First, when Koufax was dominating the National League we were not nearly as cognizant of park and league effects as we are today during Helton’s time. As we came to understand park and league effects better as time went by, Koufax’s legacy nevertheless remained intact. Second, Koufax was a pitcher, and fans and writers have a tendency, I think, to romanticize pitchers more than hitters, particularly when it comes to “short but dominating career” type guys (consider that Ralph Kiner, similar to Koufax in that he had a brilliant peak but short career as a hitter, took 20 years after his retirement to make the Hall while Koufax sailed in after only his second year of eligibility).
Third is dominance compared to their contemporaries. Despite the fact that Helton’s peak is equal to that of Koufax’s, Koufax really was the best pitcher of his era. Helton was not the best hitter of his. That honor would have to go to Barry Bonds, and it’s far from clear that Helton was even the second best hitter of his era: in addition to Helton, Vladimir Guerrero, Manny Ramirez, Carlos Delgado, Albert Pujols, and Alex Rodriguez can all lay a legitimate claim to “best non-Bonds hitter of the first half of this decade” title, not to mention Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr., and Jeff Bagwell immediately prior, as well as David Ortiz and Travis Hafner immediately after.
None of which fully explains why Koufax is perceived as one of the greatest pitchers of all time while Helton is viewed as something less than one of the best hitters ever, to say the least. The facts do not lie: Helton and Koufax had great peaks of almost identical value, save for the fact that Helton’s was slightly stronger. Both put up otherworldly numbers because they were great players playing in parks and eras particularly suited for them. Yet Koufax is viewed as one of the greatest pitchers of all time while the perception of Helton is something less than that. Todd Helton is Sandy Koufax.
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.
The Mets scored 84 run in 19 starts, 4.4 per game
They scored'
1 run: 4 times
2runs: 2 times
3 runs: 1 time
4 runs: 1 time
5 runs: 5 times
6 runs: 2 times
7 runs: 2 times
8 runs: 1 time
10 runs: 1 time
That's pretty odd distribution
In those 1 run games the Mets went 1-3, one 1-0 win, and THREE 1-2 losses
both 2 run games were 3-2 losses.
WAR, at its root, is based off of ERA. Unfortunately ERA is a particularly misleading statistic for pitchers who conspicuously failed to translate good ERAs into comparably good records even when equalizing for run support. Blyleven is the classic case in point, but Saberhagen is one of the other truly striking examples of a pitcher who severely underperformed his Pythagorean projection and gave his team a poor return on its run support.
Saberhagen's career Pythagorean winning percentage is .615. His actual winning percentage was .588. That's a huge negative spread (almost Blylevian). The reasons for these kinds of disparities can vary (for Blyleven, he was terrible in one-run games and was the worst "late and close" pitcher in baseball throughout most of the '70s). In Saberhagen's case, his inconsistency produced large discrepancies between his Pythagorean records and actual records. He didn't fare that poorly in his good seasons, but in his bad seasons he consistently underperformed given his level of run support.
Some people want to label this "choking" or "poor clutch performance", but I don't find it necessary to do so. It is sufficient to note that with Blyleven and Saberhagen their teams had a right to expect significantly better records given the amount of run support they provided, and they were sorely disappointed.
And you're talking to one of the most transparent trolls on this site since RossCW.
To the extent it is at all odd, it worked to Saberhagen's advantage. There were very few games where Saberhagen got huge run support that was of little benefit as a practical matter (i.e., 8 runs or more, where a starting pitcher will almost always win anyway), and most of the distribution was concentrated right where a pitcher would want it - between 5 and 7 runs.
You've completely failed to notice the most striking thing about Saberhagen's game log from '93: The Mets scored five or more runs in 11 of Saberhagen's starts, and they won only SIX. Six times Sabe's gave up 4 or more ERs in those games. Needless to say, only six wins in 11 games where you score five or more runs is a terrible record, and Saberhagen's performance in those games was terrible - 4.30 ERA.
Don't blame the run support. Blame the pitcher who wasted it.
How did you get a Pythagorean winning percentage of 0.615 for Saberhagen? Doing a quick estimate using his RS/IP numbers from B-R and his RA, I get an expected pythag for his career of 0.594, which is a difference of about a win from his actual career numbers.
EDIT: The 0.615% seems to be based on the RS/GS numbers, which includes runs scored when the SP is no longer in the game, whereas the 0.594 is based only on RS when the pitcher was still in the game.
