This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

Worked So Long For What?

Posted by Steve Lombardi on April 12, 2010

Playing around with Baseball-Reference.com's Play Index Pitching Season Finder today, I asked it to show me all pitchers with 350+ career Games Started whose career wins were less than 1.02 times their losses.

It's just another way to look at starting pitchers who worked a long time in the big leagues without great winning percentages.

Granted, wins (awarded to a starting pitcher) are contingent on many things. And, as such, you have to take them for what their worth (in terms of context). But, this is just a fun list to look at - and debate why some of these guys worked so long while not getting more wins and/or less losses. Here they are:

Rk     GS W L From To Age G SHO 6 W-L% IP ER BB SO ERA ERA+ HR BF Tm
1 Javier Vazquez   386 142 140 1998 2010 22-34 388 7 .504 2495.2 1167 651 2258 4.21 107 322 10482 MON-NYY-ARI-CHW-ATL
2 Frank Tanana   616 240 236 1973 1993 19-39 638 34 .504 4188.1 1704 1255 2773 3.66 106 448 17641 CAL-BOS-TEX-TOT-DET
3 Claude Osteen   488 196 195 1957 1975 17-35 541 40 .501 3460.2 1268 940 1612 3.30 104 249 14433 CIN-TOT-WSA-LAD-CHW
4 Jeff Suppan   396 135 135 1995 2009 20-34 412 5 .500 2410.2 1253 821 1332 4.68 98 320 10550 BOS-TOT-KCR-STL-MIL
5 Charlie Hough   440 216 216 1970 1994 22-46 858 13 .500 3801.1 1582 1665 2362 3.75 107 383 16170 LAD-TOT-TEX-CHW-FLA
6 Rudy May   360 152 156 1965 1983 20-38 535 24 .494 2622.0 1007 958 1760 3.46 102 199 10902 CAL-TOT-NYY-BAL-MON
7 Bump Hadley   355 161 165 1926 1941 21-36 528 14 .494 2945.2 1389 1442 1318 4.24 105 167 13016 WSH-TOT-SLB-NYY
8 Tom Zachary   408 186 191 1918 1936 22-40 533 24 .493 3126.1 1295 914 720 3.73 107 119 13467 PHA-WSH-SLB-TOT-NYY-BSN-BRO
9 Jim Slaton   360 151 158 1971 1986 21-36 496 22 .489 2683.2 1202 1004 1191 4.03 95 277 11535 MIL-DET-CAL-TOT
10 Bobo Newsom   483 211 222 1929 1953 21-45 600 31 .487 3759.1 1664 1732 2082 3.98 107 206 16467 BRO-CHC-SLB-TOT-WSH-DET-PHA-NYG
11 Bob Knepper   413 146 155 1976 1990 22-36 445 30 .485 2708.0 1106 857 1473 3.68 95 228 11488 SFG-HOU-TOT
12 Floyd Bannister   363 134 143 1977 1992 22-37 431 16 .484 2388.0 1078 846 1723 4.06 102 291 10187 HOU-SEA-CHW-KCR-CAL-TEX
13 Danny Darwin   371 171 182 1978 1998 22-42 716 9 .484 3016.2 1286 874 1942 3.84 106 321 12716 TEX-MIL-TOT-HOU-BOS-SFG
14 Steve Renko   365 134 146 1969 1983 24-38 451 9 .479 2494.0 1107 1010 1455 3.99 98 248 10704 MON-TOT-OAK-BOS-CAL-KCR
15 Tom Candiotti   410 151 164 1983 1999 25-41 451 11 .479 2725.0 1130 883 1735 3.73 108 250 11568 MIL-CLE-TOT-LAD-OAK
16 Mike Moore   440 161 176 1982 1995 22-35 450 16 .478 2831.2 1381 1156 1667 4.39 95 291 12203 SEA-OAK-DET
17 Bobby Witt   397 142 157 1986 2001 22-37 430 11 .475 2465.0 1324 1375 1955 4.83 91 252 11003 TEX-TOT-OAK-TBD-CLE-ARI
18 Steve Trachsel   417 143 159 1993 2008 22-37 420 7 .474 2501.0 1219 943 1591 4.39 99 348 10799 CHC-TOT-NYM-BAL
19 Kevin Gross   368 142 158 1983 1997 22-36 474 14 .473 2487.2 1137 986 1727 4.11 95 230 10791 PHI-MON-LAD-TEX-ANA
20 Jack Powell   369 167 194 1901 1912 26-37 423 33 .463 3161.1 969 685 1303 2.76 105 76 12679 STL-SLB-NYY-TOT
21 Bob Friend   497 197 230 1951 1966 20-35 602 36 .461 3611.0 1438 894 1734 3.58 107 286 15214 PIT-TOT
22 Jim Clancy   381 140 167 1977 1991 21-35 472 11 .456 2517.1 1182 947 1422 4.23 99 244 10772 TOR-HOU-TOT
23 Mike Morgan   411 141 186 1978 2002 18-42 597 10 .431 2772.1 1303 938 1403 4.23 98 270 11872 OAK-NYY-TOR-SEA-BAL-LAD-CHC-TOT-CIN-TEX-ARI
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 4/12/2010.

