Gus Weyhing:

The discussion on the 1924 Ballot Argument thread brought up the possibility of using the exponent (R+OR)^.286 instead of 2 for "Pythagorean" calculations. I've gone through my RA - based record calculations for pitchers and modified them to use this exponent - with R and OR obtained in a hybrid fashion. R is the park-adjusted league run average, and has nothing to do with actual offensive support, while OR is the pitcher's on RA. The following is a list of pitchers of interest (some eligible, some not yet eligible, some already elected). In the particular cases of Brown and Willis, there's a "defense-adjusted" version, which is explained in post #203 on the 1923 Ballot Argument thread. To be fair, that should be compared to defense-adjusted versions of everyone else, but I don't have that. The number of decisions is IP/9, so it won't match that pitcher's actual decisions. The RA+-equivalent wins and losses are then converted into FWP and the list sorted by FWP.

EqW EqL EqFWP Pitcher

Well, re-did the W/L conversions based on posts 27-46 in this thread.

Some results (ranked in order of FWP - note some turn-of-century pitchers haven't been fully adjusted yet. When they are they'll W/L records will change yet AGAIN. . . . By the time Dimino gets the RSI file posted it'll be outdated 2-3 different ways. :)

Cy Young 514-313

What was the best single season any pitcher ever had? That does require us to attempt to compare seasons across the 1893 divide, but as far as I'm concerned, the answer to that question is Walter Johnson, 1913.

What was the best single season any pitcher ever had? That does require us to attempt to compare seasons across the 1893 divide, but as far as I'm concerned, the answer to that question is Walter Johnson, 1913.

I would submit that Dwight Gooden's '85 season was at least as good. Johnson's ERA+ and innings pitched would have been whittled down somewhat seventy years later

The guy from Saint Louis in '68 has to be in the mix, too.

Dumb question time:

Speaking as one of those people that's done all this research & ends up showing "real" value in terms of W-L records, I don't think I've ever dismissed W-L records. I'm a little skittish of them because defense & offense plays a role - that's why I usually like ERA+ better - only has defense gumming it up. My initial disdain for Welch was more due to his general reputation as least of the 300 game winners than disdain for W-L.

I would submit that Dwight Gooden's '85 season was at least as good. Johnson's ERA+ and innings pitched would have been whittled down somewhat seventy years later

The guy from Saint Louis in '68 has to be in the mix, too.

I can understand that the IP would be "whittled down" in a later age, but why would that apply to the ERA+? Shouldn't it be harder to acheive that ERA+ in more innings rather than easier?

Johnson had a 275 RA+ in 346 IP.

Chris J,

I can understand that the IP would be "whittled down" in a later age, but why would that apply to the ERA+? Shouldn't it be harder to acheive that ERA+ in more innings rather than easier?

The better the competition, the harder it is stand out from one's peers. The distance between Johnson and the average pitcher would be shortened in today's game.

<i>Chris J,

Pitching distance isn't everything; we've elected Walsh and got quite close (though hopefully fading) with Waddell, neither of whom have anything like the record of Welch, or even 2/3 of it. It's quite fair to be outraged at the suggestion that Waddell was like Burkett; he was probably more like Ryne Duren. But either way, 300 games is 300 games and 193 games isn't.

Pedro in the Dead Ball Era would not have racked up nearly enough innings for "wow"; he'd have been overused at 22 and his arm would have dropped off. One thing Iron Man and the boys weren't, was fragile.

Pedro in the Dead Ball Era would not have racked up nearly enough innings for "wow"; he'd have been overused at 22 and his arm would have dropped off. One thing Iron Man and the boys weren't, was fragile.

Pedro may have been relatively still fragile if he had played during the Deadball Era, but he definitely would have racked up more innings than he ever compiled in his own time. He would have been taught how to pace himself as starters had to during that time since relief pitching was still in its infancy.

And Walsh, Chesbro and McGinnity wouldn't have won thirty games today (not to mention forty).

Despite no popular demand whatsoever, here's the RSIs for Bobby Mathews & Will White:

Mathews:

Going back to Howie's questions:

<i> Dumb question time:

FWIW, Will White up above gains a start in both 1883 & 1884.

And now Silver King - he gains a start in 1887:

1886..65

Albert Spalding.

Breitenstein, Tommy Bond, Silver King & Albert Spalding

Add Jim Whitney, Bill Hutchison, and Nap Rucker, and you've probably got everybody who would even draw a glance.

And, Chris, thanks for all of the work that's gone into this.

Add Jim Whitney, Bill Hutchison, and Nap Rucker, and you've probably got everybody who would even draw a glance.

I've done Nap Rucker. Check somewhere above or his adjusted W/L & the yahoo group for his RSI (about 84). I intend to do everyone who falls into just one of these categories: 200 wins, HoFer (including Candy Cummings), in the NHBA Top 100 pitchers, 400 GS. Or requested. So that leaves me with - I dunno - got the list somewhere. Stivetts, Buffington, Orth, Cummings, Hutchinson, Hawley, Whitney, & of course the Immortal Adonis Terry.

Here's Breitenstein (gains a strat in 1895):

Now I've got RSIs all caught up with pitchers I've gone through retrosheet with (now adjusted W/L is another matter entirely . . . )

Tommy Bond:

>That said, I also maintain contra the timeliners who are not thinking about early pitchers any more, that

1875..155

Spalding's playing for a .900 team (.899 actually).

In over half of his starts, his team scored over 10 runs.

Per game run scoring averages in the NA.

Nice analysis, Tom H!

I agree that Brown and Waddell are very close.

Much of the electorate seems intent on ignoring the fuller analysis of pitchers that shows Brown as a middling candidate rather than a top candidate; I don't know what evidence or argument would get their attention.

