This past Saturday, I woke up like most people did thinking all was right with the world. The sun was shining. The birds were chirping. The sky was blue. It was a picture perfect day.
That all changed when I fired up my Twitter account. Somewhere in the wee hours of the night when only the most amusing and unsavory of characters (you know who you are) troll the site as their personal stomping ground; ESPN’s Buster Olney decided to re-open the ongoing debate between traditionalists and saberists about the importance of a pitcher’s win-loss record.
“It’s laughable to suggest winning meaningless for pitchers. When they makes decisions pitch to pitch, it’s in name of winning games, not FIP.”
While I agree with Olney’s assertion that pitchers are more focused on their team winning and losing than they are FIP, I’m afraid I don’t see how that makes a pitcher’s W-L record any more meaningful in the evaluative sense. Wins and losses, by their very nature, are team driven stats. Awarding them to a pitcher is not only arbitrary, but also devalues the contributions of his teammates.
When we award a pitcher with a win or a loss, we’re essentially saying he’s wholly responsible for the outcome of a given game. Although a pitcher’s performance does factor into the W-L equation, the game’s outcome is still largely reliant on external factors like the quality of the team’s offensive, defensive, and bullpen support. Since a pitcher is incapable of controlling any of those factors (even to the slightest degree), it seems ridiculous to either credit or punish him for circumstances unrelated to his level of pitching.
After debating for a while, Olney decided to take his argument a step further. Rather than use a pitcher’s W-L record as a barometer of success, he decided to quote the team’s performance in games pitched by a specific pitcher in order to make his point. In response to one of my tweets he had this to say:
“No, not saying that (pitchers being responsible for outcome of the game). It’s not B/W. You can’t view DET 22-8 record on days Justin Verlander pitches and say, ‘well team was just good today.’”
Actually, Buster, you can. While Verlander’s pitching has certainly been a big reason for the Tigers’ 22-8 record, many other factors have contributed to the team’s performance in his starts. For example, the Tigers have scored 4.66 runs of support in games he’s pitched this season. If Verlander maintained his current level performance while seeing a one run reduction in his run support, Detroit’s record in the 30 game sample probably ends up being be closer to 15-15 rather than 22-8. This isn’t to say Verlander hasn’t been dominant. A single glance at his peripherals could tell you all you need to know about his season. He’s been an elite level pitcher, and deserves full credit for his performance. Still, Olney’s assertion that Detroit’s 22-8 record in Verlander’s starts proves his overall dominance is off-target, misleading, and factually incorrect.
To find a couple of great comparables for the run support effect, we need to look no further than the last two American League Cy Young Award winners, Felix Hernandez and Zack Greinke. In 2010, despite producing a spectacular league leading 2.27 ERA, the Mariners managed to go only 17-17 during Hernandez’s 34 starts. Why? Their offense was incapable of scoring runs during his starts; managing only 3.9 runs of support per game. During the 2009 season, Greinke suffered from a similar fate while pitching for the Royals. Despite posting 16-8 record to go along with a league leading 2.16 ERA, the Royals managed to post an unspectacular 17-16 record during his starts. Like the Mariners and King Felix, the Royals were only able to muster 3.78 runs of support per game. In neither case was the pitcher at fault for his team’s performance in his starts. They did everything they could to put their team in the best position to win. Instead, it was their lineups who came up short.
On the flip side, there are countless pitchers who’s W-L record have benefited from above average run support. Verlander’s teammate, Rick Porcello, comes to mind as one of this season’s best examples. Despite posting an ERA (5.01) that’s 19% below the league average, he’s managed to post a 12-8 record in 26 starts. Complicating Olney’s assertion even further is the Tigers’ 17-9 record over that same sample. According to the “Buster Olney doctrine,” we can’t view their 17-9 record and say “well the team was good that day.” Except that we can. The sole reason the Tigers have been so successful in Porcello’s starts has not been his pitching. Instead, it’s been the 5.48 runs of support per game they’ve created during his starts. If we were to regress his run support toward the league average of 4.43 runs per game, it’s likely the Tigers record in his starts would fall as many as two to three games below .500.
My point with this article is not to show up Buster Olney. Despite our differences of opinion on the subject, I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work as a reporter. Still, I think it’s important to explain the reasoning behind one’s thought process when a conflict in opinion arises. Buster doesn’t need to sell anyone on the idea that Verlander’s the best pitcher in the American League. Anyone with eyes and access to the internet could tell you as much. His problem lies with his methodology for making said determination. W-L record, whether individual or team, is a terrible way to evaluate pitching. He’d be better off choosing a statistic (or statistics) where a pitcher can exhibit a greater level of control over the outcome. He’ll still have to deal with people disagreeing with him, but at least his opinions will be based in some form of logical and rational thought.