11 wins in team’s first 56 games (Or, why Ubaldo Jimenez might be a lock for the NL Cy Young award)
Posted by Andy on June 10, 2010
Check out the only 8 pitchers in the last 30 years to get 11 wins in his team's first 56 games.
| Rk | Player | Year | #Matching | W | L | GS | CG | SHO | SV | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | John Smoltz | 1996 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.76 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 82.0 | 47 | 16 | 5 | 18 | 91 | 0.79 |
| 2 | Jack Morris | 1984 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.77 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 91.1 | 58 | 18 | 3 | 30 | 61 | 0.96 |
| 3 | Pedro Martinez | 1999 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.85 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 82.2 | 64 | 17 | 3 | 17 | 123 | 0.98 |
| 4 | Ubaldo Jimenez | 2010 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 0.90 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 50 | 8 | 2 | 25 | 73 | 0.93 | |
| 5 | Andy Hawkins | 1985 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 2.58 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 76.2 | 76 | 22 | 8 | 16 | 30 | 1.20 |
| 6 | Roger Clemens | 1997 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.18 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 83.2 | 53 | 11 | 2 | 24 | 86 | 0.92 |
| 7 | Kevin Appier | 1995 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.25 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 79.1 | 48 | 11 | 1 | 27 | 81 | 0.95 |
| 8 | Joaquin Andujar | 1985 | 11 | Ind. Games | 11 | 0 | 1.000 | 2.08 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 86.1 | 75 | 20 | 4 | 14 | 31 | 1.03 |
Note that Jimenez has a much lower ERA than everybody else on the list.
Here is how each of these guys did in the Cy Young voting:
- In 1996 John Smoltz won the NL Cy Young.
- In 1984 Jack Morris finished tied for 7th in the AL Cy Young, losing to teammate Willie Hernandez. Morris did however win 3 playoff games and a World Series title that year.
- In 1999 Pedro Martinez won the AL Cy Young.
- In 1985 Andy Hawkins cooled off and did not receive any Cy Young votes. Somehow he didn't even make the All-Star team.
- In 1997 Roger Clemens won the AL Cy Young.
- In 1995 Kevin Appier cooled off and did not receive any Cy Young votes but did at least make the All-Star team.
- In 1985, Joaquin Andujar finished 4th in the NL Cy Young voting while winning 21 games.
So of the 7 guys to do this before Jimenez, 3 won their league's Cy Young award, 2 more got at least a vote, and the last 2 two did not. That's decent odds for Jimenez.
Jimenez is scheduled to make his next start in the Rockies' 60th game of the year. Of the guys above, only Smoltz and Andujar went on to win their 12th game in their team's 60th games.
June 10th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Hawkins' peripherals were kind of a tip-off that 11-0 was a partial mirage... 2.56 BB/9, 1.20 WHIP, reliably average. The rest of the year those numbers rose to 3.01 BB/9 and (not surprisingly) 1.41 WHIP. He went 7-8. But he also threw his only 2 shutouts, and pitched seven or more innings two other times without allowing a run (7/19 and 7/27). He also threw a complete-game loss, a loss where he pitched into the ninth (lost 3-2), and three different losses allowing only 1 run in seven or more innings. (Two of those were back-to-back starts in September - 15 innings pitched, two runs on 12 hits with NO walks.)
It looks like Andy's run support just evaporated after his hot start. He got 2 runs in his second start (and won), and the other 11 starts, got a minimum of 4. He got 5 three times, 6 three times, and 7, 8, and 12 once each. After that, in 21 starts, he got 0, 1, 2, or 3 a total of eleven times - better than half. Overall the Padres gave him 74 runs in his first 13 starts (11-0) and only 75 in the last 20 (7-8).
June 10th, 2010 at 8:52 am
OH - forgot the link to the game logs. Sorry. And give back the man's no-hitter!
June 10th, 2010 at 10:04 am
these stats appear to just be in the players wins... Jimenez is actually 11-1 with a 0.93 ERA... at least according to his player page. Obviously, it's not that much of a difference, but still....
June 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
That's correct--the way the game finder works in the PI, it sums stats for the games that match the criteria. In most cases, it's very helpful (for example if you want to compare how productive players are in games in which they did NOT hit a homer) but in this case it's not terribly meaningful, except to show how much better Jimenez has been in his wins.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Excellent point Nightfly on Hawkins 1985 season, it was kind of a mirage. It was a 113era+ season with a 3.6 WAR, it was a decent season, but those 18 wins and a Jack Murphy helped ERA, made it seem much better than it actually was. And because he pitched most of his career in a great pitcher's park (San Diego), he was able to cover-up how terrible he really was most of the time.
Actually Hawkins was one of the worst pitchers in major league history. There are only 6 pitchers with 1400+ innings pitched and less than 2.5 WAR and Hawkins was one of them.
Also, never underestimate how baseball teams overvalue short post season samples like his 12 innings pitched with a 0.75 ERA in the 1984 WS.
