MLB 2007

[Lammycat]

You can maybe learn a little bit about a pitcher's longevity from wins, and hey, longevity is definately important in evaluating a pitcher. That being said, you are still learning more about the quality of teams that he's played on. It's not a completely meaningless stat, but really not very helpful in understanding how good a pitcher is.

And I agree with this. Again, that doesn't make the stat meaningless as it is a key factor in dictating a pitcher's value.

[bobbob1313]

No, I did not say that. I do not believe that Wins hold no inherent value. I think a case could be made that shows they carry too much weight, though.

 

And the value that is assigned to it comes from within the game itself, not the stat-head fans/SABRs.

 

The value it is assigned does not come from within the game itself. Putting it that way means it sprung forth fully formed from the game. This is not so. About 125 years ago, they needed some way to quantify a pitcher's ability, and since back then, most pitchers threw every pitch in a game, it was a good stat to use, as it was fairly all encompassing (though there was still the problem that the pitcher couldn't control what his team did. Nevertheless, more useful than it is now). But pretty much ever since the day when most pitchers threw complete games most of the time, it has degraded in usefulness to the point where any person judging a pitcher based on his wins (as most still do) is looking at the entirely wrong thing.

 

Wins are the reason a guy like Bert Blyleven is still not in the hall of fame, or why some people still don't think Pedro's a hall of famer.

 

Just because "people in the game" use it doesn't mean it's right. There are literally dozens of other ways to judge a pitcher's worth, that it doesn't make sense to waste time looking at wins. The pitcher controls 30% of the wins stat, the rest is out of his hands.

[Sir Stewart]

Flick may want to be alerted to this argument so she can react accordingly.

[bobbob1313]

Flick may want to be alerted to this argument so she can react accordingly.

 

She's got the pot/meth thread.

[caliber66]

I'm convinced.

[Lammycat]

You misunderstand me.

 

The "value" of the statistic that is "Wins" is dictated by agents, players, managers, general managers, and owners. These are all people within the game. Bill James may have a formula that shows that Wins have little true value. That does not make the stat meaningless as they are still used to gauge a MLB pitchers worth.

[bobbob1313]

You misunderstand me.

 

The "value" of the statistic that is "Wins" is dictated by agents, players, managers, general managers, and owners. These are all people within the game. Bill James may have a formula that shows that Wins have little true value. That does not make the stat meaningless as they are still used to gauge a MLB pitchers worth.

 

Just because it's accepted in the game doesn't mean it's not meaningless. Just because agents use it to get money out of teams doesn't mean it's not meaningless. It is meaningless because the pitcher has very little control over it. I refuse to believe that just because something is used by people in the game, it has value.

 

Basically, my point is, it should be meaningless, and the fact that the agents, players, managers, general managers, and owners are hanging onto it even though anyone with half a brain can realize it doesn't really tell you anything about the pitcher says more about the owners and players and all that than it does about the stat itself...

[MrRain422]

I think you guys are arguing different things. Bobbob seems to be arguing that wins are useless in evaluating how good a pitcher is. This is essentially true. Lammycat seems to be pointing out that it is a stat that is often used in evaluating player contracts and in how people inside the game often evaluate pitchers. This is also true (even though it probably shouldn't be).

 

There really isn't one stat that can tell you everything you need to know about a pitcher (perhaps DIPS, but I think there's still some work that has to be done on that). That being said, here are some stats that can all tell you a whole lot more about how good a pitcher is than wins:

 

ERA/ERA+

K/BB ratio

WHIP

BABIP

VORP

 

Even innings pitched is often a better (though crude) indicator of how good a starting pitcher is than wins.

[Lammycat]

A circular argument that seems to be going nowhere.

 

Like it or not, the stat has value and meaning. Maybe it will be recognized as an inflated/over-emphasized stat some day, but it still holds value and meaning in today's game. Maybe when it's accepted within the game as an inflated/over-emphasized and generally useless stat it will become meaningless.

 

Blyleven is a good example of someone who deserves to be in the HOF and isn't and I agree that the emphasis on Wins is a key factor in keeping him out (though I've seen other reasons cited as well, such as lack of Cy Young, etc.).

