quality starts VS wins

[justiceberry]

ive always lobbied to have QS instead of Wins as a category and it makes even more sense in this day and age where starters are getting yanked earlier and earlier due to super pens and pitch counts etc etc.

wins can be very arbitrary, a guy can pitch 8 shutout innings and hand the ball over to his bullpen and they give up 7 runs and he misses out on his well deserved W - but at least his QS is recognized. Meanwhile some scrub who pitched the last half inning for the opposing team scores a W somehow. (maybe he is in the lineup of another owner too). who really should be rewarded in this situation?

i think the Win category stinks and time to examine if it is time for a change to QS

[DOUGHBOYS]

Soon, Wins will have to be changed at the Major League level. They may just be done away with altogether.
The premise of 'Wins' is a little silly anyway.
No other sport anoints an individual with a 'Win'.
A Win and Loss by an individual pitcher in the past was more or less a reminder in who started the game on the slab for each team.
Now, fewer and fewer pitchers are going even five innings in their Starts.
At one time, we knew one pitcher would probably throw nine innings.
Now, nine pitchers could throw nine innings.
The original meaning of Winning pitcher, lost.
Heck, Tampa is going into the season with a four-man rotation and 'all relievers' day.
Cy Young just turned over in his grave.

At the same time, if looking for a future category to replace Wins, Quality Starts is not the answer.
Only one pitcher averaged seven innings a Start last year (Corey Kluber)
Most Starters did not average even six innings a Start.
Not only is the W, as we know it, fading, but QS are as well.

It's a situation that most roto-inclined folks are putting off.
We know change has to come concerning Wins as a category.
But, Quality Starts is not the answer.

[Philippe27]

I agree that wins are somewhat random but I hate quality starts as well. Quality starts would be a pure starter stat which would increase the gap between Starters and Relievers and make non closers completely useless. Quality starts would also basically just double down on ERA.

I'm not really against wins, only thing I'd change is how MLB decides the winning pitcher. It doesn't make sense that a pitcher can get a blown save and a win.

Phil

[jvetter]

Wins should just be replaced by total innings pitched if it is decided that a change is needed. That is the best predictor for # of wins anyway, while still allowing relievers to contribute to the category as well (as opposed to QS).

[Bjs2025]

The elephant in the room is that UZR is STILL not a category. I own Andrelton Simmons in a league and he should be a $30 player.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Wins should just be replaced by total innings pitched if it is decided that a change is needed. That is the best predictor for # of wins anyway, while still allowing relievers to contribute to the category as well (as opposed to QS).

I like that.
This would also give more credence in drafts to hybrids like Miller, Devesnski, and Bradley.
By the way, in throwing half the innings of Zack Godley last year, Chris Devenski had the same total of Wins as Godley, eight.
We think of Godley 'earning' his eight Wins.
We think of Devenski as 'vuturing' his Wins.

[Edwards Kings]

This kind of reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote:

"Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Wins as a stat may suck, but it is still much better than the alternatives. Baseball has changed. And it will change again. K's will go down. HR will go down. SB will go up. IP per start will go up.

Just keep wins. We are all dealing with the same talent pools and situation, so the playing field is level.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This kind of reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote:

"Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Wins as a stat may suck, but it is still much better than the alternatives. Baseball has changed. And it will change again. K's will go down. HR will go down. SB will go up. IP per start will go up.

Just keep wins. We are all dealing with the same talent pools and situation, so the playing field is level.

You are talking about the present, my friend.
There is no future for Wins.
The five inning threshold, becoming too high of a bar for the modern pitcher.
Managers also being in a hurry to use their specialists in the bullpen.
It's a changing game.
Soon (as in within five years), MLB will either have to change its formula for Wins as a category or do away with it altogether.
Until then, heck yeah, enjoy the category.

Edit-
Mentioned was the ebb and flow of strike outs and home runs.
Wins and starting innings have no such ebb and flow.
Last year was the first year that no pitcher registered even 19 Wins.
They have been very consistent in their downward trends.

[Philippe27]

Here is how total starter wins have evolved since 2008:
2008: 1682
2009: 1706
2010: 1736
2011: 1716
2012: 1738
2013: 1658
2014: 1706
2015: 1673
2016: 1628
2017: 1640

I don't see anything drastic there and I'd argue that part if not most of the decrease in wins in the past 3 years is due to the juiced ball and if that is fixed then starters will last a little longer and wins will be back right around 1700.

