What's in a win? The hot debate right now in baseball, thanks largely in part to Brian Kenny, is what to do about the win stat for pitchers. He's started this idea that we should "kill the win" because it means nothing. I won't go into his no-hitter nonsense because I find that to be nothing more than an attention grab. But this idea that the pitcher wins mean nothing is interesting. I'll be the first one to say it's probably the most unfair statistic when it comes to baseball. But the notion that we could just do away with it is beyond preposterous.
The win/loss column for pitchers would seem to tell you a lot about that player. This is simply not true. Take Clayton Kershaw and Stephen Strasburg for example. Kershaw is 7-5 this year, by all means, not impressive. Strasburg is an even less impressive 4-6 so far this season. But Strasburg's ERA is 2.24 and his ERA+ is 167. Kershaw is currently at 1.93 and 189! But their record indicates they're having seasons that by any measurement is poor to barely average. But reading just a little further proves that's simply not the case. Both guys have been incredibly effective when it comes to their job; getting hitters out.
Another important aspect of this debate is run support. We all know Max Scherzer is 13-0 right now. Quite impressive. But it certainly doesn't hurt that he leads all of MLB when it comes to getting runs at 6.82 per game. Guess who is last on that list. Yup, Strasburg 2.44 runs per game. So even if he throws a quality start he's still statistically likely to lose. Kershaw was actually getting the 2nd lowest runs per game until this week when the Dodgers exploded for 8 when they trounced the Rockies. Now he's getting the 11th fewest. A lot more goes into the game than just pitching. I'm not even going to bring up things like inherited runners or blown saves. This'll just get way too long if I talk about those. To put it bluntly, neither should effect the starting pitcher's win/loss record.
Remember back in 2010 when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award? His record that year was 13-12. 1 win above .500, yet he was deemed the best pitcher in the American League. I thought for sure this would be a clear turning point for baseball. While the range of statistics that are talked about has become more and more popular, people still focus on the win. But why shouldn't they? The game is all about winning and losing right? You don't ask someone, "hey, who had the quality start last night." No, you ask them who won. It's understandable that people are going to look at pitcher win/loss records. Let's be honest here, the typical baseball fan doesn't understand WAR, ERA+, or even WHIP. Sure they're easily explained, but they're not concerned with all those fancy numbers. They want to know who won and who lost.
I don't mean to talk down to anyone or sound like I'm holier than thou. I'm just saying that the majority of people who fill the stands aren't sabermatricians. They're casual fans who like watching the game when they get a chance. But for those of us who obsess over this crazy game, something should be done. Focusing on wins for a pitcher for awards is just plain irresponsible. We've already seen the voters do it once, hopefully it becomes more prevalent. I'm in no way suggesting we "kill the win" as that would alienate a ton of fans and it's completely unnecessary. Pitchers have been "winning" games for over 100 years, that shouldn't change. The thought process on what makes a pitcher successful, at least statistically speaking, should.
Follow me on Twitter- @TwittinSports
