The Love/Hate Relationship Between Sports and the "Win"

Stats are a funny thing.

I had this revelation the other day after witnessing the hilarity that was the Broncos-Jets game last Thursday night. My dad and I went to the game, and in case you missed it, the Broncos managed to go 95 yards with around 6 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter and score the game-winning touchdown in a 17-13 victory.

I can safely say it was the first time I've ever witnessed a go-ahead score late in a game and reacted by just busting out laughing. I turned to my dad, and he had the same grin on his face and was just shaking his head and chuckling. We couldn't believe what had happened because for the previous two-and-a-half quarters, the Broncos' offense was dreadful. I'm talkin' absolutely horrid.

I previously wrote about the Broncos' new option offense, but they didn't even seem to run that. It was just handoff after handoff up the middle for a yard or two. There was no creativity at all. When Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy dialed up some passes, Tim Tebow couldn't hit his receivers. It was boring and brutal to watch.

Yet Tebow shined when it counted most. He engineered that final drive and capped it off with a 20-yard touchdown run. Sports Authority Field went nuts; Timmy had done it again!

As I'm sure you're all aware, Tebow is a polarizing figure. There seems to be no middle ground with him; you're either a Tebow Fan or a Tebow Hater. Both sides argue endlessly about his abilities and whether or not he'll make it as a quarterback.

Which brings us back to stats.

In the realm of sports debates, statistics are the ammuntion. Critics will point to his 44.8 completion percentage this year to back up their claims about how he can't throw. Supporters will counter with his 4-1 record as a starter. You'll often hear, "All he does in win," or "Tebow's a winner."

Wins are paramount in the NFL. Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." Bill Williamson, AFC West blogger for ESPN.com wrote, "That part though [Tebow's struggles to move the ball] is starting not to matter. There's one thing I can't do -- and that's argue against winning."

Wins are all that matters. It may not be pretty, but if it gets the job done, then so be it. Personal stats are irrelevant. If a quarterback wins, then he's doing his job.

Compare that to baseball.

Pitchers are the baseball equivalent of quarterbacks. Every play starts with them handling the ball. They both throw the ball. Accuracy is a must, and scouts drool over the 6'5" 230 lb. rocket-armed guys.

However, wins are not nearly as important in baseball as they are in football. It's almost the exact opposite attitude.

In baseball, the peripheral stats are more important than wins when evaluating a pitcher. Just take a look at the Cy Young trophy.

In 2010, Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners won the AL Cy Young with a mediocre 13-12 record. Cliff Corcoran of Sports Illustrated wrote, "It seems safe to declare an end to the era when the voting for the award was based largely, at times seemingly exclusively, on pitching wins and losses." He goes on to add that Hernandez's award, combined with low win totals for 2009 winners Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke, are "the continuation of a trend that suggests pitchers are being evaluated more completely than ever before."

This view is widespread. Joe Posnanski, another writer for SI, said :

"It amazes and entertains me to no end the logical maze that people will negotiate to argue that pictuers can win games more-or-less singlehandedly. The Mighty Win people certainly understand that pitchers don't strike out the majority of hitters they face. They obviously know that different ballparks have different configurations. They can't help but realize that pitchers cannot win games unless the offense scores at least one run, usually four or five or more."

Keith Law of ESPN.com wrote this when comparing Jason Marquis to Ubaldo Jimenez for the 2009 All Star Game. Right below it, he criticizes the selection of Tim Wakefield, saying, "Wakefield is here because of the idiotic fascination that people have with win totals."

In baseball, the prevailing view seems to be that wins are not indicative of a pitcher's ability and performance because so many other factors come into play. Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher, but his win totals were so low (and conversely his loss total was so high) because his offense sucked. The Mariners have turned offensive ineptitude into an art form the past two years. There were a number of games were Hernandez was lights-out, either shutting out the other team or only giving up a run or two. Unfortunately for him, his teammates failed to score, so he was credited with losses or no decisions instead of wins.

So why do the two sports have such different views of the "win"? It's still the same stat. How can it be the be-all/end-all in the one but such a trashy, low-brow stat in the other?

Tebow die-hards might consider this blasphemy, but he never wins games single-handedly. Against the Jets, the defense made New York's offense look just as inept as Denver's for much of the game. Andre' Goodman returned an interception for a touchdown that tied the game at 10 in the third quarter. The lineman gave Tebow time to throw and opened up holes for him to run. Receivers and tight ends caught his passes. Without his teammates chipping in, the Broncos lose that game.

Quarterbacks don't make tackles, force fumbles, or catch touchdown passes, so why do they get all the credit when a team wins? Football is a team sport, just like baseball. In fact, football is often referred to as the "ultimate team sport." Coaches always mention how critical it is to have 11 guys playing together. There are offensive and defensive "units." You never hear about that in baseball. Yet in the ultimate team sport, credit goes to the quarterback.

In baseball, Tim Tebow would be judged a fraud. His win total would be irrelevant. He'd be the equivalent of a pitcher who had a high ERA but benefited from a ton of run support. Pitchers like that can rack up the wins despite giving up 4-5 runs in 5 innings because their offense puts up 7-8 runs in their starts.

This isn't to say that baseball's views are correct and/or better than football's. Baseball would view someone like Kyle Orton favorably. For awhile, he was on pace to set the single-season passing yardage record. He was completing a good number of his passes and throwing for a ton of yards a game. However, the Broncos were losing. They went 4-12 last year, 3-10 under Orton. That's the football equivalent of Zack Greinke or Felix Hernandez: gaudy stats on poor teams.

Both spors are team sports, so one player is never solely responsible for the outcome. Receivers catch passes, and infielders field ground balls. A pitcher can throw seven shutout innings, but if the offense doesn't score any runs, he won't get the win. A quarterback can throw for 300 yards and three touchdowns, but if the defense gives up five touchdowns, he won't win.

So which is the better approach?

Honestly, neither. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Football should place less prevalence on wins when evaluating quarterbacks because there are so many other factors and players involved in deciding a game.

On the other hand, baseball does need to take wins into account because they are important. The goal of every team is to come away with a victory. Maybe a pitcher has fantastic stuff and pitches great but makes one or two mistakes that come back to bite them. Sure, Felix Hernandez had outstanding stats and a great season, but maybe in those 1-0 or 2-1 defeats, he hung a slider for a homerun or walked a guy that came around to score. In tight games, it's the little things that can be most costly. Wins are important. I'd rather have a guy with decent stats who wins than a guy with amazing stats who doesn't.