Does It Ever Make Sense to Play for a Stat?
by Slyde on May 26, 2009 9:05 AM EDT
in News
Email
PrintThe 2-hour and 3-minute rain delay in yesterday's game put the Reds in a position to make a controversial decision by having Aaron Harang come back out to finish the 5th inning after the delay. The risk of the decision is that Harang had to keep loose for two hours, so he must have been pitching off and on in the clubhouse at that time. If that's the case, then he likely threw well over 150 pitches on the day yesterday, an awful lot even if many of them were in non-game situations.
The bigger concern for me is the motivation behind the decision:
There are a lot of managers who would not have let Aaron Harang return after a 2-hour, 3-minute rain delay. But Dusty Baker did. Harang was very happy about it because it allowed him to earn the win. Harang kept throwing during the delay to keep loose.
It feels strange for me to say this given the stathead reputation and all, but isn't it just silly for the Reds to risk any kind of potential injury to their ace just so he can get credit in a statistical column? I know a pitcher's record is a matter of pride for himself, but the team's record really is what matters most, isn't it? Is it worth risking injury to a pitcher who struggled with injuries last year, just so that he can be in line for potentially getting credit for the win?
That's the thing too. When Harang came out to pitch again after the delay, it was only a 5-3 game. What if the bullpen had come in during the 6th, like Jared Burton tried to do, and blown the lead, nullifying Harang's chance at a decision? The fact is that there was still a lot of game left to play.
I know some have defended the move saying that Harang was due up at the bottom of the inning, so Baker didn't have to waste a reliever to pitch the 5th. I don't buy it though because he could very easily have pulled a double-switch. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he did anyway. Joey Votto pinch hit for Harang and then stayed in the game with the pitcher moving to the number 8 spot in the order. If he was going to double-switch anyway, why not just do it after the rain delay? At least then he could have done a double-switch that actually made sense.
What's funny about this whole situation for me is that there are players that constantly criticized for playing for their own stats. Typically it's home run hitters who "don't do the little things." But what about managers who make decisions with the only justification being the stats? Pitchers get left in for too many pitches just so they can qualify for a win. Closers are only brought in during save situations, even when the team might be better served by having them get out of a bases loaded jam in a tie ballgame. Are these situations any better than a guy swinging for the fences? Does it ever make sense to let a stat direct your decisions or efforts in a game? Should the team or the season always outweigh personal achievement? Is it possible to have both?
130 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I also meant to point out that May 25, 2008 was the day Harang was used in relief in San Diego
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
That's just weird
I get why Harang wanted to stay in. He went 6-17 last year due to inuries and horrific run support. He has gotten horrific run support again this year if memory serves me. From his standpoint I can see him thinking, “How many times are these guys gonna score a run per inning for me? I need to get the W while it’s there.”
It’s Dusty’s responsibility to tell him no. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about him letting Harang come back out. I’ll let you know in a couple weeks. :)
"It seems as if every mistake I've ever made in life I've had an erection in one hand and a Bud Light in the other."
I hate to sound like an economist here...
but Harang is responding to incentives. He knows a win is worth cash, while a no-decision is worth less.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
by Gray on May 26, 2009 9:36 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I understand that
but does the manager have a responsibility to help him get to incentives?
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
No
But he does have to manage the egos of those who play for him. This situation with Harang would have been a tough call for me and I’m more likely to give Dusty a pass on this one. I mean one out, I’d struggle with the decision.
Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on May 26, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
the fact that it is only one out
makes it more frustrating for me. Harang threw off and on for 2 hours just so he could come back out and record a single measly out.
go look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
by Charlie Scrabbles on May 26, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I understand that
and would have supported the decision not to send him back out. All that I’m saying is that if you take the past year and a half into account pertaining to Harang, there are many points for and against sending him back out purely to reward the big guy. The points against are obvious (the relief appearance, the huge amounts of innings, the injury risk) and the points for are purely coddling (little run support, the unusual temper display earlier in the year, the lashing out in the press). If, and of course, it’s a big if, Harang shows no ill effects from this incident, then the net effect reinforcing his belief that he has team and management support is true, then it could help him continue to plod away effectively.
