Winning Pitcher Illogic

[Ron G]

Never understood the logic of the award of the win to pitcher who did not do his job at all. Today a White Sox pitcher pitches a great game and leaves with a 1 run lead. Eight inning a reliever comes in gives up the tying run and almost more. Team takes the lead and wins in the nineth. The pitcher who gave up the run gets the win.
Been that way since the beginning. Did not make sense then and still does not. If the official scorer can decide a hit verses an error, he can sure make this value judgment.

 

[megalodon30]

Why should a pitcher that isn’t on the mound when his team gets the lead get the W?

 

[Ron G]

Why should a pitcher that isn’t on the mound when his team gets the lead get the W?

Reading my post will explain why. The pitcher who did an excellent job, (no runs) gets nothing and the pitcher whose only job is to protect the lead for one inning did not do his job, and yet gets the win. This was a close game but if the Sox had a 5-run lead and the reliever gave up 5 runs to tie the game he still would get the win. You think that is fair and logical.
Phil Regan "the vulture" was famous for picking up those kinds of wins.

 

[navamind]

just get rid of the dumb statistic already

 

[calsnowskier]

It is an archaic stat. But it might be salvageable.

1) Get rid of the 5 IP rule for starters. It was stupid back when starters actually pitched 5 innings, but completely stupid now that they only go 4.

2) Make it a subjective stat, similar to the error, wild pitch or passed ball. The score keeper, theoretically, wants to get it right. Let him/her determine the winning pitcher.

 

[thunderc]

Nothing wrong with the rule as is. It’s hard enough to compare across eras as it is.

 

[wilwhite]

Why should a pitcher that isn’t on the mound when his team gets the lead get the W?

A pitcher is never on the mound when his team gets the lead.

 

[megalodon30]

A pitcher is never on the mound when his team gets the lead.

A pitcher that isn’t currently in the game.

 

[wilwhite]

A pitcher that isn’t currently in the game.

In this case he never saw the field again. All he did was come in and lose the lead and leave. Winner!

Not that I think the rule should be changed, because of stats since forever, and nobody really judges relievers by their wins - but it was never a great system.

 

[calsnowskier]

Nothing wrong with the rule as is.

Not a rule. But besides that, I am not sure anything has ever been said that I disagree with more than this.

It’s hard enough to compare across eras as it is.

So tweak the STAT and call it the W+ or something.

 

[Cedrique]

Not a rule. But besides that, I am not sure anything has ever been said that I disagree with more than this.



So tweak the STAT and call it the W+ or something.

W+ seems reasonable. The Win stat had relevance in the old days but more recently I thought a lot of times Cy Young voters place way too much emphasis on it, specifically on the 20th Win, even though in many cases if the pitchers team wasn't in a pennant race those last couple wins could have come against a bunch of rookies on the opposing team. But at some point the voters began completely disregarding it, as evidenced by DeGrom's 2 straight Cy Youngs with a total of 21 wins.

 

[calsnowskier]

W+ seems reasonable. The Win stat had relevance in the old days but more recently I thought a lot of times Cy Young voters place way too much emphasis on it, specifically on the 20th Win, even though in many cases if the pitchers team wasn't in a pennant race those last couple wins could have come against a bunch of rookies on the opposing team. But at some point the voters began completely disregarding it, as evidenced by DeGrom's 2 straight Cy Youngs with a total of 21 wins.

The Win stat has been completely irrelevant for about 15 years now. Timmeh and King winning in the late aughts stuck a fork in the stat.

 

[Cedrique]

The Win stat has been completely irrelevant for about 15 years now. Timmeh and King winning in the late aughts stuck a fork in the stat.

yeah that seems to be the tipping point. As late as 2004-2005 there are definitely some that I think would have gone different if you took the win stat out of the equation. One where Bartolo Colon won with a 21-8 record where Johan Santana a 16-7 mark but beat him in innings pitched, WHIP, ERA+ gave up less hits, more ks. The same year Clemens looked better than everyone else in almost every stat but missed one or 2 starts and somehow finished 13-8 so he he came in 3rd to a guy who was 21-5 and 22-10. But the year before that Clemens won with an 18-4 record but it looks like Randy Johnson actually had a better year. (Johnson was 16-14).

 

[Chewbaccer]

Over the weekend, Max Fried pitched 8 shutout innings in Denver and got a no decision after the team won in extras(second game to ever go to extras with a 0-0 score in Coors Field History BTW)

Two games later, Charlie Morton gives up 4 runs and 5 innings and got credit for the win.

But I don’t think anyone really uses w-l record to judge pitchers anymore

 

[calsnowskier]

I would propose that IP alone is a more telling stat than W-L alone.


Relatedly, I never look at BA anymore either. The first batting stat that I look at is OPS. It is 1000x more telling than BA.

 

[Ron G]

I would propose that IP alone is a more telling stat than W-L alone.


Relatedly, I never look at BA anymore either. The first batting stat that I look at is OPS. It is 1000x more telling than BA.

True, unless the BA is 175 or lower. Of course, the OPS for such a batter won't be very high. Same goes on the other end of spectrum, A 350 average is telling and will likely have a relatively high OPS
For the middle range you are dead on.

For pitching I still contend that wins and losses can be subjective just as errors vs. hits.

Not dissimilar than judging a quarterback by his win and losses. Pitchers can't hit, and QBs don't play defense.

 

[calsnowskier]

True, unless the BA is 175 or lower. Of course, the OPS for such a batter won't be very high. Same goes on the other end of spectrum, A 350 average is telling and will likely have a relatively high OPS
For the middle range you are dead on.

For pitching I still contend that wins and losses can be subjective just as errors vs. hits.

Not dissimilar than judging a quarterback by his win and losses. Pitchers can't hit, and QBs don't play defense.

Actually, W-L is NOT a subjective stat. There are firm rules in place to award a win and a loss.

Though, I suspect you meant to say that W-L SHOULD be a subjective stat like errors vs hits. If that is the case, than yes, I agree 100%.

 

[Ron G]

Actually, W-L is NOT a subjective stat. There are firm rules in place to award a win and a loss.

Though, I suspect you meant to say that W-L SHOULD be a subjective stat like errors vs hits. If that is the case, than yes, I agree 100%.

I said can, but should would have been more precise.

 

[navamind]

Cincinnati Reds vs Boston Braves Box Score: June 2, 1928 | Baseball-Reference.com

Cincinnati Reds beat Boston Braves (20-12). Jun 2, 1928, Attendance: 19000, Time of Game: 2:30. Visit Baseball-Reference.com for the complete box score, play-by-play, and win probability

www.baseball-reference.com

Lowest Game Score of all-time by a pitcher. 1.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

i am usually someone who doesnt mind changing things... but this is not something i would change... there are plenty of stats out their that measure production... and no stat alone is a good measurement for anything besides what the stat measures...

IMO, W/L measure the IT factor... there are those who just find ways to win, and others that just find ways to lose... and using the same qualifications is more important to me than the actual results of the stat...