4+ Seasons Of 30+ Starts With ERA+ Of 110+ Before Age 27
Posted by Steve Lombardi on September 13, 2011
Since 1901, how many pitchers have 4+ seasons with 30 or more starts and an ERA+ of 110 or better at age 26 or younger?
Here is the list -
.
Interesting when you consider how the careers of these guys played out.
September 13th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Noodles would have 6 years on the list if you started in 1899. Talk about pitching a kid until his arm fell off!
September 13th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Kershaw could join Hernandez near the top of that list. Bumgarner looks to have a chance to get there as well.
As for Hahn... yes, pitching six seasons with ~300 innings each before turning 26 years old will give you a Noodle arm. (sorry)
September 13th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Good to see Brad Radke on a list! How was he so good for those terrible Twins teams of the late 90's?
September 13th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
From the 50s through the 90s, roughly an even split of pitchers whose careers as starters were over by 33 and pitchers who pitched as a starter when they were 38 and older.
Noticed Feller stopped at 22 and then noticed the year 1941. He had a 1 year jump on Blyleven, could have been at the top of the list. Did it first 3 full seasons back.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Dwight Gooden had 3 of these season before he was 22.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Any post with Dave Stieb is a good post. I miss that slider.
September 13th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Amazing that Cain's record is 68-72.
September 13th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Amos Rusie had 7 in the 1800's despite missing an entire year in there.
Drysdale would have had 6 but in 1957 he started only 29 of his 34 games pitched.
Johnson would have had 7 straight but had a 109 ERA+ in 1 of those years and just missed.
September 13th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Charles @4
Or Feller simply could have thrown his arm a few years earlier than he did. I know Rapid Robert loved to tell everyone that the reason he didn't win 300 games was because he loved his country and while that is true and very noble as well, the fact is that he was never the same pitcher again after 1946, when he threw 371 innings, with 153 walks and 348 Ks (think about how many 20 pitch+ innings he must have thrown with all those walks and Ks.). He must have had multiple 200 pitch games that year. Given his trend before the war, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have had that year in 1942 or 1943 and ruined his arm that much sooner.
September 13th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
@9
I accept your comment that Feller might not have had 8 of these seasons from 1938 to 1945 if he had pitched those years, but my statement remains unchanged.
He had a 1 year jump on Blyleven, could have been at the top of the list. Did it first 3 full seasons back.
September 13th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Valenzuela faced at least 1078 batters each season from age 21-26, leading the league 3 times and topping out at 1156 batters in his age 21 season (1982). He exceeded 250 innings in each of those years.
He was never the same again. For the rest of his career, he faced over 800 batters only twice more, topping out at 204 innings and 900 batters faced in 1990 (age 29).
September 13th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
This list is the baseball equivalent of the medieval with test -- you know, throw her in the water and if she drowms, she wasn't a witch.
"Are you capable of pitching enormous numbers of innings? Here, pitch an enormous number of innings! ((arm falls off an starts twitching on the mound like Michael J. Fox)) Nope, I guess you aren't!"
September 13th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
@9
It wasn't necessarily the 1946 campaign that hurt Feller, but his injury in the 1947 season. Rob Neyer wrote about it when Feller passed away earlier this year. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6559/feller-got-through-war-then-got-hurt
September 13th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
OT genius Mets 3rd base coach tests Ankiel with a catcher!!!
September 13th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Cole Hamels comes fairly close to this. Had one off season in the middle and only had 28 starts in 2007.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
People don't realize how good Matlack was there for awhile.I've mentioned it before.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
This pitcher Coffey for the Nats is the fattest player I've ever seen.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
If there's a Hall of Fame for hard luck pitchers, my boy Matt Cain should get in on the first ballot.....
September 13th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
No surprise that Blyleven tops this list. Interestingly, he's third on the all-time list for most 1-0 shutout victories. Johnson leads with 39, followed by Alexander with 17, Bert with 15, and then Mathewson with 14. Bert's fifth on the all-time strikeouts list (with 3,701), ninth on the all-time shutouts list (with 60), and 14th on the all-time innings-pitched list (4,970). Yet it took 14 ballots for the BBWAA voters to vote him into the Hall???!!!
September 13th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I need to vent,the Mets are killing me with these losses to the Cubs and Nats!!Arrgghhhh!!!!!