 

He's being compared to other pitchers and their stats, though. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is what it is. If the people in the game/the HOF voters cannot accept that the stat of W's is generally inflated/over-emphasized then it still holds meaning, regardless of it's validity.

 

 

 

ed. I posted before seeing MrRain's comment. That's pretty much it, MrRain.

[bjorn_skurj]

Congratulations Tom Glavine. Consummate pro.

 

Do people around these parts agree with the generally held belief that Glavine will be the last to 300? I find that hard to believe, but I suppose it's true that pitchers don't win 20 any more.

It's possible, but they also said back in the '70s that Aaron's record would stand forever. So you never know.

 

And what in the name of Mordecai Brown is "VORP"?

[MrRain422]

Value Over Replacement Player

[bobbob1313]

I think you guys are arguing different things. Bobbob seems to be arguing that wins are useless in evaluating how good a pitcher is. This is essentially true. Lammycat seems to be pointing out that it is a stat that is often used in evaluating player contracts and in how people inside the game often evaluate pitchers. This is also true (even though it probably shouldn't be).

 

That is essentially my point. Just because it is used doesn't mean it should be.

 

In all fairness to "wins" it is a better stat than Catcher's era.

[MrRain422]

King Kaufman's Sports Daily

 

300-game-winner Tom Glavine: Last of a dying breed? Don't be so sure.

 

 

Aug. 7, 2007 | Thoughts on a pet peeve while waiting for Barry Bonds to break a record that a lot of people thought would never be broken -- which replaced a record that a lot of people thought would never be broken.

 

Tom Glavine of the New York Mets won his 300th game Sunday night, and there was talk that we might never again see a 300-game winner in the major leagues.

 

It's true, we might never see another 300-game winner. We might never see another light bulb. Almost anything might be true if you put the word "might" in there. But it's a pet peeve of mine that this idea is so common, that boy, we're not likely to see this sort of thing again, whatever this thing is.

 

If you learn nothing else watching baseball, you ought to learn this by the time you've watched one generation turn over: If you keep watching, you'll probably see it. Name your own "it."

 

When Cal Ripken Jr. broke Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games streak there was a fair amount of coverage that in one breath laughed at the generations that had said Gehrig's ironman streak would never be touched, then in the next proclaimed that Ripken's record was beyond reach for future players.

 

The game had changed, the thinking went. There just weren't any more old-school guys like Ripken who'd go out there and play through injuries, never take a day off. Players made too much money, had grown too soft.

 

Of course, if you'd cared to, you could have heard people saying these things in the late '70s, when Ripken's streak stood at zero because he was in high school.

 

Now we're hearing, from the Associated Press and others, that the game has changed, that we aren't likely to see anyone else join the 300-win club.

 

The four-man rotation is dead, we're being reminded, even though Glavine has pitched in a five-man rotation his entire career. Pitch counts and the current offensive era means pitchers come out of games earlier -- as if this offensive era, unlike all the others in baseball history, will never end.

 

Nobody who's within shouting distance of 300 wins is likely to get there. Randy Johnson has 284, but he's 44 and just had back surgery. Mike Mussina has 246, but he's 38 and slowing down. Everybody else who's active and has more than 200 wins also needs at least 65 to get to 300 and is either in his 40s or is 35 and named Pedro Martinez. It's not going to happen for any of those guys.

 

So all right, we're not going to see anybody win No. 300 soon, and any pitcher you want to name is unlikely to get to 300. Then again, Tom Glavine was unlikely to get to 300 once upon a time. Every pitcher who ever got to 300 wins was unlikely to get to 300 wins when he only had 11 of them. Or even 111.

 

But there are plenty of guys with a shot. All sorts of things have to come together for any of them to make it, but all sorts of things had to come together for the 23 men who have made it. Tom Glavine has never been on the disabled list.

