Seaver vs Clemens
Mitchell Plitnick
will have New York abuzz for some time. Right now, I'd claim that Clemens is
the best pitcher in baseball since Lefty Grove, though when it's all said
and done, that might be Greg Maddux. In New York, the inevitable comparison
among modern era pitchers will be to Tom Seaver, who had a pretty good claim
to being the best since Grove until Maddux and Clemens came along. So, let's
look at Seaver vs Clemens.
Total Baseball VI provides two key stats that I think are effective for
comparing pitchers in different seasons, leagues, parks and eras. These are
ERA+ and PR/A. ERA+ is figured by adjusting the pitchers normal ERA for the
park he pitched his home games in then calculating it against the league
ERA, which is established at a value of 100. So, a pitcher with an ERA+ of
100 is exactly average after adjusting for his home park.
PR/A is Pitching runs above average. It's calculated thusly:
IP x (league ERA/9) - earned runs allowed. It's expressed as the number of
runs the pitcher saved his team over what a league average pitcher would
have allowed. The League average pitcher is set at 0, so a below-average
pitcher will have a negative number for this stat.
I'll also look at a couple of more standard stats in terms of how many times
each guy led his league in them, like Ratio (hits + walks + HBP per 9 IP).
OK, here we go.
Seaver: Seaver retired with a lifetime ERA of 2.86, a lifetime ERA+ of 127
and 411
PR/A
Led the league:
in complete games 1
time
in Ratio
3 times
in ERA
3 times
in ERA+
3 times
in PR/A
3 times
in opponents Batting Avg 3
times
in opponents OBP 3
times
Clemens: Clemens has a lifetime ERA of 2.95, a lifetime ERA+ of 151 and 544
PR/A
Led the league:
in complete games 3
times
in Ratio
2 times
in ERA
6 times
in ERA+
7 times
in PR/A
7 times
in opponents Batting Avg 7
times
in opponents OBP 2
times
Seaver pitched 20 years and Clemens has gone 15. Clemens' rookie season of
1984 saw him post only a 96 ERA+, but other than that, he had one season
where it was 117 (1995) one where it was 103 (1993) and other than that
never below 130. In 1991, he had an ERA+ of 211 and in 1997 it was 224.
Seaver's high in ERA+ was 194. Seaver's rookie year was much stronger than
Clemens', and he posted an ERA+ of 123 in 1967. He stayed on top until 1980
when he had an ERA+ of 98. he bounced back well in 1981 (when Fernando mania
robbed him of the Cy Young he deserved much more than Valenzuela) with a
140, but then fell badly in 1982 when he battled injury to a 67 ERA+. That
year, more than anything else, hurts him a lot. It's a bad year the likes of
which Clemens has never approached. Seaver never reached the heights of
domination that Clemens has, and, outside of a very nice year in 1985 with
an ERA+ of 136, didn't see a lot of success (at least not on the level he
and Clemens are usually on) after the age of 36. Clemens is 36 now, but he's
also coming off two of his best years, so it's likely he's going to remain
on top for a while. If Clemens hung em up right now, he's pretty comfortably
ahead of Seaver. If he blows up right now and still hangs around for a few
years, he could, theoretically, slip back down to Seaver, but not only does
this seem unlikely, it seems much more likely he's going to widen the gap
between them.
Mitchell Plitnick
piper wrote in message <36f46ec...@news.interport.net>...
>
>Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
>last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
>didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
>
I doubt there'll be much of this. Comparing Clemens to Guidry would be like
comparing Barry Bonds to George Foster. There's just no comparison. Foster
and Guidry each had one year that would have been a good one for the player
they'd be being compared to. As good as Guidry's 78 season was, it was the
only one that would have been a really good year for Clemens (it was better
than any of Seaver's seasons, but Clemens had two that were better), and
beyond 78, Guidry wasn't in any way comparable. From 77-79 Guidry was a HoF
caliber pitcher, but even 77 wasn't a full year in the rotation--he made
only 25 starts. He had a couple of more good years in 81 and 85. There's
just no comparison at all between the two. At least Seaver makes a case.
piper
<mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Now that Roger Clemens is a Yankee, the questions of his place in history
>will have New York abuzz for some time. Right now, I'd claim that Clemens is
>the best pitcher in baseball since Lefty Grove, though when it's all said
>and done, that might be Greg Maddux. In New York, the inevitable comparison
>among modern era pitchers will be to Tom Seaver, who had a pretty good claim
>to being the best since Grove until Maddux and Clemens came along.
[snip]
Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only! If you send a commercial solicitation, I will boycott the product.
David Lentz
piper wrote:
<snipped>
> Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
> last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
> didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
>
> Michael
>
> To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only! If you send a commercial solicitation, I will boycott the product.
Ron Guidry's career record is 170 wins and 91 loses, that is 79
more wins that losses and by far more than needed to get into the
Hall of Fame. Positive 79 is far better than recent Hall of Fame
inductees. If the Gator's plus 79 isn't good enough they ought
to throw half the pitchers out of the Hall and burn the building
down.
David
David Lentz
Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
>
> piper wrote in message <36f46ec...@news.interport.net>...
>
> >
> >Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
> >last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
> >didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
> >
>
> I doubt there'll be much of this. Comparing Clemens to Guidry would be like
> comparing Barry Bonds to George Foster. There's just no comparison. Foster
> and Guidry each had one year that would have been a good one for the player
> they'd be being compared to. As good as Guidry's 78 season was, it was the
> only one that would have been a really good year for Clemens (it was better
> than any of Seaver's seasons, but Clemens had two that were better), and
> beyond 78, Guidry wasn't in any way comparable. From 77-79 Guidry was a HoF
> caliber pitcher, but even 77 wasn't a full year in the rotation--he made
> only 25 starts. He had a couple of more good years in 81 and 85. There's
> just no comparison at all between the two. At least Seaver makes a case.
Sure Ron Guidry is no Tom Seaver, or Roger Clemens. However
Clemens and Seaver are among the greatest pitchers of all time.
We are talking about the Hall of Fame which admits such pitcher
as Don Sutton and Nolan Ryan. The Gator eats these turkeys for
lunch.
David
Thomas White
> piper wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
>> last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
>> didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
> Ron Guidry's career record is 170 wins and 91 loses, that is 79
> more wins that losses and by far more than needed to get into the
> Hall of Fame. Positive 79 is far better than recent Hall of Fame
> inductees. If the Gator's plus 79 isn't good enough they ought
> to throw half the pitchers out of the Hall and burn the building down.
Let's assume that's a useful stat for Hall merit (which I don't
agree with), and take a look at recently inducted pitchers (last
20 years or so) and see what we get. I'm deliberately skipping
Fingers (-4), who was a reliever and not a good comparison.
For extra fun, the two active Hall-likeliest pitchers are included.
Palmer +116
Clemens +109
Seaver +106
Marichal +101
Carlton +85
Maddux +85
GUIDRY +79
Koufax +78
Gibson +77
Sutton +68
Jenkins +58
Hunter +58
Perry +49
Niekro +44
Bunning +40 Veterans Comm. selection
Ryan +32
I don't exactly know what to make of this, but since everyone pitched
more than ten years, I'll go with one bad-luck decision per year and
declare deltas of >=10 not worth considering. So here's who is below
Guidry: Sutton, whose candidacy was widely debated, so I won't argue
for or against him. Jenkins was worth electing. Hunter was a poor
selection. Perry and Niekro both had something Guidry didn't:
endurance. Being a VC pick makes Bunning dubious at best, but that's
a debate for another time. As for Ryan, his storied career had
more than enough excellence in other aspects to negate his low W-L delta.
Strictly by the math, Guidry is "far better" than Perry, Niekro,
Bunning and Ryan, by this one measure. That doesn't give him
a better pitching career, or get him in the Hall.
Guidry had a short career with a few outstanding seasons. That's
not a Hall of Famer unless those peak seasons are Koufax-grade.
Guidry's weren't. Won the CYA in '78 (finished second for MVP),
finished second in '85, third in '79, picked up a handful of
votes in '77, '81, '83.
--
Thomas White %
Austin, TX % "The hope that science and engineering will save us
% is not a hope shared by scientists and engineers."
tjw...@io.com % --Peter Raven, botanist
Michael David Jones
>piper wrote:
><snipped>
>> Except that, as a Yankee, he will be compared more to Ron Guidry, the
>> last mega-strikeout fireballer the Yankees had. And though Guidry
>> didn't pitch long enough to be an HOFer, he was a great pitcher!
>Ron Guidry's career record is 170 wins and 91 loses, that is 79
>more wins that losses and by far more than needed to get into the
>Hall of Fame. Positive 79 is far better than recent Hall of Fame
>inductees. If the Gator's plus 79 isn't good enough they ought
>to throw half the pitchers out of the Hall and burn the building
>down.
Except that Wins and Losses are team stats, not individual stats. The
only reason we even bother with it for pitchers is because it's been
done for so long. If somebody invented the idea today, it probably
wouldn't have lasted any longer than the GWRBI. It certainly doesn't
make much more sense. It give a player credit (and blame) for a lot of
thing that are beyond his control.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
The whole conception of "Sin" is one which I find very puzzling,
doubtless owing to my sinful nature. If "Sin" consisted in causing
needless suffering, I could understand; but on the contrary, sin often
consists in avoiding needless suffering.
- Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish"
Mitchell Plitnick
>David Lentz <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> writes:
>>Ron Guidry's career record is 170 wins and 91 loses, that is 79
>>more wins that losses and by far more than needed to get into the
>>Hall of Fame. Positive 79 is far better than recent Hall of Fame
>>inductees. If the Gator's plus 79 isn't good enough they ought
>>to throw half the pitchers out of the Hall and burn the building
>>down.
Wins and losses are TEAM stats, not individual ones. One need look no
further than 1987, when Nolan Ryan was among the top two or three starters
in the NL and went 8-16 to see that.
In another post you use Ryan and Sutton as guys Guidry beats hands down who
are in the Hall of Fame. Let's see.
Guidry pitched for 14 years. Two of those years he was mostly in the minors,
and in one he retired early on. He had one spectacular, all-time great year
in 1978, two more excellent ones in 1977 and 1979 (though 77 was a bit
shortened as he made only 25 starts). His 1983 performance wasn't all that
good, but that was probably due to the fact that he was often left in the
game too long. In 1980, 1982 and 1986 he wasn't much better than league
average, in 1984 he was downright awful, and in 1981 and 1985 he was very
good.
Ryan never had a year like Guidry's 1978, but he was the best pitcher in the
game in 1981 and 1987 and could make a good case in 1977. He was also
sub-par 7 times, though never as bad as Guidry's 1984. But Ryan pitched for
25 full years and was among the best pitchers 7 of those years and above
league average in 18 of them. I agree Ryan was extremely overrated, but his
best years were as good, when taken in total, as Guidry's and he was a good
pitcher for a far longer time.
Sutton pitched 23 years, all of them full seasons except his last one. He
also never approached Guidry's 1978, but he did have three seasons that were
better than any of Guidry's other seasons. In his 22 full years, he was
below league average 8 times, though only once was he way below. Personally,
while I think Ryan does belong in the Hall, I've never been of the opinion
that Sutton does. But saying Guidry was better than him just doesn't hold
true, by any standard.
zene...@wwa.com
>
> Sutton pitched 23 years, all of them full seasons except his last one.
> He also never approached Guidry's 1978, but he did have three seasons
> that were better than any of Guidry's other seasons. In his 22 full
> years, he was below league average 8 times, though only once was he way
> below. Personally, while I think Ryan does belong in the Hall, I've
> never been of the opinion that Sutton does. But saying Guidry was better
> than him just doesn't hold true, by any standard.
I think you're undervaluing 5282 innings pitched. That many innings of
just *league average pitching* is quite valuable, and would be more career
value than many players who are in the HOF had. Sutton prevented runs at a
rate 8% above league average for his career. In my book, that makes him a
clear HOFer. Nolan Ryan was only slightly better than Sutton in both IP
and ERA+; they're more comparable to each other than either is to any
other pitcher in baseball history in those terms. Unless you want to go
back to Pud Galvin, or maybe Mickey Welch...
My quick method of evaluating pitchers for our little Virtual HOF
exercise, TPR - FR + IP/120, gives Sutton 60 career Wins Above Replacement
Level. That's marginal for a pitcher for the *VHOF*, but close enough that
the HOF itself should be automatic. Comparable pitchers include Eppa
Rixey, Ed Walsh, Hal Newhouser, Early Wynn, Don Drysdale, and Whitey Ford
is only a few career wins ahead. Leaving Sutton out would be a Santo-size
mistake.
Jeff C.
David Lentz
Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
<snipped>
> Wins and losses are TEAM stats, not individual ones. One need look no
> further than 1987, when Nolan Ryan was among the top two or three starters
> in the NL and went 8-16 to see that.
> In another post you use Ryan and Sutton as guys Guidry beats hands down who
> are in the Hall of Fame. Let's see.
<snipped>
The telling statistic about Nolan Ryan was his inability to even
lead his own staff in victories. In 1987, Mike Scott won 16
games, Jim Deshaises 11, Larry Anderson 9, Danny Darwin 9 and
Nolan Ryan 8. Four pitchers on the same staff won more games
that Ryan, a typical pattern for Ryan.
Yes win and loses are a team statistic, but Ryan's stats were
seldom better than any other starter on the staff. If Ryan was a
good pitcher, he would have a way to avoid amassing his massive
total of losses, which was Ryan chronic problem. He could not
seem to avoid losing.
