wins/losses (for pitchers)= most overated stat in sports

[HollywoodLeo]

Another stat that can be somewhat overrated is a middle reliever's era; the more important stat is how many of their inherited runners have scored.

if ERA was calculated the way I think it should be, rather than how it is, then a middle reliever's ERA would be more telling...as would a starter's.

I think, instead of awarding all inherited runners to the pitcher who put them on, it should be tallied as such.

- An inherited runner on 3rd base that goes on to score gives 0.75 ERs to the relieved pitcher and 0.25 ERs to the reliever

- An inherited runner on 2nd base that goes on to score gives 0.5 ERs to both the reliever and the relieved pitcher

- An inherited runner on 1st base that goes on to score gives 0.25 ERs to the relieved pitcher and 0.75 ERs to the reliever.

If ERA were calculated like that both the SPs and the relief pitcher's ERA would be more of a testiment as to how well they prevent runs IMO.

(if it were as such, Chris Young would've picked up 1.75 ERs yesterday, vice the 3 he got tagged with)

[A'sDiehard]

Interesting Leo although that's a lot of math. I watched that game last night and Young was pissed.

[HollywoodLeo]

Interesting Leo although that's a lot of math. I watched that game last night and Young was pissed.

I would be too if I pitched 6 2/3 strong innings just to watch someone come in and give up a 3 run home run, and then later get awarded the win I deserved.

If I was given the power to change two things about baseball I'd implicate what I stated in my last post and i'd make wins and losses a judgement call based on who is determined to have contributed to the win or loss the most, not who happend to be the pitcher of record when the team takes the lead.

[GiantsFanatic]

i agree, win/loss is one of the most overated stat

baseball should just flat out get rid of it

[HollywoodLeo]

no, they shouldn't get rid of it. The Pitcher is the main cog in the game and should get credit when he's the main contributer to the victory.

What they should do is change the way they decide who gets it.

[HollywoodLeo]

Today Chan Ho Park pitches 9 shutout, 2 hit innings...and comes away with a no decision.

Yet another prime example, regardless of what happens the rest of this game.

[Halladay_is_God]

Scott Cassidy is most useless pitcher ever

[HollywoodLeo]

Scott Cassidy is most useless pitcher ever

take away his blunder the other day and he's been our best relief pitcher all season.

[777rak]

That is exactly why win/loss record is irrelevant. A pitcher can go 4-10 with a 2.35 ERA, striking out a lot of batters while not giving up a lot of walks and still be considered a great pitcher that just didn't get any run support.

Very true, I do not think the Win/Loss record is overated.

[HollywoodLeo]

Very true, I do not think the Win/Loss record is overated.

I'm confused in how you agree with him, but then turn and state that it's not overrated.

I'm also shocked it took 24 replies for someone to disagree with me....or did it? I'm not even sure what you're viewpoint is on it, considering your reply.

[777rak]

I'm confused in how you agree with him, but then turn and state that it's not overrated.

I'm also shocked it took 24 replies for someone to disagree with me....or did it? I'm not even sure what you're viewpoint is on it, considering your reply.

Sorry about that let me explain



I do not think it is overrated. The win/loss record, helps people know if a pitcher is good or not. Like redsfan28 said it is "irrelevant", however when a pitcher is for example 15-5 that lets people know he is really good this season. Let me know if anything did not make any sense.

[HollywoodLeo]

Sorry about that let me explain



I do not think it is overrated. The win/loss record, helps people know if a pitcher is good or not. Like redsfan28 said it is "irrelevant", however when a pitcher is for example 15-5 that lets people know he is really good this season. Let me know if anything did not make any sense.

two years ago Ismael Vladez won roughly 10 games with the Padres before being traded to the Marlins. He did so with a roughly 4.5 ERA and tons of run support.

I disagree with you that a 15-5 Win/Loss record, on its lonesome, tells us that a pitcher is good. How do we know the guy wasn't simply blessed with great run support?

Furthermore, how do we know there aren't others who are better than him, but don't have quite as good of a record for reasons I stated in my two prime examples?

There's so much that can go into a win or a loss that makes the stat overrated.

Oh, and redsfan was agreeing with me when he stated it's irrelevant. In fact, he was taking it to a bit of an extreme that even I wasn't by making that claim.

[777rak]

two years ago Ismael Vladez won roughly 10 games with the Padres before being traded to the Marlins. He did so with a roughly 4.5 ERA and tons of run support.

I disagree with you that a 15-5 Win/Loss record, on its lonesome, tells us that a pitcher is good. How do we know the guy wasn't simply blessed with great run support?

Furthermore, how do we know there aren't others who are better than him, but don't have quite as good of a record for reasons I stated in my two prime examples?

There's so much that can go into a win or a loss that makes the stat overrated.

Oh, and redsfan was agreeing with me when he stated it's irrelevant. In fact, he was taking it to a bit of an extreme that even I wasn't by making that claim.

I understand you better and you bring up a good point.

[Providence A's]

I look at many stats to determine if a pitcher is a "good." Certainly, from game to game or even in a season or two, wins and losses should not be relied upon to determine how well a pitcher pitches. HOWEVER, wins and losses over a much longer period of time can be indicative IMHO. I doubt there is anyone here that would disagree with the statement that a pitcher with 250 career wins was a good pitcher (just an example). Luck and run support (and other stuff like that) will even out over a career. A pitcher will not pitch long enough to get 200 wins or something if he were just lucky. They're winning for such a long time because they are good. I think that is the only time you can look at a pitcher's record.

[HollywoodLeo]

I agree that over the long haul it becomes a bit more reliable, but it's still not the #1 indicator of a pitcher's greatness that it's made out to be.

Case in point: Bert Blyleven