Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[Mike D.]

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

[Mike D.]

Total aside on Cy Young...I always found it interesting that for most all-time major league records, they start counting in the 20th century with the formation of the American League.

But not with Young. Maybe it's because 500+ wins is such a cool number. Maybe it's because he had so many wins BEFORE 1900, and that his career was split fairly well between the two centuries, and it was the NL so not like he got them in a semi-major league... but it feels a bit inconsistent.

Again, not trying to take anything away from a clearly great pitcher, or question the good old days any, but it's odd.

Young won 266 games from 1890-1899, and 245 from 1900-1911.

[G1911]

I’m not a big fan of pitcher wins as a stat for modern players. I think it had some value when pitchers were expected to hurl 9 innings.

The problem with DeGrom isn’t that he has 78 wins, it’s that he is 78-53 and his record reflects his tiny career. He is not incredibly unlucky with wins, he’s 34 and has pitched less than 1,300 innings. Even with pitchers seeming to barely throw anymore, his innings count is far, far below his pears. I think it unlikely he ends up in the Hall. He’d have to pitch well beyond when most all pitchers are out of the league.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

Mike,

You're probably younger then me so, good for you. LOL

But now I'm lost. You had originally said that wins is pretty much a useless stat, but then you're now saying you agree wins are important. How can something so important, also be useless at the exact same time? It makes no sense at all. Wins, and the number of them a pitcher has, are in and of themselves a statistic. Please explain to me how you separate the two, as I do not get it.

I can sort of understand given today's modern game, and how pitchers rarely complete the games they start anymore and often get pulled early, that wins to modern pitchers may not be all that important, and less indicative of their worth as a pitcher because of their roles as specialists. But to my thinking, when you go back to the times of pitchers like Spahn, Feller, and Johnson, those guys were expected to start and complete every game they took the mound for, and those wins they had were the direct result of their prowess and success as pitchers. Those wins, that statistic they had, showed how good and important they were to their teams and their fans.

And that is the problem. Those that believe so much in these advanced stats throw out the statement that wins for pitchers is not important as sort of an all-encompassing statement that is generally perceived as covering all pitchers, from all eras. And to me. that is very clearly not the case when it comes to older generation pitchers. And that perception, along with other modern biases in advanced pitcher stats, is then used by some to further downplay the importance and ability of older generation pitchers. To the point where some will try to tell you old school pitchers aren't even good enough to hold the jockstrap of someone like Hyun Jin-Ryu. And every time I hear something like that, I just start ROFLMFAO.

[Jim65]

Pitcher wins are important, they are just not a fair judge of a pitchers effectiveness, they usually have more to do with run support. Is a pitcher who wins a 9-8 game better than a pitcher who loses a 1-0 game?


In 1987 Nolan Ryan lead the NL in ERA but finished 8-16, lack of run support

In 1968 Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA but lost 9 games, lack of run support .

In 1988 Joe Magrane lead the majors with 2.18 ERA but finished 5-9, David Cone was 2nd with 2.22 ERA but finished 20-3. Was Cone better or was it run support?

For old time pitchers, in 1910 Ed Walsh lead the league with a 1.27 ERA but finished 18-20. Was Walsh bad or was it lack of run support?

[packs]

Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with a 13-12 record. Jacob DeGrom was 11-8 the year he won his second. He was 10-9 for his first.

I really don't think anyone cares about wins anymore. Julio Urias was the MLB's only 20 game winner last year. He finished 7th in Cy Young voting.

And for the purists; there IS in fact a Cy Young winner with a losing record. Eric Gagne was 2-3 the year he won the Cy Young.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

If they were in the right role and were used enough, I could see someone like Garrett Whitlock or Devin Williams winning at some point.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

If they're dominant enough, I don't see why not.

He didn't really come close to winning it, but Mariano did finish 3rd in the Cy Young voting in 1996, the year before he became the Yankees closer.

Another interesting tidbit looking at Mariano's record. The year he came in 2nd place for the Cy Young as a closer in 2005, the award was won by Bartolo Colon, who happened to win 21 games for the Angels. Johan Santana finished 3rd while pitching more innings then Colon, and having a superior season in just about every other way. In today's climate he likely wins the Cy Young going away.

