32 Responses to “Can Bronson Catch Bert?”

1. John Autin Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 11:32 am

   If they don't shut him down, it looks like he'll get 2 more starts -- home to Houston, and at the Mets.

   His HR rate is higher at home, as you'd expect -- 27 in 16 home games, 17 in 14 road games. But that road rate is still plenty. And while New Shea is a tough HR park, he's allowed 5 HRs in 5 career starts there.

   Houston might be the taller task, as they're next-to-last in MLB with 89 HRs. But Carlos Lee has hit 3 in 49 ABs against Arroyo.

   For the Mets, Reyes, Wright, Pagan and Duda have 1 apiece.

   Definitely worth watching!

2. Julian Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 12:59 pm

   If he keeps up his current pace, he'll also become just the sixteenth pitcher in history to qualify for the ERA title and allow as many or more home runs as walks.

3. Mike Felber Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 3:29 pm

   Notice that Blyleven even with those 2 years with so many HRs allowed is the only one to have them both pretty good years until you get down to 41 HRs allowed. Everyone else close to him in HRs allowed had more or less below a league average ERA +.

   Considering WAr, which gives credit for IP, will reinforce that Bert still had decent effectiveness even in the ONLY 2 years when he gave up a great # of HRs.

4. Evil Squirrel Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

   His HR rate is higher at home, as you'd expect -- 27 in 16 home games, 17 in 14 road games. But that road rate is still plenty. And while New Shea is a tough HR park, he's allowed 5 HRs in 5 career starts there.

   Actually, he's only allowed one career run in 2 career starts at Shi.... er, Citi Field, but that one run was a homer (to Angel Pagan). He did allow 5 career homers at Old Shea Stadium....

5. Mike L Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 4:23 pm

   How about HR/s per batter faced among this group, minimum 30 HRs?

6. T Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 4:55 pm

   Oh, he can catch him of course. Will he have even a close resemblance of Blyleven's season? Not ever!! This is one of those statistical oddities that transcends numbers.

7. John Autin Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 5:33 pm

   @4, E. Squirrel -- Thanks for catching my goof there.

8. Doug Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

   Arroyo and Jose Lima easily lead this list in HR/9.

9. Doug Says:
   September 18th, 2011 at 5:55 pm

   The only qualifying pitchers to allow over 2 HR/9. Showing HR and HR/9.

   - Jose Lima 48 2.20 2000 HOU NL
   - Bronson Arroyo 44 2.18 2011 CIN NL
   - Jim Deshaies 30 2.07 1994 MIN AL
   - Sid Fernandez 27 2.11 1994 BAL AL

10. DoubleDiamond Says:
    September 18th, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Anyone who had ever held the NL record for most home runs allowed in a season and who was still alive at the beginning of May 2010 did not make it out of that month still alive.

11. Jason Says:
    September 18th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Look at batters faced. Even if Bronson doesn't catch Bert, he is the new
    king.

    He will end up facing close to 300 fewer batters than Bert faced. In fact,
    he will face fewer batters than anyone else on this list.

    Poor Cinci. Arroyo is signed for two more years and his effectiveness
    is severly diminished this season. He is giving up homers at almost
    twice his career rate.

    Is this a bad season or the beginning of the end. At age 34 maybe the end.

12. Mike Felber Says:
    September 18th, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    here is a pitching question folks might find interesting, & I would enjoy help with.

    1993: the one year of Maddux string of 4 Cy Young's which B-R WAR does not rate him #1 in the league. In fact, he is not even close: Jose Rios has an 8.6, Mad Dog 6.2. A quick look at their stats shows Maddux better overall-though not as good in Ks. That is until you look at defense. Rios is adjudged to have hada poor defense, Maddux excellent-it stands out for both especially in this very year.

    But in the seven advanced stats at the end of this B-R page, Maddux does better overall! Do not 6 of these, all but ERA +, ADJUST for defense? http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1993-pitching-leaders.shtml. How is this internally consistent?

