No 20-game Winners

[geezer]

I still cant believe this, as of today, Cheng Ming Wang and Johan Santana lead the majors with 18 wins, and with only 7 days aways for ending the regular season, its highly unlikely that both players will have 2 starts to get there. Its going to be the first time in major league history that a full season goes by and no pitchers had 20 wins.

Its 2006 the worst year ever for pitchers in general, some people say that 1968 was the year of the pitcher in the modern era. Is 2006 the worst of all time??

[RuthMayBond]

Its 2006 the worst year ever for pitchers in general, some people say that 1968 was the year of the pitcher in the modern era. Is 2006 the worst of all time??No that would be 1894, or if you prefer post-deadball, then 1930, or if you prefer real modern, then 2000

[geezer]

I see that too, but for me is still this year.

[Baseball Guru]

Honestly, isn't that amazing and crazy!?

The only years not to produce 20 game winners were strike seasons....

This is really mind boggling...

[EvanAparra]

A pitcher like Santana would have 20 wins most other seasons... I dont think the pitchers are bad, maybe just unlucky.

[keving7]

I think your going to be seeing this more and more. The 5 man rotation, and the fact that very few pitchers pitch into the 8th inning takes away alot of chances for starters to get a win.

[Dasperp]

Maybe this will help people recognize that wins are useless for evaluating pitchers.

[s.f.]

Its 2006 the worst year ever for pitchers in general, some people say that 1968 was the year of the pitcher in the modern era. Is 2006 the worst of all time??

"Wins" is a closed-set category, one per game, 2,430 per season (minus rainouts that aren't made up). That those wins get more spread out doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about the overall quality of pitching as much as it does about how pitchers are used.

[candy curveball cummings]

Johan Santana can still potentially hit 20 wins.

[cardsfanatic]

Johan Santana can still potentially hit 20 wins.

I find it highly doubtful. He most likely will not pitch in the final 3-4 days of the regular season so he's rested for the first game of the DS.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The lack of 20 game winners in 2006 is just a historical fluke. Nothing more...

[Baseball Guru]

I find it highly doubtful. He most likely will not pitch in the final 3-4 days of the regular season so he's rested for the first game of the DS.

I would agree.. As of now his scheduled starts are Tues and Sun... Twins magic # to clinch is only 2, so unless there is a total breakdown for the Twins and they need a win on Sunday, tomorrow should be Santana's last start till game 1 of the playoffs...

[Baseball Guru]

The lack of 20 game winners in 2006 is just a historical fluke. Nothing more...


Yeah, I think so as well.. We have been on the 5 man rotation for awhile and starters have pitched less innings every year yet we still have 20 game winners...

I don't think less than 20 wins will be the norm but it wouldn't suprise me to see a year here and there without a 20 game winner..

I doubt it will be another 100+ years before we see this again...:)

[geezer]

And to make things interesting, no pitcher may win 20 games but there is a huge possibility of a pitching Triple Crown anyway.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Yeah, I think so as well.. We have been on the 5 man rotation for awhile and starters have pitched less innings every year yet we still have 20 game winners...

I don't think less than 20 wins will be the norm but it wouldn't suprise me to see a year here and there without a 20 game winner..

I doubt it will be another 100+ years before we see this again...:)
Yes, baseball has been in the five man rotation for about 30 years. Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Glavine all pitched in the five man rotation and they piled up a large number of 20 win seasons and high career win totals.

[mtortolero]

In 1995 there were not 20 games winners in any league too with Mussina and Maddux winng 19 games each one as the top of each league.

[KCGHOST]

In 1995 there were not 20 games winners in any league too with Mussina and Maddux winng 19 games each one as the top of each league.


1995 was slightening shortened due to labor issues. I think they lost about 18 games.

[Pine Tar]

In 1995 there were not 20 games winners in any league too with Mussina and Maddux winng 19 games each one as the top of each league.
THat season was abbreviated though.

[cbenson5]

In 1995 there were not 20 games winners in any league too with Mussina and Maddux winng 19 games each one as the top of each league.


1995 was shortened due to the strike. If memory serves it was a 144 game season.

[Sweet Lou]

1995 was shortened due to the strike. If memory serves it was a 144 game season.
I thought it was 1994?

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The lack of 20 game winners in 2006 is just a historical fluke. Nothing more...

