An examination on Wins for a SP, impact on Hall merit....
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
WINS! THe ultimate goal no doubt! As a result, the value of a SP is usually determined by the number of WINS he gets. Yet people forget that there are many STRONG external factors that determine how that pitcher gets credited for a win...factors that the 'judged' party has zero control over. The primary factors that determine whether or not a pitcher gets a win are his Team's offense, his team's defense, his teams bullpen, LUCK, his rate of effectiveness, and the number of innings he pitches. Everyone recognizes (or should) recognize these factors that play a vital role in determining a win for a pitcher. They should also recognize that it just doesn't make logical sense to judge a guy so heavily on a criteria where he has only part influence on.
Mythical factors that contribute to a wins are..."The pitcher 'knows' how to win," and "He pitches to the score." Those have been debunked quite often, but are the most commonly cited reasons as to why a pitcher gets more wins that what his ERA/IP says he should.
Why can one guy pitch the following....
IP.......ERA
259....2.81
and get 13 Wins?
Then another guy can pitch the following....
IP......ERA
256....3.34
and get 21 Wins?
The answer is directly related to the external factors. Many fans/writers will point to the second performance and cite, "He knows how to win," OR "He pitched to the scored, and did bad when he knew his team was ahead comfortably." MLB pitchers simply don't have this trait, even if their 'motive' is to pitch to the score, it certainly does not translate into any different results(compared to when the game is closer). It just doesn't happen. A thorough examination of pitchers will show this. No more breath used on these mythical topics.
THe thing about these two performances is that it is the same guy, Catfish Hunter. This exercise can be done with all MLB pitchers and it will show similar types of results. Over the course of a career, the external factors tend to even out between pitchers....but not always!
Or this guy,
IP.........ERA......WINS
262.....2.92........21
IP.........ERA......WINS
271......2.59.......14
That is Tom Seaver.
It is usually pretty evident that if a guy wins 20 games that he had a good season, and people are correct in assuming that he was a good pitcher that season. If a guy wins 20 games a bunch of times it is also evident that the guy must be pretty darn good. They are right! The problem is, it doesn't necesarrily mean he was better than a guy who won 'ONLY' won 17. To the common man, both pitchers are worlds better than he. To the average MLB both pitchers are better than he. Between each other? The difference is much closer, and it takes a much more scrutinizing look than just the cursory Wins category to reveal the truth. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things on who was better? That is up to the individual to determine that. But if it is of interest to one, why not do the best job of analyzing it possible?
Mythical factors that contribute to a wins are..."The pitcher 'knows' how to win," and "He pitches to the score." Those have been debunked quite often, but are the most commonly cited reasons as to why a pitcher gets more wins that what his ERA/IP says he should.
Why can one guy pitch the following....
IP.......ERA
259....2.81
and get 13 Wins?
Then another guy can pitch the following....
IP......ERA
256....3.34
and get 21 Wins?
The answer is directly related to the external factors. Many fans/writers will point to the second performance and cite, "He knows how to win," OR "He pitched to the scored, and did bad when he knew his team was ahead comfortably." MLB pitchers simply don't have this trait, even if their 'motive' is to pitch to the score, it certainly does not translate into any different results(compared to when the game is closer). It just doesn't happen. A thorough examination of pitchers will show this. No more breath used on these mythical topics.
THe thing about these two performances is that it is the same guy, Catfish Hunter. This exercise can be done with all MLB pitchers and it will show similar types of results. Over the course of a career, the external factors tend to even out between pitchers....but not always!
Or this guy,
IP.........ERA......WINS
262.....2.92........21
IP.........ERA......WINS
271......2.59.......14
That is Tom Seaver.
It is usually pretty evident that if a guy wins 20 games that he had a good season, and people are correct in assuming that he was a good pitcher that season. If a guy wins 20 games a bunch of times it is also evident that the guy must be pretty darn good. They are right! The problem is, it doesn't necesarrily mean he was better than a guy who won 'ONLY' won 17. To the common man, both pitchers are worlds better than he. To the average MLB both pitchers are better than he. Between each other? The difference is much closer, and it takes a much more scrutinizing look than just the cursory Wins category to reveal the truth. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things on who was better? That is up to the individual to determine that. But if it is of interest to one, why not do the best job of analyzing it possible?
