PDA

View Full Version : Is the win a useless statistic?



dougdirt
04-29-2010, 04:13 PM
Interesting thing just caught my attention at The Hardball Times:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/is-the-win-a-useless-statistic/


There's a mini-discussion going on in the Twitterverse/blogosphere surrounding the usefulness of the "win" as a statistic. Here are some of the opinions:
My favorite from the article

Colin Wyers:

Whenever a manager holds his best reliever for a "save" spot rather than using him in a tight spot, he puts indiv. above team...Pitcher "wins" and saves are not simply benignly "useless," they actively encourage bad decisions.

Just some interesting food for thought.

MississippiRed
04-29-2010, 04:23 PM
I mostly agree with Colin Wyers and Keith Law. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that pitchers pitch differently with a big lead--isn't that because a win is the only stat that really matters to the TEAM?

dougdirt
04-29-2010, 04:25 PM
I mostly agree with Colin Wyers and Keith Law. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that pitchers pitch differently with a big lead--isn't that because a win is the only stat that really matters to the TEAM?

It certainly makes sense to pitch differently with a large lead. If you are up 10 in the 4th inning, literally pitch to contact. There is no need to try and strike everyone out at that point like you may want to do up 1-0.

Kc61
04-29-2010, 04:36 PM
Interesting thing just caught my attention at The Hardball Times:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/is-the-win-a-useless-statistic/



Just some interesting food for thought.

The manager keeps the closer available for the ninth inning because he believes that the ninth inning is generally critical and he wants a certain pitcher available for the ninth inning.

He doesn't keep the closer available for the ninth inning to get him a personal "save." He keeps him available because the ninth inning is important.

Sometimes an earlier inning can be more important than the ninth. You could have a tough inning earlier.

Some managers prefer to keep their closer out of earlier inning jam ups. They feel that the closer is used to the ninth inning and will be best in the ninth. Some folks disagree with this.

But it's not to get the closer personal stats. It's because the manager feels the ninth is important and the closer is used to that role and will do best pitching the ninth.

Hoosier Red
04-29-2010, 04:38 PM
I've always felt like the Win is a useful stat at the extremes.

Looking over the list of 20 game winners, it's tough to find someone who had a bad year.
Similarly, anyone who went 0-16 probably didn't have a very good year.

There are other stats that would reinforce this, but I think it's useful in the very quick look at the top and bottom of the league.

Where it's not useful is to say one guy had 18 wins so he had a better year than a guy with 14 wins.

RedsManRick
04-29-2010, 04:39 PM
I do find Jesse Spector's point interesting. How well and how much/often are two primary components of any summative performance metric. Even though wins are incredibly imprecise, they capture both of these generally. This is why stats like wins, RBI, and saves have such staying power. Their ratio of ease of understanding:value is pretty darn high for a casual fan.

Show me another single stat for a pitcher that doesn't take much explanation and captures both quality and quantity. ERA (and it's more accurate derivatives) doesn't capture quantity. Strikeouts only capture a limited aspect of pitching, as you can strikeout a ton and stink and strikeout relatively few and be good.

Wins (and saves) convey both quality and quantity to a degree -- and are increasingly "accurate" over time, a guy like Blyleven being the exception that proves the rule. Sure, as soon as you have more than 10 seconds to think about it, wins are completely overshadowed by a simple combination of other stats, but let's face it, 95% of fans don't care about being accurate. They just want something to talk about. Furthermore, we have to realize that the media's "job" is to get eyeballs, not to be the most accurate.

So long as most fans aren't stat-heads and most media members are about appealing to the most fans, simple stats that convey "good enough" information in most cases will continue to prevail.

Chip R
04-29-2010, 04:41 PM
But it's not to get the closer personal stats. It's because the manager feels the ninth is important and the closer is used to that role and will do best pitching the ninth.


Actually, I think a lot of the time it is. Time and again we see Dusty bring Cordero on with a 3 run lead or if the tying run is on deck. Dusty's not the only one who does this either.

