First quarter over...on pace for 89 losses

[JB_Iowa]

 

You can only judge a pitcher on what he can control.

 

I'm not 100% convinced about that. For example, we can all see how a pitcher who takes forever between pitches often affects the fielding behind him (they become unfocused, slow to react, etc.). And that sometimes the fielders take that same luggish/unfocused mentality into the dugout and batters box with them.

 

In that case, I would say that the pitcher is affecting things that he doesn't necessarily control.

[Mike Sixel]

But pitchers don't get wins, that's the point. Someone, a long time ago, decided to credit pitchers with a stat called wins, but that does not mean it is a real indicator of anything.

 

IF 100 years ago, somone would have decided to credit every hitter that appeared in a game with a win stat, would you use that stat for anything today?

 

The Win stat means nothing, it tells you nothing about the pitcher at all. Nothing. You could roll a die, and randomly give a hitter a "win" every game your team won, and it would be a stat, but it would have no meaning. Just like pitcher wins.

[JB_Iowa]

But pitchers don't get wins, that's the point. Someone, a long time ago, decided to credit pitchers with a stat called wins, but that does not mean it is a real indicator of anything.

 

IF 100 years ago, somone would have decided to credit every hitter that appeared in a game with a win stat, would you use that stat for anything today?

 

The Win stat means nothing, it tells you nothing about the pitcher at all. Nothing. You could roll a die, and randomly give a hitter a "win" every game your team won, and it would be a stat, but it would have no meaning. Just like pitcher wins.

 

I understand that is the way it SHOULD be. But this is where I run into a bit of a problem with some of the logic on the board. If a pitcher isn't responsible for wins, he also shouldn't be responsible for losses. (Now that I think about it, we hear the same argument about the manager).

 

And yet, most people on this board (me included) seem to have the thinking that the 1st inning holes being dug by the current Twins' pitchers are contribute substantially to the recent losses. Couple that with the lack of quality starts and you have statements like Brock's the other day that the "bats had gone silent in response" to the pitching woes.

 

Do wins ALONE tell you all you need to know about a pitcher? Of course not. BUt that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a meaningless statistic -- especially if you have a morass like this current Twins team. Should wins be determinative of, for example, the Cy Young winner? No. But does that mean that you totally ignore the pitcher's win count? I can't buy that.

[Mike Sixel]

No is arguing that pitchers don't contribute to wins and losses (I don't think anyone is saying that). We are saying that the W-L stat tells you nothing useful at all about how a pitcher pitched.

 

So, if a pitcher pitches 5 innings, gives up 5 runs, but his team scored 6, he gets a W. What does the W tell you? Nothing.

 

If a pitcher comes in, gives up 2 runs and blows a lead, but then his team comes back and wins, he can get the W. What does the W tell you? Nothing.

 

If a pitcher goes 9 innings, and gives up1 run, but his team does not score, he gets an L. What does that L tell you? Nothing.

 

Yes, 100%, a pitcher contributes to winning and losing, but there are literally dozens of stats that tell you how he did that, and none of them are W-L. None of them.

[launchingthrees]

But don't tell me, in retrospect, Ws were meaningless. It's the object of the game. If my pitcher gets a win, the team gets a win.

 

Science!

[Alex]

I'm not 100% convinced about that. For example, we can all see how a pitcher who takes forever between pitches often affects the fielding behind him (they become unfocused, slow to react, etc.). And that sometimes the fielders take that same luggish/unfocused mentality into the dugout and batters box with them.

 

In that case, I would say that the pitcher is affecting things that he doesn't necessarily control.

 

So, all the Twins pitchers need to do is get rid of the ball quickly? Let's call it the hot potato strategy. It should force the entire team to react with catlike reflexes on every play and produce Gold Glove caliber play out of our slow footed outfielders Can someone get this information to Rick Anderson? It's impacting the whole team

 

Seriously, this is a notion that I'd like to see data to support these claims, though I realize it is somehow baseball accepted knowledge. The hypothesis of which be something along the lines of pitchers who take more time between pitches don't get as good of defense behind them and get less run support (because major league professional baseball players are no different from 5 year-olds and would rather be picking dirt in the field).