 

Justin Verlander of Detroit, to pull a name out of the hat, is 24 years old and has won 28 games. He's a thousand miles of bad road from 300 wins and it's insane to consider his chances of getting 272 more W's. Then again, a week into August of Glavine's age-24 season, which was 1990, Glavine had won 29 games.

 

Verlander's teammate Jeremy Bonderman is also 24. He's got 55 wins. Ervin Santana of the Los Angeles Angels is another 24-year-old. His recent efforts bought him a ticket to the minors, but he has still won four more games in 18 fewer starts than Glavine at the same point in his age-24 season.

 

Twenty-five-year-old Dontrelle Willis of Florida, for all his struggles, has 65 wins, eight more than Glavine had at the same point in his age-25 season.

 

Carlos Zambrano of the Chicago Cubs, Jake Peavy of San Diego and C.C. Sabathia of Cleveland are all in their age-26 seasons. Glavine had 69 wins at this point of the schedule when he was 26. Sabathia has 95, Zambrano 78, Peavy 68. Sabathia actually turned 27 two weeks ago. Glavine's birthday is in the off-season, but two weeks into his age-27 season, he had 76 wins, 19 fewer than Sabathia has now.

 

Felix Hernandez of Seattle is 21 and has 23 wins. Glavine wasn't in the majors yet at the same age. Matt Cain of San Francisco is 22 and has 18 wins, 13 more than Glavine had at a similar point in his career.

 

Are any of these guys going to win 300? Any one of them almost certainly won't. The group of them probably won't, but will somebody who's playing or about to be playing? Could be.

 

Once you get past the dead-ball era, 300-game winners come along a little more than once a decade. Only 12 men whose careers started after the 1920s have won 300. It seems like nobody who's around now can do it because hardly anybody ever does it.

 

But that doesn't mean we'll never see it again. Check back in 10 or 15 years. I bet we'll have some candidates.

[bobbob1313]

Gary Huckabay's take on Selig's response to Bonds' homer. I lol'ed:

 

1 Bonds hits pitch over left field wall, making the Wells Fargo Out-Of-Home Ad Buyer happy, since the number of impressions that wall sign provided just went into the stratosphere.

2 Bud Selig remains seated, until Rangers owner Tom Hicks turns around and goads him into standing up.

3 Selig stands, hands ostentationally crammed into his pockets, and makes a face usually reserved for a first time urology patient.

4 After the game, Selig issues a celebratory press release which Joe Sheehan previously touched upon. It read something along the lines of:

[PigSooie]

I loved the Hank Aaron speech.

[Mr. Kinsley]

It kind of bums me out that it isn't Hank's record anymore considering all he went through to break Ruth's record. Dealing with the death threats and all that over that off-season before the '74 season. He's been such a classy guy over the years, it's sad to see him bumped aside.

[Lammycat]

He's been such a classy guy over the years, it's sad to see him bumped aside.

I'm willing to bet history will be kinder to Aaron than Bonds in this matter. In the eyes of many Bond's does not deserve the accolade.

[mountain bed]

I only hope I live to see the record broken again.

[gogo]

"Italian Night", my ass.

[MrRain422]

I only hope I live to see the record broken again.

 

8-10 years. I sure hope you're going to last at least that long.

[mountain bed]

8-10 years. I sure hope you're going to last at least that long.

That sounded a little morbid, huh? I was just thinking if it takes another 33 years or so I'd be pushing 80!

[bjorn_skurj]

I would say Mr. Rod has a pretty fair shot at it, sometime around the '15 or '16 campaign.

[bobbob1313]

Congratulations to Barry Bonds.

 

As a baseball fan, I'm crushed that I missed it. This is one of those things I wish I would be able to tell my kids about in a couple of decades. I literally got the chills when I saw that he hit it, I can only imagine how I would've responded if I had seen it live. Intense.

 

Say what you want about him, but he's been nothing but class the past few weeks.

[caliber66]

Say what you want about him, but he's been nothing but class the past few weeks.

Does that include him calling Bob Costas a midget who knows shit about baseball?

[tongue-tied lightning]

I've been a baseball fan for many years, gotta say this has done nothing for me.

 

Bonds & class in the same sentence, that's a first.