I disagree. It shows that the quality of pitching in the bullpens is going down. I think that the bullpen highlights the dispersion of pitching talent (because of expansion) moreso than the starting rotation. Roy Halladay had 6 games this year in which he left while on course for a win, but the bullpen lost it. I'm sure that other pitchers have had this too. Halladay is just an example.

[geezer]

I disagree. It shows that the quality of pitching in the bullpens is going down. I think that the bullpen highlights the dispersion of pitching talent (because of expansion) moreso than the starting rotation. Roy Halladay had 6 games this year in which he left while on course for a win, but the bullpen lost it. I'm sure that other pitchers have had this too. Halladay is just an example.

I think not only the bullpen, most starting pitchers dont last even 7 innings for crying out loud.

And both the 1994 and 1995 seasons were abbreviated by that pitiful strike.

[Astro]

Maybe this will help people recognize that wins are useless for evaluating pitchers.
Indeed, a useless stat

Jon Garland is 17-7, to say he is better than Halladay (16-5) is laughable...

Wins dont mean much, other than your team has a good lineup, or atleast scores runs when you pitch

[SamtheBravesFan]

I disagree. It shows that the quality of pitching in the bullpens is going down. I think that the bullpen highlights the dispersion of pitching talent (because of expansion) moreso than the starting rotation. Roy Halladay had 6 games this year in which he left while on course for a win, but the bullpen lost it. I'm sure that other pitchers have had this too. Halladay is just an example.

John Smoltz has had the exact same thing happen to him. Conceivably, he'll have 16 wins after his last start. He has had at least 5 leads blown this season by the awful pen of the Braves.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Maybe this will help people recognize that wins are useless for evaluating pitchers.

Not entirely useless...

I took an average of the top 15 in wins for this year and on the whole they are noticeably better than the league in WHIP and ERA.
Perhaps its not good to base an argument on wins alone, but generally you win alot of games if you do everything else well. Though there are some exceptions, you normally dont have a 2.07 ERA and lose more than you win if you are a starter.

[EvanAparra]

Not entirely useless...

I took an average of the top 15 in wins for this year and on the whole they are noticeably better than the league in WHIP and ERA.
Perhaps its not good to base an argument on wins alone, but generally you win alot of games if you do everything else well. Though there are some exceptions, you normally dont have a 2.07 ERA and lose more than you win if you are a starter.

But they arent useful as a comparison tool at all.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Not entirely useless...

I took an average of the top 15 in wins for this year and on the whole they are noticeably better than the league in WHIP and ERA.
Perhaps its not good to base an argument on wins alone, but generally you win alot of games if you do everything else well. Though there are some exceptions, you normally dont have a 2.07 ERA and lose more than you win if you are a starter.

But you can also have an 4+ERA and still win that many. For example, Custavo Chacin was 5-1 through six starts, with an ERA of 4.50. But, through Roy HAlladay's first seven starts he was also 5-1 (one no-decision). However, Halladay's ERA was 2.74. Now, judging on wins alone, you would say they are equal. But when you look further, you see the difference.

[trosmok]

Wins and losses is not a very good judge of a pitchers prowess; take the case of Roger Clemens' 2005 season. He was only 13-8, twirled a remarkable 1.87 era, while limiting his opponents to a collective .198 ba., but the Astros gave him zero run suppport. How many one run games and shutouts did Houston suffer and lose when Rocket was on the hill? When the Colt .45s were born, that would be thirty game winning stuff; when the mound was at the right height, four man rotations were the norm, complete games were expected, and all the specialty one trick ponies were only dreams. No DH, no interleague play, no 65+ HR seasons, but most of all, the managers only went to the bullpen when the starter was out of gas, couldn't find the plate with a map, or was getting shelled, not some phony pitch count, or a "book" about Righty v. Lefty , etc. Winning twenty isn't what amateur statheads make it out to be, because it takes run support, a bullpen that doesn't blow, and no small measure of luck. No pitcher had all three working this year.

