NFBC Message Boards

One of the (many) categories I struggled with this year was Wins. Hoping for a 47% win percentage compared to games started (the best percentage in Tampa #3 was 49.7% and the average was 43.2% so not an unattainable number). Instead, I ended up with a 37.14% win percentage to games started (worst in my league). Bad luck or bad managing is my conclusion depending on the number of beers consumed (I sat down D. Davis, J. Vazquez and K. Millwood in 2006 a total of 5 starts because of "bad" parks/matchups and the total line on the fives starts was 35.0 IP, 25 H, 14 BB, 34 K, 12 ER, 3.086 ERA, 1.114 WHIP and 4 freakin' wins), but my point to the nearly pointless diatribe is how tight wins have been the last two years. In 2005, the difference between the person finishing 10th overall in wins and the person finishing in a tie that included the 94th spot was 13 wins. In 2006, the difference between the person finishing 5th and the person finishing in a tie that included the 92nd spot was 13 wins. That is one win every two weeks. Those five starts I sat those pitchers down for was about 1/3 of that number. Amazing!



Does that make wins the least predictable and toughest to earn points from?

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

One of the (many) categories I struggled with this year was Wins. Hoping for a 47% win percentage compared to games started (the best percentage in Tampa #3 was 49.7% and the average was 43.2% so not an unattainable number). Instead, I ended up with a 37.14% win percentage to games started (worst in my league). Bad luck or bad managing is my conclusion depending on the number of beers consumed (I sat down D. Davis, J. Vazquez and K. Millwood in 2006 a total of 5 starts because of "bad" parks/matchups and the total line on the fives starts was 35.0 IP, 25 H, 14 BB, 34 K, 12 ER, 3.086 ERA, 1.114 WHIP and 4 freakin' wins), but my point to the nearly pointless diatribe is how tight wins have been the last two years. In 2005, the difference between the person finishing 10th overall in wins and the person finishing in a tie that included the 94th spot was 13 wins. In 2006, the difference between the person finishing 5th and the person finishing in a tie that included the 92nd spot was 13 wins. That is one win every two weeks. Those five starts I sat those pitchers down for was about 1/3 of that number. Amazing!



Does that make wins the least predictable and toughest to earn points from? I think wins are by far the most difficult category. I think I get caught up looking for pitchers who are better, but they pitch on bad teams. I always think a pitcher is going to win one out of three starts. He will get a win, a lose and a no decision. The problem with that is they win two in a row, then they lose six out of 7 starts. Before you know it, a month goes by. If you have three pitchers doing the same, you get swallowed by the field.



I guess next year, we draft Santana and Liriano(if heathy) in the first two rounds. I think we could sneak out 35 wins with those two plus 450 K's. In the 3rd round, we could grab a bat... In the fourth and fifth, we grab Nathan and Ryan. Eighty saves, ten wins, and 190 K's. In the sixth, we grab Lackey. He has been snake bit the last two years in wins. I'd say 15 minimum and 200 K's. We then take Hammels and Sabathia in 7th and 8th. Maybe, we get 30 wins and 350 K's. At this point, we have say 85 wins, 80 saves, and 1190 K's. We grab 3 more starters and one closer to be in the next 22 rounds and we are home free. On the hitting side, we have one stud. You only have to find 13 stars out of 18 chances. Hell, two are catchers. I'll let you take over from here the rest is easy!!



[ October 17, 2006, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

I simpathize with you. I sat vazquez in a satellite league for probably the same start you did. He had been pitching like crap while I had him in. I take him out for 1 start and he pitches great. My main event team had good luck early getting wins, but by June I couldn't buy a win. I tried to play matchups. No matter what I did it was wrong. You take a guy out he pitches well and wins. You put him back in he stinks. I was using 2 start guys that don't get a win in 2 tries and the mediocre pitcher you took out with 1 start against a tough team gets a win. Nothing you can do.

If you had 6 starting pitchers and each of them started 36 games (the upward boundary of possible starts in a season), you'd need them all to win 18 games to have a 50% winning percentage. That's not only difficult, it's impossible as there aren't that many 18 game winners in all the majors. The only way for someone to approach that number is to have a bunch of relievers and not get many starts in the first place, which is counterproductive in terms of your goal to get more wins.



In other words, your goal was unrealistic. Only Cy Young candidates even have a shot at winning half their games.

Originally posted by bjoak:

If you had 6 starting pitchers and each of them started 36 games (the upward boundary of possible starts in a season), you'd need them all to win 18 games to have a 50% winning percentage. That's not only difficult, it's impossible as there aren't that many 18 game winners in all the majors. The only way for someone to approach that number is to have a bunch of relievers and not get many starts in the first place, which is counterproductive in terms of your goal to get more wins.



In other words, your goal was unrealistic. Only Cy Young candidates even have a shot at winning half their games. I hear what you are saying, but you are not addressing the point I made. It is not six PITCHERS I want to get with a reasonable expectation of an average of 15 wins (15/32 starts is my 47%), it is six pitcher POSITIONS (i.e. try to take advantage of favorable starts, two start weeks to increase the chance of more than an average of 32 starts, use seven starters some weeks, etc.). Counting of course the wins produced by the relievers, in my league the AVERAGE wins per games started was 43%. The person with the highest win percentage (49.3%) had the second most wins (105) and only had five more starts than I did. IP from MR or CL, he had about 174, I had about 184, so very close there.



