One of baseball’s most overrated stats, in general, has to be a starting pitcher’s win-loss record, particularly on a second division team.
It boils down to this: A pitcher has almost zero impact on the number of runs his team scores for him. If the NL used the DH rule, it would be absolute zero.
There’s no shortage of evidence.
A starting pitcher with an ERA of under 3 runs a game should have a pretty good win-loss record, right? In 1987 Nolan Ryan led the NL in ERA at 2.76. He allowed the fewest hits per 9 innings pitched, and the most strikeouts per 9 innings as well.
His W-L was 8-16. The Astros finished 10 under .500 for the season, 76-86. Not that good, but not horrible either. Yet for Ryan they played only .333 baseball.
One of my favorite examples is Dick Such, who as a Senators’ farmhand in 1967 compiled a solid ERA of just 2.81 in AA ball. His win-loss mark was 0-16. As in zero wins, 16 losses. That’s probably the most extreme, but you get the picture.
The knee-jerk reaction of labeling a pitcher good or bad based on their W-L record comes down to simplicity: It’s the way it’s been done for years and most everyone understands it. Retired pitchers have told me for years that it’s usually the first thing a team throws at them when it’s contract time.
I look at John Lannan’s 2009 season with the Nats and have to wonder what his record might’ve been with a contender. In 33 starts Lannan went 9-13 with a sub-four ERA. In a time in which starting pitchers in both leagues routinely have ERA’s in the mid-fours (after all, a “quality start” is 6 innings allowing 3 or fewer earned runs), Lannan’s 3.88 looks pretty good. He ranks in the top 25 in that category in the NL. He understands completely that the role of the pitcher is to get them out as efficiently as you can, and not concern yourself with strikeouts.
Last winter, A.J. Burnett signed a 5-year, $82.5 Million contract with the Yankees. With the Blue Jays in 2008, Burnett won 18 games with an ERA of around four, while Lannan won nine for the Nats with an ERA of 3.90, a shade below. Lannan actually had more quality starts in 2008 than Burnett. This year, Burnett will earn about $16.5 million; Lannan about $16 million less.
Don’t get me entirely wrong on this; a starter’s win totals aren’t completely without value. It’s just that there are better ways to measure efficiency and I believe that, in time, the game and its fans will get used to newer terminology. Until that time, though, don’t rely entirely on W’s and L’s to determine good or bad. It’s just not that simple.
Phil Wood is a contributor to Nats Xtra on MASN. Contact him at [email protected].