Kc61
04-29-2010, 04:43 PM
Actually, I think a lot of the time it is. Time and again we see Dusty bring Cordero on with a 3 run lead or if the tying run is on deck. Dusty's not the only one who does this either.


The last two nights Dusty used Cordero in the ninth inning in non-save situations. If he was worried about personal stats, he would have used somebody else, not Coco.

Dusty, rightly or wrongly, has a very limited universe of pitchers for the ninth inning. In unsettled games, even some settled games, it is usually Cordero.

Save situation, or no save situation.

Cedric
04-29-2010, 04:46 PM
Who really cares about a win? I think we should give a "victory" to the team that has the best peripheral numbers per player?

Bad sarcasm I know.

Caveat Emperor
04-29-2010, 04:49 PM
Who really cares about a win? I think we should give a "victory" to the team that has the best peripheral numbers per player?

Bad sarcasm I know.

They should list a pitcher's team W-L record next to their actualy W-L record.

So, a pitcher's record would look something like:

MIKE LEAKE:
2 (3) - 0 (1)

KronoRed
04-29-2010, 04:53 PM
The win stat doesn't bother me, though it does have some odd rules with, the save though is crap, many times a game is "Saved" in a situation in the 7th or 8th inning and the 9th is the bottom of the order fodder.

Brutus
04-29-2010, 05:02 PM
They should list a pitcher's team W-L record next to their actualy W-L record.

So, a pitcher's record would look something like:

MIKE LEAKE:
2 (3) - 0 (1)

I actually like the idea of crediting wins & losses in that fashion better than the current one. It tells me more about a pitcher, at least relative to a current "win" as to how many games the team wins when they pitch.

Personally, while I don't find the win useless (though close), I much prefer quality start percentage for examining the start-by-start basis.

But I like your idea. I'd rather see W-L record just based on the total result of the game a starting pitcher works.

Chip R
04-29-2010, 05:02 PM
The last two nights Dusty used Cordero in the ninth inning in non-save situations. If he was worried about personal stats, he would have used somebody else, not Coco.

Dusty, rightly or wrongly, has a very limited universe of pitchers for the ninth inning. In unsettled games, even some settled games, it is usually Cordero.

Save situation, or no save situation.


You're right. He did use Cordero in those non save situations. But he will always use him when a save situation comes up. If the Reds are up by 5 in the 9th and the bases are loaded, Dusty will bring him in to get that precious save. And, like I said, he's not the only manager who does it. Dusty's all about his guys getting their stats pumped up. I also think managers who do that are apprehensive about the player/family member/agent confronting him about why he didn't get the closer an easy save.

As for the win, it should be deemphasized a lot more but it's hard to unring that bell. Back in the day where pitchers went 9 innings it had some meaning. Now, when a starter goes 5-7 innings, the bullpen has a greater chance of blowing the lead. Lincecum's start yesterday was a perfect example of that. He went 8 1/3 and only allowed 2 runs and left after walking a guy with 1 out with a 4-1 lead and the bullpen let it get tied and the Phils won it in extras. Does that mean Lincecum is a terrible pitcher because he didn't get the win? Of course not but you get enough of those games, and people start looking at the won-loss record and there aren't enough Ws for an elite pitcher even though all the other stats are top notch.

BoydsOfSummer
04-29-2010, 05:03 PM
I don't even pay much attention to neutral wins. :cool:

RedsManRick
04-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Agreed, Chip. If we're going to use 1 number, I'd rather see QS than Wins. At least I can be pretty sure that the guy pitched well. Though maybe I'd adjust it to IP > 6 and ERA < 4.50 so those 9 IP, 4 ER games count.

macro
04-29-2010, 05:14 PM
There is something wrong with a stat that allows a pitcher to inherit a 3-0 lead in the top of the 9th, give up a three-run homer but finish the inning, and then get the "win" when his team scores in the bottom of the ninth. The guy who pitched the eight shutout innings gets nothing.

Chip R
04-29-2010, 05:17 PM
There is something wrong with a stat that allows a pitcher to inherit a 3-0 lead in the top of the 9th, give up a three-run homer but finish the inning, and then get the "win" when his team scores in the bottom of the ninth. The guy who pitched the eight shutout innings gets nothing.


Yes. That's a great point. I wonder how that particular stat evolved over the 20th century.

blumj
04-29-2010, 05:17 PM
I actually like the idea of crediting wins & losses in that fashion better than the current one. It tells me more about a pitcher, at least relative to a current "win" as to how many games the team wins when they pitch.

Personally, while I don't find the win useless (though close), I much prefer quality start percentage for examining the start-by-start basis.

But I like your idea. I'd rather see W-L record just based on the total result of the game a starting pitcher works.


So would I. I'm not sure it really tells you much, but it might say something about the combination of pitcher and team, at least maybe a bit more than the way they do it now does.

bucksfan2
04-29-2010, 05:24 PM
Wins are important in the sense that they are the goal for every game. You can say someone pitched well, or hit well, or did a good job in the field, but they all go for naught if you don't win the game. There really is no such thing as a bad win or a pretty loss. I do agree that sometimes it doesn't tell you whole story but I also feel you will be hard pressed to find a pitcher who won 18 games yet was bad or a pitcher who lost 16 games and was good. I think that you should include, or at least mention, a teams performance in games started by an given pitcher.

As for the save I think it does have importance don't don't believe the whole "most important situation in a game no matter what inning it occurs" mantra. There are few certainties in baseball with one being that after the completion of 9 innings, unless the score is tied, the game is over. It puts more importance on the 9th inning than any other inning. I have watch many games in which I thought the last out in the 7th inning was the most important out of the game only to see the game get out of control in the 8th. It is just too difficult to predict which part of the game is the most crucial and I think that is largely the reason most managers hold onto closers until the 9th inning. Now I would like to see the Reds stretch closers out into 5-6 out pitchers.

bucksfan2
04-29-2010, 05:27 PM
Agreed, Chip. If we're going to use 1 number, I'd rather see QS than Wins. At least I can be pretty sure that the guy pitched well. Though maybe I'd adjust it to IP > 6 and ERA < 4.50 so those 9 IP, 4 ER games count.

I hate the QS stat. You can't convince me that a 6IP 3ER start is better than an 8IP 4ER game.

nate
04-29-2010, 05:33 PM
It's pretty much worthless in determining pitching skill directly. Indirectly, good pitchers typically pitch on good teams and therefore get a lot of wins.

As far as determining "team wins when the lead is sustained after pitching 5 innings or being the pitcher of record when the winning run was scored," it's perfect.

I'd be interested to see the correlation between pitching and team record. Burt Blylevin, Phil Niekro, Nolan Ryan...those sorts of dudes.

RedsManRick
04-29-2010, 05:33 PM
I hate the QS stat. You can't convince me that a 6IP 3ER start is better than an 8IP 4ER game.

Hence my adjustment.

Of course, you can have 5 IP, 10 ER win and a 9 IP, 0 ER loss. QS isn't perfect but it still does a better job at telling you how effective the pitcher was than W-L.

Chip R
04-29-2010, 05:35 PM
Wins are important in the sense that they are the goal for every game. You can say someone pitched well, or hit well, or did a good job in the field, but they all go for naught if you don't win the game. There really is no such thing as a bad win or a pretty loss. I do agree that sometimes it doesn't tell you whole story but I also feel you will be hard pressed to find a pitcher who won 18 games yet was bad or a pitcher who lost 16 games and was good. I think that you should include, or at least mention, a teams performance in games started by an given pitcher.