September 13th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
@12,
Yeah, if you're going to make fun of people with Parkinson's disease and convince yourself that you are comedian, please at the very least learn how to spell.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Jose Reyes doesn't steal anymore and it cost the Mets a chance for a tie.13 straight games now without even an attempt,2 outs bottom 9 down by 1 with a singles hitter up.He stays put.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Their broadcasters blame inability to bunt.Yeah,they blew bunt attempts,a couple they should not even have tried.Number 2 hitter and number 5 bunting?No.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Awful record at home.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I had never heard about Feller hurting his knee in '47. What I was well aware of is during a blazing start in '46, if memory serves he had struck out 9 of the the 1st 11 batters, he hurt his arm.
September 14th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Jose Reyes doesn't steal anymore and it cost the Mets a chance for a tie.13 straight games now without even an attempt,2 outs bottom 9 down by 1 with a singles hitter up.He stays put.
Are you blaming someone for this? You do recall that he pulled his hamstring twice in the past couple months, right?
September 14th, 2011 at 10:41 am
the all-time list for most 1-0 shutout victories. Johnson leads with 39
I've been a baseball fan all my life, yet this stat blows me away every time I hear or read it.
September 14th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Smells like a partial back-justification of Bert Blyleven. This website is the holy grail for baseball lovers, of which I am one, so I'm very grateful for it, but even a golden chalice can get chipped on a long ride over the English heath: I lay some responsbility for Blyleven's career getting reexamined and reevaluated at the feet of this site, and unfortunately for him getting into the hall of fame. I use as further evidence the other-way reevaluation of Catfish Hunter. When era's are super low, not being super-super low is held against you with era+, so those who never got to see him pitch, and dominate, are mistakenly led to believe he doesn't deserve the hall of fame. But if you were there, as was I, you could see that Catfish dominated, while Blyleven was seriously good. Bert was not a hall of famer on the field but he is in the computer.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
When era's are super low, not being super-super low is held against you with era+
Except, they pitched at the same time, and Blyleven's ERAs were lower.
And nothing is "held against" anyone. Why do people always think their favorite players are being "penalized"? These are objective measurements. If Hunter's ERA was only "super low," and the league ERA is "super low," what makes him so special?
Hunter was very good pitcher from about 1967-1975. Forget ERA+. His ERA during that time was 2.93. Sounds wonderful, except it was topped by 10 other pitchers during that span. (That's with a minimum of 1000 IP. Move it up to 1500, and seven of those pitchers still top Hunter.) And *another* 10 pitchers had ERAs under 3.10. That's just not a special performance for that era. It's one that many good pitchers achieved.
Now add on Hunter's favorable park, and strong defensive support.
Now add on that so many of Hunter's peers not only matched his best period, but managed to last much longer than him. Seven pitchers born within 5 years of him pitched at least 4500 IP, and another six also pitched more than Hunter's 3449. 3449 is not an inconsequential number, but when so many of your direct peers exceeded it (some by a lot), and you weren't any better than them during your peak, what is your case? But Hunter actually got an advantage by burning out early, because he came on the HOF ballot before any of the other great '70s pitchers.
(Incidentally, this is why I was never pounding the Blyleven bandwagon. He had a great career, but so did several of his contemporaries, and I'm just not sure how high he ranks among them. I think the conditions of the time allowed for SP to put together long careers, so we need to be careful when comparing them to pitchers of different eras.)
Had more to write but I'm getting distracted by this pesky job....
September 14th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
26 Blaming?No.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
pounding the Blyleven bandwagon
Oh, that's brilliant, JT. Got any more metaphors you can mix in there?
September 14th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
What really stands out for me on this list is how little evidence there is that this kind of a work load in any way shortens a pitchers career. Dean hurt his arm only after altering his delivery because of a broken toe, Maloney blew his Achilles, Gooden shot himself in the foot with drugs and alcohol...
Valenzuela's decline may have be caused by overuse but it could just as easily be attributed to the strain that throwing a screwball put on his arm or his conditioning (or lack thereof) or the accuracy of his birth certificate or something else.
Even where there is a case of clear overuse (Feller) his arm problems are more related to a leg injury than the fact that he threw close to 400 innings and multiple games of close to 200 pitches. And even after his injury he was producing IP workloads comparable to todays front line starters with and adjusted ERA comparable to Catfish Hunter or Jack Morris.
