Ross Ohlendorf and another example of why W & L are bad statistics

Ross Ohlendorf / Icon SMI

The Red Sox have signed Ross Ohlendorf, who pitched for the Pirates over the last few years.

Numerous reports about the signing have cited the fact that Ohlendorf has a 2-14 record over the last 2 seasons. That’s true, but what does it really mean?

First take a look at 2009. Ohlendorf started 29 games, had a 106 ERA+ in 172.2 innings, and an 11-10 record. That seems fine…he was a little better than average and had a slightly above-average winning percentage. The only thing that sticks out as unusual is that for a guy who averaged just under 6 innings per start, he got a decision fairly frequently–in 21 out of 29 starts.

In 2010, his numbers were similar. His WHIP went up a little and his ERA+ went down to 99. Still, he was about league average in 21 starts and 108.1 innings. Somehow he earned a 1-11 record. That’s not right. His neutralized pitching stats (see here, at the bottom of the page) say he deserved a 5-6 record that year.

In fact, looking at his 2010 game log, he had only 4 games where he allowed more than 4 runs. He had 4 losses in games where he allowed 2 runs or fewer. He had 6 other starts where he allowed 2 runs or fewer and got a no-decision (not counting a 7/28 start where he recorded only 2 outs.)

Granted, in 2011, he was awful, but that was in just 38.2 innings. Over those innings he allowed a whopping 60 hits plus 15 walks and 6 hit batters. That’s a problem. But if he was just injured in 2011 and can return to 2010 form, he would make a fine 4th or 5th starter for any team.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

34 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Right, 2-14 over ’10-’11 shouldn’t be over-emphasized. His 1.53 WHIP and 78 ERA+ over the same period do smell a bit funny, however.

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

His 2010 would be perfectly acceptable as a #4/#5 type guy.

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

I like seeing how you guys think up posts.
(Mostly) figured out Autin’s quiz because the recent topic had been about complete game losses.
Now I’m betting you’re on Ohlendorf because his #1 similarity is Bob Sebra.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Uh-oh, the jig is up!

BTW, that 990 similarity score between Ohlendorf and Sebra is one of the highest I’ve ever seen.

MikeD

12 years ago

Won-loss record is certainly not a great way to judge a pitcher, but neither is ERA, or sometimes even ERA+. His FIP was 4.72 in 2009 and 4.44 in 2010, both substantially higher than his ERAs those years. For his career, the numbers normalize out to an ERA of 4.77 vs. a FIP of 4.85. That kind of says who he is as pitcher. Now add in a transition to the AL, the AL East and that he’ll be taking a low groundball rate of 38% to Fenway Park and O-M-G… They say he’s very smart. Maybe he just won’t… Read more »

12 years ago

Glad that you posted this Andy cause it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently. We take for granted that pitchers get assigned wins and losses. I have no idea what the history is behind doing so, but it’s really a strange idea. Teams win or lose games, not individual players. Heck why not assign wins and losses to the shortstop. Or to the catcher. As far as I know, this really isn’t done in other team sports, certainly not football or basketball. And of course, the definition of a win/loss is arbitrary as well. Why does a starter have to… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed,

Good points; I believe in the distant past, wins and losses were often awarded differently than they are now topitchers, so there is always going to be disparities between old W-L listings, and current W-L listings.

As for assigning Wins and Losses to individuals in other team sports, this _is_ in fact done, and frequently cited, for quarterbacks in football. You didn’t mention hockey, but goalies are also judged to a degree by their W-L record.

MikeD

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed, if I had to guess (which, of course, means I’m now going to do just that), it had to do with how starting pitchers were used at the game’s beginning. So Tommy Bond, one of the top pitchers of the 1870s, started 59 of his team’s games in 1878, completing fifty-seven of them. Old Hoss Radbourn started and completed seventy-three games, or approximately 75% of the Grays games, on his way to a 59-12 season in 1884. So the W-L record of starters of the early days were much more closely alligned to the teams’ records. A bad day… Read more »

12 years ago

Reply to MikeD

A few responses to Lawrence and MikeD: 1) I’m not a hockey fan so I really have no insight into wins/losses for hockey goalies. 2) MikeD – Your theory about the origin of wins and losses for pitchers makes sense. 3) Lawrence – I have to strongly disagree that wins/losses are used for quarterbacks. I’ve been following football since the late 70s and I never see them in box scores, on TV, in the newspaper, in HOF discussions, etc. Sure you can find them on PF reference but as far as I know it’s not an official stat. They just… Read more »

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

I remember it being a BIG deal when John Elway became the all-time leader for QB wins, and a similarly big deal (in Wisconsin, at least) when Brett Favre took him down for the top spot. I think they’re actually used pretty similarly. You hear about certain QBs being “winners.” For example, Philip Rivers, who puts up great numbers every year, gets labeled a “system” guy and a “choker” and all sorts of other things because the Chargers have failed in the playoffs so many times in the last 5 years, even though they’ve been consistently among the best regular… Read more »

