Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a win for a pitcher one of the most manipulated stats out there. A starting pitcher has to go at least 5 innings to qualify for a win, so what if a team decided to pull their starting pitcher after 4 2/3rd innings every time they had a lead and plug in a designated pitcher to finish off the 5th and pitch the 6th inning (preserving the lead). As long as the other team never overcomes that lead then that replacement pitcher most likely would earn the win. If a team was able to be successful at doing this even twice every 10 games then that pitcher potentially could have 32 wins on the season while only pitching 40-50 innings.
I believe the same rules have been "manipulated" the same way for the entire modern history of baseball If the starting pitcher does not go 5 innings, then it's up to the official scorer to award the win. This is usually given to the subsequent pitcher whenever the winning team takes the lead and does not relinquish it. This is also done if the winning team had the lead when said pitcher enters the game, and the official scorer deems someone else to be the "most effective" relief pitcher. Also this is silly because...why would you do/care about this?
I know this is correct, but it is absurd that the scorer cannot use that same discretion to select a pitcher who threw 4 shutout innings and left with a 7-0 lead. But if a “starter” threw to one batter first, then the exact same performance starting with batter 2 would get a win. Wins remain the worst hallowed stat in baseball.
Before the advent of the specialized bullpen, wins for starters were a whole lot different. There is no "worst" or "best" or "good" or "bad" stat, every single one of them needs context
Except for wins. They are the worst of the major stats - certainly for this era of baseball. Other than “your team hit well, you were on the mound at an opportune time, and you (probably) didn’t **** the bed,” they tell you nothing.
Given that baseball is a game partially defined by its love of statistics, and that wins remain a highly cited and hallowed statistic, the fact that it is horrible at stating anything of value, especially in today’s game, does matter. Your “caveat” of “watch the whole game so you have all the context” doesn’t help much. But regardless of that, “who cares” is an odd question from someone who keeps responding and telling me I am wrong. All I have said is that it is the worst of the major stats, and you keep arguing. So … name one worse? Even an RBI tells you more about the individual than a win does.
No, because no team is stupid enough to keep pulling a good pitcher with a lead after 4 2/3 innings just for the hell of it. Can it be theoretically manipulated? Sure, to the detriment of the team. That's different then whether it actually is manipulated.
No, you said it was a manipulated stat. But you could easily do the same thing with saves. If you're up 5, give up 2 runs and bring in a guy to get 1 out in the 9th, so you can collect a bunch of saves. Or pinch run anyone on 2nd or 3rd base late in the game to try to accumulate a bunch of runs scored for some bench player.
Read again. I didn’t start the thread, and I have never said anything about manipulation. I responded to Buck and said it was the worst of the major stats and gave a specific example of a situation that occurs all the time now (starters opening games for a few batters vs actual starters leaving before 5 innings). Wins do not require any manipulation to be a bad stat. Saves are bad too, but better at least than wins because it definitely tells you something about the individual performance - this pitcher got the last out of a win.
Our 5 message back-and-forth that started with a post not directed at you lasted all of 23 minutes, and when I said "who cares?" it was a rhetorical question meant to end the conversation. Carry on.
Repeatedly telling me I am wrong about wins being the worst major stat without saying what stat you think is worse, then saying “I’m ending this” is pretty weak. But, you’re right, I shouldn’t care, so I’m done also.
True, but we are talking hypothetical here. Also, let's say a guy like Greinke is on his last leg but at 245 wins. This could be an interesting scenario to get him those extra 5 wins to end at 250 (especially if he was still on a bad team with nothing to play for anyhow). I do agree that technically a manager could pinch run a player on 3rd every game for an easy score but we're talking only 162 runs scored if successful 100% of the time. Any pitcher now a days getting over 25 wins would seem astronomical and literally could be done if a team deemed it so. Hell, if a player was able to accomplish this 3 out of every 10 games then 48 (close to 50 wins) would be possible, which would beat the modern record of 41 wins set in 1904.
I'm guessing the starting pitchers would be less than thrilled to be pulled after 4 2/3 innings (particularly if they're going good) with a lead just to try and generate some meaningless statistical accomplishment for one player. Also, if the reliever was so adept at scoreless outings he would be wasted in that role, or at least impact minimized if he's coming into games with a good lead. There's a lot of things you "theoretically' could do, but this would fall in the camp of why in the hell would you. In 2023 the transparency of the nonsense you were trying to pull would get mocked much more than praised. I never understood why the win stat has so many weird caveats and isn't simply tracked as team record in your starts. But it's not intentionally manipulated save for giving starters a little more leash in the 5th inning.
While we do know that no team arbitrarily will ever use a pitchers W-L record to justify anything, viable starting pitching… and a pitchers ability to pitch into the 5th-6th inning effectively, still means a lot more to a team generating consistent wins/losses vs. basically every other metric. It’s become even more magnified in the era of the bullpen specialists that all teams (even the bad ones) are able to assemble. These playoffs have actually seen a renaissance of sorts with the teams that are having the most success also happen to be the teams with starters going longer… vs. some recent playoffs where it was an aberration to see a starter last 5.
