If you think for one second that the number of wins accumulated by a pitcher represents how good they are, you are a delusional fan, who has been duped by the hundreds of beat writers around the country. I'm sick of reading over and over again how the Milwaukee Brewers Dave Bush deserves a job with the team because he's one 24 games for the team over the last two years. Who cares?! If anybody actually paid attention, they would find out that four of those wins were in relief, and the remaining twenty wins weren't all that impressive.
But let me ask you a question: Who were top 5 starters of 2007? Right away, you have to toss in Josh Beckett, Jake Peavy and Brandon Webb based on the seasons they had, but then after that, it's a toss-up. From Fausto Carmona to Brad Penny to John Lackey. How many other 18 or 19 game winners do you want me to throw in there? But can we really neglect the 14 or 15 game winners like Johan Santana (15), John Smoltz (14) or even Joe Blanton (140)? Are they not as good of a pitcher as say Tim Wakefield who accumulated 17 wins last year? Is Paul Byrd a better pitcher than Felix Hernandez because he had one more win?
It's just not fair to say that the number of wins accumulated by a pitcher is representative of their success as a pitcher. If anything, pitcher wins are effectively a stat that represents the entire pitching staff as well as a teams ability to tack on runs. The scenarios are endless when it comes to getting wins. Remember, you can give up 7 runs in the 5th inning, be down 8-0 when you leave and still get the win. Okay, a bit far-fetched, but how about poor defense resulting in a few unearned runs, that turn your 5 inning 5 run performance into a win? But there's still more to it. You have to consider all of the ways a guy can lose a win, like a poor bullpen or a couple of errors on the defensive side of things.
So what do you do to determine if your pitcher is any good? ERA and WHIP are usually the best bets, but I wonder what it would take to tack on a few more stats for us fanatics. How many times has a pitcher left the game on the hook for a loss, or for a win, or with a tie? All we see is W, L or ND in the box score. You can then figure out for yourself how he left the game, but at the end of the season, who led the league with the most potential wins and what is a pitcher's corrected record? That would be a lot more representative of how good a pitcher has been. Just ask 2006 Chris Capuano or 2005 Doug Davis how many wins they should have had and the pay they would have accrued if those stats actually showed up.
5 comments:
Aaron, with all due respect..the conversation about wins over bloating a pitchers worth is being beaten into the ground...a dead horse...whatever you want to call it..
Some people will always regard wins as the ultimate...Part of this group is simple minded. They don't want to delve deeper and observe the details of a game and what really happened. Another part of this group does delve into tthe details, but they believe in something more mysterious than cold objective analysis through stats...They believe in magic. I know...call me a retard ignoramus from the Middle Ages...a Peasant Brain...a religious idiot...You don't have to. I did it for you..
This second group knows all about ERA +...Paark Effects...Groundball versus Flyball outs.....range of infield behind a pitcher....management or mismanagement of a bullpen by a manager....and an infinity of other variables....but the bottom line for some pitchers is they win...There are not too many examples of pitchers with high WHIPs and mediocre at best ERA's, but there are some....Pete Vuckovich in 1982 first comes to mind..Horrible WHip...mediocre ERA...18 wins....OK, he pitched on a team that scored runs..and he pitched in a park that was pitcher friendly...believe it or not...and he knew how to get out of jams...I'll say it again...he knew how to get out of jams....I prefer Vuke over Dave Stieb in 1982...over any pitcher who gives up nothing...like Jake Peavy...Why? Because Vuke was limited in skill and craft comparred to Stieb, but Vuke rised up to the occasion and distracted hitters...called time..cleaned out his spikes...walked around the mound...
Sure, Stieb had fewer chances to work out of jams becasue he never got in them in the first place..
The point I'm making is some pitchers know how to sink the 8 ball as bad as they are during the game itself..
Some people refer to Bush's wins over the last 2 years as his saving grace, but you're talking about the popular media...If you look a little closer around the internet, people are high on Bush or were high on Bush because of his control..plain and simple. He has fantastic control despite his last start being a bit of an anomaly...And because of this control and decent strikeout totals...fans other than popular media look at his walks to innings and begin to see some potential...It's in the same vein as people aweing at Johnny Cueto's control...24 k's and one walk to start a career..unprecedented...
Johnny Cueto throws alot faster...more movement than Bush's ball...but you see my point...Control is the factor causing fans to have a soft spot for Dave Bush...Bill James was born decades and decades ago....The non-casual baseball fans know all about the invisible game....And the casual baseball fan will always be the consumer...looking at storefront windows and letting themselves be duped into buying what's hot and sexy or in our conversation...accept wins as the be all and end all...It ain't gonna change because it is salvation to these people. With all due respect again, you come across as sounding arrogant and condescending..