I’m not usually one who partakes in the whole “temperament of the clubhouse” stuff because I have no idea if that is valid or not among professionals, but this is one area where I’m apt to give Dusty a bit of slack. Keep the guys happy, within reason, and they’ll play loose and confident or so the theory goes.
Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on May 26, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I pointed it out in the wrap up, but Harang now has a winning record, something he hasn't had since 2007
He knows he’s an ace, and I think he gets frustrated that his record doesn’t indicate that. Now it starts to. Count me in the “not very worried about this decision” camp. If anything, it might pay some dividends now that Harang has the record to burnish his frame of mind. He might start pitching with more confidence (and be less apt to demand that he be reinserted in a game).
Of course, the best way to treat Harang would be to score 8 runs for him all the time.
by Brendanukkah on May 26, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions
im not extremely worried about this decision either
i just traded for Harang yesterday in my fantasy league after the game was over. and i understand that this can be a boost to Harang’s psyche, and i understand that he may need one of those about now. but if the reason behind this decision was to give him a boost, then i would say there are many more effective and less risky ways of providing that boost.
why not have BP and Votto (or whoever is considered the clubhouse leader) approach Harang and solemnly promise to pick him up? something like, “youre the man around here, and we havent been doing much to help you out. that’s all gonna change.” or, i dont know, everything else the team has done to accommodate him the last few years. like starting Opening Day and being told you are going to before Spring Training begins. there are a number of ways to pick him up, and i would contend that risking arm injury for a W that is by no means assured is one of the least effective.
he had thrown about 85 pitches before the delay.
go look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
by Charlie Scrabbles on May 26, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
pitchers and batters tend to hang out in different camps
its one of those things that makes managing baseball interesting. As a manager, you have to balance hanging out with your field players and your pitchers, making them both feel loved. You have to balance the whole Latin/American as well. Its tricky.
My feeling is that Harang wants to be a top dog and The Man on this staff, kind of like Holladay over in Toronto. I’m blindly optimistic that this one out won’t harm him, but, well, I’ve been wrong before.
Ali Boombaye
by Cy Schourek on May 26, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
how does Harang know you traded for him?
and how will that boost his psyche?
oh, you’re still on the w/l record.
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
i was just illustrating
how i dont see this thing as a huge deal. i dont think it will have long-term affects, so i was ok to trade for him.
go look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
by Charlie Scrabbles on May 26, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I can buy this
I guess my problem is not so much with this decision as with pitcher wins. I also hate how closers are managed in order to get saves. Both are arbitrary stats and it bothers me that in game decisions are made strictly with those stats in mind.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Agreed.
But my real problem is that dessert is not served first, before the salad. You work on my problem and I’ll work on yours.
Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on May 26, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
OK
But there’s two differnt issues here.
Dusty said his motivation to bring Harang back out was to let him get the W; we all know wins are a dumb, meaningless stat, and Dusty didn’t say he was the best pitcher for the situation. He just wanted to give his boy some lovin’. Saves are a completely different type of animal, though. Managers actually think it’s a good idea to use closers the way they do, that saving your best pitcher for the lowest leverage situations is smart.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
That was Harangs choice.
He lobbied for it.
I can bet Harang would be demanding a trade if he was treated like a kid.
by Outside Observer on May 26, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
treated like a kid?
So, doing what every other manager would have done is treating him like a kid? Your line of reasoning makes no sense.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Not what I meant.
Look all athletes at the top level know their bodies and their limitations.
Coaches are there to help point out any mechanical faults or help with experience in new situations. They cannot assess how a player feels physically. By the time the athletes reach the very top they know ‘how they feel’ or if they are injured.
You have to allow the players to take some responsibility. Its not little league.
by Outside Observer on May 26, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
and players also say whatever they can to get an extra shot
pitchers tell their managers they are strong enough for another batter or another inning all of the time. I disagree that all athletes know their limitations. If that was the case, then players wouldn’t get hurt going all out.
It’s the manager’s job to manage the players and the team, not the player’s. Yes, he has to trust his players, but he has to also understand his player’s motivation. To me, trying to qualify for a win is not reason enough to take that risk that the player is saying whatever he can just to get that shot.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Players also get hurt by playing catch with their kids.
Or pop a shoulder taking batting practice.
