Trivia time: 2005-2007, 650 IP, 550 K
Posted by Andy on December 18, 2007
Only 5 pitchers in baseball have, summed over 2005, 2006, and 2007, totaled at least 650 innings pitched and 550 strikeouts. How many can you get? Answers after the jump.
Cnt IP SO From To Ages G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% SV H R ER BB ERA ERA+ HR BF IBB HBP BK WP Teams BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ SH SF 2B 3B GDP SB CS Pk +----+-----------------+-----+------+----+----+----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+---+----+----+----+----+------+----+---+-----+---+---+---+---+-----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+----+---+---+ 1 Carlos Zambrano 653.2 589 2005 2007 24-26 100 100 3 0 0 48 26 .649 0 519 279 257 302 3.54 129 64 2751 11 31 1 19 CHC .218 .313 .354 .667 74 26 12 111 10 55 7 15 5 2 John Smoltz 667.1 577 2005 2007 38-40 100 100 6 2 0 44 24 .647 0 627 254 239 155 3.22 134 59 2744 20 14 1 15 ATL .248 .293 .378 .671 77 24 18 132 10 45 31 14 1 3 Johan Santana 684.1 718 2005 2007 26-28 100 100 5 3 0 50 26 .658 0 549 244 227 144 2.99 148 79 2711 1 9 2 19 MIN .217 .260 .370 .630 64 16 10 124 13 34 14 15 4 4 John Lackey 650.2 568 2005 2007 26-28 99 99 6 4 0 46 25 .648 0 630 270 241 195 3.33 134 45 2743 9 32 1 43 LAA .253 .314 .366 .680 79 10 9 132 8 58 42 18 3 5 Aaron Harang 677.2 597 2005 2007 27-29 102 101 9 3 0 43 30 .589 0 672 302 284 159 3.77 120 78 2828 14 24 2 24 CIN .259 .306 .422 .728 89 36 18 155 16 46 38 25 1
This is a pretty tough trivia question, actually. Santana was the only gimme, though Zambrano, Smoltz, and Lackey were all gettable if you thought about it long enough. Harang, trapped playing for a pretty bad team, was the true toughie.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Smoltzy and Harang weren't even wild guesses for me. Nice to see Smoltzy still getting it done with consistency. HOF anyone?
As for Harang, the Reds haven't exactly been synonymous with starting pitching over the last 15 years. Kudos to Harang. He's probably the last Red to have three seasons in a row like this since Jose Rijo.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Smoltz' HOF candidacy is an interesting debate. He has a low win total, 207, but let's remember that A) he spent 4 years as an extremely effective CLOSER and B) his first three years were with terrible Atlanta teams. That being said, he played many years for a great Atlanta team. He'll be helped by the fact that he has pitched so extraordinarily well in the post-season, over 24 series, compiling a 15-4 record with a 2.65 ERA.
In his 14 full seasons as a starter, Smoltz averaged 14.2 wins. If we give him 14.2 * 4 = 57 additional wins for those 4 seasons where he closed, he'd be at 264 wins right now, with an outside shot at 300 if he can start effectively for 3-4 more years.
It's strange that he doesn't more career wins considering that he did pitch for a great team for years, and he's missed very little time due to injury (except for the entire 2000 season, of course.) His career WHIP of 1.17 is outstanding, not to mention his career ERA+ of 127. Why he doesn't have more wins is beyond me.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Also as you can see right here:
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/FZyF
Your guess about Rijo being the last pitcher to achieve something similar is right. Since 1980, only three other Reds pitchers have had as many as 3 different seasons with 200 IP: Browning (5), Soto (4), and Rijo (3). (The only other guy to do it more than once is Arroyo with 2.)
December 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
By the way, a few of the guys I guessed weren't on the list: Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, CC Sabathia, Josh Beckett. So I wanted to see why...
