FanNation | The Republic of Sport

Community

Lifer: Metallica Sucks! won the Throwdown.

Porkins: Pisses Excellence

Throwndowns: 507
Record: 349 - 132 - 26
The Octagon,
All Throwdowns

Votes

Throwndowns: 146
Record: 133 - 12 - 1
The Triangle, NC
All Throwdowns

Votes

Elite Tournament: What primary baseball statistic is most annoying?

Lifer: Metallica Sucks! said 06/19, 08:46 PM
As in, what stat is, in your opinion, most overrated as being significant?

It has to be win-loss record, for a pitcher. The average fan doesn't seem to realize that getting a win has as much to do with the run support you receive as it does with the actual performance of the pitcher.

I'll use the example of Matt Cain, from last year. Despite having a very good ERA of 3.65 over the year, his record was 7-16, thanks be to the terrible offense from the Giants.

Look at this year. I'll give you a name 90% of you have not heard yet this year: John Lannan. Despite having 14 starts and an excellent 3.36 ERA, Lannan has had the bad luck to be on the Washington Nationals, and his record is 4-8. However, in only three of those losses has he actually given up more than 3 runs.

The fact is, wins depend on run support at least as much as the pitcher. The guy who gives up 8 runs in 4 IP but gets nine runs in support will get the win, whereas the pitcher who gives up 2 runs over 8 IP but gets one run in support will get the loss.

Other stats, like ERA, WHIP and Ks, depend pretty much entirely on the pitcher. W/L record just astounds me with the importance it has, for such an unimportant stat.

Porkins: Pisses Excellence said 06/20, 07:44 AM
Good choice. We've all seen hard-luck losers and undeserving winners and it can be really unfair. I agree that records are often due to the team as much as the pitcher.

BUT

Winning and losing are parts of the game. Fair or unfair, they're INHERENT to sports and competition.

The flaws in assigning W/L records to pitchers mirror the flaws in wins and losses in general: Sometimes one team plays better and still loses. Sometimes a team plays like crap and manages a win.

Frustrating? Hell yes. But winning and losing IS competition. It can't be parsed out, and it certainly can't be eliminated. W/L record is an integral part of baseball.

My choice is more annoying. It's NOT inherent to the game. In fact, baseball got along without this statistic just fine for nearly a CENTURY.

This stat can:

-typecast pitchers
-befuddle managers
-be detrimental to the flow of the game AND
-impact a team's chances of winning

...Saves.

Created in the late 1960s, Saves have dramatically affected how bullpens are handled, often for the worse. Save chances typically mean we see a team's closer- even if he's NOT the best choice for the situation.

Examples to come.

Lifer: Metallica Sucks! said 06/20, 11:59 AM
Good choice, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say about saves. Are you saying that managers use closers in games just to work on their saves totals? Couldn't you say the same about any stat, really? I mean, we see players in games all the time who are there just to have their stats boosted.

I agree that saves make overrated players, but not so much as wins and losses do. Joe Borowski was the saves leader in the AL last year, but I don't see anyone calling him the best closer in the AL.

You're also right that wins and losses are a part of baseball that can't be done without. But I'm not arguing for getting rid of the stat, I'm saying that the emphasis put on a pitcher's record should not be as important as many other stats when considering how good he is.

Another problem with wins is that getting them is about piling them up, rather than maintaining them (like you would for ERA or BA). Look at guys like Randy Johnson. He is currently at 288 wins, no doubt pining for 300. But to be frank, he has not looked good this season. His ERA stands at 4.76, and has gone as high as 5.40. He is someone who should retire, but will he? No...the appeal of wins is too much.

Porkins: Pisses Excellence said 06/20, 01:05 PM
You read my mind- Borowski is my next point.

1st problem with Saves: They pigeonhole guys into specific roles, and managers end up perpetuating those roles instead of doing what's best for the team.

Borowski, 2007: 45 Saves/ 5.07 ERA/ 1.43 WHIP

There is NO WAY this guy belonged anywhere close to a pressure situation. His ERA was half a run ABOVE league average! And yet the 9th inning in every close game belonged to him.

Why? The Indians had 4 guys in the pen with ERAs below 3, including BETENCOURT at 1.47 and yet with the game on the line, it was Borowski who got the shot.

Todd Jones
Jose Mesa
Antonio Alfonseca
etc

Same story.

Once a guy starts saving he earns the rep of a "proven closer" and teams often stick with him even when he's not right for situation. The superstitious nonsense of "a closer mentality" can override what's best for the team's current jam.

The stat CREATES the reputation.

It's not that they're put in to boost their stats- it's that they're put in because they're "the closer". But that doesn't make sense when there are better options in the pen.

You admit we can't get rid of W/L, but Saves are arbitrary and overblown.

Lifer: Metallica Sucks! said 06/20, 04:35 PM
I understand what you're saying about the "proven closer" thing, but Borowski is not the best example. He had only been a closer for two seasons before last year, and they hadn't even been consecutive.

You also forget one stat managers and pitching coaches take into account when looking at closers: blown saves. Teams take into account how successful pitchers are in getting the save.

CC Sabathia in 2006 didn't finish among the 7 finalists for AL Cy Young, despite having a 3.22 ERA (better than 3 of the 5 finalists who were starters). His record was a "dismal" 12-11.

Now, in 2007, his ERA was 3.21, just a point better. Likewise, his WHIP only dropped from 1.17 to 1.14. Nevertheless, he went from an afterthought to the Cy Young winner. His record in 2007 was a far better 19-7.

There are countless other examples like this. Juan Guzman in 1996 had an ERA of 2.93, but only an 11-8 record, and was not a finalist for the Cy Young, despite having a better ERA than EVERY starting pitcher finalist. The winner and runner-up were both 20-game winners, of course.

Getting rid of wins and losses is not an option...but toning down the emphasis on wins and losses most certainly is.

Porkins: Pisses Excellence said 06/20, 04:56 PM
The educated fan already knows that Ws must be taken with a grain of salt. ERA is probably the single most followed stat for starters.

But for relievers, Saves is by FAR the sexiest stat, and that is wrong.

Ws are concrete- you must pitch 5+ and leave with the lead. Period.

Saves are arbitrary (rule link in comments):

1. You enter a 1-run game, bases loaded and everybody crazy, and get the final out to preserve the win.
2. I enter a 3-0 game and get the final 3 outs.
3. stowe pitches 3 innings of relief in an 11-0 blowout.

Are these 3 feats equally meaningful to the winners? Equally difficult?

Hell no.

Yet we each just earned a Save.

And that is bullplop.

Here's another way to look at it- which is going to get you into the HOF more easily:

400 career Saves
500 career Holds

Saves, right? Again- the sexier stat, but NOT the more meaningful.

If I get my team out of a bases-loaded jam in the 7th, I get a Hold. If I come into a 2 run game in the 8th and preserve the lead, I get a hold. Same scenarios in the 9th...Saves.

Saves get the attention while Holds (and non-save relief) are often ignored.

Saves are a flawed and annoying stat.

Report Offensive Throwdown

Comments (25)

Most Recent Comment Add Comment RSS

Saves. A pitcher can get a save if they pitch three innings of effective relief. Wes Littleton got a save last year because he pitched three innings to preservie a 30-3 lead for the Rangers. Just ridiculous.

TradeAngelos | 06/19/08, 09:18 PM

An SI.com and CNN Digital Network Site

Search

Already a member?

Elite Tournament: What primary baseball statistic is most annoying?

Porkins: Pisses Excellence beat Lifer: Metallica Sucks! 17 to 6

Add a comment