There is no right or wrong answer. Its the style of management. Players’ managers often allow the players to take self-responsibility. That can have bad consequences as you suggest when some players lack maturity and lie.
However the other style of management which is more dictatorial also has pitfalls. For example when the teams bail out when things turn bad. The Mets collapses and Randolph’s strict style caused monumental collapses.
Larussa, Cox, Torre, Pinella (Zambrano incident) , Baker are players managers. The wins suggest that style is more successful.
by Outside Observer on May 26, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
"Look all athletes at the top level know their bodies and their limitations."
I’m not too sure I agree with that. Athletes trend towards thinking that their shit don’t stink and that they’re invincible. Someone who has been as dominant as Harang as been could be like that, even if he is a great guy in every other sense (and he does seem to be).
Planning for a long season can be tricky when you have people who want to go 100% all the time. Coaches are there to plan for 162 games when their players want to win 12-2 every night.
Ali Boombaye
by Cy Schourek on May 26, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
You can't also generalise Harang with the rest
We don’t know whether Harang is the type who lies or is more sensible about his body. He certainly has the experience.
I can imagine that Baker respects what Harang thinks more than if Volquez tried to do that. I know that Baker gave full latitude to Maddux. Maybe Harang is of a similar type. Its usually not wise second guessing.
by Outside Observer on May 26, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
so the crux of your argument is we can't argue against any Dusty Baker decision because
we just don’t know about everything involved?
Wow I guess we also can’t criticize the President, Governor, Senate, House, Mayor, City Council, because it is there job to do things and we don’t know everything they do.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
can't really argue with you
i don’t know everything that was going on in your head when you made this post. then again, it’s probably a safe bet that you didn’t know everything that was going on in your head when you made this post.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
That is exactly what I would think as well
If my extremely short lived career and monetary compensation was based on something as silly as w/l record (and other stats, admittedly). Damn right, I would lobby to go back out there. And that kind of selfishness may be wrong for the team, but free agent negotiations never ask you why the umpires fucked you over or your manager misused you.
Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on May 26, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess we'll really know the weight of this decision later in the week
When Harang makes his next start.
Meh.
I’ll admit that it’s highly unusual to bring the starter out after a long rain delay, but I don’t see the harm if Harang was good with it. He’s the one who knows if he’s loose enough; the pitching coach should have been with him, and should have noticed anything unusual. This isn’t anything like the San Diego appearance last year; that was clearly a bad decision, compounded by bringing him back for his next regular start.
Managers aren’t always idiots; players aren’t always self-centered jerks. Remember also that in the previous 4 games, the Reds used 5, 5, and 4 relievers; maybe Baker and the coaches were equally worried about the bullpen.
The Reds have make 1000 decisions this year that I disagree with more, and they’ll probably make another 2000 questionable moves.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
I'm not calling Harang selfish...I understand his motivation
My problem is that the decision was made solely with the pitcher win in mind. If they were worried about the bullpen then wouldn’t they have said such? Besides, the bullpen was still going to throw 4 innings, what’s one more out?
And I’m not saying this is the worst decision ever made – I’m really only mildly perturbed at the choice – I’m just interested in the “ethical” decision of bringing him out to pitch just to qualify for the win. Don’t Dusty and Harang have a responsibility to the team not to take the risk?
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Players aren't always the best judge
Ben Sheets came out after a rain delay in Chicago. I forget what soreness followed a couple weeks later.
He and lots of other pitchers want to stay in when they shouldn’t as well. CGs is another stat that gets played for.
that's Ben Sheets
big difference.
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
i dont mind
because all the warm-up pitches during the rain delay were stress-free. I haven’t read up on pitch counts in a while, but I remember there being a big distinction between high-stress pitches and low-stress. Harang probably didn’t throw any of the former the entire game. I doubt even 150 pitches, where half of them are just warm-up tosses, would create much stress for Harang’s arm.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
high stress vs low stress
i believe in this theory wholeheartedly.
"We're going to Adonis, son"
jch24
i don't mind
i kind of liked it. if anything, it sent a signal to the younger guys about desiring to win. both volquez and cueto have the potential to develop egos (because they’re so good!) and it’s nice to see the old guy go out there in such a situation. (i’m not sure if this makes sense the way i put it – it makes sense in my head.)
if he had gone back out there for the sixth, i would be worried.
This judge Sotomayor
who is being nominated for the Supreme Court right now is apparently the one who ended the baseball strike
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
"Soto" "Mayor"
Should be popular in Cincinnati.
by Brendanukkah on May 26, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
they should rename Memorial Day
“Sore Right Arm-Istice Day”.
/Brendan’d
go look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
by Charlie Scrabbles on May 26, 2009 10:22 AM EDT reply actions
justin must work for the Nats
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
can you blame me
they pay me excellent mony
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Admittedly
I was disappointed in Harang as a person, for caring so much about something so trivial.
I was disappointed that Dusty did not have the backbone to deny his entreaties. It really puts Dusty in a bad place, having to choose between making a player happy in the short term and doing what is best for the player and the team in the long term. Of course, Dusty could have a similar dilemma to deal with in deciding whether Phillips should be allowed to return so quickly and possibly aggravate his thumb.
IMO, the rules should be amended so pitchers do not have to risk their arms to get their precious little wins in lengthy rain delay scenarios.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions
I agree as a fan that Wins are a trivial stat
But as I player, I would likely feel differently. Wins do matter.
They matter for the record books, for the contracts, for the Cy Young voting, for so many reasons. To us fans this may be trivial, but to the pitchers actually on the field, this is a stat for which they are judged. It is a stat of which they are proud or not proud.
They don’t have big ceremonies for attaining a sweet WHIP — or even ERA for that matter — or any of those other stats. But they do really throw down for winning 200, 300 games.
The Win may not tell the whole story, but it is the pitcher’s version of the Home Run.
I think, of course, that time will tell if Dusty’s decision will matter. But what it comes down to is the Reds won, their No. 1 pitcher got the win, he’s happy, the team is happy. The Reds are 4 over .500.
what rules should be amended?
do tell… I don’t think any of the ones I could think of below are reasonable.
should the game be shortened? should there be a limit on the length of a rain delay? should 2 strikes be a strike-out, and 3 balls a walk to reduce pitches? Should a reliever get to warm up on the mound instead of in the bullpen so he doesn’t have to get up and down a few extra times in a rain-delayed game?
(the above sounds more snarky than I meant it – I’m just wondering what ideas of rule changes can be made, and I can’t think of any that would really make sense).
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
i think the rule he is thinking of
is the rule that the starter must go 5 to get the win.
go look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
by Charlie Scrabbles on May 26, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
DING DING DING DING DING
Rod, tell him what he wins!
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Why would the rule be changed?
Because the pitchers don’t get babied enough these days?
They no longer can pitch every four days, so they now pitch every five. They used to stay in games to work out problems, now we have specialized pitchers for every situation. And heaven forbid they pitch over 120 damn pitches.
If Harang says he can go back out and pitch, let him go back out and pitch. If he’s thrown 130 pitches and is still getting guys out, let him stay on the mound.
As far as the rule of 5 IP to qualify for a win. It’s existed since before any of us (Madville?) were born. And just because most pitchers (Harang excluded) and coaches don’t think players can handle using their arms for what they are being paid millions to do, is silly.
i miss the good ole days
when pitchers took a shit on the mound — right there on the mound! — if they had to, nobody wore those silly ass helmets and those big cocksuckers came to the plate with nails sticking out of their bats, just in case some uppity ump needed to be taught a lesson.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
did hurt Carl Hubbell....he used a corn cob...they didn't have Charmin in his day
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats14.shtml
Sorry been reading too much Salinger lately...sometimes bizarre stuff that i find numerous turns out to be in questionable taste...
Your Pal Mads
That's did not hurt King Carl
Sorry been reading too much Salinger lately...sometimes bizarre stuff that i find numerous turns out to be in questionable taste...
Your Pal Mads
What if he’s thrown 170 pitches and is still getting people out? Surely you wouldn’t want to baby him.
If he's thrown 170 pitches, he's probably not getting everyone out
But also at that point, no matter what you do you are not babying him.
Leo Mazzoni, who oversaw one of the best rotations in recent memory always said the more the pitchers threw, the better it was for their arms. That the babying of pitchers is what leads to more injuries.