I think the measure of greatness is sustained excellence. Ron
Guidy had problems sustaining a high level. Ryan sustained but
seldom reached excellence. If I recall correctly, Ryan only led
his own staff in victories six times.
David
Mitchell Plitnick
zene...@wwa.com wrote in message ...
>
> I think you're undervaluing 5282 innings pitched. That many innings of
>just *league average pitching* is quite valuable, and would be more career
>value than many players who are in the HOF had. Sutton prevented runs at a
>rate 8% above league average for his career. In my book, that makes him a
>clear HOFer. Nolan Ryan was only slightly better than Sutton in both IP
>and ERA+; they're more comparable to each other than either is to any
>other pitcher in baseball history in those terms. Unless you want to go
>back to Pud Galvin, or maybe Mickey Welch...
Well, it's a fair point of debate. To me, some part of HoF election is
"fame" in the sense of doing some remarkable things, bringing a positive
light on the game etc. That's why Ryan would get a nod from me where Sutton
wouldn't. Strikeouts may be no more valuable than other outs, but Ryan's Ks
brought a good deal of fun, as did his no-hitters (though a no-hitter is no
more valuable than any other shutout). Peak value also has something to do
with it, and Sutton was never the best pitcher in the game in any year, and
was rarely among the very best. I'll also state that my own bar for the Hall
is higher than the BBWAA and certainly higher than the vets' committee, and
I certainly agree that a good case can be made for Sutton. I'd also agree
that Ryan is far from the shoo-in he in fact was.
> My quick method of evaluating pitchers for our little Virtual HOF
>exercise, TPR - FR + IP/120, gives Sutton 60 career Wins Above Replacement
>Level. That's marginal for a pitcher for the *VHOF*, but close enough that
>the HOF itself should be automatic. Comparable pitchers include Eppa
>Rixey, Ed Walsh, Hal Newhouser, Early Wynn, Don Drysdale, and Whitey Ford
>is only a few career wins ahead. Leaving Sutton out would be a Santo-size
>mistake.
Well, I myself would put Santo in. I'd leave Sutton out, and that's because
I don't put quite as much value on longevity as you do. I certainly don't
ignore it, but I think I'd put somewhat less weight on it than you do.
Matter of opinion. And I do think that, while intangibles may be irrelevant
to a player's on-field value, there is a place for it in HoF thinking. That
is, the fact that Ryan brought fans to the park and excitement to the game
made him an overrated pitcher for most of his career, but it does merit some
points in his favor in terms of the Hall of Fame.
Scot Gould
>
> Now that Roger Clemens is a Yankee, the questions of his place in history
> will have New York abuzz for some time. Right now, I'd claim that Clemens is
> the best pitcher in baseball since Lefty Grove, though when it's all said
> and done, that might be Greg Maddux.
Clemens is the best pitcher ever. The simple fact is that Lefty Grove
would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
Good luck.
Pat & Mary C. Caffrey
"natural" to begin to compare Seaver & Clemens only now since Clemens
is in NY...remember that they were both on the '86 Red Sox.
Although I am admitted biased, I'd give Seaver the slight edge over
Clemens, and I'd put Maddux in between them. However the differences
are so slight that we are splitting hairs here, mostly on intangibles
that you can't justify with stats.
Remember that Seaver was the top RHP of his time, pitching for
a team with anemic run production. When you think of Seaver, you
see a more complete pitcher...Clemens is more a thrower. Both have
battled injuries later in their careers, and learned to adjust around
that. Also both have mediocre post season records.
I doubt Clemens will garner as high a percentage of the HOF voting,
as Seaver did (although this is not the absolute measure of Seaver
being better than Clemens).
To compare Clemens to Guidry is like comparing Seaver to Jerry Koosman
or Jon Matlack...there is none.
Ryan is a one of a kind, with all the K's and no-hitters, and doesn't
really compare to either...I wouldn't put Ryan in the top 10 of righties
in the "modern" era, but he definitely belongs in Cooperstown.
Matt Dobrin
> would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
> the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
> pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
> Good luck.
assertions that they just assume everyone will accept. Where do you come up
with this stuff?
Mitchell Plitnick
Pat & Mary C. Caffrey wrote in message <36F554...@ibm.net>...
>Although I am admitted biased, I'd give Seaver the slight edge over
>Clemens, and I'd put Maddux in between them. However the differences
>are so slight that we are splitting hairs here, mostly on intangibles
>that you can't justify with stats.
Actually, the stats do show that Clemens is better than Seaver was. Not by a
lot at this point, but another year or two at his current level and it will
be quite decisive. I'll run the same comparison with Maddux in there, if
anyone's interested, but Maddux thus far is ahead of Seaver and behind
Clemens.
>Remember that Seaver was the top RHP of his time, pitching for
>a team with anemic run production. When you think of Seaver, you
>see a more complete pitcher...Clemens is more a thrower. Both have
>battled injuries later in their careers, and learned to adjust around
>that. Also both have mediocre post season records.
His team's run production has nothing to do with anything but wins, which
are team stats and not individual indicators. That's exactly why any serious
analysis excludes wins. We look at how well a guy pitched. In any case,
Seaver didn't spend his whole career with "anemic offenses", as the Mets had
several good offensive years while Seaver was there and he spent significant
time with the Reds, who were far from anemic offensively.
Clemens' post-season record is better than most make it out to be. I've
posted on this point numerous times in teh Yankee ng.
Seaver, on the other hand was great in the post-season. His first start in
the NLCS in 1969 was not particularly good, as he gave up 5 runs in 7
innings against Atlanta. And his first World Series start wasn't great
either, as he gave up 5 runs in 5 innings, but he was great after that. In
Game 4 he pitched 10 innings and gave up only 1 run. In the 1975 NLCS he
pitched a complete game and should have been removed before taking the loss,
but he gave up only 2 runs in 8 2/3 innings. He came back in Game 5 and gave
up 2 runs in 8 innings to send the Mets to the series. In Game 3 of the
Series, he left the game tied at 2 after 8 innings. In Game 6 he worked 7
innings and gave up 2 runs. In the 1980 NLCS, Seaver pitched 8 innings and
gave up 2 runs against Pittsburgh. This looks like a pretty damn good
post-season record to me.
>I doubt Clemens will garner as high a percentage of the HOF voting,
>as Seaver did (although this is not the absolute measure of Seaver
>being better than Clemens).
Indeed, it's completely irrelevant.
>Ryan is a one of a kind, with all the K's and no-hitters, and doesn't
>really compare to either...I wouldn't put Ryan in the top 10 of righties
>in the "modern" era, but he definitely belongs in Cooperstown.
I'd put him in because of the attraction of what he did, but as a pitcher,
in terms of his actual value, he's a borderline HoFer.
Jim Amato
can't believe that Don Sutton ever got in, and Nolan Ryan, while being a
great strikeout pitcher, didn't have a Hall of Fame type ERA or winning
percentage.
Clemens and Seaver are both great pitchers that should easily make the Hall.
Guidry, however, was not quite as stellar. He may have had a few good
years, but he was nowhere near as dominating as either Seaver or Clemens. I
really can't see Guidry being compared to either of these two.
John DiFool
Scot Gould wrote:
> Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
> >
> > Now that Roger Clemens is a Yankee, the questions of his place in history
> > will have New York abuzz for some time. Right now, I'd claim that Clemens is
> > the best pitcher in baseball since Lefty Grove, though when it's all said
> > and done, that might be Greg Maddux.
>
> Clemens is the best pitcher ever. The simple fact is that Lefty Grove
> would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
> the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
> pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
> Good luck.
Heh. Is it really fair to penalize old-time ballplayers simply because
they didn't have access to Creatine, Andro, weights, etc.? If we took this
line of reasoning to its obvious (yet silly) conclusion we'd say Bill
Buckner was a better player than Lou Gehrig...Grove would still be a
good pitcher if time-warped ahead to our time, and given the opportunity
to take advantage of advances in sports medicine, nutrition, and so on
would still be of HOF quality...
John DiFool
Mitchell Plitnick
Coriaty wrote in message <19990321201305...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>> Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
stuff I didn't write.
Please be clear about attributions. Thanks.
T. Thayer
<mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> His team's run production has nothing to do with anything but wins, which
> are team stats and not individual indicators. That's exactly why any serious
> analysis excludes wins. We look at how well a guy pitched. In any case,
> Seaver didn't spend his whole career with "anemic offenses", as the Mets had
> several good offensive years while Seaver was there
????? I found one year while Seaver was with the Mets where they were
above average offensively and then not by a whole lot. When he was with
the Chisox, they also had below average offenses.
> and he spent significant
> time with the Reds, who were far from anemic offensively.
True.
Seaver's teams recorded -32.6 adjusted batter runs for his career. In
comparison, P. Niekro's teams had -17.6 abr, Walter Johnson's had -22.3
abr, Don Sutton's had +28.8 abr, and Ruffing's had +76.4 abr.
Seaver's .600+ winning percentage is most impressive in light of his run
support. I doubt he got run support above that of his teamates over his
entire career. Obviously w/l isn't everything, and is overated by many,
but I'm not sure completely ignoring it is a good idea.
Tom
Mitchell Plitnick
T. Thayer wrote in message ...
>????? I found one year while Seaver was with the Mets where they were
>above average offensively and then not by a whole lot. When he was with
>the Chisox, they also had below average offenses.
True, but in 69 and 70 their offense wasn't bad. Their total runs were
always down around the bottom, but Shea was a pitcher's park. Their offense
was almost always sub-par, but a number of times it wasn't "anemic".
>> and he spent significant
>> time with the Reds, who were far from anemic offensively.
>
>True.
>Seaver's teams recorded -32.6 adjusted batter runs for his career. In
>comparison, P. Niekro's teams had -17.6 abr, Walter Johnson's had -22.3
>abr, Don Sutton's had +28.8 abr, and Ruffing's had +76.4 abr.
>Seaver's .600+ winning percentage is most impressive in light of his run
>support. I doubt he got run support above that of his teamates over his
>entire career. Obviously w/l isn't everything, and is overated by many,
>but I'm not sure completely ignoring it is a good idea.
Well, it wouldn't be if there weren't other stats that already tell us
everything we need to know about a pitcher's performance. A win is attained
by a team not an individual, and a team is responsible for a loss, not an
individual. Naturally, if a guy pitches better, he should reasonably be
expected to get more wins than someone with the same defense and run support
who pitches less well. But he doesn't control when his defense plays well or
when his team hits. A pitcher only controls how well he pitches and w/l
doesn't tell us anything about that. Plenty of other stats do, and I see
absolutely nothing in w/l that contributes anything to a pitcher's
evaluation.
Samson
<mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Pat & Mary C. Caffrey wrote in message <36F554...@ibm.net>...
>
> >Although I am admitted biased, I'd give Seaver the slight edge over
> >Clemens, and I'd put Maddux in between them. However the differences
> >are so slight that we are splitting hairs here, mostly on intangibles
> >that you can't justify with stats.
>
> Actually, the stats do show that Clemens is better than Seaver was. Not by a
> lot at this point, but another year or two at his current level and it will
> be quite decisive. I'll run the same comparison with Maddux in there, if
> anyone's interested, but Maddux thus far is ahead of Seaver and behind
> Clemens.
At this point in his career, Clemens is ahead of Seaver at the
same point in Seaver's career. Maddux and Seaver are close. I
doubt Clemens will pitch 4800 innings, though, and I have no
idea where he'd be in the comparison if he did. He'd be well
into his 40s by that point.
IP ERA ~LgERA ERA+
Clemens 3274.7 2.95 4.29 151
Seaver 4782.7 2.86 3.65 127
*thru~3300IP 3239.3 2.51 3.57 140
Maddux 2849.3 2.75 3.89 146
Gerry Myerson
> It seems that the HOF has lowered its standards for pitchers lately.
Nonsense. Once upon a time, they let in Herb Pennock, Dizzy Dean,
Ted Lyons, Dazzy Vance, Red Ruffing, Early Wynn, Bob Lemon, Don Drysdale,
and Catfish Hunter (and let's not even mention the Old-timers & Veterans
choices). Are these guys really better than Don Sutton & Nolan Ryan?
Meanwhile, they're giving Bert Blyleven a hard time. I'd say they've
raised their standards for pitchers lately.
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edu.au)
Coriaty
but without these advantages? it is true he might not make it out of the minor
leagues. time warp clemens (and his advantages) back to the beginning of the
century and he may very well post a 0.00 ERA.
maD doG
Mitchell Plitnick wrote in message
<7d3m45$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>Clemens' post-season record is better than most make it out to be. I've
>posted on this point numerous times in teh Yankee ng.
>Seaver, on the other hand was great in the post-season. His first start
in
>the NLCS in 1969 was not particularly good, as he gave up 5 runs in 7
>innings against Atlanta. And his first World Series start wasn't great
>either, as he gave up 5 runs in 5 innings, but he was great after that.
In
>Game 4 he pitched 10 innings and gave up only 1 run. In the 1975 NLCS
he
>pitched a complete game and should have been removed before taking the
loss,
>but he gave up only 2 runs in 8 2/3 innings. He came back in Game 5 and
gave
>up 2 runs in 8 innings to send the Mets to the series. In Game 3 of the
>Series, he left the game tied at 2 after 8 innings. In Game 6 he worked
7
>innings and gave up 2 runs. In the 1980 NLCS, Seaver pitched 8 innings
and
>gave up 2 runs against Pittsburgh. This looks like a pretty damn good
>post-season record to me.
