OT Verlander 24-5
Justin Verlander now 24-5 and having one of the finest seasons in recent history. If I had a vote for MVP JV would get it. Cy Young is a mortal lock
On another note, those pesky Rangers won again, leaving the Tigers with a precarious one game lead in the race for HFA. Go Tigers.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
because that never goes anywhere good.
I cited Jack Morris because I knew off the top of my head that he had a 20 win season where he was not a very good pitcher. I haven't taken a look at every twenty win pitcher since then to pick out those with terrible ERAs.
Anyway, the basic point is this: there are many factors that go into winning a baseball game. A game turns on offense, defense, pitching, and random chance. A pitcher has more input into the outcome of a game than any other player on the field, but it's almost certainly significantly less than 50% in any game. It's a weird anachronism of baseball that we've decided to keep track of wins and losses as an individual stat only for pitchers, and it rewards and punishes pitchers for things outside of their control (bullpen, defense, luck, offense) in a way that obscures, rather than illuminates, overall valuation of a pitcher.
Verlander is GREAT. Pitcher wins ain't why.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
Jack Morris was a very good pitcher, but Jack Morris failed Metrics 101 because he didn't care about stats, just winning. That mean son of a bitch would shut your ass down all night until his team got him 5 runs, then he would give a couple runs. it's a hard thing to quantify
.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:45 PM ^
I forget who, actually did a study of the "pitch to the score" thing specifically as it related to Jack Morris. They found no evidence whatsoever that Jack Morris eased off the gas when he had a big lead. He was a solid pitcher for a very long time. He also had the benefit of playing on many great baseball teams, which probably unfairly inflated his win total.
Edit: here is the article on Jack Morris and the "pitch to the score" idea. It's from Baseball Prospectus
September 18th, 2011 at 8:53 PM ^
I know it will make me a neanderthal, but there isn't chance in hell I read the article. All I can do is smile because this is such a pointless exercise. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game, but I saw first hand what Morris was capable of, going up against the best, in the biggest moments, and the guy had "It".
September 18th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
this is the most likely to get neg-banged (which is saying something).
There is no such thing as "clutch", or "it" or whatever you want to call it.
It is a myth.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
A lot of people say Derek Jeter is "Mr. Clutch" or whatever. He has played 147 post season games, so enough of a sample to compare it to other full seasons. Has anyone actually looked at his career regular season numbers and compared them to his post season numbers? They are remarkably similar.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
I wouldn't neg ya, but I cannot even comprhend how you can watch people compete and arrive at such a conclusion.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
the thought line that the players who make the big clutch plays are usually the players who make the same plays all game and season long, even in "non-clutch" situations. We just don't remember those moments in our minds as easily. You probably remember David Eckstein as clutch because of the 2006 World Series, but his career post season numbers are virtually identical to his career regular season numbers. In fact, freakishly identical.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:54 PM ^
Being "clutch" often means that a player continued to perform at a given level even when pressure rises. LOTS of players "choke" to some extent, so overcoming that potential pitfall is a real thing.
Think of mid-2000's Tiger Woods putting on Sunday in major tournaments. Ten-footers aren't objectively difficult putts, but Tiger ALWAYS made them regardless of the pressure of the situation.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
That's just a ridiculous statement. If you are seriously suggesting that some players aren't more apt to perform well in crucial situations than others, I can't argue with you.
Sincerely,
Greg Norman.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^
like to let teams back into games?
September 18th, 2011 at 8:49 PM ^
You seem not to get my point and argue a different point, which is how these things tend to go. I can tell you without hesitation, Jack Morris was one helluva pitcher and one helluva competitor, and I would stack him up against any pitcher in any era, he was that good. You could feel it when Morris pitched, you might not understand, but Brady Hoke would.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^
Jack Morris, I get Randy Johnson. Deal?
September 18th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
Two great pitchers, what's your point. I can tell you I would love to see them square off in a game 7, it would be phenomenal
September 18th, 2011 at 8:33 PM ^
But Verlander does have all the gaudy stats to go with 24 wins and most everyone is aware of his other stats. Being able to win and close out batters, innings, games is an art, an art at which JV has become quite adept. I seem to recall quite a few games where JV has given up runs when he had the lead, but rarely does he give up the lead. I don't think it is a coincidence. JV has the ability to bare/bear down and get a crucial out, some call it random variation, some call it luck, some call it a skill.