    Also, I have asked for a while now for a review of the often widely disparate total value/WAR systems. I checked Fangraphs for the 1st time: In '93 they have Maddux ahead of Rijo 7.9 to 7.2! That is just a huge & disparity in how the 2 s system rate these 2 top pitchers!

    Looking at the AL that year, Appier vs. Johnson has a large difference also. between systems, B-R rating Appier much higher, Fangraphs having them very close. Maybe in this case the latter rates Johnson's ks & hits allowed as more important that this site. While B-R values ERA + & HR allowed more. Given that Johnson also had a slightly better defense, I would tend to agree with this site in this case.

    Anyway, we can find many examples like this, where the ratings of pitchers & players are VERY different between systems, & sometimes somewhat different over a whole career. Can anyone tell me what system they feel is better in the above instances, so we can get at what factors each may properly & incorrectly weight? Thank you in advance for trying.

13. Dr. Doom Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 12:17 am

    @12-

    There are many places you can go on the internet for an explanation of how/why Fangraphs and B-Ref differ. I would suggest this one, because it's very funny:

    http://www.patrickfloodblog.com/2010/07/16/war-problems-part-two/

    There's a link in the first paragraph to the first part of the story, which is worth reading, even though it deals with offense, rather than pitching, which is definitely the bigger difference.

    As far as which system is "better," a million people could give you different answers. Partly, it depends on what questions you're asking. Mostly, though, it's up to you to weigh the evidence yourself, and decide on your own. Yes, it takes a little critical thought, but it's worth it.

14. Mike Felber Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 3:01 am

    Thank you, that is a useful article. Two points.

    Of course we should think critically, that is not even a question. But as in numerous threads here with often triple digit responses assists with, kicking around numerous strong & nuanced opinions about the matter likely will assist in forming conclusions, such as in what situations & how often one system is better. Many minds thinking rigorously & challenging each other works very well to introduce & salvage the best ideas, while pruning away the less tenable ones.

    Yet unlike a million other much less meaningful questions that just how good & valuable a player is, we never seem to have any discussions & debates about this. Why? WAR is so strongly referenced here & trusted, it behooves us to do so. If we want to not just take things on faith or unchallenged.

    Also, position player differences vary significantly. 1.5 is a fairly big % for a season, & if players vary, say, an average of just 1.0 per system over a career, that really adds up in career value. It is mostly defense? Then this is also crucial to analyze closely.

    Here are 2 of the 1st 3 position players I looked up, neither known for their defense. Willie Stargell. B-R WAR: 57.5. Fangraphs: 70.9. Harmon Killebrew: here, 61.1. Fangraphs, 78.4!

    Al Simmons, 63.6 Here. FG: 78.5. Lou Brock: here, 39.1. FG: 53.4. That is over 1/3 higher on FG!! Ron Santo: Here, 66.4. FG, 79.3.

    Jim Rice: Here, 41.5. FG: 56.5! (I do not trust FG on this one). Greg Luzinsky: here 28.2, FG, 38.1. Now there are MANY players with a ~ a 10 point differential or so, but the % difference here is obviously large. Bigger still with Dante Bichette: 11.5 here, 2.0 at FG!

    These large discrepancies point to differences with a few things besides defense, though that may account for at least the plurality of the difference in most cases. But we have very different types of players above, including excellent defense & great base running< & outliar park factors.

    The thread where it was discussed whether Stargell deserved the HOF really opened my eyes. He is not the largest difference or anywhere approaching the biggest & difference in rating, but his lifetime WAR in the B-R system is barely borderline HOF, & in Fg it is a no-brainer slam dunk.

    Yet we use B-R as if gospel routinely to evaluate players. And pitchers are rated even more variably! So it behooves us to get a handle on these things, IF we want to use WAR as at all an authority on anything, as at all reliable.

    Thanks for listening to my pedantic rant y'all!

