Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 15, 2017

What pitchers think about being credited with wins and losses. | Sports on Earth

Hendricks’ manager, Joe Maddon, has managed the likes of star hurlers such as David Price, Jake Arrieta and Jon Lester. The feeling he gets is that the pitcher win isn’t going anywhere as an official statistic.

“The win is always going to be relevant to a pitcher. Always,” Maddon said. “That’s how they were raised. If you were raised with that mindset, that’s what you’re going to live for. That’s how they evaluate themselves.”

Maddon said that if presented with the choice of recording more pitcher wins with a higher ERA, versus a significantly lower ERA with a lower win total, the starting pitcher would take the higher win total and ERA.

“I would say getting the win is always the end-all for a pitcher,” said Maddon. “I would say 17 [wins] with a 4.00 [ERA] over 12 with a 2.00, they’ll take the 17 with a 4.00.”

Jim Furtado Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:14 PM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: kill the win, wins

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. kthejoker Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5455686)
Someone should post Maddon's quote there at the end to every MLB pitcher's Twitter account and tabulate the responses.
   2. Dr. Vaux Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:22 PM (#5455690)
Surely they've figured out by now that the 2.00 ERA gets them more money in free-agency if the innings are anywhere comparable.
   3. Nasty Nate Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:26 PM (#5455695)
The article has words from actual pitchers Kershaw, Scherzer, Hendricks, and Orel Hershiser.
   4. BDC Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5455700)
Another factor to consider is how even other pitching stats, such as ERA, can be misleading in certain situations.

"Man on third, less than two outs, I'm up 5-0, I'm throwing the ball right down the middle," said 1988 NL Cy Young Award winner and World Series MVP Orel Hershiser. "I'm trying to complete the game, so I'm trying to keep my pitch count down."


With support of 3-5 runs, Hershisher had a 3.79 career ERA. With 6+ runs of support, his career ERA was 3.38. Not that he's misremembering how he approached batters in either situation, but there isn't even a prima facie reason to look at whether he was "pitching to the score." Perhaps he was really hard to hit when he threw the ball right down the middle :)


   5. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5455707)
Complaints about the value of wins as a stat are really high on the list of tiresome subjects. No team in baseball is making player evaluation decisions based on them so who really cares?
   6. BDC Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5455716)
Good point, Jose. Actually, asked right after a win how he feels about winning, the average pitcher says "I just tried to put the ball over, really you got to hand it to my fielders, and we scored some timely runs out there, the hitters never gave up."

Max Scherzer's point that W/L depends a lot on your teammates is just the analytical version.
   7. GGC for Sale Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5455718)
Indeed, Jose. If you have interleague play, alternate uniforms on Fridays and holidays, and one day play-in wild card games, you have bigger fish to fry.
   8. Rockwell Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5455723)
The battle being fought by devoted sabermetric types has been and continues to be fought for political and ideological reasons revolving around the relationship between individuals and groups.
   9. cardsfanboy Posted: May 15, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5455927)
A good portion of kill the wins, is strawman arguments being propped by saber types to show how stupid the win is. Sure there are some situations in which people talk about a players win, but outside of Jack Morris, most of the time the discussion is going to include other stats.

I'm looking forward to the day where quality starts is the defacto stat used by announcers and writers and fans. In today's game it's a much better stat than wins or losses.
   10. geonose Posted: May 15, 2017 at 05:56 PM (#5455940)
I can't get behind the quality start. The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."
   11. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:04 PM (#5455952)
I'm with cfb, I'm a big fan of the quality start as a quick and dirty tool. Yeah the 4.50 standard is a bit light but of course most quality starts are considerably better than that. The other thing is that quality starts, unlike say ERA or a lot of more advanced metrics eliminate noise. Tanaka' start last night for example messed up his ERA for quite a while but really ifnhis next three starts are good someone will say "oh his ERAin May is poor" but really his team would be happy with three good starts out of four.

No stat is perfect of course but for me it's easy to figure and is a good snapshot of a pitcher.
   12. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5455955)
The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

Couldn't you just change the minimum to 2 ER in 6 IP, 3 in 7-9? Or even up it to 4 ER for a complete game.
   13. Captain Supporter Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:08 PM (#5455959)
Wins (and their crediting) will always matter in a sport where the objective is to win. In their hearts, hard core saber types would prefer a sport where some form of Pythagorean wins counted and real life wins did not. In fact, for that type of 'fan', it might very well be better to let computers play the game with the 'fans' arguing about whose algorithm is better.