Somehow he was able to parlay those 18wins in 1985 and the 0.75-WS-ERA into a 10 year career. Part of the reason the Yankees were so bad during the late 80's early 90's is because they gave Hawkins a huge (for that time period) 4-5 million dollar 3 year contract. And he rewarded them with a negative (-3.1)WAR, 76ERA+
****
Jimenez' season is even more impressive when you consider he's pitching in Coors field!!! Those ERA numbers don't even tell the whole story. He has a 483ERA+ at the moment which is just insane. To put it in context, Pedro's 2000 is the best era+ since 1901 with a 291+. Bob Gibson's 1968 was a 258+.
June 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I saw that 483 ERA+ number this morning and it blew my mind... has anyone every gotten that high up? I mean, even in a non qualifying number of innings? Although, I'm not really sure how that works out... what would a guy's ERA+ be if he pitched one inning and gave up 0 runs? infinity or what?
June 10th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
"Actually Hawkins was one of the worst pitchers in major league history. There are only 6 pitchers with 1400+ innings pitched and less than 2.5 WAR and Hawkins was one of them. "
And there are thousands of pitchers with fewer than 1400 IP. They were all better than Hawkins too?
Keep in mind park factors are not updated (I'm pretty sure), so ERA+ and OPS+ are not necessarily accurate right now. Regardless, Jimenez's is obviously great.
Thomas, yes, if you give up 0 runs your ERA+ is undefined.
June 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Thomas when you posted your question I happened to be looking at Vicente Palacios' page:
Generated 6/10/2010.
In 1990 he had quite a few IP but did not allow an earned run. As you can see, his ERA+ is undefined. Coincidentally, so is his W-L%. I mean, it's no surprise that he didn't have any losses since he didn't allow any runs, but if he'd had even just 1 win, then it wouldn't be undefined.
June 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Twisto,
I should amend that saying that Hawkins is one of the worst pitchers to have a fairly long career. Normally pitchers who pitch as poorly as he did, aren't able to amass 1400+ innings in the big leagues. Jack Murphy Stadium covered up a lot of his shortcomings and like Nightfly brought up, he had excellent run support in '85, he also had great run support in '84,'83,'82. And I guess the Yankees felt obligated to give him 60 starts because they paid him a lot of money. He actually had 1558 innings pitched in the majors and that ratio of 2.2WAR:1558 innings pitched is pretty terrible.
So he was more lucky than good.
June 10th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Thomas, the best single-season ERA+ I am aware of is Eckersley's 610 in 1990 (73 innings pitched).
June 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I was unaware of that Eckersley season.. I was still young at that point, but my god, those numbers are crazy! I liked the fack that Eck gave up more base runners that year then he did the previous! And had an intentional walk! Wow...
June 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Does anyone here remember Andy Hawkins' no-hit loss?
How many have there been?
June 10th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Duke, you need to read the back catalog of posts on this blog. We talked about those numerous times, mostly a long while back.
I find it helpful to use advanced Google searching to find old posts on this blog.
go to Google.com and put this in:
andy hawkins matt young site:baseball-reference.com/blog
and you'll find previous posts we've made about this topic.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Perhaps most impressive about Hawkins 1985 season was that he had 10 wins in his first 10 starts.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Its pretty funny that Andy Hawkins and how bad he was gets the most chatter on a great subject such as "11 wins in a teams first 56 games."
I think having a terrible ten year career is more interesting and harder to accomplish then having an excellent 20 year career. Go figure. You have to be just good enough, or have the appearance of being good enough, to hold a job, but terrible enough to not make it 6 innings in 15 starts out of 27 in 1990. He walked more than he struck out as well, but some how pitched the aforementioned no-hitter, another start of 11.2 inning, and a 3 hit shutout in 1990. He was also lifted twice that year after recording only 1 out, how many guys can claim that distinction; 2 starts-2 outs.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I just looked it up.
Tex Carleton had 5 starts of no more than 1 out in 1938.
Jim Perry had 4 in 1973
37 guys have done it 3 times in a season, most recently Scott Scudder in 1992.
More than 200 guys, including Hawkins, did it twice in a season.
I don't think Hawkins was as bad as you folks seem to think.
June 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
The highest ERA+ on any player page (regardless of innings pitched) is Joba Chamberlain's 2007 season where his 0.38 ERA was good enough for a whopping 1221 ERA+. He, however, only pitched 24 IP
June 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Thomas when you posted your question I happened to be looking at Vicente Palacios' page:
LOLOL... who just happens to be looking at Vicente Palacios' player page? Vicente Palacios is probably never happening to look at his player page. I love BR.com.
@John Q - actually, Hawkins had excellent run support during his run, and below-average after. He pitched some great losses because his guys stopped hitting behind him. With better support he may well have won 20-22 games that year, and gotten some CY consideration (not much because his SO numbers were piffle, and sportswriters did punchouts).
@Duke - heheheh, I mentioned Hawkins' no-hit loss IN THIS THREAD. Even linked the boxscore.