15. Mike L Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 7:04 am

    @14: Mike F, I agree with all of your post, except the next to last line. It seems in reading all the comments that there seems to be a consensus that WAR, regardless of who calculates it, while useful, isn't the last word. That may be because some of us are less technically proficient, or aren't comfortable with fielding measurements and dWAR. But I also think it's because it doesn't feel (yet) as a stat we are all comfortable with embracing as a single uber-tool. One of the things that drew me to the first Bill James Abstracts was this sense that he was picking up and quantifying things that I previously just had a gut feel about. To meet the emotional smell test, a new stat, for at least some of us, needs to buttress what we see with our eyes. That may not be scientific, but I think it's true.

16. MLS Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Curious to see what percentage of the respected pitchers HR totals is in relationship to their overall ERA for that particular yr.

17. Dr. Doom Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 9:36 am

    @14

    Another issue is that players on Fangraphs in general will tend to be a little higher. They use a lower replacement level overall. That's something that, especially over a 15+ year career (and in the cases of many of the players you mentioned, around 20 years) will really add up. So that's something to take into consideration, as well.

18. kds Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 9:42 am

    @14 Fangraphs WAR uses a slightly different lower replacement level, so you should expect fWAR to be higher. Before 2002 both use Total Zone for defense, but get slightly different numbers. fWAR seems not to have base running except for very recent players. (I think they have SB/CS, but not "taking the extra base.")

19. Santos Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    @Mike Felber

    Concerning the disparity between fWAR and rWar in terms of pitching, it really depends on which philosophy you adhere to. Fangraphs uses FIP and B-R uses Runs allowed and then adjusts for strength of defense. If you believe that the amount of runs a pitcher allows, while adjusting for his defense, is the best way to evaluate a pitcher, then use B-R. If you think that a pitcher should only be evaluated on the things he can control the most (walks, HRs, and strikeouts) then use Fangraphs. I tend to rely on Fangraphs version because I agree with DIPS theory and the logic and data behind it, but I'll still check here and see what this version says and weigh the two.

20. kds Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    @19 I might prefer one or the other in different situations. The actual runs allowed is what happened, which can include a lot of luck. If you want to measure true talent rather than actual results one season of FIP is better than one season of RA or ERA. (this years FIP is a better predictor of next years ERA than is this years ERA.) Given enough innings pitched, (certainly by 2500, maybe less.), I would strongly prefer to use actual runs allowed since most of the random luck would have canceled and variations from the mean in such things as BABIP would mostly represent real skill.

21. Santos Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    @20 I see your point. I still find it difficult to attribute runs solely to the pitcher since there are so many other factors involved. Even with the defensive adjustment I don't think it's accurate enough. But that's not to say I won't incorporate it into my evaluations, and is certainly not to say it's not useful. I think there are even better DIPS stats out there than FIP. SIERA does a better job, since it goes a step further and incorporates batted ball tendencies (GB, LD, FB). But the beauty of all this is the information is available for everyone to examine and make determinations.

22. John Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    "Congratulations to Jack Morris and Bill Gullickson in being the only pitchers in big-league history to allow 40 homers in a season, and NOT lead the league in homers allowed.

    You're welcome.

    Signed,
    Bert Blyleven, Hall of Famer."

23. Kahuna Tuna Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    "P.S. Note that the 50 homers I allowed accounted for 80 (59.7%) of the 134 total runs scored off me in 1986, the highest percentage of any of the 45 pitcher seasons shown above. Basically, when I wanted to give up a run or two, I grooved a homer pitch — much more efficient and less stressful than holding a bunch of runners on. Jack and Bill, I couldn't help noticing that your percentages were well below 50%. As veterans, don't you think that's kind of irresponsible?"

24. Dr. Doom Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @21

    The problem with SIERA, of course, is that you have to believe/agree with the scoring of GB/LD/FB. It has been noted that those are notoriously inaccurate from park to park and scorer to scorer when compared to actual ball-speed and angle data. Personally, I think FIP does a good job of finding a happy medium between a total projection system like SIERA and a traditional system like ERA. B-R's version of WAR is also a "happy medium" type of thing, but it puts a lot more weight on sequencing. Really, it's probably best to just average the two and see what you get. But that's just my theory.