Through 1993, Greg Maddux had a career postseason ERA of *8.10* in 20
innings. Because the Braves have been in the playoffs so often, he's had
a chance to lower that figure. His story didn't necessarily have to turn
out so well. A good pitcher needs adequate opportunity to show his
ability, be it in the majors, minors, All-Star Game, World Series, or
wherever.
Clemens, Seaver and Maddux have all pitched amply in the postseason, and
of the three I'd say Seaver's record is the most impressive. The '69
NLCS was the only series in which he was anything less than his normal
self. Maddux's World Series numbers dwarf Clemens and Seaver's, but as I
said, there was no guarantee he'd ever get there.
It's early to be comparing the three, particularly based on the "big
games." There's a good chance Clemens and Maddux will add a few of them
in the coming years.
---
m
d
"Futility is freedom!"
---Bruce Sterling
piper
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote:
>Sure Ron Guidry is no Tom Seaver, or Roger Clemens. However
>Clemens and Seaver are among the greatest pitchers of all time.
>We are talking about the Hall of Fame which admits such pitcher
>as Don Sutton and Nolan Ryan. The Gator eats these turkeys for
>lunch.
As a Yankees fan and Guidry fan, my response is:
No offense, but Bull! Ryan is an all-time great, and Sutton was as
good as Guidry for a longer time.
Scot Gould
>
> > Clemens is the best pitcher ever. The simple fact is that Lefty Grove
> > would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
> > the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
> > pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
> > Good luck.
> LOL I always find it hilarious when people make completely unfounded
> assertions that they just assume everyone will accept. Where do you come up
> with this stuff?
I find it far more silly of people to say player X back in 1930 would
hit pitcher Y of today's Brewers. The simple fact is that athlete today
are stronger, faster and in better shape than ever. Olympic and World
records of 20 year ago (example Mark Spitz) wouldn't be consider
acceptable times/marks/distances for athletes trying to make the Olympic
team. Pitcher today hit 90 mph all the time with great control. At one
time it was considered extremely unique. Bat speed are much faster
today. Players are much larger (> 6 ft) compared with players even 20
years ago. Even Mike Schmidt comments how players today make with ease
fielding plays that would be consider spectacular 20 years ago. Players
today are far more likely to arrive in shape. Playing into shape is a
thing of the past (except Mo Vaughn....)
Finally, while the number of teams has increased since 1927, the pool
from which players are picked has increased more - much more.
So Clemens is the dominate player of our time. Given the athletes of
today, he is probably better than virtually all pitchers of the past 30
years and certainly before that. (Walter Johnson threw at batting
practice speed. Not surprising he could pitch all those innings. ) <g>
Any food for thought.
I like Clemens. Here is a way to promote him.
David Lentz
piper wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 07:52:10 -0500, David Lentz
> <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote:
>
> >Sure Ron Guidry is no Tom Seaver, or Roger Clemens. However
> >Clemens and Seaver are among the greatest pitchers of all time.
> >We are talking about the Hall of Fame which admits such pitcher
> >as Don Sutton and Nolan Ryan. The Gator eats these turkeys for
> >lunch.
>
> As a Yankees fan and Guidry fan, my response is:
>
> No offense, but Bull! Ryan is an all-time great, and Sutton was as
> good as Guidry for a longer time.
Nolan Ryan was a mediocre pitcher that pitched a very long time.
Ryan had a consistent inability to win games, when compared to
the rest of his staff, and chronic inability to avoid losing,
averaging over ten loses a season. Great pitchers win and Ryan
didn't win much more than he lost.
Ryan is Gator bait.
David
Michael David Jones
>Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
><snipped>
>> Wins and losses are TEAM stats, not individual ones. One need look no
>> further than 1987, when Nolan Ryan was among the top two or three starters
>> in the NL and went 8-16 to see that.
>> In another post you use Ryan and Sutton as guys Guidry beats hands down who
>> are in the Hall of Fame. Let's see.
><snipped>
>The telling statistic about Nolan Ryan was his inability to even
>lead his own staff in victories. In 1987, Mike Scott won 16
>games, Jim Deshaises 11, Larry Anderson 9, Danny Darwin 9 and
>Nolan Ryan 8. Four pitchers on the same staff won more games
>that Ryan, a typical pattern for Ryan.
What does that tell you, though? Does it really tell you anything more
than that Ryan was unlucky in terms of either (a) his team scoring
runs when he started or (b) his bullpen blowing leads? Or for that
matter, did his team just score runs late in those games?
>Yes win and loses are a team statistic, but Ryan's stats were
>seldom better than any other starter on the staff. If Ryan was a
>good pitcher, he would have a way to avoid amassing his massive
>total of losses, which was Ryan chronic problem. He could not
>seem to avoid losing.
Horsefeathers. In order to get a "W", several things have to happen:
1. your team has to score runs
2. your team has to score more runs *while you're in the game* than
you allow
3. your bullpen has to hold the lead.
As a starting pitcher, you have approximately 0 control over (1). You
have slightly less than 50% control (modulo defense) over (2). You
have no control over (3) in terms of either when you are removed from
the game or how your bullpen performs. Looking at that, it's
completely preposterous to say that a pitcher should be held
responsible for his "win" total.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
I've never been prejudiced by sex! Entertained, yes, but never prejudiced!
- Justice Dan Snow (Walter Matthau)
PY
> Nolan Ryan was a mediocre pitcher that pitched a very long time.
> Ryan had a consistent inability to win games, when compared to
> the rest of his staff, and chronic inability to avoid losing,
> averaging over ten loses a season. Great pitchers win and Ryan
> didn't win much more than he lost.
>
> Ryan is Gator bait.
Pure baloney. Fact of the matter is that Ryan allowed 3.19 earned runs
per game in his career, which is an excellent ERA. If his teams had the
inability to score more than 3 runs for each of his outing, that simply
is *not* his fault. Instead of talking nonsense, you should look at his
numbers some time. It is virtually *impossible* to put up some of these
records with the ERA he posted and not have poor run support:
1972- 2.28 ERA, 19-16
1973- 2.87 ERA, 21-16
1974- 2.89 ERA, 22-16
1976- 3.36 ERA, 17-18
1977- 2.77 ERA, 19-16
1987- 2.76 ERA, 8-16
Do you know how difficult it is to post a sub-3.00 ERA? There's a
reason why not many pitchers do it. Don't make the excuse that Ryan
must have received good run support at times and simply blew leads or
such, because I would then challenge you to show how someone can pitch
badly 16 times and still post a sub-3.00 ERA. Take 1972. Let's suppose
Ryan allowed 5 runs (not just earned) in each of his 16 losses. Now, 5
runs really isn't all that much. Still, that would mean he had to have
allowed *ZERO* runs in *all* of his other starts to put up the ERA that
he did, since he only allowed 80 runs in the entire season. Realistic?
Hardly. Seems more like Ryan lost a lot of 2-1 or 1-0 games. And that
can hardly be his fault.
Just look at his overall numbers carefully before making such a hasty
decision on Ryan. W-L hardly tells the story in any case. Fact of the
matter is that Ryan did his job better than most pitchers in baseball
history- he allowed a scant number of runs to score. The fact that
teams couldn't score more than 3 runs for him is not his burden to bear.
I don't know how you can even compare Guidry to Ryan. Do you really
think Ryan got more run support from his teams than Guidry's World
Championship teams? Guidry was a very dominant pitcher (and probably
better than Ryan) for about 3 years. That does not make him better.
Guidry was fortunate enough to be able to post a 3.27 ERA and win 22
games while losing only 6, like in 1985. Ryan could not. If Ryan would
have posted a 3.27 ERA, I'll bet you he goes 16-19 with the teams he
had. Fact of the matter is, Guidry had a very short career, but he knew
when to quit. Ryan had a longer career and knew when to quit. And Ryan
had a much, much longer period of effectiveness than Guidry did.
-PY
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
David Jones) wrote:
>> What does that tell you, though? Does it really tell you anything more
> than that Ryan was unlucky in terms of either (a) his team scoring
> runs when he started or (b) his bullpen blowing leads? Or for that
> matter, did his team just score runs late in those games?
>
> >Yes win and loses are a team statistic, but Ryan's stats were
> >seldom better than any other starter on the staff. If Ryan was a
> >good pitcher, he would have a way to avoid amassing his massive
> >total of losses, which was Ryan chronic problem. He could not
> >seem to avoid losing.
>
> Horsefeathers. In order to get a "W", several things have to happen:
> 1. your team has to score runs
> 2. your team has to score more runs *while you're in the game* than
> you allow
> 3. your bullpen has to hold the lead.
>
> As a starting pitcher, you have approximately 0 control over (1). You
> have slightly less than 50% control (modulo defense) over (2). You
> have no control over (3) in terms of either when you are removed from
> the game or how your bullpen performs. Looking at that, it's
> completely preposterous to say that a pitcher should be held
> responsible for his "win" total.
But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
of an entire season? Probability would generally suggest the better
starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
B. Martin
Michael David Jones
Pretty good, actually. Consider that *somebody* has to get the worst
run support, and with 5 starters your chances of being that guy are
.20. There's also an often-speculated-on effect that says if you're
the #1 starter you're going to be going up against other teams' #1s
more often, though I doubt there's anything serious to this.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.
- Abbie Hoffman
David Lentz
<snipped>
> But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
> more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
> of an entire season? Probability would generally suggest the better
> starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
Nolan Ryan has been described as a hard luck pitcher. Yeah you
can buy that a good pitcher will have a bad year. Yet Ryan
pitched in bad luck far more often than not. Yeah I can buy a
bad luck season or two. I can't buy bad luck for an entire
career.
You can say that Ryan pitched in bad luck for his career. I say
after twenty five seasons luck should average out. I don't
factor luck into careers, only results. And Ryan's results in
terms of winning more than losing were not impressive. Bad luck
or not, he didn't get the job done.
David
Michael David Jones
>bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu wrote:
><snipped>
>> But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
>> more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
>> of an entire season? Probability would generally suggest the better
>> starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
>Nolan Ryan has been described as a hard luck pitcher. Yeah you
>can buy that a good pitcher will have a bad year. Yet Ryan
>pitched in bad luck far more often than not. Yeah I can buy a
>bad luck season or two. I can't buy bad luck for an entire
>career.
You don't have to have bad luck for an entire career, just in a few
years plus pitching for some bad teams. Ryan certainly did pitch for a
lot of bad teams, and his bad luck was epitomized by the year he won
the NL ERA title and went 8-16.
>You can say that Ryan pitched in bad luck for his career. I say
>after twenty five seasons luck should average out. I don't
>factor luck into careers, only results. And Ryan's results in
>terms of winning more than losing were not impressive. Bad luck
>or not, he didn't get the job done.
Your idea of his "job" is pretty bizarre. He was good at keeping the
other team from scoring; it's not his fault if his teammates didn't
pick up the slack.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Wash a pig as much as you like, it'll go right back into the mud puddle.
- Russian proverb
KB
> But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
> more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
> of an entire season? Probability would generally suggest the better
> starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
No, not necessarily. It may be that other teams arrange their rotations
to ensure their number 1 starter goes against your number 1. In that
case, the relative battle becomes how much better your #1 is against the
opposition's hitters vs. how much better their #1 is against your
hitters. And given that Ryan never pitched with a league-leading
offence, one could easily make the case that he happened to lose this
battle fairly frequently, which given his ERA's, is more a knock on his
team's offence than on his ability.
Kevin
David Lentz
Michael David Jones wrote:
<snipped>
> >Nolan Ryan has been described as a hard luck pitcher. Yeah you
> >can buy that a good pitcher will have a bad year. Yet Ryan
> >pitched in bad luck far more often than not. Yeah I can buy a
> >bad luck season or two. I can't buy bad luck for an entire
> >career.
>
> You don't have to have bad luck for an entire career, just in a few
> years plus pitching for some bad teams. Ryan certainly did pitch for a
> lot of bad teams, and his bad luck was epitomized by the year he won
> the NL ERA title and went 8-16.
>
> >You can say that Ryan pitched in bad luck for his career. I say
> >after twenty five seasons luck should average out. I don't
> >factor luck into careers, only results. And Ryan's results in
> >terms of winning more than losing were not impressive. Bad luck
> >or not, he didn't get the job done.
>
> Your idea of his "job" is pretty bizarre. He was good at keeping the
> other team from scoring; it's not his fault if his teammates didn't
> pick up the slack.
Nolan Ryan pitched for some poor teams and some pretty good
teams, such a the World Champion New York Mets and some division
champion Astros team. All in all, Ryan teams had something like
a .479 winning percentage, not great not bad.
I don't entirely accept the theory that is wasn't Ryan fault that
his team didn't score. They generally scored enough for other
pitchers on the team to win more games than Ryan. So it wasn't
so much as Ryan's teams didn't score, as they didn't score for
Ryan. What could cause that? Consistent bad luck for one, which
I discount. On the other hand, you could speculate that Ryan's
style of lots of walks and strike out produced long defensive
innings and took the edge off his team on both defense and
offense. Then too Ryan played in pitcher's parks which tended to
reduce the number of run scored for both teams.
David
KB
> There's also an often-speculated-on effect that says if you're
> the #1 starter you're going to be going up against other teams' #1s
> more often, though I doubt there's anything serious to this.
Well, I just speculated on it in another post.
But my evidence comes from an article I read about Weaver (probably
Boswell) along the lines of "every early season rainout sent Weaver and
his coaches scurrying to their charts as they tried to figure out its
effects on the rotation in July". Weaver was pretty clear he tried to
match his guys against the other teams; I don't see why other managers
wouldn't do it.
'course, even speculating about doing so was one of the things that cost
Tim Johnson his job in Toronto, so maybe you have a point.
