Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 29 Apr 2014, 7:21 pm

Some ranting on the G+ page about 'Wins' as a sucky category. No great alternatives have arisen but if anybody has ideas jot 'em down somewhere.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 30 Apr 2014, 12:59 pm

For me the only category that can replace wins is quality starts. I know many people, especially Todd, don't like quality starts in principle, but I think they're actually not bad.

First, quality starts attempt to take offense out of the equation (unless you have a really convincing argument that pitchers should be able to pitch to the score and NL pitchers should help themselves with the bat). The main argument against wins is that they are often out of the pitcher's control. Cole Hamels had 17 quality starts last year that did not result in wins, while Kenny Rogers once got 17 wins with an ERA approaching 5.

Second, while the minimum for a quality start is a somewhat low threshold (6 innings, 3 earned runs), it's not nearly as low as the threshold for wins (5 innings, infinite earned runs as long as the pitcher's team scores more runs and keeps that lead). There were almost 150 wins last year by pitchers with game ERAs over 5, and only a little over 200 minimum (6IP, 3ER) quality starts. Most quality starts are not of the minimum variety, and many of those do not result in wins.

Third, quality starts eliminates the arbitrary vulture win by relief pitchers. In any game in which the starting pitcher does not finish five innings, the win can be awarded at the scorer's discretion. Pitchers who record one out can be credited with a win in these instances.

The point is, the vast majority of quality starts are excellent pitching performances, and by eliminating run support from the equation you more frequently reward good pitchers than you do with wins.

I'm not saying we should remove wins. I've said many times that they are a great category for head-to-head because of their volatility and unpredictability. I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss quality starts as a viable replacement.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 01 May 2014, 11:52 am

schulni wrote:I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss quality starts as a viable replacement.


Well I'll say it =P

First of all, eliminating vulture relief wins is a negative, not a positive, imo. On offense, every player can contribute to every category. That's technically true for pitching, but not practically, thanks to SV (and next year, SV+HLD). QS would exacerbate that problem by making it impossible for relievers to contribute to that category. The fact that starters can't contribute in SV+HLD is a failing imo (though admittedly not one I know how to address), and I would not wish to compound it.

Second of all, 9 IP, 4 ER. Enough said.

Third, QS is an ERA proxy, because it uses earned runs in its formulation. We all know from experience that not all unearned runs are created equal. Wins don't care about the distinction between earned and unearned. They also don't ask for a particular ERA threshold. ERA is its own category, no need to double it up.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 01 May 2014, 7:58 pm

I like wins, especially vulture wins!

9 IP and 4 ER almost never happens because of pitch counts, so it's not a practical argument. That would be like me using 10 IP and 0 ER as an argument for quality starts.

All earned runs are also not created equal. If a pitcher leaves a guy on first with two outs and a reliever comes in and lets the guy score, that's about as garbage as when pitchers are merely charged with an unearned run because of their own heinous fielding.

I get what you are saying about quality starts being an ERA proxy and wanting to avoid overlap in categories. There are a number of challenges with pitching categories, and quality starts and wins both have flaws. I like wins in head to head because they are random and ridiculous!
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 May 2014, 8:12 pm

I concur. Wins are fine, especially given the lack of good alternatives.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 02 May 2014, 1:10 pm

schulni wrote:9 IP and 4 ER almost never happens because of pitch counts, so it's not a practical argument. That would be like me using 10 IP and 0 ER as an argument for quality starts.


Per B-R, from 2010-2013, there were 20 starts of 8+ IP and 4 ER. That's not a ton, but it certainly happens.

Of course, if they fixed the definition to be 6+ IP and <=4.5 ERA, then it would be even more of an ERA proxy than it already is, so...

If innings pitched minus home runs was an option, I might say do that.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 02 May 2014, 1:46 pm

I like wins much better than quality starts because it adds a dimension of the team the player is on. Yankee pitchers generally are more valuable than they should be because they win more games, because the Yankees usually have a good record. The Cubs pitchers are likewise burdened by their consistently lousy team. It's just another thing you've got to weigh when you're making these decisions on who to start, who to draft, who to stream, which makes it a good stat.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 03 May 2014, 4:54 am

Yes that's true, except what you said about the Yankees. The Yankees are terrible. You don't ever want to stream their pitchers.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 03 May 2014, 5:03 pm

schulni wrote:Yes that's true, except what you said about the Yankees. The Yankees are terrible. You don't ever want to stream their pitchers.


Just 'cause you don't like the Yankees doesn't make it so. Over the past 10 years the Yankees have won more games than any team in baseball. I was unfair to the Cubs, though. I should have said the Royals.