Yes, as you indicated I would ignore both saves and wins. I don’t like either, as they don’t tell you what happened.
Home runs aren’t really analogous. A home run is essentially the same act in all stadiums. That is, many (if not most) home runs would be home runs in all ballparks. It’s also descriptive; you know what happened if a player hit a home run. But wins and saves tell you next to nothing about what the player did that day.
A better analogy would be RBIs, which I also dislike.
At least W/L in baseball has a long historical and traditional basis. Contrast this with football, where it has very recently been used as a basis for rating QBs, even though its worth in football is even less than its worth in baseball.
I understand your point. You are right. And, you are free to ignore both saves and wins.
Remember “Vince Young-He just wins”? Those were fun times.
Tim Tebow with the Broncos is more recent and more egregious.
Yes, but at least he’s still in the lea… oh crap.
Tebow’s winning pct. can be explained by two key stats:
#2 alone guarantees a high winning percentage in the NFL.
You forgot #3:
I don’t think it only applies when the starter fails to last 5 innings. Rule 10.19(c) says, “when the starting pitcher cannot be credited with the victory because of the provisions of 10.19 (a) or (b)…” One of the provisions of 10.19(a) could be that the starter’s team is not in the lead when he leaves the game (even if he’s pitched more than 5 innings). However, in the OP’s example, the official scorer can’t assign the win to a different pitcher, because there is no succeeding relief pitcher who pitches effectively in helping his team maintain the lead.
True, but he still would more likely than not win a lot of games simply by holding onto the ball and scoring a ridiculously high number of touchdowns given how little he threw or ran.
This stat just made my eyes pop out:
Tebow: TD every 19.2 touches for his career
Brady: TD every 18.2 touches
P. Manning: TD every 18 touches
Romo: TD every 18.8 touches
And here are QBs who are considered just okay and always have work:
Carson Palmer- TD every 22.1 touches
Mark Sanchez- TD every 24.9 touches
E. Manning- TD every 21.7 touches
Vick-TD ever 23.4 touches
Tebow doesn’t “just win” so much as he “just scores”. Only the elite QBs are better than him in that regard.
What was his average starting field position? Is that something that can be looked up?
Nonsense, and I say that as a person who has defended Tebow as a quarterback.
Tebow has been used in goal line situations, both as QB and as a non-QB, skewing his TD/Touch percentages. Elite quarterbacks get every snap from end to end, there is no point at which another QB handles the load until there’s a good chance of scoring.
WRT Wins, they suffer from a lack of granularity. You have a situation where a pitcher “did well” and got a Loss, and a situation where a pitcher “did poorly” and got a win. This happens routinely with other stats, like Hits, for instance. One guy hammers a line drive into the gap that gets caught by a full speed layout diving catch… Out! Another guy gets totally fooled by a change-up, the ball hits the end of his bat, and dribbles down the 3rd base line, the pitcher can’t quite get there in time… Hit!
Do we say that Hits are a terrible stat because this can occur? Of course not. However, unlike Wins, nobody ever says that one batter is “better” because he has 15 hits over the last week, instead of the 11 hits another batter has. You wait for the caught line drives and seeing eye singles to even themselves out, then you say the guy with 200 hits had a better season than the guy with 150 hits. It still may not be true, but it isn’t exactly nonsense either.
So too, with Wins, one must wait for these oddball situations to even out before discussing the merits of a player based on Wins. Since there are so few situations, it takes multiple seasons for these to play out. Even then, you have to account for run support, just like with RBI you have to account for how often a player gets to bat with runners in scoring position.
If you only count the year he started, he’s at 21.8 touches per TD, no longer in the elite class, but still above average. There’s no mystery to why he wins, and it’s not all the defense. If it was, Kyle Orton would have done just fine as Denver’s QB.
And the turnovers make a big difference too, and goal line touches don’t reduce turnovers. Michael Vick turns the ball over every 38 plays. Tim Tebow only every 51 plays. That actually puts Tebow ahead of Tom Brady, who turns the ball over ever 48 plays. As a matter of fact, I don’t think any starting QB has had such an outstanding record of not turning the ball over in a very long time.
One important difference between hits and wins is that a batter’s hits are nearly independent of the performance of the rest of his team, while a pitcher’s wins are very dependent on the team. Both hits and wins are subject to luck and the quality of the opposing team, but these things are more likely to even out over time because luck is just random chance, and because the opposing team changes. The quality of one’s own team usually doesn’t change much by comparison, except over relatively long periods. So a pitcher’s wins and losses depend on a big factor that is outside his control, and that doesn’t even out much over time.
I’m not following this at all. Tebow has played just one full season. How can his numbers be compared to other quarterbacks? And what was so impressive about his full season?
12 TD’s, 6 Interceptions and 13 fumbles. His completion rate was 46.5%.
Didn’t someone say that as a quarterback, he was a pretty good running back? That about sums it up.
As for baseball, Quality Starts is a better indicator than won/loss, but not by much.
Wouldn’t quality starts be excellent? It gives pitchers credit for good outings whether they win or lose.
Funny, the phrasing of your post gave me an idea: Excellent Starts, to distinguish from mere quality starts.
It’s not a bad stat, really, but I’m not sure what value it brings.
What do I learn from quality starts that I don’t already know from IP, K/9, BB/9, and ERA? Hell, if I know ERA and IP I can pretty much deduce what percentage of starts were likely Quality Starts.
It also suffers from the same problems that any non-park-adjusted and non-defense-independent pitching stat does - the context of the performance can overshadow the “true” quality of the performance.
For reference, here are the Quality Start leaders for 2012 with their ERA ranks in parenthesis:
1 Justin Verlander (3)
2 R.A. Dickey (4)
3 Clayton Kershaw (1)
3 David Price (2)
3 Kyle Lohse (8)
3 Yovani Gallardo
3 Anibal Sanchez (51)
8 Jordan Zimmermann (10)
8 Ryan Vogelsong (19)
10 Johnny Cueto (5)
10 Matt Cain (6)
10 Cole Hamels (12)
10 Jake Peavy (20)
Sanchez is the only real anomaly.
Good point. The trouble is that calling something “quality” isn’t really descriptive, despite what Donald Trump and/or Bill James says. (Says me, the would be English major). There are things that are of high quality, of average quality, and of low quality. Technically, saying something is of “quality” just means that it exists.
That’s a good point and perhaps a rating system would be better. There should be a baseball term that differentiates between pitching 8 innings and allowing 2 runs and going 6 and allowing 3. Fulfilling the minimum requirement for a quality start leaves a pitcher with a 4.50 ERA…certainly not “high” quality.