I have Brown slightly ahead of Waddell at this point. I'm not convinced by the league-quality measures, and I don't put weight on the "would he be great in any era?" question. Even given those issues, however, the only thing that puts Brown ahead for me is his relief work. Waddell did a fair amount of relief pitching, but he apears to have been used in situations in which he could pick up a win, so his relief pitching is mostly represented in his won-lost record. Brown pitched in quite a few save situations, and so much of his relief work is not reflected in his won-lost record (at least not in the wins column).

Do you take relief work into account? If so, how do you weigh it? I can well imagine that, given your views on league quality and the "would he be great in any era?" question, that even taking relief work into account, you would have Waddell ahead, but I am wondering whether and how you look at Brown's 49-5 advantage in saves over Waddell.

Chris, the honest to god truth is that all of the currently eligible deadball pitchers are middling including Getty Eddie who is the Beckley of pitchers (better, but analogous).

Once we've elected Johnson and Alex (and Plank looks like a shoo-in this year) it will be a lot harder to get excited about Brown or McGinnity. ARe we really sure that they're any better than McCormick or Bond?

Marc, since my lists (see #118) look forward rather than backward, the interesting question for me is how the second tier from the deadball era compares to the next generation or two: Rixey, Faber, Covaleski, Vance, Dean. (Not worrying about Hubbell or Grove, as you're not worrying about Johnson or Alexander.)

Marc,

Chris, the honest to god truth is that all of the currently eligible deadball pitchers are middling, including Getty Eddie who is the Beckley of pitchers (better, but analogous).

That doesn't seem to be the majority view. I agree that it's hard to rank the candidates after Crawford and Plank, but a lot of people are concluding that Brown is next in line, and I haven't seen really substantive arguments for placing him that high.

I do think that the majority view of Plank is correct and that you are underestimating Plank's value considerably, because your measures look only at _total_ WS or WARP earned in a season. Average pitchers and average position players do not have equal value in this era: an average position player is more valuable than an average pitcher. Plank's peak profile, if you consider total WS only, looks like that of a player who was very good, but not _great_ for a long time. If you look at his profile in comparison to _average_ value, however, Plank's profile is clearly that of a great player, while Beckley's becomes the profile of a good player.

Once we've elected Johnson and Alex (and Plank looks like a shoo-in this year) it will be a lot harder to get excited about Brown or McGinnity. ARe we really sure that they're any better than McCormick or Bond?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. If the voting follows its usual patterns, we will elect Brown, and probably McGinnity, long before either Walter Johnson or Pete Alexander become eligible. It won't matter how excited we feel about them in comparison to these two all-time greats. If we're going to compare McGinnity and Brown meaningfully to McCormick and Bond (and Welch and Mullane), we need to do that in the next two or three election years.

I'd like to see a broad discussion of pitchers before Brown and McGinnity are elected, rather than after.

I know some voters have their minds made up about Brown on what they feel are sufficient grounds, just as I have my mind made up about Grant Johnson on what I believe are sufficient grounds, but I've tried to make the case for Johnson and provide substantive data and analysis in response to concerns that we are rushing him in. Maybe I'm not remembering the right posts, but it doesn't seem to me as if the supporters of Brown have answered the concerns raised about his value, and that's what led me to make the provocative statement that concerns about Brown are being "ignored." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, depends on what people are thinking, but I'd at least like to see the case for him versus other pitchers and versus the best position player eligibles made in detail.

Chris, well, I guess I'm agreeing with you re. Brown. Except that I also don't see McGinnity or even Plank rating all that highly.

And I certainly agree with you re. a broad discussion of pitchers sooner than later. I've been working up toward that but it ain't gonna happen this week. Plank will probably go in this week and I guess that's okay. Maybe I'll have *my* comparison of McGinnity and Brown versus McCormick and Bond (and a whole bunch of other pitchers) by then. Not that every mother's son will care what my opinion is. I don't have high hopes of derailing McG or Brown but I'm not sure we aren't falling into the same trap as Cooperstown, which is to say overrating deadball pitchers just because of a bunch of pretty ERAs.

The converse will be how we rate the Golden Age sluggers other than the really obvious ones like Ruth and Gehrig and Hornsby and Foss. My gut tells me that they will get a lot harder scrutiny than some of the pitchers.

I guess my comment about not being excited about McGinnity and Brown after Johnson and Alex are elected was more of a forecast of some possible remorse someday, sort of like some are having now re. Keefe and Galvin.

Adjusted W/L for a bunch of previously RSIed pitchers:

Gus Weyhing:

Great stuff, Chris. My read:

1. The 19th century guys deserve the respect that they have received (Spalding) or in some cases not yet received (Bond--comps Bert Blyleven and Dazzy Vance!!!)

2. Beware of guys (okay, pitchers) named Red.

It seems to me that there are a few reasons for the disparity on rating Brown.

Some voters think that the HoF's biggest mistake was electing about three times as many pitchers than they should have. Rusie, Walsh, and Radbourne weren't on the top of their ballot, and they'll probably put Carl Hubbell, Phil Niekro, and Gaylord Perry toward the middle or bottom of their ballot when they're eligible. Although a plea for caution when looking at newly eligible pitchers has its merits, in effect we'll end up taking a borderline position player who has been turned down in multiple prior elections.

A partially overlapping group is bumping Brown down because of the quality defense he had behind him.

To summarize the case for Brown, my ERA+/IP calculator pegs him as the #23 rated pitcher in baseball history. Among eligibles that's between Clarkson and Keefe. Bill James has him at #20, so I don't think it's a fluke of my system or a calculation error. He's been considered one of the great pitchers since his retirement.

So although I appreciate the critical eye people are giving toward his fielding support, I think a little caution toward the criticism is in order as well. Brown went 127-44 with an ERA of 1.42 in 1461 IP from 1906-1910. Although I appreciate the quality of the Cubs' defense, and the low run context of the era, that's quite a run. To put it mildly.

What I'm trying to say is that by seasonal ERA+/IP Brown is so overwhelmingly qualified, that it would take a tremendous Cub defense discount to move him even to #5 on the ballot if you're anything close to a "1 pitcher in 4" voter.

