Again, it's a superminor weight in my system - it's my way of crediting guys for bad luck in their W-L record - while it's not perfect, I think it's better than straight W-L.

Hubbell's translated W-L record was 254-138 (real record 253-154) with 33 real life saves. He loses .14 from NERA to DERA, which means he played behind very good defenses.

Pierce's translated record was 251-136, 32 real life saves (his real record was 211-169).

Hubbell gave up 1.1 HR/9 translated, while Pierce only gave up .9, that might have something to do with it. Hubbell translated to 7.7 H/9, and 1.7 BB, Pierce 7.6 H/9, 2.5 BB.

The translated numbers try to put the eras on equal footing in terms of H/9, HR/9, BB/9, K/9 - hits are taken into account, so it's not a DIPS thing, unless I'm misunderstanding.

BTW, Pierce loses .12 from NERA -> DERA, so his defenses were also good, though not quite as good as Hubbell's.

Hubbell gave up 1.1 HR/9 translated, while Pierce only gave up .9, that might have something to do with it.

I think that's it. Hubbell is getting hammered by the HR translations. His 27 HR allowed in 1935 gets ballooned up to 47. This while the Polo Grounds had a PPF of 96. The Polo Grounds was a unique place. As easy for HR's as the Baker Bowl, yet with PPF's 15-20 points lower due to copious room in foul territory and CF.

Mathewson and Alexander get hammered by the HR translations, but real gopher-ballers like Robin Roberts and Ferguson Jenkins are left relatively unscathed.

As an aside, Roberts' translations are extremely flattering. I understand that in 1957/1958, he was mediocre/quite-good rather then brutal/decent as his actual W/L suggests, but I'm not sure how they translate 21-13 for 1956 (with 8 fewer HR allowed!) and 18-12/16-11 for 1959-60.

All very weird. I still say those BP translations are more like "toy" calculations.

Joe,

If I understand your system correctly, pitcher batting only enters the "peak" part of the rating (which is based on WARP1, which includes batting). The other pieces are based on pitching only. It seems to me that it may underrate pitchers who were also good hitters, such as Walters, Grimes, and Mays.

Drysdale first ballot electee, Tommy Bridges 4 votes?

Drysdale first ballot electee, Tommy Bridges 4 votes?

Comparing both of them to their peers in top-ten IP clearly places Drysdale significantly above Bridges, IMO, not to mention (to a lesser extent) Double D's offense.

With the 600 more IP that Drysdale has, Bridges would have been in my now. Without those, he's stuck in the glut of borderline guys.

You are correct Brent.

If someone could get me RCAAP (Runs Created Above Average at Position) for all of the pitchers, I'd factor that into the system. But as of right now, I don't have any way to adjust for the fact that pitchers have gotten progressively worse batting.

Does the Sabermetric Encyclopedia offer this? If so, I'd probably break down and finally buy it.

David, when you adjust for era and war, I get Bridges within 102 translated innings of Drysdale.

David, when you adjust for era and war, I get Bridges within 102 translated innings of Drysdale.

OK, fair enough. I wasn't giving war credit to Bridges. Its hard to believe that Drysdale gets dinged for pitching in the era of four-man rotations.

I'd guess he gets dinged in his IP for Dodger Stadium. If he's getting dinged purely for his era in comparison to the 1930s, then I think BP translations are wrong: the average starting pitcher was not throwing any more innings in the 1960s than the average starting pitcher of the 1930s!

as of right now, I don't have any way to adjust for the fact that pitchers have gotten progressively worse batting.

Hasn't everyone memorized this table, provided by jimd more than once?
>>
Decade 1B LF RF CF 3B 2B Ca SS Pit
1870's +1 +4 -1 +4 +2 +2 +0 +1 -13
1880's 13 +6 +1 +5 +1 -1 -7 -2 -17
1890's +6 +9 +7 +7 +0 -2 -6 -2 -22
1900's +6 10 +9 +8 +0 +2 -9 -1 -29
1910's +6 +7 +9 10 +1 +1 -7 -4 -31
1920's +9 10 10 +8 -3 +1 -4 -7 -32
1930's 13 +8 10 +5 -1 -3 -3 -4 -36
1940's +8 11 +9 +7 +2 -3 -4 -4 -37
1950's +9 10 +7 +7 +4 -3 -1 -5 -40
1960's 11 +9 11 +7 +4 -5 -3 -6 -46
1970's 10 +8 +8 +5 +3 -5 -2 -11-45
1980's +8 +6 +6 +2 +3 -4 -4 -8 -48
1990's +9 +4 +6 +1 +1 -3 -4 -7 -50
Mean.. +9 +8 +7 +6 +1 -2 -4 -5 -36
<<

I believe that is OPS+, average by fielding position, percent above or below league-average. So the average for each row, weighted by plate appearances, should be 0.