Individual wins are OK in a given context. But by themselves they don't tell the whole story and a lot of people still focus on a W-L record as the be all and end all of pitching stats. I mean Jimmy Haynes won 15 games one year, right? :)

blumj
04-29-2010, 05:53 PM
In a sense, team W-L do tell a complete story, or, at least an exact specific thing that I might want to know. A pitcher's record never really tells me any particular thing that I want to know, it's kind of a mishmash of things I might want to know and things I don't want to know, combined in such a way that I don't find it useful for anything.

edabbs44
04-29-2010, 05:53 PM
I don't think some will rest until every traditional statistic has been "disproved" and trashed.

dougdirt
04-29-2010, 05:56 PM
I don't think some will rest until every traditional statistic has been "disproved" and trashed.

We have better and more informative and telling stats now. It is like choosing to watch your 19inch black and white tv because it still works when you could be watching your 42inch 1080p LCD tv. Sure, one works, but the other one is so much better and more in depth its not funny.

westofyou
04-29-2010, 06:00 PM
Lee Sinis had thiis to say abut no hitters



Phillies P Kevin Millwood started against the Giants yesterday. The most impressive and important thing about his start was he didn't give up any runs. In the interesting, but unimportant category, he didn't give up any hits. In the maybe as impressive as the last one category, he held Barry Bonds off the bases in 4 plate appearances. To recycle a couple of paragraphs I wrote a year ago today, after Derek Lowe's no hitter (see Redsox fans, I told you that my comments have nothing to do with a bias against your team)--

No single game accomplishment is more overhyped than a no hitter. It's an interesting, and a noteworthy, statistical fluke for a pitcher to not give up any hits. A no hitter is a fun thing to watch. However, it is also an item whose hype value far exceeds its actual value. But, avoiding hits isn't a pitcher's job. His job is avoid giving up runs. I'll say it again--Preventing hits and base runners are merely a means towards the end, but the end is all that matters. So, a perfect game or no hitter's hype value is far greater than it's actual value, when compared in both regards to a typical shutout.

I will now add that, considering the importance of preventing baserunners, I am more impressed with a perfect game than a typical shutout. But, I'm also more impressed with 2 hit/0 walk and 1 hit/1 walk shutouts than a 0 hit/3 walk shutout like Millwood's. Millwood's performance also shows the ridiculousness of the "wins" stat, aka "the pitcher in the game when his team scored a particular run", aka "pitcher in the game when a really stupid, discredited and abandoned hitting stat was accomplished by his offense." When we look at the rulebook for how to determine the "winning pitcher", here's the procedure--locate when the game winning RBI (which was a really stupid, discredited and abandoned hitting stat) and then assign credit to the pitcher in the game at that moment (except for when that pitcher is a starter who doesn't last 5 innings and an exception for an ineffective relief pitcher that is actually invoked maybe once in a decade).

So, why was Millwood was the "winning pitcher"? It was merely because he was the pitcher at the time Ricky Ledee hit a HR that would be the GWRBI.

KronoRed
04-29-2010, 06:16 PM
We have better and more informative and telling stats now. It is like choosing to watch your 19inch black and white tv because it still works when you could be watching your 42inch 1080p LCD tv. Sure, one works, but the other one is so much better and more in depth its not funny.

Damn kids and newfound stats that apparently ruin the game for some.

Get off the lawn!!

RedsManRick
04-29-2010, 06:21 PM
I don't think some will rest until every traditional statistic has been "disproved" and trashed.

It's not disproving. Wins are no more or less "good" of a measure of performance than they were 30 years ago. It's about moving on to better things.

Should I still make calls on a rotary phone and avoid using my iphone? I suppose if you're a Luddite, the may phone maybe real scary. But it's actually not all that complicated if you invest 5 minutes in learning how to use it.

Are wins (or RBI or saves) useless? No. They are a whole lot better than nothing, just like that wall-mounted rotary phone. But given the choice, why use it?