This is the fault of statistics when they are treated like absolute truth...Man oh man how I wish for something so bizarre to happen to baseball causing statistics to be treated for what they are...one...and only one way of interpreting baseball.
Arrogant? I don't about that, Steve. Stats isn't the be all end all. What if I told you Dave Bush had great control because when he missed, he missed over the plate? Because that's what I saw year after year. And at that his balls had more movement, his curveball bit harder. If you want to use him, let him be a max effort guy, so those balls move all the time, and not just a little. These days, Bush is missing off the plate.
Let me go on record and say you're a bit biased for picking Vuk over Peavy. Peavy is a guy you can tailor an entire team around. The funny thing about Vuk's stats that year is he had his worst WHIP of his career. The years before he was a 1.2-1.3 guy and he jumped to a 1.5 guy and increases his wins by 4-6. It's unbelievable how little they say.
But let me make something clear, everyone reverts to their average in the end. And you can't argue that because it's a post-hoc analysis. That is it will always be after the fact. But what it also means is that the average player is likely to go a little above and a little below that his base line year to year, but ultimately will hover around these solid averages.
Yes, I'm looking at stats, but you know I watch the games, so stats don't run my life. But they're the only tangible way to describe a player to other people. You can say all you want that the guy has a good curveball and a lot of movement on his fastball, but in the end, you have to decide how good that really is, and unfortunately the English language has so few words to describe one thing.
This whole post is derived from McCalvy constantly shoving Bush down my throat as the most successful pitcher in the last two years. Add on the fact that somehow Yost thinks that Dave's history is a pivotal factor in his decision to keep him around. I'm sorry man, but baseball is a "What have you don for me lately?" sport and for a little more than a year now Dave Bush has been a 5+ ERA, 1.4+ WHIP, bad pitcher. If they send him to the bullpen, that's fine, let him max effort that fast ball, but if he stays in this rotation and knocks out a guy like Parra, we may have some issues.
Aaron...thanks for the response. I'm not surprised that your article was sort of inspired by the ad nauseum Bush wins take by Mcalvey....Keep in mind that he is writing for a very general Brewers audience...general as in casual included...which thinks of baseball as that game with a bat and ball and fan who love statistics.
I totally agree with you regarding wins being a misleading stat. And I'm glad that other fans have been re-considering their value for decades now.....and discovering new ways of objective analysis.
What bothers me is the condescension towards casual fans or fans who watch games only and base their decisions on the equivalent of oral histories or in this situation visual histories.
Having statistics at our finger tips eliminates risk taking when projecting a players potential because we already know if he has command of his pitches by looking at his walk and strikeout totals.
Regarding Bush...you can't analyze him as a first, second, or third starter...He is a fourth starter at best and if you comparre his numbers the last 2 years with other #4 and #5 starters around the league, he is above average.
But, we're talking about the Brewers who quietly have put together a potentially excellent starting staff that could eliminate Bush from the top 5.
Sheets and Gallardo are top of the line....Suppan, more on reputatiuon and salary has won a spot....Villanueva nad Parra have flashed brilliance early on and last September...brilliance as in consistency...Time is running out for Bush, but he will be snatched up by another team very quickly because he is a legitimate starter in this league..but thankfully no longer as a Brewer.....not because I don't like Bush, but because the competition is better.
And I think the challenge in this friendly civil war of words versus numbers...intangiables versus tangibles....unpredictable instincts versus predictable science.......is to come up with new words and expressions and haikus that objectively describe reality on the baseball field like mathmatical equations are doing...We run the risk of becoming a very boring and dogmatic group of fans.
You are right. Dave Bush is a four or five anywhere else just not here. And don't worry, I'll never become the ad nauseum sports fan. Come on. I've hated Brett Favre for the last four years because of his decision making. What other Packer fan can say that?
As for insulting a commoner fan, I really don't mind. It wasn't intended to insult, but enlighten, and you can't be nice to everyone. Anyways, a new vernacular in baseball is definitely necessary. I posted this same article at ArmChairGm.com and got an immense response from knowledgeable fans. The most enlightening comment came from a guy who reminded me that wins used to count for something when guys regularly pitched 8 or 9 innings every game regardless of how good they were that day. Just a reminder that a new age of baseball needs to look at itself a little bit and rethink some of these statistical red herrings.
Maybe I'm a sucker for Bugs Bunny Baseball cartoons, but I swear baseball is a great game....and a junkies paradise played 6 months out of the year...I love scratchy phonographs and bad service at restaurants....The alternative perfection is horrifying....perfect stats, brilliant commentary, and more brilliant commentary. I much prefer Harry Carry and his drunk stupid comments than anything Tim McCarver has to say.
Post a Comment