Which Staff Had the Most Wins in Their Future?
Posted by Neil Paine on October 18, 2010
Here's an interesting question sent to us by B-R reader Phil:
"I've been a Mets fan since 1967, when, as the youngest kid in my neighborhood, I needed something to differentiate myself from the older kids who grew up Yankees fans at the tail end of the dynasty. In 1969, God performed his last certified Miracle. As I've learned more about baseball over the last 40 years, I've come to wonder: did the Mets 1969 pitching staff have the best 'potential' of any staff? By that I mean, did they have the most wins left in them?"
He goes on to detail what he means:
"At the end of 1968:
- Tom Seaver had won 32 games of 311 win career. He had 279 games left to win. (Obviously, not all for the Mets.)
- Jerry Koosman had won 19 games of a 222 win career. He had 203 wins left.
- Nolan Ryan had won 6 games of a 324 win career. He had 318 wins left.
- Tug McGraw had won 4 games of a 96 win career. He had 92 wins left.
Totaled, that's 892 "potential wins" (for lack of a better term). What other teams can we compare this to?
...
I'd love to see the results, which would hopefully validate my Amazing Mets as the leader in this category."
This is a great idea, and I'm going to expand it to include every pitcher on a staff (rather than just the starters). Including the year in question, which team's pitching staff had the most wins in their future?
The '69 Mets rank near the top, but are ultimately 15th in MLB history in team "future wins". The staff with the most future wins belonged to the '78 Dodgers, who had only one pitcher with 200+ wins in his future, but six others with at least 100 left in their arms, plus 76 more from Burt Hooton. The Cardinals of 1969-71 also had an impressive group of future winners with Steve Carlton, Jerry Reuss, Mike Torrez, Reggie Cleveland, & the legendary Bob Gibson, among others.
However, every sabermetrician worth their salt would tell you that wins aren't exactly the most informative stat in the world for pitchers. Which staffs show up with the brightest futures if we use Wins Above Replacement instead?
It turns out that when we look at "potential wins" through the prism of Wins Above Replacement, Phil's 1968-71 Mets do in fact rank as the staff with the most future performance remaining in their collective arms.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:10 am
I knew it!!!!!
October 18th, 2010 at 7:48 am
What a great idea. You probably still got the crap beaten out of you in the neighborhood but at least you had something to look forward to. Great analysis.
It was E-Z being a Met fan in the 60s and 70s. It seemed to be a National League town. Now with all the front runners it is a Yankee town and has been for 15 years.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Dennis, wasn't beaten up, mostly ignored... and for the recrod, it's never easy being a Mets fan! Having suffered through the Nino Espinoza years in the late '70s and early '80s... and then the let down after the '86 team failed to become a dominate force in the following years.... all that money, so little success...
October 18th, 2010 at 8:48 am
This is a cool idea. How about doing the same for offensive players? The 1974 Boston Red Sox would fare pretty well here. Yaz, Evans, Cooper, Fisk, Rice, and Lynn still had A LOT of future hits, home runs, and RBI.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:31 am
The only problem for the Mets teams on this particular list (WAR), is that the main reason they are on there has a lot to do with the as-of-yet-realized WAR "potential" of Nolan Ryan. Unfortunately, the Mets traded him away prior to accululating the vast majority of Wins and WAR. I doubt they would have all of these teams represented on this list if you replace Nolan Ryan's future WAR number with that of Jim Fregosi's future WAR "potential".
You could definitely make a case of the Mets fans not having to suffer thru the "Nino Espinoza years" (@ #3 above) if the Mets don't make that specific trade. That would be a good "What if column".