Kevin
Mitchell Plitnick
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu wrote in message ...
>
>But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
>more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
>of an entire season?
Actually, the probability of this is overwhelming. I just grabbed two
pitchers, David Cone and Hideki Irabu, and found that Cone had run support
of 6.89 and Irabu 5.57. that's a pretty big gulf. David Wells was supported
at 6.84, Andy pettitte at 5.15, Orlando hernandez at 7.34. Again we see a
big gap, and that on, arguably, the best, most consistent offense in the
game last year. Let's try another team, the A's. Tom Candiotti got 5.15
runs, Jimmy Haynes 6.16, Mike Oquist 5.30, Kenny Rogers 4.94 and Blake Stein
5.83. Less variation, but clearly still enough to make big differnces in
w/l. Then it's a question of distribution--in which starts was a pitcher
supported? Now, it may be fair to guess (and that's all I'm doing here)
that, given enough time, such distribution would approach a reasonable
average. let's assume that's true, though I don't really think it is. 30-35
starts would be much too small a sample size to expect that to happen. By
the same token, each pitcher's w/l is also going to be affected by when the
bullpen performs well and when the defense performs well. It's not going to
even out across a season--it may across a career, if the pens and defenses
remained of consistent quality from year to year, but obviously they do not,
even if a pitcher remains with the same team his whole career, which few do.
Probability would generally suggest the better
>starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
Yes, and more often than not they do. But the "not" in this case is much too
big to use this as a gauge. A Kenny Rogers may very well face much better
pitchers than the other guys in the A's rotation, so a win would be much
harder for him to come by (that doesn't always happen, of course, but the
point is that in order to get a win, a pitcher must first allow less runs
than the opposing starter does, so yet another variable enters into the
equation over which the pitcher himself has no control). Stats are only
useful insofar as they tell us something. Clearly, two different pitchers
could have the same record and perform at wildly different levels. The
classic examples happened two years apart in the 80s, to my mind. Storm
Davis on the 89 A's was a well below average pitcher and went 19-7, while
Nolan Ryan on the 87 Astros was one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers (and arguably
the best) in the NL and went 8-16. Such major anomalies are very rare, but
it speaks to the fact that w/l just doesn't tell us anything noteworthy
about a given pitcher's performance. A pitcher can only pitch as well as he
can each time out. The rest is out of his hands.
David Grabiner
> Nolan Ryan has been described as a hard luck pitcher. Yeah you
> can buy that a good pitcher will have a bad year. Yet Ryan
> pitched in bad luck far more often than not. Yeah I can buy a
> bad luck season or two. I can't buy bad luck for an entire
> career.
And it didn't happen. Ryan's won-lost record over his career is about
what you would expect, considering his ERA and team's offense. The
follwing numbers are from TBV; PR is the number of runs Ryan was better
than an averge pitcher, with ten runs about equal to one win.
Over his career, he had 218 PR, which would give a pitcher for an averge
team a record of 330-286; Ryan went 324-292. That looks very close.
His two worst-luck years were his two best years, 1977 (19-16, 38 PR
projects to 31-14), and 1987 (8-16, 27 PR projects to 15-7). In every
year except 1987, he was within two wins of his expected record.
The reason for his won-lost record is his ability to prevent runs from
scoring; it's not among the all-time great's record because he wasn't a
great pitcher.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
> B. Martin wrote:
> > But what are the probabilities of these problems affecting one pitcher
> > more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
> > of an entire season? Probability would generally suggest the better
> > starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
>
> No, not necessarily. It may be that other teams arrange their rotations
> to ensure their number 1 starter goes against your number 1. In that
> case, the relative battle becomes how much better your #1 is against the
> opposition's hitters vs. how much better their #1 is against your
> hitters. And given that Ryan never pitched with a league-leading
> offence, one could easily make the case that he happened to lose this
> battle fairly frequently, which given his ERA's, is more a knock on his
> team's offence than on his ability.
First, what percentage of starts fit this scenario? In fact, how many of
Ryan's years was he considered the #1 pitcher on staff?
Secondly, noticing:
1) that other teams tried to schedule their #1 pitcher against Ryan; and
2) Ryan oft failed to come out ahead in these match-ups; then
3) wouldn't his manager manuver his rotation to have Ryan face a different
pitcher on some occassions instead of wasting his #1 pitcher at such a
frequency.
Frankly can it be adequately verified whether these issues influenced
Ryan's starts?
B. Martin
David Grabiner
> Pure baloney. Fact of the matter is that Ryan allowed 3.19 earned runs
> per game in his career, which is an excellent ERA. If his teams had the
> inability to score more than 3 runs for each of his outing, that simply
> is *not* his fault. Instead of talking nonsense, you should look at his
> numbers some time. It is virtually *impossible* to put up some of these
> records with the ERA he posted and not have poor run support:
> 1972- 2.28 ERA, 19-16
> 1973- 2.87 ERA, 21-16
> 1974- 2.89 ERA, 22-16
> 1976- 3.36 ERA, 17-18
> 1977- 2.77 ERA, 19-16
> 1987- 2.76 ERA, 8-16
> Do you know how difficult it is to post a sub-3.00 ERA?
No, I don't.
You're missing an important factor: the league ERA varies with time. In
the 1972 AL, the league ERA was 3.06, which means that probably half the
starters had ERA's under 3. In 1976, the league ERA was 3.52; Ryan was
only average considering that he pitched in a parch which decreased run
scoring. With the league ERA over 4.5 now, it's a lot harder.
RStLoup
>>> would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
>>> the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
>>> pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>they didn't have access to Creatine, Andro, weights, etc.? If we took this
>>line of reasoning to its obvious (yet silly) conclusion we'd say Bill
>>Buckner was a better player than Lou Gehrig...Grove would still be a
>>good pitcher if time-warped ahead to our time, and given the opportunity
>>to take advantage of advances in sports medicine, nutrition, and so on
>>would still be of HOF quality...
>but without these advantages? it is true he >might not make it out of the
minor
>leagues. time warp clemens (and his >advantages) back to the beginning of the
>century and he may very well post a 0.00 >ERA.
. . . to which I would give a big, "Who cares?" If you time-warp today's army
of Lichtenstein back to 1800, they would kick the crap out of Napoleon's Grand
Armee. But so what? It doesn't make them greater in a historical sense.
In my view, greatness inherently implies a relative comparison to the era in
which you lived and performed. We all know that technology and nutrition and
what-not have increased over the decades and over the centuries, but I would
hope this doesn't lead us to the rather silly conclusion that this means that
Andrew Golota is therefore a greater boxer than Joe Louis, or that all of us
here are greater mathemticians than Archimedes, simply because we happen to
exist at a later point of time and can reap the benefits of general human
progress.
This argument is raised all the time, people fall back on it to smugly say that
today's Denver Broncos are therefore greater than Lombardi's Green Bay Packers,
and Willie Mays must have been greater than Honus Wagner, etc, and seem so
pleased with themselves as if they're the only people who realize that people
are bigger and faster and more healthy than they used to be, which, I suppose
is the reason why this maddeningly persistent style of argument never falls
into desuetude. Trust us, folks; your knowledge of this fact is not exclusive.
The rest of us just don't happen to think that this is the test of greatness.
Samson
> Matt Dobrin wrote:
> >
> > > Clemens is the best pitcher ever. The simple fact is that Lefty Grove
> > > would not have made the majors is he pitched today like he pitched in
> > > the 30's. Today's players are simply too good. Hence it makes a top
> > > pitcher more difficult to standout in the crowd. Keep promoting Clemens.
> > > Good luck.
>
> > LOL I always find it hilarious when people make completely unfounded
> > assertions that they just assume everyone will accept. Where do you come up
> > with this stuff?
>
> I find it far more silly of people to say player X back in 1930 would
> hit pitcher Y of today's Brewers. The simple fact is that athlete today
> are stronger, faster and in better shape than ever.
What does that have to do with anything? If you put Lefty Grove in a
time machine set to have him born in 1965, he'd be lifting weights,
too. If you sent Mark McGwire back to 1930, he'd be a taller Jimmie
Foxx with red hair and without the drinking problem.
> So Clemens is the dominate player of our time. Given the athletes of
> today, he is probably better than virtually all pitchers of the past 30
> years and certainly before that. (Walter Johnson threw at batting
> practice speed. Not surprising he could pitch all those innings. ) <g>
Walter Johnson was "clocked" at around 90mph in street clothes.
In any case, even Clemens rarely breaks 92 or so on the gun. No
doubt, Clemens has outpitched his league better than anyone since
Johnson, but no one ever outpitched his league more than Johnson,
ever:
Clemens IP ERA ERA+
career 3274.7 2.95 151
Johnson IP ERA ERA+
career 5914.3 2.17 147
thru 1919 4090.7 1.65 172
1910-19 3427.7 1.59 183
(For a 3400 inning stretch, Walter Johnson's ERA was nearly half
the league ERA. Clemens has managed to better his mates by 50%
over 3300 innings.)
KB
> His two worst-luck years were his two best years, 1977 (19-16, 38 PR
> projects to 31-14), and 1987 (8-16, 27 PR projects to 15-7). In every
> year except 1987, he was within two wins of his expected record.
>
David, just curious, did you mean that his record would have been 21-14
in 1977, not 31-14?
Otherwise, not sure how your second sentence is valid.
typographically curious kevin
James Weisberg
Samson <s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at> wrote:
>In article go...@krupp.claremont.edu wrote:
>Walter Johnson was "clocked" at around 90mph in street clothes.
>In any case, even Clemens rarely breaks 92 or so on the gun. No
>doubt, Clemens has outpitched his league better than anyone since
>Johnson, but no one ever outpitched his league more than Johnson,
>ever:
This observation alone doesn't make Johnson the greatest
pitcher though, not in my book anyway. The question is whether
or not Johnson would have that kind of domination had he pitched
today. I would argue against that. He still might be more dominant
than Clemens though, and thus still be considered the greatest.
Similar arguments can (and have) been attempted for Cobb/Henderson
and Cobb/Ruth.
There is intra-era greatness and extra-era greatness. The
latter is much harder to get a handle on and is usually the cause
for all the squabbles.
--
World's Greatest Living Poster
James Weisberg
>time it was considered extremely unique. Bat speed are much faster
>today. Players are much larger (> 6 ft) compared with players even 20
>years ago.
has decreased as well. What do you think is harder to hit safely:
a) a badly worn grey-black mushball 80mph fadeaway thrown with
extreme precision by Christy Mathewson to a larger strikezone
with a poorly lit backdrop on cloudy days.
b) a brand new shiney white 95mph fastball thrown with extreme
precision by Roger Clemens to a smaller strikezone under well-
lit conditions.
The analogies to track and field aren't quite the same. Much
has changed in baseball beyond the dexterity of the athletes and
the equipment used by them. A mile is still a mile. But the strike
zone itself has changed, the mound has changed, the pitches have
changed, the deliveries have changed, the lighting has changed.
Many things have changed *including* the equipment and the athletes
themselves.
Besides, there were still plenty of guys over 6ft hitting in
the deadball period. And size alone is not a great predictor of
ML ability. Check Greg Maddux.
Scot Gould
> What does that have to do with anything? If you put Lefty Grove in a
> time machine set to have him born in 1965, he'd be lifting weights,
> too.
Maybe he would be better, maybe he would not. In terms of probability,
it is less likely that he would be an outstanding player today.
>If you sent Mark McGwire back to 1930, he'd be a taller Jimmie
> Foxx with red hair and without the drinking problem.
Foxx was a giant back then McGwire dominate the league.
> > So Clemens is the dominate player of our time. Given the athletes of
> > today, he is probably better than virtually all pitchers of the past 30
> > years and certainly before that. (Walter Johnson threw at batting
> > practice speed. Not surprising he could pitch all those innings. ) <g>
>
> Walter Johnson was "clocked" at around 90mph in street clothes.
Funny, I used film in a class for students to measure speeds of pitches.
When we made estimations and adjustment to correct for the timing errors
in the film, we measured barely 80 with a standard error of 3 mph. I
agree more films would need to be analyzed.
Scot Gould
> The analogies to track and field aren't quite the same. Much
> has changed in baseball beyond the dexterity of the athletes and
> the equipment used by them. A mile is still a mile. But the strike
> zone itself has changed, the mound has changed, the pitches have
> changed, the deliveries have changed, the lighting has changed.
> Many things have changed *including* the equipment and the athletes
> themselves.
> Besides, there were still plenty of guys over 6ft hitting in
> the deadball period. And size alone is not a great predictor of
> ML ability. Check Greg Maddux.
These are all valid points, my point is that it is far more likely that
a good player today (even an average MLB) would be a dominate player 50
years ago if it were possible to transport that person back in time. <G>
David Grabiner
> David Grabiner wrote:
> > His two worst-luck years were his two best years, 1977 (19-16, 38 PR
> > projects to 31-14), and 1987 (8-16, 27 PR projects to 15-7). In every
> > year except 1987, he was within two wins of his expected record.
> David, just curious, did you mean that his record would have been 21-14
> in 1977, not 31-14?
21-14 is correct; I'm projecting the pitching runs to the same number of
decisions.
James Weisberg
Possibly -- but for how long? Does this player have to play
under the same conditions as everyone else? Does have to play in
authentic era uniforms? With authentic era equipment? Under authentic
era harsh conditions? Does he have to sleep in uncomfortable train
berths and unairconditioned hotel rooms? Does he have to play with
pain or poorly treated injuries? Does he have to play with a non-
gaurenteed contract and no pension and the worry in the back of his
mind that a serious injury could keep him out of baseball and back
on the street looking for a job?