I'll admit my method might be a little rough, but here are the point totals that I have:

Brown 240

--huge gaping chasm here--

Plank 181

Jim, thanks for responding on the Brown issues.

On the other hand I'm looking to see the pitcher that flies to #1 on the ballot because he had terrible fielders. Because if these fielding adjustments are so strong that Brown can be off the ballot, shouldn't someone else shoot way up?

This is a reasonable question to ask. It may be that Brown should be getting more credit for the success of the defenders behind him, although I don't see persuasive evidence of that myself.

But I think that there are three reasons why we haven't seen someone else rising up because of bad defense:

1) we just haven't looked at all that many pitchers yet. I'm trying to run defensive-support studies for all of the serious and apparently marginal candidates, but I'm nowhere near done. Evidence from WARP's analysis suggests that Pud Galvin and Amos Rusie are the only two top pitchers who were consistenly working in front of bad defenses, and I haven't studied their records yet, though Galvin is next on my list. Both of them were elected regardless of defensive support, but it may be that I'll look at Galvin's numbers after considering his RSI and his defensive support and say, "Wow, this guy really was far and away the best pitcher of the nineteenth century, and we didn't see that." It may be that I won't.

2) Brown is the only pitcher whose case has been substantially weakened, in my view, because of defensive support. The Cubs defense was great. This is one of the great defensive teams of all time, and Brown pitched in front of that defense for most of his career. He is an outlier, and until we find an outlier on the other side -- someone who pitched in front of _really bad_ defenses for much of his career, we won't see anyone rise up as much as Brown has dropped.

3) Because pitching in front of a truly bad defense wears a pitcher down, enabling him to throw fewer innings, I'm not convinced that it is possible that a pitcher could have a long career that would make him into, on the face of it, a borderline HoM candidate, who could then shoot up to being a top candidate when we discover that his fielders stunk for his whole career. It may be that for a pitcher to _become_ great, at least decent defensive support is requisite.

As I see it, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Brown is helped significantly more by his defensess than any other pitcher we've considered, but the evidence for that claim is still incomplete.

As I see it, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Brown is helped significantly more by his defensess than any other pitcher we've considered, but the evidence for that claim is still incomplete.

That's probably not true. There are three other electees whose case is weakened due to their excellent defensive support.

1) Spalding. He went from being a slam-dunk "best player in the NA" to "don't call us, you'll have to wait your turn", which came in the ninth election. (DIPS also contributed to this evaluation.)

2) Clarkson. The issue was largely unexamined in his election case but WARP-3's evaluation has his career as only marginally more valuable than Radbourn, Keefe, or Caruthers. It also sees Caruthers as the more valuable player during most of Clarkson's career.

3) Nichols. His credentials are so overwhelming that the defensive adjustment is no threat to his HOM status. But it does change his relative status as an "inner-circle" member, however defined: Win Shares has him as a member of the top 25 in career total value while WARP-3 puts him just outside the top 100.

Vic Willis also pitched in front of some very good defenses. It's likely that that has been taken into account, albeit indirectly, and that's why Willis is beyond 30th place on the voting rolls, hence extremely unlikely to be elected.

I wrote: As I see it, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Brown is helped significantly more by his defenses than any other pitcher we've considered, but the evidence for that claim is still incomplete.

jimd wrote: That's probably not true. There are three other electees whose case is weakened due to their excellent defensive support.

You're right; I spoke hastily and inaccurately. Spalding, Clarkson, Nichols were all helped more by their defenses than Brown was by his.

Incidentally, I'm slowly working my way through the pre-1893 pitchers using Chris J's RSI numbers and my system for adjusting for fielding support. The four I have worked up I rank in the following order: John Clarkson, Mickey Welch, Bob Caruthers, Tim Keefe.

Re: defense.

Not nearly as confident in how I adjust defense as offense, but I did intro this system, which shows how some pitchers benefitted from their defenses. Not quite sure what to make of it, since almost everyone does good by it. I will say that it ain't helping Tony Mullane nor Jim McCormick in my book, though.

Joe - sorry, keep forgetting to dig up Addie Joss's year-by-year records.

Now, RSIs & Adjusted W/L for seven more pitchers:

Jim Whitney:

Dang it - Chick Fraser's RSIs (most usesless pitcher I've got, but dang it, I've got the info):

91

"Bill Hutchinson (or is it Fred - never can remember)"

Fred Hutchinson played during the 40s (50s?). He's the one with the cancer research center here in Seattle.

I'm sorry Chris, but I forget. Does your rating also incorporate a pitcher's hitting stats?

jimd, are you referring to me or Chris J.?

Actually, I suppose the question could apply to either of you, but I was thinking of Chris J's RSI index.

And I did a search of this thread and I think the answer is NO, which is why this method will underestimate top hitting pitchers such as Caruthers and Whitney.

Does your rating also incorporate a pitcher's hitting stats?

No.

Joe -

Glad you've waited patiently. Here's Addie Joss - RSIs & W/L:

104...17-13

BP has Buffinton's defensive support as essentially neutral (less than 1% positive). He also could hit a little bit for a pitcher (.231 EQA, compare to Mike Hampton at .227, right around position player replacement level), but that wouldn't be noticed much with teammates like Whitney or Ferguson.

Thanks for all the numbers, Chris J.

Chris is Mordecai Brown's RSI record on another thread?

Yea, check the discussion thread for whatever year he became available. Though now his W/L have changed because I do use PythaganPat for everything. So I'll post the new stuff here for him, Waddell, Willis, & McGinnity. When I get around to it.

JoeDimino, quoting me, said,

"Do a Pythagorean record for 34 games at 3.03 for and 1.50 against, and you get 27-7. (Actually 27.3-6.7). And still Gibson was only 22-9. (The team was 24-10.)"

Actually OCF, that's not really correct. This is a classic example of where the PythaganPat exponent is really important. Using (R+RA)/G ^ .286 the exponent becomes 1.54, not 2 or 1.83. The expected W-L for 34 games under those conditions is 25-9 (actually 25.4-8.6) which isn't that far off [from Gibson's team's 24-10].