So what is the trade-off? Maybe it goes back to what Shawn wrote earlier...do you go with "skills" pitchers in hopes of preserving ERA/WHIP/K or do you go with lesser pitchers on teams that constantly knock down 95+ wins (Yanks, et al) and hope you get lucky with the guy that does it with mirrors (Wang). How about the teams that far exceed "expert" projections (Detroit, Florida)? Or the sexy early sleeper teams (Milwaukee, Baltimore)that certainly disappointed (except for Bedard)?



I am just about to the point that wins are about as easy to capture as a herd of cats using an air-horn.

Just FYI. There were 58 Pitchers with at least 12 Wins last season. If you get just your fair share of those, that would be 2/3 of the six SP positions. They averaged 14.45 wins on an average of 32.41 starts or 44.57%. The 47% target I set for myself is not that much of a stretch (and you have to stretch...can't win this thing by being average).



If you were wondering, the average among the 58 was a 4.054 ERA with a 1.303 WHIP and 148 K's in 201.5 IP.



Yes...it is raining like hell in Jawja and work is boring the pudding out of me...

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

Just FYI. There were 58 Pitchers with at least 12 Wins last season. If you get just your fair share of those, that would be 2/3 of the six SP positions. They averaged 14.45 wins on an average of 32.41 starts or 44.57%. The 47% target I set for myself is not that much of a stretch (and you have to stretch...can't win this thing by being average).



If you were wondering, the average among the 58 was a 4.054 ERA with a 1.303 WHIP and 148 K's in 201.5 IP.



Yes...it is raining like hell in Jawja and work is boring the pudding out of me... Well the 44% is fairly unattainable because you still need far more of these guys than everyone else while avoiding the Jason Marquis' of the world. And depending on which of these guys you get you could still end up at far less than 44%. So to stretch it is ridiculous.



The point is that focusing on win % is silly. Your other post is deonstrative of my point:



i.e. try to take advantage of favorable starts, two start weeks to increase the chance of more than an average of 32 starts, use seven starters some weeks, etc. All of these strategies will decrease your winning percentage (which is meaningless) and increase your actual number of wins (meaningfully).



[ October 17, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Recognizing that I could be having a senior moment years before it will become fashionable for me, exactly how does getting more wins per games started (using favorable match-ups et al) actually lower my winning percentage?



Maybe your point is to get in as many starts as possible. Period. Don't worry about "percentages". The more starts you get, the better the odds of getting wins (and probably more K's).



I understand that (if I am on base), but I guess I am trying to look at the data empirically to find what key statistics or factors will increase the probability of wins (skills pitcher approach vs dominant team approach) while maintaining balance in the other categories (offense, WHIP, ERA, SV)



We might actually be trying to say the same thing but coming at it from different directions.

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

Recognizing that I could be having a senior moment years before it will become fashionable for me, exactly how does getting more wins per games started (using favorable match-ups et al) actually lower my winning percentage?



Starting starters on 2 start weeks, favorable matchups and 7 starters are all strategies that favor putting in your lower end pitchers. In other words, you're not going to especially start Brandon Webb on a two start week because he will already be starting for you every week. Instead you will put in, say, Chan Ho Park, who is normally riding the pine. His winning percentage is 33% and therefore by playing him and maximizing the starts of all your mediocre starters you will bring down your team winning percentage.



The reason why I said focussing on winning percentage rather than wins is silly is because your winning % would be better served by sitting Park and using a dead spot or a middle reliever who could get you a win without making a start but your actual wins and strikeouts would suffer for it.

OK...using Park as an example because I had considered doing this. Say I notice he is not pitching poorly in May/early June with the exception of the Seattle blow-out. I notice he has a two-start week at home against LA and at ANA. I like the parks and the match-ups. Two GS, 2 W, 9k (71% of IP...not great but not crushing), 12.7 IP, 4 ER, 1.105 WHIP, 2.842 ERA.



I actually went with Ryan Madson that week...he had two starts vs Mets and TB. One good start and one bad start as it turned out but I did get a win and 9 Ks as well.



Whichever way I went that week, it worked. I would have been 2/2 (100%) or 1/2 (50%).

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

OK...using Park as an example because I had considered doing this. Say I notice he is not pitching poorly in May/early June with the exception of the Seattle blow-out. I notice he has a two-start week at home against LA and at ANA. I like the parks and the match-ups. Two GS, 2 W, 9k (71% of IP...not great but not crushing), 12.7 IP, 4 ER, 1.105 WHIP, 2.842 ERA.



I actually went with Ryan Madson that week...he had two starts vs Mets and TB. One good start and one bad start as it turned out but I did get a win and 9 Ks as well.



Whichever way I went that week, it worked. I would have been 2/2 (100%) or 1/2 (50%). Okay, but you're talking about one event, even if you are good enough at matchups to pull it off, 2 start weeks will eventually hurt winning percentage.



Again, it's besides the point. If you're so concerned about winning percentage, draft 9 middle relievers next year and your percentage will come up as infinite. The point is to get wins in however many starts.