Stat of the Year...

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

The Tigers starters have exactly 2 losses through 22 games, yet the team is now 12-10. :dead:

At the beginning of the year, if you knew the starters would only lose 2 games by this time, you would figure the team would be at least 16-6 or better. What a waste the bullpen has been so far.

[tigerkid23]

Yeah, that's pretty gross.

[DTroppens]

The starting pitching has been solid - very solid. The defense has been pretty strong.

The offense and the pen - really bad.

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

I think when the bullpen blows a game it's the worst way to lose - it's frustrating and demoralizing. Especially when a starter goes 7 strong innings only to have the bullpen erase their effort in a matter of 5 minutes. It's much worse than losing say 8-2.

[potthole]

With how the pen did last year, I would have thought someone was joking if they told me that it would be responsible for 8 losses this early in the season.

[ToledoTigerFan]

I think when the bullpen blows a game it's the worst way to lose - it's frustrating and demoralizing. Especially when a starter goes 7 strong innings only to have the bullpen erase their effort in a matter of 5 minutes. It's much worse than losing say 8-2.

Absolutely agree.

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

Last year the Tigers bullpen went 20-20 with a 3.51 ERA, which was second in the AL behind Minnesota at 2.91.

This year the bullpen is now 6-8 with a 4.87 ERA, which ranks 11th in the AL. The bullpen has an ERA of 1.36 runs higher than last year.

[IdahoBert]

It hurts even more to see it black and white.

[tigerbomb13]

I never thought I would miss Jaime Walker as much as I do. He's got 11 K's through 9 innings and a WHIP of .89 so far. :(

[dt35456884]

I never thought I would miss Jaime Walker as much as I do. He's got 11 K's through 9 innings and a WHIP of .89 so far. :(

To be fair, the lefties have probably been our best bullpen arms thus far. But I agree that we will miss Jamie.

[monkeytargets37]

The thing is...the offense hasnt been bad at all...just the bottom third. We're scoring enough runs for our starting pitching to win games...the games are just being given away by the bullpen in late innings and not giving the offense a lot of time or margin of error to come back and produce.

[FloridaTigers]

Our offense has definately arrived.

Its our bullpen thats holding us back from those old 15-1 runs.

**** our bullpen.

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

Look at the last five losses:
Up 3-1 in 9th vs. KC - Jones Blown Save, Rodney Loss
Up 4-2 in 6th vs CHI - Grilli Loss
Up 4-3 in 8th vs CHI - Zumaya Blown Save, Rodney Loss
Up 8-7 in 9th at LAA - Jones Blown Save, Loss
Up 3-1 in 8th vs MIN - Zumaya Loss

That's 5 games where the bullpen blew a lead, 4 of them in the 8th or 9th inning. Last year that was 5 wins.

[PuNk42AE]

This year has just been a collection of bad innings from the pen. Looking through each game it isn't like we're getting blown away inning after inning, it's coming down to one guy coming in and getting the loss right away (Rodney/Zumaya).

[MotownRandy]

Call up Miller and put him in the bullpen.

[PuNk42AE]

At this point i'd rather just keep Miller down, I wouldn't be hurt if he was down the entire 2007 season. Right now he's 1-3 4.76era, 28.1ip with 9bb and 18k, batters also are hitting .281 against him. It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers he puts up when he moves to AA.

[MAROTH4MVP]

Who is closing in Toledo?? Is he decent?

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

Who is closing in Toledo?? Is he decent?

Lopez was closing in Toledo until he got called up. Not sure who is the official closer there now.

[chasfh]

They're not the worst bullpen in the league, but they are no better than 10th out of 14 (better than Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Yankees and Royals). Jamie Walker is sorely missed, as expected (http://www.motownsports.com/forums/showthread.php?p=966015&#post966015), and even though we do have some decent arms there (Rodney, Zumaya, Ledezma and, believe it or not, Jones), when you see the rest of the pen is patched together with Bobby Seay, Jason Grilli, Aquilino Lopez, and Jose Freaking Mesa -- well, gulp. Yes, I know Rodney and Zumaya and Jones have been floundering lately, but it's kind of rare to see it happen all at once, and there's not much else to pick them up.

As for the offense, the performance has been mixed. They're in the bottom half of the league in average, on base and slugging, although they are top four in runs scored. It helps that they have more plate appearances this year than just about everyone else, but they are above average in runs per plate appearance and runs scored per baserunner. I also think it's helped that they have gotten more runners on errors and fewer double plays than other clubs.