Wins matter.
   14. cmd600 Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:17 PM (#5455968)
No team in baseball is making player evaluation decisions based on them so who really cares?


Sure, no team is doing it, but then again, the casual fan is not interacting with the team. Far too often, the guy next to you at the bar, or Harold Reynolds on MLB Network, is like #13 or Maddon, where he, even if his life depended on it, seems to be unable to differentiate between a pitcher win and a team win.
   15. filihok Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:32 PM (#5455992)
I can't get behind the quality start. The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

In this study, it looks like 3 runs in 6 innings by the starter gives a team about a 49% chance of winning a game.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/finding-value-in-pitcher-inconsistency/
A 50/50 chance seems like a reasonable definition for a quality start.


Couldn't you just change the minimum to 2 ER in 6 IP, 3 in 7-9? Or even up it to 4 ER for a complete game.

Per the same study, other (about) 50/50 break even points are: 3 runs in either 6,7 or 8 innings. And that's about it.
Allowing 4 runs in 9 innings leads to a win about two thirds of the time.


   16. filihok Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:36 PM (#5455996)
Wins (and their crediting) will always matter in a sport where the objective is to win. In their hearts, hard core saber types would prefer a sport where some form of Pythagorean wins counted and real life wins did not. In fact, for that type of 'fan', it might very well be better to let computers play the game with the 'fans' arguing about whose algorithm is better.

I can't speak to what type of "hard core saber types" you've been interacting with, but my impression is that the ones I interact with want better measures of player performance not to change the scoring of the game.
   17. A triple short of the cycle Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:40 PM (#5455999)
The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

It's the minimum threshold - as you yourself say. It seems like a pretty good place to draw the line to me, w/o getting too complicated a la #12.

Wins matter.
No kidding. The discussion is about pitcher wins and how indicative they are of pitcher performance.
Pretty sure every pitcher wants a lower ERA and more wins.
I don't see anyone arguing that Pythagorean record should determine things.
   18. BDC Posted: May 15, 2017 at 06:55 PM (#5456010)
Wins (and their crediting) will always matter in a sport where the objective is to win. In their hearts, hard core saber types would prefer a sport where some form of Pythagorean wins counted and real life wins did not. In fact, for that type of 'fan', it might very well be better to let computers play the game with the 'fans' arguing about whose algorithm is better.

I think you're talking about college football fans
/GDAR :)
   19. Ithaca2323 Posted: May 15, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5456038)
Complaints about the value of wins as a stat are really high on the list of tiresome subjects. No team in baseball is making player evaluation decisions based on them so who really cares?


This. I think the "kill the win", movement is stupid. Wins like BA and RBI, are fun stats to have, because stats are fun, and that's okay. And almost no one is making evaluations based on it, and they're falling out of favor with award and Hall voting. People like Brian Kenney simply want to set the agenda of daily conversations about baseball, but that's not their place
   20. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 15, 2017 at 08:03 PM (#5456057)
w/o getting too complicated a la #12.

That's a pretty low threshold for "too complicated."
   21. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: May 15, 2017 at 08:27 PM (#5456068)
The battle being fought by devoted sabermetric types has been and continues to be fought for political and ideological reasons revolving around the relationship between individuals and groups.


Yes, that's why the 1997 Seattle Mariners are now considered legendary, well ahead of now-forgotten figures including Babe Ruth, Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds. It's all about the team!
   22. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:02 PM (#5456079)
I can't get behind the quality start. The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

This critique has been inane for the decades that people have been making it. The average ERA in quality starts is about 2.
   23. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:03 PM (#5456080)
The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality


Well it is as you state it. But as pointed out above, 6IP and 3ER gives you a 50/50 chance to win the game, and most players would be happy with that. The 4.50 ERA is a little simplistic to apply here because you are not accounting for the full 9 innings. Runs are never scored in a linear manner and every team would be happy to have 9 outs to try to get 3 runs then say 3 outs to get 4.5 or 5 runs.
I'm in CFB/Jose camp. I like the quality start as a quick and dirty measure and as Jose points out most QS are better then 6IP 3ER. How often does someone actually do that exactly? You are either over and it's not a QS or mostly it's something like 6 2/3, 3ER or 7 1/3, 2ER, etc. which you can quickly eyeball and think, that's not bad my guys were in this game for the most part.
   24. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:05 PM (#5456081)
Part fizzy beverage to Lance who made the same point I did in much less words.
   25. BDC Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:07 PM (#5456082)
That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

