Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Dan Quisenberry

Eligible in 1996.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 04:49 PM | 24 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2310249)
Not enough career for me, but that was some peak that he had.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2007 at 05:22 PM (#2310262)
I don't get what differentiates him from Gossage and Sutter.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2310317)
I don't get what differentiates him from Gossage and Sutter.

I agree with you about Sutter, but Gossage?
   4. yest Posted: March 11, 2007 at 07:12 PM (#2310322)
I don't get what differentiates him from Gossage

aproximtlly 800 inninings
   5. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 11, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2310338)
He was, however, a much better poet than Gossage.
   6. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 11, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2310356)
He was, however, a much better poet than Gossage.

But Gossage had a better moustache.
   7. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 11, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2310358)
Why did Quis have trouble with inherited runners? He was awesome and gave up very few homers with his sinker, yet he consistently gave up more IHR than his leagues, despite having decent to good infield defenses behind him. For his career, I have him giving up ~10% more IHR than his league. Quis 38% IHRS, league 34.5% IHRS. In the last 45 or so years, among important relief aces, only Jeff Montgomery has been worse (13% more IHR than league). What gives?
   8. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 11, 2007 at 09:11 PM (#2310367)
Understanding that these are ridiculously small sample sizes the Brewers had multiple players who hit the "Quiz" pretty hard.

Ogilvie, about whom Dan wrote some verse.

Cooper, who seemed to get on base every other at bat.

Yount, who would golf that sinker into right-centerfield.

Gorman, who would crouch down at the plate and punch at the ball instead of his usual hammer toss swing.

Great pitcher. But the Crew whacked him around pretty good.
   9. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 11, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2310433)
What's funy is that I forgot for a second that Milwaukee used to be in the AL. I was thinking, 'wait, how did the Brewers ever play the Royals'?
   10. Guapo Posted: March 12, 2007 at 01:17 AM (#2310493)
Was Quisenberry the most valuable pitcher in the AL between 1980 and 1985?
   11. AndrewJ Posted: March 12, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2310508)
What's funy is that I forgot for a second that Milwaukee used to be in the AL.

That's nothing -- I forgot for a minute that Kansas City was still in the majors...

t
   12. DCW3 Posted: March 12, 2007 at 06:43 AM (#2310605)
Was Quisenberry the most valuable pitcher in the AL between 1980 and 1985?

I think it's tough to give that honor to anyone besides Dave Stieb. Stieb has a pretty strong case for deserving four consecutive Cy Youngs from 1982 to 1985.
   13. Mike Green Posted: March 12, 2007 at 02:26 PM (#2310681)
Quiz' inherited runner efficiency was less than league because he gave up singles. Few strikeouts and probably an above average number of line drives are the likely culprits.

The difference between Gossage and Quiz isn't so much the innings, but the dominance. In Gossage's prime of 1000 innings, he had an ERA+ of 185. Quiz' career lasted that long, and he had an ERA+ of 146. The ERA+, if anything, understates the difference due to Quiz' underperformance with regard to inherited runners.

Quiz was every bit as good as Sutter, though.
   14. TomH Posted: March 12, 2007 at 10:59 PM (#2310992)
Quiz allowed a LOT of singles. When you start an inning, it's tough to score only on singles, but inherited runners are different.

I played a simulation some time ago where one owner had Quiz in some of his prime years. Great ERA, but in that sim, I saw it coming how his high H/9 would allow lots of inherited runners to score; which they did.
   15. Paul Wendt Posted: March 12, 2007 at 11:39 PM (#2311007)
Gorman, who would crouch down at the plate and punch at the ball instead of his usual hammer toss swing.

:-!
I can picture Stormin' Gorman in both atbats, and I can't picture Chet Lemon anyhow.
   16. Howie Menckel Posted: March 13, 2007 at 01:02 PM (#2311201)
I would hope that a manager nowadays would know better than to bring in a Quisenberry type in mid-inning, but I'm sure they wouldn't.
They'd see the hope of a double play and NOT see how dangerous it is to let someone hit the ball, basically.

I hope no one ignores inherited-runner data in evaluating Quiz vs Rollie "strand-em" Fingers!
   17. Dizzypaco Posted: March 13, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2311213)
Understanding that these are ridiculously small sample sizes the Brewers had multiple players who hit the "Quiz" pretty hard.

I looked up his record against the Brewers, and it was interesting to say the least. From 1979 to 1981, his first three years in the league, Quiz gave up 16 runs in 13.7 innings against the Brewers, a cool 10.54 ERA. Against the rest of the league it was 2.24. Small sample size, but pretty remarkable. After '81, things became more normal.- his ERA against the Brew Crew was 3.65 in '82, and 3.07 from '83 to '86.
   18. Anthony Giacalone Posted: March 16, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2313130)
I don't get what differentiates him from Gossage and Sutter.

Forty-five degrees of arm angle?
   19. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 16, 2007 at 07:54 PM (#2313139)
The Brewers had multiple players who hit the "Quiz" pretty hard.

Right you are.
In 262 PAs (45 games), the Brew Crew smacked around Quiz to a line of 311/341/484/825. Of the 13 AL teams he faced, 5.31 ERA against Milwaukee is the highest.
   20. Anthony Giacalone Posted: March 17, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2313293)
Wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which, before their union, were not perceived to have any relation.
- Samuel Clemens' Notebook, 1885
   21. Mike Webber Posted: March 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM (#2320759)
Posnanski on Quiz vs Sutter - March 29, 2007

Quiz vs. Sutter, Take 1

One of the great things about having a blog is that it allows you to write way too much about topics that interest nobody else but you. So for the next two days, I’m going to offer WAY too much on my personal quest to answer this question: Who was the better pitcher, Dan Quisenberry or Bruce Sutter? Today, we break down a few numbers – much of this is stuff I have included here and there in my column. Tomorrow, though, I introduce a semi-new relief pitcher statistic that will undoubtedly embarrass every single math teacher I ever had.
   22. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 30, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2320893)
The key differences between Quis and Sutter are the inherited runners, and Leverage.

Sutter was leveraged way more, making his innings much more valuable. And Quisenberry wasn't just bad with inherited runners, he was awful. The second worst of 60-some closers I've looked it.

That's enough to drop Quis to about 15th (from memory) and leave Sutter 5th among the closers I've worked through. I still think Sutter should be out, his increased leverage is the only thing that gives him the bump to be close, IMO. Quis wasn't too underleveraged (he was underleveraged a little), it was more like Sutter was overleveraged.
   23. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 30, 2007 at 05:37 PM (#2320929)
Also the NL in their time was much, much stronger than the AL. I guess that's the 3rd major difference.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6245 seconds
49 querie(s) executed