2016 MLB Draft Guide: Is it Time to Replace Wins?

How much do wins tell you about a pitcher? Back when our parents were kids, people thought the answer to that question was ‘yes.’ However, we’re smarter than they were (or at least I am. I mean, I’m the Oracle. I seem to have turned around the whole Hercules/Zeus thing with the child surpassing the parents. Sorry Mom & Dad). At least I hope we are. First, we will take a look at wins. Second, we’ll see if there might be a better, more simple way to quantify success on the bump.

THE WIN

How does a pitcher earn a win? Here is the official definition for starting pitchers (from MLB.com).

10.17 Winning And Losing Pitcher
(a) The official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher that pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, unless
(1) such pitcher is a starting pitcher and Rule 10.17(b) applies; or
(2) Rule 10.17(c) applies.
Rule 10.17(a) Comment: Whenever the score is tied, the game becomes a new contest insofar as the winning pitcher is concerned. Once the opposing team assumes the lead, all pitchers who have pitched up to that point and have been replaced are excluded from being credited with the victory. If the pitcher against whose pitching the opposing team gained the lead continues to pitch until his team regains the lead, which it holds to the finish of the game, that pitcher shall be the winning pitcher.
(b) If the pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, is a starting pitcher who has not completed
(1) five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense, or
(2) four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense, then the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the relief pitcher, if there is only one relief pitcher, or the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer’s judgment was the most effective, if there is more than one relief pitcher.
Rule 10.17(b) Comment: It is the intent of Rule 10.17(b) that a relief pitcher pitch at least one complete inning or pitch when a crucial out is made, within the context of the game (including the score), in order to be credited as the winning pitcher. If the first relief pitcher pitches effectively, the official scorer should not presumptively credit that pitcher with the win, because the rule requires that the win be credited to the pitcher who was the most effective, and a subsequent relief pitcher may have been most effective. The official scorer, in determining which relief pitcher was the most effective, should consider the number of runs, earned runs and base runners given up by each relief pitcher and the context of the game at the time of each relief pitcher’s appearance. If two or more relief pitchers were similarly effective, the official scorer should give the presumption to the earlier pitcher as the winning pitcher.

Seems pretty complex and therefore a cursory review would seem to indicate that the win would define success/failure pretty well. Not so much if you ask this guy (and virtually everyone else that is in-the-know). Some quick examples of why wins is a poor measure to judge success:

You could allow no runs over nine innings and get a no-decision.

You could allow one run over nine innings and get a loss.

You could allow seven runs over five innings and get a win.

The fact is the “win” is often dependent on how the offense of the pitcher’s team performs. That has nothing to do with the hurler, so why do we insist on using it as a measure of a pitcher’s effectiveness?

How about some real world examples from 2015 which showcase the fact that wins really don’t paint an accurate picture?

Collin McHugh won 19 games with a 3.89 ERA.

Colby Lewis won 17 games with a 4.66 ERA

Rubby De La Rosa won 14 games with a 4.67 ERA.

Shelby Miller had a 3.02 ERA and won just six games.

Scott Kazmir had a 3.10 ERA and won only seven games.

A.J. Burnett had a 3.18 ERA. He won nine games.

It’s not just 2015 either. What you see above happens every season. Wins don’t tell much about the performance of a hurler yet we stubbornly hold on to it as an option to rank players in the fantasy game (I’m looking at you batting average). So what do we do? There are many options, including some that eliminate wins completely, but this article is about simple, easy and potentially usable options if you want to replace them as a scoring category.

AN ALTERNATIVE

Ron Shandler proposed a simple, easy-to-calculate solution to the issue of how to improve upon wins in the fantasy game a few years back. He posited, why not count wins + quality starts instead of just victories? Is this ideal? No. Is it better than what we have right now with just raw wins? Let’s take a gander and find out.

First, what is a quality start? According to MLB.com:

A starting pitcher records a quality start when he pitches at least six innings and allows three earned runs or fewer. A starting pitcher has two jobs: to prevent runs and get outs. The quality start statistic helps to quantify which pitchers did a "quality" job in those two departments.

Obviously, as is always pointed out, a QS can lead to an ERA of 4.50 (three earned runs in six innings). That’s malo – “bad” in Spanish. However, in the above example, seven runs in five innings, the pitcher would get his “W” with a 12.60 ERA. Both measures, wins and quality starts, don’t always paint an accurate picture on their own.

However, there is the chance that a pitcher gains an advantage for consistently pitching well in this new measure. If a hurler allows two earned runs over six innings he could get a win and a quality start, therefore doubling the value of a solid effort. That might be an argument against the measure, double-counting which I admittedly don’t like, but given that quality starts are much more prevalent than wins, which we will see below, I’m willing to allow this doubling for the sake of a slightly more accurate picture to measure success.

RESULTS

Let’s look at three charts. The first is the ranking of hurlers based on wins.

*Minimum 120 innings.

Obviously straight forward.

Next is the chart for the quality start leaders.

Let’s put the two columns together for the “new” W/QS measure. I tossed WAR (Wins Above Replacement) in there for fun as well to help put the pitchers performance into a bit more perspective.

• Other hurlers with 32 W/QS: James Shields, Jon Lester & Francisco Liriano.

So what do we have here?

The leader in W/QS was Jake Arrieta (51). He also led baseball in wins (22).

Zack Greinke was second. He led baseball with 30 quality starts.

John Lackey comes in 10^th even though he won just 13 games, because he was a more consistent hurler than Felix Hernandez, over whom he was one spot ahead in the W/QS rankings. For what it’s worth, WAR said Lackey was a better hurler (5.6 to 4.4).

The lowest-ranked hurler with at least 17 victories was Michael Wacha. He comes in at 15^th in W/QS.

Only one hurler ends up in the top-26 with less than 13 victories. That man was Jose Quintana who won just nine games. He was both consistent and extremely solid from start-to-start (25 quality starts). The next highest single-digit winner was Corey Kluber who won only nine games but still posted 28 W/QS.

Rubby De La Rosa won 14 games and had 14 quality starts. He was the lowest-ranked 14 game winner in the National League. The lowest mark in baseball belonged to Nathan Eovaldi who won 14 games but had only 10 quality starts. That’s just awful. Be extremely cautious with Eovaldi in 2016.

Drew Hutchison won 13 games but had a mere, and sickly, nine quality starts. He ended up with 22 W/QS, one less than Andrew Cashner who won seven games last season (23 W/QS).

So is W/QS the answer to what ails the wins column? Possibly. I certainly find it more appealing than wins alone. It’s now up to you as to what to do in 2016.