By the way, how pathetic are the Oakland A's at the plate this year? They are "hitting" .225/.303/.335 so far this year. Take a look at them (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/2007.shtml) -- especially Jason Kendall!

[jj04]

The bottom third has basically become what it is most of the time...the bottom third. Inge is the only one that has some power, but he hasn't been effective with the bat this year. Monroe, who has done very well in some situations, has been swinging at some bad pitches this year. The only time the bottom third has been somewhat effective is when Granderson is there, but then that's usually against lefties (like Santana tomorrow), when he's least effective.

The bottom line is we're seeing the bottom third of the lineup reverting back to normal.

[MonkeyWrench32]

Yet another reason why pitching wins and losses is one of the worst stats in baseball.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Yet another reason why pitching wins and losses is one of the worst stats in baseball.

Disagree. It's only a bad stat if someone doen't know how to analyze it. If a team has 5 starters with above .500 records, chances are it's a good team. Pitching wins and losses are team wins and losses, too. The wins and losses stat is poo-poo'd by too many. It's fashionable to say wins and losses is a bad stat. That doesn't mean it is.

[MonkeyWrench32]

Disagree. It's only a bad stat if someone doen't know how to analyze it. If a team has 5 starters with above .500 records, chances are it's a good team. Pitching wins and losses are team wins and losses, too. The wins and losses stat is poo-poo'd by too many. It's fashionable to say wins and losses is a bad stat. That doesn't mean it is.

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2005/04/glossary-of-terms.html

Wins
1. The only stat that matters. The only way to pick a Cy Young winner. The thing Billy Beane can't get in the playoffs, no matter how many fancy computers he hires to play baseball for him.
2. A simply awful pitching statistic that should be swallowed up by the earth itself, personified, given ears, and forced to listen to a tape loop of Bermanisms for all of eternity. The reason being – and again, you know this, intuitively, even if you have never quite expressed it to yourself – if Carl Pavano gives up nineteen runs in five innings but the Yankees score 20 runs, and they hold on to win, and Pavano gets the win, is Pavano a good pitcher? No he is not. (This scenario is assuming he ever comes back and actually pitches, btw.) If Francisco Liriano throws 9 innings of no-hit ball, but gives up a run on four consecutive errors by Terry Tiffey and gets a loss, is Francisco Liriano a bad pitcher? No he is not. Wins stink to high heaven as a way to value pitchers because they are in very large part dependent on the actions of the other guys on the team.

Of course, according to Joe Morgan, "Wins and losses are how you measure pitchers" (Baseball For Dummies, p. 289).

I'd have to agree with #2.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Well, of course. Once you qualify it. Every stat needs to be qualified to be relevant. Wins and losses are one way you measure pitchers. An important way. History has proven that wins are an important way to measure a pitchers success.

[tiger337]

Wins and losses are one way you measure pitchers. An important way. History has proven that wins are an important way to measure a pitchers success.

History has shown me that wins and losses for a pitcher are so irrelevant over a single season that I don't bother looking at them anymore. They are somewhat useful in measuring longevity over a career but even then there are other stats which are better.

[Yoda]

Well, of course. Once you qualify it. Every stat needs to be qualified to be relevant. Wins and losses are one way you measure pitchers. An important way. History has proven that wins are an important way to measure a pitchers success.

Over the course of a career, wins are more likely to tell you that a pitcher was decent. It's hard to luck into wins year after year. But when just looking at one or two years, they are pretty usuless.

[tiger337]

Disagree. It's only a bad stat if someone doen't know how to analyze it. If a team has 5 starters with above .500 records, chances are it's a good team. .

It doesn't say anything about the pitchers though. A team can have 5 below average starters with above .500 records if it hits/fields well enough.

[ToledoTigerFan]

History has shown me that wins and losses for a pitcher are so irrelevant over a single season that I don't bother looking at them anymore. They are somewhat useful in measuring longevity over a career but even then there are other stats which are better.

There are certain numbers that pretty much guarantee a player getting in the Hall of Fame. Reach that particular number and you're headed to the Hall of Fame. 300 wins, 500 HR's, and 3,000 hits. Yet I have heard each and every one of those numbers be poo-poo'd by someone here. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe that every player who has 500 HR's, 3,000 hits, and 300 wins is in the Hall of Fame. Since a hit is irrelevant, a win is irrelevant, and home runs over-rated, what standard should we use to judge baseball players?

[Yoda]

what standard should we use to judge baseball players?