Of course, from about 1994-2009, 4.50 was around major-league average. I guess you could adjust the measure to the era, but it's a pretty blunt measure. Probably better just to mentally adjust for lower-scoring eras.
   26. PreservedFish Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:10 PM (#5456086)
They should just call them "decent starts." 6 IP and 3 ER is obviously decent.
   27. dejarouehg Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:30 PM (#5456095)
6IP and 3ER gives you a 50/50 chance to win the game, and most players would be happy with that


I'm wondering, which players would that be? Anthony Young might be ecstatic. Orel Hershiser would lose his ****ing mind to think the best he did was give his team a 50/50 chance to win the game. (I used OH as an example based on what a former teammate of his told me about him.)

   28. dejarouehg Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:32 PM (#5456096)
6 IP and 3 ER is obviously decent.
It depends on who is judging. I've heard Greg Maddux and Tom Seaver mock this as the standard for "quality."
   29. Baldrick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:39 PM (#5456100)
Complaints about the value of wins as a stat are really high on the list of tiresome subjects. No team in baseball is making player evaluation decisions based on them so who really cares?

It appears to bug you when people waste their time focusing on an issue that you think is unimportant.

That is literally the exact thing that makes people complain about wins.

I mean, ultimately neither complaint 'matters' because they're both about baseball so who cares.
   30. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:42 PM (#5456101)
Heh, that actually makes sense. I just think it does a disservice to the saber/stat movement to focus on this kind of thing. I think the people who do this would be better served explaining why other methods are better rather than complaining about the negatives of existing options.

But your comment about what I said is true.
   31. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:54 PM (#5456103)
I'm wondering, which players would that be?


I was thinking more the position players and not the actual pitcher themselves. Surely the position players on the team would be pretty happy if every night their pitcher kept them in the game?

Of course every pitcher wants to throw a perfect game every time on the bump.
   32. PreservedFish Posted: May 15, 2017 at 09:59 PM (#5456105)
It depends on who is judging. I've heard Greg Maddux and Tom Seaver mock this as the standard for "quality."


That's why I changed the word from "quality" to "decent."
   33. cardsfanboy Posted: May 15, 2017 at 10:16 PM (#5456109)
I can't get behind the quality start. The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."


I think people are hung up on the word quality, but no matter what you do to a stat, it's going to have an extreme example that looks bad.

People who like the win, are fine with a guy pitching 5 innings and 5 runs and getting a win, but a guy pitching only 6 innings and allowing 3 runs is somehow a pox on the stat.... Same with the save, a guy can come into the 9th inning with a man on first base, no outs and a 3 run lead and get a save. People are perfectly fine with those, but again, a guy going 6 innings and 3 runs and getting a quality start is upsetting to them?

I just do not get it, it has to be the word...basically a quality start means a performance on average means your team has a real chance of winning the game.

Putting up a performance that in the lowest scoring environment of the past 20 years is within .5 runs of average is not a bad thing. You are keeping your team in the game.
   34. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM (#5456133)
I just do not get it, it has to be the word


Maybe they can change it. I'm sure we could come up with some suggestions in true Primer form...

Cromulent start?
Pretty good, but not great start?
Hey, look we are still in this start?
We've had a go and it's not too bad start?
Satisfactory start?
A start Ichiro could do if he wanted to?
   35. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM (#5456142)
What do you want the quality start stat (or, in general, the replacement-for-the-win stat) to do?

Is it supposed to be predictive?
Is it supposed to be a post-hoc measure of value?

In bar arguments wins are used in both ways, and they're terrible for both. QS may be better for predictive purposes, but it's still not good. Just use FIP or something. As a measure of value it's better, but still extremely crude. RA/9 (or heck, even ERA) is preferable, so long as you also take a peek at the number of innings pitched.

It does give you an idea about an ordinary performance from the pitcher, but here too it's very crude (and I'm not sure why you'd care about that). More useful for this purpose would be something like median-runs-allowed-as-a-starter (that's MRAAS for the acronym-y folks out there).
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:36 PM (#5456144)
QS is just a stat like wins, rbi, runs and others, it's not a predictive stat, but it's a stat that is designed to show roughly a back looking version of performance. Combined with qs percentage it gives a rough idea of how often a pitcher throws a game in which his team has a pretty good chance of winning with an average offense.

