Is anyone still sentimental about the pitcher win?

[Tony-OH]

1 hour 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!"

Jim Hunter called and said he wants his stats back.

[Fiver6565]

I agree with Tony that I don't get the fact that the SP is automatically ineligible if he doesn't go 5, but the subsequent reliever is, even if all he does is get the last out of the fifth and nothing more.  If its up to the scorekeepers discretion who gets the win in certain circumstances, why can't the starting pitcher get factored into the possibilities in those situations, at least as an option?  You don't HAVE to give it to him but you can if you feel he's the most deserving.  I don't get why that's not the case in the right circumstance (IE, Bradish leaves after 4.2 w/ the lead, and the O's never give it up - why does the guy who gets one out in the fifth get that win?  That's dumb).

I do think .300 BA does and should still matter though.  Just because batting average isn't the best stat to determine the best hitters, it doesn't mean that a .300 batting average isn't good.  You bat .300, you're a good hitter, IMO.  Doesn't necessarily mean you're better than a guy who's batting .250 with a much higher OBP and/or OPS.  But it does mean you're a good major league hitter - assuming decent sample sizes.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Fiver6565 said:

I agree with Tony that I don't get the fact that the SP is automatically ineligible if he doesn't go 5, but the subsequent reliever is, even if all he does is get the last out of the fifth and nothing more.  If its up to the scorekeepers discretion who gets the win in certain circumstances, why can't the starting pitcher get factored into the possibilities in those situations, at least as an option?  You don't HAVE to give it to him but you can if you feel he's the most deserving.  I don't get why that's not the case in the right circumstance (IE, Bradish leaves after 4.2 w/ the lead, and the O's never give it up - why does the guy who gets one out in the fifth get that win?  That's dumb).

I do think .300 BA does and should still matter though.  Just because batting average isn't the best stat to determine the best hitters, it doesn't mean that a .300 batting average isn't good.  You bat .300, you're a good hitter, IMO.  Doesn't necessarily mean you're better than a guy who's batting .250 with a much higher OBP and/or OPS.  But it does mean you're a good major league hitter - assuming decent sample sizes.

1) The win rule is a holdover from a long time ago, and they didn't really put too much thought into the starter goes five/reliever can get a single out thing because relievers in 1913 were mostly some random guy who came in when the starter was either hurt or gave up nine runs in 2/3rds of an inning. The details of the rule have mostly been out-of-step with reality since long before any of us were born. 

2) Here's a list of several hundred players who hit at least .300, qualified for the batting title, yet had an OPS+ under 100. Patsy Tebeau hit .302 in 1894 and had a 75 OPS+, or lower than Ryan McKenna's career mark. The Mariner's Felix Fermin once hit .317 in a season where he had 11 walks and one homer, and had an 85 OPS+. Hall of Famer Lloyd Waner (perhaps only because the committee got his files mixed up with his brother Paul's) hit .316 yet had just a 99 OPS+, and was a below-average hitter for his whole career. 

[Natty]

I was hoping to see Bradish get the win for sure.

It was gratifying to see Suarez get the win. 

[Moose Milligan]

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

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.

I agree, you don't evaluate on a lot of these stats.

But man, I think one of the most fun times was when Miggy was in the chase for the RBI leader all those years ago.  

[jabba72]

Love all the old school stats like RBI's, batting 300, 20 wins, 30 HR's. 30-30 seasons are still considered a big deal. Heck, 20-20 seasons are huge too. OPS is really the only new stat that I pay alot of attention too when I go to BBBref. Bradish only went 5 innings so I wasn't too upset that the lead was blown. If he had went 7 innings, yeah thats a tough one. But 5 innings, way too much can happen with the bullpen in those starts. 

[Malike]

I don't pay attention to wins and losses anymore. I don't think it's a good barometer of how well a pitcher is doing.