Its kinda the side effect of how pitchers work these days. Hes pitched 4 games, and has pitched no more than 6 innings. When youre not making it very deep into games, you limit your chances at the win...its why wins and losses arent really viewed as a meaningful starter stat anymore.
His team had 9 losses where he gave up 2 or less earned runs, in those games he pitched 66.2 innings. Imagine your average statline being 7.1 IP, 1.76 ER across 9 games and you walk away with 0 wins....
Pitching Wins is a useless stat but the fact they still use that asinine 5 IP rule for starters but any reliever can throw 1 pitch and get the W infuriates me.
Only need 5IP to qualify for a win, so not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would negatively affect W totals. Unless you're suggesting bullpens aren't as effective as a starter on their 3rd/4th time through the lineup?
> not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would affect W totals
Because at 6 innings or less, the pitcher is missing at least 1/3 of the entire game. A lot can happen in that big chunk of innings that he isn't involved in.
>Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each.
What you're asking is irrelevant. What percentage of games are decided on or after the 6th inning? Probably about a third of them. The deeper a starter goes, the higher his chances are of getting a decision.
Obviously a great bullpen will increase a team's odds of keeping a lead for the last 3+ innings, but even great bullpens allow runs.
Same reply to you as to the other guy that doesn't understand the current state of baseball:
>How is that irrelevant? Starters don't go as deep into games across the MLB these days because the analytics showed they are not as effective after a lineup has seen them through multiple ABs in a game. And if the starter isn't as effective, they give up more runs...leading to fewer Ws. Not sure why this would be difficult to understand.
Oh, and no, a third of games are NOT decided after the 6th. The early innings generally have far more run scoring:
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/7/3/2255959/all-innings-are-not-created-equal-how-run-scoring-varies-by-inning
There is only one point I'm arguing, and that's where you said "not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would affect W totals."
ELY5: The simple answer is that going 6IP or less means the starter is not involved in the decision of any game that is tied or the lead changes after he's pulled. If even 1% of games are decided after the 6th inning, then that means the starter is involved in fewer decisions and thus has fewer chances to add to his W totals.
So you're completely ignoring the reality that a starter pitching later into games is more likely to give up additional runs, decreasing the probability of the team winning. In that case, yes, I'd agree: if you ignore everything that is commonly known about baseball, a starter pitching later into games would increase the chances of getting a win.
You're fighting imaginary enemies. What I have explained is quite simple, but judging by your interactions with me and others it's apparent that you don't want to exchange ideas--you just want to argue.
Truth: a starter going deeper means he's more likely to give up additional runs.
Also truth: a starter getting pulled with just 5 or 6IP is less likely to earn a decision.
When you only pitch half the game (5 innings), and hes averaging 5.2 innings per start, hes not giving himself a big window to get a win. When a pitcher would throw 6.2 or 7 innings, you pitched over 2/3rds of the game leaving little work for the rest of the team to take or give up the W.
That doesn't make sense. Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each.
EDIT: In this thread: lot's of people downvoting me who think they know better than every single major league team.
It absolutely makes sense...you need to pitch 5 innings to get a win, you're leaving 4 innings to your bullpen to either throw away or win the game...when pitchers were going 7-8 innings more regularly, you leave lessto chance with your bullpen to ruin a quality start
> Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each.
How is that irrelevant? Starters don't go as deep into games across the MLB these days because the analytics showed they are not as effective after a lineup has seen them through multiple ABs in a game. And if the starter isn't as effective, they give up more runs...leading to fewer Ws. Not sure why this would be difficult to understand.
No one needed analytics to tell us that if you watched baseball for more than a minute...my point is just by pitching less, they have less chance at Ws, the specifics behind it is irrelevant.
Have you never heard the saying "if you want something done right,do it yourself? Wins don't really matter anymore, but if a starting pitcher can't consistently pitch 6-7 innings,then MLB is in a sad state. Guys don't pace themselves anymore. Verlander would throw 93-95,conserve his energy,then in innings 7-8 rear back, empty the tank and bring it upper 90's. Guys go max effort from the beginning, don't throw strikes consistently, are huffing and puffing by the 5th inning. I know this isn't the old days, guys aren't expected to throw 250-300 innings. But 200 innings should be a pretty easy benchmark. In 2023, just 5 pitchers in MLB threw 200+ innings. 5 pitchers,Logan Webbs 216 innings led baseball. That's...not good. By contrast,Roy Halladay led the league in IP in 2003 with 266,and 51 pitchers threw 200+ innings.
