Why not have a winless game option where no pitcher gets the win?
Wins are the most overrated stat in the game, IMO. QS, ERA and WHIP are way more telling of the true worth of a pitcher, as are K/9 and BB/9. Wins depend entirely on the bullpen and the batters.
One other, while I think about it:
When a pitcher records an error, runs scored afterwards generally are unearned. This is a complete nonsense - all those runs should count against the pitcher. Anybody remember the Mark Buehrle fiasco last year against the Twins where he gave up seven in an inning, six unearned? It was his error that started the cascade. He got the win in that game too, IIRC.
Ursa wrote:Couple of things to throw out there....
Why not have a winless game option where no pitcher gets the win? Wins are the most overrated stat in the game, IMO. QS, ERA and WHIP are way more telling of the true worth of a pitcher, as are K/9 and BB/9. Wins depend entirely on the bullpen and the batters.
One other, while I think about it:
When a pitcher records an error, runs scored afterwards generally are unearned. This is a complete nonsense - all those runs should count against the pitcher. Anybody remember the Mark Buehrle fiasco last year against the Twins where he gave up seven in an inning, six unearned? It was his error that started the cascade. He got the win in that game too, IIRC.
I think errors shouldn't discount the run as a whole. If it was a one base error the pitcher should be on the hook for 3/4ths of a run if that player scores. Just think of how many runs a year are unearned even though it only moved a baserunner one bag. It's kind of lame crediting a pitcher for a fraction of a run but I think it's worse not counting the run at all.
wrveres wrote:This is why they have the stat "Quality Start" ...
My thoughts as well.
I could live with the Win stat staying, but how about we just phase out it's use in the media as a statistic to describe the effectiveness of a pitcher. You always hear "This guy is 20 and 4 at home"......wow, great.
You hear them refer to quality starts much less.
The media and ignorant baseball people have glorified the statistic. You just have to cast it back into irrelevance.
Here is everyone with at least 3 quality starts - games started - wins - wins/qs
Sorted Desc by games started.
Obviously if a guy has over 100% then his offense has really been helping him out and less than 100% usually means his offense/bullpen/defense hasn't been helping much.
2 things where there wouldn't be a judgement call and, IMO, would make things more equitable:
1. Wins:
Only where a starter pitched through the 8th inning with a lead and the lead is blown in the 9th inning AND where the team comes back and wins in their next at bat, should the starter get the win and not the reliever who blew the lead.
Example: Schilling goes 8, Bosox winning by 1 run going to the 9th. Papelbon gives up a run. Next time up, Bosox win. Schilling should get the win, not a reward for Papelbon. If they were the visitors and Papelbon was still in the game, he can still get the save even though he blew it intiially. If he blows it again, all bets are off.
This leaves it to pure rule and no judgement by the official scorer.
2. ERA:
I have always thougth that inherited runners who score should be split evenly between the reliever and the previous pitcher. Why should the reliever bear no responsibility? WHo cares if there are fractions of runs against?
Example: Mussina, pitcihing a shutout to this point, leaves with 2 outs and bases loaded. Proctor give up a HR and then gets the final out. Mussina should be charged with 1.5 runs and Proctor 2.5 instead of 3 and 1.
And finally, who decided what a quality start is?
Where I come from, it would be 7 innings or more and 3 earned runs or less, preferably with 2 walks or less. This idea that 6 innings and 3 earned runs is quality is nonsense. That would make every starter with an ERA of 4.5 and 180 or so innings pitched for the year a quality starter.
jr461 wrote:2 things where there wouldn't be a judgement call and, IMO, would make things more equitable:
1. Wins: Only where a starter pitched through the 8th inning with a lead and the lead is blown in the 9th inning AND where the team comes back and wins in their next at bat, should the starter get the win and not the reliever who blew the lead. Example: Schilling goes 8, Bosox winning by 1 run going to the 9th. Papelbon gives up a run. Next time up, Bosox win. Schilling should get the win, not a reward for Papelbon. If they were the visitors and Papelbon was still in the game, he can still get the save even though he blew it intiially. If he blows it again, all bets are off.
This leaves it to pure rule and no judgement by the official scorer.
2. ERA: I have always thougth that inherited runners who score should be split evenly between the reliever and the previous pitcher. Why should the reliever bear no responsibility? WHo cares if there are fractions of runs against? Example: Mussina, pitcihing a shutout to this point, leaves with 2 outs and bases loaded. Proctor give up a HR and then gets the final out. Mussina should be charged with 1.5 runs and Proctor 2.5 instead of 3 and 1.
And finally, who decided what a quality start is? Where I come from, it would be 7 innings or more and 3 earned runs or less, preferably with 2 walks or less. This idea that 6 innings and 3 earned runs is quality is nonsense. That would make every starter with an ERA of 4.5 and 180 or so innings pitched for the year a quality starter. Just my opinions...any thoughts?
Sadly that is a quality starter in this era....most fantasy players don't realize this though because those players usually aren't good enough to get on a fantasy team but a 4.5 ERA and 180 IP for the year is a solid #3 or #4 starter on most all big league teams!
J35J wrote:....also as far as 4.5 ERA and 180IP being a quality start....that is the worst a quality starter could do...thats the bad end of a quality start.
I think that's a fine standard. My only problem with that is adjusting it for era. (ie, A 4.50 in 1970 is a lot worse than a 4.50 today.)
"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."
George_Foreman
General Manager
Posts: 4351
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
I'll echo the others. If this bothers you, get out of a W-based league and get into a QS-based league. The only thing that bothers me about QS is that a pitcher can go 6 innings and give up 3 ER for a 4.50 ERA and a QS, but 4 ER in 9 innings (for a 4.00 ERA) would not get him a QS.
Obviously, the rule for QS needs to be changed so that it awards it to a pitcher with an ERA of 4.50 or lower in a game where he pitched a minimum of 6 full innings. If they could make that change, I would be perfectly content.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