0
Comments
Speaking of Cy Young Awards, here is a little CYA history. For the first 9 years there was only a single award given for the "best" pitcher in either league. It took until year 8 before the award actually went to the best pitcher. But it went to a pitcher with 20 wins or more every single year.
1956: Don Newcombe (27-7) wins over Whitey Ford (19-6). Ford was about 9 runs better than Newcombe that year.
1957: Warren Spahn (21-11) wins over Don Drysdale (17-9). Drysdale was about 12 runs better than Spahn that year.
1958: Bob Turley (21-7) wins over Whitey Ford (14-7). Ford was about 22 runs better than Turley that year.
1959: Early Wynn (22-10) wins over Hoyt Wilhelm (15-11). Wilhelm was about 23 runs better than Wynn that year.
1960: Vern Law (20-9) wins over Jim Bunning (11-14). Bunning was about 12 runs better than Law that year.
1961: Whitey Ford (25-4) wins over Dick Donovan (10-10). Donovan was about 15 runs better than Ford that year.
1962: Don Drysdale (25-9) wins over Hank Aguirre (16-8). Aguirre was about 17 runs better than Drysdale that year.
1963: for the first time in the history of Cy Young voting the voters correctly named the best pitcher, Sandy Koufax (but only because he was 25-5)
1964: then they did it again, Dean Chance (20-9, leading the AL in wins)
The awards to Turley and Wynn were just absurd; Drysdale wasn't one of the ten best pitchers the year he won, but it did make up for the award Spahn stole from him five years earlier. But what I think is most notable about this list is the names of the pitchers who didn't, but should have, won. I keep seeing arguments along the lines of "he won a Cy Young, so he must be great", but what I think in fact happens is that CYA voters decide that "because I know that pitcher is great, I'll give him a Cy Young Award". Honestly, how many people here who are under 40 have ever heard of Hank Aguirre? Even among those of you who have, how many of you knew he was the best pitcher in the major leagues in 1962? I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again; if you are relying on sportswriters opinions to tell you who was and who was not a great pitcher, then you are missing a great game.
Anyway, it didn't get much better after they started giving a CYA in each League, and I am not inclined to make a complete list. But here are a few of the worst picks ever:
1967 NL: Mike McCormick (22-10) over Phil Niekro (11-9); Niekro by 20 runs, McCormick not among the 10 best NL pitchers
1976 NL: Randy Jones (22-14) and not among the 10 best pitchers in the NL, wins the award he should have won the year before when Seaver was 22-9. {Not really one of the worst picks in terms of magnitude, but it points out how silly the CYA voting is very nicely.)
1990 AL: Bob Welch (27-6) over Roger Clemens (21-6); Clemens by 34 runs - I think making this the worst CYA pick in history
2005 AL: Bartolo Colon (21-8) over Johann Santana (16-7); Santana by 22 runs. By historic stands this is just a run-of-the-mill awful pick, but I wanted to include it to show that absolutely nothing has changed in the 50-year history of this award.
Sportswriters (a plurality of them, anyway) have consistently voted the CYA to the pitcher with the most wins rather than the best pitcher. They look foolish doing it; don't latch on to that foolishness by arguing that Cy Young Awards mean anything.
Did some of you guys know that a pitcher could have 2 outs, then get a ground ball that he or anyone else on the defense makes an arroe on and that any runs scored after that point will all be unearned?
Wins DO tell a story (as much as any other stat) they tell me that the guy pitched well enough to WIN. Afterall is that not the whole reason for playing? The theory that he would not have won without his team behind him is ludicrous. It is a team sport for gods sake. In most cases if a guy has a great winning pct for a year all the other stats will show up as well. Not too many guys win 20 games with an era over 4!