That's correct. Pythagorean projections produced by using the RS/GS figure rather than the RS/IP figure are more accurate. The reasons for this are complicated, but it comes down to this: a pitcher's winning percentage is a function not only of runs scored while he's in the game, but runs scored in total for the game, because runs scored after he leaves can prevent incurrence of a loss and thereby affect a pitcher's W-L record.
And runs allowed by the bullpen after he leaves can also prevent incurrence of a win, and thereby effect a pitcher's W-L record. What's the evidence that the runs scored by his team after he leaves isn't balanced out by the runs allowed by his team after he leaves?
(oh, shit, wait a minute...)
Fair enough. I should probably quit that, huh?
Ah, what the heck - one more try.
WAR, at its root, is based off of ERA. Unfortunately ERA is a particularly misleading statistic for pitchers who conspicuously failed to translate good ERAs into comparably good records even when equalizing for run support.
Fine, forget WAR. Here's a measure based on nothing but the pitcher's W-L record compared to that of his team - put simply, adjusting the pitcher's record for the quality of his team. Yes, it's very rough.
Actual records: Guidry 170-91, Saberhagen 167-117
Adjusted records: Guidry 160-101, Saberhagen 167-117
There's not a whole lot of difference there.
If you had a vote and it really counted, would you use throwaways when you knew it couldn't possibly result in a guy getting elected?
If there weren't 10 deserving candidates that year, I would at least consider it. Of course, a lack of deserving candidates isn't likely to be a problem any time in the near future.
A random factoid about Cy voting doesn't change the fact that with the exception of Santana, who by no means is a "mortal lock" -- all of the guys you named had a lot better careers than Guidry.
There is none. It merely helps his argument
Also, I have no idea where his "park adjusted averages" are coming from. Or why he thinks that 5.4 runs/game was so "spectacular" in 1995, given that he played a third of his season in Colorado.
Well, let's look at his losses and ND's to see how he did.
5 innings, 7 runs, ND W 10-8
7 innings, 3 runs loss 3-1
7 innings, 2 runs, ND L 3-2
7 innings, 1 run, ND L 3-2
5 innings, 1 run, ND W 5-1
7 innings, 2 runs, loss 2-1
7 innings, 2 runs, loss 3-0
7 innings, 4 runs, loss 6-3
2 innings, 4 runs, loss 5-4
8 innings, 0 runs, ND W 2-1
Trade to Col
8 innings, 4 runs ND L 5-4
7 innings, 2 runs, ND L 3-2
0.1 innings, 7 runs, L 26-7
6 innings, 0 runs, ND L 5-4
5 innings, 2 runs, ND W 5-4
3 innings, 3 runs, ND W 8-7
2 innings, 8 runs ND W 10-9
He threw some bad games. But he also took NDs or losses in 9 games in which he gave up 2 or fewer, including 2 games in which he gave up 0. In contrast, he got only 1 win in which he gave up more than 3 runs.
The 26-7 game illustrates why using RS/start is misleading. Sure, he gave up 7 runs in the first inning. A horrible start by any standard. But the bullpen than gave up 19! The offense could have scored 20 and he still would have taken the loss. He got 6 runs of support in his 2 NDs in which he allowed 0 runs. Talk about underperforming pythag!! He also got 5 runs of support in each of 2 NDs in which he gave up 3 runs total.
I look forward to Tommy parsing this.
Ah, yes, the crucial "double-digit wins and an ERA+ greater than 102" test -- long recognized as the gold standard in assessing pitcher performance.
Even given the extreme cherrypicking indulged in by Misirlou
Awesome. Just ####### awesome. Bravo.
No, the gold standard is winning a Cy Young, and getting Cy votes in at least 5 other seasons.
Gosh, I guess Davey Nopoint really is a lawyer - numbers are totally foreign to him!
Take the earned runs allowed by a pitcher, increase by the percentage of unearned runs allowed in the league that year (i.e., generally about 11%), and then multiply that by the pitcher's ERA+. Then multiply the preceding product by 9 and divide the result by the pitcher's innings pitched. Voila, park adjusted average scoring.
The park adjusted average scoring for Saberhagen in '95 was approx. 4.9/game. he got .5 runs/game more than that. That's great run support, Davey.