Roy Tucker
04-29-2010, 06:23 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/51

blumj
04-29-2010, 06:25 PM
I don't think some will rest until every traditional statistic has been "disproved" and trashed.

Why do some fans seem to have an emotional attachment to traditional stats, whether they inform well or not?

westofyou
04-29-2010, 06:57 PM
It's not that a W is a useless stat it's that it was invented when a pitcher threw every pitch of the season, it was more pure in design, the game has changed and it hasn't brought all the stats that were invented along with the game with it very elegantly.

Let's not forget the sac bunt was invented because hitters complained that it was taking hits off their average and essentially money out of their pocket, so debate the facts all you want and know this the stat ain't going away. But how it's gained could be manipulated.

nate
04-29-2010, 07:17 PM
It's not that a W is a useless stat it's that it was invented when a pitcher threw every pitch of the season, it was more pure in design, the game has changed and it hasn't brought all the stats that were invented along with the game with it very elegantly.

So award a "win" for complete game victories. Or award fractional "wins" to every player who contributed to scoring runs and preventing them.


Let's not forget the sac bunt was invented because hitters complained that it was taking hits off their average and essentially money out of their pocket, so debate the facts all you want and know this the stat ain't going away. But how it's gained could be manipulated.

Are you saying that someone is arguing the "hits" statistic should "go away?"

westofyou
04-29-2010, 07:25 PM
Are you saying that someone is arguing the "hits" statistic should "go away?"

No, I'm saying the W ain't going away. But complain enough and someone will create a new way to manage it

RedsManRick
04-29-2010, 07:52 PM
Sorry for the sort of double post, but Colin Wyers of BP just put up an article that touches on this directly: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10722

Snippet


Now, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The core point of sabermetrics - the reason it exists - isn't because of statistics at all. Bill James defined sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball." It's a nice, succinct statement that actually hides a profound truth - we're searching for knowledge about baseball because we don't have all of it yet.
....
What we end up with is two fundamental truths - what matters is how much something contributes to wins and losses (or at least runs scored and runs allowed, which are the building blocks of wins and losses), and that a player's contributions to wins and losses are shaped by the contributions of his teammates.
...
On the pitching side, saying a pitcher "won a game" or "earned a win" is another oversimplifying, misleading abstraction. The pitcher didn't win the game - the team did. The pitcher's efforts are reflected in that win, but so are the efforts of the relievers and position players (both in hitting and in fielding). The very way we talk about pitcher "wins" leads us to discount the contributions of a pitcher's teammates and attribute those contributions to the pitcher himself.


As I said earlier, perhaps there's a sliver of utility in the "win" stat due solely to it's simplicity. But to Colin's point, in what scenario is "win" better than some alternative that doesn't attribute to the pitcher so much of what his teammates did?

I think a good, simple measure of a stat is this: How easily can it be gamed? I find that with the stats that most accurately capture the contributions of a player to the wins (or losses) of his, the more difficult it is for the stat to be manipulated.

Further, stats that can easily be manipulated detract from the game itself. Because players are compensated based on their contributions to the team's W-L record, and because objective measures tend to be better than subjective ones, stats are a necessity. By inventing stats which can be accrued without doing what's in the team's best interest and by rewarding players for those stats, players (and coaches) are encouraged to game the system, harming their teams in the process.

jojo
04-29-2010, 09:29 PM
There is something wrong with a stat that allows a pitcher to inherit a 3-0 lead in the top of the 9th, give up a three-run homer but finish the inning, and then get the "win" when his team scores in the bottom of the ninth. The guy who pitched the eight shutout innings gets nothing.

Or how about a stat that allows a pitcher to pitch 1 inning of a 14 inning game and get the win....

edabbs44
04-29-2010, 11:50 PM
Why do some fans seem to have an emotional attachment to traditional stats, whether they inform well or not?

I'm not sure that I have an emotional attachment to traditional stats, as I have definitely embranced parts of the movement. However, those stats that I have embraced are more first cousins to traditional stats (like OPS) rather than some of these distant relatives that seem to spring up like baseball has won the lottery.

