Read this:

http://joeposnanski.com/judgmental-stats-the-win/


This guy's solution to the problem of how to think about pitcher wins is somehow deeply satisfying, especially when you see the W-Ls it would lead to in recent years for various pitchers.

His stat about the number of IPs for winning pitchers last year is terrifying instead.

Very interesting idea. I can't say I disagree with him, it makes more sense than what we've got now, but at the same time who wants to go back and retroactively change Cy Young's 511 wins, or the 300 on the button Lefty Grove and Early Wynn got? He even says as much at the start of the article, that these rules have "been around so long, and have so much history, that to change them and make them 'more logical' would probably do more harm than good." Alack and alas.

I think the idea is to implement it now, not to change the records. Changing it now would make things asymmetrical (not the same kind of stat as before) it is true, but it would actually make wins more similar to the past because it would reflect that changing reality that starters hardly ever finish games anymore.

But the concept of a 20-game winner would then remain in baseball, whereas it is now an endangered species, and who was a 20-game winner, as he shows, would not be dramatically different than before, though it would calculated differently. That is why I wrote that it is somehow satisfying - to see a good pitcher today with a 23-9 record, instead of 16-7.

I know that Bill James was throwing around the idea a while back of 4-man rotations with a maximum of 5-6 innings pitched for a similar motive.