Wins and Losses Topic

Posted by inkdskn on 12/4/2012 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
To those who picked "worthless" - your team has a big game, and your options are 2 pitchers.  You have A) 14-14, 3.20 ERA or B) 20-8, 3.35 ERA.  Who are you picking?
Since you wouldn't know how many runs your team would score that day, common sense says to pick they guy who gave up fewer runs per 9IP over the course of the season.

What are you gonna do, pick the guy who gave up more runs because your team happened to score more runs on the days he pitched that year? Are you hoping your team will continue the anomoly of scoring more when a certain pitcher is on the mound? Are you going to make some bullshit rebuttal detailing how, even though he gave up more runs, he 'kept em in the close ones, did enough to get the win' yadda yadda yadda? If you want to isolate who to start based on their performance, you pick the guy who consistently gave up fewer runs. If one guy gave up more runs but had a dramatically better w-l record, as in this case, Captain Obvious says maybe teammates played a big role in the story.

W-L record is the least useful stat, by far, to evaluate a pitcher's performance. Even Mike's 'best case scenario' of a good w-l record from a guy on a bad team requires knowing more than his w-l record (ie, Mike's questions place the pitcher's w-l record in the context of his team's w-l record).

Closers routinely have crappy records, like 1-5 or 0-4. If you use w-l, you'd have to say they suck... but they might have went 46/50 in saves with a 0.95 ERA.

Take two guys who were 12-9, and who played on different teams in the same season. Who was better? You have zero idea. There is no way to tell from w-l record. Period. Using w-l only sheds exactly zero light on their performance, aside from stuff like, "He was probably not the worst pitcher in the history of MLB."

Any way you slice it, you need more info than w-l to evaluate a pitcher. In that sense, it has ZERO worth as a useful stat to evaluate performance. None. Zilch. Nada. No stat tells the whole story, but w-l tells nothing. If a guy went 12-12, was he good? Bad? Average? No way to tell.
Exactly.
12/4/2012 5:07 PM
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record.  You also need more info than ERA.  Or ERA+, or whatever.  

I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher.  But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes.  I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible.  I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.

As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at.  Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose.  It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
12/4/2012 5:09 PM
LOL, look at you burnsy, assigning backstories to your fictional players. You want the opposing team to score as few runs as possible. Statistically speaking, you do that by starting the guy who gave up fewer runs. In case you're not aware, you're making **** up to try to rationalize a statistical anomoly (their w-l records). Fail.
12/4/2012 5:10 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record.  You also need more info than ERA.  Or ERA+, or whatever.  

I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher.  But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes.  I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible.  I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.

As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at.  Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose.  It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
If a stat tells us absolutely nothing, why not ignore it?
12/4/2012 5:12 PM
Posted by inkdskn on 12/4/2012 5:10:00 PM (view original):
LOL, look at you burnsy, assigning backstories to your fictional players. You want the opposing team to score as few runs as possible. Statistically speaking, you do that by starting the guy who gave up fewer runs. In case you're not aware, you're making **** up to try to rationalize a statistical anomoly (their w-l records). Fail.
I believe that there are pitchers who do a better job of managing games than others.  Who are capable of pitching better in close games.  Do you think guys pitch the exact same way up 6 runs in the 7th than they do in a 1-0 game?  Some guys will pitch better in certain circumstances than others.

Also, anyone who ends their point with "Fail.", in fact, fails.
12/4/2012 5:13 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record.  You also need more info than ERA.  Or ERA+, or whatever.  

I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher.  But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes.  I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible.  I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.

As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at.  Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose.  It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
If a stat tells us absolutely nothing, why not ignore it?
Please don't use the word "us" in that statement.
12/4/2012 5:14 PM
What does it tell you?

Pitcher A went 15-8. Pitcher B went 14-11. Does that tell you anything at all?
12/4/2012 5:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):
What does it tell you?

Pitcher A went 15-8. Pitcher B went 14-11. Does that tell you anything at all?
No, as I stated before, I want more info than just w/l record.

Again, I'm not stating that w/l record is more useful than the vast majority of pitching statistics.  I don't think it should be ignored completely either, for reasons stated before.  Don't assume everything is an absolute.
12/4/2012 5:19 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record.  You also need more info than ERA.  Or ERA+, or whatever.  

I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher.  But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes.  I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible.  I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.

As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at.  Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose.  It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
If a stat tells us absolutely nothing, why not ignore it?
Because it doesn't tell us absolutely nothing.  I could repeat what it tells us but, as I said "repeat", that seems absolutely pointless.

Ignoring a stat because you don't like it is dumb.  Which, quite honestly, describes you.
12/4/2012 5:20 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 4:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
If the 12-7 pitcher had a 3.90 ERA and the guy who went 11-12 had a 3.85 ERA....who was better?
I don't know. We would need more info and their W/L record isn't telling us anything.
OK.  They each had 200 IP.  They each allowed 190 hits, walked 40, struck out 160, each allowed 25 homers.
The 11-12 guy then.

Given the same number innings and base runners, he allowed fewer runs to score.
How do you know he allowed fewer runs to score?  He may have allowed fewer EARNED runs to score, but how would you know that he allowed fewer TOTAL runs to score?  Maybe the 11-12 guy had a ****** defense behind him.  More base runners, and he gave up more hits with RISP which resulted in unearned runs.  

Maybe a number of the 25 HRs allowed by the 11-12 guy came in late inning high-leverage situations where he blew the game.  Maybe a number of the 25 HRs allowed by the 12-7 guy came in low-leverage situations when he had a large lead and was pitching to contact.