My personal opinion is that if Nolan flourished similarly with the Mets as he did with the Angels (not really a stretch), the Mets would definitely have won more Pennants/World Series in the ealy 70's, especially 1973. Also being in the NL, Nolan potentially could have pitched even more no-hitters, and lastly, The Mets may have not ever needed to trade Tom Seaver in 1977 since they wouldn't have "needed" to rebuild in the late 1970's. Seaver/Ryan/Koosman/Matlack/Swan could potentially have gone down as the best Rotation in the history of Baseball as they would have dominated the 1970's into the 1980's.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
@Pete
I bet the 1993 Cleveland Indians are high up on the list too, with Kenny Lofton, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, and Manny Ramirez.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Very cool stuff Neil and Phil. Amazing to think that those were Cardinals teams AFTER their run had ended in the late 60's. Which brings me to a (somewhat) related question I wondered about. Which teams traded away the most wins, HRs, WAR, hits (choose your stat)?
October 18th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Would be interesting to see these numbers for players who left the organization.
In other words who let the most Wins, or WAR go. (in other words, don't count what they did while still with there first team)
October 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I once did a what-if scenario about the Mets keeping Nolan Ryan. It was surprisingly under-consequential. Having a healthy Ryan in 1973, the year he set the record of 383 strikeouts and pitched 2 no-hitters, probably means the Mets clinch the NL East sooner, easing the strain on their rotation (especially Tom Seaver), meaning their chances of beating the A's in the World Series are significantly improved, and it might not go 7 as in real life. Other than that, the Mets don't get helped much. First of all, in most of their other seasons from 1970 until they got good again in 1984, they were so far back that having Ryan wouldn't have helped. Second of all, when Ryan did get into the postseason, such as in 1986 with the Astros against the Mets, he was hardly overwhelming. And third of all, chances are that M. Donald Grant, without Joan Payson and Gil Hodges to stop him, would have traded Ryan in the late '70s anyway, so he wouldn't have been there to help Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling and the rest in the failed dynasty of 1984-90.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Think about that Mets team at the end of the '71 season when they still had Seaver, Ryan, Koosman, McGraw and Matlack plus they still had Ken Singleton and Whitey Herzog in the organization. That team could have easily been a powerhouse team of the 70's. Also this is only one year removed from when they traded Amos Otis for Joe Foy.
The Mets essentially made 4 terrible moves from December 1969 To April 1972 that turned a potential powerhouse team into a perennial 90+ loss team in only 2 1/2 years.
Dec 3, '69: Traded Amos Otis for Joe Foy: Foy was a bust and Otis goes on to a 5 time All Star, 40+ WAR player and key player for those '76-80 Royals teams.
Dec 10, '71: Traded Nolan Ryan, Don Rose, Frank Estrada, and Leroy Stanton for Jim Fregosi: Fregosi was a bust, Ryan became a HOF Legend and the Angels used Rose, Estrada and Stanton in trades that essentially win them the 1979 American League Western division. And to add injury to insult Fregosi comes back to manage the '79 Angels.
April 3, '72: After the untimely death of Manager Gil Hodges, the Mets pass over Whitey Herzog for 3rd base coach Yogi Berra. Berra led them to a 3-2 lead in the '73 World Series, but strangely decided to pitch Tom Seaver on short rest in game 6 rather than pitch him on FULL rest in game 7. Also decided not to pitch George Stone who was 12-3 with a 132+ era on full rest in game 6.
Herzog upset after being passed over went to the Rangers in '74 and then found great success and win 6 division titles, 3 N.L. Pennants, and 1 WS title with the Royals in the '70's and the Cardinals in the 80's. And to add insult to injury, it was Herzog's Cardinals that knocked the Mets out of the playoffs in '85 & '87.
April 5, '72: Ken Singleton, Mike Jorgensen and Tim Foli are traded for Rusty Staub. Herzog has mentioned several times that he would have never agreed to that trade had he been manager. Staub who was a great player for the Expos and Astros was essentially passed his prime and a defensive liability in Right Field. He had two decent seasons with the Mets and a tremendous post-season for the Mets in '73 but was traded for Mickey Lolitch who was a bust and out of baseball by '77.
Jorgensen was a great glove man but couldn't hit very well. Foli was basically a bust except for the '79 season but somehow ended up with 5000+ plate appearances.