*Peavy had 628.7 IP and 671 Ks. 21.1 IP short (7 IP a year)
*Webb had 700.3! IP and 544 Ks. 6 Ks short (2 a year)
*Sabathia had 630.1 IP and 542 Ks. 20 IP short and 8 Ks short
*Beckett had 584 IPs and 518 Ks. 66 IP short and 32 Ks short.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I saw the question and said, "People aren't going to guess Harang..." As a Reds fan, I said Harang and didn't waste my time on guessing the other four.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I'm a Reds fan, and I didn't guess Harang. I guess my Redsfanaticism needs some caffeine. I think the Reds have just put me into this lull of not expecting quality starting pitching.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
So what makes Smoltz different than Eckersley with his 'dual' existence?
December 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Eckersley was an effective closer for 11 years (compared to Smoltz' 4) and was a dominant closer for 5 seasons (compared to Smoltz' 3). Their careers as starters were similar, 12 seasons for Eck and 15 seasons for Smoltz.
Eckersley made the HOF, I think, primarily because he was the first of the current breed of closer. The 9th-inning-only shutdown guy. Plus, his team made the World Series in each of his first 3 years as the shutdown closer. He was super high-profile for a while.
In retrospect, I don't think he compares too favorably to most of the rest of the pitchers in the HOF, and currently Smoltz falls a bit short in the comparison with Eckerseley. Smoltz has 201 wins as a starter over 15 seasons, Eck had 151 wins in over 12 seasons as a starter, playing for (I'm guessing) just slightly lesser teams, in terms of W-L record.
By the way, I didn't really realize how damn awesome Mario Soto was from 1982 to 1985. He might have been the top pitcher in the NL over that period..it's worth a look in an upcoming post.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Here's how I see it. As a starter, Eckersley never would have made the Hall, even if he started consistently for another 5 years. Closing games not only revitalized his career, but put him in a different dimension as a pitcher. The kind of intensity he had as a closer is impossible to have over nine innings (unless you're Mark Fydrich).
Here's what Eck did as a starter. Top ten in ERA four times, but never higher than third. Fifth in wins twice. Six times top ten in WHIP, but never led the league. Seven times top ten in K/IP, but never led the league. Ninth in IP three times (in a row). Five times top ten in Ks, but never higher than 4th. Ninth in GS twice. Four times top-ten in Shut Outs, but never higher than fourth. Seventh in BF once. The only things he ever led the league is were ERA+ (once), K:BB (thrice), BB/9 (once). Those are no where near HOF numbers.
As a reliever, Eck changed the game. 11 consecutive top-ten finishes in Saves. Fifth on the all-time list. 15 post-season saves (2nd all time, and was 1st all-time when he retired). One MVP award and One Cy Young award. His 606 ERA+ from in 1990 is probably the best by far for anyone with 60 IP or for even 30 IP for that matter.
As a starter, Smoltz is a HOFer, in my book. Six times leading the league in Wins, placing 1st twice. Twice leading the league in W/L%. 9 times topten in WHIP. 10 times top ten in Ks, with two titles. And is 16th all time in Ks (20th alltime if you subtract Ks while a reliever). Ten times top ten in ERA+, 53rd all-time. 3 times led the league in Games Started. One Cy Young Award. 13-4 as a post season starter, with an ERA of about 2.60.
Smoltz's relief work helps all that too. But he'd be a HOFer as a starter alone, IMHO.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
No arguments from me, just some observations.
Here's the ERA+ leaders for Smoltz's career (1988-2007) (min. 2000 innings). http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/hNKX
Until last week, the top 4 (Pedro, Clemens, Maddux and R. Johnson) were sure thing Hall of famers.
The next three (Schilling, K. Brown, Smoltz) all have remarkably similar numbers (Brown did pitch 1 game prior to 1998, which is not included, but does not effect anything as evidenced in the upcoming list) in terms of ERA+ (all 127),
IP(3261, 3251.1, 3367) and W-L (216-146, 210-144, 207-145).
Curiously, in all of baseball history there have only been 2 other players with numbers like these, Stan Coveleski(HOF) and Eddie Cicotte http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/7cZ4 .
Obviously, Schilling and Smoltz have a huge leg up on Brown because of their post-season performances and Smoltz's innings do include some closer innings which are probably worth more than starter innings.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
You can add Hal Newhouser (HOF) to the list as he had similar numbers, but missed the cut of my second search by 7 innings.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Kingturtle said "Six times leading the league in Wins, placing 1st twice" which is misleading...what he meant was six times in the top 10. That's good, but not overly impressive I don't think. I just checked, and Blyleven and TJ also did it 6 times (though never outright led the league even once.)