June 10th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I was looking at it because somebody misspelled Vicente Padilla's name in another thread, and that reminded me of how I once misspelled Vicente Palacios' name. It also reminded me of his perfect season (which was also the point of the other thread in question, my post entitled "One thousand".) So that's why I was looking at Palacios' page.
June 10th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I don't think we can mention how hard it is to have a terrible 10 year career in any thread without mentioning the king himself, Adam Eaton
June 10th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Nightfly,
Valid points on '85 Hawkins. I went back and checked and '85 ranks 6th in Hawkins career as far as R/Game. He still managed to get 4.6 r/g overall which was pretty damn good for a pitcher in the mid 80's at Jack Murphy.
The N.L. was averaging about 4.2 runs/per game during the mid 80's and Hawkins seems like he got really good run support during that time period.
1984-5.1 runs/per game
1982-5.0 runs/per game
1987-5.0 runs/per game
1991-4.9 runs/per game
1986-4.7 runs/per game
I don't think baseball reference lists run support/per game leaders but it would be interesting to see.
Andy Hawkins got me thinking about a "Reverse Hawkins" season which would be something like Jon Matlack in 1974, when he had a 2.41 ERA and actually had a Losing season at 13-15. The Mets' defense was kind of crappy and they only gave him 3.2 runs per game in support.
Matlack had a 8.6WAR in 1974 which made him the WAR leader among pitchers in 1974 yet he didn't receive a single Cy Young Award Vote. I think he and Gibson in 1969 are the only pitcher to lead all pitchers in a season in WAR since two awards were given out in 1967, and then not get a single Cy Young vote. I think Early Winn, Don Cardwell, Hoyt Wilhelm, Frank Sullivan, and Turk Farrell all accomplished the same thing from 1956-1962, (Leading the league in Pitching WAR and not getting a single Cy Young vote).
June 10th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I don't think WAR had any meaning back in 1974. I also think that having a 2.41 ERA meant a lot less in 1974 than it does today.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Looking at run support when the pitcher was actually in the game, Hawkins ranked 16th of 50 NL qualifiers (at least 20 starts) in '85.
'84: 15th of 51
'86: 23rd of 48
'87: 40th of 51 (weird, he was 8th in run support per game pitched -- the 5.0 cited by John Q, but apparently most of that scoring would come after Hawkins left the game)
'88: 39th of 48
These are not park-adjusted of course.
***
Don't forget there was only one CYA through 1966, and only 1 vote (no 2nd or 3rd place votes) through '69, which will partially explain some of those seasons not getting recognized.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Jim, no one had of of WAR in '74, but it's just an attempt to measure performance. No one counted RBI or ERA in 1900. Matlack's ERA was 3rd in the league that year.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
JT, I was making the case that WAR had no definition back in 1974 but thank you for repeating my statement anyways.
Jair Jurrigens had the 3rd best ERA in the NL last year (2.61) and failed to receive any Cy Young Votes. Also for comparision, Jurrigens ERA+ last year was 153; Matlack's '73 ERA+ was 149.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
What I inferred from your comment was that one should not use WAR as a measure of value for seasons before the stat was invented. If that is not what you meant, please help me understand.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Even the guys from Family Circus are smacking their heads at your comment JT.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Obviously, WAR cannot be used to hold the voters accountable for their votes in the years before it was invented. Matlack lead the league in 1974 in WAR but no one had heard of it, so they were unable to use that particular stat in their voting deliberations. Therefore, it is more understandable why Matlack recieved not a single Cy Young Award vote.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
John Q simply pointed out that he had a great season but received no votes. One would not need WAR to know that. Everyone at the time would be aware that he pitched a lot of IP, gave up few runs, and the Mets didn't hit or field well. Fans have taken all of that into account in assessing pitchers for a long time. WAR does it more systematically, but it's not providing new information that no one could conceive of in 1974.
June 10th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Andy Hawkins pitched 1558 innings with an ERA+ of 87. Here, in no particular order, are some guys who pitched more innings, with a lower ERA+ (and thus may have done more harm to their teams over their careers than Hawkins): Harry McIntire, 1905-13, 1650 IP, 83 ERA+; Jose Lima, 1994-2006, 1567, 85; Bill Hart, 1886-1901, 1582, 86; Kid Carsey, 1891-1901, 2233, 85; Herm Wehmeier, 1945-58, 1803, 84.
June 10th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
J. Twisto,
I think the problem is that no one acknowledges Matlack's 1974 season as even a good season let alone a great one. His '74 season is a great example why judging a pitcher by his W-L record isn't very good. If memory serves I think Koosman had a 2.80 ERA in '73 and had a losing record.
