A great day for baseball stats
Posted by Andy on January 5, 2011
Bert Blyleven's election to the Hall of Fame is big, big news to me.
Personally, I think that it signifies acceptance of advanced baseball stats by a large fraction of the core baseball community. I don't mean to say that writers fundamentally understand how or why Blyleven is 13th all-time in Wins Above Replacement for pitchers, but at least there seems to be wide acceptance of the truth that Blyleven is a pitcher who was far more dominant than his W-L record indicates.
Take a look, for example, at most innings pitched in a career by pitchers with an ERA+ of at least 118:
| Rk | Player | IP | From | To | Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Walter Johnson | 5914.1 | 147 | 1907 | 1927 | 19-39 |
| 2 | Warren Spahn | 5243.2 | 119 | 1942 | 1965 | 21-44 |
| 3 | Pete Alexander | 5190.0 | 135 | 1911 | 1930 | 24-43 |
| 4 | Greg Maddux | 5008.1 | 132 | 1986 | 2008 | 20-42 |
| 5 | Bert Blyleven | 4970.0 | 118 | 1970 | 1992 | 19-41 |
| 6 | Roger Clemens | 4916.2 | 143 | 1984 | 2007 | 21-44 |
| 7 | Tom Seaver | 4783.0 | 128 | 1967 | 1986 | 22-41 |
| 8 | Christy Mathewson | 4755.0 | 137 | 1901 | 1916 | 20-35 |
| 9 | Eddie Plank | 4495.2 | 122 | 1901 | 1917 | 25-41 |
| 10 | Ted Lyons | 4161.0 | 118 | 1923 | 1946 | 22-45 |
| 11 | Randy Johnson | 4135.1 | 136 | 1988 | 2009 | 24-45 |
| 12 | Red Faber | 4086.2 | 119 | 1914 | 1933 | 25-44 |
| 13 | Jim Palmer | 3948.0 | 126 | 1965 | 1984 | 19-38 |
| 14 | Lefty Grove | 3940.2 | 148 | 1925 | 1941 | 25-41 |
| 15 | Bob Gibson | 3884.1 | 128 | 1959 | 1975 | 23-39 |
I just hope that Blyleven doesn't get labeled as the pitching equivalent of Tony Perez, who himself isn't even in the top 150 all-time for WAR among position players.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
My post at 183, commenting on the statement taken out of context:
"W/L record meaning less and less every year because baseball executives are basically realizing how essentially meaningless it is."
Put down the calculators and pick up a sense of humor you guys.
I am not actually interpreting anyone to mean that there will be bidding wars for the worst pitchers. nor that teams will be fighting for last place to get into the WS.
I didn't edit this sentence in any way that changed its meaning in order to poke fun at it (I left out only "You're starting to see"); it says what it says. What makes it worth poking fun at is that baseball executives probably care more about W/L records than anyone else in baseball.
A clue to things that are said in jest is often absurdity. The more absurd a statement, the less likely it is intended to be taken seriously.
Sheesh!
January 10th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
In one of his old Baseball Abstracts, Bill James came out against lists like this. It is the selective use of ERA+ of at least 118 that is at issue. By definition, each and every pitcher is as good or better at preventing runs, thus Blyleven is at the very floor of this group in terms of ERA+. A fairer metric might include ERA+ of at least 110, and would probably show Blyleven sticking out like a sore thumb anyway so it would make a stronger argument because there wouldn't be as much puffery in the data presentation.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Jeff J. @196 -- Yes, Johnny Twisto and I were joking. I tried to follow in his vein, but I don't quite have his touch.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Frank @201 -- "A clue to things that are said in jest is often absurdity. The more absurd a statement, the less likely it is intended to be taken seriously."
Fair enough. But I think it's also good to get a periodic reminder that subtleties in online messages can be much harder to perceive than in spoken ones. It's very easy for the intended tone to be completely misunderstood by some readers. I've run afoul of this fact many times, on both sides of the equation.
And BTW, absurdity is not always a sign of sarcasm. People do say some pretty dumb things sometimes.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@189 John Autin - in looking over the list of players who were recent ERA champs with low win totals, I was intrigued by Joe Magrane's 1989 season in particular.
Magrane as you note only won 5 games despite leading the N.L. in ERA (at 2.18) but I noticed his innings total was quite low. Only 165.1 IP, which just barely qualified him for the ERA title. And he also had a high amount of unearned runs it seems. He gave up 17 unearned runs that year. If his total runs allowed are factored into his Run Average, he jumps to a 3.11, which is significantly higher than the guy who finished 2nd in the N.L. ERA race. David Cone was 2nd with a 2.22 ERA across 231.1 IP's and including unearned runs, Cone's Run Average was 2.61, much better than Magrane's 3.11.