.

Related posts:

    28 Guys Who Never Would Have Worked For Earl Weaver
    Season-Long Hitting Streaks
    As long as we won the game…
    Long Beginnings
    Long Intentional Walks

This entry was posted on Monday, April 12th, 2010 at 11:00 am and is filed under Season Finders. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Worked So Long For What?”

  1. eorns Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am

    It would be great to have some kind of tool that could estimate what a player's stats might have been had they played for a different team or a different era (adjustments for run support, bullpen ERA, park effects, and league scoring by year?). I'd love to know what Bob Friend's W-L might have been had he pitched for the Yankees instead of the Pirates from 1951-66.

  2. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 11:46 am

    There are stats like:

    Neutral Losses [NL]

    It is a projection for how many losses a pitcher would have if he was given average run support, considering the amount of actual decisions.

    Neutral Wins [NW]

    It is a projection for how many wins a pitcher would have if he was given average run support, considering the amount of actual decisions.

  3. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am

    And, at B-R.com, on each pitcher's page, there are Neutralized Pitching stats that you can adjust such as

    Change to: Default / 750 Runs / 1968 Dodgers / 2000 Rockies or Year (R/G) [pick a year]

  4. John Williams Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    This is like the kevin costner or bruce willis list. Lots of movies without much box office. Never an Oscar acting, but never the worst thing in the movie. A hit one a decade, but a movie every year.

  5. Thomas Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    hahahahhaha

    I read the intro and I said to myself, I wonder if Steve Trachsel started enough games to make this list... and there at #18...

  6. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Nice summary John Williams

  7. eorns Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    The neutral W-L sounds more like what I was thinking of, though it only uses average run support. It would be great if you could feed in a particular team/level of support to that. I'm aware of the Neutralized Pitching stats, but they're only for an entire career as if it were all pitched in one season. I want to see Bob Friend as if his 1951 season was on the 1951 Yankees, his 1952 on the 1952 Yankees, etc., not his entire career as if he was on the 1951 Yankees, say.

  8. JDV Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I couldn't help but notice that Bannister (1), Moore (1), Witt (3), and Morgan (4) were all among the top four overall picks in their respective drafts. Could they have remained in rotations based more on their "can't miss" labels than on their performances?

  9. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Good point JDV

  10. DoubleDiamond Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    And Tom Zachary would have done even worse without that 12-0 year with the Yankees that is still the record for most wins in a season without a loss.

    Some of these guys were the long-time so-called ace for poor teams.

  11. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 12th, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    FWIW, FYI, more on neutral stats:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/equiv_stats.shtml

  12. Kahuna Tuna Says:
    April 13th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Another way to rank these pitchers is by number of percentage points above or below the winning percentage of the teams that they played for. That ranking looks like this:

    1. Frank Tanana: .504 indiv. minus .472 team = +.032
    2. Javier Vazquez: .504 indiv. minus .488 team = +.016
    3. Bobo Newsom: .487 indiv. minus .473 team = +.014
    4. Claude Osteen: .501 indiv. minus .492 team = +.009
    5. Bob Friend: .461 indiv. minus .453 team = +.008
    6. Jeff Suppan: .500 indiv. minus .494 team = +.006
    7. Jack Powell: .463 indiv. minus .459 team = +.004*
    8. Floyd Bannister: .484 indiv. minus .481 team = +.003
    9. Tom Zachary: .493 indiv. and team; zero difference
    10. Tom Candiotti: .479 indiv. minus .481 team = -.002
    11. Danny Darwin: .484 indiv. minus .487 team = -.003
    12. Steve Trachsel: .474 indiv. minus .477 team = -.003
    13. Steve Renko: .479 indiv. minus .482 team = -.003
    14. Charlie Hough: .500 indiv. minus .506 team = -.006
    15. Jim Slaton: .489 indiv. minus .497 team = -.008
    16. Mike Moore: .478 indiv. minus .490 team = -.012
    17. Bobby Witt: .475 indiv. minus .494 team = -.019
    18. Bob Knepper: .485 indiv. minus .507 team = -.022
    19. Jim Clancy: .456 indiv. minus .485 team = -.029
    20. Kevin Gross: .473 indiv. minus .503 team = -.030
    21. Rudy May: .494 indiv. minus .525 team = -.031
    22. Bump Hadley: .494 indiv. minus .538 team = -.044
    23. Mike Morgan: .431 indiv. minus .497 team = -.066

    * The list covers only the years 1901-1912 of Powell's career. If the first four seasons of his career (1897-1900) are included, Powell winds up tied for second with Vazquez: .491 indiv. minus .475 team = +.016.

  13. Steve Lombardi Says:
    April 14th, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Some nice and appreciated follow-up on this topic:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/4/12/1417671/their-winning-percentages-were

«
»