Gerry,
That's a good list. Jose Lima is another pitcher that you just have to scratch your head and wonder how he pitched so long in the Majors. Blue Moon Odom pitched 1500+innings and had an ERA+89. Glendon Ruscsh is another guy you look at and wonder how he stayed in the majors so long, 1400+innings ERA88+
Here's a list of pitchers with less than (4)-WAR and 1400+ innings
Kaiser Wilhelm-(-2.7)
Blue Moon Odom-(-0.2)
Mike Lacoss-.5
Henry Mcintire-.9
Julian Tavarez-.9
Andy Hawkins-2.2
Joe Bowman-2.7
Herm Wehmeier-2.7
Tony Cloninger-2.9
Jose Lima-3.2
Glendon Rush-3.2
Jason Marquis-3.4
TOM GRIFFIN-3.5
Joe Eschger-3.7
June 10th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Jason Marquis wouldn't have made this list if he didn't have a 20.52 ERA in 8 innings pitched for 2010. He has a negative (-1.6)WAR this year.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
"Andy Hawkins got me thinking about a "Reverse Hawkins" season which would be something like Jon Matlack in 1974, when he had a 2.41 ERA and actually had a Losing season at 13-15. The Mets' defense was kind of crappy and they only gave him 3.2 runs per game in support."
To your comment above, John Q, the first name that came to mind as having a "Reverse Hawkins" season was Nolan Ryan. In 1987, he led the NL in K's (270), ERA (2.76), ERA+ (142), H/9 (6.5), K/9 (11.5), K/BB (3.10)...and yet he only had an 8-16 record for the Astros. I always remember being amazed by that season as a kid!
Ryan did finish tied for 5th in the Cy Young voting (I wonder if that was the worst W/L record for a Top 5 Cy Young finish?)
June 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
John Q, I wasn't around at the time, but I doubt no one recognized Matlack had a good season. Obviously the CYA voters put too much emphasis on W-L record, but he was 3rd in the NL in ERA and had 7 SHO. And outpitched teammates Seaver and Koosman. I'd bet most people realized he was a good pitcher.
Dave V., I'm not gonna check, but I'm almost 100% sure it's the worst W-L record for any starting pitcher.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Johnny Twisto - I'm thinking its gotta be as well...
I was just looking at the game logs for Ryan in 1987.
He had 10 ND's that season:
--8 IP/0 runs
--6 IP/2 runs
--7 IP/3 runs (2 ER)
--6 IP/2 runs
--7 IP/3 runs (2 ER)
--6 IP/1 run
--6.1 IP/4 runs (3 ER)
--5.1 IP/1 run
--9 IP/1 run
--6 IP/3 runs
And of the 16 L's:
--6 IP/3 runs
--4.2 IP/1 run
--6 IP/2 runs
--6.2 IP/3 runs
--2 IP/5 runs
--5 IP/3 runs
--6 IP/4 runs (3 ER)
--5 IP/8 runs(6 ER)
--7 IP/2 runs
--7 IP/1 run
--5.1 IP/4 runs (1 ER) **at this point of the season, on July 29, he was 4-13**
--6 IP/2 runs
--7 IP/4 runs
--7 IP/2 runs
(so all in all, he had 17 quality starts that season that he either had a L or ND in...that's rough)
June 10th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Ryan led the league with 8 tough losses (game score > 50), and had 0 cheap wins
Tied for 2nd with lost wins (potential wins lost by the bullpen) with 5
Had the 2nd worst run support per game, and 5th worst run support while still in the game.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Oops, actually B-R assigns tough losses and cheap wins based on whether it was a quality start or not. I think the old Bill James accounting was by game scores over or under 50. Probably pretty similar results overall.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Dave V,
Good one on Nolan Ryan. '87 was a weird year with that "rabbit ball" they used and it was kind of a down year for pitchers, Gooden missed a month with his drug suspension, Tim Raines probably lost the MVP award because he missed a month because of collusion. Hershiser probably should have won the Cy Young but he had a 16-16 record yet came in third in the ERA. Anyone was better than Steve Bedrosian. And really if you really look at Hershiser should have probably won in '89 as well.
Johnny Twisto,
I was 8 years old in'74 and it was the first year I started following baseball. I didn't really understand things like Cy Young awards and pitcher's stats back then. Matlack was very a very popular player among the kids back then. I don't remember anybody back then saying he had a good year or even a great one. I don't think I've ever seen anybody outside of the Saber-metric circles refer to this as a good season because they can't look past the W-L record.
It's funny in retrospect but Tom Seaver wasn't that popular among Mets' fans back then. People acknowledged that he was great and they liked that he pitched for the Mets but honestly I remember most Mets' fans thinking he was a pompous Ass. Now in retrospect everybody fawns over Seaver.
Back then pretty much all that mattered was Wins or W-l%, Srikeouts and ERA was nice but they were seen as secondary stuff, window dressing. Stuff like Whip/k-9/BB/k didn't really exist or didn't exist in the mainstream. Someone like Pete Vukovich would win the Cy Young in 1982 and I remember everyone agreeing on it. And if a pitcher didn't have enough wins they would give it to a relief pitcher.
I remember I bought the Palmer "Total Baseball" book in 1991 and that really changed my perception on things. I can remember looking at the '74 Matlack ERA and then the W-L record and thinking to myself, "Wait this doesn't make sense".
Putting a lot of emphasis on W-L record still went on in the 90's and to this day. How did Kevin Brown not win the Cy Young in '96 & '98??