In low run environments a much lower exponent is need for pythag records to work right.

See my post #118 above for an explanation of the methodology behind the list in that post. The run environment there is a hybrid: the pitcher's own RA, but league average runs scored instead of actual offensive support. I also use IP/9 rather than games to determine the number of "equivalent decisions." In this particular case, Gibson pitched 34 games worth of innings anyway. Using that (with the resulting exponent of 1.57), Gibson's equivalent record comes out as 27-7. The difference between this 27-7 and the 25-9 you show is that Gibson did have poor offensive support, on average. A record of 27-7 would be 41 FWP. Single seasons with 40-43 eq.FWP in the deadball period include Young 1901, Walsh 1908, Coombs 1910, and Alexander 1915. The only years I've got that rise above that in eq.FWP are Johnson 1913, Johnson 1912, and McGinnity 1904.

..but league average runs scored instead of actual offensive support. I would think this would lead to incorrect results, unless you park adjusted the league average somehow??

Yeah, I do park adjust - forgot to mention that.

First: just found out there's an error in the recently updated RSI file at the yahoo group - I forgot to change the career RSIs for McGinnity, Waddell, & Willis

Season by season time: - Chief Bender, The 3-fingered one, Iron Man, Rube, & Willis:

Chief Bender:

Some more - first two guys I got down - but before I changed the W/L system - first Clark Griffith & Bob Caruthers:

Clark Griffith:

Among the pitchers discussed here, how great is the variation in W+L decisions per 9 innings?

Why Fibonacci? Is it more than a toy?

Been looking at pitchers, as usual. . . . Going through the logs & seeing how many times pitcher X pitched against teams Y, & Z every year & totalling it up to see how it comes out. Looking at how many times a pitcher pitched against teams with WPCts 700 or higher, 600-99, 500-99, etc. Here's how it comes out (records in para. for those I have records for):

Bob Caruthers:

OTOH, in 1908, Joe McGinnity was just as clearly being reserved to pitch against only 2nd division teams.

In 1908, McGinnity was nearly done as a major league pitcher. What was going on with the Giants in 1903 and 1904, when McGinnity was at the peak of his powers?

In 1908, McGinnity was nearly done as a major league pitcher. What was going on with the Giants in 1903 and 1904, when McGinnity was at the peak of his powers?

Opponents listed in order they finished (number of starts vs each team):

1903:

JoeDimino, in 1925 Ballot Discussion

Ranking pitchers is by far the hardest. For other positions, leaving aside the 1860s and the Negro Leaguers, ranking the ML Caucasians were pretty straightforward, with only an occassional peak versus career debate that could bump a player up or down a position.

With pitchers, I know that some people could take my entire Top 10 and turn in upside down and defend it. Putting aside Rube Foster (who I rank) and Jim Creighton (who I don't), we haven't settled on the relative merits of Tim Keefe and Mickey Welch, and they were teammates! Anyway, I looked at 20 (white) pitchers and 7 categories. The 20 pitchers were all eligibles with at least 200 wins (17 total, from Bobby Mathews and Mickey Welch to Al Orth and Silver King), plus popular vote getters Joss, Waddell,and Whitney, who finished with fewer than 200. I ranked them all from 1 to 20 in 7 categories, covering counting stats (Wins, IP, and WARP-1) and rate stats (Win%, ERA+, OPS+, and dERA) to see how they stacked up against their competition. I also, secondarily, compared them against their "decade-mates" to determine whether I was not ranking the 10th best 1880s pitcher above the top 1890s pitcher due to structural differences in the decades.

1. Bob Caruthers: Out of the 20 pitchers I looked at, Caruthers was #1 in Win% and OPS+ (of course), but was also first in WARP-1, and 4th in ERA+ and dERA. He trailed only in Wins (14th) and IP (19th). In fact, if you add up the ranks, Caruthers' 44 points is the lowest of the 20. This surprised me since hitting was only credited for between 1 and 2 (OPS+ and part of WARP) of the 7 categories, and I felt that would undervalue Caruthers' offensive contributions. I was intending to give him a subjective "bump" for his offense and his peak performance, but it turned out he didn't need it.

2. Mordecai Brown. 2nd of 20 in Win% and ERA+. 3rd in dERA and WARP-1. Only Tony Mullane has a higher WARP, and he obtained his numbers in 1400 more innings.

3. Jim McGinnity. Very close to Brown. Gets subjective points for a prolonged period of being the best pitcher in his league. Very solid in almost every category (except hitting), but doesn't lead any. He ranks 8th in WARP-1, 7th in wins, 6th in ERA+, 3rd in Win%, 7th in dERA, and 11th in IP.

4. Rube Foster. With the Caucasians so hard to rank, I have no problem inserting a highly regarding black pitcher here without fear of screwing things up more than I already have.

5. Clark Griffith: Very similar to McGinnity in most measures, and gets a boost for being the 4th best 1890s pitcher (after Young, Nichols, and Rusie).

6. Mickey Welch -- Number 1 on this list in wins, and 2 in innings pitched (after Bobby Mathews), Welch is probably the hardest to rank. I put him below the four pitchers from the 1880s (Clarkson, Keefe, Galvin, Radbourn) who are in, plus Caruthers, which puts him 6th at best, but how do you rank him below so many pitchers with 1000s of fewer innings.

7. Jim McCormick -- 4th in wins, 6th in IP, 5th in dERA, and 7th in WARP-1. If he wasn't an 1880s pitcher, he'd be much higher.

8. Vic Willis -- Didn't really excel in any one category, but had an all-around consistency over 4000 innings.

9. Rube Waddell -- arguably only the 6th or 7th best pitcher centered in the the 1900s. I would put him after Mathewson, Plank, Brown, McGinnity, Willis and Walsh. In terms of innings pitched, he also finishes below George Mullin and Al Orth.