Glavine and Maddux are freaks of nature
Smoltz has battled injuries for much of his career, and Avery lost his career due to injuries.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
but how long avery's career would have been
had he thrown more pitches. just think about that.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
Why is 120 babying and not 170? And if throwing more is good for their arms, why not up all the starters to 200 or so pitches and go to 3 or 4 man rotation?
Well expansion probably has more to do with it than anything
And my real point is that some pitchers, Harang included, should be part of the decision on whether or not he stays in.
So your argument now is:
because more pitches need to be thrown (expansion), each pitcher is thereby compelled to throw less of them?
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not really arguing
But my theory of why we don’t have a 4 man rotation anymore is because expansion has watered down the playing pool.
So I think that we have fewer quality starters.
I think it makes sense this day in age to have a five man rotation. But I don’t really like it. But that doesn’t mean there are still some guys pitching who could have done well in a four-man rotation. I think Harang is one of those guys.
I seem to recall Bronson proposing a four-man rotation
and Harang wanting nothing to do with it. His last start on three day’s rest was ill-advised. Your argument cannot hold water.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
so your claim is that
since there is a shortage of good starting pitching that now it is best for each team to use one more.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it works best now
You really spread out a good deal of innings between your 4th and 5th starter.
The 4-man rotation did do baseball rather well for decades. Things change obviously.
If Harang always pitched on 3-days rest, he might do just well (and more often). But that’s not going to happen. Nor do I think it should.
just one correction
I think we have more quality starters. The fact is that the game has evolved the same way other systems have. Pitchers are better, but so are hitters – we have 2nd basemen regularly hitting 20+ HR now, for instance. It’s much harder to be a pitcher now than it was in 1950. I don’t think it’s fair to expect pitchers of today to be able to do what pitchers did 60 years ago because it’s not as easy for them to do so.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Ballparks are also smaller
And the batters have better equipment — lighter, quicker bats. The pitchers are still basically using the same ball (there have been obvious changes).
And the mounds are lower, etc.
another thing
that people usually forget when arguing that the talent pool has weakened is the effect of globalization and the admittance of other races. the talent pool is much, much deeper than it was 60 years ago, so the effect of expansion is completely negated. compared to the overall population being drawn from now, even with expansion, the talent pool is much richer, not watered down
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
this is a fact very few people seem to grasp
the heroes of yesteryear would get beat down by today’s contingent. I do not buy that comparing stats from different eras is meaningful, because the competition continues to stiffen. Dudes are bigger, stronger and faster.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
There was a good column on ESPN a few years ago
Calling for separating all-time stats into different eras. It was pretty good.
And you also make a good point, which I wasn’t really considering, when I went off a rant earlier.
Of course those great pitchers of yester-year probably would also be bigger, stronger and faster. But they would also be playing in a game that is tilted toward offense more than it was.
Yea tell that to Ruth and Gehrig
Sorry been reading too much Salinger lately...sometimes bizarre stuff that i find numerous turns out to be in questionable taste...
Your Pal Mads
I am not talking about the general rule
I am talking about adding a provision like:
In the event of a delay in excess of x minutes, a starting pitcher may be awarded the win without completing 5 innings at the discretion of the official scorer.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
it's really absurb that a starter has to go 5 innings to get a win
that rule doesn’t make any sense. If a starter goes 4 2/3, then is taken out for whatever reason, then a guy gets the last out of the fifth, then a different reliever takes over in each of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth innings, then the official scorer essentially just picks who he thinks should get the win. The only catch is it can’t be the guy who went 4 2/3 innings. It has to be one of the guys who went an inning or less. It’s one of the most ridiculous statistical rules in the game.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
I agree with your sentiment
I am just offering the minimal revision to minimize pantie-bunching.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well there is something said to being the starter and pitching the majority of innings.
While 4 2/3 is a majority of a 9 inning game, it still means that you couldn’t complete the fifth inning.
And asking a starting pitcher to go at least 5 innings is not asking too much
But I think my main reason for liking the rule is that it has been around for a long time. And I like most of the baseball rules simply because it’s how it’s always been. Is that really a good reason? Probably not.