June 11th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Arthur Rhodes currently has an ERA+ of 1193... And at age 40!
June 11th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Okay, I'm going a bit off subject here, but following along with that last Kevin Brown statement... In looking at '98 can someone explain to me why Glavine has such a lower WAR then Brown? I guess I'm just trying to find out where the drastic difference is to account for the 2.8 difference. Or how Brown that year was as good as one and a half Glavines.... I mean, Brown was better, no question, but not by huge amounts...
June 11th, 2010 at 2:34 am
RichardKC check Arthur out tomorrow he threw another 1 2/3 innings of shut out on Thursday so his ERA+ should be over 1200 now. He has the highest ERA+ right now of all time for a season with at least 25 innings pitched in a season.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Thomas, it looks like it's almost all due to the defensive support. The Braves apparently had the best defense in the league (only Maddux received more defensive support in the league, according to WAR), and Brown got the least defensive help in the league. So the assumption is that Brown must have pitched much better if their basic stats are similar.
Of course, defense is hard to measure, and separating it entirely from pitching is even harder, so if you don't buy WAR/TotalZone's conclusions in that regard, then the pitching WAR totals won't make sense.
June 11th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Thomas,
The Braves basically had two Center-fielders in 1998. Andruw Jones was just a phenomenal defensively, and was at the top of his game in 1998. and they had Gerald Williams playing right field who was at the peak of his game defensively. Walt Weiss provided good defense at short, Lockheart was above average at second. And it seems like it was one of the rare seasons where Ryan Klesco and Chipper Jones didn't totally suck on defense.
The Padres had Tony Gwynn in Right who was shot as defensive outfielder by 1993, he never should have still been in the OF. They should have made him a 1b in the mid 90's. Greg Vaughn was about average in left. All the steroids Caminitti took seem to have hurt his defense. And Steve Finley defense in center seemed to have taken a downward turn right around the time of his rumored steroid use in 1995-1996.
Johnny Twisto,
Where did you find those league leading Runs per game numbers? on the play index?
June 11th, 2010 at 10:11 am
John Q, do you mean the run support stats I cited in #23? Look here for RS/GS and RS/IP:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1985-starter-pitching.shtml
June 11th, 2010 at 10:21 am
John Q - most of the pitchers on your list (#31) had at least one successful season, and usually early on, which probably led a lot of people to conclude that they were going to be the ones to reclaim a talented pitcher, and turn a career around. That holds a lot of sway over people - being THE ONE who saw true greatness where no-one else could, and events proving them right. Of course, a lot of these successes weren't necessarily from good pitching.
Here's your list again, with those seasons added:
Kaiser Wilhelm (-2.7) - 1908 (Bkn) 16-22, 1.87 ERA (124 ERA+), 1.051 WHIP, 33 CG, 6 SO*
Blue Moon Odom (-0.2) - age 23-24 '68-'69 (Oak) combined 31-16, 2.68 ERA (117 ERA+), 1.228 WHIP, 19 CG, 7 SHO; made his only two AS teams... but also iffy peripherals (4.1 BB/9 and 1.40 K/BB)
Mike Lacoss (0.5) - age 23 '79 (Cin) 14-8, 3.50 ERA (108 ERA+) 6 CG, 1 SHO, only AS game... again, lousy peripherals (more BB than K, for example, and a 1.366 WHIP)
Harry Mcintire (0.9) - a teammate of Wilhelm's... and here, I got nothing. Never had a league-average ERA, went 46-98 for the dreadful Superbas from '05-'09; was even below the team's general standard of the time.
Julian Tavarez (0.9) - age 22 '95 (Clv) 10-2, 2.44 ERA (193 ERA+) in 85 relief innings. Good peripherals: 7.2 K/9, 3.24 K/BB, 1.14 WHIP. The baseball equivalent of "Suitcase" Mike Sillinger - eleven teams have pitched him since he finished sixth in the RoY vote in '95. Save for some abortive and ill-advised attempts to make him a starter, has generally pitched well, at least until 2006.
Andy Hawkins (2.2) - age 23 '83 (SD) 5-7, 2.93 ERA (122 ERA+), 4 CG, 1 SHO in 19 starts. We've also seen 1985.
Joe Bowman (2.7) - age 24-25 in '34 (NYG) and '35 (Pit) had above-average ERA despite a bevy of baserunners. He stopped stranding them before too long.
Herm Wehmeier (2.7) - age 24 '51 (Cin) - his first effective year (110 ERA+, 10 CG, 2 SHO) and one of the few times he managed more K than BB.
Tony Cloninger (2.9) - age 23-24 '64-'65 (Mil) - 43-25 combined, decent strikeout numbers, one good year of WHIP and one of ERA (not the same ones!). Never got that high again.
Jose Lima (3.2) - age 25-26 '98-'99 (Hou) - Lima Time! 37-18, 3.64 ERA (118 ERA+), good peripherals (6.7 k/9, 4.7 k/bb, 1.170 WHIP), and a constant party. Bless his heart.