Traditional stats definitely have their pluses. They correlate to what you are watching in the game, all fans are fluent in their language and they are fairly good representation of the effectiveness of a player. Sure RBIs are flawed, but for the most part the guys leading the league are pretty good ballplayers. Especially ones who are there year after year. Same things with wins. Maybe saying a guy had 20 wins last season isn't enough in certain instances, but saying a guy had 20 wins with a 3.25 ERA tells us that he fared better than the guy with the 20 wins and 4.35 ERA. If a guy has 150 RBI it would be pretty easy to say "Hey, that number is inflated b/c he got up with 25% more runners than the average clean-up hitter in the NL" if that were the case. And that would pretty much mitigate the biggest flaw in the stat. No need to kill the stat, just adding a little info does the trick.

The thing that is starting to really become obvious is that there really isn't an end in sight. A stat that is en vogue in 2008 and is a "better representation" of a player's true performance might be dead within 2-3 years because a "better" stat has been found. Or maybe that stat was found to be flawed. Where is RC and RC/27 right now? There has definitely been a drop in usage
of that stat on this board over the past year. I'm not sure what the reason is.

The other thing is that most baseball fans likely do not have the time or energy to follow the latest trends in a seemingly ever changing alphabet soup of statistics. And the fact that is very obvious to me is that if you give a (for lack of a better term) "true baseball fan" a player and a list of his traditional stats and gave a top sabermetrician that same player and every stat they could wish for, I'd bet that they would come up with a simiar assessment of the player's talent level and production. Maybe the "old school" fan wouldn't claim that he or she had an estimate of how many wins or runs can be credited to that player. But when you think about it, do you really need to? Where does that get you? Especially when most fans don't know how to comprehend the statistic and, in 2 years, no one might be using the statistic anyway due to further "progress" in the field.

Which leads me to my original post. The baseball statistical revolution has, in my opinion, moved from trying to understand the game better to who can come up with the "more accurate" statistic. And then some take those stats to the next level, basically using these numbers as their resume to prove that they are more enlightened than others when someone brings up that Player A has 100 RBIs or 15 wins. And it isn't only here, but many of the new wave writers on the net are also in this grouping. The Phillies are one of the best run teams in baseball and they took some abuse by many writers this week for signing Ryan Howard to his extension. Here's one fun excerpt from a blog called Crashburn Alley:


Over the length of the extension, Howard is projected to accrue 11.7 WARP3, an average of under 2 per season. Even if we make the extremely generous and unrealistic assumption that the value of a win is $5 million not just in 2010, but throughout the length of the contract (it won’t — it will rise most likely), Howard still provides an increasingly negative value to the Phillies. $84.5 million specifically from 2012-17.

http://crashburnalley.com/2010/04/26/howard-gets-extension-through-2016/

Really? The Phillies have finished no worse than 2nd since 2004 and have been to 2 world series(es?) in the last 3 years. Crashburn Alley versus the Phillies in a baseball related decision....hmmm. My money is on the Phillies. And I bet that Howard's production does start to taper at some point during his contract and Mr. Alley will write about how he predicted this. But bottom line is that the Phillies are running a business and launching a favorite like Howard during this run would probably do more damage to the franchise than the contract will if Howard starts to decline during the life of the contract.


Most Phillies fans will love the extension, as it keeps a fan favorite in town for a long time. Stat-savvy fans immediately dislike the deal. Most Phillies fans will come to loathe the deal in several years when the Phillies are hamstrung by Howard’s relatively large salary and declining production.

Bold statement, but I wonder if the Philly FO sat down with Crashburn and explained why they did this maybe the blog posting would change. Like what they get from Howard jersey sales, endorsements, ticket sales, etc. Maybe the deal will pay for a lot of itself. Who knows?