Wes Littleton's save in a 30-3 game in 2007
should be the perfect example why statistical rules shouldn’t stay the same for historical purposes
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
by BK on May 26, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
OK. That is a fair point
But also, isn’t that more of an exception to the rule.
And rules do change. But the Win rule of pitching 5 innings to qualify for a win is a reasonable rule.
It's more reasonable than the save rule
but is it really a reasonable rule? Say Harang doesn’t come back out after the rain delay, does that make him less deserving of the win? Is Jared Burton more deserving of the win in that situation? Aaron pitched 4 2/3 solid innings before the delay, and would have left the delay with a lead. He doesn’t deserve the win?
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
by BK on May 26, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
But he didn't go
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
You're right
Harang would be more deserving of the win. Maybe we should leave it up to the official scorer to choose who gets the win for each game.
What if the next pitcher gives up 5 runs over a couple innings, and the Reds lose the lead. But in the bottom of the 7th, the Reds get the lead back. And another pitcher throws a scoreless inning. And Cordero comes in for the save in the 9th.
Then who gets the win? Harang who pitched 4.2 good innings? Or the pitcher who shutout the Astros in the 8th?
I know this will never change
but why do we have to credit any specific pitcher with the win? I think it’s fairly obvious that the current rules are somewhat arbitrary, especially for relievers who get assigned wins. I know that 300 wins is a special number and all, but it’s not intrinsic to the game of baseball that a pitcher has to be assigned the win. I think we understand enough about the game now to know that it’s much more than the pitcher that leads to the win.
Why should a starting pitcher who throws a complete game and gives up a single unearned run on a groundball that should have been an easy double play get the loss because his team didn’t score any runs in a 1-0 game?
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Because it's baseball
It’s not perfect. Some players are lucky. Others are not. Some HRs are easier in some parks than others. (Not the best comparison, I know. But it does show that baseball and its stats can be arbitrary.)
I agree that pitching Wins is a kind of silly stat. But it also says something for a pitcher who earns 20 wins in a season or 300 in a career.
When it comes to judging the matchup before a game, a pitchers record does not say that much. But, I believe, that when judging a pitcher’s career, the wins are greater factor.
I'd think that's a lot to put in the hands of the official scorer though
There’s already a rule governing that, that the pitcher that’s in the game at the time the team takes the lead gets the win. That’s why denying Harang the win in a game like yesterday’s is ridiculous, because he was the pitcher when the Reds took the lead in the 1st. I think if you take that rule out altogether, like you’re suggesting, the official scorer could give the win to whoever he wants to, and I’m not sure MLB would go for that.
I think the general rule of thinking in your situation would be that the reliever that came in for Harang and blew his lead (probably Lincoln), would have earned the loss and blew Harang’s chance for a win. It’s also interesting when you think that nobody really gives a shit about wins for relievers, but for starters it’s such an important chip in salary negotiations and how a player’s worth is judged. If an official scorer started arbitrarily giving out wins to relievers, starters could be denied wins they technically earned by keeping their team in the game, and that could hamper their value as a player on the market. That’s huge.
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
by BK on May 26, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not suggesting we change the rule at all
I think the 5IP rule is reasonable. It’s not perfect. But it is reasonable.
I think the catcher’s indifference rule is stupid. But it is also reasonable. (But a team should be able to choose whether or not to try to get someone out on a particular play)… Anyway…
Starting pitchers are asked to pitch a majority of the game and give their teams a good chance to win. Sometimes they get rewarded by a lot of run support, sometimes they screwed by a bunch of run support.
But when it comes down to it, Wins are just one of many stats on which to judge a pitcher.
i generally agree that expecting 5IP is reasonable
but there are acceptations like yesterday, or injuries.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a starting pitcher should get the decision in any game that he goes at least 4.2 innings
otherwise, the pitcher of record should be based on a consortium of government regulators who meet bi-weekly to examine each case and determine based on who they feel should get the win. Their only standard should be whether or not they like the cut of pitcher’s jib for that game.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
we continue to underestimate the impact of pitcher facial hair (PFH)
at our own peril.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
My resume for a position on that panel is on its way
"It seems as if every mistake I've ever made in life I've had an erection in one hand and a Bud Light in the other."
