User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5278 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
Dialed In — Friday, July 13, 2007Landing Buerhle a Great MoveThe Buerhle Deal Much has been written about the Buerhle deal – some good observations but some really odd stuff as well, particularly in attempting to select Buerhle’s peers. I mean, selecting pitchers that posted a 4.50 ERA prior to 1993-94 is peculiar as a Buerhle peer. Moreover, Mark has thrown 1500+ innings since he entered the major leagues, and he’s only 28 this season. Looking at going forward, I want to select his peers – people who performed as Mark Buerhle has – not guys who didn’t perform as well as Mark Buerhle has in many fewer innings. That’s not terribly interesting. So what has Mark Buerhle done? He’s thrown 1540 innings at an ERA+ of 123. Since I am going to be pulling data from the past, and Mark is in good shape to finish this season with 200 innings, we’ll make selecting his peers as 1500 IP through age 28 season. I also want to minimize era effects. The strike zones of the 60s really ate many pitchers arms up – Jim Maloney, Drysdale, and there weren’t nearly the corrective practices that are in place since the 1970s, with pitch count restrictions, arm surgeries and Tommy John too. That’s important because injuries that ended careers prior to about 1975 wouldn’t end careers anymore. It would be like saying John Smoltz’ career would be over about 5 years ago. He’s still pretty good. I also want to allow for some players that haven’t performed quite as well as Buerhle – it’d be nice if he were near the middle of the pack (although closer to the bottom, since he hasn’t finished this year). Buerhle’s ERA+ is 123, so we’ll set the bar slightly lower – about 117. We can quibble with that. Given those criteria and choosing slightly different ones is fine, as long as we still are attempting to paint an accurate picture of who Buerhle’s comps are. They have to be around for modern medicines. They have to have been durable from 20-28, and they have to have been really good with respect to the league in which he pitched. Fortunately this type of “lookup” is simple because Sean Forman is one of the greatest men in the universe. Running Play Index Pitching season Finder where the date range is 1973 to 2007, the age requirements are 20 to 28, 1500 IP and an ERA+ of 117 (95% of Buehrle’s present mark), we get som nice information. Through age 28, these pitchers averaged 215 IP/season. Averages for the next few seasons look like this: Year Pit Year Ag G GS IP n+1 mb 2008 29 27 27 185.7 n+2 mb 2009 30 28 28 196.7 n+3 mb 2010 31 25 25 161.7 n+4 mb 2011 32 25 25 162.2 n+5 mb 2012 33 24 24 168.3 That’s right. Buerhle’s peers do see a drop off in IP initially as other looks have found. But it doesn’t continue to drop. It bounces backs some and then declines some, but each year is still producing a good year. And the ERA+ marks are in the 130 range. Who are these guys that have produced like Buerhle has? Greg Maddux Derf. Pitchers like Mark Buerhle do not come along very often. He’s already demonstrated durability beyond the arm damage that “should have” happened. The odds that Buerhle will be very good over the next four seasons are very, very good. He’s easily going to be very good for four more seasons, and very likely five. Heck, he’s likely to be good for another ten. He’s the next generation’s best bet to win 300 games, and the key to being a successful GM is identifying the true stars that will decline atypically, and signing them relatively cheaply and enjoying the ride. Okay, the purer economics may not make it a great deal, but it’s going to get them a discount after four years if Buerhle continues on like his peers. When doing analyses like this, you have to select your peers more carefully.
|
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsSteve Austin is not a Baseball Player
(159 - 12:27am, Jul 07) Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter) Defensive Replacement Level Defined (41 - 1:20pm, Mar 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Reconciliation - Getting Defensive Stats and Statheads Back Together (30 - 1:42pm, Apr 28) Last: GuyM Handicapping the NL East (77 - 2:02pm, Oct 15) Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Landing Buerhle a Great Move (79 - 8:43am, Feb 04) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 19, 2010) (3 - 2:47pm, Sep 27) Last: Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! You Have Got To Be Kidding Me (8 - 3:52am, May 01) Last: Harris Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 4, 2010) (2 - 4:05pm, Jul 11) Last: NewGrass Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 29, 2010) (5 - 12:47pm, Jul 04) Last: Harveys Wallbangers Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 13, 2010) (15 - 1:51am, Jun 16) Last: Chris Dial Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats through games of June 6, 2010) (17 - 7:08pm, Jun 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Daily Dose of Defense (41 - 8:31pm, Jun 04) Last: Tango 2009 NL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (37 - 11:22pm, Feb 17) Last: Foghorn Leghorn NOT authorized by Major League Baseball or its Member Teams (40 - 7:32pm, Feb 16) Last: GregQ 2009 AL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (35 - 9:05pm, Jan 05) Last: Foghorn Leghorn |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5278 seconds |
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. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 13, 2007 at 03:19 AM (#2439685)If you're going to give the ERA+ over those seasons, you should also note that it was nearly 140 in the years prior, right around 15 higher than Buehrle's.