He should arguably have 3 Cy Young awards in his pocket...along with a pitching triple crown, a Gold Glove, 3 ERA titles, 3 Strikeout Titles, 4 WHIP titles, and a whole bunch of other bolded black ink marks on his baseball reference page. Many, many more then Degrom.

Santana pitched about 800 innings more then Degrom has at this point, and his career was deemed too short apparently, by the HOF voters. Santana was kicked off the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

I mention this because Santana seems the closest comparison career wise to me regarding Degraom, even though they had different paths to get where they got to during their careers.

Both electric, both great pitchers, and both will eventually be thought of more highly then many pitchers who will get into or are already in the HOF.

[packs]

What do you consider Sparky Lyle to be? I mean, sure, he saved 26 games the year he won the Cy Young, but he also pitched in 72 games total, starting none, and threw 137 innings. Obviously he was being used in a hybrid role and while I can't tell from looking at baseball Reference, I would bet a lot of those saves were of the three inning variety.

Same goes for Mike Marshall. He started zero games, had 21 saves, but he appeared in 106 games and threw over 200 innings the year he won. That's not a middle reliever?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

If they're dominant enough, I don't see why not.

He didn't really come close to winning it, but Mariano did finish 3rd in the Cy Young voting in 1996, the year before he became the Yankees closer.

Another interesting tidbit looking at Mariano's record. The year he came in 2nd place for the Cy Young as a closer in 2005, the award was won by Bartolo Colon, who happened to win 21 games for the Angels. Johan Santana finished 3rd while pitching more innings then Colon, and having a superior season in just about every other way. In today's climate he likely wins the Cy Young going away.

He should arguably have 3 Cy Young awards in his pocket...along with a pitching triple crown, a Gold Glove, 3 ERA titles, 3 Strikeout Titles, 4 WHIP titles, and a whole bunch of other bolded black ink marks on his baseball reference page. Many, many more then Degrom.

Santana pitched about 800 innings more then Degrom has at this point, and his career was deemed too short apparently, by the HOF voters. Santana was kicked off the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

I mention this because Santana seems the closest comparison career wise to me regarding Degraom, even though they had different paths to get where they got to during their careers.

Both electric, both great pitchers, and both will eventually be thought of more highly then many pitchers who will get into or are already in the HOF.

For all Koufax's supposed unmatched stretch of dominance, his WAR7 isn't much above Santana's. But the more interesting thing is that there are … wait for it … 57 pitchers ahead of Koufax in WAR7.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

Mike,

You're probably younger then me so, good for you. LOL

But now I'm lost. You had originally said that wins is pretty much a useless stat, but then you're now saying you agree wins are important. How can something so important, also be useless at the exact same time? It makes no sense at all. Wins, and the number of them a pitcher has, are in and of themselves a statistic. Please explain to me how you separate the two, as I do not get it.

I can sort of understand given today's modern game, and how pitchers rarely complete the games they start anymore and often get pulled early, that wins to modern pitchers may not be all that important, and less indicative of their worth as a pitcher because of their roles as specialists. But to my thinking, when you go back to the times of pitchers like Spahn, Feller, and Johnson, those guys were expected to start and complete every game they took the mound for, and those wins they had were the direct result of their prowess and success as pitchers. Those wins, that statistic they had, showed how good and important they were to their teams and their fans.

And that is the problem. Those that believe so much in these advanced stats throw out the statement that wins for pitchers is not important as sort of an all-encompassing statement that is generally perceived as covering all pitchers, from all eras. And to me. that is very clearly not the case when it comes to older generation pitchers. And that perception, along with other modern biases in advanced pitcher stats, is then used by some to further downplay the importance and ability of older generation pitchers. To the point where some will try to tell you old school pitchers aren't even good enough to hold the jockstrap of someone like Hyun Jin-Ryu. And every time I hear something like that, I just start ROFLMFAO.

I think team wins are importantthat's the name of the game. But the "pitchers win" stat isn't very telling by itself, since a win is a team stat.

I'm not trying to use it to belittle pitchers from prior eras by saying pitcher wins isn't a good stat. It was an only "OK" stat back then in that it tended to correlate if you played on a decent team (if you pitched well, you won more games). Today they throw fewer innings, (and I know nobody would use the way the game has evolved to belittle modern pitchers). But either way, pitcher wins aren't a great stat.