[geezer]

Same as Nolan Ryan in 1987.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I disagree. It shows that the quality of pitching in the bullpens is going down. I think that the bullpen highlights the dispersion of pitching talent (because of expansion) moreso than the starting rotation. Roy Halladay had 6 games this year in which he left while on course for a win, but the bullpen lost it. I'm sure that other pitchers have had this too. Halladay is just an example.
Ok, but is six games abnormally high? Is it a common amount? Without comparing it to to other years to see how many "lost wins" starting pitchers didn't get, there is no context to this number. Perhaps it was fluke that Halladay had six games where he didn't get the win because of the bullpen. Every starting pitcher has this happen to him. But I don't know what a common amount is and neither do you.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wins and losses is not a very good judge of a pitchers prowess; take the case of Roger Clemens' 2005 season. He was only 13-8, twirled a remarkable 1.87 era, while limiting his opponents to a collective .198 ba., but the Astros gave him zero run suppport. How many one run games and shutouts did Houston suffer and lose when Rocket was on the hill? When the Colt .45s were born, that would be thirty game winning stuff; when the mound was at the right height, four man rotations were the norm, complete games were expected, and all the specialty one trick ponies were only dreams. No DH, no interleague play, no 65+ HR seasons, but most of all, the managers only went to the bullpen when the starter was out of gas, couldn't find the plate with a map, or was getting shelled, not some phony pitch count, or a "book" about Righty v. Lefty , etc. Winning twenty isn't what amateur statheads make it out to be, because it takes run support, a bullpen that doesn't blow, and no small measure of luck. No pitcher had all three working this year.
I had Clemens on my fanatasy team in 2005. He he three consective starts in mid-May, I think, where he pitched 21 innings, allowed ZERO runs, and got three no-decisions. The Astros lost all three games, 1-0.

[trosmok]

I had Clemens on my fanatasy team in 2005. He he three consective starts in mid-May, I think, where he pitched 21 innings, allowed ZERO runs, and got three no-decisions. The Astros lost all three games, 1-0.

Geezer mentioned Nolan Ryan's 1987 campaign, and it was like a similar nightmare. The Express had stopped walking every third batter by then, but his W-L was 8-16. He compiled a 2.76 ERA, got next to no run support, and I'm having trouble getting the opponents BA but it had to be in the low .200s.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I had Clemens on my fanatasy team in 2005. He he three consective starts in mid-May, I think, where he pitched 21 innings, allowed ZERO runs, and got three no-decisions. The Astros lost all three games, 1-0.
Who were the opposing pitchers?

[trosmok]

Geezer mentioned Nolan Ryan's 1987 campaign, and it was like a similar nightmare. The Express had stopped walking every third batter by then, but his W-L was 8-16. He compiled a 2.76 ERA, got next to no run support, and I'm having trouble getting the opponents BA but it had to be in the low .200s.

According to one source, his opponents BA was .243, but Houston averaged a total of 3.35 runs in his 34 starts. In his sixteen losses, the Astros scored a total of thirteen runs while he was in the game! 13 in 16 games! Oy! I'll try to see who faced Rocket in that mid-May stretch, CCN.

[RuthMayBond]

According to one source, his opponents BA was .243, but Houston averaged a total of 3.35 runs in his 34 starts. In his sixteen losses, the Astros scored a total of thirteen runs while he was in the game! 13 in 16 games! Oy! I'll try to see who faced Rocket in that mid-May stretch, CCN.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1987_sched.shtml

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/VHOU01987.htm

[trosmok]

Who were the opposing pitchers?

It was Clemens second, third and fourth starts of '05:
April 13 v. Mets 1-0 ND, 11 innings NYMets starter: Kaz Ishii

April 18 v. Atlanta 1-0 ND, 12 innings Braves starter: Tim Hudson

April 23 v. St Louis 1-0 ND 10 innings Cardinals starter: Mark Mulder

Looks like a case of Aces v. Aces and scoreless through nine; my kind of pitching duel, but hell on Rocket and the 'Stros.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Ok, but is six games abnormally high? Is it a common amount? Without comparing it to to other years to see how many "lost wins" starting pitchers didn't get, there is no context to this number. Perhaps it was fluke that Halladay had six games where he didn't get the win because of the bullpen. Every starting pitcher has this happen to him. But I don't know what a common amount is and neither do you.

I don't know what an "average" amount of "lost wins" is. But I hear guys on the radio talk about how he's lost so many wins because of the bullpen, so I assume that he's lost more than the average starter. And I just feel that the bullpen should be able to hold a win for a starter more than 2/3 of the time.

Is "lost wins" actually a stat? If so, whats the average for a starting pitcher?