That's a different world, my friend. They might arrive in that
time period quite dominant. And they may wear out quickly.
John DiFool
Samson wrote:
> In article <36F614...@krupp.claremont.edu>, go...@krupp.claremont.edu wrote:
>
>
> Walter Johnson was "clocked" at around 90mph in street clothes.
> In any case, even Clemens rarely breaks 92 or so on the gun. No
> doubt, Clemens has outpitched his league better than anyone since
> Johnson, but no one ever outpitched his league more than Johnson,
> ever:
>
> Clemens IP ERA ERA+
> career 3274.7 2.95 151
>
> Johnson IP ERA ERA+
> career 5914.3 2.17 147
> thru 1919 4090.7 1.65 172
> 1910-19 3427.7 1.59 183
>
> (For a 3400 inning stretch, Walter Johnson's ERA was nearly half
> the league ERA. Clemens has managed to better his mates by 50%
> over 3300 innings.)
You need to make an adjustment for the vast difference in error rates
between the 1910's & the 1990's (the question then becomes-how much
of an adjustment?). The other option if you don't/can't do that is to look
at the runs allowed average (all runs, not just earned ones).
John DiFool
Dan Pirro
>Nolan Ryan was a mediocre pitcher that pitched a very long time.
>Ryan had a consistent inability to win games, when compared to
>the rest of his staff, and chronic inability to avoid losing,
>averaging over ten loses a season. Great pitchers win and Ryan
>didn't win much more than he lost.
>
>Ryan is Gator bait.
>
>David
Another who clearly missed the boat. It's ashame you could not comprehend
the ability and career of a rare and unique athlete. It's possible, but
quite unlikely that you will be able to behold such a wonderful and gifted
pitcher in your lifetime. Your loss. Too bad.
Dan
zene...@wwa.com
> On the other hand, you could speculate that Ryan's
> style of lots of walks and strike out produced long defensive
> innings and took the edge off his team on both defense and
> offense.
I don't accept this, but I'm surprised that in all the posts after this
nobody has tried to refute this argument for how a pitcher might be
responsible for his run support and thus his W-L record. Is there a study
that can disprove this?
Jeff
Samson
> Samson wrote:
>
> > Clemens IP ERA ERA+
> > career 3274.7 2.95 151
> >
> > Johnson IP ERA ERA+
> > career 5914.3 2.17 147
> > thru 1919 4090.7 1.65 172
> > 1910-19 3427.7 1.59 183
> >
> > (For a 3400 inning stretch, Walter Johnson's ERA was nearly half
> > the league ERA. Clemens has managed to better his mates by 50%
> > over 3300 innings.)
>
> You need to make an adjustment for the vast difference in error rates
> between the 1910's & the 1990's (the question then becomes-how much
> of an adjustment?). The other option if you don't/can't do that is to look
> at the runs allowed average (all runs, not just earned ones).
Fair point, though these are within-era and not across-era comparisons.
For the same periods, looking at RA+, the numbers come out like this
(roughly):
Clemens IP RA RA+
career 3274.7 3.27 150
Johnson IP RA RA+
1910-19 3427.7 2.31 170
thru 1919 4090.7 2.43 159
career 5914.3 2.89 143
Still pretty dominant both, but Johnson does lose some of his lustre.
Still, you can't exactly blame him for the Senators' fielders.
Paul Wenthold
> >more so than other pitchers on the same team, particularly over the course
> >of an entire season?
>
> pitchers, David Cone and Hideki Irabu, and found that Cone had run support
> of 6.89 and Irabu 5.57. that's a pretty big gulf. David Wells was supported
> at 6.84, Andy pettitte at 5.15, Orlando hernandez at 7.34. Again we see a
> big gap, and that on, arguably, the best, most consistent offense in the
> game last year. Let's try another team, the A's. Tom Candiotti got 5.15
> runs, Jimmy Haynes 6.16, Mike Oquist 5.30, Kenny Rogers 4.94 and Blake Stein
> 5.83. Less variation, but clearly still enough to make big differnces in
> w/l.
Suppose each guy listed here gives up 5 runs/game and has 25 decisions.
W/L records:
Cone 16 - 9
Irabu 14 - 11
Wells 16 - 9
Pettitte 13 - 12
Hernandez 17 - 8
Candiotti 13 -12
Haynes 15 - 10
Oquist 13 -12
Rogers 12 - 13
Stein 14 - 11
This is for guys who I would argue pitched pretty much the same.
One of the funnest exercises I you can do is go compare Glavine and
Smoltz, and watch to see how wins (and Cy Youngs) correlate with run
support. Over a stretch of like 4 years, they had pretty much the
same runs allowed every year but one would get the big run support
and the other wouldn't, and they flip-flopped back and forth in terms
of who got the wins.
paul
Then it's a question of distribution--in which starts was a pitcher
> supported? Now, it may be fair to guess (and that's all I'm doing here)
> that, given enough time, such distribution would approach a reasonable
> average. let's assume that's true, though I don't really think it is. 30-35
> starts would be much too small a sample size to expect that to happen. By
> the same token, each pitcher's w/l is also going to be affected by when the
> bullpen performs well and when the defense performs well. It's not going to
> even out across a season--it may across a career, if the pens and defenses
> remained of consistent quality from year to year, but obviously they do not,
> even if a pitcher remains with the same team his whole career, which few do.
>
> Probability would generally suggest the better
> >starters on a particular team having more wins than the worse starters.
>
ron.j...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
This is interesting because a) Weaver wrote several good books (well
had ghosted - but you know what I mean.) and never mentioned anything
about this and b) was militant about getting his frontline starters
regular work.
He never shortened his rotation in April. He never had a #4 starter he
wanted to bump, so it sounds like this example is one of a writer making
something up.
Herzog I could sort of believe. He always used more starters than Weaver.
But then he also never carried anyone he wasn't willing to use in any
circumstance.
--
RNJ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Lentz
Anecdotal, it quite common to get comments that pitchers that
keep the ball in ball keep the fielders on their toes, and they
tend to make better plays. Conversely, long at-bats and more
at-bats, due to walks, could have the fielders back on their
heels and less likely to make a defensive play.
In any case, I called it speculation and have an statistics to
offer on it.
David
Roger Moore
>Samson wrote:
>> > So Clemens is the dominate player of our time. Given the athletes of
>> > today, he is probably better than virtually all pitchers of the past 30
>> > years and certainly before that. (Walter Johnson threw at batting
>> > practice speed. Not surprising he could pitch all those innings. ) <g>
>>
>> Walter Johnson was "clocked" at around 90mph in street clothes.
Not quite true. Johnson was clocked at about 83 mph in street clothes,
and not off a mound. It's also important to understand that the machine
used to measure his speed didn't let him use his normal pitching motion,
as he had to throw the ball about shoulder high.
>Funny, I used film in a class for students to measure speeds of pitches.
>When we made estimations and adjustment to correct for the timing errors
>in the film, we measured barely 80 with a standard error of 3 mph. I
>agree more films would need to be analyzed.
I'd take anything like that with about a barrel of salt. The only films
I've ever seen of Walter Johnson pitching were a) taken with old, hand
cranked cameras whose actual recording speed can't be estimated to
anything like your standard error and b) were of him warming up, not
pitching in a game. Given the above mentioned measurement, which is
probably significantly low, I'd tend to think that your estimate is far,
far off.
At a deeper level, I find the whole thing rather ridiculous. We know that
Bob Feller was clocked at about 98-99 mph right after WWII, which was
basically the first pitching speed measurement made with accurate
equipment under realistic pitching conditions. In the 50+ years since
then, top pitchers haven't gotten appreciably faster- maybe 3 mph. It's
implausible that pitching speeds jumped by 15 mph between when Johnson was
clocked and when Feller was, and then just happened to flatten out at the
same time that accurate measurements make it impossible to argue about how
fast pitchers threw.
It's even more implausible because there were skilled observers who saw
both Johnson and Feller throw, people who faced both of them in games, who
couldn't agree, as a group, which one was faster. But according to these
measurements, Johnson was throwing as fast as John Tudor and Feller was
throwing as fast as Nolan Ryan. Are we really supposed to believe that
nobody could tell the difference? It's not as though the time span was
particularly long, either. Steve O'Neil, as coach for the Indians, caught
Johnson in BP in 1935 (he still liked to show off his fastball, which he
could apparently still throw at something like top speed for about 10
pitches) and as manager for the Indians caught Feller in practice in 1936.
You'd think that he might notice a difference of 15 mph in their pitching,
but he thought that Johnson was faster. Was he BSing or senile that he
didn't notice, or was Johnson actually able to bring it a touch faster
than 80 mph?
--
Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/
ty...@mindspring.com
>David Lentz wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> Ryan is Gator bait.
>
>Pure baloney. Fact of the matter is that Ryan allowed 3.19 earned runs
>per game in his career, which is an excellent ERA. If his teams had the
>inability to score more than 3 runs for each of his outing, that simply
>is *not* his fault. Instead of talking nonsense, you should look at his
>numbers some time. It is virtually *impossible* to put up some of these
>records with the ERA he posted and not have poor run support:
>
>1972- 2.28 ERA, 19-16
>1973- 2.87 ERA, 21-16
>1974- 2.89 ERA, 22-16
>1976- 3.36 ERA, 17-18
>1977- 2.77 ERA, 19-16
>1987- 2.76 ERA, 8-16
>
>Do you know how difficult it is to post a sub-3.00 ERA? There's a
>reason why not many pitchers do it. Don't make the excuse that Ryan
>must have received good run support at times and simply blew leads or
>such, because I would then challenge you to show how someone can pitch
>badly 16 times and still post a sub-3.00 ERA. Take 1972. Let's suppose
>Ryan allowed 5 runs (not just earned) in each of his 16 losses. Now, 5
>runs really isn't all that much. Still, that would mean he had to have
>allowed *ZERO* runs in *all* of his other starts to put up the ERA that
>he did, since he only allowed 80 runs in the entire season. Realistic?
>Hardly. Seems more like Ryan lost a lot of 2-1 or 1-0 games. And that
>can hardly be his fault.
>
<snip>
I almost get a chubber when you stat-lash people like that, PY.
Guilty pleasure, indeed.
Ty
Scot Gould
> I'd take anything like that with about a barrel of salt. The only films
> I've ever seen of Walter Johnson pitching were a) taken with old, hand
> cranked cameras whose actual recording speed can't be estimated to
> anything like your standard error and b) were of him warming up, not
> pitching in a game. Given the above mentioned measurement, which is
> probably significantly low, I'd tend to think that your estimate is far,
> far off.
Unlikely, if my estimates of walking speeds, pendulum motions of the
arms, etc were "far, far" off, we would have measured "much, much"
slower speeds. However, it is fair to question the "source" of the film.
> At a deeper level, I find the whole thing rather ridiculous.
The argument is that the average player of today is vastly superior to
the average player of yesterday. On the average they are stonger,
faster, hit the ball harder and throw harder. They are superior athletes
with superior athletic builds. Even if there are exceptions, single
incidents of players who could pitch fast or run "fast", they were the
exception. As for arguments about "observers", we know that humans are
the terrible at making comparisons which do not occur within a short
time period (like seconds.)
While I accept your information as accurate, I seriously question the
source.
In summary, the thesis still holds. Very good players today would be
excellent players 20 years ago extraordinary players even before then.
Pat & Mary C. Caffrey
50-60 years ago.
But that does not make them better, when you start comparing the
best with the best.
The beauty of baseball as compared to other sports is in its mechanics
-- You can only throw a ball so hard, or hit it so far.
Switch Babe Ruth & Mark McGwire and you get the same results.
Likewise with Ted Williams, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Tony Gwynn, George
Brett, Willie Mays, and so on.
Clemens, Seaver, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Sandy Koufax,
Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Cy Young, Bob Feller, & so on all
would be dominant pitchers no matter when they pitched.
The more physically dominant player today is also one that lives in a
era where expansion has given them more opportunities, and the greed
of the almighty dollar means more than learning the fundamentals of
the game.
Last year's Yankees season should tell you all you need to know about
the game of baseball today -- there probably is not one Hall of Fame
caliber player on that team. You take an above average team that
consistently plays that way and you saw the results. The 1927 Yankees
might win 140 games today, the way the game is played.
Granndslam
also never approached Guidry's 1978, but he did have three seasons that were
better than any of Guidry's other seasons. In his 22 full years, he was
below league average 8 times, though only once was he way below. Personally,
while I think Ryan does belong in the Hall, I've never been of the opinion that
Sutton does. But saying Guidry was better than him just doesn't hold true, by
any standard. >> (mitch)
Just because Sutton's ERA+ was slightly below the league average doesn't mean
he was a bleow average pitcher in those seasons.
Year IP ERA+
1967 233 79
1969 293 96
1970 260 94
1978 238 99
1979 226 95
1983 220 91
1987 192 92
His ERA+ was below the league average seven times, not eight. But I would call
him a below average pitcher in only 1967, with 1983 and 1987 as possibly worse
than average.
I actually consider Don Sutton's career similar to Eddie Murray's. They both
played pretty darn well for a long time, putting up very good career numbers.
Michael David Jones
>On AVERAGE, today's player is bigger/faster/stronger than those of
>50-60 years ago.
>But that does not make them better, when you start comparing the
>best with the best.
Well, you got through four lines before going off in the weeds.
>The beauty of baseball as compared to other sports is in its mechanics
>-- You can only throw a ball so hard, or hit it so far.
>Switch Babe Ruth & Mark McGwire and you get the same results.