It may be, and it may not be. It all depends on when the runs are scored. Take for example this game. The Mets scored 5 runs and Bret gave up only 1. He got a ND. Why? Because the Mets scored 4 after he was out of the game. He got 7 runs of support on Aug 18, but the bullpen gave up 19. Can't see how you can spin that into a positive. He got 10, 9, and 8 runs of support on consecutive starts in which he gave up 1, 3, and 1 runs. But the next start he gave up 2 runs and got a loss because he got 0 runs of support. And a few starts after that he pitched 8 and gave up no runs and got a ND because his bullpen coughed up the 1-0 lead in the 9th. So, in those 5 games he had a 1.54 ERA, got and average of 5.8 runs of support, and went only 3-1. Had he gotten 5.4 runs each game, he would have gone 5-0.
If you are going to hold situational stats against him, do it for everything. That was David's point, which you conveniently ignored.
He works hard, I'll give him that, doesn't mean he's not a troll (or a regular trolling as a lark), just a high level one- he certainly knows exactly how to really push stathead buttons.
Let's start with the comparison of Saberhagen's '89 to Guidry's '78. Without taking anything away from Saberhagen, who had a great year, Guidry's was historic. Sabe's ERA+ was excellent, but when he compiled his 180 in '89 there were 32 other seasons in the modern (i.e., post-1920) liveball era that were better. Guidry's '78 season had only been topped by Gibson in '68, Gooden in '85 and Grove in '31. Saberhagen's 23-6 record and .793 winning percentage was great, but there were 31 other 20-win seasons where someone had compiled a better winning percentage. Guidry, of course, still holds the record for highest winning percentage for a 20 game winner. And Guidry's 9 shutouts will remain the AL record for lefthanders forever. To say, as Misirlous does, that Guidry's season "wasn't that much better" grossly mischaracterizes the comparison. Guidry's season was one of the greatest ever, while a season like Saberhagen's comes along once every few years.
As for the comparison of 2nd, 3rd and 4th best seasons, it's difficult to understand where Misirlous is coming from. Let's look at their best full seasons (excluding their respective strike-shortened seasons, which I'll compare separately).
2nd best season: This is clearly '85 for Saberhagen, probably '79 for Guidry.
Saberhagen: 20-6, 2.87 ERA, 145 ERA+, 235.1 IP, 158 SO
Guidry: 18-8, 2.78 ERA, 146 ERA+, 236.1 IP, 201 SO
Very similar seasons. Saberhagen won the CY, of course; Guidry finished 3rd. Saberhagen's ERA was third in the league in ERA and ERA+ (well behind Stieb's league leading 172). Guidry won the ERA title and finished a close second in ERA+ (behind Eckersley's 150). Saberhagen had the fewest bb/game and lowest WHIP, but didn't fare very well in the "domination" stats - ranked 9th in SO per 9 inn. and didn't rank the top 10 in hits per 9 inn. Guidry ranked 2nd in the league in SO/9 inn. (behind only Nolan Ryan) and 3rd in the league in fewest H per 9 inn.
The edge has to go to Saberhagen, particularly given his two great starts in the World Series. But it's a narrow edge.
3rd best season: '87 for Saberhagen, '77 for Guidry.
Saberhagen: 18-10, 3.36 ERA, 136 ERA+, 257 IP, 163 SO
Guidry: 16-7, 2.82 ERA, 140 ERA+, 210.2 IP, 176 SO
Guidry didn't enter the starting rotation to stay until mid-May. Accordingly, Saberhagen won more games and pitched more innings. They had similar ERA+, and both finished 4th in ERA and adjusted ERA+. Saberhagen again had spectacular control, finishing 2nd in the league in bb per 9 inn, but Guidry had the more dominating stuff, finishing 3rd in SO per 9 inn. and 4th in Hits per 9 inn., while Saberhagen didn't finish in the top 10 in either.
Again, very similar seasons in many respects, but the big difference is that Guidry turned into the best pitcher in baseball by mid-season and keyed the Yanks' charge to the World Series. Guidry went 10-2 with a 2.16 ERA after the all-star break, and received more MVP votes than any starting pitcher in the AL as a result. Saberhagen finished very poorly, however, and the Royals ended up losing the AL West by two games. Before winning his last start after the Royals had been eliminated, Saberhagen won only one of nine starts and posted a 4.12 ERA after mid-August. Throw in a complete game 3-hit win in the ALCS and complete game 4-hit win in the World Series and Guidry decisively wins this match-up.
4th best season: Saberhagen, '91; Guidry, '85
Saberhagen: 13-8, 3.07 ERA, 135 ERA+, 196.1 IP, 136 SO
Guidry: 22-6, 3.27 ERA, 123 ERA+, 259 IP, 143 SO
At this point, one has to wonder about Misirlou's sanity. Clearly Guidry has the huge edge here. Guidry clearly had the better 3rd and 4th seasons, making Misirlou's claim that Saberhagen had the cumulative edge across the 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons rather bizarre.
