View Full Version : Worse baseball statistic?
TheImpossibleMan
11-12-2008, 10:56 AM
Which is worse, saves or wins?
Holy shit this is a toughie. I have to go with the save because it is more esoteric, more recently created, and less meaningful. It is true that obviously a truly horrible game can go to a no-decision or whatever for a starter, but saves are even sillier. First, they are almost entirely evaluated as a counting stat (blown saves weren't even tracked at first, and even now save %age is a secondary stat) so they are practically just a measurement of how many save situations a team creates (since even a mediocre closer who keeps the job all year will convert a high %age of opportunities given).
They are both horrible because they rely on specific combinations of offense and other pitchers that the person who gets the stat (a win relies on relievers, a save on starters and middle relief to be good but not too good). A save, however, has no meaning to the game of baseball. At least with wins and losses you have somewhat of a record of the team's performance behind a pitcher. Wins should not be seen as a purely pitcher stat, but they do carry at least some meaning (tho it is meaning better expressed through other numbers). Winning 20 games means a lot more than... Say saving 30 or 35 games.
TheImpossibleMan
11-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Hm, I see someone added a third option. Are polls not allowed without jokes embedded in the options?
Titus_Pullo
11-12-2008, 01:07 PM
I thinks wins are good for starting pitchers. Its when a relief pitcher gets one when it turns South for that statistic.
A guy can come out with a three run lead, give up three runs and his team can score a go ahead run and he will get the win for that.
The main argument I see for saves being a better stat than a win is a save always means at least SOMETHING. The worst pitcher on his worst day could get a win if his offense was good enough, but a reliever at least has to be in a range of goodness to get a save. However I think that's largely meaningless as that means someone coming out and getting 2 run innings has a valuable skill, but I hardly see many high priced 18 ERA free agents.
Genius
11-12-2008, 04:08 PM
To me, wins lose a lot of credibility because the number of wins recorded in baseball basically measures two different stats, starter wins and reliever wins. Someone more than a century ago arbitrarily decided that there has to be a winning pitcher and a losing pitcher in every game, which means there will be a total of 4860 wins and 4860 losses every season, no matter what. Baseball statisticians should just do away with wins of 4.2 innings or less. Call them RWs if you like. That being said, a win is still better than a save. While both stats rely heavily on outside forces if they are to be recorded, a starter win necessitates a far larger sample size of a pitcher's performance, and therefore is a far better stat. Just the fact that a starter has to last 5 innings or more to get a win makes it a more valuable stat. Theoretically, a closer can give up homers to 66% of the batters he faces and still record saves. I'd like to see the number of times a starter has given up home runs to 66% of hitters faced and still recorded a win.
NOTKyle
11-12-2008, 04:21 PM
You get credit for a save for simply not fucking up, which shouldn't really count for anything at all.
TheImpossibleMan
11-13-2008, 03:14 PM
I think there are fewer bullshit saves than bullshit wins, and the most bullshit save possible (3 run lead, give up two runs in a single inning) is less bullshit than the most bullshit win (pitch 1/3 of an inning, get shelled, your team rallies for the lead next time and you get the win). So I think the win is a worse statistic.
mongo
11-13-2008, 05:24 PM
RBI's.
I think there are fewer bullshit saves than bullshit wins, and the most bullshit save possible (3 run lead, give up two runs in a single inning) is less bullshit than the most bullshit win (pitch 1/3 of an inning, get shelled, your team rallies for the lead next time and you get the win). So I think the win is a worse statistic.
You have to pitch for 5 innings as a starter to get the win.
TheImpossibleMan
11-14-2008, 09:57 AM
Yes, but you can get relief wins, which are shitty, and a lot of starter wins are utter bullshit as well.
Yes, but you can get relief wins, which are shitty, and a lot of starter wins are utter bullshit as well.
Yeah but most people ignore relief wins, especially now that we're out of the era where relievers get 10+ of them. NOBODY seems to understand the flaws of saves.