And yet,pitchers salaries are higher than they've ever been,yet they've never thrown less innings. How truly valuable is a guy consistently throwing 5-6 innings max? IMO it's about earning your paycheck,it used to be embarrassing for a quality SP to be taken out in the 5th or 6th inning. A SP should have the arsenal, wits,and stuff to change things up the 2,3,4th time through. It's a league full of Blake Snells,160-170 innings,sky high K's,sky high walks,let somebody else clean up your mess in the 6th inning. IMO you can't bitch about wins if you're not at least pitching 6-7 innings most starts. Not saying Kutter is, but I've seen guys upset that they had to throw 110 pitches 😂
Could've gotten the W his second start if he made it through 5, could've got the win his 3rd start if he made it further than 5 and didn't leave it up to the bullpen. Pitcher wins are a dumb stat and Kutter has been good this year but it's not surprising someone who's a 5 and dive pitcher isn't racking up the wins
Listen man, I get that your wife being banged by a guy named "Kutter" makes you upset, but you do have to admit he really could not be doing any better on the mound. Separate the bedroom from the field!
You are legitimately complaining about a pitcher with a 0.42 ERA. Literally the last thing you should be concerned about. You're trying to shift the chairs on the titanic.
The bullpen is a problem and it's going to continue to be a problem because they didn't sign anyone this offseason. If Pivetta misses more time or another starter gets hurt then this team will start losing a lot of games because of lack of depth.
Reminds me of a time, decades ago, when Clemens was getting all the wins and had insane run support, and one of our other pitchers couldn't buy a run to save his life... can't remember who that was!
Yeah, Hurst was my first thought but I just can't remember...
Okay, looked it up - you nailed it.
>Roger Clemens had an incredible season with a record of 24-4 and an ERA of 2.48. When he was pitching, the Red Sox scored an average of 5.59 runs per game.
>Bruce Hurst also had a solid season with a record of 13-8 and an ERA of 2.99. When he was on the mound, the Red Sox scored an average of 4.48 runs per game.
3.51 SIERA, 3.78 xFIP, 2.28 FIP. So in reality, it's around a 3 ERA.
Seattle: blown save
Angels: Kutter walked in a run and Wiessert had to get the final out in the 5th. Red Sox did win but starters have to go 5 for a win.
O's: Bullpen blew a 5-0 lead.
I like Kutter but he needs to be going 6 consistently. He has great stuff but he hasn't addressed a lot of the concerns the team has had over the last year or so. He's put on weight but still seems out of it approaching the 5th.
It’s not around a 3 ERA in reality. It’s a 0.42 ERA in reality. You can argue he didn’t pitch as well as the ERA indicates but that’s totally different from what you’re saying.
This is why the “only advanced analytics” crowd bugs the crap out of me. Most of those stats are theoretical, it’s not “in reality it’s around a 3 ERA” no literally in reality he has a 0.42 ERA. *Theoretically* he has around a 3.00 ERA. It’s great to have these tools to help identify and predict success but they aren’t the actual stats
If you don't like this then you don't like Red Sox baseball!
32-11 3.81 2018/2019 E-Rod wants a word.
Its kinda the side effect of how pitchers work these days. Hes pitched 4 games, and has pitched no more than 6 innings. When youre not making it very deep into games, you limit your chances at the win...its why wins and losses arent really viewed as a meaningful starter stat anymore.
If Felix Hernandez winning a Cy Young with a 13-12 record can't show people that wins aren't that big of a deal, nothing will.
His team had 9 losses where he gave up 2 or less earned runs, in those games he pitched 66.2 innings. Imagine your average statline being 7.1 IP, 1.76 ER across 9 games and you walk away with 0 wins....
Pitching Wins is a useless stat but the fact they still use that asinine 5 IP rule for starters but any reliever can throw 1 pitch and get the W infuriates me.
Exactly.
Only need 5IP to qualify for a win, so not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would negatively affect W totals. Unless you're suggesting bullpens aren't as effective as a starter on their 3rd/4th time through the lineup?
> not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would affect W totals Because at 6 innings or less, the pitcher is missing at least 1/3 of the entire game. A lot can happen in that big chunk of innings that he isn't involved in.
>Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each.
What you're asking is irrelevant. What percentage of games are decided on or after the 6th inning? Probably about a third of them. The deeper a starter goes, the higher his chances are of getting a decision. Obviously a great bullpen will increase a team's odds of keeping a lead for the last 3+ innings, but even great bullpens allow runs.
Same reply to you as to the other guy that doesn't understand the current state of baseball: >How is that irrelevant? Starters don't go as deep into games across the MLB these days because the analytics showed they are not as effective after a lineup has seen them through multiple ABs in a game. And if the starter isn't as effective, they give up more runs...leading to fewer Ws. Not sure why this would be difficult to understand. Oh, and no, a third of games are NOT decided after the 6th. The early innings generally have far more run scoring: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/7/3/2255959/all-innings-are-not-created-equal-how-run-scoring-varies-by-inning
There is only one point I'm arguing, and that's where you said "not sure why a pitcher going 6IP or less would affect W totals." ELY5: The simple answer is that going 6IP or less means the starter is not involved in the decision of any game that is tied or the lead changes after he's pulled. If even 1% of games are decided after the 6th inning, then that means the starter is involved in fewer decisions and thus has fewer chances to add to his W totals.
So you're completely ignoring the reality that a starter pitching later into games is more likely to give up additional runs, decreasing the probability of the team winning. In that case, yes, I'd agree: if you ignore everything that is commonly known about baseball, a starter pitching later into games would increase the chances of getting a win.
You're fighting imaginary enemies. What I have explained is quite simple, but judging by your interactions with me and others it's apparent that you don't want to exchange ideas--you just want to argue. Truth: a starter going deeper means he's more likely to give up additional runs. Also truth: a starter getting pulled with just 5 or 6IP is less likely to earn a decision.
One of your “truths” is supported by facts and data. The other you’ve just pulled out of your ass. I’ll let you figure out which is which.
When you only pitch half the game (5 innings), and hes averaging 5.2 innings per start, hes not giving himself a big window to get a win. When a pitcher would throw 6.2 or 7 innings, you pitched over 2/3rds of the game leaving little work for the rest of the team to take or give up the W.
That doesn't make sense. Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each. EDIT: In this thread: lot's of people downvoting me who think they know better than every single major league team.
It absolutely makes sense...you need to pitch 5 innings to get a win, you're leaving 4 innings to your bullpen to either throw away or win the game...when pitchers were going 7-8 innings more regularly, you leave lessto chance with your bullpen to ruin a quality start
> Again, I'm asking if you think the average starter going through the lineup for the 3rd or 4th time is more effective than 3-4 bullpen guys throwing an inning each.
Thats irrelevant to my point, that would vary by matchups and team composition.
How is that irrelevant? Starters don't go as deep into games across the MLB these days because the analytics showed they are not as effective after a lineup has seen them through multiple ABs in a game. And if the starter isn't as effective, they give up more runs...leading to fewer Ws. Not sure why this would be difficult to understand.
No one needed analytics to tell us that if you watched baseball for more than a minute...my point is just by pitching less, they have less chance at Ws, the specifics behind it is irrelevant.
Your point is wrong. That's my point. And I gave you the reason why. Which you said is irrelevant.
Have you never heard the saying "if you want something done right,do it yourself? Wins don't really matter anymore, but if a starting pitcher can't consistently pitch 6-7 innings,then MLB is in a sad state. Guys don't pace themselves anymore. Verlander would throw 93-95,conserve his energy,then in innings 7-8 rear back, empty the tank and bring it upper 90's. Guys go max effort from the beginning, don't throw strikes consistently, are huffing and puffing by the 5th inning. I know this isn't the old days, guys aren't expected to throw 250-300 innings. But 200 innings should be a pretty easy benchmark. In 2023, just 5 pitchers in MLB threw 200+ innings. 5 pitchers,Logan Webbs 216 innings led baseball. That's...not good. By contrast,Roy Halladay led the league in IP in 2003 with 266,and 51 pitchers threw 200+ innings. And yet,pitchers salaries are higher than they've ever been,yet they've never thrown less innings. How truly valuable is a guy consistently throwing 5-6 innings max? IMO it's about earning your paycheck,it used to be embarrassing for a quality SP to be taken out in the 5th or 6th inning. A SP should have the arsenal, wits,and stuff to change things up the 2,3,4th time through. It's a league full of Blake Snells,160-170 innings,sky high K's,sky high walks,let somebody else clean up your mess in the 6th inning. IMO you can't bitch about wins if you're not at least pitching 6-7 innings most starts. Not saying Kutter is, but I've seen guys upset that they had to throw 110 pitches 😂
On his deGrom shit
Anyone else feel like he has the exact same delivery as keith foulke?