>Likewise with Ted Williams, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Tony Gwynn, George
>Brett, Willie Mays, and so on.
Ah, I think Ruth might have a wee bit of trouble with the state of
relief pitching today. Not that I don't think he'd still be a terrific
player, and he's probably the single exception of pre-WWII guys. If
you brought Gehrig up today I think he'd hit, but he'd be more in the
Vaughn/Palmiero class than the McGwire (power)/Thomas(overall) class.
IMO. Among other things, I suspect the level of *fielding* he's
hitting at is probably also higher.
>Clemens, Seaver, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Sandy Koufax,
>Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Cy Young, Bob Feller, & so on all
>would be dominant pitchers no matter when they pitched.
Read Mathewson's "Pitching in a Pinch". He says directly that he
"coasted" when not facing the top hitters on the other team. If he
tried that in today's game he'd never make it out of AAA. I don't
disagree that *some* of the old-time greats could be dominant today,
but I'm not convinced the list is much longer than Johnson and Grove.
>The more physically dominant player today is also one that lives in a
>era where expansion has given them more opportunities, and the greed
>of the almighty dollar means more than learning the fundamentals of
>the game.
Oh, please. This is one whine that hasn't changed since Cobb and
Johnson's time, and it's no more true now than it ever was.
>Last year's Yankees season should tell you all you need to know about
>the game of baseball today -- there probably is not one Hall of Fame
>caliber player on that team. You take an above average team that
>consistently plays that way and you saw the results. The 1927 Yankees
>might win 140 games today, the way the game is played.
Horseshit. Strawberry won't make the Hall in part because of all the
time he's missed, but when he's been healthy he's certainly been of
that "caliber". If Tim Raines doesn't qualify for your Hall, then it's
going to be pretty damn small. Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, and David
Cone all have (or have started building) reasonable cases. I don't
know where this myth that the Yankees didn't really have any great
players last year came from, but it's WRONG. And stupid.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Tell me, O Octopus, I begs,
Is those things arms, or is they legs?
I marvel at thee, Octopus;
If I were thou, I'd call me Us.
- Ogden Nash
NawrockiT
>Last year's Yankees season should tell you all you need to know about
>the game of baseball today -- there probably is not one Hall of Fame
>caliber player on that team. You take an above average team that
>consistently plays that way and you saw the results. The 1927 Yankees
>might win 140 games today, the way the game is played.
What constitutes a Hall of Fame caliber player? Bernie Williams is better than
Earle Combs, a HoFer from the 1927 Yankees. David Cone is better than either of
the two '27 Yankee starters that made the Hall. It's early yet, but it sure
looks like Derek Jeter is going to be the greatest shortstop in Yankees
history, better than HoFer Phil Rizzuto.
Tim Raines is better than Lou Brock, who's in the Hall. Raines might actually
make it one of these days, too.
Besides, what was special about the 1998 Yankees was their consistent
excellence. Without a true MVP candidate, they nevertheless were above average
at every position except possibly left field. Their starting rotation was very
good and very, very deep, as was their bullpen.
Tom Nawrocki
KB
> In summary, the thesis still holds. Very good players today would be
> excellent players 20 years ago extraordinary players even before then.
Um, how come all those very good players today, who would have been
extraordinary players in the past, are not able to, for example, hit the
ball out of Tiger Stadium on a regular basis? Last guy that I remember
doing it was Reggie Jackson in the 70's (please correct me if I'm
wrong). The Killer did it back in the 60's, and I know it was done back
in the 40's and 50's (Greenberg? Foxx? anyone know?).
If your thesis holds, this rare event should be commonplace by now. It
is not, and therefore, I suggest your thesis is wrong.
In a private exchange of letters with another poster, we've agreed that
the middle of the bell curve has definitely shifted, and that the
AVERAGE player today is far better than the AVERAGE player of
yesteryear. However, we also agreed that the ends of the curve are
probably fixed, and that the very best players of the past are probably
equal in ability to the very best players of today. We also agreed that
the 'tail' of the curve is thicker today, so that there may be more
players of high quality today than there were in the past (which would
limit the overperformance of a Ruth or a Williams to that of a Bonds or
Gwynn).
Kevin
Coriaty
>extraordinary players in the past, are not able to, for example, hit the
>ball out of Tiger Stadium on a regular basis? Last guy that I remember
>doing it was Reggie Jackson in the 70's (please correct me if I'm
>wrong). The Killer did it back in the 60's, and I know it was done back
>in the 40's and 50's (Greenberg? Foxx? anyone know?).
better pitching
KB
Coriaty wrote: (in response to my post)
Implicit in your laconic reply is the notion that the pitchers have
improved more since 1970 than the hitters. Yet my understanding is that
league offence has risen since the mid-70's.
How do you square this circle?
Kevin
James Weisberg
>In a private exchange of letters with another poster, we've agreed that
>the middle of the bell curve has definitely shifted, and that the
>AVERAGE player today is far better than the AVERAGE player of
>yesteryear.
Maybe, but the relative stats don't bear that out. I did a study of
deadball era "regulars" (guys who primarily played from 1901-1920 with
400ABs in at least 3 of those years) and liveball era "regulars" (guys
who played primarily from 1976-1996 with 400ABs in at least 3 of those
years) and found the following profiles for their careers:
Deadball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
186 400abs/3yrs 12.5 1383 5025 1405 211 85 34 449 209 .280 .339 .376
Liveball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
116 400abs/3yrs 15.0 1708 5903 1608 274 46 148 567 163 .272 .336 .410
The liveball players have more power, as to be expected, but the
overall hitting ability in terms of AVG and OBP didn't change very much.
Against the pitching of the day, over the course of a 12-15yr career,
with customary highs and lows in league offense, it looks to me that
some marks are pretty much the same. A .300 BA is still good and a .333
OBP is still highly mediocre. At least we don't find that the typical
regular has much better batting stats today. This could mean either that
pitching has kept the hitting in line relative to the skills of the
hitters; or that while hitting and pitching have certainly changed over
the decades, the fundamental ability to hit a pitched ball is the rate
determining step here, and that the augmented skills of the athletes
themselves do not have as much effect.
I think the latter supposition is at least in part correct. If
for example the height of a basketball net is constant over so many
decades, then guys who get taller will have a natural advantage in
stuffing a basketball in there. Or if the mass of your front linemen
gets larger, they have a natural advantage in blocking guys who are
smaller. By the same token, if a pitch is thrown faster, it will be
harder to hit. However, if the area considered a strike becomes
smaller, then hitters don't have to defend patches which are hard
to put a bat through in that shorter time. Overall, they primarily
have to adjust their timing, which the great hitters of the past
can certainly do because some of them did hit Johnson and Feller.
While the argument above is a simplification of the many facets
to hitting and pitching that have changed, I do not faithfully sub-
scribe to the argument that even typical regulars of eras past could
not hit the ball as well of typical regulars of today. Secondary
skills like running, fielding, and throwing might be different,
which result from an increase in dexterity and strength. But how
much dexterity and strength affect hitting a baseball may not be
as important. After all, prime athletes like Michael Jordan still
have trouble hitting a pitched ball today; so did prime athletes
like Jim Thorpe of long ago. That's why hitting a baseball might
be an intrinsically more difficult skill than those required in
other sports, and why advances in the human condition have not yet
produced more favorable outcomes for modern participants.
Jim Amato
HOF (especially Dean, Drysdale, and Hunter), most of them are not of the
caliber that HOF pitchers should be. I guess HOF standards for pitchers
have never been quite as high as I think they should be, and this probably
means that they never will.
KB
yesterday's and today's players:
>Deadball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
>186 400abs/3yrs 12.5 1383 5025 1405 211 85 34 449 209 .280 .339 .376
>Liveball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
>116 400abs/3yrs 15.0 1708 5903 1608 274 46 148 567 163 .272 .336 .410
First, I should clarify my earlier post; Cameron and I didn't agree that
today's players were *far* better; that was my emphasis, not his, and
probably should have been somewhat muted. However, I still believe that
overall, today's players are better. And since better extends to all
three aspects of the game, hitting, fielding, and pitching, it's no
surprise to me that BA's could be somewhat lower today. Not only have
the pitchers improved, so has the defense (particularly the technology..
today's gloves are vacuum cleaners compared to some of the ones from the
past but since this actually detracts from my point, let's pretend I
didn't mention it!)
I would say the average LF today runs faster, and throws better, than
the average LF of the 1920's. So, he gets to more balls in the alleys
that turn into outs (note the sharp decrease in 3B's from James's
figures, although reconfigured ballparks may also account for much of
that decline) and on balls that do drop in, he is able to cut them off,
and get them back to the infield, holding players to singles instead of
doubles. (Note that virtually the entire difference in slugging is due
to modern players' HR's)
And I would expect that the changes that made hitting easier (lowered
mounds, black backdrops, etc.) were in response to this change in the
relative balance between hitting, pitching, and fielding.
I am willing to accept James's point that hitters today can't hit any
better than hitters could 50 years ago ("the fundamental ability to hit
a pitched ball is the rate determining step here, and that the augmented
skills of the athletes themselves do not have as much effect.") and I
might accept that today's best pitchers are no better than yesteryear's
best. However, I would still contend that the average pitcher today is
better than the average pitcher of the past, and that the average
fielder of today is better than the average fielder of the past, with
the evidence that even with simpler hitting conditions, BA's have still
fallen slightly.
Kevin
James Weisberg
>James Weisberg makes interesting points about the relative merits of
>yesterday's and today's players:
>>Deadball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
>>186 400abs/3yrs 12.5 1383 5025 1405 211 85 34 449 209 .280 .339 .376
>>Liveball Player Yrs G AB H 2B 3B HR BB SB AVG OBP SLG
>>116 400abs/3yrs 15.0 1708 5903 1608 274 46 148 567 163 .272 .336 .410
>
>First, I should clarify my earlier post; Cameron and I didn't agree that
>today's players were *far* better; that was my emphasis, not his, and
>probably should have been somewhat muted. However, I still believe that
>overall, today's players are better. And since better extends to all
>three aspects of the game, hitting, fielding, and pitching, it's no
>surprise to me that BA's could be somewhat lower today.
Well I could be wrong, I want to get that straight. But a few
years ago, I made a stop at this place in Valperaiso, Indiana which
has batting cages, minature golf, etc. Anybody's who has driven past
on I65 has seen it. The only reason I stopped is because they had
batting cages that went up to 90+mph! Now I stepped in there and the
best I could do was foul some off. But I watched a twelve year old
kid step in and whack the heck out of the ball no problem. He wasn't
especially athletic looking -- he just had practised the timing.
Now hitting live pitching at variable speeds and locations is
much much harder. Still, I don't see why a great hitter like Cobb or
Ruth or Williams couldn't time today's pitchers any less effectively
as they timed pitchers of their respective time periods. In Cobb's
day, for example, most pitchers might not have thrown as hard but
they did get plenty of movement throwing scuffed balls to a larger
strike zone. And no matter what era you're playing in, there are
occasions where every batter ahead in the count can look for a
particular pitch in a particular location and then just drive it.
So if the ability to make contact with a pitched ball is the
key skill here, then other skills like hitting the ball for distance
with a stronger body, or fielding the ball better with better
equipment, or running/throwing faster become secondary. Yes those
skills may be significant in the overall effectiveness of a
ballplayer but success in baseball is heavily weighted to guys
who can hit and pitch well, regardless of other skills. Both John
Kruk and David Wells don't have the broadest range of skills com-
pared to other athletes, but they do what they do, well. Other
players like Rey Ordonez don't do much well at all, and they're
still playing anyway.
>I would say the average LF today runs faster, and throws better, than
>the average LF of the 1920's. So, he gets to more balls in the alleys
>that turn into outs (note the sharp decrease in 3B's from James's
>figures, although reconfigured ballparks may also account for much of
>that decline) and on balls that do drop in, he is able to cut them off,
>and get them back to the infield, holding players to singles instead of
>doubles. (Note that virtually the entire difference in slugging is due
>to modern players' HR's)
The change from triples to homers basically is a result of
a livelier ball being lofted by Ruthian-style ballplayers. Once
that innovation occured, OFers started playing deeper, cutting
off would-be triples and watching more homers fly over their heads
and out of the ballpark. This wasn't a fundamental change in the
skillsets of the players but a fundamental change in the way the
game was played.
>I am willing to accept James's point that hitters today can't hit any
>better than hitters could 50 years ago ("the fundamental ability to hit
>a pitched ball is the rate determining step here, and that the augmented
>skills of the athletes themselves do not have as much effect.")
Actually, don't accept it as truth. Just accept it as a
possibility.
>and I
>might accept that today's best pitchers are no better than yesteryear's
>best.
This one is nearly impossible to measure because we have no
idea how well Christy Matthewson could have pitched today if he
needed to throw his best stuff to nearly every batter. Matthewson
was a control artist, like Maddux. He had great movement on his
pitches and he was very intelligent and studied the opposition.
Today, he might have been Maddux or he might have been Tewksbury.
I do think you would find a number of old-time pitchers who
didn't perform so well back then but may have been great today.
Consider Smokey Joe Wood. He supposedly had a fastball every bit
as quick as Walter Johnson's -- and he didn't mind bragging about
it either. He said he *really* liked pumping that fastball in there
and striking guys out. And as the innings went up -- 196, 275, 344!
the arm gave out, though the story is that he injured it not with
pitching but on a fielding play. Now Wood had the overpowering
fastball. In the modern era, if he combined that with a slider and
perhaps a curve or a changeup, and didn't throw so many damn innings,
he'd might be a superstar. As it was, he was didn't pace himself
and he burned out quickly.