Pitchers can induce batters to hit groundballs and get inning ending double plays, they also get big strikeouts to end innings or to thwart them. These are the things that help a pitchers wins total . Yes the pitcher needed the SS to catch the groundball and complete the DP. Yes he needed the batters to score runs. What he does is he keeps his team in the game, thus allowing them to come back in some instances and win.
I think (and in all respect) that some here need to look at the bog picture and stop focusing on one or two stats as the ultimate in declaring if a pitcher is good, great etc.
JMHO
Steve
Why would anyone place such a large emphasis on a category like wins when we all know a large part of a win is determined by factors completely out of a pitchers control?
Steve, you recognize the small fault in ERA(the hits after two outs and an error), but you are ignoring the enormous faults in WINS. The ERA fault can be corrected by digging deeper. That can be dug deeper, but if people are still not accepting ERA or Run saved above average, then forget about even going there. The enormous WINS faults can be corrected too, and RUNS/IP factor that already.
A team sport, YES! If it is a team sport, then why on earth is everyone so gung ho on giving a WIN to an indidivual? It is grossly overstating his imprtance in the win by doing such a thing, and is ignoring all the other factors that determined said win...FACTORS WHICH AFE NOT EQUAL BETWEEN PITCHERS(AND THAT IS THE KEY). One has to isolate how much was the pitchers doing in the win(s), and how much the other factors. RUN SUPPORT is far and away the biggest external factor in determining a win. This factor is totally out of control of the man on the hill, and this . More than anything else, this determines if a W or L is given.
Mythical factors? I'm not sure how you would phrase it, but some pitchers like all athletes (if pitchers are classified as athletes - LOL) step up in some situations and others don't. Having pitched in about 20 or 30 games, granted just on a teenage level in Little League, but also having played a lot of baseball (at other positions) and football, as well as observing many athletes and games for many years, there is no doubt in my mind that certain athletes "know how to win" and certain athletes play better depending on the situation. Frankly, I hate to say this, but I think I used to pitch worse in key situations...I would try too hard instead of relaxing and I would tend to get wild and not throw strikes. This is a simple example, but there is no question that this occurs at every level of sports.
Pete Rose is a quick easy example. Not the best athlete that ever played the game...not even close...but look what he did on the field. There are numerous other examples and this includes pitchers - and actually I think it's more pertinent with pitchers about knowing how to win.
Actually, Blyleven may have been a player like Rose that played above his "athletic" level. Perhaps his talent level wasn't all that great, but he stepped up when putting on the uniform. That would be admirable in the same way as Pete Rose, but barring the gambling, Pete Rose of course would be a first ballot HOF whereby Blyleven in my opinion as stated on other threads, should not be in the Hall.
Steve
That topic has been beaten like a dead horse. I will stick to the topic as it pertains to this thread though.
Quickly though.: guys that get nervous simply don't even make high school teams, let alone MLB.
A starting pitcher "knowing how to win" is usually applied to guys who have win totals that are not in line with their ERA. They don't know how to win any better than the guy with the same ERA and less wins. The reality is that Run Support is usually the main culprit between the win totals. Or just plain good/bad luck. That is why I showed those two lines in the first post, one of Hunter, one of Seaver.
Did Hunter not know how to win one season, and then learn? Did Seaver know how to win, then all of a sudden forget? Is that why their win totals were drastically different from one season to another, even though they pitched with the same effectivess and the same IP? It has nothing to do with knowing how to win that affects the win total, but everything to do with the external reasons out of their control...reasons that are not always on even level between pitchers. This exercise can be applied to every pitcher in MLB history, and has, and shows the same thing. It can also be applied to every pitcher and how he pitches based on the score, and it will show he pitches no different. His motive may be to pitch different, but the results end up being the same.
However in your yearly CY Young listings,
1957 you see Drysdale over Spahn, although he did not even have the lowest ERA on his own team !
1960 you pick Bunning over Law, yet Bunning had a poorer ERA than Baumann and two less wins as well !
Over the long haul of an entire lifetime in major league service there is one leader, the lowest ERA of them all ...
One of the very best, if not THE number one pitcher of all-time ...
Ed Walsh