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I am not saying for the record that wins are the best or even a great stat to judge a starter by.... but they are not entirely useless as many here seem to advocate. Even in the most miniscule of run support situations, a great pitcher can still have a winning record. Name someone in the past 10 years who has had an ERA under 3 and had a losing record? It just doesnt happen, when you pitch well you rack up more wins than you lose, now if you play for a powerhouse team that consistently scores 7 or 8 runs a game perhaps that argument can apply.
But wins are a very general and somewhat situational judgement.... put it this way, how do you rate Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Matthewson, Warren Spahn, Pete Alexander, etc..... they are all traditionally thought of as top 20 pitchers for the most part.... what do they all have in common? They are among the all time leaders in wins.... is it a coinicidence that their other stats show well?

[Astro]

I am not saying for the record that wins are the best or even a great stat to judge a starter by.... but they are not entirely useless as many here seem to advocate. Even in the most miniscule of run support situations, a great pitcher can still have a winning record. Name someone in the past 10 years who has had an ERA under 3 and had a losing record? It just doesnt happen, when you pitch well you rack up more wins than you lose, now if you play for a powerhouse team that consistently scores 7 or 8 runs a game perhaps that argument can apply.
But wins are a very general and somewhat situational judgement.... put it this way, how do you rate Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Matthewson, Warren Spahn, Pete Alexander, etc..... they are all traditionally thought of as top 20 pitchers for the most part.... what do they all have in common? They are among the all time leaders in wins.... is it a coinicidence that their other stats show well?
Cy Young also is the all-time leader in Losses......

[cardsfanatic]

Not entirely useless...

I took an average of the top 15 in wins for this year and on the whole they are noticeably better than the league in WHIP and ERA.
Perhaps its not good to base an argument on wins alone, but generally you win alot of games if you do everything else well. Though there are some exceptions, you normally dont have a 2.07 ERA and lose more than you win if you are a starter.

Tell that to Jerry Koosman.

[cardsfanatic]

Name someone in the past 10 years who has had an ERA under 3 and had a losing record? It just doesnt happen

A little further than 10 years back (not sure why you threw that arbitrary timeframe in there anyway) but Dennis Martinez in 1990 for the Expos had a 2.95 ERA and a 10-11 record. In 1991 he had a 2.39 ERA and a 14-11 record.

Tim Belcher in 1991 was 10-9 with a 2.62.

Or how about Ismael Valdes in 1997 (inside the windo you gave) who had a 2.65 ERA and a 10-11 record.

Or Omar Daal in 1998 with a 2.88 ERA and a 8-12 record.

Or John Burkett in 2001 with a 3.04 ERA (I know, slightly above the sub-3) but wehtn 12-12.

Or the ever talked about 16-14 year Big Unit had when he posted a 2.60 ERA and incredible peripheral stats.

Or Curt Schilling in 2003 with his 2.95 ERA and 8-9 record.

Or Ben Sheets in 2004 with his 2.70 ERA and 12-14 record.

And that's just a quick scan of the National League. I didn't go through it all with a fine tooth comb and I didn't even touch the AL side of things. Are you sure it never happens?

[Astro]

It's not really that good pitchers dont usually have winning records, its that bad pitchers can post the same, or better, record.

Jason Marquis has 14 wins this season, and an ERA of 5.80, a WHIP of 1.50, and a BB:K ratio of 72:94

[maximum jack]

I think not only the bullpen, most starting pitchers dont last even 7 innings for crying out loud.

I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I think the new hitting trend of being more patient and seeing more pitches has had a major effect on the amount wins for starting pitchers this year. It seems like every pitcher is right around 100 pitches by the 5th or 6th inning. Which means you get to those weak bullpen guys sooner; ergo, blown leads.

How 'bout middle relievers? Did we see any unusual numbers this year? Are there more 5 game winners or 10 game winners than in year past? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

[mtortolero]

Probably a good way to judge the Wins record is comparing them with the numbers of quality starts. In fact if you use run support to qualify the differencial between W and QS, those who have the lower RS have the higher negative differencial. For example in the American League all winners of +16 W:

....................W...........QS.....Diff.....Ru nSupport
Santana.........19..........24.......-5........5.05
Wong.............18..........18........0........5. 75
Rogers............17..........19.......-2.......6.58
Johnson..........17..........14.......+3.......7.5 1
Garland...........17..........16.......+1.......6. 38
Verlander........17..........18....... -1.......6.77
Millwood.........16...........21.......-5.......5.68
Halladay.........16..........19........-3.......6.01
Garcia............16..........17........-1.......6.24
Blanton...........16.........16.........0........5 .74
Beckett..........16..........19.......-3........5.89
Zito...............16..........19.......-3........5.11

Obviously is not perfect because a 3 ER in 6 innings qualify the same as QS as 0 ER in 6 innings. However, usually that differencial shows better when wins comes more as a merit of the pitcher or when they come more as a merit of his team.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

A little further than 10 years back (not sure why you threw that arbitrary timeframe in there anyway) but Dennis Martinez in 1990 for the Expos had a 2.95 ERA and a 10-11 record. In 1991 he had a 2.39 ERA and a 14-11 record.