Consistently being one of the top pitchers in the game. Simply being on a team that scores a ton of runs doesn't really say that. He might rack up a lot of wins but he may be a pretty average pitcher.

[tiger337]

There are certain numbers that pretty much guarantee a player getting in the Hall of Fame. Reach that particular number and you're headed to the Hall of Fame. 300 wins, 500 HR's, and 3,000 hits. Yet I have heard each and every one of those numbers be poo-poo'd by someone here. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe that every player who has 500 HR's, 3,000 hits, and 300 wins is in the Hall of Fame. Since a hit is irrelevant, a win is irrelevant, and home runs over-rated, what standard should we use to judge baseball players?

A pitcher who wins 300 games for a career is almost certainly a very good pitcher. However, a pitcher can win 15 games in a season ( a number which is traditionally thought of as a high total) and not be a good pitcher in that season. How do I judge pitchers? I look at innings pitched, strikeouts, walks, gb rate (when avialable). pop up rate (when available). If you need to stay traditional, I would look at IP and ERA.

A player who gets 3,000 hits for a career is probably a very good hitter but it's a poor way to rank players. Was Cal Ripken really a better hitter than Babe Ruth? Or George Brett (to choose a player from a more similar era)? For hitters, I look at plate appearances, batting average, isolated power and walks/pa. If I want one overall number, I'll use something like runs created and RC is now common enough that it is included in the ESPN sortables.

[jj04]

I don't know, starting pitchers usually get roughly 32 starts in a season. 15 is almost mediocre to me...you could go 15-15 if nearly all your starts are decisions. A good pitcher gets at least 18, if not more than 20, and leads or is near the top in other categories, including ERA, strikeouts, or hits allowed. I know some pitchers are on bad fielding teams, but a good pitcher gets the out.

Good players will get recognized. I think it should be harder to get in the Hall myself, but that's just me.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Possibly a good sign - our bullpen has now thrown 6.1 consecutive hitless innings, with an ERA of 0.00

[chasfh]

There are certain numbers that pretty much guarantee a player getting in the Hall of Fame. Reach that particular number and you're headed to the Hall of Fame. 300 wins, 500 HR's, and 3,000 hits. Yet I have heard each and every one of those numbers be poo-poo'd by someone here. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe that every player who has 500 HR's, 3,000 hits, and 300 wins is in the Hall of Fame. Since a hit is irrelevant, a win is irrelevant, and home runs over-rated, what standard should we use to judge baseball players?

Which pitcher would you prefer to have on your team?

Pitcher A: 7-15
Pitcher B: 15-8

[Oblong]

I always think of the Clemens and Mussina in 2001 to show that W-L for a pitcher is useless. Mussina was 17-11 and Clemens was 20-3 and the runaway Cy Young winner. Only problem is that Mussina was the better pitcher. I don't have the run support figures but I'd be interested in seeing them.

As for the HOF and wins..... Bert Blyleven. That's proof that just because HOF voters have always done things a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. If Blyleven played for the Tigers he'd have won 320 games and been a no brainer.

Last year Nate lost 13 games. In those 13 losses the Tigers scored 21 runs.

[chasfh]

I always think of the Clemens and Mussina in 2001 to show that W-L for a pitcher is useless. Mussina was 17-11 and Clemens was 20-3 and the runaway Cy Young winner. Only problem is that Mussina was the better pitcher. I don't have the run support figures but I'd be interested in seeing them.

As for the HOF and wins..... Bert Blyleven. That's proof that just because HOF voters have always done things a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. If Blyleven played for the Tigers he'd have won 320 games and been a no brainer.

Last year Nate lost 13 games. In those 13 losses the Tigers scored 21 runs.

Mussina: 4.21 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=mussimi01&t=p&year=2001)
Clemens: 5.74 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=clemero02&t=p&year=2001)

[shabba4detroit]

Yet another reason why pitching wins and losses is one of the worst stats in baseball.


As a blanket statement, that is probably correct. But when you are 20 games into a season and your de facto setup man has 4 losses, that had better suggest to someone that there is a problem somewhere.

[tiger337]

As a blanket statement, that is probably correct. But when you are 20 games into a season and your de facto setup man has 4 losses, that had better suggest to someone that there is a problem somewhere.

His other stats would confirm it though. He could have lost those games because of errors. He didn't but he could have. When you give up a ton of hits and walks in a small number of innings though, that confirms it.

