Roy Oswalt is getting #^$%ed
Posted by Andy on May 27, 2010
According to his neutralized pitching stats, Roy Oswalt deserves a .731 winning percentage this year, which projects to a 19-7 record for the season. Instead, he's actually 3-6 with a .333 winning percentage. He's had a whopping 2.3 runs of support per game. (I'm using "whopping" facetiously there.) That works out like this: The Astros have scored 23 runs in his 10 starts (2.3 per game) and 115 runs in their other 36 games (3.2 per game.) Even 3.2 runs per game is horrible but it beats the heck out of 2.3 runs per game.
So here Roy sits with a 178 ERA+ and twice as many losses as wins.
Nobody else has ever had a season like that in history.
The only guys who come even close are Tomo Ohka in 2000 with the Red Sox and Ned Garvin split between two teams in 1904. Ohka started 12 games and finished with an overall record of 3-6 despite an ERA+ of 163 and Garvin earned himself a 5-16 record over 24 starts despite a 159 ERA+.
The good news for Oswalt is that this means the trend is very unlikely to continue. The Astros almost certainly have to get better, and almost certainly have to trade Oswalt.
You have to go back to 2002 to find another pitcher with 6 losses in his team's first 46 games, despite not allowing more than 3 ER in any of those games. Here are all the top totals since 2000 for those criteria:
| Rk | Player | Year | #Matching | W | L | GS | CG | SHO | SV | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roy Oswalt | 2010 | 6 | Ind. Games | 0 | 6 | .000 | 3.00 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39.0 | 34 | 13 | 5 | 14 | 41 | 1.23 |
| 2 | Juan Cruz | 2002 | 6 | Ind. Games | 0 | 6 | .000 | 2.90 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31.0 | 25 | 10 | 2 | 24 | 24 | 1.58 |
| 3 | Barry Zito | 2008 | 5 | Ind. Games | 0 | 5 | .000 | 3.67 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27.0 | 33 | 11 | 4 | 16 | 16 | 1.81 |
| 4 | Jaret Wright | 2003 | 5 | Ind. Games | 0 | 5 | .000 | 13.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.2 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3.86 |
| 5 | Jason Isringhausen | 2008 | 5 | Ind. Games | 0 | 5 | .000 | 33.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.2 | 11 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 6.00 |
| 6 | Dan Haren | 2005 | 5 | Ind. Games | 0 | 5 | .000 | 3.19 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31.0 | 30 | 11 | 1 | 13 | 22 | 1.39 |
| 7 | Luis Ayala | 2004 | 5 | Ind. Games | 0 | 5 | .000 | 8.53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.1 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2.05 |
May 27th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Nobody has had a season like that? Well, Nolan Ryan's 8-16 with an ERA+ of 142 or thereabouts certainly comes close.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:50 am
This reminds me of another Astro season in 1987 by Nolan Ryan. Great ERA, no support. Ryan's wasnt quite as drastic but very similar.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Well by "like that" I mean "meeting those criteria". An ERA+ of 142 over a full season is great, for sure, but not as great as 178. But it's far more likely that Oswalt finishes 2010 at 142 than at 178.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:53 am
#1 and #2 you should should become best buds--same comment separated by just 1 minute.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Greinke's season has been similar to Oswalt's, but not as bad. Aside from his last start, his record was 1-4 with a 2.72 ERA. He got an average of 2.9 runs of support in those games.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I agree with RichardKC, Greinke was the first person i thought of when i read this post
May 27th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Before we pity Oswalt too much, remember Steve Carlton and some of his HUGE years with an otherwise terrible Phillis outfit back in the '70s. Carlton made the Phillies better; all I've seen Oswalt do lately for the team is whine to get away from it -- which, come to think of it, might be a bonafide contribution.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Wright, Isringhausen and Ayala were relievers, who are obviously far less likely to give up 3+ ER in their appearances, and whose bloated ERAs shouldn't really put them in this category. Without digging, I'd also guess that they probably allowed inherited runners to score.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Garvin gave up 37 earned runs and 48 unearned runs in his unlucky season, which helps explain the discrepancy between his ERA and his W-L record.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Whoa BunnyWrangler, where have you been! Glad to have you back.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Upon further review, none of the other pitchers on the list pitched anywhere near as well as Oswalt has. Both Zito (0-8) and Haren (1-7) had three other starts within their teams' first 46 games in which they gave up 4+ ER. Cruz also allowed 10 UER in his six losses, averaged only 5.1 IP per start, and was out of the rotation for good a week later. I think Oswalt's numbers are uniquely unfortunate.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
What's sort of impressive is poor Ned Garvin. After a full season with a 1.72 ERA he ended up in the minors in 1905 because of his record. Has anyone else ended on a note like that? (yes, I realize Koufax had a higher ERA+ in '66, I meant raw ERA, and wpct.)
