Is anyone still sentimental about the pitcher win?

[Moshagge3]

After processing the ridiculousness of last night's game, one of my first thoughts was "what a shame that Kimbrel cost Kyle Bradish the win." Of course I know that pitcher wins are meaningless and outdated and almost nobody will look at Bradish's win total when considering him during awards voting, salary arbitration, or free agency. I certainly don't want Brandon Hyde to think about win eligibility in his decision-making. But a part of me is sad that Bradish has come back and been awesome and doesn't have a win yet.

I'm not like this with other obsolete stats. I don't care at all if Gunnar Henderson drives in 100 runs, I don't care if Adley Rutschman hits .300 for the season, but I get bummed when our guys lose out on a deserved win.

Am I completely alone here, or are there any other closet win fans?

[spleen1015]

I looked at it as him costing the team a win, not Bradish.

[glenn__davis]

Nah, you're not alone.  And there's nothing wrong with the pitcher win stat as long one understands the context of it.

By and large, good starting pitchers win more games than bad starting pitchers.  Of course there are exceptions and that's what the more advanced stats are for.

I still pay attention to batting average as well, again, understanding the limitations.  I will say that I pay very little attention to RBIs.

[Moose Milligan]

No, you're not alone.  

I also want to see Adley hit .300.  

Waiting for @DrungoHazewoodto come in and admonish me for enjoying stats that are archaic and random and don't mean anything.

Here's a live look-in at me not caring:

[spleen1015]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

No, you're not alone.  

I also want to see Adley hit .300.  

Waiting for @DrungoHazewoodto come in and admonish me for enjoying stats that are archaic and random and don't mean anything.

Here's a live look-in at me not caring:

Moose is Joey Tribbiani! I knew it!

[Too Tall]

As an old fart, yea it still plays for me. Particularly starting pitcher win because that generally means a quality start (not always see last night as what could have been) and the bull pen did it's job. Note to anyone who cares - I will never get current on modern statistics just like I will never have a really smart phone. 

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

No, you're not alone.  

I also want to see Adley hit .300.  

Waiting for @DrungoHazewoodto come in and admonish me for enjoying stats that are archaic and random and don't mean anything.

Here's a live look-in at me not caring:

You can be nostalgic about anything you want. I still want to see somebody hit .400 in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean that's best way to assess runs and wins.

I only get a little upset when people turn their nostalgia into "We knew better in the old days than they do now, stop all this xwOBA, WAR gobbeldygook and go back to stuff that matters like pitcher wins and RBI!"

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You can be nostalgic about anything you want. I still want to see somebody hit .400 in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean that's best way to assess runs and wins.

I only get a little upset when people turn their nostalgia into "We knew better in the old days than they do now, stop all this xwOBA, WAR gobbeldygook and go back to stuff that matters like pitcher wins and RBI!"

Go back to GW-RBI!

[ChosenOne21]

I wish we had an elegant counting statistic to evaluate pitcher effectiveness that was better than wins. I don't really care about pitching wins--I mean, it's better to get them than not to--but I don't look at it at all to evaluate how good a pitcher is. Everyone knows what the problems with that statistic are.

At a minimum, we need a better "rule of thumb" for the HoF than 300 pitching wins, or we're going to have a hard time inducting starting pitchers.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

As an old fart, yea it still plays for me. Particularly starting pitcher win because that generally means a quality start (not always see last night as what could have been) and the bull pen did it's job. Note to anyone who cares - I will never get current on modern statistics just like I will never have a really smart phone. 

On 17 different occasions Greg Maddux got a win in a game where he allowed five or more runs. Another 38 times he took the loss in a game where he allowed two or fewer runs.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Go back to GW-RBI!

I'm a bigger fan of game-tying runs scored.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I wish we had an elegant counting statistic to evaluate pitcher effectiveness that was better than wins. I don't really care about pitching wins--I mean, it's better to get them than not to--but I don't look at it at all to evaluate how good a pitcher is. Everyone knows what the problems with that statistic are.

At a minimum, we need a better "rule of thumb" for the HoF than 300 pitching wins, or we're going to have a hard time inducting starting pitchers.

300 wins has always been a automatic threshold, but only about 1/3rd of HOF starting pitchers have 300+ wins. 

If you want a long-career rule of thumb 50-60 WAR is a good place to start. Setting aside active players and PED cases there are less than 10 pitchers over 60 rWAR who aren't in the Hall. And five of them are from the 1800s when pitcher's jobs and expectations were very different.

[Aglets]

13 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I wish we had an elegant counting statistic to evaluate pitcher effectiveness that was better than wins. I don't really care about pitching wins--I mean, it's better to get them than not to--but I don't look at it at all to evaluate how good a pitcher is. Everyone knows what the problems with that statistic are.

At a minimum, we need a better "rule of thumb" for the HoF than 300 pitching wins, or we're going to have a hard time inducting starting pitchers.

QS isn't too bad.

It's certainly much better than "pitching wins."

Problem is that the game is evolving where fewer and fewer pitchers are going 6.  But it's still relevant and the good ones can still do it.  

[ChosenOne21]

1 minute ago, Aglets said:

QS isn't too bad.

It's certainly much better than "pitching wins."

Problem is that the game is evolving where fewer and fewer pitchers are going 6.  But it's still relevant and the good ones can still do it.  

I think a modified version of QS is about as good as we're going to get. 6 IP is becoming vanishingly rare.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

No, you're not alone.  

I also want to see Adley hit .300.  

Waiting for @DrungoHazewoodto come in and admonish me for enjoying stats that are archaic and random and don't mean anything.

Here's a live look-in at me not caring:

I'm with you here. Maybe it's the old school part or me, and I certainly wouldn't worry about getting win for my pitcher over making the right bullpen move, but I do hate it when a pitcher deserves a "W" and doesn't get it because of a bad performance in the bullpen . The win stat is not a great stat, afterall, any stats that won't give a pitcher a win after pitcher 4 2/3 innings but give it to the 1st reliever who pitch an inning of relief, is a flawed stat. 

I do want to see Adley hit over .300, and I do want to see a hitter drive in 100 runs. I like those stats. It doesn't mean you evaluate too hard over them, but they are stats that have some meaning in the right context.