MLB

[numbers]

Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

[Chris_H_2]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Do you have a source for this as it relates to my question? Because it sounds like you're just pulling this out of your ass.

[MadTIGERmaN]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Do you have a source for this as it relates to my question? Because it sounds like you're just pulling this out of your ass.

baseball games on the radio, pre... say WW2? were, basically im in NY watching the game, I send a cable telegram to you in Chicago that says "DiMaggio Single 1 RBI" you then proceed to do the play-by-play over the radio... "and the pitch... (you then hit to bats together to make a crack sound) swing and a drive into left center field and a run comes in as DiMaggio gets another hit" I wanna say some of these games were even "re-broadcast" (literally made up the next day)

I got no reference for it, but I know ive heard Uecker talk about the old stats / radio broadcast numerous times. In those days, when they literally made games up based on the box score... a Win would be a key stat in describing if a pitcher was on/off in those days.

[Norah]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

Well, ya gotta consider when the stat was created... pitchers not only finished their games... they had 4 man rotations, AND, on days they didnt start, they were in the bullpen. (Warren Spahn lead the Braves in wins and saves a few times)

I'm not so sure that answers my question.

well back in the 1900, with the pitcher staying in the game to the end, they had more of a say in the actual outcome. They werent leaving the game up to the bullpen to preserve the win. So at the time, it would have been a major stat. Not to mention in those days... there was no 24/7 sports news anything... it was all box scores in the paper... and, even if someone did come up with sabermetrics, it would have been virtually impossible to calculate them within the season.

basically it would come down too, how did Cy Young pitch? well he got the win so he must have shut down the other team... or, he got the loss, he must have gave up a few runs and been off... or, he got no decision? did he leave the game early? did the they go extra innings?

It is the one thing I agree on with the Sabermetrics crowds... Wins really doesnt translate to a pitchers dominance. (Guess whos had King Felix 3 out of the last 4 seasons on his fantasy team loL)

Do you have a source for this as it relates to my question? Because it sounds like you're just pulling this out of your ass.

baseball games on the radio, pre... say WW2? were, basically im in NY watching the game, I send a cable telegram to you in Chicago that says "DiMaggio Single 1 RBI" you then proceed to do the play-by-play over the radio... "and the pitch... (you then hit to bats together to make a crack sound) swing and a drive into left center field and a run comes in as DiMaggio gets another hit" I wanna say some of these games were even "re-broadcast" (literally made up the next day)

I got no reference for it, but I know ive heard Uecker talk about the old stats / radio broadcast numerous times. In those days, when they literally made games up based on the box score... a Win would be a key stat in describing if a pitcher was on/off in those days.

That's exactly how they did baseball broadcasts way back in the day.

[MadTIGERmaN]

Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

which is what the MVP award is for, Cy Young and Hank Aaron go to the best pitcher/hitter.
and, on top of that... a pitcher, having a great season, on a bad team, where he gets ZERO run support, and knows, if he gives up 2 runs... hes going to be tagged with a loss (see King Felix and the crazy stat that in over 1/3rd of all his starts, the Mariners fail to score more than 1 run before he exits the game) is more impressive than Max, whos getting great run support. Ive never heard a pitcher say "its easy pitching with no run support"

its definitely a good debate... whats harder? facing a good team with great run support, or pitching 1-0 games every time out...

[Joesanity]

Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

its definitely a good debate... whats harder? facing a good team with great run support, or pitching 1-0 games every time out...

Pitching a bunch of 1-0 games. The room for error is so small.

I hate the argument about pitchers for losing teams have nothing to play for so the pressure isn't there. How about the fact that this is their job and they're playing for new contracts or just playing for pride and proving that they are in fact that damn good every time out regardless of whether they're in a pennant race or not.

And another note going back a page or so to the wins argument. "Knowing how to win" is how we end up with stupid arguments about Jack Morris deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.

Wins prove nothing when evaluating pitchers.

[Coach]

Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

It's balancing act, but I'd favor the guy who is pitching during the heat of a playoff race against a guy playing on a weaker team with nothing to prove aside from pride.

[Fuck You Jobu]

Sheets was on a bad team, and you pay for that with these awards.

This somewhat makes sense with the MVP (though I completely disagree with that) but what the hell does the quality of a team have to do with an award that's given to "the outstanding pitcher in each of the major leagues"?

It's more impressive doing something in important games than doing it games that dont matter.

its definitely a good debate... whats harder? facing a good team with great run support, or pitching 1-0 games every time out...

Pitching a bunch of 1-0 games. The room for error is so small.

I hate the argument about pitchers for losing teams have nothing to play for so the pressure isn't there. How about the fact that this is their job and they're playing for new contracts or just playing for pride and proving that they are in fact that damn good every time out regardless of whether they're in a pennant race or not.

And another note going back a page or so to the wins argument. "Knowing how to win" is how we end up with stupid arguments about Jack Morris deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.

Wins prove nothing when evaluating pitchers.

It's not that they have nothing to play for, they just have considerably less. And teh consequences of them failing are less and singular - you don't have 24 other guys pissed off at you.