May 27th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Ryan's '87 was really remarkable. He led the league in:
ERA (2.76) and ERA+ (142)
K (270) and K/9 (11.5)
K/BB (3.10)
H/9 (6.5)
QS (25) and QS% (74%)
GmScA (61)
He was also third in WHIP (1.139) and sixth in HR/9 (0.6). His fifth-place finish in WAR (5.5) seems to be due mainly to the four guys ahead of him pitching more innings than he did (Ryan's 211.2 IP were ninth most in the league). In any case, by most measures, Ryan was the best pitcher in the NL that year, and the horrible run support (3.3 R/G, lowest for any full-time starter) almost certainly cost him the Cy Young award. He led the league in "tough losses" (8) and had zero "cheap wins." He also had five potential wins blown by the bullpen, tied for second most in the league. Despite the 8-16 record, he did manage to finish tied for fifth in the CYA voting, but without receiving any first-place votes (four other starters did).
Without a doubt, that's one of the hardest-luck seasons a starting pitcher has ever had. Oswalt does have a better ERA+ so far than Ryan did, but unlike Ryan, he isn't leading the league in many stat categories, and doesn't have a claim on being the best pitcher (that would of course be Ubaldo Jimenez--though like Ubaldo, Oswalt is 10/10 in quality starts).
May 27th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
This subject should not pass without some mention of Anthony Young, who posted an ERA+ of 108 while going 1-16 for the '93 Mets. Obviously he wasn't pitching at Oswalt's or Ryan's level, but that is still an amazing lack of success relative to performance.
May 27th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Frank, not to take anything away from Steve Carlton, but (for example) in his famous '72 season in which he won 27 games for the last-place Phillies, he actually received league-average run support. Though the Phillies only scored 3.2 runs per game that year, they averaged 3.8 in Carlton's starts (the league average was 3.9). Carlton's run support was 23rd lowest out of 50 qualifying starters--so he was about in the middle of the pack. Oswalt, meanwhile, has received the second-worst run support out of 73 qualifying starters--he's gotten only 2.3 R/G, compared to a league average of 4.5.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
For a very strange season, check out Virgil Trucks, Tigers, 1952: Five wins, 18 losses, 4.02 ERA in 29 games started, 2.6 R/G in run support. Overall, 5-19, 3.97 ERA, 95 ERA+ . . . of his five victories, two were no-hitters and one was a one-hitter, and he won all three of those games by 1-0 scores. Granted, this was not nearly as good a season as Ryan's 1987 or Oswalt's 2010, but it was far from 5-19 bad. The Tigers averaged only 3.6 runs per game that season and lost 104 games.
Traded to the Browns the following off-season, Trucks won 20 games for the Browns and White Sox in 1953 and 19 for the White Sox in 1954.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Across the East River from Anthony Young, Bob Wickman was going 14-4 with a 90 ERA+ for the '93 Yanks.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
While Oswalt has been the unluckiest pitcher this season, Matt Cain deserves honorable mention. Cain is only 2-4 despite a 2.88 ERA (151 ERA+), 1.15 WHIP, 7/9 QS, and 58 GmScA. In his four losses, the Giants have scored a total of three runs.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I should've mentioned Cain's teammate Jonathan Sanchez, too. Sanchez is also only 2-4, despite a 3.00 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, and 60 GmScA (though only 4/9 QS). The Giants have totaled only one run in his four losses.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Frank, your Carlton bit is only somewhat true. The Phillies were a powerhouse team in the late seventies, including two 101 win seasons and 3 straight division titles, and at least mediocre a few years before. Carlton proved to us all that is possible to have a stellar season for a horrible team though in '72.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Michael Wolverton posted an essay to ESPN.com on 18 August 2000 on the subject of the unluckiest pitchers, going by the difference between the pitcher's record and his support-neutral record. In the post-war era, Nolan Ryan's 1987 came out 2nd unluckiest; the crown went to Turk Farrell of the 1962 Colt 45s. He was 10-20 when he "ought" to have been 18.3 and 11.7, a difference of 16.5 games; Ryan (and Jim Abbott, 1992) came out at 14.8 games.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Ned Garvin in 1904 gave up 47 unearned runs (58% of all the runs he allowed), by far the highest percentage in the National League. Before you shed too many tears for him, note that Garvin himself made nine errors and had the second lowest fielding percentage (.899) among NL pitchers who appeared in 20 or more games. Garvin's 4.01 run average and 1.206 WHIP were strictly middle of the pack among NL starters.
