43 Responses to “Best SP Since 2005 According To ERA+”

1. Greg Finley Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

   Let's give Cliff Lee $150 million.

   Love,

   A Nats Fan.

2. ajnrules Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:17 pm

   I love how Matt Cain is 6th from the top in ERA+ and 6th from the bottom in winning pct. Shows you how deceptive the win-loss record is.

3. Doug B Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

   as a Brewers fan I can't think of a more fitting final 3 to the list.

   Livan was no Brewer. He's just such a classic #4 starter who gets beat like a drum once a week.

   Interesting that Jeff Suppan has more wins than Matt Cain over that time. And I'm surprised Aarong Harrang did as well as he did. for the past 3 seasons he's been anywhere from bad to horrid.

4. John Autin Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

   Three thoughts:

   (1) Pretty big gap after the top 2 -- the step down from #2 Santana to #3 Sabathia is bigger than from #3 to #10.

   (2) Say, isn't that Cliff Lee at #13 with a 118 ERA+ over the past 6 years? But as we all know, when you're making a 7-year contract offer, only the last 3 years are relevant. Right?

   (3) How would those rankings look for just the last 3 years?
   2008-10 ERA+ leaders, min. 500 IP:

   1. 157, Halladay
   2. 155, F.Hernandez
   3. 152, (tie) Lincecum, Wainwright
   5. 143, J.Santana
   6. 141, Lee
   7. 139, (tie) Sabathia, Lester
   9. 135, U.Jimenez
   10. 133, Greinke

5. John Autin Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

   (Followup)

   2008-10 WAR Leaders (pitchers):

   1) 20.2, Halladay
   2) 16.8, Sabathia
   3) 16.7, Lincecum
   4) 16.6, Lee
   5) 16.3, F.Hernandez
   6) 16.2, Lester
   7) 16.1, John Danks
   8) 15.6, Greinke
   9) 15.3, U.Jimenez
   10) 14.4, J.Santana
   11) 14.0, Haren
   12) 13.9, Wainwright
   13) 13.5, J.Johnson
   14) 13.0, Cain
   15) 12.8, Buehrle

   A couple things jump out at me here:
   -- Gap between Halladay and #2 is bigger than from #2 to #13.
   -- I like John Danks plenty, but ... #7? WAR seems out of whack with his 125 ERA+ and 608 IP; several pitchers ranked below him are better in both categories.

6. John Autin Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

   Um, that's supposed to be an "8" next to Greinke above, not an emoticon.
   (That's what I get for using someone else's computer....)

7. Paul Alexander Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:46 pm

   I love the emoticon in place of the number 8! In fact, I think I'm going to start doing that.

   It's amazing to me how high Zambrano is still even after his last couple seasons.

8. Doug B Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

   I just assumed you thought Greinke was really cool.

9. Paul Alexander Says:
   December 10th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

   This is why I shouldn't be writing on here, since I pretty much quit following baseball after June this year. Apparently Carlos was able to turn things around and have a good season. Never mind!

10. Library Dave Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    I think I'm most surprised (saddened?) by the fact that only 34 guys managed to average 166 innings a year over a 6 year period. That's barely one per team. Pathetic.

11. BCC Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    As a Red Sox fan, this is a mixed bag!

    Lackey's 2010 was his worst in this time span.

    Beckett is flanked by two guys we got rid off (Bronson for Wily Mo Pena- yeah that worked out well); at least Lowe cost more in 2010 ($15M vs $12M)

    Tim Wakefield at #27. I love that.

    Lester looks good in the 3 year stats. We love that guy.

    I'm not complaining or anything, just observing (if I were to complain, it would be about overpaying for Mr. Career-OPS+107). And it's hard to complain when the Adrian upgrade is still fresh. That guy is going to rake next year!

12. BCC Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Oh, my final observation- there are only 29 starting pitchers who are above-average over a 6 year period. I would not have thought the number would be so low.

    Consistent starting pitching- a rare commodity, indeed.

13. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Using only that initial list as a decider (i.e. not age or health or SOs or IP) just the ERA+ list only; giving each of the 30 teams a random hypothetical 'pick' or 'draft' - 1-to-30, would essentially make Jamie Moyer someone's #1. I know he is generally not regarded well on this sight, but it either says something very positive about him, especially at his age, or, it is really saying something bad about starting pitching in baseball.

14. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    (1) Pretty big gap after the top 2 -- the step down from #2 Santana to #3 Sabathia is bigger than from #3 to #10.

    ERA+ doesn't work in a linear fashion. I think the differences get exaggerated the higher they go.