>However, I would still contend that the average pitcher today is
>better than the average pitcher of the past, and that the average
>fielder of today is better than the average fielder of the past, with
>the evidence that even with simpler hitting conditions, BA's have still
>fallen slightly.
In today's game there is still room for Matthewson/Maddux
types and there is still room for Wood/Clemens types. Why? I think
it's because hitting a well-pitched ball is still the rate
determining step, and not just the speed itself. Unless you think
50-100yrs of evolution has greatly influenced both speed and
location, I don't buy the argument that pitching is much tougher.
I don't even buy that speed is the most important aspect. Control
and pitch selection are acquired skills. And maybe not having
great speed forces you do concentrate on developing different
pitches (including illegal pitches), different windups/deliveries
(including quick pitching), and different philosophies (let them
hit the ball because it's dead).
All those components making judging the relative skills of
pitchers across eras next to impossible. But we do know that the
top speed of pitches has not increased in the same way that the
100m dash has decreased. This at least makes it possible for
Johnson or Feller or Gibson to compete with the top stars of today.
Though you might be right about "average" pitchers not being able
to compete. Take away illegal pitches, quick deliveries, dead balls,
etc, and add more powerful hitters up and down the lineup and now
all of a sudden these guys would have a very hard time. But perhaps
many of them could learn new pitches and control them well under
fewer innings of work.
Mitchell Plitnick
>"Pat & Mary C. Caffrey" <mcaf...@ibm.net> writes:
>>Last year's Yankees season should tell you all you need to know about
>>the game of baseball today -- there probably is not one Hall of Fame
>>caliber player on that team. You take an above average team that
>>consistently plays that way and you saw the results. The 1927 Yankees
>>might win 140 games today, the way the game is played.
I can't believe how many times I've heard this line and it's utter nonsense.
Tim Raines is a HoFer, David Cone has a pretty good shot, Bernie Williams is
building a case, and Derek Jeter is well on track. Clearly, if one looks at
the 98 Yankees, there was a number of players who put in the kind of seasons
one expects from HoF caliber players, including some who aren't HoF caliber
players overall (like David Wells). Williams, Jeter, Rivera, Cone, all put
in that kind of season.
The Yankees of 98 were no mystery. They were a flat-out great team. They won
114 games because they were a great team and had a number of guys put in
huge years, like Brosius.
Mitchell Plitnick
Granndslam wrote in message <19990323193804...@ng07.aol.com>...
Well, to me, below average means below average. In 67, you'd have to call
him awful, not below average. And it was 8 times, not 7. His ERA+ was 85 in
1988 and 16 starts is enough to count, I think.
>I actually consider Don Sutton's career similar to Eddie Murray's. They
both
>played pretty darn well for a long time, putting up very good career
numbers.
Well, Sutton's ERA+ lifetime was 108, which hardly looks "very good" to me.
Good, yes. But it seems to support the notion that (especially using your
definition of average) he was an average pitcher for a long time. There's a
lot of value in that to be sure, but I think the matter of whether that
makes a Hall of Famer is debatable. Murray could at least make a case for
being the best hitter in his league for two years in 1983-84 (he led the
league both years in BR/A). Murray is hurt by his longevity, where Sutton
was helped by it, as Murray in 89 and from 91 on wasn't a very productive
hitter, several times being downright detrimental to his teams. Sutton was
pretty solid once he got on track and kept rolling until his last 1 1/2
years. I don't see them as very comparable.
Mitchell Plitnick
NawrockiT wrote in message <19990324102647...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>Besides, what was special about the 1998 Yankees was their consistent
>excellence. Without a true MVP candidate, they nevertheless were above
average
>at every position except possibly left field. Their starting rotation was
very
>good and very, very deep, as was their bullpen.
>
And even at that, Williams was an MVP-caliber player in 98, and only was out
of the running for serious consideration because he missed a month to
injury. Jeter merited consideration as well.
Bjjp2
>being the best hitter in his league for two years in 1983-84
Murray finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times, including five years in a
row from 1981-85. (He also finished sixth in 1980). This includes two second
place finishes, in 1982 and 1983. Murray will go into the HOF not just because
of longevity, but because he was consistently one of the very best players in
the game at his peak
Mitchell Plitnick
Bjjp2 wrote in message <19990324164933...@ng14.aol.com>...
Where Murray finished in MVP voting and how good he was have very little to
do with each other.
David Grabiner
> Scot wrote:
> > In summary, the thesis still holds. Very good players today would be
> > excellent players 20 years ago extraordinary players even before then.
> Um, how come all those very good players today, who would have been
> extraordinary players in the past, are not able to, for example, hit the
> ball out of Tiger Stadium on a regular basis?
Primarily because it's a two-sided game. If pitchers and hitters both
improve to the same extent, you cannot tell from the statistics.
You can see the effect with fielders, because fielding is not competing
directly with hiting. Error rates have been decreasing for a long
time. Some of that is due to technology (gloves, better gloves, and
Astroturf), but that still leaves a fair amount to be explained by
better players.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Ivan Weiss
Yeah, but Bjjp's talking about whether he will go in the HOF or not, not
how good *you* think he is. People who vote players into the HOF pay
attention to stuff like MVP voting. Live with it.
Ivan Weiss FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one
Vashon WA who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary
Mitchell Plitnick
Ivan Weiss wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
>
>>
>> Bjjp2 wrote in message <19990324164933...@ng14.aol.com>...
>> >>Murray could at least make a case for >>being the best hitter in his
>> league for two years in 1983-84 > >Murray finished in the top 5 in MVP
>> voting 6 times, including five years in a >row from 1981-85. (He also
>> finished sixth in 1980). This includes two second >place finishes, in
>> 1982 and 1983. Murray will go into the HOF not just because >of
>> longevity, but because he was consistently one of the very best players
>> in >the game at his peak
>>
>> Where Murray finished in MVP voting and how good he was have very little
to
>> do with each other.
>
>Yeah, but Bjjp's talking about whether he will go in the HOF or not, not
>how good *you* think he is. People who vote players into the HOF pay
>attention to stuff like MVP voting. Live with it.
Maybe, but we've been evaluating players' relative merits and skills, and
the original statement was comparing Murray to Sutton in those terms.
Therefore, where Murray finished in any sort of balloting is irrelevant. If
we were talking about a shot at the Hall, then it would have some relevance.
Tim Mauro
Check out a stat called Support-Neutral Wins and Losses (see
www.baseballprospectus.com), which calculates what a pitcher's W/L would
be if
he had gotten "average" offensive and bullpen support. This, in my
opinion, is
the best pitching stat I have found.
The inventor of this stat, Mike Wolverton, stated that from 1992-97 (no
records
were kept before 1992), Roger Clemens was the most "unlucky" pitcher in
all of
baseball, with an actual record of 79-57, but a "Support-Neutral" record
of
91.2-44.7, for a discrepancy of 24.5 W's and L's. I think he was
actually a
little lucky in '98, but I didn't get figures for that year. Why his
teammates
let down so much when he was pitching, I dont know, I am open to
suggestions.
There was a post earlier stating that Clemens was the best pitcher of
all time,
and he got alot of flak for it. But the more scientific the analysis,
and the
less we look at misleading stats like W/L and ERA that is not adjusted
for
park/league/era, the less ludicrous his statement sounds. Personally, I
would
put him in my top 3 or 4, and #1 is not out of the question if he
pitches well
for a few more years. Clemens really is amazing, and from all the
complaining I
have heard about the Wells trade, I dont think Yankee fans realize how
good
theyve got it.
Mitchell Plitnick wrote:
> Well, it wouldn't be if there weren't other stats that already tell us
> everything we need to know about a pitcher's performance. A win is attained
> by a team not an individual, and a team is responsible for a loss, not an
> individual. Naturally, if a guy pitches better, he should reasonably be
> expected to get more wins than someone with the same defense and run support
> who pitches less well. But he doesn't control when his defense plays well or
> when his team hits. A pitcher only controls how well he pitches and w/l
> doesn't tell us anything about that. Plenty of other stats do, and I see
> absolutely nothing in w/l that contributes anything to a pitcher's
> evaluation.
yan...@banet.net
David Grabiner wrote:
> . Some of that is due to technology (gloves, better gloves, and
> Astroturf), but that still leaves a fair amount to be explained by
> better players.
>
> --
> David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
> http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
> Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
> Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Excuse me, but the players are not better by any means. The last great team
in real history was the 1968 Detroit Tigers. Baseball has not been really any
good since the 2nd expansion that raped the leagues in 69 dude.
EG
Keri Olsen and Arne Olson
I always love to see people try to make the case that Hunter and
Drysdale should be in the Hall (and it could apply equally well to Dean,
I think) and Sutton and Blyleven shouldn't. Do you care to try?
Arne
Chris Dial
>KB <kber...@bcbsm.com> writes:
>
>> Scot wrote:
>> > In summary, the thesis still holds. Very good players
today would be
>> > excellent players 20 years ago extraordinary players
even before then.
>
>> Um, how come all those very good players today, who would
have been
>> extraordinary players in the past, are not able to, for
example, hit the
>> ball out of Tiger Stadium on a regular basis?
>
>Primarily because it's a two-sided game. If pitchers and
hitters both
>improve to the same extent, you cannot tell from the
statistics.
But isn't that a bit tooooooo coincidental? Especially
since there's no real evidence that pitchers have improved
(that I'm aware of). I mean, no one throws harder than
Koufax. And the average ML fastball has been described as
87-88 mph for several decades.
>
>You can see the effect with fielders, because fielding is
not competing
>directly with hiting. Error rates have been decreasing for
a long
>time. Some of that is due to technology (gloves, better
gloves, and
>Astroturf), but that still leaves a fair amount to be
explained by
>better players.
Well, better players that develop from more practice. Not
too many are working at Sears during the off-season. And
fielding isn't really determined by athleticism. Except for
those fast outfielders...
And the best fielding players *ever* at their position?
Mazeroski, Ozzie, Ashburn...just who are they?
Chris Dial
DougP001
>Excuse me, but the players are not better by any means. The last great team
>in real history was the 1968 Detroit Tigers. Baseball has not been really
>any
>good since the 2nd expansion that raped the leagues in 69 dude.
>
Interesting definition of a purist: expansion from 16 teams to 20 is fine,
but expansion from 20 to 24 "raped the leagues." Had your parents
even MET in 1969, "dude"?
Doug Pappas
ron.j...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
"Mitchell Plitnick" <mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >"Pat & Mary C. Caffrey" <mcaf...@ibm.net> writes:
> >>Last year's Yankees season should tell you all you need to know about
> >>the game of baseball today -- there probably is not one Hall of Fame
> >>caliber player on that team. You take an above average team that
> >>consistently plays that way and you saw the results. The 1927 Yankees
> >>might win 140 games today, the way the game is played.
>
> I can't believe how many times I've heard this line and it's utter
> nonsense. Tim Raines is a HoFer, David Cone has a pretty good shot,
> Bernie Williams is building a case, and Derek Jeter is well on track.
> Clearly, if one looks at the 98 Yankees, there was a number of players
> who put in the kind of seasons one expects from HoF caliber players,
> including some who aren't HoF caliber players overall (like David Wells).
> Williams, Jeter, Rivera, Cone, all putin that kind of season.
> The Yankees of 98 were no mystery. They were a flat-out great team. They
> won 114 games because they were a great team and had a number of guys put
> in huge years, like Brosius.
And apply the same test to the 27 Yankees in 1927. How many of those
players were no doubt HOFers then? Ruth. With Pennock, Shocker, Shawkey,
Meusel and Dugan having built the best cases of the remaining players.
Gehrig was 24 and coming off one good year. He emerged as a great
player in 1927. Lazzeri was 23. Off to a good start, no doubt.
Combs was having his 2nd good year. Hoyt was having his 3rd real
good year.
Besides, how many of the HOFers on the team would have made the
hall without their association with this team? Hoyt and Pennock
are among the worst pitchers in the HOF. Lazzeri is near the bottom
of the 2B list as is Combs in CF.
Most of the truly dominant teams are filled with players who had
not yet established HOF credentials. Take the 1906 Cubs in 1906.
Who among them would be no brainers for Cooperstown? None.
Or the 1954 Indians. They had Feller. But Feller was *Feller*
anymore. 4th starter. Doby and Rosen were very good. As were
Lemon, Garcia and Wynn. But no doubt HOFers in 1954? I don't think so.
--
RNJ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Sjk9191
>I always love to see people try to make the case that Hunter and
>Drysdale should be in the Hall (and it could apply equally well to Dean,
>I think) and Sutton and Blyleven shouldn't. Do you care to try?
I won't touch Hunter, and I'll leave Blyleven to another thread (to me, his
excellent run prevention stats are mitigated by the fact that he won about 30
fewer games than his run support/runs allowed would predict; how much
mitigation I haven't analyzed or decided yet), but I definitely think that a
case can be made that Drysdale is more deserving of the HOF than Sutton (and a
pretty compelling one at that).
In career value, the two are surprisingly close, with Drysdale's better rate
stats (ERA+ of 121 vs. 108 for Sutton) being offset by Sutton's longevity. TB6
has TPI as 34.0 for Drysdale and 13.6 for Sutton. Making the Jeff C.
adjustments for fielding (eliminate FR because it is double counting) and
longevity (add a win over replacement for each 125 IP -- Jeff's number for this
has varied, but 125 is as good as any) would get you to 59.0 wins over
replacement for Drysdale and 58.5 for Sutton. Without Drysdale's superior
hitting, Sutton would have about a 6 win edge, but since his hitting is a real
contribution, I'll say their overall career value was essentially equal.