    Additionally, as to the whole WAR discussion, Baseball Prospectus has WARP and The Baseball Gauge also uses a WAR metric that's similar to Fangraphs for pitching, but more similar to B-R for offense. Both of these sites are also worth checking. And, of course, if we're talking MVP or Cy Young voting, one should never go into it without at least considering WPA and REW, and then considering WPA/LI. It's a lot to think about, that's for sure.

25. Mike Felber Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Useful information above, thanks. Though the trouble with a smell test is that it so So prone to selection bias, what you think before, & the usually small sample size you see, received wisdom, & other biases.

    Also, I appreciate that Fangraphs is often higher due to replacement level differences, but very often the total scores are about the same also! And often enough they are 10, 20, even 30% or so variable from B-R WAR in career value! And I am just talking about position players here, not even pitchers, who it is pointed out tend to vary more.

    So while it might be useful to advocate for one pitching evaluation system over another, at least it would be very useful to look at the causes for all the variation on how most guys, position players, are rated over a career.

    Best would be to take folks like those I show above who have a high % of variation, see WHY that is so, & compare it to the many players who rate about the same in both. That will isolate what factors we think should be adjusted in which systems.

    But it is different enough with players that it only makes sense to brainstorm & hear many opinions & arguments what each system does best. THEn we will be in a better position to independently evaluate how much to accept each version, & in which instances.

26. Santos Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    @24

    Point well taken. Who is responsible for categorizing the batted ball types? Is it a third party company that looks at all this, or is it an official scorer type capacity at each ballpark? Just curious to know. I agree FIP is a happy medium, and I think it's probably the most well known of the DIPS stats available today, and the differences between the two aren't all that big to begin with. I guess what I was trying to get across in reference to the original question, is that right now there is no concrete right or wrong when it comes to WAR, so there won't be one single version of it (most notably for pitching). But it's not necessary for them to agree since the underlying stats are based off two different philosophies. But as long as one understand the ingredients that go into making them, then it doesn't matter.

27. Santos Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    @25

    I think that's a sensible route. I think the major difference between the WAR here and Fangraphs WAR (for position players) is the defensive metric used. This site uses Total Zone while Fangraphs uses UZR (for seasons from 2002 to the present). That is probably the major reason for the variation, and as you said, can account for massive differences over a career. I'm curious to see what you find out when you look into it though. If you publish your findings anywhere be sure to make it known if you can.

28. Jeff Rose Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Yet another backdoor way to gloss Blyleven!

29. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    But in the seven advanced stats at the end of this B-R page, Maddux does better overall! Do not 6 of these, all but ERA +, ADJUST for defense? http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1993-pitching-leaders.shtml. How is this internally consistent?

    No, they do not.

30. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 20th, 2011 at 12:04 am

    there seems to be a consensus that WAR, regardless of who calculates it, while useful, isn't the last word

    It's definitely not the last word. Its developer would say that. It's an argument-starter, not an argument-ender. It's a wonderful tool for broad-based comparisons. You want to find the best players who have been left out of the HOF? Look up players with more than, say, 40 WAR. It's better than searching for players with 2000+ hits, or a 120 OPS+, etc. But it is not not not intended to answer all questions. Unfortunately people take it that way and disparage it for that very reason.

31. Mike Felber Says:
    September 20th, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Fair enough JT, & thanks for the advanced stats info. But we can do much better by asking the questions in specific cases & figuring out the causes of the biggest distinctions: & a good chance we can come to a general consensus as to how to take each system with a grain of salt, when, & in which directions.

    Is it really almost all defense that accounts for differences in players as disparate as Killer, Simmons, Brock, & Santo, as mentioned in post 14? I seem to recall walks being cited as a reason Stargell was rated much higher on FG, something that was not defense. Park, base running, other things?

    IF it is most all defense measured differently, I would state Offensive WAR, either system, & separately the career defensive #s of both systems, so we would know & could take into consideration the arguments for each system.

32. Brian K Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    So much for that. Complete game 2:12 minute shutout for Bronson today. The Astros really must want to get the season over with.