PDA

View Full Version : Jose Valverde Shows The Awesomeness of Wins and Saves



RedsManRick
04-05-2012, 07:02 PM
Jose Valverde impressed a lot of people last year by going a perfect 49-49 in save opportunities. Valverde is not a great pitcher. He's misses bats, but he also misses the strike zone. His shiny 2.24 ERA belied mediocre peripherals.

In any event, he got the 2012 season off to a start by promptly blowing his first save chance. He came in the the game in the top of the 9th; the Tigers had a 92% chance of beating the Red Sox. He gave up 2 runs before gettting out of the inning, lowering their chances of winning to 65%. Have no fear. The Tigers scored a run in the bottom of the 9th, giving Valverde the "win".

For a performance that had the effect of a 1/4 game loss, he gets a "win". Yep.

dougdirt
04-05-2012, 07:03 PM
But he got the win Rick, so clearly he did a good job.

757690
04-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Really need to establish a rule that you can't get a win and a blown save in the same game. Of course that would mean there will be some games in which no pitcher gets a win, but I'm fine with that.

oneupper
04-05-2012, 07:33 PM
Really need to establish a rule that you can't get a win and a blown save in the same game. Of course that would mean there will be some games in which no pitcher gets a win, but I'm fine with that.

That would unbalance the universe. But the guy who was in line for the win before the BS could still get it.

edabbs44
04-05-2012, 09:05 PM
No offense Rick, but this thread is awful.

Brutus
04-05-2012, 09:16 PM
Is there anyone left that values wins as a statistic for a pitcher?

dougdirt
04-05-2012, 09:20 PM
Is there anyone left that values wins as a statistic for a pitcher?

Most the of baseball fans on this planet.

Brutus
04-05-2012, 09:22 PM
Most the of baseball fans on this planet.

I honestly don't think so. I think ERA is still pretty heavily cherished by most casual baseball fans, but even the most casual fans I know have long stopped paying attention to wins.

As a novelty, winning 20 games is a big deal, but I don't think anyone judges a pitcher on that much anymore.

dougdirt
04-05-2012, 09:23 PM
I honestly don't think so. I think ERA is still pretty heavily cherished by most casual baseball fans, but even the most casual fans I know have long stopped paying attention to wins.

As a novelty, winning 20 games is a big deal, but I don't think anyone judges a pitcher on that much anymore.

If you are like me, you have educated your friends enough that they no longer think wins mean much. But I listen to a ton of sports talk radio. I hear a ton of people who talk about how many wins a pitcher will get.

Brutus
04-05-2012, 09:31 PM
If you are like me, you have educated your friends enough that they no longer think wins mean much. But I listen to a ton of sports talk radio. I hear a ton of people who talk about how many wins a pitcher will get.

That could be true. I do have a circle of baseball friends that are pretty stat-savvy, so perhaps I'm just not running in the antiquated baseball communities lol

I'd still guess that it's a small minority, but maybe I'm being too optimistic.

blumj
04-05-2012, 09:48 PM
Valverde should get a pass when he has to pitch after Verlander, tough act to follow.

edabbs44
04-05-2012, 10:22 PM
That could be true. I do have a circle of baseball friends that are pretty stat-savvy, so perhaps I'm just not running in the antiquated baseball communities lol

I'd still guess that it's a small minority, but maybe I'm being too optimistic.

I think the bigger issue is the misinterpreting of how some utilize the statistic. Generally, more wins mean more success. It's an easy stat to throw into an equation to describe the success of a starting pitcher.

But I would challenge anyone to find me a baseball fan with an inkling of how the game works who would think that Matt Cain is a bad pitcher since he is sub .500 for his career.

*BaseClogger*
04-05-2012, 10:50 PM
I think the bigger issue is the misinterpreting of how some utilize the statistic. Generally, more wins mean more success. It's an easy stat to throw into an equation to describe the success of a starting pitcher.

But I would challenge anyone to find me a baseball fan with an inkling of how the game works who would think that Matt Cain is a bad pitcher since he is sub .500 for his career.

Yesterday, I had to convince one of my friends that Mat Latos is in fact a pretty good pitcher, despite his career 27-29 record...

RedsManRick
04-06-2012, 12:12 AM
No offense Rick, but this thread is awful.

None taken. You can have your wins and saves. I'll have my WAR and BABIP. And we can both live happy lives in peace.

RedlegJake
04-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Yesterday, I had to convince one of my friends that Mat Latos is in fact a pretty good pitcher, despite his career 27-29 record...

Yep. Here in the KC area I've had to do a lot of 'splainin' to my friends, too, why Latos is an young ace-in-the-making despite his record and gets me excited. They think he's a .500 pitcher who throws hard, nothing more. "If he's so good how come he hasn't won more?"

defender
04-06-2012, 12:37 AM
The win is easy to understand. That is what makes it a great statistic. Valverde got the win today, virtually everyone watching the game realized he did not deserve it. For statistical analysis of baseball to be useful, we have to make the assumption that results are normally distributed.

Normal distribution means that for any stat (given a large enough sample) 67% of players will fall within one standard deviation of their talent level. The other 33% will range from slightly more than one standard deviation off to way off.

When Nolan Ryan leads the NL in ERA but is 8-16, fans can clearly see his wins do not correlate to his talent. When Cueto’s xFIP is 3.90 and his ERA is 2.31, what do people make of that? Stat people take the xFIP as gospel, ignoring the fact that it will be wrong 33% of the time. People that watch games will come up with some explanation why.

savafan
04-06-2012, 12:42 AM
When Nolan Ryan leads the NL in ERA but is 8-16, fans can clearly see his wins do not correlate to his talent.

As a 10 year old Nolan Ryan fan, 1987 was a very confusing year for me.

edabbs44
04-06-2012, 08:55 AM
None taken. You can have your wins and saves. I'll have my WAR and BABIP. And we can both live happy lives in peace.

I don't want my wins and saves on their own. But I also won't completely dismiss the statistics as they have value in their own way.

Dan
04-06-2012, 09:13 AM
Really need to establish a rule that you can't get a win and a blown save in the same game. Of course that would mean there will be some games in which no pitcher gets a win, but I'm fine with that.

IIRC, the official scorer is the one who awards the win, and he can award it to anyone he thinks is worthy.

nate
04-06-2012, 10:57 AM
The win is easy to understand. That is what makes it a great statistic. Valverde got the win today, virtually everyone watching the game realized he did not deserve it. For statistical analysis of baseball to be useful, we have to make the assumption that results are normally distributed.

Normal distribution means that for any stat (given a large enough sample) 67% of players will fall within one standard deviation of their talent level. The other 33% will range from slightly more than one standard deviation off to way off.

When Nolan Ryan leads the NL in ERA but is 8-16, fans can clearly see his wins do not correlate to his talent. When Cueto’s xFIP is 3.90 and his ERA is 2.31, what do people make of that? Stat people take the xFIP as gospel, ignoring the fact that it will be wrong 33% of the time. People that watch games will come up with some explanation why.

I suppose I could be considered a "stat person."

I don't take xFIP as gospel.

I think it and other defense independent pitching stats and their components are more indicative of pitching ability than pitching wins and ERA.

I think when talking about "advanced" metrics, we're talking about what's more likely, not certainty.

I and I guess most of the other "stat people" watch as many games as any of the "non-stat people."