Dusty Baker has been eviscerated for overworking Mark Prior and ruining his arm and yet in his first season as a 21 year old he threw a combined major and minor league total of 166 innings averaging less than 6 innings per start. As a 22 year old he threw all of 211 innings, more than 100 innings fewer than a 22 year old Blyleven or 40 fewer than a 22 year old rookie Seaver or exactly 11 more than a 22 year old Matt Cain who also threw 190 innings as a 21 year old and has never thrown less than 200 since turning 22.
If Nolan Ryan were dead he'd be turning over in his grave. But fortunately for us he's not, and instead is alive and well in Texas and telling his pitchers to throw the damned ball.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
@21: Well, at least I'm not a mime.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:23 am
(sigh) Do people STILL not get this? After all these years?
Jeff #28 - Catfish made the HOF based on his 1971-75 peak - 5 straight years of 20+ wins, plus some excellent key postseason starts as well. We all know this. But here's what most people DON'T know but SHOULD:
1) He really was excellent in '71 & '72, even when he got short shrifted in run support. Record overall in '71 was 21-11; in '72 was 21-7. When given less than 3 runs of support, he was 5-6 both seasons, which is actually pretty good. Subtract out the shutouts (not even Sandy freaking Koufax can win a game when his team scores zero runs) and Hunter was 5-2 in '71 and 5-3 in '72 even when given only 1 or 2 runs to work with. This is truly excellent pitching under tough circumstances. Keep in mind, however - even though he had 11 decisions both seasons impacted by poor run support - there were pitchers who had to endure much worse. Blyleven was victimized by poor support in 12 decisions in '71 and 15 in '72; Seaver had 17 such decisions in '72; Nolan Ryan was screwed by 20 of these in '72, and that was still nothing compared to Gaylord Perry, who had 25 decisions with the hapless Indians in '72 where he received 2 runs or less. Over 60% of his starts! He went 9-16 in those games; he was a perfect 15-0 when given at least 3 runs to work with. Catfish Hunter never had to worry about getting poor run support in over 60% of his starts.
2) From '73-'75 his great W-L records are entirely a result of his run support and have absolutely nothing to do with how he actually pitched. In '73 he had a great 21-5 record on the season and finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting. Know how many games he won for the A's that season when given less than 3 runs of support? Zero. A great big fat goose egg, or as many wins with poor support as a dead guy. Yet his record in these games was only 0-3. Only 3 decisions all season from games with poor run support out of 36 starts? That's all-time historically good run support in terms of an absurdly low % of games where the team doesn't score at least 3 runs for you. Nolan Ryan had 13 "poor support" decisions. Bert Blyleven had 17. Had Hunter been victimized by poor run support 17 times (almost 6 times more frequently than he actually had to put up with), does anyone seriously want to argue that he would have gone 21-5? Puh-lease. He would have been lucky to win 14 games and he wouldn't have received a single Cy Young vote. Not only that, but if he goes only 14-12 instead of 21-5, the A's probably don't make the postseason and no heroics there to add to his resume, either. History made entirely as a result of how lucky someone is - or isn't.
3) '74 - in '74 he went 25-12 and won the Cy Young Award. Won 1 more game all season with less than 3 runs of support than he had in '73 - went 1-6 in these games. This is a Cy Young winner? Goes 1-6 if he doesn't get at least 3 runs of support in a start? I thought the great pitchers were supposed to be able to "find a way to win" those 2-1 games. But, again, he only had 7 decisions impacted by the poor run support, a low % of his overall starts. What if he had poor support twice as often? What if he had 14 of these decisions like some other pitchers did (Blyleven had 13 that season, Ryan had 16)? Since Hunter went 24-6 when getting at least 3 runs (which is excellent, give him credit for that) - if he goes 2-12 with poor support (the exact same success rate he actually had, no better or worse) - out of 37 decisions instead of 1-6 - that leaves 18-5 for the remaining 23 decisions which means 20-17 overall. Nobody in 1974 was ever going to win a Cy Young with a 20-17 record. Blyleven went 20-17 in 1973 and was lucky to get a couple of votes. And again, this much of a drop in Hunter's W-L record - based purely on the frequency of good or poor run support - could have possibly cost the A's another trip to postseason heroics.