December 19th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Okay, here's the win shares argument again.
As I said in post 96 on the 2008 Hall of Fame thread here, IMO 300 career win shares -- as a pitcher (or for that matter, as a catcher) is a presumption in your favor for the Hall.
Here's why 300 is a nice starting point. By my count, 32 Hall pitchers have totals of 300 or above. 29 have totals below 300. (N.B.: My counts may not be 100% accurate, but they're close.) Those under 300 are the guys who are close (Mordecai Brown 296), who lost war time (Bob Feller 292), who had careers cut short by injury (Juan Marichal 263, Whitey Ford 261, Sandy Koufax 194, Dizzy Dean 181), or who are debatable choices.
There are almost NO pitchers with career win shares over 300 who are NOT in the Hall. Tony Mullane 399 (a curious 1880's guy who gets a lot of his win shares from switch-hitting), Clemens and Maddux and Randy Johnson and Glavine, BLYLEVEN 339 -- I believe those six are the only six on the outside, and Blyleven is not just a little bit over the line.
Even more interesting are those just under: in addition to 3-finger and Feller, Amos Rusie 293, Vic Willis 293, Red Faber 292. I don't think there is any pitcher in the 290's not in the Hall, but these three guys are less household names to me. The 280's include Jack Powell 287 no, Jack Quinn 287 no, Jack Stivetts 285 no, Charlie Buffington 283 no. Applying the 300-win shares presumption keeps them out.
Okay, so why Burleigh Grimes 286 in and Tommy John 289 out? Why Joe McGinnity 269 in and Jim Kaat 268 out? (Actually, I think Blyleven is a Hall of Fame version of Kaat, and when Blyleven is caricatured as MERELY a rubber-armed innings-eater, that's Kaat's stat line.) And I like Kaat for the near-Hall. At some point below 300, you wish your nominee was over that clear presumption line, and you just have to split hairs over the nitty-gritty of individual cases.
What's the relevance to this thread? Chew on these numbers of career win shares totals: Dennis Eckersley 301 win shares, John Smoltz 285 win shares so far, Hoyt Wilhelm 256, Rollie Fingers 186, Bruce Sutter 168, Rich Gossage 223, Lee Smith 198, Mariano Rivera 184.
Judging relief pitchers for the Hall is a huge problem. But if you can get to 300 ws while working effectively out of the bullpen for part of your career, hey, that's a Hall presumption in your favor!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
David, good info as always. Although I really like Win Shares, I am not very familiar with how they are calculated. If James has really found a way to account for real contributions to wins, then it would seem to solidify the notion that closers are overrated. But then it does provide a good way of judging guys like Eck and Smoltz, by allowing proper measuring of their contributions as both a starter and a reliever. I am amazed that Smoltz is already so close to Eckersley, and Smoltz should pass 300 (and pass Eck) next year or the year after. Wow.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Is it possible to calculate WHIP+? I think that would be interesting.
Also, can you do a search on best season ERA+ for 45+ IP? Eckersley's 606 in 1990 is amazing. Blows Gossage's 1981 461 out of the water.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
KingTurtle: http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/hF9x
December 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Oscar thanks. That's a fascinating list.
Check out the years for ERA+ >= 300...
1911:1
1918:1
1958:1
1963:1
1964:1
1974:1
1981:2 (strike year)
1986:1
1987:1
1990:1
1993:1
1995:1
1998:2
2002:2
2003:2
2004:1
2005:1
2006:4
2007:4
Why the increase in frequency since 1990? Why the increase in amount of pitchers per year, since 1998? Is this an indication that performance enhancing drugs are also helping relievers?
December 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Thanks to Andy for getting this started and to Oscar and Turtle for fascinating info.
To Andy's #14: I own the book (Win Shares), and though I haven't tried to work through all the math, I have worked with the results for long enough that I believe James has come up with something very useful. That is, one metric that can serve as a valid starting point -- not finishing point -- for evaluating player value, at different positions, across different eras.