Tim Belcher in 1991 was 10-9 with a 2.62.

Or how about Ismael Valdes in 1997 (inside the windo you gave) who had a 2.65 ERA and a 10-11 record.

Or Omar Daal in 1998 with a 2.88 ERA and a 8-12 record.

Or John Burkett in 2001 with a 3.04 ERA (I know, slightly above the sub-3) but wehtn 12-12.

Or the ever talked about 16-14 year Big Unit had when he posted a 2.60 ERA and incredible peripheral stats.

Or Curt Schilling in 2003 with his 2.95 ERA and 8-9 record.

Or Ben Sheets in 2004 with his 2.70 ERA and 12-14 record.

And that's just a quick scan of the National League. I didn't go through it all with a fine tooth comb and I didn't even touch the AL side of things. Are you sure it never happens?

OK but none of those guys(with the possible exception of Daal) are too far below .500, ok yes it can happen but its not common, im sure if you looked up all the starters with an ERA below 3, A HUGE portion(90-95% maybe) of them would have winning records.

10 years was the first thing to come to mind, regardless even if you go back 50 years you will find that MOST of those who had ERA under 3 had winning records, or at least the ratio of those that did to those that didnt would be quite high.

Yes wins are team dependent on some level, but even Clemens with near no run support managed a winning season in 2005.

Its not like wins are completely random in relation to how well you pitch.


Yes Cy Young is the all time leader in losses, but 511-313 really isnt that bad if you look at the ratio of his wins to losses.

Im not by any means saying wins are a supertool to evaluate a pitcher but they dont get enough credit on this forum for the most part.

I was mistaken though good catch, it does happen occasionally and you proved that.

[cardsfanatic]

OK but none of those guys are too far below .500, ok yes it can happen but its not common, im sure if you looked up all the starters with an ERA below 3, A HUGE portion(90-95% maybe) of them would have winning records.


I find that doubtful. Most of those seasons I posted about only 2-3 pitchers in the NL were under a 3.00 ERA and if one out of 3 had a losing record, or .500 record that's anywhere from 33% to 50%. I didn't see a single season in my quick search where pitchers who qualified for the leaderboards and there were more than 5 guys under a 3.00 ERA. I'd wager it's closer to 20% chance you can have an ERA under 3.00 and still be .500% or less. It's really dependent on a lot of factors. Chiefly, your teammates.

Think of it this way. Pitchers can't control the two things that make them winners. Once the ball leaves the bat they can't control if it's a hit or not. Their defense can. It's up to the guys behind them to catch the ball and turn the outs. A bad defense will make your life hell as a pitcher. A good defense will make your life a joy.

The second thing they can't control is how many runs of support their offense will give them.

Those are the two most important things to a pitcher winning and losing and the pitcher has no control over it. So judging them by wins is grossly unfair, IMO.

[geezer]

A little further than 10 years back (not sure why you threw that arbitrary timeframe in there anyway) but Dennis Martinez in 1990 for the Expos had a 2.95 ERA and a 10-11 record. In 1991 he had a 2.39 ERA and a 14-11 record.

Tim Belcher in 1991 was 10-9 with a 2.62.

Or how about Ismael Valdes in 1997 (inside the windo you gave) who had a 2.65 ERA and a 10-11 record.

Or Omar Daal in 1998 with a 2.88 ERA and a 8-12 record.

Or John Burkett in 2001 with a 3.04 ERA (I know, slightly above the sub-3) but wehtn 12-12.

Or the ever talked about 16-14 year Big Unit had when he posted a 2.60 ERA and incredible peripheral stats.

Or Curt Schilling in 2003 with his 2.95 ERA and 8-9 record.

Or Ben Sheets in 2004 with his 2.70 ERA and 12-14 record.

And that's just a quick scan of the National League. I didn't go through it all with a fine tooth comb and I didn't even touch the AL side of things. Are you sure it never happens?

