QB Wins ¿Do they really mean anything?

[bachslunch]

While the idea of the QB "win" might be overrated, I will take a QB who racks up wins over one who racks up stats any day. Your QB is your field general, and you expect your general to win battles. What good is a general who doesn't win? Ask the confederacy ...

If memory serves, the South actually won a lot of major Civil War battles (Bull Run 1 and 2, Wilderness, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Chickamauga, Wilson's Creek, Cedar Mountain, Petersburg 1 and 2, Fredericksburg, Front Royal, Kennesaw Mountain) and had a couple major battles end up as draws (Antietam, Spotsylvania Courthouse). Didn't do them a lot of good in the long run, of course.

Heh -- maybe wins are indeed overrated...

Did they win the war?

Dan Marino and Dan Fouts won lots of games too ... and had lots of nice stats. Big deal! Is an owner really looking for a stat guy, or championships?

I am a Bills fan, but in a heartbeat I would trade all four Super Bowl losses for one of Tom Brady's rings.

The South indeed racked up a lot of battle wins, but it ultimately didn't matter (except to military scholars and tacticians) because they lost the war. Was equating a "battle win" with a "football game win," so must have misunderstood your point.

[JohnH19]

QB win-loss records, as a statistic, should not exist...especially as they are currently awarded.

In baseball, the pitcher wins and losses statistic has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last several years, and rightfully so, but it certainly has much more meaning than QB wins. There are five starting pitchers on a baseball team so you can see a difference in the win-loss record of each and it will usually tell you something.

There is only one starting QB on a team. If he plays well, win or lose, and stays healthy he will keep the job and start every game. The team's win-loss record is the only statistic that means anything.

[bachslunch]

In baseball, the pitcher wins and losses statistic has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last several years, and rightfully so, but it certainly has much more meaning than QB wins. There are five starting pitchers on a baseball team so you can see a difference in the win-loss record of each and it will usually tell you something.

What it definitely tells you is how much or how little run support the starter is getting. Nolan Ryan's 1987 season, for example, sits at one extreme, with an 8-16 W-L record while leading the league in adjusted ERA -- he got poor run support pitching for a mediocre team. Meanwhile, Jack Billingham in 1974 ended up having a 19-11 W-L record with a below league average adjusted ERA pitching for the high scoring Big Red Machine.

[BD Sullivan]

In baseball, the pitcher wins and losses statistic has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last several years, and rightfully so, but it certainly has much more meaning than QB wins. There are five starting pitchers on a baseball team so you can see a difference in the win-loss record of each and it will usually tell you something.

What it definitely tells you is how much or how little run support the starter is getting. Nolan Ryan's 1987 season, for example, sits at one extreme, with an 8-16 W-L record while leading the league in adjusted ERA -- he got poor run support pitching for a mediocre team. Meanwhile, Jack Billingham in 1974 ended up having a 19-11 W-L record with a below league average adjusted ERA pitching for the high scoring Big Red Machine.

This year's AL Cy Young Award winner, Rick Porcello, was a huge beneficiary of run support.

Back to the NFL/Civil War connection, I assume that means Robert E. Lee = Bud Grant/Marv Levy

[bachslunch]

Am thinking Ambrose Burnside = David Shula. Burnside's ineptitude, ranging from disastrous showings at Fredericksburg, Antietam, and the Battle of the Crater, is shocking.

[JohnH19]

What it definitely tells you is how much or how little run support the starter is getting. Nolan Ryan's 1987 season, for example, sits at one extreme, with an 8-16 W-L record while leading the league in adjusted ERA -- he got poor run support pitching for a mediocre team. Meanwhile, Jack Billingham in 1974 ended up having a 19-11 W-L record with a below league average adjusted ERA pitching for the high scoring Big Red Machine.

I have often used the 1987 Nolan Ryan example to point out the weakness of basing an opinion solely on a pitcher's W-L record. There are a lot of Ryan bashers out there who point at his middling career W-L percentage as a reason to say he is an undeserving HoFer. The football parallel would be Joe Namath.

[Rupert Patrick]

This year's AL Cy Young Award winner, Rick Porcello, was a huge beneficiary of run support.

Which brings up a baseball-related question but one I have always wondered - how differently would we regard pitchers if we did not credit them with wins and losses? My guess is the pitchers enshrined in Cooperstown would look a little different.

I'm not a fan of QB wins. If we're going to give wins to the QB, why not give defensive wins to the Middle Linebacker? If you think about a Pitcher win in baseball terms, the Pitcher is being credited for his work as a defensive player, not as an offensive player. I know football and baseball are totally different games, but it isn't right that you only credit the offensive leader (the Quarterback) and not the defensive leader, who exerts an opposing force against the offense. As is proven in Baseball in many cases, a Pitcher can have an awful game, but his teammates will bail him out and he'll get the W, just as a QB and offense will have a terrible game but the defense will bail them out and they'll win. Just a thought.

[rhickok1109]

QB win-loss records, as a statistic, should not exist...especially as they are currently awarded.

In baseball, the pitcher wins and losses statistic has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last several years, and rightfully so, but it certainly has much more meaning than QB wins. There are five starting pitchers on a baseball team so you can see a difference in the win-loss record of each and it will usually tell you something.

Baseball at least has very specific rules about how a pitcher gets a win. Football doesn't.

[John Grasso]

I'm not a fan of QB wins. If we're going to give wins to the QB, why not give defensive wins to the Middle Linebacker?

Along with games played for each player, why not include games won by his team.
Since a win is primarily a team effort, that way all players get credit for a win.

[L.C. Greenwood]

There will always be extreme examples of QBs playing poorly and their teams using other methods to win. But as the position which touches the ball on every offensive play, the QB has a major influence on the the outcome of most games. Wins should always matter more to the QB position than others, I don't think it's a coincidence the elite QBs usually played on quality teams, it's a real connection. The Dallas Cowboys were loaded with talented during the mid 60s to late 60s, but it took Roger Staubach to lift them to the next level. The supporting cast theory is overblown in my opinion, that's why we very rarely see the Trent Dilfers of the world winning Super Bowls.

Archie Manning is one of the rare examples of a QB who might have been elite with a better organization, perhaps he should have demanded a trade earlier in his career.

So, would you call Terry Bradshaw elite just because the Steelers won 4 SB's? I wouldn't. Also, guys like Brady and Montana were blessed with going to the right coach and the right system.

Also, if the supporting cast theory is so overblown, then why did Doug Williams beat John Elway in a SB? Or, why did Elway struggle to win the big game until his supporting cast was way better?

Doug Williams just had a spectacular game in that SB, and Elway couldn't maintain his good start. Like Peyton Manning, Elway became very frustrated in some postseason games, and it affected his performance. Denver should have been much more competitive in those SB losses. In the two Denver SB wins, Elway did play better, and I don't think they beat Green Bay with Bubby Brister simply handing off to Terrell Davis.

Bradshaw is an easy Hall of Famer, but I wouldn't say he's a top five QB. His postseason play speaks for itself, often coming through when the running game was ineffective. I see it more as a symbiotic relationship, the HOF QB helps to lift the other great players on those special teams. I do think Brady would excel on another team with a different coach, and it's not a coincidence the Chiefs haven't returned to the AFC TG since Montana played for them.