Agree that Drysdale should have way more than 100 translated extra IP compared to Bridges, even when you give some war credit. Don twice led in IP, 8 times in top 5, 11 in top 10. Bridges had 3 top 5s and 5 top 10s. And that's not even considering Bridges' NeGL contemporaries aren't counted. Probably should be closer to 350.

Year by year



Formatted to line up the years:



Drysdale doesn't get any penalty for pitching in the era of 4 man rotations. He just pitched 3 fewer years than Bridges, which is where Tommy makes it up.

Drysdale doesn't get any penalty for pitching in the era of 4 man rotations. He just pitched 3 fewer years than Bridges, which is where Tommy makes it up.

DD: 3432.0IP --translates to-> 3287.3IP -4.40%
TB: 2826.3IP --translates to-> 2825.3IP -0.03%

Translations ding Drysdale for 150 IP while Bridges left unscathed. That's the four-man rotation penalty I was referring to.

I guess that's plausible, at least. However, it's also true that even for us career-oriented voters, similar results in 3 fewer years is certainly better. No one would argue that an ERA+ of 125 in 3000 IP achieved in 12 injury-free years is of equal value as an ERA+ of 125 in 3000 IP achieved in 18 injury-plagued years, would they?

From the ballot thread:

And I won’t lie to you, it bothers me that his most similar match is still Milt Pappas.

Similarity scores are a bit weird. They are designed to mimic HOF induction behavior. They aren't park or era adjusted. They are weighted heavily on traditional stats.

Plus all of the major parts of the 60 points of difference between them (ERA/Ks) fall in Drysdale's favor.

Drysdale/Pappas/LostSimilarity


Its a bit uncanny that two pitchers have basically identical W/L/G/GS/BB. Pappas has more SHO than most people would guess and Drysdales edge in CG doesn't appear to be weighted much.

I would look at Drysdale vs. Pappas and conclude that the translation from ERA to W-L has everything to do with park factors. This may or may not be correct, but I don't believe it could all be dumb luck.

Howie's version (154/162 IP minimum, 100 or better ERA+)
BiPierce 201 148 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03
Drysdale 154 149 40 29 28 22 18 17 15 13
MiPappas 137 133 33 28 21 16 16 13 13 12
(Pierce's 201 is not a top-10 IP season.)
(Pappas has 94 93 91 88 ERA+s in 162+ IP years.)

BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
Drysdale top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 9 9 10
MiPappas top 10 in IP: 7 10

Uh, no thanks on Pappas, although the W-L and other stats similarity to Drysdale is indeed intriguing.

Also, Pappas is a better pitcher than people give him credit for. Give him another 5-6 seasons at 200 IP each at his career rates (he was done at 34), and you've pretty much got another Rixey, though with even less peak, hard to believe as that is (if you give any credence to BP's "Translated IP").

On the W-L similarity. BP has Drysdale as 8 less wins over his career than expected. Pappas has 10 more wins than expected over his career. Neither of these differences are statistically significant (each are about 1 standard deviation for that number of decisions) so it's probably just luck. But it does move their W-L records into conjunction.

BTW did anyone give Drysdale a spit ball demerit

Also, Pappas is a better pitcher than people give him credit for.

I don't really think anybody thinks Pappas wasn't a fine pitcher, only that he wasn't Drysdale, Jim.

BTW, Pappas was on one of my first baseball cards from the early seventies, so his name resonates more with me than some other significantly greater players.

BTW did anyone give Drysdale a spit ball demerit

Not me.

Did Don Drysdale throw a spitball? Yuck.

<blockquote>And I won’t lie to you, it bothers me that his most similar match is still Milt Pappas.

Similarity scores are a bit weird. They are designed to mimic HOF induction behavior. They aren't park or era adjusted. They are weighted heavily on traditional stats.</blockquote>

Since I'm the one who made the original comment, I feel I ought to make myself clear. I wasnt intending to knock down Drysdale, suggesting that he was only as good as Pappas and therefore less meritorious.

It simply caught my attention, as I was running down my consideration set of pitchers. Sometimes, the similarity invokes a name we've already inducted. Carl Mays? Most similar to Stan Coveleski. Mickey Welch? Most similar to Old Hoss Radbourn. Others fare a little more poorly: Vic Willis to George Mullin, Dolf Luque to Lee Meadows. So the Drysdale-Pappas comparison just stuck in my brain. ("Milt Pappas?") And when I was compiling my final ballot, I remembered it, and it bugged me, so I mentioned it. I did not anticipate igniting a discussion.

I think I'm just surprised to discover how closely people are reading my ballot comments.

I did not anticipate igniting a discussion.

You really didn't, SWW. Similarity scores did. :-)

I think I'm just surprised to discover how closely people are reading my ballot comments.

You can't anything for granted around here, except that someone will read your article closely.

Re. my "shiny new toy." No, not Don Drysdale, but Vic Willis.

Willis became eligible the same year as Rube Waddell and I decided that Waddell was the better candidate. Surely the second best candidate in a given year couldn't rate too terribly highly, right? Wrong. Suddenly I realize that Willis is an outstanding candidate and so he made my ballot this year for the first time, a few slots ahead of Don Drysdale.