Last year, Kevin Millwood led the AL with a 2.86 ERA, and had a 9-11 record.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I find that doubtful. Most of those seasons I posted about only 2-3 pitchers in the NL were under a 3.00 ERA and if one out of 3 had a losing record, or .500 record that's anywhere from 33% to 50%. I didn't see a single season in my quick search where pitchers who qualified for the leaderboards and there were more than 5 guys under a 3.00 ERA. I'd wager it's closer to 20% chance you can have an ERA under 3.00 and still be .500% or less. It's really dependent on a lot of factors. Chiefly, your teammates.

Think of it this way. Pitchers can't control the two things that make them winners. Once the ball leaves the bat they can't control if it's a hit or not. Their defense can. It's up to the guys behind them to catch the ball and turn the outs. A bad defense will make your life hell as a pitcher. A good defense will make your life a joy.

The second thing they can't control is how many runs of support their offense will give them.

Those are the two most important things to a pitcher winning and losing and the pitcher has no control over it. So judging them by wins is grossly unfair, IMO.


Alright dude just for the fun of it... I went back twenty years through MLB.com counted all the guys with an ERA under 3, and then i compared that with the number that had winning records( I even counted even records which there were 2 or 3 as 500 and under). The conclusion is this.....

from 1986-2005:
192 pitchers had an ERA under 3 as starters.
178 of them posted winning records(over .500 not at .500)

The percentage... my original guess was 90-95%, the result is....a stunning 92.7% of those starters who had an ERA under 3 posted winning records.

The one thing i did is that i only included those who qualified for the ERA title, for instance in 1995 i only took into account those whose IP was 144 and above and for the normal seasons it was 162, 1994 it was 113 and above. Its only fair because you look at those who had enough innings to have an ERA that would qualify to lead the league.

Having said this.... if you have an ERA under 3 its very likely youll have a winning record. I could do the converse of this and look at all those who won a certain number of games and look at their ERA but im tired so ill do that later.

[EvanAparra]

Alright dude just for the fun of it... I went back twenty years through MLB.com counted all the guys with an ERA under 3, and then i compared that with the number that had winning records( I even counted even records which there were 2 or 3 as 500 and under). The conclusion is this.....

from 1986-2005:
192 pitchers had an ERA under 3 as starters.
178 of them posted winning records(over .500 not at .500)

The percentage... my original guess was 90-95%, the result is....a stunning 92.7% of those starters who had an ERA under 3 posted winning records.

The one thing i did is that i only included those who qualified for the ERA title, for instance in 1995 i only took into account those whose IP was 144 and above and for the normal seasons it was 162, 1994 it was 113 and above. Its only fair because you look at those who had enough innings to have an ERA that would qualify to lead the league.

Having said this.... if you have an ERA under 3 its very likely youll have a winning record. I could do the converse of this and look at all those who won a certain number of games and look at their ERA but im tired so ill do that later.

Ok Stelly, Josh Beckett has 16 wins. He has more wins than Cris Carpenter, Erik Bedard, Curt Schilling, Bronson Arroyo, John Smoltz, and Roy Oswalt. Does this mean he was better than these pitchers?

Beckett has as many wins as Barry Zito, Carlos Zambrano, Roy Halladay, and Brandon Webb. Does this mean he has been pitched just as well as these guys?

No. Now do you see why they are not indicative of a pitcher's performance.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Who were the opposing pitchers?
Here are the three games in question. The games were in April, not May.

4/13/05 @ NYM: 7 IP, 0 ER, 2 H, 9 K, 1 BB (DeJean wins)
4/18/05 vs Atl: 7 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 8 K, 1 BB (Sosa wins)
4/23/05 @ StL: 7 IP, 0 ER, 4 H, 6 K, 4 BB (Mulder, 10 IP, CG)


21 IP, 0 ER, 11 H, 23 K, 6 BB.

The Astros lost all three games 1-0.

[Astro]

Any stat where you can give up zero earned runs and still pick up a loss, or give up 15 earned runs and pick up a win, is useless... sorry

[Ichiro51]

Who knew Ryan Zimmerman hit a come from behind walkoff HR against Wang earlier in the season is probably how we didn't have a 20 games winner this season.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Ok Stelly, Josh Beckett has 16 wins. He has more wins than Cris Carpenter, Erik Bedard, Curt Schilling, Bronson Arroyo, John Smoltz, and Roy Oswalt. Does this mean he was better than these pitchers?