You can't look at selected numbers on a spreadsheet and make definitive conclusions without additional context.  W/L provides at least a little bit of additional context.  To ignore that as COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT is borderline retarded.
12/4/2012 5:20 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by inkdskn on 12/4/2012 5:10:00 PM (view original):
LOL, look at you burnsy, assigning backstories to your fictional players. You want the opposing team to score as few runs as possible. Statistically speaking, you do that by starting the guy who gave up fewer runs. In case you're not aware, you're making **** up to try to rationalize a statistical anomoly (their w-l records). Fail.
I believe that there are pitchers who do a better job of managing games than others.  Who are capable of pitching better in close games.  Do you think guys pitch the exact same way up 6 runs in the 7th than they do in a 1-0 game?  Some guys will pitch better in certain circumstances than others.

Also, anyone who ends their point with "Fail.", in fact, fails.
Impossible.  While it's possible for hitters to hit to the situation, shorten the swing, hit behind runners, lay down a bunt, it is absolutely impossible for pitchers to pitch to a situation.  It can't be done.  It's been proven thousands upon thousands of times.   Absolutely impossible. 
12/4/2012 5:23 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):
What does it tell you?

Pitcher A went 15-8. Pitcher B went 14-11. Does that tell you anything at all?
No, as I stated before, I want more info than just w/l record.

Again, I'm not stating that w/l record is more useful than the vast majority of pitching statistics.  I don't think it should be ignored completely either, for reasons stated before.  Don't assume everything is an absolute.
We should always have context. ERA isn't perfect, as you pointed out, but at least it tells us something. You can reasonably assume that a starting pitcher with a 3.85 ERA had a better year than a starting pitcher with a 4.60 ERA.

The same can't be said for win loss record. Outside of the extremes (21-4, 0-18, etc) you can't make any assumptions at all. Telling me that a pitcher went 14-9 tells me exactly ZERO about that pitcher's season. I don't know if he was 2012 Kershaw or 2011 Porcello.
12/4/2012 5:24 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2012 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 4:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
If the 12-7 pitcher had a 3.90 ERA and the guy who went 11-12 had a 3.85 ERA....who was better?
I don't know. We would need more info and their W/L record isn't telling us anything.
OK.  They each had 200 IP.  They each allowed 190 hits, walked 40, struck out 160, each allowed 25 homers.
The 11-12 guy then.

Given the same number innings and base runners, he allowed fewer runs to score.
How do you know he allowed fewer runs to score?  He may have allowed fewer EARNED runs to score, but how would you know that he allowed fewer TOTAL runs to score?  Maybe the 11-12 guy had a ****** defense behind him.  More base runners, and he gave up more hits with RISP which resulted in unearned runs.  

Maybe a number of the 25 HRs allowed by the 11-12 guy came in late inning high-leverage situations where he blew the game.  Maybe a number of the 25 HRs allowed by the 12-7 guy came in low-leverage situations when he had a large lead and was pitching to contact.

You can't look at selected numbers on a spreadsheet and make definitive conclusions without additional context.  W/L provides at least a little bit of additional context.  To ignore that as COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT is borderline retarded.
The W/L record, though, gives you none of that additional information.
12/4/2012 5:26 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by inkdskn on 12/4/2012 5:10:00 PM (view original):
LOL, look at you burnsy, assigning backstories to your fictional players. You want the opposing team to score as few runs as possible. Statistically speaking, you do that by starting the guy who gave up fewer runs. In case you're not aware, you're making **** up to try to rationalize a statistical anomoly (their w-l records). Fail.
I believe that there are pitchers who do a better job of managing games than others.  Who are capable of pitching better in close games.  Do you think guys pitch the exact same way up 6 runs in the 7th than they do in a 1-0 game?  Some guys will pitch better in certain circumstances than others.

Also, anyone who ends their point with "Fail.", in fact, fails.
Impossible.  While it's possible for hitters to hit to the situation, shorten the swing, hit behind runners, lay down a bunt, it is absolutely impossible for pitchers to pitch to a situation.  It can't be done.  It's been proven thousands upon thousands of times.   Absolutely impossible. 
And you somehow deduce their skills at 'pitching to the situation' from their w-l record, rather than by watching them pitch, like the rest of us?

Interesting.

Two guys, same season, go 12-12. Who was better? Were they good? Bad? Average? That's what w-l record tells you, and illustrates its usefulness as a stat.
12/4/2012 5:31 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2012 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2012 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Nobody has argued that you don't need more than win-loss record.  You also need more info than ERA.  Or ERA+, or whatever.  

I wanted Felix to win the Cy Young in 2010, as he was the best pitcher.  But people shouldn't state opinions in absolutes.  I gave an example above that I'm quite sure is very possible.  I don't take a ton of stock in w-l record, but to write it off and ignore it completely isn't that intelligent either.

As for relievers, it doesn't make sense to look at.  Alfredo Aceves racked up an insane w-l record when he was the long man for the Yankees, because he's coming in games in the 4th inning that he can only win and not lose.  It isn't the same thing. I'm speaking specifically about starting pitchers.
If a stat tells us absolutely nothing, why not ignore it?
Because it doesn't tell us absolutely nothing.  I could repeat what it tells us but, as I said "repeat", that seems absolutely pointless.

Ignoring a stat because you don't like it is dumb.  Which, quite honestly, describes you.
Do you use w-l records when evaluating closer performance? e.g.,

who was better:

closer who went 0-6 (w-l) with 45/51 saves/opps , 1.50 ERA
closer who went 1-0 (w-l) with 45/51 saves/opps, 1.50 ERA

with every other stat in the history of the world identical.

Do you ignore w-l record because it's dumb, and say they both ruled, or do you conclude the 1-0 guy was a better pitcher?
12/4/2012 5:36 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...28 Next ▸
Wins and Losses Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.