It's a stat for this era, it's infinitely better than the win stat which is pretty much ridiculous... QS is the stat that starting pitchers in this era should aspire to have a high success percentage.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:51 PM (#5456149)
It does give you an idea about an ordinary performance from the pitcher, but here too it's very crude (and I'm not sure why you'd care about that). More useful for this purpose would be something like median-runs-allowed-as-a-starter (that's MRAAS for the acronym-y folks out there).


Why in the hell would that be useful, that is just ERA more or less, a rate stat instead of a counting stat. The point of QS is to be a counting stat about how many games that the pitcher was successful at an established standard.... going to median, average or something else misses the point of stats like wins and quality starts, those are individual successful games.
   38. Cooper Nielson Posted: May 16, 2017 at 12:30 AM (#5456166)
I can't get behind the quality start. The minimum standard is six IP and three earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA, and that is not "quality."

I agree with a lot of what cardsfanboy says above. Critics of the quality start seem to be too hung up on the minimum boundary, while obviously the average quality start is much better than 6 innings, 4.50 ERA. This is sort of like scoffing at a triple-double in basketball because "10 points isn't very many."

I suspect that the average quality start is better than the average win in terms of ERA and length of outing, even when you factor out the relievers. Lots of winning pitchers give up more than 3 (earned) runs and/or pitch fewer than 6 innings -- but, by definition, no "quality starters" do.

In the '80s, the quality start seemed like a "sissified" version of the win, because every pitcher was aiming to go 8 or 9 innings and it wasn't cool to focus on individual stats. But these days, the quality start really makes a lot of sense, because it's pretty much EXACTLY what a manager/fan hopes for from their starting pitcher on any given day -- anything better is gravy, anything worse is "not good enough."

The changes I would suggest to improve the quality start stat are:

1. Count all runs, not just earned runs.
2. Have some kind of sliding scale for pitchers who complete more than 6 innings. If giving up 3 runs in 6 innings is a quality start, then giving up 4 runs in 9 innings certainly should be.

Maybe it's as simple as:

1. Completes 6 innings or more
2. Allows no more than 0.5 R/IP.
   39. Baldrick Posted: May 16, 2017 at 12:31 AM (#5456168)
Heh, that actually makes sense. I just think it does a disservice to the saber/stat movement to focus on this kind of thing. I think the people who do this would be better served explaining why other methods are better rather than complaining about the negatives of existing options.

Yeah, can't disagree with that really. Wins annoy me, but going nuts about any of this stuff is probably unhelpful in a practical sense while also being relatively uninteresting from an analytic perspective.
   40. Mike Emeigh Posted: May 16, 2017 at 05:12 AM (#5456192)
With support of 3-5 runs, Hershisher had a 3.79 career ERA. With 6+ runs of support, his career ERA was 3.38.


This isn't the right way to look at it. The right way to look at it is how Hershiser pitched when he had a "lead" of < 5 runs vs when he had a lead of at least 5 runs. Some of the games in the 6+ runs of support category will fall out of the analysis because of the way that Hershiser's run support was distributed - he could, for example, have pitched seven scoreless innings until the Dodgers built up a 5-run lead, then allowed three runs in the eighth after the 5-run lead was established. That would be a 3.38 ERA, with all of the runs given up in the one inning he pitched with a 5-run lead.

-- MWE
   41. BDC Posted: May 16, 2017 at 08:33 AM (#5456210)
Good point, Mike, but looking quickly at B-Ref that was the first number that caught my eye, and it wasn't promising. As you say, the 3.38 could have been accumulated by giving up most of the runs after the big lead was secured, but that would have to be a rather odd distribution over 1,000 IP, wouldn't it?
   42. Rally Posted: May 16, 2017 at 08:35 AM (#5456213)
“I would say getting the win is always the end-all for a pitcher,” said Maddon. “I would say 17 [wins] with a 4.00 [ERA] over 12 with a 2.00, they’ll take the 17 with a 4.00.”

I think at least publicly a pitcher would have to say this. The reason why depends on playing time - is he making the same amount of starts in each scenario?