Glendon Rush (3.2) - age 25 2000 (NYN) - the Mets got a 111 ERA+, 7.4 K/9, 3.57 k/bb out of him. The next year the peripherals improved, but the ERA dove, and they sent him to Milwaukee just in time.
Jason Marquis (3.4) - age 22 2001 (Atl) - posted a 128 ERA+ in a variety of roles, and has been successful more often than not; as noted above his 2010 has been horrible.
TOM GRIFFIN (3.5) - age 21 '69 (Hou) - 11-10, 3.54 ERA... only league average, but 6 CG, 3 SO, and 200 K in just 188.1 IP gave the Astros hope. Went 12-29 the next four years and only briefly managed to recapture his rookie promise.
Joe Eschger (3.7) - ??? Did you mean Joey Eischen? He only had 2.1 WAR, though. Little-used reliever broke through at age 32 in Montreal, 2002, ended his career with fewer than 300 big-league innings.
* an oddity; Wilhelm debuted at age 29. In '08 he was 34 and had been OOB for two years, so it was only his fourth season. By far his best.
So there it is. Most of these guys had their one or two decent-to-good years, and a great majority of those were from ages 21-26.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:57 am
That's it Johnny Twisto Thanks!!
I was trying to show on another Blog how Catfish Hunter is very overrated. Not only did he play on good offensive teams with good defenses, he played mostly in a pitcher's park and seemed to get tremendous run support. I think his '73 season is one of the weakest or luckiest 20+ win seasons in the last 40 years.
Nightfly,
You're exactly right, great analysis. They usually had that one good year and then they were on very good teams or pitched in pitcher's parks which tended to mask their short-comings or they were just on bad teams that had to fill a void.
That 1400innings+ thing came about because I was reading about Tom Griffin. He basically had a very good year as far as K's are concerned in his rookie year (200 k's and I think he lead the league in k/9) and then did little to nothing else his entire career and ended up pitching for 14 years!! He played in the Astrodome in the 70's so that covered up some of his failures plus he pitched on some bad teams that probably just needed to fill a spot.
I screwed up the guy at the end, it's supposed to be Joe Oeschger who pitched for the Phillies and Dodgers during the teens-20's.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Nightfly,
Mike Lacoss is like a posterboy for your analysis. He had some success early in his career in '79. Then he played on some good teams in pitcher's parks (80's Astros, late 80's Giants) and playing in those environments tended to mask how terrible he was really pitching.
It's interesting, if he had been pitching in a pitcher's park like Wrigley or Fenway or just on a bad 80's team like the Indians or the Mariners he probably would have been out of baseball by 1982 or 1983.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Jon Q - Oeschger! LOL, no wonder I couldn't find him under "E"! And true story, I had a couple of Mike LaCoss Topps cards in my youth... He was part of a euphonious group: LaCoss, LaMarr Hoyt, Dave Lemanczyk, John LeMasters, Ron LeFlore. Those were the days.
Thanks for your kind words, but you did the actual look-ups. I just followed along and mined a little for details. That's the beauty of a forum like this, how people can build on things and generate results that an individual wouldn't have time for. I'm glad to chip in!
June 11th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Andy Hawkins had a circulation problem in his finger in 1985, which is why he missed the All-Star game.
It affected his performance the 2nd half of 1985.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
[...] your mind. Now how if I mention Andy Hawkins? You won't find his name on a list of no-hitters, but people always want to talk about a certain game he [...]
June 14th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
@38 John Q - Thanks and good points about Hershiser in 1987 and 1989.
I agree with the points you make in your post, about Win/Loss record and Win % being overemphasized throughout baseball history as well. With that said, I've always been shocked at how unlucky Tim Hudson has been in his career in terms of Wins. Now that may seem strange, since Hudson is currently 19th all time in Win % at .6581% (and 3rd amongst active players). But I always felt like when he was with the A's, he pitched an inordinate amount of games where he pitched very well and didn't get a Win. Now his career marks with the A's were 92-30 for a .702%, which is outstanding. But how good could his numbers have been with them? I checked the game logs for his A's career and found the following quality starts from 1999--2004 in which Hudson didn't end up with a win (along with notes on blown saves for Hudson in those games):
1999 (21 starts in his rookie year):
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
--6.2 IP/3 runs/1 ER (ND & blown save)
**Hudson also had 1 Win that wasn't a quality start (5 IP/3 runs)**
2000
--6.1 IP/1 run (ND)
**Hudson also had 4 Wins that weren't quality starts (7 IP/6 runs, 8 IP/5 runs, 5 IP/3 runs, 6 IP/4 runs)**
Okay, so it doesn't seem too bad for Hudson to start his career but then we get to 2001...