Brooklyn scored 58 runs in Garvin's 22 starts — 2.64 runs per game, which is bad but not that much worse than the team's season average of 3.23 runs per game.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
One other question -- how did Jack Nabors rate during his memorable {for the wrong reasons} season -- I think it was around 1920?
May 28th, 2010 at 2:11 am
The importance of run support could be summed up pretty well looking at the two "new-ish" NL teams, Rockies, Marlins; and their two respective aces, Kevin Ritz and Kevin Brown.
Colorado- Kevin Ritz - 17-11, 5.23 ERA, 99 ERA+
Florida - Kevin Brown - 17-11, 1.89 ERA, 217 ERA+
Ritz nearly had triple the run support.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
how did Jack Nabors rate during his memorable {for the wrong reasons} season -- I think it was around 1920?
In Nabors' 30 starts for the 1916 Athletics, the A's scored 77 runs (2.57 per game) and gave up 156 runs (5.20 per game). Nabors posted a decent-looking 3.47 ERA; however, since the league ERA was 2.82, Nabors' ERA+ was only 82. The A's won only three of his 30 starts, which goes a long way toward explaining his 1-20 record. Nabors led the AL in pitcher errors with 13 and was last in pitcher fielding percentage at .827. As a team, the A's committed 314 errors (more than two a game) — 66 errors more than the team with the next highest errors total. Yet Nabors' 25.4% rate of unearned runs allowed, though somewhat higher than the league average of 23.0%, was not close to the highest in the league. It was second on the A's to Tom Sheehan's 30.6%. (Sheehan went 1-16, 3.69, 78 ERA+.) Staff aces Bullet Joe Bush and Elmer Myers were very close to Nabors at 24.8% and 24.3%, respectively. Despite all the errors, the A's' team unearned-run percentage was not the worst in the AL.
Nabors' 1.415 WHIP was 48th of the 59 AL pitchers who pitched more than 50 innings. Myers was 51st, with a 1.422 WHIP. Sheehan was 57th. Bush was 22nd, with 1.228.
The thing you notice immediately about the 1916 A's pitching staff is the extreme contrast between the won-lost records of Bush and Myers (29-47) and everybody else (7-70). The run support for the two groups was exactly the same — 2.90 runs per game, half a run per game lower than the next-worst offense. (Myers received 3.20 runs per start, Bush 2.61.) B&M held the opposition to an average of less than four runs in the games they started, whereas the opposition scored an average of almost six runs in games started by all the others. Nabors' 82 ERA+ was the second-lowest on the whole staff (even better than Myers'), yet the A's lost 90% of his starts. Basically, in 1916 the A's lost if their opponent scored four or more runs. In games where opponents scored three runs or fewer, the A's had a record of 30-26. If the opponent scored four or more, the A's were 6-91 with one tie.
I'd like to give a quick nod to 23-year-old Bullet Joe Bush, who had a very good season for a miserable team. The 1916 A's were 14-19 in his starts. In those 14 wins, he allowed 13 runs, pitching eight shutouts. In the 19 Bush starts that the A's lost, they scored 32 runs (1.68 per game); they were shut out only three times, but they scored one run nine times. (Bush did have the satisfaction of twice defeating longtime Athletic pitcher and former teammate Eddie Plank, who pitched for the Browns in 1916.) It was Bush's first season with an ERA+ over 100. He would go on to be a solid major-league starter through the 1926 season, including a marvelous 1922 season in which he led the AL in winning percentage and helped get the Yankees into the World Series.