If yes, then the pitcher with the 4.00 ERA is pitching for a much better team. The pitcher with 12 wins in a full season with a 2.00 ERA, they aren't scoring any runs. So his rotation mates who are more average will be losing a ton of games. The team will probably lose 90 if not 100. Losing stinks. Admitting to preferring the low ERA on a losing team is like the guy who's happy about going 3-4 with a homer in a losing effort. Won't make you a popular teammate.

If no, then it's likely that the reason the 2.00 ERA pitcher can't win more than 12 games is because he got hurt. Injuries suck, and pitchers would probably prefer to have a healthy and average year than a spectacular season cut short by injury.
   43. Rally Posted: May 16, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5456219)
Sticking with the easily accessible bbref splits, maybe leverage is the way to look at it. Low leverage situations for Hershiser will be games with a big lead or games where he falls behind quickly. Most likely the former because he was a good pitcher and if he falls behind early he's less likely to stay in the game.

Hershiser threw mores strikes in the low leverage spots. His BB%, from high to low leverage:
.091
.079
.066

They weren't batting practice strikes for sure, his K%:
.169
.167
.175

and Babip:
.292
.289
.263

He did avoid the homerun better in high leverage:
.017
.021
.019

But overall his pitching results in low leverage were his best.

   44. Bote Man Posted: May 16, 2017 at 08:57 AM (#5456221)
Limiting my comments to what I read from other smarter Nats fans who kibbitz about the games on Twitter, they gripe about how announcers sometimes latch onto stats like pitcher wins as the be-all, end-all definition of pitcher quality. So it's not so much the players and managers as their mouthpieces who are being led (or leading listeners) down the garden path. I guess the same applies to Brian Kenny; I mean, the guy gets paid to talk about something so this is what he talks about to fill air time.
   45. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: May 16, 2017 at 09:04 AM (#5456227)
If pitcher Wins are just to be treated as a fun, junk stat (which they should), I'd rather just see the team's record on the days when he starts. Wasn't that the intent of Wins in the first place? To measure how well the team does when so-and-so starts? Anyways, I think it's more interesting to see stats like the Tigers were 20-14 in Justin Verlander's starts last year versus his 16-9 record.
   46. bigglou115 is not an Illuminati agent Posted: May 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM (#5456314)
@44 this hits the issue for me.

Watching baseball is supposed to be fun. The best broadcasters use wins and move on, which is probably acceptable to most of us here. Some broadcasters use wins and then rely on them to make their case, which I think most of us would find annoying but we'd love with. There is still some subset of broadcasters though, who will take every opportunity to use wins and make a point about how terrible modern stats are because this guy is a winner or loser based on his W-L record.

I think this fuels a lot of the debate, whether it's conscious on the part of the debaters or not. You can only listen to your team's broadcasters basically say that you're​ watching the sport wrong and they wish you would go away for so long before you develop an instinctual hatred for the arguments those broadcasters make, chief among them the win.

Why profit driven entities like baseball teams continue to employ people who seem actively intent on limiting the audience of a team is beyond me, especially when so many broadcasters these days do a fine job of calling the games without alienating either side of the debate.
   47. Rockwell Posted: May 16, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5456551)
Yes, that's why the 1997 Seattle Mariners are now considered legendary, well ahead of now-forgotten figures including Babe Ruth, Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds. It's all about the team!


Of course this is not true and there are legendary teams, not just in baseball, but in all sports and indeed in other group performance contexts. The 1969-70 New York Knicks. The 1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords. The Vienna Philharmonic. The Beatles. Etc.

No one sane would argue vociferously that we isolate every violinist or cellist in the London Symphony and come up with detailed individual "performance metrics" for them. The only real metric of import is the group performance. Indeed, the cellist's sound is entirely different within the context of the orchestra than it would be if she played the very same piece with the very same quality in the subway or on the street corner. "WAR" is measuring her playing on the street corner, and something analytically entirely different, that would by necessity include the group, would measure her playing in the concert hall with the group.

So it is, at the end of the day, in baseball.

   48. Rally Posted: May 16, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5456577)
No one sane would argue vociferously that we isolate every violinist or cellist in the London Symphony and come up with detailed individual "performance metrics" for them.