Singleton ended up with a 132 career ops+ and was one of the great players in Major League Baseball from 1975-1980. He had the highest OPS+ (150) from 1975-1980, and finished 13th overall in WAR from 1975-1980.
I can't think of another team that made so many bad moves in such a short period of time that transformed a potential powerhouse into a perennial 90+ loss team.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Amazingly enough, the 1988 Cubs could move up the list. With 4 more wins from Jamie Moyer they would pass the 1971 Cardinals and move into 12th place on the wins list. If Moyer gets to 300 wins they would move up to at least 8th (assuming he gets about 300 wins and stops).
October 18th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
On a funny tangent:
The 1890 Cleveland Spiders had 580 future wins on their staff: 511 by Cy Young, 69 by the other 11 men who pitched for Cleveland that year. Only 2 pitchers besides Young won any games after 1890.
P.S. The workhorse on that 1890 Spiders team was the aptly named Ed Beatin, who went 22-30, with 53 CG in 54 starts.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
@ZackAttack
Use '96 Indians & you can add Brian Giles, Jeff Kent, Omar Vizquel & Jeromy Burnitz.
October 18th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Of course, these lists really hurt the modern teams, and some already on the list look to move up - like the 1988(!) Cubs, who have a good chance of getting 4+ more wins out of... Jamie Moyer
October 18th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Looking over the list I noticed that Steve Carlton played for the Cardinals. I had forgotten that he was traded to the Phils.
Does anyone now why he was traded?
October 18th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
contract dispute shipped him to philly for rick wise
October 18th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
This is a great list. I also would be interested in seeing who traded away the most potential as it were, and also be interested to see a list like this but only including wins or WAR for the team they were on at that time - ie discard anything after they moved on. This would be interesting to see who had the rotation with the most potential and kept it together to get the most out of it. I would imagine this would lean towards older teams when player movement was less common.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
PS: The best 'recent' team I could think of was the 98 Blue Jays who I make it have so far totalled 841 wins with Halladay and Carpenter good bets to win another 100 each possible. They've certainly got a great shot at 1000.
Other than that I thought of the 2003 Marlins who had a very young group who still have several years left - Beckett, Burnett, Pavano, Penny, Willis.
October 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Very intriguing stat.....but I m not sure of its value...what is an eternal truth about baseball is that good to great pitchers are in high demand and almost always in short suppñy. Pitchers that people expect to be the pitcher of a generation flame out...sometimes they go on to greatness....
I remember the 69 mets I lived in new York and was a fan and what they did that year still makes me smile...because other tnen the extraordinary pitching, the rest was just constant platooning by Hodges and both Cleon Jones and Tommy Agee having banner years.
It s easy to remember Seaver and Kossman and the young Nolan Ryan...what I also remember was Don Cardwell a jouneyman picher and the fourth starter who gave them a lot of innings and was way better then his 8 and 10 record indicated.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Wonder where Today's Giants will end up finishing...
October 18th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Noone cares about the relief guys that go on to win games. The original version was so much better.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:51 am
[...] up on yesterday's post about "Future Wins", today's Keeping Score column uses Bill James' Similarity Scores to estimate how many more wins we [...]
October 19th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I imagine that in a decade or so, the mid-2000s Indians will rate pretty highly here.
Sabathia, Lee, Carmona, Westbrook... sigh.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Seems odd to me that there are no teams before 1964. I would have thought one of Connie Mack's teams would be up there, or McGraw's, or some other old crew. The 1914 A's had three outstanding players just starting their careers (Shawkey 23, Bush 21 and Pennock 20), plus Plank at the end of his career. The 1919 Red Sox had several great young pitchers, including Bush and Pennock again. Hoyt was only 19.
Is it perhaps in part because there are so many more pitchers these days?
October 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 am
[...] Which Staff Had the Most Wins in Their Future? (Baseball-Reference). This has nothing to do with the Padres but it’s a fun study worth perusing. [...]