The current leader in MLB for Ws (by FAR) is Oscar Villareal, an RP for the Atlanta Braves. He "earned" his 3rd win of the year tonight by giving up the lead in his only inning of work, only be be bailed out by a Marcus Giles home run in the following inning (after Villy had been pinch hit for, incidently). Since the relievers that followed him didn't screw up like he did, Villareal was awarded the win. And that makes 3 Ws in 5 innings of work.
Seriously, is it going to take a MR with 70 IP on the year winning 20 before people start to realize that the stat is beyond obsolete, at least under its current definition? With the modern bullpen, it's beyond irrelevant. You get guys like Bartolo Colon winning 20 on pretty good but not great years while another guy turns in a near-historic performance and ends up with like 10.
Now, I realize that most people here probably agree that Ws are a very poor statistic for measuring anything that isn't run support or luck. But I was wondering how long everyone thinks it'll take before the ESPN-types realize this. I honestly think it's going to take a MR winning like 15 or 20 in a season or something absurd like that before people will look around and say, "Hmm. Maybe this isn't such a meaningful statistic, after all."
So lets hope Villy can bring home another 17 this year.
Last edited by George_Foreman on Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"
"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
so0perspam wrote:Average wins for top 40 RP in 2005: 6.625 Average wins for top 40 SP in 2005: 15.625
That doesn't make it a meaningful statistic. Wins tell you nothing about how a pitcher actually pitched. You have have to look at the peripheral statistics to get an actual feel for the worth of a pitcher.
I agree with the general spirit of the OP, but I also think luck has a lot more to do with sports and competition than most like to admit. Obviously, the skilled will perform at a higher level in general, but any specific instance of an action could also be the product of luck.
Wins are clearly not a perfect stat, and the nonsense of washburn or colon actually being top tier pitchers was absurd, and continues to be absurd.
On the other hand, as a general indicator of worth, I think it merits inclusion.
Frankly, I think a better measure of this would be almost like hockey's plus/minus ratio. They should make some "unfied theory" where they somehow combine the whip/era of a pitcher versus his opponents during those same innings.
Flawed, I know. But you know what? the Save is a pretty silly stat sometimes as well.