A few folks posted examples of pitchers who pitched well but didn't get a lot of wins. The other side of that is you can pitch 9 innings, and lose 1-0. You get a loss. Same pitcher can follow up that start by giving up 8 runs in 5 innings, but if the bullpen shuts down the other team and your team scores 9, you "win".

In that situation, how can a "pitcher win" be considered any kind of reliable indicator of how good a pitcher is?

Unless you believe in the "Jack Morris, pitching to the score" crap that his HOF advocates used to talk about, a better measure is the things a pitcher can actually control.

So, things like ERA, WHIP, K's, HRs, are better indicators. Some of the advanced stats like FIP try to take away the defense playing behind a pitcher (another thing he can't control).

And the thing is, if you're looking at modern stats of pitchers from other eras, they fare really well, as it's measuring these things.

For example, the top two pitchers all time by WAR happen to ALSO be the top two pitchers by pitcher wins (Young and Johnson). But they got the wins because they were great, they weren't great because they won a lot of games. If Young had played for a terrible team and won 300 games instead of 500 (with everything else staying the same, stat-wise), it wouldn't have meant he was a worse pitcher.

Anyway, that's my thinking on it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I think team wins are importantthat's the name of the game. But the "pitchers win" stat isn't very telling by itself, since a win is a team stat.

I'm not trying to use it to belittle pitchers from prior eras by saying pitcher wins isn't a good stat. It was an only "OK" stat back then in that it tended to correlate if you played on a decent team (if you pitched well, you won more games). Today they throw fewer innings, (and I know nobody would use the way the game has evolved to belittle modern pitchers). But either way, pitcher wins aren't a great stat.

A few folks posted examples of pitchers who pitched well but didn't get a lot of wins. The other side of that is you can pitch 9 innings, and lose 1-0. You get a loss. Same pitcher can follow up that start by giving up 8 runs in 5 innings, but if the bullpen shuts down the other team and your team scores 9, you "win".

In that situation, how can a "pitcher win" be considered any kind of reliable indicator of how good a pitcher is?

Unless you believe in the "Jack Morris, pitching to the score" crap that his HOF advocates used to talk about, a better measure is the things a pitcher can actually control.

So, things like ERA, WHIP, K's, HRs, are better indicators. Some of the advanced stats like FIP try to take away the defense playing behind a pitcher (another thing he can't control).

And the thing is, if you're looking at modern stats of pitchers from other eras, they fare really well, as it's measuring these things.

For example, the top two pitchers all time by WAR happen to ALSO be the top two pitchers by pitcher wins (Young and Johnson). But they got the wins because they were great, they weren't great because they won a lot of games. If Young had played for a terrible team and won 300 games instead of 500 (with everything else staying the same, stat-wise), it wouldn't have meant he was a worse pitcher.

Anyway, that's my thinking on it.

Mike,

I understand where you are coming from a little better, and do not disagree with your thinking. The thing is, there is no, one player that is totally responsible for a team winning or losing. It is a team game as you say. But an MLB pitcher is very much akin to an NFL quarterback, in that every single regular play in football starts with the ball in the quarterback's hands. Just like every single play in baseball starts with the ball in the pitcher's hands. And pretty much everything that happens then is a result of what the pitcher/quarterback does. And both are team games, and just like baseball, a quarterback does not have control over his defense, other players on the offense, special teams, and so on. But I've never heard anyone ever say that wins aren't an important stat for quarterbacks to show how good they are. Why is that, and why aren't both positions, pitcher and quarterback, apparently afforded similar responsibility and credit for team wins?

I think DeGrom is a great pitcher.......when he's healthy. But the problem is he isn't always healthy. And that's with him having the advantage of all the medical and technological advances and such that we have today. Were he to have been born and come to the majors back in the day of say Walter Johnson or Bob Feller, I seriously wonder if Degrom even makes it to a major league roster, or if he does, that he stays very long. Without the medical advances of today, he'd be asked and fully expected to pitch complete games, and as often and as long as other pitchers of that day. He gets by now primarily because of the limitations placed on his innings pitched, and pitches thrown. Used like that back then, and seeing how he can break down physically today, it seems pretty obvious to me that he would likely get injured from throwing like he does, and be quickly abandoned. A manager such as Connie Mack likely wouldn't keep someone like him on a roster back then if he couldn't rely on Degrom and he couldn't pitch deep into games, and pitch a lot of innings, without often coming up hurt or lame. Maybe some manager would keep him on a roster to fill in as a reliever for when his starting pitchers did tire later on in some games, but that may be it. And if he was used that way, and never really got a chance to win games, you probably wouldn't think or care much about him at all today.