    (2) Say, isn't that Cliff Lee at #13 with a 118 ERA+ over the past 6 years? But as we all know, when you're making a 7-year contract offer, only the last 3 years are relevant. Right?

    People who have studied projections have found there is no extra information to be gained from going back further than three years. (Actually, some may use 4 years.) I'd guess this might be even more true for pitchers, who could change their "true talent" more readily than a batter by virtue of learning a new pitch, for example.

15. birtelcom Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    @12: Keep in mind that a 100 ERA+ is really above average for a starting pitcher. Relief pitchers, who do not generally have to face batters more than once a game, on the whole produce lower ERAs than starters. ERA+ is based on 100 as average for all pitchers, so the average relief ERA+ will be higher than 100 and the average ERA+ for starters will be below 100.

    As to the original list, if you reduce the minimum IP from 1,000 to 800, the number of guys over 140 go from two (Halladay and Santana) to six (add two injury guys, Webb and Carpenter, and two younger guys, Lincecum and Wainwright).

16. BSK Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    I think the fact that the worst guy is at 90 tells us that no one truly terrible racked up a ton of innings. That's probably a good thing, right? Or is even 90 too low for so many innings?

17. Steve H Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Instead of (or in addition to) the pitcher's own wins and losses, it might be useful to look at the team's wins and losses in the pitcher's starts.

    The point is to help your team win the game, right?

18. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    (1) Pretty big gap after the top 2 -- the step down from #2 Santana to #3 Sabathia is bigger than from #3 to #10.

    ERA+ isn't linear. I think the differences get exaggerated the higher you go.

    (2) Say, isn't that Cliff Lee at #13 with a 118 ERA+ over the past 6 years? But as we all know, when you're making a 7-year contract offer, only the last 3 years are relevant. Right?

    People who have studied projections have found you gain no new information by looking at more than the past 3 years (maybe some people use 4 years). And I'd imagine a pitcher is more likely than a batter to have a big change in his "true talent," for example by learning a new pitch.

19. Michael Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    So...I wondered where Chris Carpenter was.

    Only 912 IP since 2005--sorta hard when you are basically gone for two years during the stretch. Still though: 145 ERA+.

20. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Sorry, that third paragraph was meant to be italicized, quoting John Autin again.

21. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    I think the fact that the worst guy is at 90 tells us that no one truly terrible racked up a ton of innings. That's probably a good thing, right? Or is even 90 too low for so many innings?

    Well, no one truly terrible is going to get the chance to keep pitching lots of innings year after year. I think this shows us that a 90 ERA+ (with the seasonal variation above and below it) is about the worst a pitcher can be and continue to get chances as a rotation regular.

22. Mr. Dave Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Zambrano is the biggest surprise for me. He's been terrible for the last couple of years, yet still is ranked 7th out of the 34 listed. Just shows how good he was prior to 2009.

23. John Autin Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    @17 / point 2, Johnny T. -- I agree re: pitcher more likely than batter to establish a new level of true ability.

    Re: only last 3-4 years relevant for projecting pitcher performance, that's news to me; which is not to say I'm skeptical, only that I have not read up on such things. (Got any suggested reading?) I do wonder, though, what that type of study would suggest about the limits of projecting pitcher performance into the future, at Lee's age. I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusion was that it's quite unwise to invest in a 30+ pitcher beyond 3-4 years.

24. John Autin Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    @21, Dave -- I think I know what you mean in saying that Zambrano has been "terrible" in recent years, but really, he's never had a full-season ERA above 3.95 nor an ERA+ below 117. His innings have been declining, but last year was his first below 169 IP since his rookie season. Recent years have not been what was expected when he signed the big contract extension, but by any measure except durability, they've been pretty good. Last year's 131 ERA+ actually improved his career mark. Though it was too late to do the Cubs any good, he had a 1.41 ERA in 11 starts after returning to the rotation in August.

25. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 1:08 am

    John A., I can't think of any links right now, sorry.

    You're right, it's probably not wise to invest in a pitcher too many years in the future. Or any player, for that matter. Nevertheless, that's how the free market works. You pay for 2016 to get the production over the next few seasons.

26. Jimbo Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 7:06 am

    One of the biggest standouts on the list is "age 42-47" for you know who. So unexpected that one of the most durable starters for a 6 year period would be in that age span.

27. Mr. Dave Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 8:49 am

    John - I had completely forgotten about the second half of this year (been in and out of the hospital, so I haven't been keeping up), but last I saw he was getting shelled and pitching out of the bullpen. Looking at the second half numbers, it makes a bit more sense. Just seemed like every time I looked up when he was pitching, he was getting torched.

