Freddy got fingered

Give you an example:  In June of 2005, the Yankees were trailing Tampa Bay 11-2, when Yankee starter Randy Johnson departed.  The Yankees proceeded to rally and win the game by a 19-11 score,  thereby bailing Johnson out with a no-decision.  BUT, by my SWL criterion,  a pitcher in Johnson's position who was out-pitched by his starter adversary, does not get off the hook because the bats came alive long after he had showered and left the Stadium.  Your effort does not improve after you have left the game and your team in a big hole.

I really didn't explain it that well, in my original posting, so I cannot expect it to be readily appreciated without clarification of these points.  HOWEVER, when someone informs you that a trend holds up 85 PER CENT OF THE TIME OVER A BIG SAMPLING, that should generate your interest in learning more, before you attempt to trash it, altogether.  So, at the risk of being redundant, I will repeat my original statement...

Extensive research covering literally thousands of American League and National League games dating to 1996, has revealed that the team with the more effective starting pitcher in a game, based upon total runs allowed divided by innings pitched, goes on to win the game 85% of the time.

This tells us two things:  1.  Starting pitching trumps relief pitching as the primary deciding factor in the outcome of the vast majority of baseball games; and, 2. Blowout games (winning by four or more runs) accrue to teams which do the bulk of their scoring early, rather than late in a game.  Teams taking a permanent lead in the first inning win by an average of 4-5 runs, depending on which league we are talking about.  Teams which win games late, in the 8th or 9th inning, tend to win the one or two-run decisons.  The significance of this is that a blowout win is more indicative of inherent quality and ability, than is a win by a run or two. (Source: Bill James Baseball Abstract.)  

 The above puts even more of a premium on starting pitching.  The Starter Won-Loss stat helps to clarify which pitchers have a deceptive official W-L record, and which, such as Jon Lieber, are the beneficiaries of good fortune not of their own making, more often than not.

Finally, the SWL stat directly indicates how effective or ineffective a bullpen is.  For example, in 2005, the Phillies composite Starter-Won Lost Record was 91-71.  But the team had an official 88-74 record and missed the playoffs by one game.  In other words, the Phillies bullpen cost the team a net three games in the win column and a place in the post-season derby.  By comparing a team's overall SWL record with its actual  W-L record we can determine whether a bullpen moves a team up or down in the win column, and precisely to what extent.

So, you see, the Starter Won-Lost stat has major applications and implications, and affords insight which even GM's and managers rarely possess.

I hope this helps.

ND #1:  6-7 * 1-1  This means Lieber pitched 6 innings, Martinez pitched 7 innings; Lieber allowed 1 run, Martinez allowed 1 run.  Lieber took the starter won-lost loss and put more pressure on the Phillies bullpen by pitching fewer innings than his starter-rival and that was the difference as the Mets won, 5-1.  Screw that dismal Terry Adams and your excuse-making on behalf of Lieber - SWL is STRICTLY a comparison of like entitites = starting pitchers, whether you get it, or like it, or understand it, or not.

ND#2:  1-9 * 0-0  Lieber gave the Phillies 1 inning; Wells of Pittsburgh went the full 9 innings, Lieber takes the starter loss as the Phillies lose, 3-0.  Ball off his elbow = old pitcher with slow reflexes who can't field his position.

ND#3:  6-6 * 3-2  Lieber takes another starter loss, Phillies win in spite of him, 5-4.

ND#4:  7-9 * 1-1  Lieber goes seven innings, Oswalt/Houston goes 9 innings, again, the extra pressure Lieber puts on the Phillies bullpen is the difference as the Phillies lose, 2-1.

ND#5:  7-8 *1-1  Almost a carbon copy of ND#4.  Again Oswalt gives the Astros more innings than Leiber gives the Phillies which proves the difference as the Astros win another 2-1 verdict.

So that Lieber, in five games in which he got an official no-decison, took the starter loss in four of those games, with the Phillies LOSING four of the five games.  

Remember what I said about the team getting the starter win going on to win 85% of the time?  The above is consistent with that statement.

Now, it's past your bed time, so stew on this overnight, Stat-Man.

This is precisely the STRENGTH of SWL and any stat you maintain which compares similar entities.  The best example of the merit of round-trip statistics vs. one-way statisitics is that Allen Iverson bum.  If you look at his scoring totals and average, you have to be impressed.  BUT, what do you know, 76ers opposition starting guards SHOOT BETTER from the floor than Iverson, when you factor in MISSED SHOTS!  Iverson has scored 431 points on 201 missed shots.  Opp starting guards vs. the 76ers have scored 401 points on 182 missed shots.  So that 401 x 201/182 = 443 points opp guards score, 12 points MORE than Iverson, adjusted for the same number of shots Iverson missed.

Iverson is the NBA's version of what Jon Lieber is to baseball in Philadelphia - a flippin mirage. You can make all the superficial one-way statistical claims in support of the player's "greatness," or whatever the hell it is you are asserting re Lieber's  supposed positive value. But when you compare these turkeys with their peers, hey, they don't stack up well at all.

 Lieber cost the Phillies a net two games last year.  Iverson costs the 76ers a net two points per 100 minutes playing time, factoring in all seven NBA individual statistical categories and calculating their  regression "weight."   Yet so many think these high-profile imposters help the cause.  We all want to see our Philadelphia teams win, and I do too.  But we cannot win if we are going to coddle athletes wearing the Philadelphia uniform who reduce our chances of accomplishing just that.

Timing is everything.  Better to press a prospect into major league service too soon rather than too late (Howard, Utley), and better not to trade him and get burned.  How about the Red Sox trading a prospect named Bagwell for a few mediocre innings of relief?  Would the Mets like to have Steve Kazmir back? How about the Tigers trading a prospect named Smoltz for a better shot at a divisional title, which they won in 1987.  Was it worth it?  How about the Phillies trading a Hall of Famer named Sandburg as a throw-in to acquiring a journeyman SS?

Some organizations NEVER LEARN the hard way, because they are too busy pursuing the easy - expedient route to "making the playoffs."  That's where the Phillies are, a bona fide "making the playoffs" rather than championship-building organization.  My guess is Gonzalez will be more productive than Garcia by 2008, at the latest.  A Gillick time bomb is going to explode on Philadelphia the way he is mortgaging the club's future.  

When people disagree with you, don't assume it's because you're too deep for them, or that they don't "get it".  What you are saying is that a pitcher is in some way responsible for his team's offense, which is THE MOST BOGUS ARGUMENT EVER.  Do you really mean to say that Randy Johnson was not a good pitcher in 2004, and Roger Clemens was not a good pitcher in 2005, because they did not inspire their team with enough good chemistry to score runs behind them?

Seriously, you are making the most indefensible argument I can possibly imagine.  The whole point of statistical analysis is to determine context-independent measurements of a player's performance.  Instead, you are proposing to make a case for a statistic (SWL) that is ENTIRELY context dependent, and relies a great deal on things out of the pitchers' control (NO, the offense DOES NOT PUT ON ITS HITTING SHOES SOME DAYS AND NOT OTHERS).

You want "winners" more than you want "hard luck losers"?  Fine.  You can have John Lieber's 2001 (20-win!) season and I'll take Randy Johnson's 2005 season.  I haven't run the data, but I bet Lieber '01 has a better SWL than Johnson '05.  So you can have Lieby.  I would rather have a pitcher who strikes out more than a batter per inning than one who is "a winner" based on circumstantial considerations.