Now take a Walter Johnson or Bob Feller and move them into today's game, where they didn't have to, and weren't expected to, pitch complete games and throw so many innings. Both of them could open up and not have to worry about pacing themselves so they could throw all those pitches and innings that they did. So how good would those two possibly be in today's game if they could go all out when they pitched? Scary to think how good those two guys were, and then realize that they probably paced themselves so they weren't pitching their best on every single pitch in every single game. Now let them pitch fewer innings, but go all out every single pitch. They had both exhibited phenomenal arm strength and durability in their long careers, so being able to pitch even harder over the fewer innings that would be asked of them doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think of a great pitcher as one that would do well and likely excel and help his team to win games, more than lose them. And that a truly great, all-time pitcher, would have success pretty much regardless of what period they were pitching in, at least since the modern era began around the beginning of the prior century. And in looking at pitchers like Darvish and Degrom, and then Johnson and Feller, I've got to say that I think Johnson and Feller would have a much better and realistic chance of also being successful and star/HOF caliber pitchers in today's game than Degrom and Darvish would ever have if they were trying to pitch back in Feller and Johnson's day.

Once again, the only thing that really, truly matters in a baseball game is if your team wins. And the greatest pitchers had/have that intangible "it" ability or trait, that no statistician can really measure or quantify with any of their advanced stats, to help their team to win. The only stat you can really look at to show or prove a certain pitcher had that "it" factor, is their wins. Period!!! Statisticians can try to call it luck, or try to give credit to other players on the team, or the opposing team's lousy offense or defense, or whatever, but then how do they truly explain why it is that only a certain select few pitchers always seem to be the same ones winning more games than everyone else, year after year after year? They can't, so they simply downplay wins and now try to convince everyone that wins never really mattered.

As Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!"

And along with that is another famous, anonymous quote, and universal truth, "The greatest ability is availability!"

Those two statements never have, and never will change or become irrelevant. And nothing any advanced statistician can say or do will ever prove them otherwise!

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many wins do you think Verlander would have this year if he was pitching for a last place team?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Wins do seem to go to pitchers who can pitch into the 7th inning more than just the 5th....may not apply to Degrom but you cant just say a pitcher has no control of their wins......there are a few things they can do... a few years ago they could hit and bunt as well instead of just K every time.

also a factor to consider is home starts versus the road.

road pitcher Starts, the pitcher always has the advantage for a Win because his lineup gets 3 more outs to get a a win versus the home pitcher as long as he completes the inning...if visting pitches 6 innings, his team gets 7 innings of at bats, while the home pitcher if pitches 6 innings only gets 6 offensive innings for his team to bat. I never thought that was fair statistically but amazing when you see these long home winning streaks....yeah home teams win more than away teams but i would gather getting the W is much more equal..

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Wins do seem to go to pitchers who can pitch into the 7th inning more than just the 5th....may not apply to Degrom but you cant just say a pitcher has no control of their wins......there are a few things they can do... a few years ago they could hit and bunt as well instead of just K every time.

also a factor to consider is home starts versus the road.

road pitcher Starts, the pitcher always has the advantage for a Win because his lineup gets 3 more outs to get a a win versus the home pitcher as long as he completes the inning...if visting pitches 6 innings, his team gets 7 innings of at bats, while the home pitcher if pitches 6 innings only gets 6 offensive innings for his team to bat. I never thought that was fair statistically but amazing when you see these long home winning streaks....yeah home teams win more than away teams but i would gather getting the W is much more equal..

