Could Tillman be the Orioles 1st 20 Game Winner in a long time?

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't defend stats. They are just reports of measurement. Jack Morris says wins matter. That's enough for me. I am defending Jack Morris.

** Soda goes through nose **

That's funny.

[mdbdotcom]

** Soda goes through nose **

That's funny.

I thought so.

[DrungoHazewood]

Anybody else find it more than ironic, but some of the usual "stats guys" suspects are here to crap on pitcher W's?

I mean, if it was a stat that told me that Carlos Lee was the greatest defensive 1b of all time then we'd be told that we need to evaluate a larger sample size. Or we'd be told it was only a tool, and we need to know how to "evaluate" it properly within "context."

Well, aren't those both very true of pitcher's Ws as well?

Sometimes I wish I was a baseball hipster. Then I could feel so superior too.

Don't cut yourself short, you do feel superior! Your brand of reflexive traditionalism allows you to crap all over the guys who dig a little deeper than 100-year-old anachronisms.

[Pickles]

Don't cut yourself short, you do feel superior! Your brand of reflexive traditionalism allows you to crap all over the guys who dig a little deeper than 100-year-old anachronisms.

Ws are just a tool. You just need to know how to properly evaluate them within context.

Sound familiar?

[DrungoHazewood]

This makes me feel old. I grew up with Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, etc. and the year they had four twenty game winners I believe to be the record least likely in all of baseball to ever be broken.

It would be in jeopardy often if they simply tweaked the win rule to state "the win goes to the pitcher who pitched best on the winning team."

[DrungoHazewood]

Ws are just a tool. You just need to know how to properly evaluate them within context.

Sound familiar?

The best context to evaluate pitcher wins is to discard them and use one of the many other commonly available metrics that have vastly higher correlations to quality of performance.

[Can_of_corn]

Whatever else you want to say, wins are a fun stat. It takes an interesting combination of skill and luck. Tillman has already won as many games this year as Jeremy Guthrie ever won in a full season for us, even though Guthrie had several good years from an ERA and IP standpoint. Hammel could win 12-14 games even though he's been pretty bad this year.

You say fun I say obfuscating.

[Mondo Trasho]

You say fun I say obfuscating.

All stats are obfuscating.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase

Jamie Moyer once won 20 games for the Mariners. I'm not sure what that says about Moyer. I think Tillman gets 17 or 18. But it would be fun if he got 20.

[allquixotic]

Tillman getting to 20 wins would mean that we outscored our opponent while Tillman was still on the mound for at least another 9 games that he starts. Tillman not getting to 20 wins would mean that we didn't outscore our opponents while Tillman was on the mound for at least another 9 games that he starts. Obviously, the former option is better, and something I'd like to have happen, because if it doesn't, that means, for the games where Tillman didn't pick up a W:

• We won the game, but had to come from behind after our SP departed, possibly late in the game, possibly extras, some kind of a nail-biter / heartburn-inducing close game. A win is a win is a win, but it's better for fans' stress levels to win early, and it's better for our bullpen to not play extra innings.
  
• We lost the game. Losing is bad.
  
• Tillman gave up more runs than we could score while he was on the mound. Which would mean either that Tillman gave up a lot of runs, or we were poor(er) at scoring them than the opposition. Both things are bad.
  
• Tillman didn't even pitch in 9 more games this season, which means he gets hurt, or is so terrible in his next 9 starts that they send him down. This, also, would be a terrible outcome, considering how valuable he is for us right now.
  

So there's absolutely no good outcome that can possibly arise out of Tillman not achieving 20 wins. So rooting for it and hoping for it as a "fun thing" is definitely plausible. It's not like we're rooting for the game time temperature in 9 of Tillman's 13 remaining starts to be 88.6 Fahrenheit or less. The stat is at least baseball-related.

[Can_of_corn]

Tillman getting to 20 wins would mean that we outscored our opponent while Tillman was still on the mound for at least another 9 games that he starts. Tillman not getting to 20 wins would mean that we didn't outscore our opponents while Tillman was on the mound for at least another 9 games that he starts. Obviously, the former option is better, and something I'd like to have happen, because if it doesn't, that means, for the games where Tillman didn't pick up a W:

• We won the game, but had to come from behind after our SP departed, possibly late in the game, possibly extras, some kind of a nail-biter / heartburn-inducing close game. A win is a win is a win, but it's better for fans' stress levels to win early, and it's better for our bullpen to not play extra innings.
• We lost the game. Losing is bad.
• Tillman gave up more runs than we could score while he was on the mound. Which would mean either that Tillman gave up a lot of runs, or we were poor(er) at scoring them than the opposition. Both things are bad.
• Tillman didn't even pitch in 9 more games this season, which means he gets hurt, or is so terrible in his next 9 starts that they send him down. This, also, would be a terrible outcome, considering how valuable he is for us right now.

So there's absolutely no good outcome that can possibly arise out of Tillman not achieving 20 wins. So rooting for it and hoping for it as a "fun thing" is definitely plausible. It's not like we're rooting for the game time temperature in 9 of Tillman's 13 remaining starts to be 88.6 Fahrenheit or less. The stat is at least baseball-related.

Lower arbitration award.

[waroriole]

Anybody else find it more than ironic, but some of the usual "stats guys" suspects are here to crap on pitcher W's?

I mean, if it was a stat that told me that Carlos Lee was the greatest defensive 1b of all time then we'd be told that we need to evaluate a larger sample size. Or we'd be told it was only a tool, and we need to know how to "evaluate" it properly within "context."

Well, aren't those both very true of pitcher's Ws as well?

Sometimes I wish I was a baseball hipster. Then I could feel so superior too.

Ha, I was about to post something very similar. Maybe not quite as harsh, but similar.

[eb45]

Anybody else find it more than ironic, but some of the usual "stats guys" suspects are here to crap on pitcher W's?

I mean, if it was a stat that told me that Carlos Lee was the greatest defensive 1b of all time then we'd be told that we need to evaluate a larger sample size. Or we'd be told it was only a tool, and we need to know how to "evaluate" it properly within "context."

Well, aren't those both very true of pitcher's Ws as well?

Sometimes I wish I was a baseball hipster. Then I could feel so superior too.

the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know. the only ones feeling superior are the ones who dismiss everyone else as "hipsters".

(also why on earth would that be ironic)

I don't defend stats. They are just reports of measurement. Jack Morris says wins matter. That's enough for me. I am defending Jack Morris.

well there's your problem, Jack Morris doesn't know anything about stats.

All stats are obfuscating.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase

this is only true if you look at bad stats that don't actually correlate to valuable conclusions, like, for example, pitcher wins.

[backwardsk]

Lower arbitration award.

If that's a concern, we may want to sit Davis after the break.

[waroriole]

the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know. the only ones feeling superior are the ones who dismiss everyone else as "hipsters".

(also why on earth would that be ironic)

well there's your problem, Jack Morris doesn't know anything about stats.

this is only true if you look at bad stats that don't actually correlate to valuable conclusions, like, for example, pitcher wins.

Wins can imply many things. Durability, ability to pitch deep into a game, effective pitching etc. Obviously, there are better metrics, but wins seem to be taking more of a beating than they should.

[Spoonless]

While wins aren't a very good or useful stat, there seem to be only a handful of 20-game winners in MLB each season. I think it'd be cool if Tillman were awarded 20 wins, however meaningless the stat is.