Looking at all SP's that threw at least 162 IP's that year, I think only 3 gave up more unearned runs than Magrane...but all with significantly more IP's:
D.Martinez: 23 unearned runs in 235.1 IP
K.Mahler: 23 unearned runs in 249 IP
C.Hough: 18 unearned runs in 252 IP
And looking at the rest of the StL SP's, Magrane was the only one who gave up a lot of UER's. Here's the StL pitchers who made at least 10 starts:
G.Matthews: 2 UER in 68 IP
D.Cox: 2 UER in 86 IP
DeLeon: 3 UER in 225.1 IP
L.McWilliams: 5 UER in 136 IP
B.Forsch: 6 UER in 108 IP
S.Terry: 6 UER in 129.1 IP
Tudor: 7 UER in 145.1 IP
Magrane: 17 UER in 165.1 IP
Overall, StL was 9th in the N.L. in both runs allowed and earned runs allowed.
I wonder - was Magrane really unlucky that year or did he have some weird official scoring going on that year (or both)? If even one of those 17 UER's was scored as an ER, then Cone ends up winning the N.L. ERA title.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
#202, I certainly agree with James, but I tend to choose the number of interest as the cutoff to see how small the group is. Certainly were I to to suggest that Blyleven is middle-of-the-pack in a the group (rather than dead last) that would be misleading and flat out wrong. But I always have trouble arbitrarily picking a lower number---I tend to just go with the one hard number I have, in this case the 118. I suppose if I wanted to be fancy, I could do searches on 117, 116, 115, etc until I found the number that gave a group sufficiently large such that Blyleven was right in the middle.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Speaking of unearned runs, does anyone else think it would be a good idea for the site to have a Total Runs Average stat? I think Posnanski mentioned something to that effect once, stating that that would be a great stat and I agree, as I've always thought that should be an obvious stat for people to be aware of. ERA is dependant on official scorers, official scorers can be faulty and whether a pitcher gives up an earned run or an unearned run, he still gave the run up and it impacted his team. I'd love for both ERA and TRA (or whatever you wanna call it) each listed for pitchers.
FWIW, I recently was looking at pitchers who met the following criteria:
--2500 IP or higher
--ERA+ of 115 or higher
--2000 K's or higher
--WAR of 50 or higher
There are only 31 pitchers that meet that criteria. Anyways, its interesting to me to see how their Runs Averages change...here are the 31 pitchers listed in terms of lowest increase to highest increase in ERA to Total Runs Average:
Curt Schilling: goes from 3.46 to 3.64 [increase of .18]
Mike Mussina: goes from 3.68 to 3.94 [increase of .26]
Pedro Martinez: goes from 2.93 to 3.20 [increase of .27]
John Smoltz: goes from 3.33 to 3.60 [increase of .27]
Tom Seaver: goes from 2.86 to 3.13 [increase of .29]
Dennis Eckersley: goes from 3.50 to 3.79 [increase of .29]
Jim Palmer: goes from 2.86 to 3.18 [increase of .32]
Roger Clemens: goes from 3.12 to 3.45 9increase of .33]
David Cone: goes from 3.46 to 3.79 [increase of .33]
Tom Glavine: goes from 3.54 to 3.87 [increase of .33]
Bert Blyleven: goes from 3.31 to 3.67 [increase of .36]
Warren Spahn: goes from 3.09 to 3.46 [increase of .37]
Fergie Jenkins: goes from 3.34 to 3.37 [increase of .37]
Bob Gibson: goes from 2.91 to 3.29 [increase of .38]
Greg Maddux: goes from 3.16 to 3.56 [increase of .40]
Randy Johnson: goes from 3.29 to 3.70 [increase of .41]
Bob Feller: goes from 3.25 to 3.66 [increase of .41]
Andy Pettitte: goes from 3.88 to 4.30 [increase of .42]
Chuck Finley: goes from 3.85 to 4.27 [increase of .42]
Don Drysdale: goes from 2.95 to 3.39 [increase of .44]
Steve Carlton: goes from 3.22 to 3.67 [increase of .45]
Gaylord Perry: goes from 3.11 to 3.58 [increase of .47]
Kevin Brown: goes from 3.28 to 3.75 [increase of .47]
Juan Marichal: goes from 2.89 to 3.41 [increase of .52]
Phil Niekro: goes from 3.35 to 3.89 [increase of .54]
Dazzy Vance: goes from 3.24 to 3.78 [increase of .54]
Lefty Grove: goes from 3.06 to 3.64 [increase of .58]
Pete Alexander: goes from 2.56 to 3.21 [increase of .65]
Walter Johnson: goes from 2.17 to 2.89 [increase of .72]
Eddie Plank: goes from 2.35 to 3.14 [increase of .79]
Christy Mathewson: goes from 2.11 to 3.01 [increase of .90]
January 10th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@207
As you can see, it would unfairly penalize the oldsters, whose fielders had poor gloves & fields.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
@208 Jeff - while older players make up the bottom of the list, I don't consider it to be an unfair penalty. In fact, I think it makes deadball and/or old-time pitchers seem "more human" in a sense. Older pitchers have such crazy ERA numbers that they can seem otherworldly to some...but when you look at their overall Runs Allowed, we can see that they gave up their share of runs too. It might help lessen the hardline stance HOF voters seem to have taken on modern starting pitchers, as it seems tougher than ever for them to make the HOF. If we had just one overall Runs Allowed average, there would be no biases involved and we'd have just the actual record of what a pitcher gave up. JMO.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Here's what Posnanski wrote at the end of October about ERA (his name for it - sticking with ERA aka Every Run Average - is a lot better than my TRA aka Total Runs Average) 🙂
--"Give me "every run average" rather than "earned run average."
