“You can pitch as good as you want, but your team still needs to pick you up.”

Don't let Brantley hear you say that, he'll excommunicate your from the brotherhood.

“You can pitch as good as you want, but your team still needs to pick you up.”

The San Diego Padre said passive agressively . . .

The Yanks have scored 13 runs more than the Indians and have played one more game.

Maybe Peavy shouldn't have gotten #### slapped last night

but the Yankees score so many runs.

If only this were true.

Yes, damn that Dan Haren for not knowing a team in the other league has significantly regressed offensively this year.

"but the Yankees score so many runs"

Actually, I didn't even click to see who wrote this. Watch any baseball this year, have ya?

Actually, I didn't even click to see who wrote this. Watch any baseball this year, have ya?

It's ######## Dan Haren, so the answer is probably not much.

That’s what’s so impressive to me,” says Diamondbacks starter Dan Haren (13-6), “is seeing guys winning on teams below .500. Not to take anything away from a guy like (Mike) Mussina, but the Yankees score so many runs.

Run Support per 27 outs (BB-REF game logs has this)

Mike Mussina 5.31
Dan Haren 5.55

Danny has been great, but I just had to throw that out there. ;)

Haren and Mussina just know how to pitch to the score

Actually, I didn't even click to see who wrote this. Watch any baseball this year, have ya?

You don't have to click anywhere. Comprehend the written word, do ya?

Actually, I didn't even click to see who wrote this. Watch any baseball this year, have ya?

Agreed. The Yankee offense sucks dead donkey dicks.

Is Ed Figueroa the worst 20 game winner ever? He has to be the worst one with five vowels in his name.

He's the only one with five vowels in his name.

Figueroa was at least a good pitcher for four years. Wayne Garland only had two decent years as a starter, as did Ron Bryant.

Agreed. The Yankee offense sucks dead donkey dicks.

I'd be more impressed if the donkey dicks were alive.

I'd be more impressed if the donkey dicks were alive.

Or the new Yankees centerfielder

Is Ed Figueroa the worst 20 game winner ever? He has to be the worst one with five vowels in his name.

20 game winners, worst ERA+:
Cnt Player ERA+ W L
+----+-----------------+----+--+--+----+---+
1 Henry Schmidt 83 22 13
2 Lew Burdette 87 21 15
3 Christy Mathewson 87 22 12
4 Stan Bahnsen 88 21 16
5 Jack Harper 88 23 13
6 Christy Mathewson 88 24 13
7 Denny McLain 89 20 14
8 Hooks Dauss 90 21 9
9 Jack Coombs 90 28 12
10 George Mullin 91 21 12

worst 20 game winners by ERA+, 1969 to present:
Cnt Player ERA+ W L
+----+-----------------+----+--+--+----+---+
1 Stan Bahnsen 88 21 16
2 Joe Niekro 92 20 12
3 Steve Carlton 101 20 9
4 Paul Splittorff 102 20 11
5 Jack Morris 102 21 6
6 Jim Merritt 102 20 12
7 Joaquin Andujar 105 21 12
8 Mike Cuellar 105 24 8
9 Wilbur Wood 105 20 19
10 Joaquin Andujar 105 20 14
11 John Burkett 106 22 7
12 Tom Browning 107 20 9
13 Catfish Hunter 107 21 5
14 Dennis Leonard 107 20 11
15 Bill Gullickson 107 20 9
16 Andy Messersmith 108 20 13
17 Vida Blue 108 20 9
18 Rick Helling 109 20 7
19 Ron Bryant 109 24 12
20 Rick Sutcliffe 109 20 6

You have to go to 75th "worst" with an ERA+ of 121 to reach Figgy- so no, he's not the worst 20 game winner ever- not even close- even by career value- remember Lima Time!

18 Rick Helling 109 20 7

Glad to see Helling made the list. He's always the first guy that comes to mind for me when I think of lousy 20 game winners.

Rick Helling went 20-7 in 1998? What the hell?

Also, the Yankees are 7th out of 14 American League teams in runs scored. That is not an offense that sucks donkey balls, living, dead or zombified. This is called "average". I know, it's such a strange and bizarre experience for Yankees fans (especially young ones) to be average.

I know, it's such a strange and bizarre experience for Yankees fans (especially young ones) to be average.

