Relief Wins Are Pointless

    The DH complicates baseball a lot. And I mean A LOT. Instead of nine players starting each game, there are now ten, and two of them split duties. Originally, each player had two jobs: offense and defense. The pitcher had the most important job on the defensive side, and in order to specialize in pitching, most of them sacrificed their offense. This led to better pitching and better strategy, such as when to pull your pitcher and when to use a pinch hitter. Once they introduced the DH, the job of a pitcher became much different. No longer did the pitcher get to face his opponent on the mound. No longer did he have any say as to what happened on the offensive side. No longer did he have to do anything but pitch. With the introduction of the DH, pitchers ceased to be complete players. 

    I would argue that position players are more valuable to a baseball team than pitchers for one simple reason: Position players have control over how many runs their team scores, and can limit the other team's scoring. Pitchers used to be able to help their own cause, and some used to be above average hitters. Even when the pitcher is a weak hitter, he used to be able to help by playing small ball, like bunting and hit and run. Nowadays he only contributes on one side of the ball, while the fielders get to contribute on both. And DH's are certainly the least valuable players of all. Although pitchers are also one dimensional, they at least face the entire opposing lineup, while the DH makes up only 1/9 of the offense. 

    I play in a couple fantasy baseball leagues. One player has Colin Poche on his team, and refuses to let him go. Poche's pitching pretty well right now, but not amazing (2.19 ERA, 4.47 FIP). The main reason why he's so proud of Poche is because he has seven wins, more than many starters. Now he's only ten years old and I don't want to make him feel stupid, but I've tried to explain to him that relief wins are completely random. I never used wins as a be-all, end-all statistic for pitchers like some people do because wins are dependent on the offense as well as the defense. You could put up as many zeros as you want but if your offense doesn't score, you could never get a win. Back when pitchers used to hit, you could make a bit of an argument that pitchers' wins mattered. Although he was only 1/9 of the lineup, THE PITCHER HAD SOME SORT OF SAY ON WHAT THE OFFENSE PUT TOGETHER. If a reliever came into a losing game, put up three zeros and drove in a run, and came out the winning pitcher, I'd say that it was a well deserved relief win. Even now, you can make an argument for starters' wins because they can keep their team in the game for a long time by limiting the opposing offense for several innings. If you're a guy like Poche, who never goes more than one inning in a game and never bats, then who cares if you happened to be the pitcher of record when the offense decided to mount a comeback? It's not like you helped mount that comeback. That said, I do not care a lick for modern relief wins, and they should have no bearing on Hall of Fame debates.