Do wins equal pitching success?

This article showed up in my Twitter stream this morning and, as I said there, I find it well-written and interesting - even though I don't completely agree with the author's premise. I posted a comment, which provoked some interesting discussion (if I do say so myself). Feel free to weigh in here, there and everywhere.

over 2 years ago daver 15 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm really glad you posted this

I used to argue, and have even recently done so on here, about how important wins are for a pitcher. Sunday, Randy Wells matched up against Bronson Arroyo. Arroyo is now 7-4 with a 5.00 ERA, and Wells is 0-2 with a 1.86 through 6 starts. Given the choice of the two, who would you take? I think anybody would take Wells looking at those numbers alone. While I do agree with some points in the article, ie a starting pitcher must pitch at least 5 innings somewhat effectively to qualify for a win, I now realize that W-L is not as telling a stat as I once thought.

"Yes, dear. You're right. I'm sorry." -Bob Brenly

by ambrosiadreams on Jun 8, 2009 3:13 PM CDT reply actions

I agree... ...somewhat...

I agree. I am glad daver posted this also. And who doesnt love a bare knuckle debate.

What I am coming away from the article with is that as a whole we are looking at career numbers. If you were to compare career numbers, Wells numbers would suggest a dismal career. But if he were to keep pitching how he has this month, he would accumulate about 15-20 wins a season. Over only 10 years his approximate numbers would be approximately 150-200 wins, maybe even a Cy Young or two. I think daver is talking more short term success not being reflected by one category.

And I agree with daver also that career wins are not the only measure of career success, but I think they are a very good start.

Arroyo’s numbers for the last 9yrs = 71-70 (mediocre)

Can anyone name another pitcher they would consider had a successful CAREER after pitching only two seasons in the bigs?

Dont get me wrong I am not bashing Wells. I love what he has done for this team and my fantasy numbers. But Finn was focusing on long term success. Wells hasnt been even been in MLB for a full season yet. Lets not hold him up as a poster boy of success.

I'm Buck Melanoma. Moley Russell's wart. Not her wart. Not her wart! I'm... I'm the wart. She's my tumor. My... my growth. My... uh, my pimple. I'm Uncle Wart. Just old Buck "Wart" Russell. That's what they call me, or Melanoma Head. - Uncle Buck

by Andiamo Cuccioli on Jun 11, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions

I think it's semantics here...

Wins are, over the course of a career, probably an okay measure of success. But that’s sort of circular logic. Wins = success, right? So obviously a pitcher with more wins has been more successful.

The problem is that it’s all in the choice of words. Is success the same thing as performance? I’d argue that the answer is no. The author of that article differentiated between talent and success. But I don’t think that’s the relevant distinction. Performance and success is the more important distinction.

Wins are a fine measure of success, but they are not necessarily a good measure of performance. A pitcher has a lot of control over performance, but not as much control over success. The only control over success that a pitcher has is his level of performance and his durability. Beyond that, it’s all dependent upon his team’s offense and his team’s bullpen.

by SouthernCub on Jun 8, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions

Carrying it further...

I don’t think wins are a good measure of performance (or quality) of a pitcher. Measures like WHIP, K/9, K/BB, etc are much better measures of performance/quality. Wins, on the other hand, can be misleading when measuring performance.

I think wins are a good measure of success, while the other measures listed are a good measure of performance. Unfortunately, success is sort of a pointless measure. Past success is probably not nearly as predictive of future success as past performance is a good predictor of future performance.

by SouthernCub on Jun 8, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree.

My biggest problem with the article is that it seems to be promoting the idea that baseball fans shouldn’t bother looking any closer at a pitcher than his win record. And, yeah, like you said – it’s an easy way to measure success over the course of a career. Then again, as I just commented in the article, you can take a guy like Jason Marquis and say, “Wow, he was really successful!” based on wins and losses. But those of us who look beyond the W/L know the truth about his performance.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by daver on Jun 8, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions

In this era, career pitching wins may be a tougher

achievement over the long haul. 300 wins careers and 20 win seasons seem to be much more difficult to attain with all the various bullpen specialists, pitch counts, and seasonal inning counts.

That said, win tally does nothing to identify the hot hand and who is talented. Anyway, I’m looking forward to Wells’ first win.

if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand

by N Oakley on Jun 8, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey, same here.

Like I mentioned below, I understand how wins have been a part of baseball history, and I recognize that players (and managers and coaches) value them. I hope Randy gets his first of many ASAP.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by daver on Jun 8, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Nice article

and a different take from the masses. And posted from a dissenter, props to you.

But I do think wins can be one of the stats, just not the only measure of a pitcher.

Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton

by KaliCub on Jun 8, 2009 3:19 PM CDT reply actions

Sure, I'm not advocating wins be stricken from the record.

They’re part of the history of baseball. And I actually find them interesting – anecdotally. But I also believe their inherent flaws need to be noted.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by daver on Jun 8, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Duly noted.

Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton

by KaliCub on Jun 9, 2009 1:39 AM CDT up reply actions

Texas is trying to change this

I posted before how Nolan Ryan and Mike Maddux want to turn a lot of what has been common thinking in baseball on it’s head. Starting at the lowest level the Rangers want to stop thinking in terms of pitch count and start thinking in terms of overall quality. So far it is working pretty well.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Jun 8, 2009 3:36 PM CDT reply actions

That's true.

I’ve heard their pitching has been much better this season.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by daver on Jun 8, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions

Nolan Ryan's Crazy 1987 Numbers

Here are Ryan’s 1987 game logs. Ryan was only 8-16 that season but led the NL with a 2.76 ERA and 270 strikeouts. He was also the best in K per 9 innings, K/BB ratio, and hits per 9 innings. He finished fifth in the Cy Young voting, but Ryan lost twice as many games as he won. The Astros only scored 27 combined runs in his 16 losses in 1987.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Jun 8, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Wow, that is crazy.

And a better case for the dubiousness (dubiosity?) of the win stat cannot be made.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by daver on Jun 8, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Wins, of course, are the ultimate goal of a team.

But individual pitcher wins are becoming less and less relevant. Take, for example, Randy Wells’ last two starts. He pitched well enough to win. The team didn’t do well enough behind him. The team lost one of those games and won another — other pitchers got the decision.

I pay very little attention to individual pitcher wins as a benchmark any more.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Jun 8, 2009 8:26 PM CDT reply actions