Isn't there a provision
that gives the official scorer some leeway in assigning the win. I don’t think it applies to this situation, but the win does not automatically go to the reliever who is in at the time the team get’s the lead. I’d look it up but, the combination of being to lazy and getting ready to leave for work prevents me from doing that at this time.
by fourrunhomer on May 26, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The way I understand it
In a game where the starter goes less than 5 innings, the official scorer can decide who to award the win to, but it can’t be the starter because he didn’t go 5.
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
by BK on May 26, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
likely he did not go five because he is a communist
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Most of their plans were centered around going five
But most of their plans didn’t work.
by Brendanukkah on May 26, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe in playing for stats.
I think we should try to be the team with the most sacrifice bunts in the NL. We seem to be well on our way.
We are probably the team with the most interference calls against them too.
And Adam Dunn's spirit, ranging for revenge / With Ate by his side come hot from hell, / Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice / Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war...
by Paul Householder on May 26, 2009 11:35 AM EDT reply actions
just get out the poking stick
that will assure everyone Harangatang is okie dokie.
"We're going to Adonis, son"
jch24
I liked that he came back out.
I’ve seen other rain delays and couldn’t believe that the starter did not come back. I’m not saying it should happen all the time, but that it should happen more than it does. And, yes, I do like playing for stats, especially wins. Wins are what the game is all about. Because, if there is not a win there can only be a loss.
"Wins are what the game is all about"
You’re confusing the pitcher’s win stat with the team’s win stat. If Harang doesn’t come out to finish the 5th, does that prevent the team from winning the game? The win stat would have still been awarded to someone else, it’s just Harang that wouldn’t have got it due to the archaic 5-inning rule.
“Because, if there is not a win there can only be a loss”? For the team wins stat, that’s true, but we’re talking about the pitcher’s win stat. You know, pitchers can be awarded what’s called a “no decision”, where they don’t get credited for a win or a loss. Come on.
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
You gotta come harder than that on RR
or you get smacked the fuck down, baby!
Let me clock in right quick. It is gonna be a long day of breaking fools!
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I wasn't confusing the two at all.
I want to see every player that hungry for a win; to do everything they can to win; to have that much pride in their performance. If every pitcher wants the win that badly, every hitter wants to be up in “that’” situation, and every fielder wants the ball hit to them, that’s the confidence and pride I like to see. I realize that isn’t something that can have a number assigned to it, but I’ll take any day of the week. If you look back to the ‘75-76’ team, it’s the type of mentality that you hear almost every one of them talk about the team having.
by fourrunhomer on May 26, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
there is a difference between wanting to win
and wanting to get credit for the win though. I don’t think the latter sentiment should be motivation for doing something outside of the norm, though I’m willing to admit there are caveats to that.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
But you're also insinuating that coming back for one out in the 5th would have been the difference between the team winning or losing
I have no problem with Harang wanting to stay in long enough to get the win, in fact, I’d even support it in the right situation. For example, if Harang’s pitch count is at 110 after 7 innings, and he’s lobbying Dusty to come back out for the 8th to get one more inning in, more power to him. I think this is closer to the situation you’re talking about. But suggesting that that’s the same as him wanting to come back out after a 2 hour rain delay so he goes 5 innings for his team instead of 4 2/3 is ludicrous.
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
by BK on May 26, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
This kind of decision should be made as it was, between a top level employee and his manager.
This situation, while similar, was not the same as going into pitch in relief like he did last May. At the higher level of competition, no matter what the field, is where the best of the best work. Those are the guys who have an exceptional, almost genetic drive to excel. Now baseball players aren’t always the smartest guys (but then see what happened to Bernie Madoff) but I think Harang knows his limits and I am guessing that he worked out a compromise with Dusty in order to be allowed to go back out. Something like this:
Aaron" Ok Skip. I’m loose and ready to go back in"
Dusty: Hey, man I don’t know, you know you screwed up your arm last season…"
Aaron" Please can I go back Dusty, pleae can I , Huh can I?
Dusty"Well it is the anniversary of your last arm injury…"
Aaron" Ok, just one inning…if I get hit, pull me, I’m doing OK leave me, but if you don’t let me go back you can blow me".