If I needed to win a game seven of the World Series in 2011, I would take JV over anyone in the game. The question is iffier over a 7 game series but an argument can be made for JV in that scenario as well.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
I think the reason stat snobs (a group I am a member of when it comes to baseball) get frustrated is because the only reason people even look to wins before they get into other statistics is time-honored tradition, harkening back to a time when analysis of the game was very primitive.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
had 3 wins at the trading deadline. Think about that for a few minutes.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:44 PM ^
An extreme outlier, obviously. 99 times out of 100, a guy with a 3-12 record is going to be a crappy pitcher.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^
version using really good to excellent pitchers. David Price is 12-12 this year. That's the same record as John Lackey.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
what about for a goalie? should wins and GAA not be looked at when trying to decide who should win the vezina? its the same as wins and era
September 18th, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
to answer that question.
Sorry.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^
or save percentage itself is flawed, if you think about it. A crazy save that most goalies would not make is rated as the same as an easy save that all goalies can make. Unfortunately, I know of no way to actually rate if a goalie actually makes more difficult saves than other goalies other than using my own two eyes.
September 20th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
But save percentage is actually a very good stat. Only a few goalies (and the systems they play in) can buck that kind of sample size
September 18th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^
Key word: "team." As an individual statistic, it's stunningly shallow for a number that still gets so much play.
Usually cream rises to the top and that's why you see Verlander with so many wins this year, but there are so many more descriptive and accurate statistics out there (ones that don't rely heavily on the performance of the Tigers' lineup, bullpen and even defense) that it's hardly worth looking at for those who make an effort to seek out and understand other metrics.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:18 PM ^
I would take you more seriously if I hadn't watched Verlander pitch into the 7th or 8th letting up less than 5 hits and 1 run so many times this year. The Tigers won those games as a team because Verlander put them in position to win them.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:27 PM ^
And if Benoit or Valverde get knocked around just a little -- something JV has ZERO control over by any definition -- than he gets a ND. That's not even to mention the offense, which collectively bears every bit the responsibility of winning as Verlander.
Maybe SABR can go too far at times but the argument for pitcher wins as a major individual statistic is truly ridiculous.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
But here's the thing: JV does have some control over the bull pen. Because JV pitches so deep into games he helps the bullpen help him - he gets the game to the bullpen in great positions. He pitches deep enough so that the he's protecting his win by having Valverde or Benoit take over instead of David Pauley.
Furthermore, JV is unique in the sense that he defies normal pitching standards. JV will start an inning with 110 pitches already under his belt, which again goes to the fact that he does have an influence on the bullpen's ability to preserve wins.
I'm not a stat guy; I guess for someone as relatively young as me I'm a purist. Really, all you need to do is watch the guy to know that the 24 wins do represent his value. Is this to say wins are a quality indicator of every pitcher's value? No, but to say they're worthless is kinda ridiculous, especially when the Tigers have won Verlander's last 11 starts.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
we fall 24 games off our current pace if we remove Verlander. Heck, the Tigers are 19-10 when Porcello pitches, so conceivably replacing Verlander with a Porcello level pitcher would only cost the team a few games. (Obviously caveats apply to the previous statement)
September 19th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^
It's not hard to turn that thinking on its head.
Say the Tigers are a lower payroll team and David Pauley is in the role of Benoit. The Tigers are paying $12.5 million this season to their closer and set-up man. That is a massive investment for the back of the bullpen and, fortunately, those guys are earning it. Had they gone cheap there, it could easily spell more NDs for Verlander and, again, he would have no control over it.
*Let the record show that I am not for one minute arguing against the awesomeness of JV, but rather against the wisdom of wins as a primary statistic.