It's not that strange, 96, 2000 and 2001 could all be classified as average in some way, either by runs scored or OPS+ or both. You'd have to be pretty young not to remember the 00 or 01 teams. The reason people say this offense sucks is because it should be scoring a significant number of runs more than it is.

Rick Helling went 20-7 in 1998? What the hell?

That was the two-year period (98-99) when Texas' rotation was Sele and Helling and then get ready for shelling. The two of them won 70 games combined which I'm pretty sure was the most of any teammates in the AL those years.

Glad to see Helling made the list. He's always the first guy that comes to mind for me when I think of lousy 20 game winners.

A 109 ERA+ is not lousy. Nor is 101 for a career. And his UER/ER is pretty low, so he actually pitched better than that. When you pitch 200+ solidly above-average innings for a team that can score, you'll win 20 games occasionally.

I always think of Storm Davis, 19-7 with an 85 ERA+ in 1989, even though he was a win short.

A 109 ERA+ is not lousy.

It is for a 20 game winner. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of the 20 worst seasons seasons for 20 game winners since 1969.

I was thinking worst career for a 20 game winner. I never studied the issue, but I was looking at Figueroa's bb-ref page one day and noticed that he only had 80 wins altogether. This thread just triggered my memory.

That would have to be Jose Lima, with his 89-102, 85 ERA+ brand of glory, I'd think.

If only Mussina had won one more in '96, he'd simulatenously have been both a HOFer and the seventh-worst 20-game winner of the post-expansion era!

That would have to be Jose Lima, with his 89-102, 85 ERA+ brand of glory, I'd think.

In 600 more innings than Ron Bryant. That probably has to count for something even if Bryant's ERA+ was 7 points higher.

Yeah, but that's 600 innings a team is probably better off without, is the thing.

OK (without looking)--worst lifetime ERA+ of any pitcher who won 25 or more in a season (since 1930)

hint #1--it ain't Bob Welch, which would have been my guess

hint #2--it's almost Denny McLain, but it isn't

I'll have to go to Bill James Online and ask him to replay his Drydale-Pappas experiment with Bryant and Lima.

A 109 ERA+ is not lousy.

It is for a 20 game winner.

No, it isn't. First off, there are 7 other guys at 109, so it's only in the top 20 by a meaningless margin. Secondly, Helling actually pitched significantly better than the guys he's tied with.

Unearned runs, pitchers with 20+ wins and 109 ERA+ since 1969:

Helling 3
Lieber 6
Scott 8
Singer 11
Cueller 11
Sutcliffe 14
Pettitte 16
Bryant 19

Rick Helling was not a lousy pitcher, and he was not a lousy pitcher for a 20 game winner in 1998.

#29

Steve Stone?

First off, there are 7 other guys at 109, so it's only in the top 20 by a meaningless margin.

So worst 25.

Helling 3
Lieber 6
Scott 8
Singer 11
Cueller 11
Sutcliffe 14
Pettitte 16
Bryant 19

Rick Helling was not a lousy pitcher, and he was not a lousy pitcher for a 20 game winner in 1998.

Ok, so he was 25th worst, which still qualifies as lousy when you're talking about 40 years of history.

I also didn't say he was a lousy pitcher in general. He was a lousy 20 game winner and nothing you've said has come close to persuading me otherwise.

#29

Steve Stone?

give that man a scar

Ok, so he was 25th worst, which still qualifies as lousy when you're talking about 40 years of history.

If you go by RA, he's probably about 40th or 50th worst -- you have to go a ways down the list before the ERA+ list opens up much, and the guys above him aren't giving up only 3 UER either. There are 212 20+ win seasons seasons total since 1969. If the bottom 20% of all such seasons are lousy, then you're right. However, if you mean "lousy" to be "more than a bad start or two worse than a typical season" which is much closer to common understanding, then only Bahnsen and Niekro and maybe Splittorff (19 ER, crappy K/BB) really qualify.

There are 212 20+ win seasons seasons total since 1969. If the bottom 20% of all such seasons are lousy, then you're right.

Um, within the universe of 20-win seasons since 1969 rank-ordered by ERA+, the bottom 20% is by definition the lousiest.

Steve, of all people, I assumed you would understand that using ERA+ alone to judge the quality of pitching seasons is not the way to go.

But why 20%? By definition the bottom X% are the lousiest. Whether X is 1, 20, or 99.

Steve, of all people, I assumed you would understand that using ERA+ alone to judge the quality of pitching seasons is not the way to go.