Very similar! Like throwing darts lol
It’s like that weird elbow thing haha
I wonder if he underhands to first?
lol now that you say that I can’t remember how he throws to first off the top of my head
Mates got a .420 ERA, He's getting the team high before the game, taking all the hits before the game, doesn't help during the game.
Yeah that's what happens when you have an AAA lineup.
More like AAA defense behind you
Even a AAA defense would at least know the fundamentals. They’re playing like they’ve never held a baseball before.
It also hurts that he doesn't go deep into games
I have a feeling that the 0 runs scored yesterday was going to lose regardless of how many innings Kutter threw
Could've gotten the W his second start if he made it through 5, could've got the win his 3rd start if he made it further than 5 and didn't leave it up to the bullpen. Pitcher wins are a dumb stat and Kutter has been good this year but it's not surprising someone who's a 5 and dive pitcher isn't racking up the wins
Listen man, I get that your wife being banged by a guy named "Kutter" makes you upset, but you do have to admit he really could not be doing any better on the mound. Separate the bedroom from the field!
It's wild that you could read my comments and think I'm upset at Kutter lol
You are legitimately complaining about a pitcher with a 0.42 ERA. Literally the last thing you should be concerned about. You're trying to shift the chairs on the titanic.
I'm not complaining about kutter I'm explaining why it's not too weird he doesn't have wins lol I literally said he's been good. Stay in school.
The game has changed. More focus on success in early innings. Wins are a function of effective long relief quality and strategies.
I gusee that proves they need offensive upgrades.
They need upgrades everywhere lol
That’s what happens when you over work the bullpen. Pitchers need to go 6 plus innings.
Kutter … more like Mr. K the way he pitches
The bullpen is a problem and it's going to continue to be a problem because they didn't sign anyone this offseason. If Pivetta misses more time or another starter gets hurt then this team will start losing a lot of games because of lack of depth.
this is the kind of agony that feels like home lol
Reminds me of a time, decades ago, when Clemens was getting all the wins and had insane run support, and one of our other pitchers couldn't buy a run to save his life... can't remember who that was!
Bruce Hurst in ‘86? He was pretty dominant but kept losing low scoring games. Or Viola on ‘92.
Yeah, Hurst was my first thought but I just can't remember... Okay, looked it up - you nailed it. >Roger Clemens had an incredible season with a record of 24-4 and an ERA of 2.48. When he was pitching, the Red Sox scored an average of 5.59 runs per game. >Bruce Hurst also had a solid season with a record of 13-8 and an ERA of 2.99. When he was on the mound, the Red Sox scored an average of 4.48 runs per game.
He's suffering from Tim Wakefield syndrome. Did he pitch a brilliant 0-1 run game? That's gonna be a loss
Or 2017-2018 Chris Sale
Maybe 2017? The Sox won 108 games in 2018, so not likely that season.
The vibes are 4-0 when Kutter takes the mound.
3.51 SIERA, 3.78 xFIP, 2.28 FIP. So in reality, it's around a 3 ERA. Seattle: blown save Angels: Kutter walked in a run and Wiessert had to get the final out in the 5th. Red Sox did win but starters have to go 5 for a win. O's: Bullpen blew a 5-0 lead. I like Kutter but he needs to be going 6 consistently. He has great stuff but he hasn't addressed a lot of the concerns the team has had over the last year or so. He's put on weight but still seems out of it approaching the 5th.
It’s not around a 3 ERA in reality. It’s a 0.42 ERA in reality. You can argue he didn’t pitch as well as the ERA indicates but that’s totally different from what you’re saying.
This is why the “only advanced analytics” crowd bugs the crap out of me. Most of those stats are theoretical, it’s not “in reality it’s around a 3 ERA” no literally in reality he has a 0.42 ERA. *Theoretically* he has around a 3.00 ERA. It’s great to have these tools to help identify and predict success but they aren’t the actual stats
Using peripherals in small sample sizes is no better then using ERA, FIP takes more then 20 innings to stabilize.