Or you could look at it this way. Take Guidry's '85 season and rank it his 2nd best, and then compare it to Saberhagen's '85 season. Saberhagen definitely retains the edge, but not by much. Meanwhile, the 3rd and 4th seasons become even more clear advantages for Guidry.
Because Misirlou's claim is otherwise so insane, I assume he must have ranked Saberhagen's strike-shortened '94 season as one of Saberhagen's best. And perhaps he compared it to Guidry's strike-shortened '81 season and gave Saberhagen the decision. Given Guidry's decisive edges in the 3rd and 4th best seasons listed above, however, it's still hard to see how Misirlou could claim that Saberhagen was "as good or slightly better."
If you proceed further down the list of best seasons, it becomes a complete route, with Guidry winning each time, his '83 season, '80 season and '82 seasons clearly beating Saberhagen's '98, '88 and '84 seasons, no matter how you rank them.
IN 1978 he was far and away the best pitcher in baseball, he had an odd delivery- hard to describe (closest I can recall is back when Ollie Perez was with SD/Pitt- his delivery now is nothing like that)
he had a wicked slider,
was a self professed Cajun "hick", claimed he liked to go frog hunting in the bayou- at night- said flashlight light reflected off bullfrog eyes differently than it did Alligator eyes...
late bloomer, as late as age 23 was still getting hammered in the minors, started getting his act together at age 24 in AAA, then at age 25 in AAA what he did to minor league batters in 1976 was unholy.
Story was that by then Yankee scouts/farm director(s) had given up on him, decided his stuff was never going to translate- but Billy Martin liked him
His stuff declined rapidly after 1978, so much so that anyone watching in 1982 would not have guessed he'd once been a power pitcher- remained effective, albeit not dominating, any way.
In 1985 he threw 259 innings with a 143/42 K/bb going 22-6 with a 3.27 ERA- very soft tosser by then- pure finesse/control pitcher, no sign of the guy who had thrown 98mph, and walk 7/9 in A ball remained...
Top 10 in wins, 1977-86:
Rk Player W IP ERA+ From To1 Ron Guidry 163 2186.2 121 1977 1986
2 Steve Carlton 155 2352.0 120 1977 1986
3 Phil Niekro 149 2503.0 111 1977 1986
4 Joe Niekro 145 2202.0 103 1977 1986
5 Jack Morris 144 2121.2 113 1977 1986
6 Scott McGregor 136 2023.1 102 1977 1986
7 Don Sutton 134 2191.1 108 1977 1986
8 Mike Flanagan 133 1995.1 101 1977 1986
9 Nolan Ryan 131 2179.1 111 1977 1986
10 Tommy John 130 1910.0 110 1977 1986
Not only did he lead a decade in wins, but unlike Morris he might possibly have been the best pitcher over that decade as well... but he's got nothing outside that decade
It absolutely was one of his best. Better than Guidry in 1977 that's for sure. For starters, he won more games than batters walked. A phenomenal and nearly unprecedented feat. His strikeout/walk ratio was 11.00, the highest in history. He was second in ERA, third in wins, third in innings pitched, 4th in strikeouts, second in win/loss %, and third in ERA+. He finished third in the CYA, and was easily the second best pitcher in the NL, behind the historic Greg Maddux season.
Oh sure, it was a strike year and he only pitched 177 innings (in 113 team games, a full season rate of 254). But I love how you hand wave that season away because of the strike, while making excuses for Guidry in 1977. Guidry started only one more game in 1977 than Saberhagen did in 1994.
Steroids.
Oh come on, you knew somebody was going to say it sooner or later.
DB
Best 5 for Guidry versus best 6 for Saberhagen:
1978 Guidry 11.51989 Saberhagen 9.7
1979 Guidry 6.7
1985 Saberhagen 6.6
1987 Saberhagen 6.4
1977 Guidry 5.5
1994 Saberhagen 5.3
1985 Guidry 5.3
1991 Saberhagen 4.8
1999 Saberhagen 4.1
1983 Guidry 4.0
or using their actual WL (by fibbonacci win points), Guidry's best 6 versus Sabe's best 5:
1978 Guidry 44.31989 Saberhagen 35.2
1985 Guidry 33.3
1985 Saberhagen 29.4
1983 Guidry 26.7
1979 Guidry 22.5
1994 Saberhagen 20.9
1977 Guidry 20.1
1987 Saberhagen 19.6
1980 Guidry 17.7
1998 Saberhagen 16.8
Slice it and Dice it, I assume that all here (except 1) would agree that there is no meaningful separation between the 2
Yeah, I didn't catch that at first, but it sure is classic fanboyish behavior. Hey Tommy, the least we can ask is that you at least be consistent in your illogic.