[Alex]

 

And yet, most people on this board (me included) seem to have the thinking that the 1st inning holes being dug by the current Twins' pitchers are contribute substantially to the recent losses. Couple that with the lack of quality starts and you have statements like Brock's the other day that the "bats had gone silent in response" to the pitching woes.

 

 

Obviously when a team has a 2-0 lead in the first they have a much better chance of winning a game, but what would be interesting to find out is if teams that have a 2-0 lead in the first win more games than a team that takes a 2-0 lead anywhere else in the game. By your, and apparently most people's, theories, it seems you'd say that a 2-0 lead in the first is far more likely to produce a win.

 

My educated guess, simply because of the number of outs remaining for the opposing team come back is that is that any lead in the first is less likely to produce a win than the same lead at any other point in the game. Feel free to test it out:

 

The Win Probability Inquirer

 

I think you'll find that any lead gives you a significant win chance, but when comparing the timing of the same lead, later is better. So yes,any hole is a bad one, but first inning holes are actually better.

 

The Twins are losing because they're bad and because they're giving up more runs than their opponent - it's not the timing of those first inning runs (as was shown last night - they came back from it and blew a three run lead).

[Oxtung]

I'm not 100% convinced about that. For example, we can all see how a pitcher who takes forever between pitches often affects the fielding behind him (they become unfocused, slow to react, etc.). And that sometimes the fielders take that same luggish/unfocused mentality into the dugout and batters box with them.

 

In that case, I would say that the pitcher is affecting things that he doesn't necessarily control.

 

First let me just say I agree with Alex, I am suspicious of your slow pither theory. However, wins and losses still wouldn't tell you about who is a slow pitcher and who is fast. So you're still stuck with W/L's not telling u anything useful.

[Willihammer]

So, all the Twins pitchers need to do is get rid of the ball quickly? Let's call it the hot potato strategy. It should force the entire team to react with catlike reflexes on every play and produce Gold Glove caliber play out of our slow footed outfielders Can someone get this information to Rick Anderson? It's impacting the whole team

 

Seriously, this is a notion that I'd like to see data to support these claims, though I realize it is somehow baseball accepted knowledge. The hypothesis of which be something along the lines of pitchers who take more time between pitches don't get as good of defense behind them and get less run support (because major league professional baseball players are no different from 5 year-olds and would rather be picking dirt in the field).

 

I queried the 266 Starting Pitcher seasons from 2010-2012 out of curiosity. There's no correlation between PACE and FDP-Wins, but there is a suggestion of a relationship between PACE and batted balls, which might be a little more pronounced at the extremes. And a suggestion of a relationship between PACE and strike%.

 

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-OVVLS0FUeXJxVk0/edit?usp=sharing

 

I guess one theory would be that more than keeping defenders awake, fast pitchers are better at keeping home plate umpires awake. Or, maybe they get themselves into their good graces by working quickly.

[Alex]

@willihammer,

 

Interesting. We should point out that correlation isn't cause. Could pitchers who are having more success just pitch faster because they want to stay in a rhythm while struggling pitchers wander behind the mound, etc...?

 

i love the data, though and wouldn't have thought there be even that much of a correlation.

[Willihammer]

True. I am assuminig pitchers have a constant PACE which doesn't vary pitch to pitch but obviously it does, if only because of hitters sometimes. How often do you see a guy take a called borderline strike 2 then step out of the box, huff and puff shaking his head for 20 seconds. An interesting study might be to see if that helps him get the umpire on his side or maybe the exact opposite.

[jokin]

@willihammer,

 

Interesting. We should point out that correlation isn't cause. Could pitchers who are having more success just pitch faster because they want to stay in a rhythm while struggling pitchers wander behind the mound, etc...?

 

i love the data, though and wouldn't have thought there be even that much of a correlation.

 

Jim Kaat was essentially done at age 35 when he left the Twins, only to become a very effective quick-pitch pitcher for the White Sox and in the process extending his career into his mid-40s to the point that he became a borderline consideration for the HOF.