Win Shares

33. Don Drysdale 258/27-26-25/117/28.14
84. Vic Willis 293/39-33-29/138/28.10

Comparable in WS per start, both workhorses for their time. It takes a powerful timeline, IMO, to have Drysdale 50 slots ahead of Willis. Digging a little deeper and adjusting Willis to (only) 154 games:

Drysdale 258/27-26-25-24-22-21-21-19-18-18-14-13
Willis 303/39-37-32-29-25-24-21-20-20-19-17-13

Both have 12 years of 10+ WS.

ERA+

Drysdale 121/155-48-40-29-28-22-18-15-13
Willis 118/167-54-53-30-20-22-11-8-4

Both had some not-so-good years, as most pitchers do. For Drysdale 9 of 12 seasons of 10+ WS are at 100+ ERA+, for Willis it is the same 9 out of 12. 3 years each below average. Compared to Waddell and Joss each 10 or 10, Griffith 10 of 11, Ruffing 13 of 15, etc.

As for Sim Scores, yes, wierd indeed. Willis to George Mullin? Well, Mullin was probably a lot better than we think. But still.

Mullin 260 (adj)/28-26-26*-26-25-23-21-19-18*-17-14-14
Willis 303/39-37-32-29-25-24-21-20-20-19-17-13

Nowhere near the peak, because nowhere near as effective:

Mullin 101/130-13-13-9-6-3*-0 and 5 years < 100
Willis 118/167-54-53-30-20-22-11-8-4 and 3 years < 100

16 of Mullin's 228 career wins came in the FL but more than that he benefited from playing on the Cobb-Crawford Tigers at their peak. 29-8 in 1909 with a 113 ERA+, and 17-13 in 1908 with a 78 ERA+. Willis played on some pretty good teams too, though the BosN's crumbled around him after his first few seasons (he went 42-72 with about 100 ERA+ across 1903-04-05) but then went to PitN and won 20 games 4 times at ERA+ 154-04-11-22 and about 300 IP per year. One would have to guess that his ERA+ in those last few years in BosN was reflective of a not so good defense, given the huge bounce he got that first year in Pit. Not quite the free ride that Mullin got.

So when you think Vic Willis, think Drysdale not Mullin.

Sunny,

I like Willis a lot as well so it is good to see someone advocate for him. He is currently around Billy Pierce on my ballot, somthing like #26. He has been anywhere from 22-30 for about 25 'years' but never seems to make it onto my ballot. I am sure we all have those kinds of players.

Willis is poised to make my ballot within a few years. In fact, he could have gone on this ballot, since he's in a virtual tie with Bucky Walters and George Sisler.

<u>Favorite Similarity Score Red Herrings</u>

DWhite/BMyer
EFlick/KSelbach
JTinker/OGuillen
PHines/BChapman
EWalsh/CBender
HRBaker/FLindstrom
SRice/RCarew
FChance/BSouthworth (as batters, not managers :-))
JMedwick/JBottomley

These are nice additions to Willis/Mullin and Drysdale/Pappas. Probably others as well.

To repeat what I said above, the similarity scores are not park or era adjusted, no in-season durability, heavily weighted towards traditional stats. They certainly are "fun" and I get a kick out of following the by-age lists at bb-reference, but their results are often non-starters here. I don't think we should feel the need to get defensive when a player ends up being comparable to Ozzie Guillen or something.

Actually a sabermetrically slanted version of these scores would be a big hoot, but they usually end up being fairly complex and/or proprietary (e.g. PECOTA).

some of those make no sence by any meaurse with out taking in to consideration parks or era notibly EWalsh/CBender

JTinker/OGuillen

Talk about not taking era into account!

Well, Walsh and Bender are same generation, as are Flick and Selbach. Medwick and Bottomley are not far off, and if anything the change of era should play to Bottomley's advantage. These are real brain teasers.

Flick is more of a deadballer and Selbach is more of a high-offense 90s guys.

KS:.281/.341/.373
EF:.266/.323/.347

The NL dropped in offense considerably starting in 1931, Bottomley played in a hitters paradise.

JB:.310/.369/.500
JM:.279/.343/.393

As for Walsh/Bender. I think only in the deadball era can a .60 difference in ERA translate to a whopping 33 points in ERA+.

If I recall correctly the two most similar HOF pitchers are Addie Joss and Monte Ward and era differences make their careers not very comparable at all.

Oops... those are contexts in the previous post. I had that specified, but in an edit, that part got lost.

I've seen this mentioned, so I'd like some clarification: Where in the NHBA did James say he made a mistake and that Drysdale was a Hall of Fame quality pitcher? I realize that his rankings would seem to put Drysdale there, but Dizzy Dean is ranked higher and we're not paying attention to that. And while checking some (not all) of the mentions in the index, I found Harry Hooper's entry where Hooper, Joe Tinker, and Drysdale are lumped together as Hall of Famers who found their way there because of somebody else's influence.