10. Tony Mullane -- racked up a lot of innings and a lot of wins, but a lot of them were in the early AA.

Not ranked: Addie Joss: I understand that it was easier to pitch more innings in the 1880s and the 1900s, but if you assign each pitcher a decade and rank them by innings pitched, Joss would still finish lower on the 1900s list than any of the pitchers above him would rank in their respective decades. Joss ranked only #11 in Innings pitched for 1900s pitchers (unless I missed some and he was really lower). Sure, his peak is fine, but there's simply not enough innings around it. Of the 20 pitchers I looked at, Joss was 1st in ERA+ and dERA, and 5th in Win%. He was also 20th in wins and IP, 16th in WARP-1, and 18th in OPS+. If I ranked the rest of the Top 20, Joss would be about 13th.

JoeDimino, in 1925 Ballot Discussion

Does average DH batting or average PH batting bear on the value or merit of a pitcher's batting record?

It is certainly true, as Joe says, that hitting is a less important part of a pitchers' skill set, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that pitchers "aren't chosen for their hitting." [Although maybe Joe does, based upon his rankings of weak hitters Joss and Waddell.] Addie Joss and Rube Waddell certainly weren't picked for their hitting, but their pitching ability made them valuable anyway. Jim Whitney and Tony Mullane used their offense as a potent weapon, that would encourage any smart team to play them against a marginally better pitcher who couldn't hit at all.

Joe is right that a pitcher should be compared against a "replacement pitcher," not against "replacement pitching". You have to look at the whole package. I disagree with Joe that this gets you all the way from a "replacement hitter" to an "average hitter". I also disagree with the implication that this is a sizeable difference.

Also, to the extent that the Joe is right, I don't see how it would effect the ORDERING of pitchers, as they would all be compared against the same incorrect baseline. If Caruthers is overrated by same level, McGinnity and Joss and Willis and Brown are all overrate by approximately the same amount.

JoeDimino:

JoeDimino:

If you read the Red Sox 1918 clippings book, Ruth was the #1 player on a world championship team. As I said, not much below his peak. I agree though that he only resembles Caruthers (as a player, he could hardly resemble him less physically!) transitionally -- in 1914-15 he wasn't as good a hitter, after 1919 he didn't pitch much and was an even better hitter. But the metrics do NOT say that the trasnitional Ruth was much less valuable than the peak Ruth, and indeed it was generally more valuable than the mid-20s Ruth.

Joe, my experience with the BP numbers is that the BRARP column is FYI only. IOW, when it comes to calculating WARP-1, hitters do not have a position; the position information is already contained in the FRAR/PRAR data, and the BRAR column is used to measure the hitting contribution, so the hitting replacement level is the same for everybody.

Philly, can you provide the rest of your list of 20 pitchers that you considered, and all 7 metrics and, say, the top 3-5 on each metric?

I am trying to get up the courage to rank 40 pitchers on 22 different metrics, except that I find that rate stats really screw me up so they will all be different versions of uber-stats like WS and WARP (and, yes, as a tie-breaker, the discredited TPR, and a couple other things of my own devise [e.g. MVP and all-star type considerations and my brilliant Reputation Monitor]). All I need is a couple days with no work, a couple six packs and a lobotomy.

As the Pharoah says in "The Ten Commandments" (Charlton Heston version), "So let it be written. So let it be done."

Pitchers in consideration set (ranked by WARP-1): Bob Caruthers, Tony Mullane, Mordecai Brown, Clark Griffith, Charlie Buffinton, Vic Willis, Jim McCormick, Joe McGinnity, Jack Powell, Al Orth, Silver King, Jim Whitney, Rube Waddell, Chief Bender, Mickey Welch, Addie Joss, Gus Weyhing, Tommy Bond, Bobby Mathews, Will White.

Other 6 factors:

Factor: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 . . . #16, #17, #18, #19, #20.

Wins: Welch, Mathews, Mullane, McCormick, Weyhing . . . Orth, King, Waddell, Whitney, Joss.

Win%: Caruthers, Brown, McGinnity, Bender, Joss . . . Mathews, Weyhing, Orth, Powell, Whitney.

ERA+: Joss, Brown, Waddell, Caruthers, King (T4) . . . Mathews, Powell, Whitney, Weyhing, Orth

OPS+: Caruthers, Whitney, Orth, Mullane, Bond . . . McGinnity, Waddell, Joss, Willis, Weyhing

Innings: Mathews, Welch, Mullane, Powell, Weyhing . . . Brown, Bender, Waddell, Caruthers, Joss

dERA: Joss, Waddell, Brown, Caruthers, McCormick . . . Mathews, Welch, Orth, Weyhing, White.

Silly question here...

Trying to put together a first time ballot, but I cannot for the life of me find Three Finger Brown's page in Baseball Prospectus's player cards. I looked under Mordecai, Pete, Peter, Three Finger, Miner, and even Centennial, nothing. Am I missing something or are they?

Silly question here...

Trying to put together a first time ballot, but I cannot for the life of me find Three Finger Brown's page in Baseball Prospectus's player cards. I looked under Mordecai, Pete, Peter, Three Finger, Miner, and even Centennial, nothing. Am I missing something or are they?

Silly question here...

Trying to put together a first time ballot, but I cannot for the life of me find Three Finger Brown's page in Baseball Prospectus's player cards. I looked under Mordecai, Pete, Peter, Three Finger, Miner, and even Centennial, nothing. Am I missing something or are they?

Silly question here...

Trying to put together a first time ballot, but I cannot for the life of me find Three Finger Brown's page in Baseball Prospectus's player cards. I looked under Mordecai, Pete, Peter, Three Finger, Miner, and even Centennial, nothing. Am I missing something or are they?

Michael:

Welcome!

Try Three Finger Brown

Wow, sorry for the quad post. I'll get better. :)

Ouch, sorry about the quad post. I'll get better, I promise. :)

And I've tried literally everything, (see link above), so unless they've mispelled his last name or something, he's just missing. Might be a result of the server change, hopefully he'll show up later this week.