If starters get taken out earlier then it's up to us to adjust just like we have to adjust for the increase in home runs or decrease in stolen bases. How we all choose to adjust is part of what makes this game fun.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Mostly 1700's to mostly 1600's is a pretty good downward trend.
100 less Wins than just five years ago is a pretty good downward trend.

[Philippe27]

Mostly 1700's to mostly 1600's is a pretty good downward trend.
100 less Wins than just five years ago is a pretty good downward trend.

If you compare 2016 and 2017 to 2008 and 2009 which were the last 2 years where the starter ERA's were similar then it's 1694 to 1634 so about a 4% drop.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It's like aging.
CC Sabathia got 14 Wins last year.
It doesn't make him 'better' or 'younger' than a few years ago.
He spiked. But, we know the trend and where it is heading...

[Bjs2025]

Either way, Wins remains a category that anyone who wants to be successful shouldn't pay attention to

[KJ Duke]

Mostly 1700's to mostly 1600's is a pretty good downward trend.
100 less Wins than just five years ago is a pretty good downward trend.

Agreed. Also can be yr/yr noise/randomness in those numbers that can obfuscate trend. IP per start will give a clearer picture of the real trend, and predict the trend. Likewise, if IP/st doesn't reverse higher (and I doubt it will), the W category will not regain/regress to its former normalized level.

W and QS are flawed. We need a new stat that directly addresses those flaws without being so complicated that you need a calculator to figure out who gets the W. Maybe it's just a modified version of the current W rule with a few additional common sense qualifications and adjustments around what it takes to get the W. The save, for example, as a newer stat has more qualifications than the older W stat.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Agreed KJ.

The Win, itself, has changed, although the Wins rules have not.
In the past, the winning pitcher was almost always the starting pitcher.
Through the years, the game has changed to where it is almost random.
Even just one generation ago, Greg Maddux would throw seven or eight innings for a Win.
Now, pitchers like Sabathia (who used to earn Wins like Maddux) are together with their Manager in using five innings as a finish line.
When reaching that finish line of five innings, better arms from the bullpen can secure the W for Sabathia and the Yankees.

[KJ Duke]

Perhaps the new "WIN" could be most IP less ER allowed. No calculator needed, not perfect but perhaps better?

In many instances there will be a tie for IP-ER, the W for any tie is awarded to the one who pitched last (presumed higher leverage innings).

If starter goes 6 and allow 3 ER, he is +3, so he gets the W unless a single reliever throws 3 shutout innings.
If starter goes 6 and allows 4 ER, a 2 inning shutout relief effort would get the W.

This would add deserved value to the multi-inning, highly effective reliever when the starter was so-so or ineffective, but also award W's to starters that pitched better than any reliever on a winning team but may have exited the game before the 5th inning ended or if leaving when their team was tied or losing. Might also match up better with how teams value pitchers now.

And while we're adjusting W's, would be a good time to look at a better rule for assigning ER allowed of inherited runners.

[Philippe27]

Perhaps the new "WIN" could be most IP less ER allowed. No calculator needed, not perfect but perhaps better?

In many instances there will be a tie for IP-ER, the W for any tie is awarded to the one who pitched last (presumed higher leverage innings).

If starter goes 6 and allow 3 ER, he is +3, so he gets the W unless a single reliever throws 3 shutout innings.
If starter goes 6 and allows 4 ER, a 2 inning shutout relief effort would get the W.

This would add deserved value to the multi-inning, highly effective reliever when the starter was so-so or ineffective, but also award W's to starters that pitched better than any reliever on a winning team but may have exited the game before the 5th inning ended or if leaving when their team was tied or losing. Might also match up better with how teams value pitchers now.

And while we're adjusting W's, would be a good time to look at a better rule for assigning ER allowed of inherited runners.

Seems to make a lot of sense. Just have to give Rob a call and get that approved.

[KJ Duke]

In particular, adjusting ER allowed could be something like this:

When a pitching change occurs:
1) runners on first with at least one out will not be charged to the exiting pitcher.
2) runners on second with 2 outs will be charged 0.5 to the exiting pitcher and 0.5 to the allowing pitcher

[Edwards Kings]

But we are really crappy at predicting trends. The "Year of the Pitcher", meaning jump in K's with ERA declines became the "Decade of the Pitchers". HR are up, and all we can come up with is "Juiced Balls" (I think there was a porno star with that name once, but I could be wrong). Will we see the 300 IP pitcher again? I am guessing not, but could we see a change in emphasis to control, placement, and minimizing "high stress" innings so that 225 IP becomes more normal? Sure. All it would take is one infield defense minded franchise having success by stockpiling those inning-eating arms that only generate 7.5 K's per nine with only 2.0 BB per nine or less and everyone will try to replicate.

I am (well) over fifty and therefore by my nature am not a big fan of change. Hell, I take more time deciding what new underwear to buy than I did to buy my first vehicle. Still, in any objective sense of the word, I have seen no alternatives that would rate an "improvement" rather than just a "change" born out of frustration.

As an aside, Maddux was mentioned. The "hot" arm on that staff was Smoltz (last pitched less than a decade ago). Career K/9? 8.0. He certainly had bigger years, but that was his average so it can be done.

And with all baseball is dealing with right now, I would not expect them to advocate any changes to calculating wins anytime in the near future.

Anyway, points taken. But I think we are stuck with it the way it is now.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Or just doing away with the five inning threshold and keeping 'Wins' forever.


The Starting Pitcher will, in most cases, throw more innings than relievers.
With the way the game has changed, why hold him to the standard of five innings?
That threshold has led to many Managers bad decisions.
If a Starting pitcher, with 85 pitches, is ahead in the game 10-2 at the end of four innings, the Manager would love to finish the game with lesser arms.
He can't.
The five inning rule bounds him to let his Starter get the Win.
You may say 'bounds' is too strong of a word. But that Manager knows how important a W is for a pitcher and possibly future contracts, not to mention the harmony needed with that pitcher for the rest of the year.

Over the last few years, the number of pitches have surpassed innings in importance for game to game management.
WE are the ones who deem innings important
Yes, there would be flukes with no five inning bar.
Like the pitcher who leaves in the second inning with an injury and 5-0 lead.
But, there are already flukish Wins for pitchers.

[Navel Lint]

The percentage of games that one of the two starting pitchers got the Win.

1957- .351
1967- .369
1977- .357
1987- .345
1997- .349
2007- .346
2012- .358
2017- .337

[DOUGHBOYS]

The percentage of games that one of the two starting pitchers got the Win.

1957- .351
1967- .369
1977- .357
1987- .345
1997- .349
2007- .346
2017- .337

And it'll get even lower.
The previous years never had the five inning threshold as a thought.
It was assumed that each Starter would get to that plateau.
Is it a bad thing?
I don't know.
It is, however, different than those previous years.

[Navel Lint]

The percentage of games that one of the two starting pitchers got the Win.

1957- .351
1967- .369
1977- .357
1987- .345
1997- .349
2007- .346
2012- .358
2017- .337

And it'll get even lower.
The previous years never had the five inning threshold as a thought.
It was assumed that each Starter would get to that plateau.
Is it a bad thing?
I don't know.
It is, however, different than previous years.

I added ( edited ) in one additional year above for context. It's the 2012 season that was referenced by an earlier post as having 1738 pitcher Wins. Higher than the 10 year intervals in the 70's, 80's, 90's.
Is 2012 the outlier, or 2017? I have no idea.

[KJ Duke]

IP per GS
1925-45 - 7.0
1950-74 - 6.5
1975-79 - 6.4
1980-84 - 6.3
1985-89 - 6.2
1990-94 - 6.1
1995-99 - 6.0
2000-04 - 5.9
2005-09 - 5.8
2010-14 - 6.0
2015 yr - 5.8
2016 yr - 5.6
2017 yr - 5.5

Trending one way for nearly 100 years. Seems legit. Starter W's will follow absent statistical anomalies.

[Navel Lint]

IP per GS
1925-45 - 7.0
1950-74 - 6.5
1975-79 - 6.4
1980-84 - 6.3
1985-89 - 6.2
1990-94 - 6.1
1995-99 - 6.0
2000-04 - 5.9
2005-09 - 5.8
2010-14 - 6.0
2015 yr - 5.8
2016 yr - 5.6
2017 yr - 5.5

Trending one way for nearly 100 years. Seems legit. Starter W's will follow absent statistical anomalies.

Percentage of all Starters pitching at least 5 innings

1957- .748
1967- .767
1977- .771
1987- .777
1997- .805
2007- .813
2012- .828
2017- .774

5 innings is a horribly low bar to set, but we are talking about the Win Rule, which is just 5 innings.
No doubt that all starters are pitching less total innings, but they are pitching the required innings for a Win at just as high or higher a clip than they were 50-60 years ago.
Considering that they record about 12% less Total outs on average than they did 60 years ago, I would have thought that the win percentage by starters would be down much more than 2-3% from the 60's and 70's