Surely there is someone insane enough to create symphony-reference.com and give us these stats.
   49. Rockwell Posted: May 16, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5456603)
I'm sort of time-rushed today, but I should have appended "and then vociferously insist that those performance metrics be the only basis for symphonic discussion and consideration."
   50. PreservedFish Posted: May 16, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5456612)
A baseball game is largely an amalgamation of isolated, individual performances. Are you arguing that our statistics need to be geared more towards team performances, or just that baseball is better appreciated in a more holistic or artistic fashion?
   51. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: May 16, 2017 at 02:35 PM (#5456615)
#43/AROM:

Is it possible that some of that distribution could be due to the fact that Hershiser was likely facing weaker teams in low leverage situations and better teams in high leverage situations. Hershiser was a very good pitcher who generally pitched on competitive teams. I would think that his low leverage situations disproportionately occurred when his team was up on the opponent by a large margin. Hershiser would be expected to have better than usual results in these situations, at least partly because it was against weaker teams. Am I overthinking this?
   52. Rally Posted: May 16, 2017 at 03:09 PM (#5456657)
That's possible. You could always compare him to pitchers in similar situations and see if they have similar leverage splits.

For example - David Cone had a similar career, a contemporary, and usually pitched for contenders. Probably best to look at guys like that instead of overall league splits. For example, I assume in low leverage Orel is more often pitching with a big lead instead of in a big hole. For a mopup reliever, I'd assume the opposite.
   53. BDC Posted: May 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5457358)
Surely there is someone insane enough to create symphony-reference.com and give us these stats.
49. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 16, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5456603)
I'm sort of time-rushed today, but I should have appended "and then vociferously insist that those performance metrics be the only basis for symphonic discussion and consideration."


There is actually operabase.com, the B-Ref of the opera world, though indeed it doesn't get into performance metrics.

But opera, superficially like baseball in all kinds of aspects, is very much a group performance where people pre-eminently appreciate individuals. Baseball may offer more appreciation of individual work than any other team sport, which is why it lends itself so well to individual metrics. It's a sport where you can go out to the park on the day a certain star is pitching, or wait for one guy to come up and hope he hits a home run. It's complicated. I root for laundry, for sure, but I do not root for some sort of fused group essence of Texas Ranger. I root for Beltre and Andrus and Darvish.
   54. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 17, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5457442)
I root for Beltre and Andrus and Darvish.

You forgot Moreland.
   55. Ithaca2323 Posted: May 17, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5457551)
I think the fundamental misunderstanding that guys like Brian Kenney have is that they assume the only reason to consume statistics is in order to derive some greater truth about the value of a player. Since pitcher wins can't do that, there's no reason to consume that stat. Ergo #KilltheWin

I grew up in a town with a great D-III football team and following D-III football is a little like going back in time. Stats aren't era-adjusted. They're not calculated against replacement level. Heck, they're even counted differently if we're talking pre- or post-2001. They just exist.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 18 September 2017: Ex-Baseball Star Darryl Strawberry Criticizes Jemele Hill, Praises POTUS: Trump is ‘A Great Man’
(1497 - 11:04am, Sep 25)
Last: Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™

NewsblogOlney: Derek Jeter must make impossible decision about Giancarlo Stanton's future - Buster Olney Blog- ESPN
(13 - 11:01am, Sep 25)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(33 - 11:01am, Sep 25)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Tampa Bay Rays
(1 - 10:54am, Sep 25)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOMNICHATTER is #blessed #justsaying #winning #nofilter, for September 25, 2017
(1 - 10:51am, Sep 25)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

Gonfalon Cubs15 To Go
(88 - 10:51am, Sep 25)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogDiamondbacks Clinch Playoff Berth
(3 - 10:50am, Sep 25)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogCubs' Jose Quintana silences Brewers bats
(5 - 10:47am, Sep 25)
Last: Charles S. hopes his opening day is b4 opening day

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Nationals voting thread
(49 - 10:41am, Sep 25)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-25-2017
(3 - 10:38am, Sep 25)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(2472 - 10:33am, Sep 25)
Last: There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty

NewsblogPlease enjoy Jayson Werth as Jon Snow and Bryce Harper as his trusty Direwolf | MLB.com
(6 - 10:28am, Sep 25)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAngels come from behind to beat Astros, snap losing streak at 6
(1 - 10:19am, Sep 25)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogA's Bruce Maxwell kneels for anthem | MLB.com
(85 - 10:18am, Sep 25)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogAlbert Pujols is having the worst season for a 37-year-old in MLB history
(59 - 10:10am, Sep 25)
Last: Ithaca2323

Page rendered in 0.5529 seconds
47 querie(s) executed