2001
--9 IP/2 runs (ND)
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
--6.2 IP/3 runs (ND)
--6 IP/2 runs/1 ER (L)
--9 IP/2 runs (L)
--8 IP/0 runs (ND)
--6 IP/2 runs (ND)
--8 IP/3 runs (ND)
**Hudson also had 2 Wins that weren't quality starts (5.2 IP/3 runs, 6 IP/4 runs)**
2002
--6.1 IP/1 run (ND & blown save)
--9 IP/2 runs (L & blown save)
--6 IP/1 run (ND)
--6.1 IP/2 runs (ND)
--7 IP/1 run (ND & blown save)
--7 IP/1 run (ND)
--7 IP/0 runs (ND & blown save)
--7 IP/1 run (ND & blown save)
**0 cheap wins**
2003
--7.2 IP/3 runs (ND & blown save)
--7 IP/3 runs (ND)
--8 IP/1 run (ND & blown save)
--7 IP/3 runs/2 ER (ND)
--8 IP/2 runs (ND & blown save)
--8 IP/1 run (ND)
--6.2 IP/1 run (ND & blown save)
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
--7.2 IP/3 runs (L)
**0 cheap wins**
2004
--9 IP/2 runs (ND)
--8 IP/2 runs (ND & blown save)
--7.1 IP/2 runs (ND & blown save)
--8 IP/4 runs (ND & blown save; not technically a quality start but still...)
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
--7 IP/2 runs (ND)
**Hudson also had 2 Wins that weren't quality starts (7 IP/4 runs & 8 IP/4 runs so that game kind of cancels out the other 8 IP/4 run game in 2004)**
That seems like a really high amount of games in this era not to get a Win in for how well Hudson pitched. I know Zack Greinke has had really bad luck the last couple years but I don't really see it mentioned how bad Hudson's luck often was when he was with the A's. He had 35 games in 6 years (and 31 games in 4 years) that he was unlucky enough not to win. Only 9 cheap wins in that timeframe (and they were never terrible games). That seems really excessive. If he could have gotten more support (from his offense & bullpen), people might look at Hudson with a different eye, since so many people are so focused on Wins/Losses and Win %.
As an added FYI, Hudson didn't get any Cy Young votes in 2002. Zito won the award that year (and had a 6.5 WAR), Pedro finished in 2nd place (and had a 5.7 WAR). Derek Lowe finished in 3rd place (6.4 WAR). Jarrod Washburn finished in 4th place (4.3 WAR). Hudson had a 6.6 WAR that year. I remember being amazed at how little credit he got in 2002 and a lot of that has to do with W/L record...
I wonder how many other recent pitchers have had as many tough losses & no-decisions as Hudson did in 2001-2004?
June 15th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
It's hard for me to believe Hudson was too unlucky, considering how good his W% was. Every pitcher has some good games which don't garner wins, did Hudson have more than most?
By your count Hudson had 30 QS in those 4 seasons in which he did not earn a win (I'll assume you're correct). That does seem like a lot. That's 33% of his QS. Over those 4 seasons in the AL, 42% of QS did not earn wins. So by that measure, Hudson was not unlucky at all. He just had a lot more good starts than most pitchers, so more of them didn't earn wins.
He had 4 cheap wins in those seasons, 10.3% of his non-quality starts, and 5 tough losses, 5.5% of his quality starts. Leaguewide, 15.8% of non-QS starts resulted in cheap wins, and 16.0% of QS resulted in losses. So Hudson had less than expected of each.
After being pulled, Hudson had 15 potential wins blown by his bullpen, 24.6% of his actual wins, and 12 potential losses saved by his offense, 38.7% of his actual losses. (You can quibble with the denominators I chose, but I feel like these are the best to represent his performance.) Leaguewide, "lost wins" equaled 23.3% of starter wins, and "saved losses" equaled 32.6% of all starter losses.
Overall, I don't think Hudson was too unlucky.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Johnny Twisto -
I did some research comparing Hudson to other top starters from 2001-2004. Hudson does come up as pretty unlucky compared to others from my analysis (perhaps the most unlucky):
(as a quick FYI, I found Hudson actually had 34 QS's from 2001-2004 (not 30 as I originally listed, as I missed 4 games in my prior post)
**2001-2004**
A B C D E F G H I J
R.Johnson 122 96 78.68% 67 54.91% 23.77% 36 29.50% 7 5.73%
Schilling 126 92 73.01% 74 58.73% 14.28% 22 17.46% 4 3.17%
T.Hudson 130 91 70.00% 61 46.92% 23.08% 34 26.15% 4 3.07%
Zito 139 90 64.74% 65 46.76% 17.98% 34 24.46% 9 6.47%
Buehrle 136 90 66.17% 65 47.79% 18.38% 33 24.26% 8 5.88%
Maddux 137 83 60.58% 65 47.44% 13.14% 35 25.54% 17 12.40%
Clemens 128 81 63.28% 68 53.12% 10.16% 24 18.75% 11 8.59%
Glavine 136 81 59.55% 54 39.70% 19.85% 35 25.73% 8 5.88%
F.Garcia 132 80 60.60% 59 44.69% 15.91% 32 24.24% 11 8.33%
P.Martinez 110 77 70.00% 57 51.81% 18.19% 26 23.63% 6 5.45%
Vazquez 132 75 56.81% 53 40.15% 16.66% 30 22.72% 8 6.06%
Mulder 123 75 60.97% 72 58.53% 2.44% 17 13.82% 14 11.38%
Oswalt 109 75 68.80% 60 55.04% 13.76% 23 21.10% 8 7.33%
Mussina 125 74 59.20% 64 51.20% 8.00% 24 19.20% 14 11.20%
Halladay 107 73 68.22% 54 50.46% 17.76% 26 24.29% 7 6.54%
Sabathia 126 72 57.14% 54 42.85% 14.29% 30 23.80% 12 9.52%
Pettitte 101 54 53.46% 55 54.45% -1.01% 9 8.91% 10 9.90%
A = Starts
B = Quality Starts
C = Quality Start %
D = Wins (as a starter)
E = Wins per Starts %
F = Quality Start % MINUS Wins per Starts %
G = Quality Starts Not Won
H = Quality Starts Not Won % (amongst all Starts)
I = Non-Quality Starts Won
J = Non-Quality Starts Won % (amongst all Starts)
Wish I had a way of posting it so it was easier to read in one concise table!