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

Mike,

I understand where you are coming from a little better, and do not disagree with your thinking. The thing is, there is no, one player that is totally responsible for a team winning or losing. It is a team game as you say. But an MLB pitcher is very much akin to an NFL quarterback, in that every single regular play in football starts with the ball in the quarterback's hands. Just like every single play in baseball starts with the ball in the pitcher's hands. And pretty much everything that happens then is a result of what the pitcher/quarterback does. And both are team games, and just like baseball, a quarterback does not have control over his defense, other players on the offense, special teams, and so on. But I've never heard anyone ever say that wins aren't an important stat for quarterbacks to show how good they are. Why is that, and why aren't both positions, pitcher and quarterback, apparently afforded similar responsibility and credit for team wins?

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

[packs]

In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees. If you only looked at his record, you'd think winning 17 games is pretty good. But his ERA was 5.00.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees. If you only looked at his record, you'd think winning 17 games is pretty good. But his ERA was 5.00.

I remember Jim Merritt one year winning 20 with an ERA into the 4s at a time that was pretty mediocre.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

It can be argued that sometimes in some games, if the pitcher is worried about their ERA and is too fine with the strike zone perhaps he gives up more runs than a pitcher ok with giving up some runs for a sure chance for his team to win......cant punish a guy thats up 5 runs and says, who cares if give up 2 runs so we win the game ( and no chance to give up 6) instead of trying to give up 0 runs but then a chance the other team scores 6 to beat his team

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

It can be argued that sometimes in some games, if the pitcher is worried about their ERA and is too fine with the strike zone perhaps he gives up more runs than a pitcher ok with giving up some runs for a sure chance for his team to win......cant punish a guy thats up 5 runs and says, who cares if give up 2 runs so we win the game ( and no chance to give up 6) instead of trying to give up 0 runs but then a chance the other team scores 6 to beat his team

I guess it COULD be argued, but I don't think of baseball of a game of intentions, it's a game of results. If you give up 5 runs, that's always worse than giving up two, which is always worse than giving up zero.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't much follow football, but this sounds like a "two wrong must make a right" argument.

Your argument in the first part of the above is a great argument for why teams should want good pitchers. I don't see it as a good argument for the stat "pitcher win".

Again, if you allow 1 run and lose, you did your job, someone else didn't and it was outside of your control. If you allowed 8 runs and your team scores 9, you "win", despite having done a terrible job.

No amount of poetry or intestinal fortitude on the behalf of the pitcher will change that.

Mike,

That is exactly why even the greatest pitchers don't win every game. Unlike some athletes that don't have to rely upon others to win, say someone like Usain Bolt. In his prime, as arguably the greatest sprinter of all time, Bolt never lost. But even the greatest pitcher of all-time can't control all the variables and factors and will end up losing a fair share of games. But because they are so great, they will have an overall larger influence on the games they pitch in and their outcomes. So in the end, despite all the other players, circumstances and just plain dumb luck, the greatest pitchers will invariably end up winning the most games over their seasons/careers.

It is dumbfounding how such logical and common sense knowledge and thinking seems to escape a vast multitude of the people who follow baseball and put their faith into advanced statistics. Regardless of all other players in the games, pitchers have the most direct impact and influence on how well their team does in every game they pitch in. So over time, statistically speaking, those pitchers should end up having the greatest impact of anyone on whether or not their team will win. And as such, the greater the pitcher, the more likely their impact will lead to their team winning. Ergo, the greater pitchers should over time and their seasons/careers, end up winning more games than those pitchers who are not as good. So in that regard, wins would seem to be an extremely important, if not the most important, statistic to help measure and define a pitcher's greatness.

That is how I look at it. If others want to think and believe differently, so be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Early Wynn won 300, Pedro maybe 220. Wynn better than Pedro?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

That is how I look at it. If others want to think and believe differently, so be it.

The beauty of all this is that everyone's entitled to their way of thinking, and what we're arguing about isn't all that important, so that's good.

I just don't understand why we'd cling to a stat that does an OK job of showing greatness, when there other better ones. And it's not like we're we're talking FIP, or some crazy calculus...but things like ERA tell you a lot more about how well a pitcher performed than pitcher wins.

These aren't crazy assertions of a fringe. It's basically consensus now that pitching wins CAN provide some info, but they're far from the best way to show...especially if you say, want to look across eras. I mean, did the 5 best pitchers in history all pitch before 1930?