Should W-L for pitchers just be phased out entirely?

Oh yeah, the "Olerud is a Hall of Famer" argument, the argument that keeps giving, thank God.

 

Does Dick start a thread for every random thought that pops into this head?

 

A pitcher's W-L record is important because, well, some guys are just clutch on the mound ...

 

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 1h
The Tigers are 53-46 on days when others not named Max Scherzer have pitched, 20-5 in the games he has pitched.

 

The Phillies won 32 games on days when others not named Steve Carlton pitched, 27 more in games he pitched. #OlneyTweetFrom1972.

 

Stats don't have to be useful to be interesting.

Pitcher wins is a particularly useless stat, but it can be fun. It's not going anywhere.

 

Why would that be interesting?

 

So is a team's record when a pitcher starts more important than a pitcher's record then?

 

Yes and no. Yes it is, and no it isn't. It's all a very confusing situation that is above most people's heads.

But Clayton Kershaw got a win and an RBI yesterday, so his game was especially meaningless.

 

But was it a Pythagorean win?

 

I prefer to measure Euclidian wins. They are less linear.

 

I remember getting mad when Topps removed "game-winning RBI" from the back of cards in the late 80s or so. I still think that's interesting, even if not particularly useful.