What is a win?

[mikelink45]

I do like and care about wins.  I love all the 300 game winners, but they are from another era and today most Twins pitchers go only 4+ innings in many of their games.  This is the modern era of BP ball, but still a good 4 inning performance like Paddock had is better than a 1/3 inning reliever who happens to come in to finish the inning and is lucky enough to be the pitcher of record when the team scores go ahead runs.

I have always disliked the way wins are allocated and I know in this era only us old timers care about wins.  I love Verlander and his 257 wins and desire to get to 300.  Only once did I care about RP wins when Roy Face got 18 wins in 1959.  He had two more seasons with 10+ wins and 20 WAR for his career.  Otherwise, the win for RP is even more worthless than many of the save records.

The rule for wins:

"A pitcher receives a win when he is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead for good -- with a couple rare exceptions. First, a starting pitcher must pitch at least five innings (in a traditional game of nine innings or longer) to qualify for the win. If he does not, the official scorer awards the win to the most effective relief pitcher.

There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer."

It is time to invoke the second paragraph in the rule.  Or maybe we recognize the era we are playing in and rewrite the rule. 

[Mike Sixel]

Wins are a stupid stat for individuals in a team game. Just get rid of them. I realize that isn't a popular opinion....

[weneedneshek]

I honestly don't see the point of assigning wins or losses to individual players at all in baseball, especially in this era of pitching. I'd be fine ditching it as a stat all together.

If it is kept around though, why not start getting position players involved too? If Correa hits a 3 run bomb and throws out a runner at the plate i think that should be a W. 0-3 with RISP and an error? Thats an L. Stuff in between can be a no decision at the discretion of the official scorer

[stringer bell]

The wins scoring rule has been the same for at least as long as the Twins have been in existence. I really don’t have much of a problem with it, but the value of a win for starters has diminished and as long as everyone understands that, I don’t think the rules should be changed. 

[Riverbrian]

Adjustments are probably necessary however I'm not sure how you can change adjust for the modern day without causing serious upheaval to the data from decades past.  

 

[ashbury]

The Twins went 19-13 in the games Pablo Lopez started last season.  The Dodgers went 29-12 in the games Sandy Koufax started in 1966.   I think that's the stat you're looking for, and you might as well add them up through the career for the 300-game winners that you want.

[IndianaTwin]

In addition to Rule 9.17(c), which you've quoted, there is also this comment from the rule book:

Rule 9.17(c) Comment: The Official Scorer generally should, but is not
required to, consider the appearance of a relief pitcher to be
ineffective and brief if such relief pitcher pitches less than one
inning and allows two or more earned runs to score (even if such runs
are charged to a previous pitcher).

My understanding is that the "should" generally outweighs the "is not required to." In addition, I think that MLB scorers have additional guidance on when to use "brief and ineffective," such as if a pitcher pitches a full inning and gives up at least four earned runs. MLB scorers gather regularly and have some pretty specific training so there is uniformity on how situations are scored across the league. As I understand it, they have generally been given firmer and more complete direction on when to use the "ineffective and brief" situation. 

There are some wrinkles, however. When a reliever is ineffective and brief, the win has to go a subsequent pitcher (who has to have been more effective). Thus, if a guy is ineffective and brief in the top of the ninth and blows the lead, but the home team rallies and wins, that guy will still get the win, because there was no subsequent reliever. 

Another wrinkle is that this rule can deprive a guy of a save. Last year in a Saints game, there was a situation where an opposing reliever was ineffective and brief in the bottom of the eighth and blew the lead. The opponent rallied in the top of the ninth and then their closer did his job in the bottom of the ninth. 

The guy in the eighth SHOULD have gotten the win, EXCEPT he was ineffective and brief. The guy who followed him in the ninth therefore got the win, even if he may have preferred to get a save for his stat line. However, declaring the winning pitcher takes precedence over awarding a save. 

Because the standard is so tight, "ineffective and brief" is rarely used. Scorers don't really have discretion on it. 

There is a place where scorers do have discretion, and that's where the starter doesn't go five, but leaves with the lead that is never relinquished. In that case, the scorer does have the ability to pick which reliever is deemed "most effective" and award the win to that person. If there are two that are equal in their effectiveness, it should go to the one who pitched first. 
 

[IndianaTwin]

Also, please do not share this "brief and ineffective" phrase with my boss. I'm planning to cut out early tomorrow, and I'm afraid he'll use it in my performance review. 