Michael,

I just did a search on "Brown" and got 88 players with Brown/e/s/ing last names, but no Mordecai Peter Centennial "Three Finger, Miner" Brown amongst them, so my guess is it's their problem. Maybe others will know a search trick I don't.

Three Finger Brown

Thanks, John! Don't know why that wasn't showing in the search.

Thanks, John! Don't know why that wasn't showing in the search.

Once upon a time I was looking for Tip O'Neill, and at that time the trick was you had to enter O"Neill or you just couldn't get it to come up.

' didn't do it.

" had to be.

Wow. That's quite an adjustment.

It's nice to provide the link John, but I'd like to point out that it doesn't appear to be accessible through the "Find Player" box. Also inaccessible are the players in the O' family (e.g. Jim O'Rourke), and there are probably others, too.

The "Find Player" search box doesn't appear to work for some players, Three Finger Brown being one of them. Also having problems are those in the O' family such as Jim O'Rourke (your " trick doesn't appear to work anymore, Marc). We may find others.

I was wondering where that post went. Now I've double posted the same info (though not with the same wording).

It's nice to provide the link John, but I'd like to point out that it doesn't appear to be accessible through the "Find Player" box.

I'm not having any problems with the "Find Player" box.

Corrected all posts up to #85. The rest are toast.

Should I drop all my Welch/Keefe/Radbourn/Clarkson comparison posts here?

Should I drop all my Welch/Keefe/Radbourn/Clarkson comparison posts here?

Makes sense to me, Kelly.

Pre 93 HoM pithcers vs. other HoM pitchers and Welch and then Welch vs. HoM pitchers:

Radbourn         Clarkson        Keefe
Clarkson  9-8    Radbourn  8-9   Clarkson  9-10
Galvin   16-14   Galvin    7-5   Radbourn 14-10
Keefe    10-14   Keefe    10-9   Galvin    8-6
Ward      3-1    Rusie     3-4   Ward      3-7
Rusie     2-0    Caruthers 2-1   Rusie     5-2
Caruthers 0-1    Young     1-1   Young     0-2
Young     1-0    Nichols   0-1   Nichols   3-3
Nichols   0-1
total    41-39   total    31-30  total    42-40

Welch    10-17   Welch   6/7-13

Welch
Galvin   26-11
Radbourn 17-10
Ward      4-7
Clarkson 13-6/7
Rusie     2-0
Nichols   0-1
Caruthers 0-2
total    62-37/38 *

Large Welch/Keefe/Clarkson/Radbourn comparison:

This will have career records against HoMers, by finishing position, and against +/-.500 teams. Records are from Retrosheet so they won't match exactly to career w/l.

Radbourn         Clarkson        Keefe
Clarkson  9-8    Radbourn  8-9   Clarkson  9-10
Galvin   16-14   Galvin    7-5   Radbourn 14-10
Keefe    10-14   Keefe    10-9   Galvin    8-6
Ward      3-1    Rusie     3-4   Ward      3-7
Rusie     2-0    Caruthers 2-1   Rusie     5-2
Caruthers 0-1    Young     1-1   Young     0-2
Young     1-0    Nichols   0-1   Nichols   3-3
Nichols   0-1
total    41-39   total    31-30  total    42-40

Welch    10-17   Welch   6/7-13

Welch
Galvin   26-11
Radbourn 17-10
Ward      4-7
Clarkson 13-6/7
Rusie     2-0
Nichols   0-1
Caruthers 0-2
total    62-37/38 *
* because I don't know how to credit a game forfeited to Clarkson when the game was tied.

Records by opponent position

finish  Clarkson Keefe Radbourn Welch
1st      26-20   30-38   27-35  22-30
         .565    .441    .435   .423
2nd      32-32   29-44   25-29  27-29
         .500    .397    .463   .409
3rd      24-23   33-21   36-27  48-23
         .511    .611    .571   .676
4th      46-20   34-24   32-31  34-25
         .697    .586    .508   .576
5th      42-17   39-24   34-18  32-30
         .712    .619    .654   .516
6th      41-19   54-23   46-20  39-20
         .683    .701    .697   .661
7th      41-22   52-20   52-17  51-21
         .651    .722    .754   .708
8th      54-11   50-25   51-14  59-14
         .831    .667    .785   .808
9-12     24-10   27-9
         .706    .750

Records against over/under .500 teams

Record Clarkson Keefe   Radbourn  Welch
.500+   118-99  147-150  141-129  129-130
         .543    .495     .522     .498
.500-   201-69  201-81   162-62   179-73
         .744    .712     .723     .710
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
         .446    .513     .547     .501

The following numbers are from Chris J.'s site:
Run Support Index:
John Clarkson 109.46
Tim Keefe 107.16
Ol' Hoss Radbourn 106.83
Mickey Welch 102.79

Defensive Support Index:
John Clarkson +29.9
Radbourn +15.7
Tim Keefe +15.1
Mickey Welch +5.4
Clarkson, Radbourn, and Keefe are in the top 12 all-time, while Welch is #84.

In terms of over/under achieving based on the support they have been given:
Mickey Welch overachieved by 13 wins
John Clarkson underachieved by 2
Ol'Hoss Radbourn underachieved by 5
Tim Keefe underachieved by 18.