4) In 1975 Catfish was with the Yanks and went 23-14; finished 2nd in Cy Young voting. Went 2-8 when given less than 3 runs of support, and 5 of those losses were in games where he was given a lead to protect but blew it. Went 21-6 when given at least 3 runs; that's pretty good, but nothing compared to Cy Young winner Jim Palmer, who went an almost perfect 20-1 when given at least 3 runs to work with. Palmer, BTW, was a less than spectacular 3-10 with poor support for a 23-11 record overall. What if Hunter had 15 or more of these poor support decisions like Ryan was typically used to getting stuck with? Bye-bye 20-win season.
Here's the thing people don't want to think about but is absolutely true - had Catfish Hunter been given the kind of run support Nolan Ryan or Bert Blyleven or Gaylord Perry frequently got stuck with - and had those pitchers been given the kind of run support Hunter usually had - every one of those pitchers - yes, including Blyleven - would have had a better winning % than Hunter, without pitching any better or worse - based entirely on their actual results percentage-wise with good or poor support.
5) Finally - we haven't talked about the park impacts. How much help do you think Hunter had pitching his home games in Oakland and NY during his peak years? His home ERA from '71-'75 was 2.28. Blyleven's ERA pitching in Oakland from '71-'74 and NY in '75 was 2.51. Not a big difference; slight advantage, Hunter. Know how they did in a good hitters' park in Minnesota? Blyleven had an ERA of 2.67 there from '71-'75. How did Catfish pitch there? His ERA in Minnesota from '71 - '75 was 5.31. His BEST start? 4 ER in 8+ innings in a start in '71 (ERA over 4 in a league where the average was 3.46). Not one quality start there in 5 years. Is anyone really going to try to tell me that if he had to pitch half his games in that park he was going to get the same results he got in Oakland? Parks matter. They make a HUGE impact on the pitching performance.
Look, Catfish Hunter was a good pitcher. Yes, I saw him pitch, too. He was really good. But he was also really lucky. He had seasons where less than 10% of his W-L record was impacted by poor run support. Perry, Ryan, Blyleven - heck, for that matter, Seaver, Palmer, Gibson,Carlton, etc. - never had seasons where they received run support even close to that level. They had seasons where half their starts or more resulted in poor support. Catfish never had to worry about that in his prime years. And that run support - which Hunter had zero control over - is the sole reason he is in the HOF. Without good support he doesn't have 5 consecutive 20-win seasons; without it he wins zero Cy Young awards;.without it he has substantially reduced postseason heroics; without it he has no case at all for the HOF.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:40 am
Well I was already a convert moeball, Hunter's ERA + & peripeheral stats show a good, not HOF pitcher, but you make a great case!
JT, I am surprised that you reserve judgement on Blyleven. I encourage you to reevaluate him. If you compare his career & peak year success even to HOF contemporaries, he does very well. Take his "most similar" pitchers on this site, most of which are HOF guys. Any of them you do not think deserve Cooperstown? Now compare just his BEST years to these guys. Things like Gray ink in the pitching stats that matter, I know you know them very well.
You trust ERA + & WAR generally, right? Just look at any combination of best or peak year ratings, compared to what you think is clearly enough for HOF status. We know he has the longevity. I do not think you will find any factors that mitigate his stats there, like great defense for ERA +.
Just look at his WAR for pitchers compared to contemporaries, how high he is, how many seasons in the top 10 or 5, compared to his great contemporaries like Lefty. You can say only he never had a greatest ever season like Carlton, & you can say he was not as dominant as Seaver over some years: but this only means he was not amongst the very greatest few pitchers ever. Any park & era adjusted consideration of peak & career value show him to be a very easy, no brainer, HOFer. Excellent in the post season too.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:17 am
@34 Moeball...
"From '73-'75 his great W-L records are entirely a result of his run support and have absolutely nothing to do with how he actually pitched."
This is a strong statement, let's see if it is true.
Games with 2 runs or less support 1971-75
1971 5-6 2.16 ERA in 11 starts
1972 4-6 2.04 ERA in 12 starts
1973 0-3 4.40 ERA in 5 starts
1974 1-6 2.71 ERA in 8 starts
1975 1-8 2.40 ERA om 9 starts
Except for 1973, in most cases his ERA was better in these
starts than the other.
True he got better support than the others, but he pitched as
well in the games when he got 2 runs or less than the other
pitchers you mention.