September 19th, 2011 at 3:06 AM ^
I don't think anyone is arguing that his wins are the only thing impressive about JV. It is the leading the league in pretty much any statistic a pitcher can lead in that has us thinking there is not really any competition for the Cy Young
September 18th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
Yesterday I noticed that Ohio U. really dusted Marshall. When reading the recap I saw a familiar (Detroit Tiger) name: (Tyler) Tettleton. I had the Tigers on the brain for some reason and wondered whether he was any relation to Mickey Tettleton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tettlmi01.shtml). Sure 'nuff:
http://www.ohiobobcats.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/tettleton_tyler00.html
Here's the recap:
September 18th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
THE WHAT OF, DAMN YOU, THE WHAT OF
September 18th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
Who was the last Tiger pitcher to win this many games? Denny McLain?
September 18th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Mickey Lolich won 25 in 1971.
The last time anyone won 25 was Bob Welch (with 27) in 1990. In fact, since 1970, the only pitchers to top Verlander's 24 are:
Bob Welch (27), 1990
Steve Stone (25), 1980
Ron Guidry (25), 1978
Catfish Hunter & Fergie Jenkins (25 each), 1974
Steve Carlton (27), 1972
Mickey Lolich (25), 1971
Pretty rarified air there if JV can win his last start.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^
Dude, its all meaningless. He trails Sabathia in xFIP. Thats why every single CY Young prediction and article out there has Sabathia winning. Verlander had a great season, but he just cared too much about winning games, pitching no hitters, chewing through the most innings, leading the league in strikeouts, having the lowest batting average against possible, and having a sub-1.00 WHIP, and not enough time perfecting his xFIP number. :( :( :( All is lost.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:46 PM ^
with FIP and xFIP is that they COMPLETELY ignore batted balls altogether. And all xFIP does it set every pitchers FIP rate as if they all were MLB average at allowing homers per fly ball. Not all pitchers do that. That's why Siera was invented. Obviously, it's not perfect by any means, but it's proven to be even more accurate going forward than xFIP has been.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:34 PM ^
I was there, along with a few hundred other Tiger fans. I was prepared to sing the Michigan fight song if (M Go) Victor(s) Martinez hit one out, but never got the chance.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
I guess someone finally figured out what it's good for?
September 18th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
If my title had said, "OT Tigers win 3-0", this thread would probably have about 10 posts with 5 of them being mine. I hit a nerve with the Saber Toothed Tiger fans by using such a worthless stat such as W-L Record to concisely sum up JV's day.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:11 AM ^
How about "Tigers win 3-0; JV 8 shutout innings"?
You can't tell me you honestly don't see the (huge) problem with W-L as an individual statistic. I agree with a lot of what Clay said in this thread about advanced metric elitists, but I still don't see how any intelligent person can think wins should be a primary measure of a pitcher.
September 19th, 2011 at 8:26 AM ^
But when you have the most wins posted by any pitcher in the American League during this century, it's a noteworthy thing.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
While it may not be stat worthy, it is quite newsworthy. I think more people are interested in JV winning his 24th than his pitching 8 shutout inning, plus by my title you already know the Tigers won. Such efficiency and so little appreciation, life can be hard sometimes.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^
for MVP!
September 18th, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^
You may be more accurate than you intended to be.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
Just glanced through the stats, and not only does Verlander have the AL pitching "triple crown" in hand (ERA, Ks, Wins), he has the triple crown for all of baseball as well as the most innings pitched and lowest WHIP. For all of baseball.
What was equally interesting is that Clayton Kershaw is second in every one of those categories. That kid has had a hell of a season in his own right.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:21 PM ^
You do understand he trails Sabathia by hundredths of a point in xFIP, which negates everything you just said, right?
September 18th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^
find this interesting
Things to Remember:
- While homerun rates are generally unstable over time, some pitchers are still more prone to allowing homeruns than others. If a pitcher has a long history of out- or under-performing the league average with their HR/FB rate, then you can reasonably expect them to perform closer to their career average than the league-average. For example, C.C. Sabathia has a career 8.5% homerun rate, and has never posted a homerun rate above league average. In cases like this, xFIP may not be the best judge of the player’s true talent level.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
being sarcastic
September 19th, 2011 at 12:04 AM ^
but wanted to post that just incase. You can never be too sure with some of the people around here. haha
September 18th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
I reject your statistical reality and insert my own.