The funny thing about xFIP and how much some people despise it is that it's hardly a new effort. People have been trying to pinpoint and separate a pitchers individual ability from the team's defense for 100 years and more. That's the whole concept behind the earned run. The idea is that if a fielder makes an error, well, that's NOT THE PITCHER'S FAULT. And if it's not the pitcher's fault, then why should you count it against his statistics?
This, of course, leads to all sorts of ridiculousness. My mother really was right. For one thing, we don't add runs to the pitcher's "earned run" total when the fielder makes a spectacular run-saving catch. We don't add a home run to the pitcher's home runs allowed total if an outfielder leaps at the wall and brings a home run back. In those cases, the pitcher and the fielders are all in it together. So why discount the pitcher's ERA because of errors? Why mess with reality?
Second, you do know how unearned runs are figured, right? The official scorer goes through the inning and attempts to RECREATE the inning without the error. That is to say, a third baseman boots an easy ground ball with two outs, the official scorer makes the determination that the inning SHOULD be over. That's why every run scored after that error is called "unearned." Sometimes, believe me, this sort of recreation can go beyond absurdity. Let's say a guy is on second with one out. A ground ball is to short. The shortstop throws the ball away, and the batter goes to second. Well, at the moment, that's an unearned run because the guy would not have scored. But if the NEXT GUY hits a single, then it becomes an earned run because now it's assumed the guy would have scored. There are a lot of assumptions like that.
Third, of course, an error is in the eye of the beholder. It's a moving target. An error in Cincinnati isn't necessarily an error in Baltimore. Baseball stats should not change and shape-shift at the whim of some official scorer. Make it ERA -- Every Run Allowed -- after all, it's a pitcher's job to work around errors, to make the best of any and every situation."
January 10th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I agree that showing RA (or TRA) would be great. I'm interested in how players of the same era match up. Mathewson's RA is 0.90 higher than his ERA. How does that compare to his peers? Did he give up a high or low number of unearned runs for his time?
January 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
@211 Johnny Twisto - I just checked a few of his HOF contemporaries so far:
Ed Walsh: goes from 1.82 to 2.65 [increase of .83]
3 Finger Brown: goes from 2.06 to 2.96 [increase of .90]
**Christy Mathewson: goes from 2.11 to 3.01 [increase of .90]**
Rube Waddell: goes from 2.16 to 3.23 [increase of 1.07]
Cy Young: goes from 2.63 to 3.87 [increase of 1.24]
(Young started in 1890; Mathewson in 1900 and they shared 6 seasons)
Cy Young with Runs Allowed is worse than David Cone 😉
January 10th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
@210 "For one thing, we don't add runs to the pitcher's "earned run" total when the fielder makes a spectacular run-saving catch."
Of course you also don't know why an apparently tough catch was made. If the fielder was playing out of position or got a late jump ...
January 10th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Here are a few other guys who were contemporaries for some or most of Mathewson's career:
Pete Alexander: goes from 2.56 to 3.21 [increase of .65]
Chief Bender: goes from 2.46 to 3.31 [increase of .85]
Addie Joss: goes from 1.89 to 2.82 [increase of .93]
Vic Willis: goes from 2.63 to 3.65 [increase of 1.02]
Jack Chesbro: goes from 2.68 to 3.74 [increase of 1.06]
Joe McGinnity: goes from 2.66 to 3.76 [increase of 1.10]
January 10th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
@213 Jeff - or you can look at the next sentence too..."We don't add a home run to the pitcher's home runs allowed total if an outfielder leaps at the wall and brings a home run back". Pretty sure that has nothing to do with the outfielder playing "incorrectly" or not, as if the ball was over the wall, its over the wall.
As far as tough catches overall, that are in the field of play, surely you're not insinuating that there are not any tough catches overall?
January 10th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
@215 "As far as tough catches overall, that are in the field of play, surely you're not insinuating that there are not any tough catches overall?"
I am not, and hopefully you're not trying to lead the league in WPIOM (words put in others' mouths)
And, don't call me Shirley
January 10th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
@207, Dave V. -- Yes, I would very much like to see Run Average on B-R. In fact, I'd like to see Run Average replace ERA entirely, and especially in light of how today's official scoring is erratic and generally reluctant to charge an error.
And to the extent that it "penalizes" the pitchers from the days of separate-fingered gloves -- it's about time! Far from distorting our perception of old-time pitchers, I think that switching to Run Average would significantly reduce the many distorting effects of their historical era.
In which league was it easier to score runs?
(a) The 1903 National League, with a 3.26 ERA; or
(b) the 2010 National League, with a 4.02 ERA?
Most casual fans would guess (b). It's actually (a). The 1903 NL was a relatively high-scoring league, with teams averaging 4.77 R/G. NL teams in 2010 averaged 4.35 R/G. But in 1903, unearned runs accounted for over 33% of all NL runs; in 2010, that figure is less than 9%.
The pitcher's job is to minimize the opponent's scoring. High error rates in the dead-ball era were a standard part of the game, and their effects on pitchers tended to even out. It's not as though some shortstops made 60 errors a year while others made 10; they all made a lot of errors. Honus Wagner in 1903 made 50 errors in 111 games at SS. The percentage of runs that was called unearned in 1903 was fairly consistent from the top of the standings to the bottom: 34% for the pennant-winning Pirates; 36% for the 3rd-place Cubs (who led the league in ERA); 32% for the 5th-place Superbas; 37% for the last-place Cardinals. And for the few outliers -- e.g., the Giants had just 27% of their runs called unearned -- the variation from the norm could just as well have come from a different philosophy on the part of the home-team official scorers.
Anyway, as we all know nowadays (with the possible exception of Gold Glove voters), the spread in the negative impact due to errors between Pitcher A/Team A and Pitcher B/Team B is less than the spread in negative impact due to plays never made but with no error charged.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
"Cy Young with Runs Allowed is worse than David Cone"
Well, yes. And John Mayberry, Jr. has a higher HR rate than Babe Ruth.
Cy Young pitched more than 2-1/2 times the innings Cone did. Coney was a very fine pitcher, but under 2,900 IP would be pretty skimpy for the HOF.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
(But of course, Dave V. @212 was just having a little fun, and I, as usual, was being too earnest @218.)
January 10th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@217 John Autin - you just beat me to it with some historic league-wide numbers. Here are some more numbers as well:
1901 MLB - 3.49 ERA - 5.10 RA (Runs Allowed)
1905 MLB: 2.82 ERA - 3.95 RA
1910 MLB: 2.77 ERA - 3.86 RA
1950 MLB: 4.36 ERA - 4.92 RA
2010 MLB: 4.08 ERA - 4.43 RA
"The pitcher's job is to minimize the opponent's scoring.". Agreed...its as simple as that really, as to why we should have RA. I'm okay with having ERA and RA listed side by side though, so as not to have heads explode.
@216 Jeff- definitely not trying to be a high WPIOM'er at all 🙂 My point (via Posnanski) is that just as pitchers sometimes lose out because of errors, they also benefit because of great plays. Add to that the subjectivity of official scoring overall and let's just show the overall Runs Allowed. I think its a Win/Win situation for baseball fans.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
@220
The RA argument has merit, let me post about it in another stat forum.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Johnny Twisto @211 / Dave V. @212 -- That's an interesting topic. Do you think the raw difference or the percentage difference is more meaningful?
January 10th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
No worries, John, as far as @218. I was just having fun with that comment about Cone > Cy Young.
I do think Cone's total innings are enough for the HOF though. He pitched more than the requirement for the HOF (10 seasons) and also, I think its worth noting that his IP probably only falls under the magic 3K mark (as I've seen 3,000 listed for a lot of lists before) because of the strike, which was beyond his control.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
@218 "under 2,900 IP would be pretty skimpy for the HOF."
Dizzy Dean says hello 😉
January 10th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I did some quick figgerin' with the pitchers mentioned @211/@212, to get their % difference between ERA and RA, and also to sort them:
Sorted by ERA:
Pitcher ERA RA Net Diff % Diff
Addie Joss 1.89 2.82 0.93 49.2%
C. Mathewson 2.13 3.04 0.91 42.7%
Chief Bender 2.46 3.31 0.85 34.6%
Pete Alexander 2.56 3.21 0.65 25.4%
Vic Willis 2.63 3.65 1.02 38.8%
Joe McGinnity 2.66 3.76 1.10 41.4%
Jack Chesbro 2.68 3.74 1.06 39.6%
Sorted by RRA:
Pitcher ERA RA Net Diff % Diff
Addie Joss 1.89 2.82 0.93 49.2%
C. Mathewson 2.13 3.04 0.91 42.7%
Pete Alexander 2.56 3.21 0.65 25.4%
Chief Bender 2.46 3.31 0.85 34.6%
Vic Willis 2.63 3.65 1.02 38.8%
Jack Chesbro 2.68 3.74 1.06 39.6%
Joe McGinnity 2.66 3.76 1.10 41.4%
P.S. My hunch is that, within the same era, the rankings by RA and ERA won't differ very much -- but the ones that do might be very interesting.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
(Sorry, as usual, for the pug-ugly "tables" above.)
January 10th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
(Also sorry for the typo that made "RA" into "RRA.")
January 10th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Dave V. @ 223 -- Two points about Cone's IP:
(1) Crediting him with, say, 102 IP and maybe 7 wins lost to the 1994-95 strike would not change my opinion of his HOF credentials. I don't believe in magic numbers. If he had 3,000 IP and 200 wins, he would still be in the bottom quartile of modern HOF SPs in both categories.
(2) Generally speaking, I'm not inclined to credit players for time lost to strikes. For one thing, it's too complicated -- what would we do about pitchers who were on the D.L. (or just affected by an injury) when the strike hit? Would we wipe out Jeff Bagwell's 1994 MVP Award because he possibly/probably wouldn't have won it in a full season, due to the broken wrist he suffered in what turned out to be the penultimate game of the year? For another thing, the players (as a group) chose to miss that time, for their own personal gain. Now, I don't begrudge them their gains, and I'm generally pro-union (though I have mixed feelings about a "union" of mostly millionaires which looks out for the fatcats much more than for the little guys). But I still don't see any reason to try to fill in the gaps due to strikes.
If we did that, I think, in fairness, we would have to look into various preseason contract holdouts throughout MLB history, and the possible negative effects on those player's career stats, either from games missed or from not being at peak sharpness when the season opened.
To me, when you suggest crediting for time lost to strikes, you might as well credit players for time lost to the various personal reasons for which players miss games nowadays -- birth of a child, loved one's illness, "personal problems," whatever. Again, I'm not saying the modern policies are wrong; but they can't have it both ways. They can have the more rounded, more rewarding life, but if it costs them games, that's their loss.
I might make an exception for first strike in '72, possibly even the second in '81, since those were important in leveling the playing field between labor and management, which I think was an important goal. But by '94, the players who voted to strike were already rich -- there was no fundamentally important principle at stake. Once again, I'm not saying that the players should have caved to the owners in '94 -- but if they had, the landscape would not be very different today; the players would still be rich beyond the wildest dreams of the average fan.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
@228 John Autin - even taking away the debate about missed time due to the strike, while conceding that Cone would be at the lower end in IP and Wins, he is ranked higher than that across several other important categories. With the nature of the game as we know, it is becoming rarer and rarer for pitchers to accumulate huge inning totals like they did back in the day. From Cone's heyday though (1988-1999, which is where his HOF case lies), he was 5th in the majors in IP's. So he was a workhorse during the time he made his name. Now many other pitchers lasted longer than Cone, true, but Cone was consistently excellent from 1988-1999, with 1989 being the only year he had an ERA+ below league average and I think that stretch from 1988-1999 is definitely enough. JMO.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
@228 John A,
You make some good points but players get credit for WW2 Service. There's no way that Phil Rizzuto, Bobby Doerr get in the HOF without War credit.
Players get Negro league credit like Larry Doby.
In Cone's case it's no so much that the strike cost him round number career milestones its that the strike cost him two 20 win seasons which would have given him four 20 win seasons, which would have made his case stand out that much stronger in the main-stream baseball media.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@222 John Autin - right now, I'm interested in both the raw and percentage differences as far as Runs Allowed. It seems the older the pitcher is, the higher increases and percentage differences they'll have. Looking at same era, its interesting to see where the final numbers stack up and potentially change for contemporaries. And looking at different eras vs. each other, its interesting to see how rankings change.
For example, Pete Alexander had a 2.56 ERA. Way better than Pedro Martinez at 2.93. But when looking at Runs Allowed, Pedro is at 3.20 and old Pete is at 3.21. We know that Pedro has a significantly better ERA+ than Alexander. The average baseball fan who may be into the newer sabermetrics stats might disregard ERA+ and say "well how can Pedro have a better ERA+ than Alexander when Pete beats him by .37 points in ERA? ERA+ must be broken and useless." But if we show that same fan that Pedro actually had a better overall Runs Allowed average, maybe he might not second guess ERA+ as easily. Anything that can help baseball fans come together on stats overall is a good thing.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Sorry, my post at @231 should say in the second paragraph "The average baseball fan who may NOT be into the newer sabermetrics stats..."
January 10th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I certainly wouldn't want RA to replace ERA. ERA is an important part of the game's statistical fabric. I mean, if we want to use RA over ERA in evaluating pitchers, there's nothing wrong with that (that's what WAR does). But I would never want ERA removed from B-R's top page, just like I wouldn't want RBI removed from the batting pages. Those numbers tell stories which are just as important as absolute accuracy, in some ways. And there is a reason ERA was developed, of course -- because the pitchers of Mathewson's time did allow a lot of runs as a result of errors, and it didn't seem fair to penalize them. It was an initial effort at isolating the fielding and pitching components of overall defense, and we've spent the next 100 years continuing to chip away at it.
Of course, next we also need RA+.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:25 am
RA sounds like an excellent idea, & J.T. beat me to the punch. RA + would be crucial to have-it would be even very misleading without it, it is somewhat more important than RA. Maybe the "+" could have an analogue to park factors, where it need not be the field, but the way of scoring that would account for variants. Though I do not know if you could possibly reliably get these #s. Best way would be see how scorers in one town scored all visitors compared to the League, to eliminate home favoritism.
I too knew you were being absurd/jesting Frank. Just disagreed with your serious points.
Cone seems close-I would likely say he was just good enough in peak & just long enough. I will keep beating the WAR horse though: when people say a WAR is this or that-& peak years should be measured also, reflecting relative greatness-what if, as is OFTEN the case, other WAR versions vary by 10-15 points? Occasionally more. Even if it is ~5 points-very common indeed-this makes a big difference. At least for borderline candidates like Coney.
How do you know which one makes more sense, when? I have no indication which one to pick, under what circumstances. I think few do, other than reflexive habit or emotional loyalty to one system.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Small point: I would give strike credit in all cases.Personal circumstances are distinct from group actions, & they are overwhelmingly brief events, or related to your own disordered life-though sometimes not your fault. In a strike there are principles involved, however I feel everyone cannot play when they are otherwise capable. And some vote against a strike or vote for it out of loyalty to the cause or organization, though want to play anyway.
I would ding someone like a Bagwell a bit in '94 if you want to get granular. Also, you could give credit to guys who were unfairly prevented from playing. Ruth suffered from his own issues in '22 & '25, but after barnstorming with Negro leaguers in '21-ignoring the Commissioner's orders, since these had been made before by other bosses & not enforced-but when he was warned the Judge was serious, he left the tour: & still was banned for a month & change at the start of the next year!
I would credit him for the time missed due to sheer bigotry & unfair overreaching of Mountain-Man's legitimate authority.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Meaning if Baggy could not play when others would have due to his end of the truncated season wrist injury, he should not be treated as if he lost the same productive time.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:14 am
This is long overdue and dissatisfying answer, but the reason we list Righetti is that we use a single standard of games played for the players in the league. Why should Righetti qualify for one time, but not the other. Makes no sense. And what to do if the player was traded in season?
The leagues have in the past used arbitrary rulings to determine the ERA champs and the Batting Title winners. See Dale Alexander.
What we present is the leader in ERA or batting average, not the batting champ or ERA champ. We should add the Champs as a separate listing, but have not done so yet.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Here's the Top 20 in career ERA:
1. Ed Walsh+ 1.82
2. Addie Joss+ 1.89
3. Jim Devlin 1.896 R
4. Jack Pfiester 2.02
5. Smoky Joe Wood 2.03
6. Mordecai Brown+ 2.06
7. Monte Ward+ 2.10
8. Christy Mathewson+ 2.13
9. Al Spalding+ 2.13
10. Tommy Bond 2.14
11. Rube Waddell+ 2.16
12. Walter Johnson+ 2.17
13. Mariano Rivera 2.23
14. Jake Weimer 2.23
15. Orval Overall 2.23
16. Will White 2.28
17. Babe Ruth+ 2.28
18. Ed Reulbach 2.28
19. Jim Scott 2.30
20. Reb Russell 2.33
And here's how they rank in Runs Allowed (obviously, some of these guys would not make the overall Top 20 in Runs Allowed):
13. Mariano Rivera 2.42
1. Ed Walsh+ 2.65
2. Addie Joss+ 2.82
12. Walter Johnson+ 2.89
17. Babe Ruth+ 2.95
6. Mordecai Brown+ 2.96
8. Christy Mathewson+ 3.01
18. Ed Reulbach 3.03
15. Orval Overall 3.05
4. Jack Pfiester 3.08
5. Smoky Joe Wood 3.12
14. Jake Weimer 3.12
20. Reb Russell 3.16
11. Rube Waddell+ 3.23
19. Jim Scott 3.26
7. Monte Ward+ 4.32
16. Will White 4.69
10. Tommy Bond 4.79
3. Jim Devlin 4.97
9. Al Spalding+ 5.58
January 11th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Why should Righetti qualify for one time, but not the other.
I assume that's supposed to read "team"? Anyway, Righetti played for one team, and that team played 107 games, and he had fewer than 107 IP. It seems straight-forward to me. I'll admit that it could get tricky when players are traded.
I'm sure MLB has made arbitrary rulings before. If they seem unfair or wrong, B-R can present its interpretation of the facts with an explanation. But in the Righetti case, you seem to be rewriting history. Stewart was seen as the ERA leader for many years, apparently in a close and controversial race, and now on B-R he just shows up in 2nd place without explanation.
As I wrote before, B-R has a lot of power to shape how people see the stats. I'm in favor of you showing Ty Cobb's "correct" hit total, even if MLB hasn't recognized it. It's because of this site that OPS+ and ERA+ have become so widely used, and now because of this site WAR is entering the conversation. But this Righetti thing, deciding to crown a new ERA champ, just rubs me wrong. You make a distinction between "leader" and "champ"; I'm not sure that most fans or visitors to this site do (or understand that you do).
January 11th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Dave V., I'm loving that list if Rivera is now the all-time leader in RA!
January 11th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@240 Johnny Twisto - I got a kick out of that as well, that Mariano moves to the very top of the Top 20 RA list!
There are only 33 pitchers in history who had an ERA of 2.42 or under with at least 1000 IP's (2.42 being Rivera's Runs Allowed) and none of them would top Rivera in RA (the guys between 21-33 that aren't listed above would all see their RA go up way higher than 2.42).
So with 1000 IP's being the guidelines (and that's what B-R sets), Rivera is the best in RA of all-time. He's also #1 in ERA+ of course 🙂
January 11th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
I'm not crowning a champ. I don't have that authority. I'm simply displaying that Righetti had the lowest ERA in the league. The leagues have decided those to be two different things in the past.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I cannot remember which years, but there were some weird things done with fractional innings in ERA races. There are 3 ways you could figure; 1) use all including fractions, 2) round fractions to the nearest whole, so 199.2 = 200 = 200.1, 3) truncate all fractions, so 199.2 = 199.1 = 199. I am quite sure that method 1 has not been used through out history for the official MLB winners.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
The time was ripe for Bert. With all of the steroid guys not making the cut, they had to put someone in and Bert was finally the sentimental choice to go with the logical choice. I've always thought Bert's curveball, K's, IP, W and Shutouts should've had him in long ago anyway. Kind of ridiculous that he's waited so long.
Maybe Hirschbeck could be Alomar's presenter?..... Robby did the smart thing, when they started testing for roids, he quit.....Though, clean or not, spit or not, I'll concede that he was a great player in his prime.
I would've voted for McGriff. 503 HR, counting post season and all of them clean in a dirty era. Almost 3,000 R/RBI combined, which is an automatic HOF shoe-in number. He also does charity work with kids in the Tampa community. What's a guy gotta do? Spit on an umpire?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:53 am
For anyone interested, here's the Top 100 in ERA:
1. Ed Walsh+ 1.82
2. Addie Joss+ 1.89
3. Jim Devlin 1.90
4. Jack Pfiester 2.02
5. Smoky Joe Wood 2.03
6. Mordecai Brown+ 2.06
7. Monte Ward+ 2.10
8. Christy Mathewson+ 2.13
9. Al Spalding+ 2.13
10. Tommy Bond 2.14
11. Rube Waddell+ 2.16
12. Walter Johnson+ 2.17
13. Mariano Rivera 2.23
14. Jake Weimer 2.23
15. Orval Overall 2.23
16. Will White 2.28
17. Babe Ruth+ 2.28
18. Ed Reulbach 2.28
19. Jim Scott 2.30
20. Reb Russell 2.33
21. Andy Coakley 2.35
22. Eddie Plank+ 2.35
23. Larry Corcoran 2.36
24. Eddie Cicotte 2.38
25. George McQuillan 2.38
26. Ed Killian 2.38
27. Doc White 2.39
28. Harry Coveleski 2.39
29. Carl Lundgren 2.42
30. Nap Rucker 2.42
31. Candy Cummings+ 2.42
32. Jeff Tesreau 2.43
33. Joe Benz 2.43
34. Jim McCormick 2.43
35. George Bradley 2.43
36. Terry Larkin 2.44
37. Chief Bender+ 2.46
38. Hooks Wiltse 2.47
39. Sam Leever 2.47
39. Lefty Leifield 2.47
41. Hippo Vaughn 2.49
42. Bob Ewing 2.49
43. Cy Morgan 2.51
44. Ray Collins 2.51
45. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 2.52
46. Lew Richie 2.54
47. Noodles Hahn 2.55
48. George Zettlein 2.55
49. Frank Owen 2.55
50. Pete Alexander+ 2.56
51. Slim Sallee 2.56
52. Deacon Phillippe 2.59
53. Russ Ford 2.59
54. Frank Smith 2.59
55. Ed Siever 2.60
56. Bob Rhoads 2.61
57. Cherokee Fisher 2.61
58. Fred Glade 2.62
59. Tim Keefe+ 2.63
60. Cy Young+ 2.63
61. Vic Willis+ 2.63
62. Red Ames 2.63
63. Barney Pelty 2.63
64. Claude Hendrix 2.65
65. Jack Taylor 2.65
66. Joe McGinnity+ 2.66
67. Dick Rudolph 2.66
68. Pete Schneider 2.66
69. Nick Altrock 2.67
70. Carl Weilman 2.67
71. Charlie Ferguson 2.67
72. Old Hoss Radbourn+ 2.68
73. Johnny Lush 2.68
74. Cy Falkenberg 2.68
75. Jack Chesbro+ 2.68
76. Fred Toney 2.69
77. Bill Donovan 2.69
78. Larry Cheney 2.70
79. Vean Gregg 2.70
80. Dick McBride 2.71
81. Mickey Welch+ 2.71
82. Ned Garvin 2.72
83. Bob Wicker 2.73
84. Fred Goldsmith 2.73
85. Nick Cullop 2.73
86. Harry Howell 2.74
87. Whitey Ford+ 2.75
88. Dummy Taylor 2.75
89. Howie Camnitz 2.75
90. Roy Patterson 2.75
91. Babe Adams 2.76
92. Dutch Leonard 2.76
93. Dan Quisenberry 2.76
94. Sandy Koufax+ 2.76
95. Jeff Pfeffer 2.77
96. Al Demaree 2.78
97. Earl Moore 2.78
98. Jack Coombs 2.78
99. Ed Karger 2.79
100. Ron Perranoski 2.79