[ashbury]

2 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Also, please do not share this "brief and ineffective" phrase with my boss. I'm planning to cut out early tomorrow, and I'm afraid he'll use it in my performance review. 

Don't let him see the definition of Fielding Error either, since there is reference in it to "ordinary effort".

[mikelink45]

21 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Wins are a stupid stat for individuals in a team game. Just get rid of them. I realize that isn't a popular opinion....

What I find most fascinating about baseball is the fact that it is an individual game within a team context.  It is pitcher versus hitter - no one else can be involved unless it is the catcher.  The players are not covered in uniform like NFL or NHL.  We see that individual.

Teams are known, but within a team there is individual identity.  Shohei, Trout, Judge, Betts standout as individuals and their individual stats matter and are what we judge them by.  

As an old man who grew up on box scores I still celebrate these individual triumphs and failures. And I loved seeing Warren Spahn win 20 games 13 times.  If it did not matter why couldn't more players do that?

I admit that we no longer let the starting pitcher go deep enough to control the game like they did in the past, but we still assign wins and we judge teams by how many games they win.  I just do not find it a stupid stat.

[Jerr]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

What I find most fascinating about baseball is the fact that it is an individual game within a team context.  It is pitcher versus hitter - no one else can be involved unless it is the catcher.  The players are not covered in uniform like NFL or NHL.  We see that individual.

Teams are known, but within a team there is individual identity.  Shohei, Trout, Judge, Betts standout as individuals and their individual stats matter and are what we judge them by.  

As an old man who grew up on box scores I still celebrate these individual triumphs and failures. And I loved seeing Warren Spahn win 20 games 13 times.  If it did not matter why couldn't more players do that?

I admit that we no longer let the starting pitcher go deep enough to control the game like they did in the past, but we still assign wins and we judge teams by how many games they win.  I just do not find it a stupid stat.

 

[Jerr]

Mostly I agree and to change it to something like, "give a win to a player that drives in more runs" just adds more "stats" to an already "over-stat-ed" game.

[laloesch]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:56 AM, Mike Sixel said:

Wins are a stupid stat for individuals in a team game. Just get rid of them. I realize that isn't a popular opinion....

yeah I second this.  Just give every team and every fan a world series trophy at the end of the season, do away with the divisions, and win losses records for pitchers and teams.  While you're at it, do away with batting averages too, as those are stupid stats as well  😒

[Rod Carews Birthday]

As one watches baseball for a while, there are obviously many rules and situations that are "quirky" and possibly of questionable usefulness.  That being said, in baseball, tradition and long established practice are things that fans value a great deal, albeit sometimes for nostalgic reasons.  The value of the win stat has certainly diminished as an indicator of starting pitcher quality, and that's a good thing.  As many here have said, as starting pitchers throw less innings it leaves the win to be awarded at times somewhat randomly to a relief pitcher.  Should we eliminate the stat?  I don't think so.  In a world in which we want to grow the game and have more people interested and not less, the win still appeals to many fans and harms no one.  I like the more modern ways of looking at stats, but I always thought it was great fun to root for your team's pitcher (or against the other teams' pitchers) to get to twenty wins.

Certainly "counting (or compiling) stats" are being de-emphasized all the way across baseball.  RBI's, once thought of as the best measure of value to a team, are almost ignored and Home Runs, while still exciting, are not held in the high esteem that they once were.  In their place, OPS (and it's cousin OPS+) seems to have become the go to stat to judge players.  As these are rate stats, they take away more of the luck factor that goes into counting stats like RBI's and are perceived as a better measurement.  One of the problems with these rate stats is of course sample size, since a player hitting at a given rate for 150 games is more valuable than one who is hitting for only 75. For those difficulties we can turn to some variety of Wins Above Replacement, which is more of a compiling stat, but that introduces another round of complexity to the mix.  Those sorts of stats are exciting for some fans, but many casual fans are turned off by it, as they don't really understand how they are compiled.

[laloesch]

2 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

As one watches baseball for a while, there are obviously many rules and situations that are "quirky" and possibly of questionable usefulness.  That being said, in baseball, tradition and long established practice are things that fans value a great deal, albeit sometimes for nostalgic reasons.  The value of the win stat has certainly diminished as an indicator of starting pitcher quality, and that's a good thing.  As many here have said, as starting pitchers throw less innings it leaves the win to be awarded at times somewhat randomly to a relief pitcher.  Should we eliminate the stat?  I don't think so.  In a world in which we want to grow the game and have more people interested and not less, the win still appeals to many fans and harms no one.  I like the more modern ways of looking at stats, but I always thought it was great fun to root for your team's pitcher (or against the other teams' pitchers) to get to twenty wins.