[Yoda]

As a blanket statement, that is probably correct. But when you are 20 games into a season and your de facto setup man has 4 losses, that had better suggest to someone that there is a problem somewhere.

True, but there are better stats for determining that than losses. A reliever can come into a game with a 1-run lead and the defense commits a couple errors and he loses the game. That doesn't mean he pitched bad. There really isn't a situation I can think of where I'd use wins and losses to determine how good a pitcher has been.

[Yoda]

His other stats would confirm it though. He could have lost those games because of errors. He didn't but he could have. When you give up a ton of hits and walks in a small number of innings though, that confirms it.

Stop thinking like me.

[shabba4detroit]

His other stats would confirm it though. He could have lost those games because of errors. He didn't but he could have. When you give up a ton of hits and walks in a small number of innings though, that confirms it.

A starter with a lot of losses, you can look to quality starts, run support, and fielding errors to determine whether it is an accurate metric. I think the fact that in many cases it is not a good metric leaves Nate Robertson as one of the more underrated pitchers in the league right now.

But a short reliever with 4 losses in three weeks ... that sends up a whole bunch of red flags. To take the loss, a short reliever has to come in with a lead or tie and insufficient runners on base that the previous pitcher is responsible for to lose the lead, and then give up enough runs over the course of no more than two innings to lose that lead. For that to happen multiple times in a three week span, that would be some highly concentrated occurrences of errors for the problem to not be with the pitcher.

[tiger337]

A starter with a lot of losses, you can look to quality starts, run support, and fielding errors to determine whether it is an accurate metric. I think the fact that in many cases it is not a good metric leaves Nate Robertson as one of the more underrated pitchers in the league right now.

But a short reliever with 4 losses in three weeks ... that sends up a whole bunch of red flags. To take the loss, a short reliever has to come in with a lead or tie and insufficient runners on base that the previous pitcher is responsible for to lose the lead, and then give up enough runs over the course of no more than two innings to lose that lead. For that to happen multiple times in a three week span, that would be some highly concentrated occurrences of errors for the problem to not be with the pitcher.

Well, he could have lost 2 games due to errors, pitch 3 innings and throw one bad pitch in another game and pitch crappy in the 4th game. That wouldn't be so bad. In his case, the losses happen to be consistent with his performance but that's not always the case. The fact that he has given up 18 base runners and 2 home runs in 13 innings tells me more. The fact that he has given up at least one run in 6 of his 11 appearances (all of them under 3 IP) also tells me more than his won/loss record.

[Yoda]

I think we all agree that it sends up a red flag. We're just saying that there are more accurate ways to tell if he's been pitching poorly. The losses in that scenerio are a good indication that he's pitching poorly, but who only look at a "good indication" when you also have numbers that tell you for sure?

[chasfh]

A starter with a lot of losses, you can look to quality starts, run support, and fielding errors to determine whether it is an accurate metric. I think the fact that in many cases it is not a good metric leaves Nate Robertson as one of the more underrated pitchers in the league right now.

This right here is what makes wins/losses an unimportant stat. If you have to look at a whole bunch other stats in order to get context on it -- if it cannot stand on its own as a measure of whether a pitcher is doing well or not -- how can it be held up as the key stat by which to judge a pitcher, as so many who make a living writing about the game do?

But a short reliever with 4 losses in three weeks ... that sends up a whole bunch of red flags. To take the loss, a short reliever has to come in with a lead or tie and insufficient runners on base that the previous pitcher is responsible for to lose the lead, and then give up enough runs over the course of no more than two innings to lose that lead. For that to happen multiple times in a three week span, that would be some highly concentrated occurrences of errors for the problem to not be with the pitcher.

If a pitcher comes in four times and and has these lines in the four games:

1) 1.0IP 2H 2R 2ER 1BB 1SO
2) 0.1 3 1 1 0 0
3) 1.0 1 1 1 1 1
4) 1.0 2 2 1 0 0

... coming in during the ninth inning with a three-run lead every time, he will rack up four saves. Will that pitcher have pitched better than did Rodney getting those same lines and being saddled with four losses?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Rodney definitely sucked over that stretch, but offense (or lack of) is still a factor in determining your W/L record, whether you are a starter or a reliever. For example, if you end up playing 12 innings, and fail to score for the last 10 of those innings, I guarrantee that one of our relievers will earn a loss, even though the lack of offense was truly to blame.

At least Rodney is looking better now. Ledezma is still a bit too wild for my liking, but perhaps with more work he will get dialed in.