But we aren't discussing the quality of pitching seasons, writ large. We're discussing the quality of pitching seasons by 20-game winners, and 20-game winners alone.

But why 20%? By definition the bottom X% are the lousiest.

Well, within any population, the bottom 20% is the lousiest 20%. The bottom X% is the lousiest X%. Of course 20% is an arbitrary proportion, but it's hardly unusual to isolate the bottom quintile in any analysis as distinctly below the norm.

But we aren't discussing the quality of pitching seasons, writ large. We're discussing the quality of pitching seasons by 20-game winners, and 20-game winners alone.

What about something like SNVA?

I still remember when Larry Christenson went 19-6 (with a 4.06 ERA- this was the 70s- that wasn't a good ERA)- two prior years 11-6 and 13-8

The year after going 19-6 he was under .500 (finished 13-14) I remember late in the season they were playing the Mets- and the announcers went on for about 5 innings about what a HUGE disappointment Christenson was- how after the prior year everyone thought he was going to be a 20 game winner- one announcer said he's been talking with the Phils announcer before the game, he said they were "baffled"- if you watched him pitch - it looked like he was pitching as well as the previous year- but "nothing was working for him".

In fact Christenson's "disaster" year was the best year of his career, he said career highs in both IP and ERA+- he had 13 more Ks, 22 less walks and 5 fewer HR allowed than in his 19 win season.

In fact, when he went 19-6 the Phillies scored 6.35 runs per start- the next year when he actually pitched better, the Phillies only scored 3.42 runs per start.

What about something like SNVA?

What would Saturday Night Veterinary Appointments have to do with it?

Of course 20% is an arbitrary proportion, but it's hardly unusual to isolate the bottom quintile in any analysis as distinctly below the norm.

But in this distribution, because it's so tightly bunched, the 20% percentile is very clearly *not* distinctly below the norm. CP probably thinks of Helling's season as "lousy" because he had a mid-4's ERA. But that mark is very good for Arlington in the 90's, and ERA underrates Helling as a fly-ball/low-UER pitcher.

To use a better single metric, Helling had 25 RSAA in 1998; that's pretty good. Same mark as Roy Oswalt in 2004, when he won 20. Would you call Oswalt lousy?

CP probably thinks of Helling's season as "lousy" because he had a mid-4's ERA.

Um, no. I rarely even look at ERA anymore. I think it's lousy relative to other 20 win seasons because out of all the 20 win seasons since 1969, it's got the 17th worst ERA+.

To use a better single metric, Helling had 25 RSAA in 1998; that's pretty good. Same mark as Roy Oswalt in 2004, when he won 20. Would you call Oswalt lousy?

A metric is telling you that a season in which Helling threw 216.3 innings at a 107 ERA+ with three UERs is equal to a season in which Oswalt threw 237 innings at 125 ERA+ with 8 UERs and you think that makes it a better metric?

Um, no. I rarely even look at ERA anymore. I think it's lousy because out of all the 20 win seasons since 1969, it's got the 17th worst ERA+.

Which you knew subconsciously, of course, since you already considered him the example of a lousy 20-game winner before you even saw the list:

Glad to see Helling made the list. He's always the first guy that comes to mind for me when I think of lousy 20 game winners.

Which you knew subconsciously, of course, since you already considered him the example of a lousy 20-game winner before you even saw the list:

Yeah, the guy led the league in wins with a 109 ERA+. He wasn't even in the top ten in innings that year.

A metric is telling you that a season in which Helling threw 216.3 innings at a 107 ERA+ with three UERs is equal to a season in which Oswalt threw 237 innings at 125 ERA+ with 8 UERs and you think that makes it a better metric?

actually, it's PRAA (I misremembered the name) ... and it attempts to correct for defense as well. Both Oswalt and Helling had poor defenses behind them ... if defense isn't filtered out, Helling was 15 RAA, Oswalt 19 RAA. It's not a perfect statistic, but it's better than ERA+.

In 600 more innings than Ron Bryant. That probably has to count for something even if Bryant's ERA+ was 7 points higher.

At that level of crappiness those 600 innings are a detriment.

After reading the headline, I thought this was going to be an article about how the 20-game winner is dead.

At least they have been right on the 300 game winner. I've read how the 300 game winner was dead, each of the past 5 times a pitcher hit the 300 win milestone.

It is obvious Randy Johnson won't be getting to 300, Mussina either. "They" nailed that.