Certainly "counting (or compiling) stats" are being de-emphasized all the way across baseball.  RBI's, once thought of as the best measure of value to a team, are almost ignored and Home Runs, while still exciting, are not held in the high esteem that they once were.  In their place, OPS (and it's cousin OPS+) seems to have become the go to stat to judge players.  As these are rate stats, they take away more of the luck factor that goes into counting stats like RBI's and are perceived as a better measurement.  One of the problems with these rate stats is of course sample size, since a player hitting at a given rate for 150 games is more valuable than one who is hitting for only 75. For those difficulties we can turn to some variety of Wins Above Replacement, which is more of a compiling stat, but that introduces another round of complexity to the mix.  Those sorts of stats are exciting for some fans, but many casual fans are turned off by it, as they don't really understand how they are compiled.

I remember when Brad Radke won 20 games in 1997 (and there wasn't a whole lot to cheer about that season), and just being obsessed with his win loss stats as he got closer and closer to 20.  How he didn't make the all-star team that season is ridiculous.  Brad was the one Twin that I REALLY wished could have won a world series game for this franchise.  He stuck with the Twins through some of the darkest years of this franchise in recent memory.  Guy was an absolute horse of a pitcher.   His win loss stats (since we are talking about them), would have been much better if the franchise had better players in the mid 90's.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

Just now, laloesch said:

I remember when Brad Radke won 20 games in 1997 (and there wasn't a whole lot to cheer about that season), and just being obsessed with his win loss stats as he got closer and closer to 20.  How he didn't make the all-star team that season is ridiculous.  Brad was the one Twin that I REALLY wished could have won a world series game for this franchise.  He stuck with the Twins through some of the darkest years of this franchise in recent memory.  Guy was an absolute horse of a pitcher.   His win loss stats (since we are talking about them), would have been much better if the franchise had better players in the mid 90's.

Amen to all of that.  It's also one of the difficult hurdles that had to be overcome for Bert Blyleven to be inducted into the HOF.  That being said, there have been too many times that pitchers have racked up the win total just because they were on a great team.  Some of them made a career out of it. 

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I admit that we no longer let the starting pitcher go deep enough to control the game like they did in the past, but we still assign wins and we judge teams by how many games they win.  I just do not find it a stupid stat.

Wins are a great stat for teams. They belong in the standings, not in individual pitcher statistics. We don't assign wins to anyone else on the team.

[laloesch]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Wins are a great stat for teams. They belong in the standings, not in individual pitcher statistics. We don't assign wins to anyone else on the team.

I disagree.  Glad it's the way it is.

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

What I find most fascinating about baseball is the fact that it is an individual game within a team context.  It is pitcher versus hitter - no one else can be involved unless it is the catcher.  The players are not covered in uniform like NFL or NHL.  We see that individual.

Teams are known, but within a team there is individual identity.  Shohei, Trout, Judge, Betts standout as individuals and their individual stats matter and are what we judge them by.  

As an old man who grew up on box scores I still celebrate these individual triumphs and failures. And I loved seeing Warren Spahn win 20 games 13 times.  If it did not matter why couldn't more players do that?

I admit that we no longer let the starting pitcher go deep enough to control the game like they did in the past, but we still assign wins and we judge teams by how many games they win.  I just do not find it a stupid stat.

Not sure I get that last part....

Guy pitches seven innings of one run ball, his team doesn't score, he gets a loss..... Other guy gives up five runs but his team scores six, he gets a win....

[Mike Sixel]

Here's the example for me....

Starter goes eight innings and gives up zero runs. Leaves with a one run lead... The relief pitcher gives up a run, and then the team scores in the bottom of the ninth. The starter gets no win.... Even though what changed happened after he left the game. The win stat doesn't tell us anything about how either pitcher did.

For all it's flaws, quality start tells us a lot more. 

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, laloesch said:

yeah I second this.  Just give every team and every fan a world series trophy at the end of the season, do away with the divisions, and win losses records for pitchers and teams.  While you're at it, do away with batting averages too, as those are stupid stats as well  😒

Come on. There's a vast difference between team wins and losses and pitcher wins. They're really not comparable at all. You can like the stat and defend it without comparing it to team wins.