Beckett has as many wins as Barry Zito, Carlos Zambrano, Roy Halladay, and Brandon Webb. Does this mean he has been pitched just as well as these guys?

No. Now do you see why they are not indicative of a pitcher's performance.

My point is not that a pitcher cant be lucky and have alot of wins without really pitching that well, my point is that if you pitch well you are far more likely to get more wins than if not. And look at the guys who normally win the ERA title, normally they are right up there in wins too.

Here is my problem with the notion that wins dont tell anything about performance..... if that were the case those who had low eras would be just as likely to lose more than they won.... as i showed they dont. So there is definately more to wins than most on BBF would believe, however i do believe there are better indicators of performance.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Also..... Johan Santana has 19 wins..... name someone who has been more dominant this year...

[overhandgas53]

Johan Santana is at 19 wins as of 9/29/06. If he gets one more start, he could have 20 wins for the season.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

[QUOTE=cardsfanatic]
Think of it this way. Pitchers can't control the two things that make them winners. Once the ball leaves the bat they can't control if it's a hit or not. Their defense can. It's up to the guys behind them to catch the ball and turn the outs. A bad defense will make your life hell as a pitcher. A good defense will make your life a joy.

QUOTE]

OK If you look at it that way.... then ERA+ and WHIP and nearly any stat other than strikeouts home runs and walks are garbage. Even then.... almost all pitchers average having the defense get 15-16 outs, and thats like top of the line K Pitcher who gets that. Most get 4-5 a game does this mean that the pitcher really has no control and dominance is an illusion?

[geezer]

Johan Santana is at 19 wins as of 9/29/06. If he gets one more start, he could have 20 wins for the season.

Not happening, theyre going to skip his final start to prepare for the playoffs.

[hairymon]

Yes, baseball has been in the five man rotation for about 30 years. Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Glavine all pitched in the five man rotation and they piled up a large number of 20 win seasons and high career win totals.

Yes, but until recently they generally got to pitch into the 8th inning, or even complete many games (all 4 have career complete game and shutout totals that no pitcher from the next generation is going to ever match unless the current evolution changes again).

I personally side with the view that this season was an anomoly, but not one we'll have to wait 100 or so years to see, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens again one or two more times over the next decade. But who's to say that the current philosophy of pitching will be forever either? Maybe somewhere 20 30 or 40 years from now some new unforeseen change will produce more win, complete game and shutout totals for individiual starters.

I think a more telling stat is that the National League wins leader only had SIXTEEN (several pitchers). That has to by far be the lowest win total to lead a league in wins. I know there are some seasons where only ONE league had a 20 game winner, but the other league usually had a 19 game winner.

[geezer]

I think a more telling stat is that the National League wins leader only had SIXTEEN (several pitchers). That has to by far be the lowest win total to lead a league in wins. I know there are some seasons where only ONE league had a 20 game winner, but the other league usually had a 19 game winner.

In 1955 and 1960, there were no 20 game winners in the American League.
In 1982, Steve Carlton was the majors only 20-game winner with 23.
In 1931, 1983 and 1987, there were no 20 game winners in the National League..

[hubkittel]

I think a more telling stat is that the National League wins leader only had SIXTEEN (several pitchers). That has to by far be the lowest win total to lead a league in wins. I know there are some seasons where only ONE league had a 20 game winner, but the other league usually had a 19 game winner.

i heard something yesterday about there being more 16 game winners in the majors this season then there has ever been in any other season. can that be right? if that's true i don't know what it really means. does it speak to the depth of starting pitching in baseball or the quality of baseball? or is it a testament to mediocrity? i don't know.

[soberdennis]

I know it is not official, but- I 've seen books refer to Lew Burdette in 1957 and Mickey Lolich in 1968 as 20 game winners because of their performance in the WS.

Using that reasoning, correct or not, Wang is now a 20 game winner.:o :) :)

[geezer]

i heard something yesterday about there being more 16 game winners in the majors this season then there has ever been in any other season. can that be right? if that's true i don't know what it really means. does it speak to the depth of starting pitching in baseball or the quality of baseball? or is it a testament to mediocrity? i don't know.

Well, in the 2006 season, there were 19 16-game winners in the majors, and 11 more pitchers with 15 wins.

And 6 pitchers led the NL in victories, with 16!!!