Clark Griffith:

Clark Griffith
HoMers:

Clarkson  0-1
Young     1-6
Nichols   6-7
Rusie     1-3
McGinnity 2-0
Plank     2-3
totals   12-20

Records by opponent position

finish  Griffith
1st      14-20
         .412
2nd      17-20
         .459
3rd      27-20
         .574
4th      18-10
         .643
5th      18-16
         .529
6th      25-9
         .735
7th      27-14
         .658
8th      24-9
         .727
9-12     53-18
         .746

Records against over/under .500 teams

Record Griffith
.500+   112-93
         .546
.500-   111-43
         .721
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
         .571

Remember that during the 12 team NL 1894-99, there were some awful teams playing so it was a little easier to play .500 ball. In those 6 years, there were 42 .500 or better teams, or 7 a year. Also, in 3 of the first 4 years of the AL, there were 5 teams at .500 or better. This is a factor in Griffith's high percentage of games pitched against teams over .500. Some of you may want to adjust his totals because of this, some of you may not.
Run Support Index:
Griffith: 105.5
This is approximately the 20th best run support index for pitchers up through around 1905.
Defensive WinShares Support:
Griffith: +6.3
This is 75th all-time and 20-22nd for pitchers up through roughly 1905.
Over/Underachiever:
Overachieved by 7 wins - tied for 34th best ever.

Jimd's great work on W-L and game margin:
W-L record by Run Margin in game started:

        Welch         Keefe         Galvin
    0:  20 ties       13 ties       14 ties
    1:  76-43 .639    64-68 .485    78-70 .527
    2:  47-41 .534    48-34 .585    52-55 .486
    3:  49-26 .653    50-36 .581    50-45 .526
    4:  36-28 .563    43-31 .581    40-33 .548
    5:  37-23 .617    27-17 .614    30-36 .455
 6-10:  54-39 .581    93-42 .689    89-56 .614
11-15:  15-10 .600    20-3  .870    19-13 .594
16+  :   3-2  .600     5-0 1.000     5-2  .714

Total: 317-212 .599  350-231 .602  363-310 .539
Close: 172-110 .610  162-138 .540  180-170 .514
Close:  55.0%         52.7%         53.0%
Tight:  25.3%         24.4%         23.6%

        Radbourn      Clarkson      Caruthers
    0:  8 ties        13 ties       4 ties
    1:  58-47 .552    60-45 .571    34-23 .596
    2:  55-34 .618    38-30 .559    36-22 .621
    3:  37-32 .536    36-30 .545    21-12 .636
    4:  31-19 .620    46-19 .708    28-13 .683
    5:  35-18 .660    35-12 .745    17-9  .654
 6-10:  68-34 .667    94-35 .729    57-17 .770
11-15:  14-3  .824    19-4  .826     7-3  .700
16+  :   6-3  .667     2-2  .500     8-4  .667

Total: 304-190 .615  330-175 .653  208-99 .678
Close: 150-113 .570  134-105 .561   91-57 .615
Close:  54.0%         48.6%         48.9%
Tight:  22.5%         22.8%         19.6%

Close is when margin is 1-3 runs. Close % is percent of starts that were close. Tight % is percent of starts that were ties or 1-run games.

Make of it what you will.

More from jimd:
Errata above: In 16+ games, Clarkson was 2-0, Caruthers was 8-0.

W-L record by Game Margin in game started:

        Composite:
    0:  72 ties
    1:  370-296 .556
    2:  276-216 .561
    3:  243-181 .573
    4:  224-143 .610
    5:  181-115 .611
 6-10:  455-223 .671
11-15:   94-36  .723
16+  :   29-7   .806

Total: 1872-1217 .606
Close:  889-693 .562
Close:   52.3%
Tight:   23.3%

Comparison of Keefe and Welch when they pitched together 1880-1882, 1885-1889:

player w   l    %  era  WS  gs  cg  whip k/w 
Welch 226 152 .598 2.70 261 391 384 1.22 1.32
Keefe 215 141 .604 2.56 239 368 350 1.13 2.06

            Welch  Keefe
over .500   85-85  82-91
            .500   .474
under .500 138-59 131-48
            .701   .732

  Welch  Keefe
1 14-21  17-25
  .400   .404
2 15-27  18-26
  .357   .409
3 37-17  19-16
  .685   .542
4 24-14  28-20 
  .632   .583
5 26-23  28-9 
  .531   .757 
6 32-19  36-17
  .627   .679
7 37-12  33-12
  .755   .733
8 39-10  34-14
  .796   .708 

Amos Rusie Breakdowns:

Against HoMers:

Galvin    2-3 
Radbourn  0-2
Keefe     2-5
Clarkson  4-3
Caruthers 2-0
Young     5-3
Nichols   4-10
total:   19-26
For comparison's sake:
Welch     0-2
Griffith  3-1
Hutchison 8-11

I should have done his totals vs. Jack Stivetts also b/c they pitched against each other a lot.
Records by opponent position

finish  Rusie
1st      15-30
         .333
2nd      21-21
         .500
3rd      17-17
         .500
4th      24-23
         .511
5th      21-16
         .568
6th      23-12
         .657
7th      27-17
         .614
8th      25-11
         .694
9-12     68-24
         .739
or
9th      14-10
         .583
10th     17-6
         .739
11th     16-6
         .727
12th     21-2
         .913

Records against over/under .500 teams

Record  Rusie
.500+   110-119
         .480
.500-   131-52
         .716

% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.556

I am going to work on the current HoMers (Young, Nichols, Mathewson, Plank, Galvin, Walsh, McGinnity, Brown). Hopefully, I will have them and Johnson done by around Johnson's enshrinement. I thought it would be nice to have all the enshrinees to compare with the candidates.

Of course, if I go nuts trying to total all of Galvin/Young/Johnson, you may see totals for current candidates b/c they have A LOT fewer decisions with which to deal.

Corrected all posts up to #85. The rest are toast.

Is there no way to get #108 corrected? IIRC that's the one on who Welch & Keefe pitched against when they were teammates together. Given that Welch is still on the ballot & has strong support, it would be helpful if we had that info.

Is there no way to get #108 corrected? IIRC that's the one on who Welch & Keefe pitched against when they were teammates together. Given that Welch is still on the ballot & has strong support, it would be helpful if we had that info.

The cached versions from Google only go so far. Unless one of us here had it saved, it's gone, Chris.

The data portion from Post 108. Note that there's some redundancy here with Kelly's recent excellent work.