[mikelink45]

4 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

As one watches baseball for a while, there are obviously many rules and situations that are "quirky" and possibly of questionable usefulness.  That being said, in baseball, tradition and long established practice are things that fans value a great deal, albeit sometimes for nostalgic reasons.  The value of the win stat has certainly diminished as an indicator of starting pitcher quality, and that's a good thing.  As many here have said, as starting pitchers throw less innings it leaves the win to be awarded at times somewhat randomly to a relief pitcher.  Should we eliminate the stat?  I don't think so.  In a world in which we want to grow the game and have more people interested and not less, the win still appeals to many fans and harms no one.  I like the more modern ways of looking at stats, but I always thought it was great fun to root for your team's pitcher (or against the other teams' pitchers) to get to twenty wins.

Certainly "counting (or compiling) stats" are being de-emphasized all the way across baseball.  RBI's, once thought of as the best measure of value to a team, are almost ignored and Home Runs, while still exciting, are not held in the high esteem that they once were.  In their place, OPS (and it's cousin OPS+) seems to have become the go to stat to judge players.  As these are rate stats, they take away more of the luck factor that goes into counting stats like RBI's and are perceived as a better measurement.  One of the problems with these rate stats is of course sample size, since a player hitting at a given rate for 150 games is more valuable than one who is hitting for only 75. For those difficulties we can turn to some variety of Wins Above Replacement, which is more of a compiling stat, but that introduces another round of complexity to the mix.  Those sorts of stats are exciting for some fans, but many casual fans are turned off by it, as they don't really understand how they are compiled.

We no longer have the marquee match ups - Spahn and Marichal, Martinez and Clemens, Koufax perfect game against Hendley 1 hitter, Or Harvey Haddix throwing 13 inning no hitter only to lose to Burdette who also went all the way.

Nor do we have a Morris - you are not taking me out. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:47 AM, mikelink45 said:

What I find most fascinating about baseball is the fact that it is an individual game within a team context.  It is pitcher versus hitter - no one else can be involved unless it is the catcher.  The players are not covered in uniform like NFL or NHL.  We see that individual.

Teams are known, but within a team there is individual identity.  Shohei, Trout, Judge, Betts standout as individuals and their individual stats matter and are what we judge them by.  

As an old man who grew up on box scores I still celebrate these individual triumphs and failures. And I loved seeing Warren Spahn win 20 games 13 times.  If it did not matter why couldn't more players do that?

I admit that we no longer let the starting pitcher go deep enough to control the game like they did in the past, but we still assign wins and we judge teams by how many games they win.  I just do not find it a stupid stat.

While I disagree with you on the value of the stat, I very much like how you phrased your argument! Well said!

[Richie the Rally Goat]

To add the modern twist to the discussion… an equally polarizing stat. Is WAR (Wins Above Replacement) the new “Wins” stat?

fancier, certainly more complicated… is it more or less subjective than Wins?

[TwinsDr2021]

Here is an idea, in a sport that should be trying to attract fans let make it more unwatchable and harder to follow. Lets throw out actual performance stats and go with projected or expected stats and tell the fan that just watched somebody go 0 - 4 in a loss that he actually didn't have a bad game. Lets tell the fans that Wallner who to an casual fan struck out 17 out of 25 at bats isn't really bad because is wOBA last year was top shelf, or that it really isn't 17 for 25 it is 17 for 33 pate appearances.

Pitching wins matter, the best pitchers regardless of era win games, because they are good, have the ability to pitch deep into games, giving them more of a chance for a win. and generally stay healthy over time. Yes there are years pitchers get lucky and win more games then they probably deserve (Strider last year for example) and the other way but it generally evens out.

All this seems to go back to the year The King won the CY Young with 13 wins and was horribly unlucky that year with wins, but it also seems people forgot he had 30 quality starts out of 34 starts. Pitched 249 innings with a 2.27 ERA and 232 K's. (his WAR 7.2)

Lets compare those numbers to the guy that took second in the CY Young last year. 17 QS of 32 games, 184 innings, 2.79 ERA and 183 K's, 9 wins. (WAR 5.4)

I don't want to ever take away was the past pitchers accomplished to make the current generation feel better about what the state of starting pitching/baseball as become. Barely go half of the game (5 innings) or 2/3 (6 innings) consistently and tell people how amazing they are.