I think Catfish get's a raw deal because he was on great teams.
There are actually great pitchers who pitched for great teams.
September 16th, 2011 at 1:55 am
@36 Jason - good points - he did pitch well in those tough games; just not well enough to win (except in '71 and '72). Actually, that sounds like what the writers used to say about Blyleven and Ryan - they pitched well, just not well enough to win.
This is all part of the BBWAA mindset - not just from the '70s, but still prevalent today. Great pitchers "find a way to win" and, thus, they still base voting on W-L record more than any other factor. The Cy Young given to King Felix last year was historically groundbreaking and I hope it signals a trend in more logical thinking among the writers. Murray Chass, of course, sees it as a sign of the coming apocalypse. 🙂
Back to Catfish. The point remains, however, that when he received poor run support - even though he pitched pretty well in those games - he had a very poor W-L record in those games. In the list you show above for '71-75 his record is a cumulative 11-29. That doesn't make people think Cy Young or HOF.
Here, I guess, are actually my main points not just re: Hunter but about BBWAA perception of pitchers in general:
1) Since the HOF has criteria that says a player has to have played at least 10 yrs in the majors (Addie Joss excepted, I guess) to be eligible for HOF consideration, I looked at virtually every well known starting pitcher I could find who pitched at least 10 yrs as a starter in the majors. Not one of them had a winning record in their careers when getting less than 3 runs of support in a game. That difference between 2 and 3 runs a game seems to be the break-even point for a lot of pitchers. Even in pitching-dominant eras such as 1900-1919 or the '60s to early '70s - 2 runs a game or less is just abysmal batting support and it is almost impossible for a pitcher to win under those conditions. Sandy Koufax couldn't do it. Cy Young couldn't do it. Neither could Christy Mathewson or Lefty Grove or either of the great Johnsons (Walter or Randy). These aren't mediocre or even just good pitchers we are talking about here. These are the best of the best - and they couldn't do it. No one can.
2) The difference between pitchers who were labeled "barely just .500" pitchers like Ryan and P. Niekro and Blyleven - and pitchers with great reputations based primarily on W-L record - frequently lies more in the run support than in how they actually pitched. And I think it is critically important to look at the distribution of the run support rather than just the averages.
To illustrate (yes, this is a really extreme example but bear with me) :
Pitcher A has 5 starts where his team scores 4,4,4,4 and 4 runs for him - an average of 4 runs/game. Decent but not great support. He gives up 3,3,3,3 and 3 runs in those games for an average runs allowed of 3/game - a good ERA. His record is 5-0 which is outstanding.
Pitcher B has 5 starts where he gives up 2,2,2,2 and 2 runs - an average of 2 runs/game - fewer runs than pitcher A in every single start - this is league-leading ERA level and a full run a game better than pitcher A. But his run support distribution is as follows: He gets 10 runs in one game, 9 in another - in the other 3 starts he gets 1 run, zero and zero. He also got 20 runs of support in 5 starts for an average of 4 runs/game - same as pitcher A. But his W-L record is only 2-3 - guess he doesn't "know how to win" or "pitch to the score". No, what's really happening is he gets really poor run support in a vastly higher % of starts than pitcher A does. And that is the difference between their W-L records - and their # of Cy Young awards won - and their voting tallies for the HOF.
3) Finally - I'll shut up after this, I promise - what really gets me is that this seems so obvious to me and I don't understand why the BBWAA back in the day didn't get this. All you need to do is look at the box scores - you don't need play-by-play data or the sophisticated analysis tools available today to notice that one pitcher gets stuck with a whole lot of games where his team scores only 1 or 2 runs a game and another pitcher hardly gets stuck with any. And that there's a direct correlation between that and their W-L records. All you need to do is look at the box scores - box scores that were easily available in daily newspapers or the Sporting News which most BBWAA members subscribed to anyways. How did they not see this? How do many of them still not see this today?
September 16th, 2011 at 5:26 am
Just because Blyleven has better stats over someone else does not mean he was the better pitcher, including for instance Catfish Hunter.
Everything in life has strengths and weaknesses, which includes era+, or can no one here admit that?
Can anyone agree that the stats-superior pitcher might not always be the mound-superior pitcher if the stats differential is minor?
Just because Sean and Co. haven't come up with a way to measure it, there is still such a thing as killer instinct.