In any case, based on how well Hudson pitched, it seems like he should have had even more wins than he did & he also had the fewest "cheap wins" of any starter he was compared to.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Ugh, that came out looking even worse than I thought...I'll try to repost tomorrow when i have the chance.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Hers is Dave V's table
A = Starts
B = Quality Starts
C = Quality Start %
D = Wins (as a starter)
E = Wins per Starts %
F = Quality Start % MINUS Wins per Starts %
G = Quality Starts Not Won
H = Quality Starts Not Won % (amongst all Starts)
I = Non-Quality Starts Won
J = Non-Quality Starts Won % (amongst all Starts)
June 21st, 2010 at 10:05 am
Thanks Raphy; I appreciate that!
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Along with the above-mentioned numbers, here are numbers to show how "quality" the aforementioned pitchers were in their 2001--2004 quality starts that they did not win:
(RAA is Runs Allowed Average: the total runs allowed by the pitcher including unearned runs)
R.Johnson: 7.10 IP - 2.36 ERA - 2.80 RAA
Schilling: 7.04 IP - 2.78 ERA - 2.84 RAA
T.Hudson: 7.27 IP - 2.22 ERA - 2.58 RAA
Zito: 6.83 IP - 1.95 ERA - 2.78 RAA
Buehrle: 7.10 IP - 2.61 ERA - 3.32 RAA
Maddux: 6.83 IP - 2.78 ERA - 3.27 RAA
Clemens: 6.84 IP - 2.15 ERA - 2.41 RAA
Glavine: 6.74 IP - 2.28 ERA - 2.78 RAA
F.Garcia: 7.22 IP - 2.60 ERA - 2.88 RAA
P.Martinez: 6.85 IP - 2.62 ERA - 2.96 RAA
Vazquez: 7.17 IP - 2.71 ERA - 2.96 RAA
Mulder: 7.64 IP - 2.49 ERA - 2.63 RAA
Oswalt: 6.70 IP - 2.74 ERA - 2.91 RAA
Mussina: 7.00 IP - 2.83 ERA - 3.26 RAA
Halladay: 6.81 IP - 2.74 ERA - 3.50 RAA
Sabathia: 6.79 IP - 2.83 ERA - 3.05 RAA
Pettitte: 7.60 IP - 2.72 ERA - 4.02 RAA
Looking at that convinces me further that Hudson was a hard-luck pitcher (even as good as he was). He had the 2nd highest percentage of quality starts not won and in those games, he pitched the 2nd highest average amount of innings in those games (behind his teammate Mulder; Pettitte technically was #1 but had so much fewer quality starts not won than everyone else that he can't be counted in the same category there). Hudson also had the 3rd best ERA at 2.22 in those games (behind teammate Zito and then Clemens). He had the 2nd best RAA at 2.58 in those games (behind Clemens).
Being that Hudson has a decent edge in IP's per game in quality starts not won over Clemens (7.27 to Clemens' 6.84) AND 9 more quality starts not won (34 to Clemens' 25), Clemens' advantage over Hudson in ERA & RAA is diminished IMO.
As for Zito having an ERA below 2 (1.95) in these types of games, note his RAA (actual runs allowed) is still higher than Hudson's. Its interesting that Hudson, Zito and Mulder all had the same teams/defenses behind them in 2001--2004 but in these games tracked, Zito gave up significantly more unearned runs than Hudson/Mulder. Hudson's average goes up .36, Mulder's goes up .14...and then Zito's goes up .83.
All in all, looking at all the stats posted, I feel that Tim Hudson was indeed a hard-luck guy and should have had an even-better record than what he ended up with. Yes, record isn't everything as mentioned before of course. But Hudson was shut out of wins quite a bit, even though he did a great job of giving up very little to the opposition and putting his team in position to win. What I noticed about Hudson when going through the game logs is that he had some really bad games, where he just didn't have it. But outside of his really bad games, he mostly was really, really good (and I think these numbers help show that).
Not sure if anyone is even reading this since this is an old thread, but the subject interested me 🙂