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Again I’ll have to disagree. I was just thinking to myself this morning….”who’s the all-time leader among quarterbacks in wins?”. Answer: “I have no idea”. I remember zero publicity about Elway or Favre breaking that record. I’ll bet most baseball fans know who has the most career wins and very few football fans know the same. Likewise there’s always a lot of publicity when a pitcher reaches a milestone (e.g., 300 wins) and zero for quarterbacks who do the same. There are so many other factors that are used to evaluate quarterbacks – completion percentage, yards, TDs, interceptions, QB rating,… Read more »

nightfly

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

I am a big hockey fan – and a goalie, in the bargain – and I can tell you that wins are not really a good barometer for keepers, even though they routinely play the entirety of the game and often start two-thirds of the schedule. A superior goalie on a poor team can often have a weak W/L record, and even a relatively-poor GAA. Just to take one hypothetical: Goalie A – .920 save% (think WHIP) Goalie B – .905 save% The first goalie is comfortably above-average (which is about .911 nowadays, give or take), the second mediocre. And… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to nightfly

Great, great stuff.

Jeff Allen

12 years ago

Continuing to use a Win-Loss record for pitchers makes about as much as sense as judging position players solely on how many outs they make.

Thomas

12 years ago

Reply to Jeff Allen

I feel like this is an overreaction of an argument. W-L record is like any other stat for pitchers, alone it’s close to worthless, it needs to be taken in the context of at least a half dozen other stats. The main problem with W-L record is that the media (or at least some media) and unknowledgeable fans use it as an end all be all. It’s a stat that’s easily influenced by other people and situations. But let’s not throw it out. Nobody would consider throwing out RBI’s even though it’s a stat that’s over emphasized by the media… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Thomas

Certainly, many stats need to be viewed in the context of others. For instance, if you tell me a pitcher had a 115 ERA+, I want to know if he was a starter or reliever, and how many innings. But at least those bits of information complement each other — knowing both gives you a much better understanding of the pitcher than if you had just one. However, if I have the rest of the pitching stats, adding the W-L record really doesn’t tell me anything new. W-L record does have some value as a stand-alone stat — not nearly… Read more »

Thomas

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I personally don’t think W-L is horrible, it’s not my favorite way to judge a pitcher and I’d be careful using it in an argument, but I don’t feel it’s completely garbage. There’s always going to be your outliers, just like there’s always going to be guys who hit better at Colorado and have a higher BA/more HR etc, just as there’s going to be guys who don’t hit a ton of homers playing in San Diego who actually are power guys. I see it as a decent way to see how well a pitchers teams do in games he… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Thomas

Thomas,

On a seasonal level W-L records can be quite deceiving at times (witness Nolan Ryan going 8-16 in 1981, while winning the ERA title), but on a career level they usually reflect a pitcher’s performance reasonably well. Of course, the particular team any pitcher performs for is going to influence his W-L record, but over an entire career that will even out somewhat. YMMV.

Thomas

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I couldn’t agree more, but I think for every 8-16 season that’s like Nolan Ryan’s there’s a dozen or so that were 8-16 and were completely deserving of it.

I just think the Nolan Ryan-type seasons are outliers random weirdness that’s bound to happen after playing 100+ seasons. More often than not the W-L record is completely (or very closely) deserved…

But don’t get this part of the argument wrong… I’m not saying it’s a great stat… just saying it’s not worthless…

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

“on a career level they usually reflect a pitcher’s performance reasonably well.” Lawrence, I agree that they usually do. But is “usually” and “on a career level” good enough for something that is still the most frequently cited pitching stat in mainstream baseball discussions? I looked at starting pitchers with at least 100 decisions since 1893: — ERA+ of at least 110: 21 of 235 had losing records. That’s 9%. — ERA+ of 90 or less: 9 of 66 had records of .500 or better. That’s 14%. — ERA+ between 97 and 103: 19% had W% of at least .550,… Read more »

e pluribus munu

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John, your data points to the unreliability of W-L to reflect isolated pitcher performance quality, and your analysis is fun to read (as always). But reading these exchanges makes me wonder how many people would find the conversation surprising. Long before SABR, it was widely recognized that ERA was a far better measure of isolated performance and that W-L measured something else – that there were lucky and hard-luck pitchers. But W-L is embedded in the game’s history and has an immediate appeal that attracts new fans and remains interesting to everyone, even if the main pleasure it provides for… Read more »

birtelcom

12 years ago

The last four guys before Ohlendorf to go 2-14 over a two-season period:

Jason Jennings (2007-2008) -1.9 WAR
Heathcliff Slocumb (1997-1998) -0.2 WAR
Rod Nichols (1990-1991) 2.0 WAR
Juan Berenguer (1980-1981) -1.5 WAR

Thomas

12 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Anybody on a list with Heathcliff Slocumb is in trouble.

birtelcom

12 years ago

Four pichers have gone 2-14 in a single season:
Darold Knowles (1970) 2.9 WAR
Anthony Young (1992) -0.4 WAR (part of Young’s astounding 27 decisions in a row taking the loss over 1992-1993)
Anthiony Reyes (2007) -1.0 WAR
Jim Brown (1884) -4.5 WAR

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Knowles
2-14
174 era +
!