Are closers overrated? That depends. If you look at win shares/innings pitched, they have higher ratios than starters. If you look at win shares/season, the best starters always come out higher than the best relievers. (Hardball Times, 2007: Sabathia 24, Putz 18.) Who's more important, the starter who gives up 3 runs in 7 innings or the reliever who shuts down the other team for the last two?
Pick 'em. That's why Andy Pettitte has 180 win shares and Mariano Rivera has 184. Obviously you couldn't make up a pitching staff of 12 Mariano Riveras who would pitch a total of 852 innings in 2007 when the season calls for 1458 innings.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I think Smoltz will make the HOF. I'm not 100% sure he's worthy yet (although I'm a big fan), but I've heard/read several things in the last couple seasons referring to him as a future-HOF. He probably does deserve it. Plus he still seems to be going strong.
I like Win Shares, but I'm not enamored with them for pitchers, especially relievers. I think they are awarded somewhat arbitrarily.
The increase in >300 ERA+ seasons is simply due to the change in reliever usage. There are more pitchers only pitching as relievers, throwing fewer innings per appearance and fewer innings per season, and therefore increasing their effectiveness. Mediocre closers now have ERA+ which are just as good as those of the best relievers from a generation ago. Not
December 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
oops, ignore the last "Not." I don't remember what I was starting to say, if anything.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
JT, thanks for helping to clear up the >300 ERA+ season increase.
I can't begin to explain Bill James's 86 pages of how to compute win shares, but it's not arbitrary. That is, no human is "awarding" win shares on his whim. It's all mathematical formulas, so that the people at Hardball Times (or somebody else with math patience) can continue for 2007 what Bill James's book did through 2001.
Somewhere in there a formula may be flawed, but the process is less arbitrary than the "save" rule, which people keep changing.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I've read Win Shares. I know players aren't just "awarded" win shares subjectively; perhaps arbitrary was the wrong word. I like the basic concept of giving credit based on actual team wins, and I like how offensive win shares are organically based on runs created. But with relief pitchers, I seem to recall James awards a certain amount of credit based on save opportunities and decisions, using them as a proxy for appearing in high-leverage situations. I'm too lazy to find the exact formula, but it seemed like that credit was based on a number he just pulled out of his ass because it "looked" right. It wasn't really based on hard research about the value of relievers. I know most people who have really studied win shares, even those who like them overall, tend to think closers get overvalued.
I don't think the save rule has been changed in about 35 years. Obviously it's not a perfect stat -- no stat is. But its definition is clear and it measures what it says it does. Win shares is just an estimate of something, and some of those estimates are better than others, imo.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:36 am
BTW, I know some people have argued that James needed to have loss shares too, and I think I heard that he is now working on that. So WS as we know them may be obsolete in a few years, replaced by improved formulas and accompanied by loss shares.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Oh, Kingturtle, there is no WHIP+, but it's been mentioned enough times I think Sean Forman may get it calculated at some point. I can't remember just what the subject was, but there was some post on here a couple months ago in which a list of pitchers featured a lot from the AL of the late '40s and '50s. I pointed out that for some reason there were a ton of walks in the AL at that time, so league WHIP was higher, and those pitchers were not really as bad as they seemed to be. WHIP+ would definitely have come in handy there.
We've been so spoiled by B-R's adjusted stats, we need them all adjusted now...
December 20th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Is there a source for up-to-date Win Share data? Does Hardball Times have it, for example, through 2007?
December 20th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Kind of back to near misses...
Danny Haren at 662 IP and 531 K
Add him to Webby and how about that for a 1-2 punch in the desert now
December 20th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Here's the link to Hardball Times win shares.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/?view=winshares
December 20th, 2007 at 8:56 am
I am in disbelief that ARI now has Webb and Haren. I can't think of another recent 1-2 combo of two players both so young and so good.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
C.C. Sabathia / Fausto Carmona match up pretty nicely.
Not that you couldn't have thought of these on your own,
but I put your qualifications of recent, teammates,
young (using Webb and Haren to define),
and good (using Webb and Haren to define) into PI:
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/UU9C