28. BSK Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 10:11 am

    "Well, no one truly terrible is going to get the chance to keep pitching lots of innings year after year. I think this shows us that a 90 ERA+ (with the seasonal variation above and below it) is about the worst a pitcher can be and continue to get chances as a rotation regular."

    JT-

    I guess that was sorta my point. We often see truly terrible players trotted out there. But it seems they're never trotted out there for TOO long. Or, at least in the time frame looked at, no terrible pitcher was trotted out there time and time again. It also shows that some of these guys, several of whom are much-maligned (Zito, Moyer, Livan) are better than public perception often suggests (though they don't necessarily justify their salaries, as in the case of Zito).

29. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Report Created on Baseball-Reference.com

30. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 10:58 am

    To Johnny Twisto and Autin,

    About being able to predict a pitcher's performance from previous work, looking at the expected Cliff Lee windfall, I built an identical table from the one above, except spanning years 1995-2000. And from this table we can see some guys who are ranked pretty high, were pretty healthy and young, but simply fell apart. Knowing what we know now we'd be nuts to even consider some of those guys to long term deals.

    #4 Kevin Brown, would only throw over 135 innings once over the next 5 years.
    #11 Mike Hampton would have 1000 IP over ten injury plagued shortened, over paid seasons, for a 94+ ERA.
    #13 David Cone would throw only two more very bad seasons.
    #14 Chuck Finley, out of bseball less than 2 years and 200 IP later.
    #17 Kevin Appier, out of baseball in three seasons.
    Other top 25 busts
    Denny Neagle out of baseball in 3 years.
    Andy Benes, Ismael Valdez, Dave Burba, Shane Reynolds. Jeff Fasero, Pat Hentgen, Todd Stottlemyer.
    http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/nAOEZ

31. Fireworks Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    @29

    You're missing the point. The point isn't that anyone can tell the future and know who will be a bust--the point is that Lee's performance since '08 is who he is now--what he did before'08 is another part of his career. He is clearly a different pitcher than he was and unlike any player in any sport merely having a career year in his contract year, Lee has been one of the best pitchers in baseball for three years now, long enough to demonstrate that it was not a fluke, that his ability has either been maximized or expanded to an elite level. You sometimes only need a portion of a player's career to see a significant change in skill, regimen/preparation, attitude, health, or substance abuse (recreational or performance-enhancing) that affects the on-field result.

    Barry Bonds, for instance, went from being a clear Hall-of-Famer to clear Hall-of-Fame inner-circle God due to PEDs (allegedly). Cecil Fielder went from being one of the most feared sluggers in baseball (Hello, Jim Rice!) to a bloated man-whale whom inspired jokes, not awe. Ron Santo, almost certainly due to his battle with diabetes and related illnesses, went from an elite, Hall-of-Fame caliber player to finished at 34. Bo Jackson went from an exciting up-and-coming slugger with tremendous speed (and a man who was, I think, if he had only ever played baseball after high school/college, a potential HoF) to a man who needed a hip replacement, thus robbing him of all his speed, though, somehow, amazingly, little of his power.

    ...and so on.

32. Michael E Sullivan Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Duke@29.

    You wouldn't be nuts to sign some of those guys, not unless you could actually predict the future specifically.

    What is nuts is to not realize that with pitchers in their late 20s, early 30s, for every Andy Pettite or Mike Mussina, there is also a Mike Hampton. If you are going to sign a guy to a contract into his late 30s, adjust your pay accordingly. It would be stupid to sign a 32 year old for the same money and years as you would a guy with similar 3 and 5 year stats at 27.

    But your 1995-2000 lists also contains a lot of guys that any team giving them a deal till 40 for any kind of reasonable money made out very well on. Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens both put up another 5 years at the top of this kind of list in 2000-2005, Maddux dropped off the top but was still excellent, and I also see Mike Mussina, Andy Pettite, Glavine, Smolz, Hudson as guys who continued to perform strongly into their mid-late 30s or 40s. Of course most of the guys who show up in the upper half of two or three straight lists like this (95-2000,2000-2005,2005-2010) are now considered tentative to shoe-in hall of famers. But that's the kind of player you are looking at when you sign a guy near the top of a list like this: somebody who, if all falls into place as it is supposed to for them, will end up in the hall, or at least in the discussion. Of course many times it won't. But you want to have them on your team when it does, so they are worth a lot despite the risk.

33. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    John A., and anyone else....

