By In Stuff

Win Scoreboard April 5

Good day for the starters — they earned eight of the nine available wins on Tuesday.

We have our first “amazing” start of the season, San Diego’s Clayton Richard, who held the Dodgers scoreless for eight inningts. There might be those who would argue that anything short of a complete game cannot be an amazing start. But there were only 83 complete games in baseball all of last season — one out of every 59 starts — and so we can’t wait for those.

Nobody really got robbed of a win Tuesday. The closest thing was the Angels’ Matt Shoemaker who pitched five so-so innings against Oakland, allowing two solo homers and that’s it. But nobody will weep for Shoemaker.

The running scoreboard:

Starters who pitch amazing: 1.

Starters who pitch well: 12.

Starters who pitch OK: 1

Starters who pitch kind of lousy: 2.

Relievers in the right place, right time: 5

Relievers who kind of stink: 2

Print Friendly

15 Responses to Win Scoreboard April 5

  1. Rob Smith says:

    You should do this all year! J/k.

  2. Jay says:

    Joe, if I want a run down how the starting pitchers did I can just look at the box scores. We don’t need to waste your talents essentially providing us a box score summary..

  3. Jay says:

    Days of win scoreboard: 3

    Interesting articles: 0

    Prayers that Posnanski stops these articles: 200,000

    Readers looking forward to something different: All of them

  4. Rick Collarini says:

    Resurrecting an old idea, since wins are meaningless anyway, why do “starters” start? Start a reliever and pinch hit at the first opportunity and you gain outs in the course of a season, at least in the national league. Plus your “starter”, supposedly one of your better pitchers, could routinely pitch into the 7th or 8th inning.

    I’m sure this seems to make more sense than it actually does, but it seems someone ought to try it.

    • Pat says:

      I’ve often wondered what a rebuilding team (or a team that just doesn’t want to spend money on players) could do by building a staff entirely out of twelve waiver-wire or league-minimum bullpen pitchers and just having them all pitch two or three innings at a time.
      It’d be ponderous for fantasy managers, to be sure.

  5. Matt S says:

    To be fair, the results should probably be listed in past tense. I agree that relief pitchers can cough up the lead and then vulture a win, but that should stand as a singular happening. The relief pitcher stunk, but they shouldn’t necessarily be tarred with permanent stink. Likewise, a starter who pitched 5 innings and gave up 5 runs but got 6+ run support pitched kinda lousy, but that doesn’t make them a lousy pitcher.

    As a side note, shouldn’t there be a term for blowing a save but getting the win that is akin to a dog eating its own vomit?

  6. Ross H. says:

    I like this.
    I wonder how the analogous exercise for losses would look. I’m guessing a higher percentage of losses would be “deserved” compared to the percentage of wins.

  7. Rick Rodstrom says:

    You missed the story Joe. The story isn’t that Clayton Richard held the Dodgers scoreless for 8 innings. The story was that a 33 year old left-handed journeyman with a career ERA of 4.15 (for an ERA+ of 92) held the Dodgers to 5 singles (and 4 double-plays) over 8 innings. The Dodgers were historically bad against lefties last year, and have much the same lineup this year, with the same dismal results. Any team that can throw lefties at this lineup is going to kill them. Their best hitters are either left-handed (Gonzalez, Seager, Pederson), righties who can’t hit lefties (Turner) or switch-hitters with power from the left side (Grandal). Even their backups are lefties (Ethier, Toles, Utley). Their righties (Puig, Van Slyke, Hernandez) have flat-lined as hitters. LA was so desperate for a right-handed bat that it signed Franklin Gutierrez, he of the career 96 OPS+, and had him hit cleanup yesterday. It’s only 2 games into the season, but what this game says is that the Dodgers World Series hopes are over, barring a mid-season trade for a right-handed bat.

  8. invitro says:

    I don’t know if this is a good idea or not. Most people are seeming to think it’s a little like wasted time, and it feels that way to me… the stats for a full season, or maybe updated once a month, now that could be very interesting. But day-by-day, nah.

    If I was going to change the definition of a pitcher win, I’d probably just give it to the pitcher (on the winning team) who had the highest WPA. Then I’d probably kill the save, blown save, and hold, and create a Pitching Support, that would go to the #2 WPA guy, and maybe also the #3 guy if he was above a certain threshold. But it doesn’t really matter… all of these stats are 50% dependent on the offense, about 10% dependent on the fielding, and so must always be inferior to a stat which is more than 40% dependent on actual pitching.

    While I’m rambling, I would like to see a good player-of-the-game stat become official or semi-official. As above, I’d base it on WPA, but give it to the top player on the winning team, pitcher or hitter. I’d probably expand and give a number of points to the top players on either team: 5/3/1 for the winners, 3/1 for the losers. (I did something like this for the playoffs last year, and it was fun. It let me look back and who’s been the top performers at a quick glance.) I know, why not just use plain old WPA? Well, I don’t know. Sometimes integers feel better than decimals.

    • Patrick says:

      I agree. These are just basic snapshots of information, which doesn’t play to Joe’s strengths of in-depth storytelling. If he were to highlight one or two that really stood out, that might be different. But this is just tedious

  9. Ryan says:

    Boring, and should be a sidebar, not in the main blog. Actual stories, please?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *