What championship did Clemens win with the Red Sox?

The 1986 American League Championship.

Their curves indicate they should have been in the pros years earlier.

The way that sentence is written, Chris, it implies a judgment that someone made a mistake holding them back. I assume you don't really mean that about Seaver, at least, who spent only one minor league season (the Mets started him in AAA), and was up at Shea the next year. Alexander, of course, was set back by the beaning and its aftermath.

What does this formula say about Glavine? Or does it just say, "Get out of here, Tom. This has nothing to do with ordinary mortals like you."

It does mean that. Seaver was probably ready as a sophomore in college - not that hte Mets held him back. But he *certainly* could have not spent any time in the minors.

His curve is that exaggerated.

My point is when they first started pitching in MLB, they were "fully formed". They came in near the top of their game. That means wasted years (pitching wise), regardless of the reasons - there may be good reasons why, but the skill was there.

I included Glavine in the mix, and from above, Glavine is looking like not very good from his recent performance. He's looking like 200 IP at 105 ERA+ from a HOF perspective, and even worse by his personal chart. Looking at his chart, a GRT score in the 22000 range seems about right.

Had the Mets started Seaver out in the majors, and had it worked (as it no doubt would have), they would have been hailed as the greatest minds in baseball history. This is a guy almost no teams even decided to get into a lottery for after the Braves' deal was voided -- and the Mets would have been starting him in the majors! That would have gone way beyond gutsy, and way beyond thinking outside the conventional box. But wouldn't it have been something if, in spring training, they'd have said, "The hell with it. This kid's ready, and he's either the best or the second best pitcher we've got (Koosman). He's coming to New York."

Not to nitpick too much, but the 'ready as a sophomore' comment is not accurate. Seaver was the very definition of a late bloomer -- still at Fresno City College as a sophomore and needed to "win" a scholarship at USC by pitching in Alaska. He may have been overlooked some, but it wasn't until his second go-round in Alaska, following his 3rd year in college, that he got any real attention.

I suspect in a touch-feely way that the determination developed during Seaver's slow ascension, the need to "prove" himself over and over on the way up, really contributed to his success once he had all the physical tools ready.

That said, he prolly coulda been a decent Met starter in '66.

Gooden and Valenzuela both arrived in the majors "fully formed." Neither went on to a HoF career, of course, and they were both so young that I doubt they could have been up much earlier.

Position players sometimes go straight to the majors, without spending a day in the minors, but how often does that really happen for a pitcher? I can think of Jim Abbott, and David Clyde, although he got to the minors quickly enough. I suppose some of the bonus babies did, too. Did Koufax ever pitch in the minors?

Not to nitpick too much, but the 'ready as a sophomore' comment is not accurate. Seaver was the very definition of a late bloomer -- still at Fresno City College as a sophomore and needed to "win" a scholarship at USC by pitching in Alaska. He may have been overlooked some, but it wasn't until his second go-round in Alaska, following his 3rd year in college, that he got any real attention.

Oh, that's fair. I wasn't trying to analyze his college performance, but rather comparing his development curve compared to his peers. He's about 2-3 years behind the curve. The others were just "unbloomed" in the majors.

It also doesn't matter if *others* thought he was ready - his development curve is such that most of his peers had experienced MLB with limited success prior to beginning their dominanace. That he dominated out of the gate indicates he *could* have pitched earlier - the exact number of years is guesswork.

Gooden and Valenzuela both arrived in the majors "fully formed."

Interestingly, their curves are even more different. They have *inverse* curves. I don't know exactly what that means.

Position players sometimes go straight to the majors, without spending a day in the minors, but how often does that really happen for a pitcher? I can think of Jim Abbott, and David Clyde, although he got to the minors quickly enough. I suppose some of the bonus babies did, too. Did Koufax ever pitch in the minors?

Catfish Hunter

Chris,

What exactly are the numbers in that table? The average GRT of the pitchers in your sample? Are you dealing with the fact that the better pitchers will last longer?

(I realize this is a nitpick, but a parabola is not a "bell curve". That name is reserved for the "normal" [sometimes called a "gaussian"] distribution.)

The same applies to Clemens that applies to Seaver.

Except for the performance part.

Seaver
251 IP 122 ERA+
277 IP 137 ERA+

Clemens
133 IP 96 ERA+
98 IP 130 ERA+

What exactly are the numbers in that table? The average GRT of the pitchers in your sample? Are you dealing with the fact that the better pitchers will last longer?

Yes, I know it is about better pitchers. This metric probably isn't useful for non-great pitchers, but we're in the embryonic stages. Lots more palyers to look at.

The curve I present is specifically for players approaching hte HOF.

(I realize this is a nitpick, but a parabola is not a "bell curve". That name is reserved for the "normal" [sometimes called a "gaussian"] distribution.)

That's not a nit - I shouldn't be so sloppy - thanks.

Actually Clemens is sort of an exception. kevin is correct that Clemens came in with very high value (not like Seaver). Clemens had a unique curve to. It was extremely shallow.

The first unit in teh equation is heavily negative - teh average is -183. Pedro is -700. Most are between -166 and -400.

Pete and Seaver are -70 and -35 respectively.

Clemens is also just -76. However, Rocket has a nice consistent parabola over his career, but it is shallower than most and much higher.

I am pretty confident in saying these three pitchers are the greatest ever. Pete and Seaver have by far the highest "intercept" value. Clemens is fourth, just behind the Big Train.

Given the times when these players pitched, I'd have to say either Clemens or Seaver is the "greatest" pitcher ever - but I haven't done much with the other 7000 pitchers.

You really need to come up with something better than GRT too. It sounds like they all have serious stomach reflux problems.

It's pronounced "Great"

He was a couple of years on the wrong side of 30, and he was seeing signs of fewer strikeouts and more home runs allowed.

Besides the championship thing, this is also misleading if you're talking about Clemens (rather than Pedro). Clemens' K-rate at the end of his time with the Red Sox was very much like it had been for most of his career. It even took a big jump in 96. His HR did go up, relative to league it was lower. It was the defense and his BB rate that had seemed to slow Clemens down at the end of his time in Boston.

The similarities between the Clemens and Pedro departures are quite interesting, but so are the differences. Pedro had a FIP of 2.87 in 05 after a 3.68 in 04--a difference that can largely be attributed to park and league. So far in 06 it's 4.02. Both his stats and his stuff made it obvious that he had lost a bit in 04, and both appear to have continued in 05 and 06. In contrast, Clemens was dominant in his last year with Boston in front of a brutal defense and then dominated even more with a great defense in Toronto.

The decision to let Clemens walk looked foolish at the time and looks even worse now. The Pedro decision looked, at worst, questionable at the time, and looks about the same now. (Who they chose to spend their leftover money on is another story.)

The Pedro decision looked, at worst, questionable at the time, and looks about the same now.

You're kidding. Did you see Pedro's 2005? Did you see who led the Red So starters in ERA+?

Pedro was about 3 or 4 wins over the best Red Sox starter, and twice that over the worst regular starter.

The Sox walk to the AL East pennant instead of finishing second, and have a real shot at the WS.

The same may well happen this season.

"About the same?" Sounds like sour grapes.

Pedro was about 3 or 4 wins over the best Red Sox starter, and twice that over the worst regular starter.


Did you see the part where I said "who they chose to spend their leftover money on is another story?" I'm talking about letting Pedro walk 'in isolation.' The Sox could have let Pedro walk, instead signed Millwood and Byrd, and still had enough left over to grab Tony Clark.

You're also only considering 2005 in this equation. The Sox would have had to guarantee Pedro a couple more years to get him to sign.

"About the same?" Sounds like sour grapes.

Bias perhaps, but not sour grapes. I didn't have much of a soft spot for Pedro and thought his best days were behind him. His 2005 was, admittedly, better than I thought it would be.

K/9 is a prime factor in terms of ability to succeed, right?

pedro's K/9 in 2004 was 9.4.

he gave up slightly more walks (still above a 3:1 K:BB ratio) and a few more homeruns.

saying he was "done" was ridiculous.

if the Red Sox had Pedro last year, they're a far better team. Same goes for this year.

saying he's on his downside, while technically true, still means he's competing for a cy young.

and really, 4 years of pedro will give you 2 years of brilliance, in all likelihood, 1 year of a good pitcher, and 1 year of an above average pitcher.

barring injury, it's a really good investment. and pitchers are not commodities that can be bought without risk,

Here's something I found interesting. Pedro's BABIP is .177 so far this year after a 2005 season in which it was .248. Overall, Pedro's BABIP since becoming a Met is .239 in 250.2 IP. Normally, I'd think that Pedro's 2005 season was just some random good luck but he is seemingly continuing the trend this year and he does get a lot of flyouts. I don't think 250 innings is enough to make a conclusion but is it possible that Pedro has altered his style since becoming a Met in order to get more control on batted balls than the average pitcher?

I don't think 250 innings is enough to make a conclusion but is it possible that Pedro has altered his style since becoming a Met in order to get more control on batted balls than the average pitcher?

Is that adjusted for park? Shea may be more well-suited to have control on batted balls... and if I could pick a guy who is able to make small adjustments in location to take advantage of certain park "quirks", it would be a guy like Pedro.

Did you see the part where I said "who they chose to spend their leftover money on is another story?" I'm talking about letting Pedro walk 'in isolation.' The Sox could have let Pedro walk, instead signed Millwood and Byrd, and still had enough left over to grab Tony Clark.

I don't think they could get both those guys - Besides, I think they signed Clement, Wells Miller. Independent of those guys, Pedro would have replaced *Arroyo* in the rotation, so my observation is correct. Even had they signed Millwood/Byrd, Pedro would have made them 3-4 wins better. And really, money for hte Sox is no object - the decision is completely about value (not total dollars).

You're also only considering 2005 in this equation. The Sox would have had to guarantee Pedro a couple more years to get him to sign.

I know it is about 4 years; and the Mets are going to get outstanding value. Pedro replaces the *bottom* of the rotation, and in the Mets (and Sox) case, that's 5-7 wins, and that *is worth* the extra cash. Particularly if you win teh pennant.

The Red Sox chose poorly - I think the outstanding 05 and the the way he looks thus far in 06. The next two years almost can't be bad enough to offeset the quality of these two (if he maintains his performance throughout the season).

It would be worth $50 mil for the Sox to win a WS title in 05-06, and Pedro could well have been the difference.

Signing Millwood with Pedro money would have been a really bad idea, IMO.

Chris--

Sorry I've dragged this thread off the tracks a bit. I think your tracking of star pitchers' careers is really interesting and I should have let that be the focus of discussion here. I don't agree with you about Pedro/Clemens, but I wanted to send this thread back toward your excellent work--it's GR8T!

Darren -
not to worry - threads and discussions should have many aspects. I hope my typing didn't present an unduly harsh tone.

I spent some of the weekend thinking about how to divide pitchers into these categories on a historical basis.

I think it will mostly let us look at the end of pitcher careers, and notso uch early. But maybe. I need to look at HUdson and Zito and Buerhle.

No problem, Chris. I just started to realize that I've made my case against Pedro a bunch of times, and anyone who's interested in it has already probably heard it.

Hey, we didn't start in on steroids, so who's gonna complain?

And I haven't heard your case, so I don't mind.