

 

There wasn't any trolling going on. That is just silly. It was a back and forth debate, nothing more.

[Texsox]

I guess I'd put it this way: what do pWins tell us about a pitcher's performance that some other stat doesn't tell us better?

 

Perhaps it is the one stat that incorporates or covers that catch all we call "intangibles"? Where else would you find a stat that shows his teamates play just a little bit harder when he is on the mound? Or worse, the guy that his teammates seem to take the day off with? I could be, and mostly am, convinced that W-L is the least valuable of the stats we find on the back of a baseball card. I haven't been convinced yet that we should throw it out.

[witesoxfan]

Perhaps it is the one stat that incorporates or covers that catch all we call "intangibles"? Where else would you find a stat that shows his teamates play just a little bit harder when he is on the mound? Or worse, the guy that his teammates seem to take the day off with? I could be, and mostly am, convinced that W-L is the least valuable of the stats we find on the back of a baseball card. I haven't been convinced yet that we should throw it out.

 

Do you really think guys didn't play harder when Chris Sale was on the mound? Because frankly, I think that's frankly crazy talk.

[Eminor3rd]

Perhaps it is the one stat that incorporates or covers that catch all we call "intangibles"? Where else would you find a stat that shows his teamates play just a little bit harder when he is on the mound? Or worse, the guy that his teammates seem to take the day off with? I could be, and mostly am, convinced that W-L is the least valuable of the stats we find on the back of a baseball card. I haven't been convinced yet that we should throw it out.

 

Yeah that's a tough one, but I think looking at run support and UZR or fielding percentage while a guy is on the mound would still be more useful for that, because at least that does a better job of stripping out the opposing team's influence.

[southsider2k5]

Perhaps it is the one stat that incorporates or covers that catch all we call "intangibles"? Where else would you find a stat that shows his teamates play just a little bit harder when he is on the mound? Or worse, the guy that his teammates seem to take the day off with? I could be, and mostly am, convinced that W-L is the least valuable of the stats we find on the back of a baseball card. I haven't been convinced yet that we should throw it out.

 

This is where I would love to see my customized pitching stat that factors in run support along with the pitchers numbers and defense played behind the pitcher to get an expected win total.

[Texsox]

Do you really think guys didn't play harder when Chris Sale was on the mound? Because frankly, I think that's frankly crazy talk.

 

I think they did or his win total would have been even worst. No stat is perfect. When you really start to consider all the variables that come into wins. Does the other team decide it's a good day to rest starters? Is the guy pitching on a day when the other team's ace is on the mound and the rest of the team is thinking hitting and not fielding?

[ptatc]

Do you really think guys didn't play harder when Chris Sale was on the mound? Because frankly, I think that's frankly crazy talk.

Maybe it's not play harder but are more focused thus play better.