    Here's Tango's description of his Marcel projections: http://www.tangotiger.net/marcel/ These are the most basic projections, simply taking a weighted average of the past three years, an age adjustment, and regression. You will find that all the more "advanced" projections systems, like ZIPS or Pecota or whatever, may do a little better than Marcel, but not by much. From a purely statistical standpoint, looking at the past three seasons tells you most of what you can know about how a player will do next season. We can add to that if we have scouting reports, medical information, etc. But if we only have the numbers, we don't really gain anything by looking back at a player's entire career.

    There's probably been good articles written on this, I just don't know where to find them right now.

34. Chuck Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Kudos to Jamie Moyer for turning 43 and then cranking out five seasons in which he was one of the 30 best starting pitchers in baseball, at least according to this rating.

35. Chuck Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Make that turning 42 and cranking out six seasons. No matter. Still impressive.

36. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    @ Mike E and others,

    I concur. I don't think the '95-00 model is tantamount to proof of the liabilities to long term deals today. I only wanted to offer another illustration, that in my mind was comparable to the one before. I thought, pitching has changed so much decade to decade, that only a 5-15 year difference would be worth talking about. So I chose '95-double-aughts. I know it can't predict coming events, but to look in the past for similar trends, does more for prediction, than individual performance.
    Do the Yankees regret the AJ signing...
    I'm certain.
    Do they think every penny was worth CC.
    I'm certain.
    So, how do you select the initial initially....?
    I don't think there is a barometer.
    While I hope CP (Cliff Lee) enjoys success, I know the blue print of a Kevin Brown, or a Mike Hampton, or a Oliver Perez loom as large as a HOFer.

37. Zachary Says:
    December 11th, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    This just goes to show you how rare it is for good, sustained pitching success. Less than 1 pitcher per team cranking out even an average ERA+ over 6 years.

38. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Here's what I did: Steve's list looks for guys with an average of at least 166.2 IP over the past 6 seasons. I found there had been 207 pitchers who reached 166.2 IP in any season 2005-2010. I tried to find an equivalent for batters, and there were 207 batters who reached 608 PA in any season 2005-2010. So I then searched for all players with at least 3648 PA (6 * 608) from 2005-2010. Here's the list: http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/y2voe

39. The Been Stew Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 1:33 am

    [...] of you who didn’t see it, the folks over at baseball-reference.com put together a list of the top starting pitchers since 2005, according to ERA+ (an ERA figure that is adjusted to the pitcher’s ballpark, with 100 being [...]

40. shoewizard Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I miss Brandon Webb. Even after missing all of the last two seasons he just misses the IP cutoff , (He has 931 between 2005-2010), He had a 142 ERA+ during that time.

    If you drop the IP to 900 he comes in 4th behind Halladay, Santana, & Carpenter.

    2003-2010, minimu 1000 IP Webb is 3rd behind Halladay and Santana, (Still 142)

    Sure hope he can make a comeback. He was a lot of fun to watch.

41. Wade K. Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 10:03 am

    The conclusion I draw from this is that the "demise" of Carlos Zambrano has been vastly overexaggerated. One of the most ridiculous comments regarding this was by his own general manager, Hendry, in June of this past season: "He hasn't been up to the standards that he was at before for two years," Hendry said. "If you look at his last 50 starts, he probably ranks in the bottom third in the National League of overall performance. I'm not saying that critically. It's not something I'm tying in with today, but that's part of the decision that was criticized at the time, like we were taking our ace out of the rotation."

    Incorrect, Jim. Though it was one of the worse stretches of his career, it was much like the rest of Zambrano's time with the Cubs: Jekyll and Hyde, great months and abyssmal ones. Any team would love to trot out a starter who is nearly 20% better than league average in allowing runs (which is the name of the game) every fifth day. Or every game, period. I am neither a Cubs fan nor a Zambrano fan. His act gets old for me too. But the guy cares, and he's one of the rare pitchers who actually tries in the non-pitching facets of the game while also excelling at the pitching.

    Is Josh Beckett overrated or what? Goodness, I had no idea he was so far off being an elite pitcher. I guess we all expected big things after his dominance vs. the Yankees in the 03 World Series, and ace-level 07 season, but he's just never gotten there, and probably never will. Must be nice to have that 16+ million a year extension starting this season, though. Will the Red Sox get their money's worth out of that?

42. Phillies Now a Pitching-First Kind of Team « Phour Score Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    [...] recently published a table displaying the best pitchers in terms of ERA+ since 2005 with at least 1,000 innings [...]

43. Uncle Mike’s Friday BROWSing: The “We Got an Erection! (And Other Wood-Related Puns)” Edition | Hire Jim Essian Says:
    December 17th, 2010 at 10:39 am

    [...] Read it and weep, you Zambrano-hating retards. [...]