Many
critics missed the point of the early 2000s A's "Moneyball" approach.
That front office didn't intend to declare any given talent measurement
technique worthless. They simply wanted to find some that others undervalued so
they could exploit a market weakness. They weren't saying that scouting or
baseball card statistics had zero value. Since everyone had access to those
tools, however, they sought insight from alternative sources.
A
revolution has resulted. The sabermetric onslaught has created jobs, websites,
and, to be sure, a certain amount of smarminess toward traditionalists.
Ironically, as advanced stat nerds have attempted to better analyze which
numbers lead to more ballgames won, the "win" has become one of the
most disparaged standard stats categories.
Now, to
be clear, I bear no hostility toward advanced stats. I embrace them to the
greatest extent my math skills allow, and admire those who successfully analyze
them. I also grew up reading the backs of baseball cards and, while I
acknowledge that Wins Above Replacement (either f or b variety) may well be a
superior predictor of pitcher success, does it render the "win"
worthless?
For purposes
of this post, we’ll confine the discussion to wins by a game’s starting
pitcher. If we look to evaluate the win, we have to ask what it tells us.
Does it impart any useful information whatsoever? Or is the answer to the
question "Is the 20-5 pitcher better than the 5-20 pitcher?" always
"I need to check his FIP information!”?
Well, one
thing we know for sure is that a winning starter threw at least five innings.
The bullpen threw at most four innings, since even if the game went extras, we
can be certain the starting pitcher threw at least nine ininngs. So one contribution that
emerges from a pitcher's recording a win is to give his team’s relatively
rested bullpen an improved chance of helping win the next day's game, a
difficult-to-measure nuance.
We can
also presume the starter had sufficient fortitude to overcome adversity
that may have arisen, like fielding miscues or bad calls, well enough to record
at least 15 outs. If, during those innings, a couple of seeing-eye singles and
a groundout put runners on second and third with a tough left-handed hitter
coming up, a LOOGY didn’t bail out his ERA. Whatever the result, he fought
through it himself.
Recording
15 outs also tells us the pitcher either threw well enough to allow few
baserunners or managed to get outs under pressure. It seems reasonable to
suggest that he demonstrated mental toughness by getting outs with men on base
or by limiting the damage after runs had scored. Even if he gave up ten runs in
the fifth to cut his team’s advantage to 12-10, he somehow got his squad out of
the inning.
We can
also surmise the winning pitcher handled whatever climatic conditions prevailed
at the ballpark that day better than at least one of the opposition's mound
men. Numbers-based calculations account for the weather factor
in various ways, like ballpark-adjusted stats, but it’s still hard to
establish a neutral standard for a sport played indoors and outdoors from
Toronto to San Diego. That is especially true in the short term. Things might equalize
in the long run somewhat, but even then an N.L. Central starter’s ERA, for
instance, might feel the impact of his drawing three straight starts when the
wind blew out at Wrigley. Of course, he also would have gotten to
play the Cubs in those games, so maybe we could choose a roof open/roof closed
scenario instead. I’m allowed to make fun of the Cubs - my father grew up in
Chicago. In any case, the win tells us the pitcher delivered something of value
despite the wind, mist, or locusts both teams faced on a given day.
Certainly
it is true that the quality of the hitters one faces and teams with affects
one’s chances of getting a win. Of course, they’re all major league hitters,
and sometimes will deliver a pitcher an early lead or, conversely, no runs at
all. Is there a tendency to let up with an early lead? If so, the winning
pitcher overcame it. Is there a tendency to get frustrated with no run support?
If so, he didn’t give in to those feelings.
So what
does all this tell us about a pitcher who “won” a ballgame? It tells us
that he did at least a couple of things well enough to enhance his team’s
chances that day. If he wins 20 games in a season, he did those things
well at least 20 times. On the day of his win, the only thing a substitute
starter could have done to help his team more was to perhaps throw more innings,
because the team can’t record more than one W per game and the winning
pitcher played his position well enough to secure it.
Does that
make it better than advanced statistics at evaluating pitcher success? No
way. In fact, it tells us very little about most of the pitcher’s abilities.
But it doesn’t tell us nothing (double negative purposefully used for
emphasis).
No input
tells the complete story when evaluating baseball players. Even the almighty
WAR has competing versions. A successful franchise, whether the A’s or anyone
else, tries to arrive at an optimal mix of stats, scouts' assessments, and
police records to create a competitive roster. They likely don’t use the win
much. But they do use some method to figure out how likely a hurler is show the
mental toughness and other abilities necessary to help their team get its
maximum one W on the day he pitches.
Joe
Posnanski wrote a good column(1) a couple of years ago
giving the win some love while acknowledging its weaknesses
(and, incidentally, providing evidence that the answer to my 5-20 vs. 20-5
question above was “yes”). One his larger points suggested that wins still
provide a useful point of discussion and therefore can be fun to have
in the game. Did the pitcher truly handle bad weather well? Did he
show more fortitude than the pitcher(s) alternating half-innings with him? Did
he deserve his “win?” Those are worthy baseball arguments. Feel free
to keep having them, no matter what your smarmy sabermetrician friends tell
you.
Rush Olson has spent two decades
directing creative efforts for sports teams and broadcasters. He currently
creates ad campaigns and related creative projects for sports entities through
his company, Rush Olson Creative & Sports.
RushOlson.com
Linkedin.com/company/rush-olson-creative-&-sports
Facebook.com/RushOlsonCreativeandSports
Footnotes
(1) Joe Posnanski “In Praise Of Wins
(Sort Of),” Joe Blogs.
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/in-praise-of-wins-sort-of/
(accessed June 17, 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment