One more adjustment: eliminate the idea that there can be only one “winning” pitcher.
Granted, assigning more – or less — than one win per game undermines the symmetry surrounding the fact that individual win totals neatly match up with a team’s win total. At least it would undermine that symmetry if all the strategic changes imposed in the last decade or two hadn’t already rendered the designation of a “win” meaningless, which is why this entire discussion is relevant.
What we ought to be trying to do is reinvigorate the idea of a “win” by recognizing all pitchers who contribute in meaningful ways to a team’s win. Once we are willing to abandon the notion that individual wins must equal team wins, I can easily think of at least two simple ways to do so.
The first would be to declare that a pitcher should be credited with a win if his team wins and he makes a meaningful contribution. For the sake of argument, let’s define “meaningful” as a minimum of six outs with a game ERA no higher than 3.99.
On April 9, the Cubs’ Justin Steele started against Milwaukee and completed five innings. Steele faced 18 batters on 77 pitches, allowed five hits but no runs and was credited with the win … as he should have been.
He was followed to the mound by Keegan Thompson, who faced 10 batters and retired eight of them on 42 pitches. Since the Cubs already led 7-0 when Thompson entered the game, he got not so much as a measly hold for his efforts. What in the name of fairness would be wrong with giving Thompson as well as Steele a “win?”
The second method would be to look to Win Probability Added, assigning a “win” to any pitcher on a victorious team whose WPA for that game exceeded some pre-determined number, say +0.10 or thereabouts.
Such a scenario unfolded April 12 at U.S. Cellular Field when the Chicago White Sox defeated the Seattle Mariners, 3-2. Reynaldo Lopez was credited with the “win,” coming on in relief in the fifth inning of a 1-1 tie started by Vince Velasquez. Kendall Graveman, who would pitch a scoreless eighth, also figures in this discussion. Here are the pertinent figures for all three.
Batters faced Runs Runners WPA
Velasquez 17 1 5 .105
Lopez 5 0 0 .179
Graveman 4 0 1 .124
Based on the numbers, if you were limited by rule to only crediting one win, Lopez would deserve it. But the contributions of both Velasquez and Graveman were also measurably significant. Once you begin to see a “win” as credit for a job well done in victory, it only makes sense to assign such a designation to all three pitchers for their work in that game.
And, as noted earlier, if giving two or three wins is OK, what would be bad about giving none?
On April 8, the New York Mets defeated the Washington Nationals, 7-3. Max Scherzer, New York’s starter, pitched (for him) six ordinary innings. Scherzer allowed three earned runs and left with a 6-3 lead. For that, he was credited with the win.
But in the process Scherzer ran up a -.037 Win Probability Added. In other words, he was a liability, not a help, to the Mets’ cause that day. The Mets used 15 players to win that game, 13 of whom (based on Win Probability Added) deserved more statistical credit for the victory than Scherzer. That’s hardly a case for giving Max the win.
Mets manager Buck Showalter would use three relievers to finish the game, none for more than one inning, and none contributing a Win Probability Added as high as 0.060. But if Scherzer should be denied a win, why give it to any of the other three whose contributions were also ordinary just because a rule says there must be a winner? Better, it says here, to declare the category of “winning pitcher” a nullity for that game.
Add us as a preferred source on Google