Q: Which seasons in these two pairings are superior?
136 ERA+, 257 IP
140 ERA+, 210.2 IP
and
135 ERA+, 196.1 IP
123 ERA+, 259 IP
A: Whichever of those is the Yankee.
Yeah. I said it, and believed it, about a hundred posts ago. I have merely been amusing myself since.
The season basically ended in early August. We're talking about a pitcher who hadn't pitched 200 innings since 1989 and never would again. We're talking about a pitcher who in '93 broke down completely after pitching 139 innings and didn't make another start after Aug. 2. And in '95 he had a 6.28 ERA in August and September. He missed the entire month of August of '92 with arm problems. He missed the 1996 season completely.
Your assumption that Saberhagen would have pitched a complete season and maintained anywhere near the kind of performance he'd had before the strike in '94 is extremely dubious, to say the least.
Besides, I didn't discard Saberhagen's short season. I did the fair thing and compared it to Guidry's strike-shortened season of '81 and gave Saberhagen the edge. But to compare a short season to a full one isn't fair, particularly when Saberhagen had suffered complete collapses in August and September in both the year preceding and year following the '94 season.
Really, Miserylou, is that the best you can do?
If 24 starts is a short season, how is 25 a full one? At least pretend to be consistent, that's all I ask.
With regard to your first example, I'd say the guy who went 10-2 with a 2.16 ERA after the all-star break and was the engine behind a World Series championship, because the other guy managed to win only 1 of 9 starts while his team was in contention and caused his team to lose the division by two games.
With regard to your second example, are you serious? One guy won 13 games, didn't get a single Cy Young vote, didn't even pitch 200 innings, while the other guy went 22-6, won 21 of his last 24 decisions, and finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting.
And you think Saberhagen was the better pitcher that year? You remind me of a guy who argued that Tommy John was better than Denny McLain in '68 because he had a better ERA+!
Well, I guess if you don't mind looking like a clown...
Of course that would be ridiculous. John wasn't a Yankee yet.
Again with "The only thing which matters is the second half of the season" nonsense. The reason the Royals were in contention in the first place was that Saberhagen went 15-3 with a 2.47 ERA in the first half.
And Lefty Grove made only 28 starts in 1933 - not a full season, Miserylou?
Guidry pitched the full season, pitched in every month, but pitched in the bullpen for a portion of the season, just like Lefty Grove.
A season is 162 games (at least since '61) and they only played about 112 in '94. That's not a full season, and seeing how Saberhagen was no longer a "full season" pitcher at that point in his career, I think that's relevant.
OK, I tried. I tried to be civil. But I'm no longer amused. I'm through with you.
Gosh, a great first half ain't worth much if you're going to collapse when it really counts. Funny thing, Guidry led all AL starting pitchers in MVP votes and also recieved Cy Young Votes in '77, while Saberhagen didn't get a single vote in either award tally. In fact, in '87 Jack Morris finished with a worse record than Saberhagen and a higher ERA but he received MVP votes. Why do you think that is, Miserylou? Why does the whole rest of the baseball world seem to think that performance in a pennant race stretch means something and you don't? Why does the rest of the baseball world understand why the '78 one-game playoff between the Yanks and Sawx meant more than an April game when it's so obvious to you that both games have the same weight?
Oh come on, that's better than David Nopoint
:-)
considering that McLain had virtually twice the innings I seriously doubt that anyone who'd cite ERA+ in an argument (as opposed to citing W-L) would have made that argument.
OTOH I can see where some may argue that Tiant was better that year.
Boy Bucky Dent sure got robbed in the MVP voting that year didn't he?
and what don't ya know, if he hadn't hit that HR, Mike Torrez would have earned the Cy Young that year over Guidry too!
1. Dent as MVP is only slightly less ridiculous than giving Rice the nod over Guidry.
2. Hey, all the Blyleven Backers would tell you that Torrez deserved the CY over Guidry - he had more 1-0 wins than Guidry in '78! And he had a better curveball!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main