And here are those same guys ranked by Runs Allowed instead, with their RA listed next to their names (clearly, many of them would not make the Top 100 RA overall, once additional players have their RA checked):
13. Mariano Rivera 2.42
1. Ed Walsh+ 2.65
2. Addie Joss+ 2.82
12. Walter Johnson+ 2.89
17. Babe Ruth+ 2.95
6. Mordecai Brown+ 2.96
8. Christy Mathewson+ 3.01
18. Ed Reulbach 3.03
15. Orval Overall 3.05
93. Dan Quisenberry 3.07
4. Jack Pfiester 3.08
45. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 3.09
94. Sandy Koufax+ 3.12
5. Smoky Joe Wood 3.12
14. Jake Weimer 3.12
30. Nap Rucker 3.12
22. Eddie Plank+ 3.14
87. Whitey Ford+ 3.14
20. Reb Russell 3.16
32. Jeff Tesreau 3.17
50. Pete Alexander+ 3.21
11. Rube Waddell+ 3.23
24. Eddie Cicotte 3.24
19. Jim Scott 3.26
26. Ed Killian 3.29
25. George McQuillan 3.30
37. Chief Bender+ 3.31
27. Doc White 3.31
44. Ray Collins 3.32
38. Hooks Wiltse 3.35
33. Joe Benz 3.37
29. Carl Lundgren 3.38
100. Ron Perranoski 3.39
91. Babe Adams 3.40
39. Lefty Leifield 3.40
76. Fred Toney 3.41
67. Dick Rudolph 3.42
41. Hippo Vaughn 3.43
95. Jeff Pfeffer 3.44
58. Fred Glade 3.45
64. Claude Hendrix 3.45
39. Sam Leever 3.46
51. Slim Sallee 3.48
92. Dutch Leonard 3.49
28. Harry Coveleski 3.50
96. Al Demaree 3.51
54. Frank Smith 3.53
79. Vean Gregg 3.53
63. Barney Pelty 3.54
70. Carl Weilman 3.55
69. Nick Altrock 3.57
98. Jack Coombs 3.59
46. Lew Richie 3.60
53. Russ Ford 3.60
47. Noodles Hahn 3.64
61. Vic Willis+ 3.65
43. Cy Morgan 3.65
21. Andy Coakley 3.66
49. Frank Owen 3.66
42. Bob Ewing 3.68
77. Bill Donovan 3.68
89. Howie Camnitz 3.70
52. Deacon Phillippe 3.70
62. Red Ames 3.70
56. Bob Rhoads 3.73
85. Nick Cullop 3.73
75. Jack Chesbro+ 3.74
78. Larry Cheney 3.75
90. Roy Patterson 3.75
66. Joe McGinnity+ 3.76
74. Cy Falkenberg 3.81
68. Pete Schneider 3.82
83. Bob Wicker 3.85
60. Cy Young+ 3.87
99. Ed Karger 3.88
97. Earl Moore 3.99
55. Ed Siever 4.03
86. Harry Howell 4.06
88. Dummy Taylor 4.09
65. Jack Taylor 4.10
73. Johnny Lush 4.15
7. Monte Ward+ 4.32
59. Tim Keefe+ 4.40
34. Jim McCormick 4.41
72. Old Hoss Radbourn+ 4.52
82. Ned Garvin 4.59
23. Larry Corcoran 4.65
16. Will White 4.69
71. Charlie Ferguson 4.71
81. Mickey Welch+ 4.79
10. Tommy Bond 4.79
84. Fred Goldsmith 4.94
3. Jim Devlin 4.97
35. George Bradley 5.19
36. Terry Larkin 5.30
9. Al Spalding+ 5.58
31. Candy Cummings+ 6.07
80. Dick McBride 6.80
48. George Zettlein 7.07
57. Cherokee Fisher 7.41
Some of the things that stand out to me...
7 of the guys on the career ERA list actually gave up over 5 runs a game. 3 guys gave up over 5 runs, 2 guys over 6 runs and 2 guys over 7 runs...ouch. Jim Devlin, who is #3 in ERA drops to #93 on this RA list (and again, amongst all MLB's over 1000 IP, he'd be even lower than that). Al Spalding (more famous for his sporting equipment) drops from #9 to #96. Candy Cummings (curveball inventor) drops from #31 to #97.
4 HOF pitchers in the HOF for their on-field accomplishments (as opposed to Spalding & Cummings) had RA's well over 4: Monte Ward, Tim Keefe, Old Hoss Radbourne & Mickey Welch.
As noted a few posts ago, Mariano Rivera moves up to to #1 all-time in RA. Babe Ruth shoots into the #5 spot and is one of only 6 guys in MLB history (with that 1000 IP criteria) to have an RA under 3.
Dan Quisenberry rises from #93 to #10. Hoyt Wilhelm rises from #45 to #12. Sandy Koufax rises from #94 to #13. Whitey Ford rises from #87 to #18. Clearly, RP's who hit 1000 IP AND are really excellent have the chance to do well on this list (aka Quiz and Hoyt), since they have fewer innings...but not that many RP's hit 1000 IP's, so that's why there aren't all that many RP's on this list. Also, as I went through the Top 100, I found that quite a lot of the SP's were not that much over 1000 IP's themselves. Many of the deadball pitchers had relatively short careers (they were throwing just a few more IP's per year than SP's nowadays).
January 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
So Dave Dravecky should rank 9th in the 1986 NL with his 3.07 ERA. He pitched 161.1 IP and some other NL teams played only 160 or 161 games.