Why do you need 5 innings for a "Win"?

[Twentytwofifty]

I would like to know if someone could give me one good reason for this.  W/L record for pitching should be abolished, I hate when people bring those numbers up like they mean something.

Perhaps the ultimate example of why the “win” is a useless stat
Posted by Nick Kapur on Saturday September 12th 2009, 2:15 am, filed in Diamond cuts

In tonight’s game between the Reds and the Cubs, Cubs starter Rich Harden had already run up a pitch count of 103 through 4 innings of work, despite only allowing 1 run, so Cubs manager Lou Pinella opted to remove him from the game (wisely, I would say, given Harden’s legendary fragility). Harden left with a 4-1 lead, but obviously could not get the win, since he had not pitched the requisite 5 innings.

Rookie reliever Jeff Stevens thereupon entered the game to start the 5th frame, pitching one inning and earning his first ever career win.

The only problem was, in his one inning of work Stevens gave up two singles and a three run bomb to Johnny Gomes, erasing the Cubs’ lead and leaving the game as a 4-4 tie.

The Cubs promptly came back and scored a run in the bottom half of the fifth, and scoreless relief by three other Cubs relievers, including 2 innings of hitless, 3-strikeout work by Aaron Heilman, preserved a 6-4 victory for Chicago, and saved the “win” for Stevens.

This is one of the worst cases of “vulturing a win” that I’ve seen in a long, long time. Stevens was far and away the worst Cubs pitcher in this game, posting a -.265 WPA whereas all the other four pitchers were positive, and yet he was awarded the win.

I know I’m just beating a long dead horse here, but why again do so many people hang so much of their evaluation of a player (not to mention Cy Young Awards), on this incredibly flawed stat?

[OG Hack Wilson]

i assume beacuse out of a 9 inning game, 5 innings means you've played over half

[Twentytwofifty]

i assume beacuse out of a 9 inning game, 5 innings means you've played over half

Still doesn't seem like a good reason to me when you can conceivably pitch 4 & 2/3 innings throwing a perfect game, get pulled and some guy come in let up 5 runs in 1/3 of an inning and end up getting the W. 

[OG Hack Wilson]

lol


back when they came up with the rules (in the 1800s) they obviously didnt think that ahead lol

["THE" MoSav]

CUZ ITS THE RULES. MAKES SENSE

[Twentytwofifty]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

["THE" MoSav]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

[Javier]

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

[Chamillitary Click]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

[herpes]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

[Chamillitary Click]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

enlighten me Tommy.

[herpes]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

enlighten me Tommy.

There is so much more to a pitcher than just ERA in this day and age.  Don't get me wrong ERA is still a key element in gauging a pitchers sucess but over the past 10 other stats have become just as important.  ERA can be very misleading if you don't look at his other peripherals which can show potential trends which tells you where a pitcher may end up in the long run and by long run I mean season.  And more times than not is spot on most of the time.  Of course exceptions to the rules do exist.  But that is really looking deep into.  Where look at a stat that is just as important as ERA.  WHIP has become just as important as ERA.  Do you know what WHIP is ?

[Chamillitary Click]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

enlighten me Tommy.

There is so much more to a pitcher than just ERA in this day and age.  Don't get me wrong ERA is still a key element in gauging a pitchers sucess but over the past 10 other stats have become just as important.  ERA can be very misleading if you don't look at his other peripherals which can show potential trends which tells you where a pitcher may end up in the long run and by long run I mean season.  And more times than not is spot on most of the time.  Of course exceptions to the rules do exist.  But that is really looking deep into.  Where look at a stat that is just as important as ERA.  WHIP has become just as important as ERA.  Do you know what WHIP is ?

yeah, add the hits & walks & divide it by the number of innings pitched. acceptional enough, master?

if Tim Lincecum gave up 3 hits every inning of every game & then got out of the jam every single time & his ERA read 0.00, i wouldn't hold his WHIP against him lol.

ERA is just straight up, how many runs do you give up? it wins ball games (not statistcally), but for the team; i find that more valuable than having impressing WHIP stats, sorry master.

[herpes]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

enlighten me Tommy.

There is so much more to a pitcher than just ERA in this day and age.  Don't get me wrong ERA is still a key element in gauging a pitchers sucess but over the past 10 other stats have become just as important.  ERA can be very misleading if you don't look at his other peripherals which can show potential trends which tells you where a pitcher may end up in the long run and by long run I mean season.  And more times than not is spot on most of the time.  Of course exceptions to the rules do exist.  But that is really looking deep into.  Where look at a stat that is just as important as ERA.  WHIP has become just as important as ERA.  Do you know what WHIP is ?

yeah, add the hits & walks & divide it by the number of innings pitched. acceptional enough, master?

if Tim Lincecum gave up 3 hits every inning of every game & then got out of the jam every single time & his ERA read 0.00, i wouldn't hold his WHIP against him lol.

ERA is just straight up, how many runs do you give up? it wins ball games (not statistcally), but for the team; i find that more valuable than having impressing WHIP stats, sorry master.

Do you read ?  I said exceptions to the rule do exist.  More times than not though that will eventually catch up with a pitcher.  And the example you gave is really c'mon.  I don't know why I argue you with you.  i tried to come at you just now like an adult and you gotta act like a 10 year old... master.... really ?

[Chamillitary Click]

I think you should need 5 innings to take get loss too.  That makes just about as much sense to me. 

LOL!!! that makes ZERO Sense

i have to agree with that.

what if a pitcher gives up 11 runs in 1/3 of an inning? he should lose that game lol.

Any variation of the W-L stat will still have problems.  How about you just dismiss the people that solely rely on how good a pitcher is based on their number of wins?  I've been doing this for years. 

ERA is the stat to look at.

SMH

enlighten me Tommy.

There is so much more to a pitcher than just ERA in this day and age.  Don't get me wrong ERA is still a key element in gauging a pitchers sucess but over the past 10 other stats have become just as important.  ERA can be very misleading if you don't look at his other peripherals which can show potential trends which tells you where a pitcher may end up in the long run and by long run I mean season.  And more times than not is spot on most of the time.  Of course exceptions to the rules do exist.  But that is really looking deep into.  Where look at a stat that is just as important as ERA.  WHIP has become just as important as ERA.  Do you know what WHIP is ?

yeah, add the hits & walks & divide it by the number of innings pitched. acceptional enough, master?

if Tim Lincecum gave up 3 hits every inning of every game & then got out of the jam every single time & his ERA read 0.00, i wouldn't hold his WHIP against him lol.

ERA is just straight up, how many runs do you give up? it wins ball games (not statistcally), but for the team; i find that more valuable than having impressing WHIP stats, sorry master.

Do you read ?  I said exceptions to the rule do exist.  More times than not though that will eventually catch up with a pitcher.  And the example you gave is really c'mon.  I don't know why I argue you with you.  i tried to come at you just now like an adult and you gotta act like a 10 year old... master.... really ?

"do you know what WHIP is darling?"

i was under the assumption i was a 10 year old.

anyway, it was just exaggeration that WHIP can be broken & not mean as much as ERA, it's not like i signed it off as "pointless" lol.

point being, i'd rather have the guy with the 2.50 ERA & 2.50 WHIP than the guy who has a 3.35 ERA & a 2.15 WHIP.

therefore ERA > WHIP, in my opinion (that means shit anyway lol).