I'm just thinking that this whole thing is going a bit too far. Many think that they are smarter than the manager, the GM, and everyone else in baseball because they subscribe to BP, read some blogs on "advanced statistics" and know what the xFIP or WAR calculation is. But I'd have to say that I wonder how much progression we've really seen in the understanding of the game of baseball and how it correlates to the amount of research, reading, studying, etc one would have to do to keep up. And I'd love to see, if it were quantifiable, if the pace of true understanding of the game has slowed, accelerated or stayed relatively static over this "renaissance" period. Because where significant gains may have been made 5-10 years ago, it seems like people are now more interested in showing their "knowledge" versus trying to advance whatever they are trying to advance.

dsmith421
04-29-2010, 11:54 PM
Wins are no more or less "good" of a measure of performance than they were 30 years ago.

I disagree with this. I think W-L record has become a worse measure of performance as pitching specialization has increased. I think it's a very good shorthand, perhaps even more so than unadjusted ERA, for pitchers pre WW-II.

macro
06-07-2010, 12:17 AM
There is something wrong with a stat that allows a pitcher to inherit a 3-0 lead in the top of the 9th, give up a three-run homer but finish the inning, and then get the "win" when his team scores in the bottom of the ninth. The guy who pitched the eight shutout innings gets nothing.

Mr. Cordero made my point today. Enters the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 4-2 lead and blows the save and allows the Nationals to tie the game. Reds take the lead in the 10th and he's the "winning" pitcher. Never mind Arroyo's 8 IP and two runs allowed. :rolleyes:

WebScorpion
06-07-2010, 01:11 AM
Mr. Cordero made my point today. Enters the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 4-2 lead and blows the save and allows the Nationals to tie the game. Reds take the lead in the 10th and he's the "winning" pitcher. Never mind Arroyo's 8 IP and two runs allowed. :rolleyes:

Yea, the Nats have that kid Ty Clippard in their 'pen who's done this 4 times! :eek: He's 8-3 as a middle reliever but 4 of his wins are also blown saves. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/excited.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

TheNext44
06-07-2010, 02:18 AM
Two changes to the official scorer rule book would make the Win a much more meaningful stat.

1) Just eliminate this rule


Rule 10.17(a) Comment: Whenever the score is tied, the game becomes a new contest insofar as the winning pitcher is concerned. Once the opposing team assumes the lead, all pitchers who have pitched up to that point and have been replaced are excluded from being credited with the victory. If the pitcher against whose pitching the opposing team gained the lead continues to pitch until his team regains the lead, which it holds to the finish of the game, that pitcher shall be the winning pitcher.

Basically it says that once the game is tied, all pitchers who pitched and left the game before it was tied, can not get the Win.

So if this was eliminated, then Arroyo could have gotten the Win today, even after Cordero blew the save.

And change this rule (which should be used more often in games like today, even if it's not changed.)


(c) The official scorer shall not credit as the winning pitcher a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when at least one succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain its lead. In such a case, the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the succeeding relief pitcher who was most effective, in the judgment of the official scorer.

Just change this so that the official scorer can make any pitcher the winner if the reliever who comes in when the winning run is scored, is "ineffective." Right now he can only do that if there a pitcher after the one that was ineffective, and he pitched effectively, and did not get the save.
And then add to it that any reliever that blows a save opportunity can not get the Win for that game.

That would work for me, and make the Win a much more meaningful stat, imo.

macro
06-22-2010, 03:03 AM
Mr. Cordero made my point today. Enters the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 4-2 lead and blows the save and allows the Nationals to tie the game. Reds take the lead in the 10th and he's the "winning" pitcher. Never mind Arroyo's 8 IP and two runs allowed. :rolleyes:

Congratulations to Cordero on earning another well-deserved win tonight. ;) Mike Leake with his 1 run allowed in 6 IP certainly didn't deserve to be credited with a win.

Not picking on Cordero, but he seems to be the one proving the point a lot lately.