[Fuck You Jobu]

None of us are saying it's an end all be all stat, we are just saying it isnt irrelevant, which is what many sabermetrics guys do.

Yep

[Fuck You Jobu]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

I'd say to answer your question, a hitter is only going to be involved in 4-5 plays a game - perhaps 1/8 of the game. A pitcher will be involved with at least 1/2 the outs - more like 2/3s. That's a big difference. A pitcher's contribution to a single game is much greater than a hitter's.

[philpritchard]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

I'd say to answer your question, a hitter is only going to be involved in 4-5 plays a game - perhaps 1/8 of the game. A pitcher will be involved with at least 1/2 the outs - more like 2/3s. That's a big difference. A pitcher's contribution to a single game is much greater than a hitter's.

But that's comparing the pitcher to an individual hitter. A pitcher's contribution in a game is significantly more than a hitter's, but there are 9 hitters in the game.

A pitcher's job is to put the team in the best position possible to win a game. He has a huge amount of control over that, and he can do that by preventing the other team from scoring runs (though obviously defense factors in, as well). He has no control over whether or not the team actually wins the game. That's why wins should have little to no impact on evaluating a pitcher. The number of runs he allows (also the number of hits, walks, Ks, etc.) will show you how well he did at giving his team a chance to win. Wins will show how often his offense backed him up and his bullpen held the lead.

[Fuck You Jobu]

How come we don't assign wins to the hitter that has the game-winning hit, or a loss to the hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game with the team down by a run?

A pitcher's job is to pitch, just like a hitter's job is to get on base and score runs. I've never understood assigning an individual W on top of the team W.

I'd say to answer your question, a hitter is only going to be involved in 4-5 plays a game - perhaps 1/8 of the game. A pitcher will be involved with at least 1/2 the outs - more like 2/3s. That's a big difference. A pitcher's contribution to a single game is much greater than a hitter's.

But that's comparing the pitcher to an individual hitter. A pitcher's contribution in a game is significantly more than a hitter's, but there are 9 hitters in the game.

A pitcher's job is to put the team in the best position possible to win a game. He has a huge amount of control over that, and he can do that by preventing the other team from scoring runs (though obviously defense factors in, as well). He has no control over whether or not the team actually wins the game. That's why wins should have little to no impact on evaluating a pitcher. The number of runs he allows (also the number of hits, walks, Ks, etc.) will show you how well he did at giving his team a chance to win. Wins will show how often his offense backed him up and his bullpen held the lead.

Yeah it's pitcher to individual hitter... that was Chris_h2's point...

He most certainly has some control over whether his team wins. But now we're just repeating the same arguments...

[vegman]

So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

[EJ]

So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

[philpritchard]

He most certainly has some control over whether his team wins. But now we're just repeating the same arguments...

Ok, so here's my point: why bother using a massively flawed "individual" stat that relies heavily on contributions from teammates to evaluate a player when there are so many stats available to show what the individual player actually accomplished?

[MadTIGERmaN]

So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

[numbers]

So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

Agreed.

[vegman]

So disappointed to see Matt Harvey go down. There hasnt been much for us Mets fans to get excited about in a while and he seems(ed) like the real deal.

Yeah, that really stinks. He really seemed legit. Hope its a quick recovery and can bounce back like Strasburg did.

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

Agreed.

[Chris_H_2]

I said it before, Ill say it again (and guys like Nolan Ryan will back it up)
THROW MORE! stop shutting these kids down...

your arm/shoulder/elbow can blow out on the first pitch or the 1000000th... theres no science too it. but the only way to build arm strength is to use it!

You're completely oversimplifying the solution and assuming that today's 2-3 year MLB pitchers are the same as yesteryear's. The fact is, they couldn't be more different.

Today's pitchers, by the time that they reach the MLB, have thrown a ridiculous number of pitches over a ridiculous number of innings. Guys 50 years ago (or even when Nolan Ryan was a rookie) didn't pitch in extended Little League or traveling teams, didn't play for college coaches who had no problem abusing the hell out of their pitchers' arms ***, didn't have to pitch year round, didn't throw in Arizona Fall League, New England League, California League, or the Florida League, and didn't throw through A-AAA before hitting the majors. The fact is, on average, today's MLB rookie pitchers are on par with where pitchers were 50 years ago at retirement in terms of the number of pitches thrown. So I don't think the solution is necessarily to "throw more," because that erroneously assumes that pitchers need to build up the arm strength as opposed to having something structurally wrong based on the number of pitches already thrown through those points of their careers.

*** This brings up another point. College coaches don't have their pitchers' best interests in mind and don't worry about preparing them for the next level. In fact, they have an inherent conflict of interest. They worry about their teams' performance and, ultimately, their own job security. So they have no problem putting their 1 starters out to throw 150 pitchers on 3 days' rest. There are some college programs (cough, Stanford) that are notorious for this.

[numbers]

Do you really think kids in the 50s and 60s were throwing far less than kids today?