Most common matchups and approximate W-L records:
(based on SP records from RetroSheet.org)

*****

Hoss Radbourn HTH
career WPCT .613 (309-195)
team record .615 (304-190-8 ties) (in his starts)

17-15 Whitney (1 tie)
16-14 Galvin (1 tie)
10-17 Welch (2 ties)
10-14 Keefe (35-35 against Troy/New York; 15-4 not Keefe/Welch)
12-9 McCormick
11-10 Buffinton
10-8 Clarkson (1 tie)
13-2 Wiedman
11-4 Getzien

*****

Pud Galvin HTH
career WPCT .540 (364-310)
team record .539 (363-311-13 ties) (in his starts)

9-26 Welch (1 tie)
18-16 McCormick
14-16 Radbourn (1 tie)
18-7 Richmond
11-11 Whitney
8-12 Ward
9-10 Corcoran (1 tie)
9-10 Buffinton
6-10 Keefe (3 ties)
6-13 Goldsmith

*****

John Clarkson HTH
career WPCT .648 (328-178)
team record .654 (331-175-12 ties) (in his starts)

Welch 7-13 (1 tie)
Getzien 13-8
Radbourn 8-10 (1 tie)
Keefe 10-9
Boyle 9-5
Shaw 9-4
Casey 9-4
Whitney 11-1
Hutchison 4-7 (1 tie)
Galvin 7-5

*****

Tim Keefe HTH
career WPCT .603 (342-225)
team record .602 (350-231-13 ties) (in his starts)

14-10 Radbourn
16-6 Whitney
10-6 Galvin (3 ties)
9-10 Clarkson
14-1 Healy
8-5 Casey (2 ties)
8-5 Getzien (1 tie)
3-10 Goldsmith

*****

Mickey Welch HTH
career WPCT .594 (307-210)
team record .598 (317-213-19 ties) (in his starts)

18-20 McCormick (2 ties)
26-9 Galvin (1 tie)
17-10 Radbourn (2 ties)
14-13 Whitney
15-10 Buffinton (1 tie)
13-7 Clarkson (1 tie)
14-4 Boyle
13-5 Wiedman
6-12 Corcoran

*****

Note the use of individual matchups between certain teams.
Welch tended to draw Corcoran while Keefe drew Goldsmith against Chicago.
Welch tended to draw Wiedman while Keefe drew Getzien or Casey against Detroit.
Welch tended to draw Boyle while Keefe drew Healy against St. Louis/Indianapolis.
McCormick isn't on Keefe's top-8 list, and Welch drew Galvin twice as often.
At first glance, it doesn't look like the splits are random.

Big Ed "Arm-Fall-Off Boy" Walsh

Teams: ChiA 1904-1916, BosN 1917.
Record: 195-126 1.81 era/2.66 runsallowed, K/W 2.81, WH9IP=9.00
Win Shares: Career 265; 3 yrs cons 107; 7 best yrs 236; per 40 starts 27.6. Seasons with 20+: 7. Seasons with 30+: 5 with 2 seasons over 40.
AllStars: STATS 4, WS 6
Fibonacci WinPoints: 187
ERA+: 145
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 67/172
Bill James Rank: 19
Top 10s: ERA, BBH/9IP, K/9, K, SHo, aERA+ 7 times each with lots of leaders. Also leads league in saves 5 times.
Other Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:

Young     4-0
Plank     8-6
Johnson   2-1
total:   14-7
For comparison's sake:
Joss      6-7
Waddell   6-3
Chesbro   6-2
Bender    2-2
Donovan   1-1
Joe Wood  1-0
Coombs    2-5
Cicotte   4-1
Shawkey   0-1 

Records by opponent position

finish   Walsh
1st      19-20
         .487
2nd      22-20
         .524
3rd      12-15
         .444
4th      20-10
         .667
5th      29-14
         .674
6th      30-13
         .698
7th      27-17
         .614
8th      33-9
         .786 

Records against over/under .500 teams

Record   Walsh
.500+    74-66
         .529
.500-   118-53
         .690

% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.450

Walsh's numbers are very different b/c they are based on the results from games started as per the game logs from Retrosheet. They do not count his many relief appearances.

Addie Joss

Teams: Cle 1902-1910.
Record: 160-97 1.89 era/2.82 runsallowed, K/W 2.53, WH9IP=8.71
Win Shares: Career 191; 3 yrs cons 86; 7 best yrs 168; per 40 starts 27.7. Seasons with 20+: 6. Seasons with 30+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 3, WS 2
Fibonacci WinPoints: 163
ERA+: 142
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 19/143
Bill James Rank: 80
Top 10s: ERA 8 times with 2 firsts. BBH/9IP 8 times with 2 firsts. aERA+ 8 times. SHo 7 times. CG and Wins 6 times. Win% 5 times.
Other Info: Record in SHo 40-23. Record in 1-0 games: 10-7. Avg. Record of Pitchers he defeated: .498. Avg. Record of Pitchers he Lost to: .577. Had the most decisions in his career against first place teams.
I thought the following was interesting, but I don't know how it relates to other pitchrs.
Runs Support in Losses:
1903 - 37 in 13
1904 - 21 in 9
1905 - 23 in 12
1906 - 12 in 9
1907 - 22 in 11
1908 - 15 in 12
1909 - 23 in 13
1910 - 7 in 5
Other Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:

Young     8-4
Plank     2-3
Johnson   1-3 [3 losses were all 1-0]
Walsh     7-6
total:   18-16
For comparison's sake:
Waddell   2-7
Chesbro   4-4
Bender    3-2 

Records by opponent position

 
finish   Joss
1st      19-23
         .452
2nd      17-16
         .515
3rd      18-12
         .600
4th      14-10
         .583
5th      14-10
         .583
6th      22-3
         .800
7th      27-12
         .692
8th      30-8
         .789  

Records against over/under .500 teams

 
Record   Joss
.500+    71-64
         .526
.500-    90-30
         .750 

% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.529