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Knowles was a closer which is partly how/why he was able to “achieve” that.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

I do think it’s fair to call Ohlendorf’s 2010 record an extreme outlier (1-11, 100 ERA+, 1.9 WAR). I looked at all SP seasons since 1893 with no more than 3 wins and at least 10 losses. Ohlendorf’s 1.9 WAR was tied for 3rd-best out of 143 seasons. Only 6% had as much as 1.0 WAR, and just 17% had positive WAR. But setting the W% threshold at a still-awful .333-and-under (Nolan Ryan ’87), with a minimum of 12 decisions and ERA+ at least 100, we get 130 such seasons — about 1 per season. It’s not so rare to… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

I looked at the 120 SPs in 2011 with at least 15 decisions. On first glance, here are the biggest discrepancies between W-L record and ERA+ (in no particular order): Lucky Stiffs: John Lackey, 12-12, 66 (6.41 ERA) Brad Penny, 11-11, 77 Jake Westbrook, 12-9, 78 Kevin Correia, 12-11, 80 Carlos Zambrano, 9-7, 81 Jake Arrieta, 10-8, 82 Dillon Gee, 13-6, 84 Rick Porcello, 14-9, 86 Max Scherzer, 15-9, 92 Josh Tomlin, 12-7, 93 Aaron Harang, 14-7, 98 Zack Greinke, 16-6, 102 Jaime Garcia, 13-7, 102 Kyle Lohse, 14-8, 107 Yovani Gallardo, 17-10, 111 Derek Holland, 16-5, 113 Ivan Nova,… Read more »

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Two things: One, what was your methodology here? I can imagine one, but I’m not sure if I’m on the right track or not. Second, it’s really funny to see Zack Greinke on that first list. Talk about a guy with a funny season. W-L actually pretty accurately reflects how well he pitched last season – his xFIP was the best in MLB (1.65, I believe). It’s just that his HR/FB rate was way out of wack. But team performance somehow “corrected” for it by scoring “too many” runs when he pitched, and his record actually pretty shows how good… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Doc — I used no mathematical model; I just went by feel. About Greinke and xFIP, I wanted to stick with actual runs allowed, rather than what they “should” have allowed. I have no particular kick against xFIP, but for these purposes I didn’t want to carry the idea of “luck” to what some may consider an abstract level. BTW, Greinke’s ERA in his wins was 2.55. That’s very high for a guy with 15+ wins. Out of 20 pitchers with 15+ wins last year, only 2 had a higher ERA in their wins, and all the rest were at… Read more »

Doug

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

But it does tend to wash out over a career.

Since 1901, how many pitchers (min. 200 decisions) have ERA+ of 110 or more and a W-L% of .450 or less? Answer: one

Ken Raffensberger, 1939-1954, 110 ERA+, 119-154 W-L

Okay, so we’ll lower it to ERA+ of 105 and W-l% <= .450. Will pick up a bunch more, right? NOT. Picked up one more guy.

Johnny Schmitz, 1941-1956, 108 ERA+, 93-114 W-L

Over a career, doesn't seem very likely that incongruities between ERA and W-L will persist.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Doug

See my comment #19. Incongruities between ERA and W-L do tend to wash out over a career, but there are still a significant number that do not.

Doug

12 years ago

Reply to Doug

There is a similar low number of outliers in the other direction.

For pitchers with 200 decisions and W-L% of .550, there are only 3 with an ERA+ under 95.

Ross Grimsley, 92 ERA+, 124-99
Russ Ortiz, 94 ERA+, 113-89
Jack Billingham, 94 ERA+, 145-113

I don’t see a significant number of pitchers whose careers show incongruent ERA and W-L%.

Mike Felber

12 years ago

As expected, it is clear that over a career, W-L is a pretty terrible predictor of overall pitching quality. And it is likely a bit worse when you consider that teams with poor run support may have defenses that let ERA look worse than it would be under neutral conditions. But any stat that is somewhere between very close & ballpark a max of about 3/4 of the time is a absurdly sloppy & inaccurate for rating individuals. ERA + is exponentially closer, though even that can be tweaked for a more granular look, & at least occasionally is not… Read more »