Dusty"What do you think Dick"
Dick “Huh? Oh I think you’d be looked at as a weirdo if you pulled him or blowed him”
Dusty" alright Aaron go get ’em"
Sorry been reading too much Salinger lately...sometimes bizarre stuff that i find numerous turns out to be in questionable taste...
Your Pal Mads
rec'd
best dialog ever written on this site.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
i really need some feedback on this
I should probably start an SIS diary, but I don’t really have enough to do that. Here’s what I need to know:
In the movie “The Neverending Story,” did the bookstore owner intend for Bastian to take The Neverending Story? Or was he pissed when he looked over and saw the book was gone? I’ve gone back and forth on this my whole life.
What do you mean, "blank slate"?
I vote he intended for him to steal it
"It seems as if every mistake I've ever made in life I've had an erection in one hand and a Bud Light in the other."
I think we should just stop calling what the pitcher gets credited with a "win"
So, now I’m just going to call them “Smiley Faces”. Cy Young is the all-time leader with 511 Smiley Faces. He’s also the all time leader with 316 career Frowny Faces.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on May 26, 2009 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I keep trying to discern the facial expression on the back of the scoreboard
truly, it is an enigma.
tellin' tales of drunkenness and cruelty
by Colin Auscapee on May 26, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
why not completely change how wins are awarded
like if a starting pitches 7 innings of 2 run baseball, and leaves with a one run lead, some slob comes in and gives up a run in the 8th, but his team wins in the 9th, I think the scorer should have the power to give the dominating starting pitcher a win.
Bloop
The issue with changing the rule
is comparability between generations. The rules and stats have been the same for 100 years. Tradition is a strong pull toward the maintaining the status quo in rules and statistics.
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
this is exactly why statheads keep working on new stats
the old ones don’t work well enough to tell us what we thought they told us. You can’t change the old ones, but you can come up with new ones to help explain things better. The goal shouldn’t necessarily be to change the current rule, but to educate the masses on what really matters. The problem is, we’re still trying to figure out exactly what that is. All we know is that pitcher wins isn’t it.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
Is there a stat that combines a pitcher's ERA with his team's run support
And IP, K, BB, etc or something like that — which would tell you how good a pitcher actually is?
Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) or the more complicated DIPS ERA or Component ERA
give you an estimated ERA for a pitcher based on things he can control – strikeouts, walks, home runs, etc. The idea is that you can get an estimate of how good a pitcher really is by factoring out his defense and park, etc. These are admittedly arcane, though that does not make them less accurate.
A simpler approach on the other end is something called Neutral Wins, which estimates what a pitcher’s record would be if he were given league average run support in every game. This is sort of a toy stat that doesn’t give us much of a basis for reality.
Personally, I prefer something like WAR (wins above replacement) which use a variety of stats to estimate how many wins a pitcher (or any player for that matter) provided to his team over a replacement player (i.e. freely available talent from Triple-A). I think the general public is a long way away from grasping something like WAR, but I think it gives us a more realistic estimation of the contribution that a player makes to his team.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
the challenge is convincing others of new stats' relevance
People such as Paul Daugherty dismiss these stats in favor of the traditional ones. In analyzing a player, new stats have merit However, I doubt we will ever see a pitchers’ DIPS ERA or WARP on a Hall of Fame plaque. The only ‘new stat’ that I could see being used is OPS – because it just combines 2 old stats!
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
by JJ on May 26, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I was pretty much ok with Harang being left in.
I’m not too worried about the 15 or so low-stress pitches he had to throw to Pence and Quintero. I’m much more annoyed by Dusty’s insistence on constantly trying to get CoCo more saves. That’s pretty much just dumb.
but it gives lincoln a job
Dusty thinking: well we have a 6 run lead in the 8th, if we bring lincoln in we can get Coco a save.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
but look at this economy
Dusty is working on his own special stimulus.
Of course he probably wouldn’t understand that if they cut Lincoln, Lincoln would still get paid, and it would create another 6figure position for somebody else.
Bloop
by justin007000 on May 26, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
i hope you're joking
you cant possibly think Dusty puts in a pitcher hoping he gives up a couple of runs.
by rivercity.redleg on May 26, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Ugh
The Tamany Brewers continue to impress/fill me with revulsion.
by Brendanukkah on May 26, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Red Reporter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