Moving to peak value, I would say it is pretty clear that Drysdale rates better
-- the best five year APR comparison favors Drysdale 159 to 134 (and this
doesn't include his much better hitting), Drysdale led the league in APR and
TPI twice to zero times for Sutton, and black ink is pretty equal depending
upon how you weight the different stats -- Sutton led once in ERA (though never
in ERA+), once in ShO, 3 times in Ratio, once in OAV, and 4 times in OOB;
Drysdale led 2 times in IP, once in wins, once in ShO, 3 times in Ks, once in
ratio, once in OOB, 2 times in PR and APR, and 2 times in TPR. Given that
Drysdale's black ink was accumulated in a much shorter career, I give him the
edge there for peak value.
With equal career value and a peak edge for Drysdale, on overall performance
alone, he goes first by my reckoning. If you think the HOF should take into
account at all things like personality, intimidation, fame, fear engendered in
hitters (I don't, but some do,and I could see it being a "tiebreaker")
Drysdale's edge only increases.
Of course, if your challenge necessitated including Hunter and Blyleven in the
analysis, all the above is moot :-)
Steven Katz
Mike McE
Tim Mauro wrote:
> Great post, and heres something else on the topic of W/L to consider:
>
> Check out a stat called Support-Neutral Wins and Losses (see
> www.baseballprospectus.com), which calculates what a pitcher's W/L would
> be if
> he had gotten "average" offensive and bullpen support. This, in my
> opinion, is
> the best pitching stat I have found.
>
> The inventor of this stat, Mike Wolverton, stated that from 1992-97 (no
> records
> were kept before 1992), Roger Clemens was the most "unlucky" pitcher in
> all of
> baseball, with an actual record of 79-57, but a "Support-Neutral" record
> of
> 91.2-44.7, for a discrepancy of 24.5 W's and L's. I think he was
> actually a
> little lucky in '98, but I didn't get figures for that year. Why his
> teammates
> let down so much when he was pitching, I dont know, I am open to
> suggestions.
>
Could be the opposing teams best pitcher would be matched up against Clemens more
often.
Bjjp2
Well, actually I was making reference to the MVP voting as evidence of how good
he was, not just how HOF-worthy. While we can agree that MVP voting is far
from perfect, I think it is a dramatic overstatement to say that how good a
player is and where he finishes in MVP voting have "very little to do with each
other." This may be true when comparing individual players in a given year,
but certainly consistently high MVP finishes over a long period of time are
strong evidence that you have a top player. In any event, my point was to
illustrate that Murray is not Sutton--his primary qualification was not simply
being good for a very long time. He was also one of the best players in the
game. Do you disagree with this?
John DiFool
Mike McE wrote:
> Tim Mauro wrote:
>
> > Roger Clemens was the most "unlucky" pitcher in
> > all of
> > baseball, with an actual record of 79-57, but a "Support-Neutral" record
> > of
> > 91.2-44.7, for a discrepancy of 24.5 W's and L's. I think he was
> > actually a
> > little lucky in '98, but I didn't get figures for that year. Why his
> > teammates
> > let down so much when he was pitching, I dont know, I am open to
> > suggestions.
> >
>
> Could be the opposing teams best pitcher would be matched up against Clemens more
> often.
My theory is that the teammates of pitchers the caliber of Rocket & Maddux
unconsciously "let up" on offense, knowing that 4 runs is often all they need to get
the "W". The manager can play a part too (I seem to remember Cox bunting a lot
in the early innings with Maddux on the mound the last few years). Of course 4
runs if often NOT enough, and if you shoot for just 4 runs you often end up with
only 1 or 2...
John DiFool
Mitchell Plitnick
Bjjp2 wrote in message <19990325100728...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>
>Well, actually I was making reference to the MVP voting as evidence of how
good
>he was, not just how HOF-worthy. While we can agree that MVP voting is far
>from perfect, I think it is a dramatic overstatement to say that how good a
>player is and where he finishes in MVP voting have "very little to do with
each
>other." This may be true when comparing individual players in a given
year,
>but certainly consistently high MVP finishes over a long period of time are
>strong evidence that you have a top player.
I don't agree. Yes, chances are excellent that if a player finishes high in
MVP voting often he was a very good player, but it's not necessarily so,
and, in any case, why look at such a subjective standard when we can examine
the performance of the player in question directly? Since a player
frequently gets more (or less) support for the MVP or any other award than
he really merits by his performance, why even look at it as a standard of
excellence? Further, if a player has 5 very good years, wins a couple of
MVPs anbd is in the running for others, then blows out an ACL and ends his
career, would you really say he was as valuable as someone who was good for
20 years? If we use such a standard, the 5-year guy is much more valuable.
In reality, he's not even close. MVP voting is, at best, an opinion poll, at
worst a popularity contest. It's not evidence for anything.
In any event, my point was to
>illustrate that Murray is not Sutton--his primary qualification was not
simply
>being good for a very long time. He was also one of the best players in the
>game. Do you disagree with this?
Depends on what you mean. If you mean there were certain seasons where
Murray was one of the best players, then yes I'd agree. If you mean that for
his career he was one of the best players in the game, I'd disagree very
strongly. In fact, I doubt you could make any kind of compelling case for
it. From 82-85, yes Murray was among the best (though he wasn't the best in
any of those years) and he came back for one last great year in 90 to be
among the tops, but Murray also had a good number of years where he wasn't
much help to his teams at all (for most of the 90s this was true) and others
where he was merely good.
RStLoup
methods accurately permit a quantification of true player value, has the
correlation between MVP voting and actual value increased or decreased in the
decades that statistical information has become more widely disseminated? I'm
not at all sure that this correlation has gone up, gone down, or stayed roughly
the same. Has anyone ever compared the top MVP vote-getter with the player
with the highest total value in wins and tracked in which years these two were
one and the same, and whether they have coincided more or less frequently in
recent years?
Tim Mauro
w/ the better pitchers, the team might subconsiously "let up", thinking
they dont need as many runs to win. but here's the list:
Unluckiest 20 Starters 1992-1997 (ranked by (W - E(W)) + (E(L) - L)):
Pitcher E(W) E(L) W L Diff.
-----------------------------------------
Clemens,R 91.2 44.7 79 57 -24.5
Appier,K 89.6 44.2 78 56 -23.4
Abbott,J 50.1 51.3 40 63 -21.9
Gubicza,M 35.8 32.9 30 46 -18.9
Armstrong 15.9 23.8 11 33 -14.1
Darwin,D 45.6 42.8 42 53 -13.8
Morgan,M 54.0 54.4 50 63 -12.6
Harris,Gr 23.8 33.4 18 40 -12.4
Wagner,P 23.4 27.4 19 35 -12.0
Young,A 11.9 17.2 5 22 -11.7
McDonald,B 66.5 48.9 63 57 -11.7
Lira,F 21.8 24.3 18 32 -11.5
Candiotti,T 55.5 58.1 48 62 -11.4
Cooke,S 28.5 31.4 22 36 -11.1
Wegman,B 27.7 27.2 25 35 -10.5
Hough,C 25.9 31.5 21 37 -10.5
so what do we have here? appier is excellent, but he plays for a horrid
team, and i would expect he wouldnt get his "fair share" of W's.
clemens' teams were not that bad, and the rest of this list is quite
mediocre - no maddux, glavine, johnson, mussina, etc.. so i cant buy
the above argument.
any other ideas on why the Rocket got screwed so badly? as a lifelong
red sox fan (and then blue jay fan, and now... well, ok, i cant quite do
it... :-), this has pissed me off for years! it was almost as if the
team would try to lose when he was pitching.
zene...@wwa.com
> My theory is that the teammates of pitchers the caliber of Rocket
> & Maddux unconsciously "let up" on offense, knowing that 4 runs is often
> all they need to get the "W". The manager can play a part too (I seem
> to remember Cox bunting a lot in the early innings with Maddux on the
> mound the last few years). Of course 4 runs if often NOT enough, and if
> you shoot for just 4 runs you often end up with only 1 or 2...
With Maddux, it's also that he has a "personal catcher", Eddie Perez, who
while not bad is no Javy Lopez at the plate.
Keri Olsen and Arne Olson
I consider my challenge met. I obviously hadn't looked at the numbers
myself, but did have a vague recollection of a stathead-type making a
strong case for why Drysdale was only a marginal HOFer. Did Bill James
write about Drysdale in "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame"? Or am
I completely imagining it?
Arne
Granndslam
illustrate that Murray is not Sutton--his primary qualification was not simply
being good for a very long time. He was also one of the best players in the
Eddie Murray was in the top five in the MVP voting six different times.
Don Sutton was in the top five in the Cy Young voting five different times.
Here's a comparison of their best three years using PRO+ for Eddie and ERA+ for
Don.
Don Sutton Eddie Murray
Year ERA+ Year PRO+
1972 160 1990 160
1980 159 1983 158
1973 142 1984 157
Eddie maintained this high level longer than Don, but Sutton was a top pitcher
in his best seasons. I surely agree that Murray was the better peak player of
the two, but I still look at them as similar players. Both very good at their
best with loooong careers which led to exceptional career totals.
Danil
says...
> to follow up on my previous post on W/L records, it was speculated that
> w/ the better pitchers, the team might subconsiously "let up", thinking
> they dont need as many runs to win. but here's the list:
>
> Unluckiest 20 Starters 1992-1997 (ranked by (W - E(W)) + (E(L) - L)):
Is this based on league average run support, or team average run support?
Team average would be a better indication, I believe, of offenses that
"let up" when a particular pitcher is on the mound.
Danil
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <36F90C38...@bcbsm.com>, KB <kber...@bcbsm.com> wrote:
>>In a private exchange of letters with another poster, we've agreed that
>>the middle of the bell curve has definitely shifted, and that the
>>AVERAGE player today is far better than the AVERAGE player of
>>yesteryear.
> Maybe, but the relative stats don't bear that out.
Nor would they, since stats don't tell you how good a player is. They
tell you how good he is only in relation to the pitchers he is facing.
While you sort of admit that in the rest of your message, you do so only
after citing these stats. I don't understand the point of the first half
of the argument.
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
David Marc Nieporent
>Most of the truly dominant teams are filled with players who had
>not yet established HOF credentials.
And that's obviously neccessarily true. To have HOF credentials, you
generally have to be far past your prime; to be a great team, you have to
be in your prime.
Lev Polinsky
: In <7dddbk$ba7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <ron.j...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> claimed:
:>Most of the truly dominant teams are filled with players who had
:>not yet established HOF credentials.
: And that's obviously neccessarily true. To have HOF credentials, you
: generally have to be far past your prime; to be a great team, you have to
: be in your prime.
It's even more true of mediot HOF credentials, since to have HOF
credentials, you need to have played on a dominant (well, WS-winning)
team, and therefore unless you were a Yankee, you hadn't yet played on
many winners while your team was being dominant.
--
--Lev http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~polinsky poli...@fas.harvard.edu
Sjk9191
>I consider my challenge met. I obviously hadn't looked at the numbers
>myself, but did have a vague recollection of a stathead-type making a
>strong case for why Drysdale was only a marginal HOFer. Did Bill James
>write about Drysdale in "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame"? Or am
>I completely imagining it?
You aren't imagining it at all. My recollection was that James thought based
on Drysdale's marginal W-L record and Dodger Stadium/60s influenced ERA that he
was a maybe, and when he examined Drysdale's performance in pennant races and
found it wanting, it tipped the scales for James to say Drysdale should be on
the outside.
I don't really buy this argument, because we can correct for Dodger Stadium/60s
by looking at ERA+, and it's still damn good; because W-L is dependent on run
support; and because while performance in pennant races is important, I don't
think it should tip the scales very much at all.
However, when I checked James' HOF book to see if my memories were correct, I
found I had left out one thing -- that is, James had Rob Neyer put together a
game-by-game log for Drysdale, so he calculated his exact run support. Based
on his run support and runs allowed, Drysdale's record should have been better
by about 12 games, which might be significant. If Drysdale won less than
expected given his overall stats, then those are a bit less meaningful to me.
It could be that his support was especially lumpy, and his effective support
was less than the numbers show. James shows that in 1964, when Drysdale had a
2.18 ERA but only went 18-16, his overall run support wasn't bad at 4.3, which
(including the unearned runs he allowed) should have led to a W-L of 24.5-9.5
(more than half his career underperformance in that one year), but that 4.3 per
game wasn't smooth at all -- the Dodgers scored 15, 12, 10, 9, 9, and 8 in six
games, and were shut out in 6 others (and in the 6 shutouts, Drysdale had a
0.52 ERA, lost twice on unearned runs, 3 times 1-0, and once pitched 10 shutout
innings and got a ND). On the other hand, he was 2-6 when given 3 or 4 runs of
support.
I don't know. I do think Drysdale should be in given current standards (though
he probably wouldn't make my personal HOF). If he is marginal, then Sutton is
a bit more marginal. I'm not sure what to do with Drysdale's Pythagorean
underperformance. Maybe a SNWL analysis would help.
Anyway, I think that Drysdale is both overrated (because of Dodger Stadium, the
60s, his Ks and his reputation) by many fans, and underrated since his adjusted
stats are still very good) by fans who take context into account
non-quantitatively, and look at his W-L.
Steven Katz
Bjjp2
>
>Don Sutton was in the top five in the Cy Young voting five different times.
I take your point, but I'm not sure these are really comparable. Many more
players eligible for MVP than for Cy Young.