You take away an average of 40 innings per year and factor in the ~8 points of ERA+ lost, and how you evaluate this contract is going to depend greatly on how you view Buehrle's established performance. Take the career numbers and this looks like a pretty decent contract. I would wager that a lot of the criticisms of this contract have come from people who don't really think Buehrle is the pitcher that ERA+ indicates.
Of course, the Sox would be ecstatic if Buehrle lasts like Glavine has.
Exactly. What you have to understand is that 1,540 innings is too small a sample to judge a pitcher upon, and that luck will play a major factor in how his ERA+ looks at the end of those innings. Far more important are DIPS, FIP, and the projections at BP and THT, which consistently show that Buehrle is not the pitcher he pitches like.
Remember, Buehrle isn't a great and durable pitcher, he only plays one on TV.
I do not disagree that Buerhle isn't *likely* to be Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens; he hasn't been them, but really, no one has been Buerhle either. If you lower the ERA+ requirement, you can pick up a few more people, but you really have to stretch to get a large number of pitchers. Mostly due to my last paragraph.
Buerhle has already passed the area where someone that has experienced his workload breaks down precipitously. Could he still? Certainly? He's much more likely to perform, like Boots points out, like Tom Glavine, then the other analyses we've seen.
Pitchers that throw nearly as many IP as Buerhle, and nearly as well (ERA+) simply are nearly always great. Even the ones who weren't great in the immediate four years following, bounced back (blyleven, saberhagen, clemens).
Buerhle has the right body type and motion to pitch like Glavine for another decade, and it's a good contract.
Okay, now I am losing sight of what's sarcasm and what isn't.
So there's less than 600 pitchers in major league histroy that you can judge?
Mark Buerhle and 6 guys who are a lot better than Mark Buerhle.
I have no problem with the contract, but you've chosen the wrong comparables. You are excluding an ERA+ of 116, but allowing one over 160. He'll be at 1600 innings at the end of the year, and you allow the comparables down to 1500 but not below, yet pitchers with 300 more innings are kept as comparables.
When doing analyses like this, you have to select your peers more carefully.
Agree totally, and you should have enough pitchers worse than him to balance out the better ones so that the group's totals look like Mark Buerhle.
I'm pretty sure this is very subtle sarcasm. If that's so, brilliant! If not, sigh.
That I am sure is sarcasm.
Chris: So, if you knock the ERA+ down a bit more (say to 110) and maybe shave a few more innings (say to 1350), how many pitchers does that add?
Mark Buerhle and 6 guys who are a lot better than Mark Buerhle.
I have no problem with the contract, but you've chosen the wrong comparables. You are excluding an ERA+ of 116, but allowing one over 160. He'll be at 1600 innings at the end of the year, and you allow the comparables down to 1500 but not below, yet pitchers with 300 more innings are kept as comparables.
When doing analyses like this, you have to select your peers more carefully.
Agree totally, and you should have enough pitchers worse than him to balance out the better ones so that the group's totals look like Mark Buerhle.
I agree with some of that. But IMO, the critical parameter for Buerhle's future sucess isn't driven by ERA+. It's driven by health - Innings Pitched. The performance isn't limited *high*, it is limited low. His value will be less if he pitches poorly (95 ERA+), but he doesn't have to have an ERA+ of 160. That isn't required. Heck, what is 700 IP of 100 ERA+ worth? A lot I think - I think that's worth 4/40, isn't it?
Maddux and these others didn't throw 200 IP the next few years because they had ERA+s of 160. They threw them because they were healthy, and maintained their performance.
Buerhle's comps for his future (considering how the other projections are crash out) are how healthy he'll remain. Odds are, he past the "Injury Vortex". He's not going to be sucked into massive IP loss because he's cleared that hurdle (most likely).
So I'm not projecting Buerhle to throw those IP at a 160 ERA+, but rather those IP with a slight decline in his ERA+ - say to 115 (average over the 4 yrs).
So he may be 115 for 700 IP? That's a good pitcher. And Buerhle's present (2007) ERA+ is ~140, so he can decline from there somewhat.
Your reply seems to say, as long as he's healthy, he'll pitch roughly the way he has. Ok, that applies as a kind of generalization to all pitchers.
Meanwhile, Barry Zito has currently pitched the same number of innings, has the same career ERA+, but fails to make the list (I assume) because he is 10 months older? In essence, we have the same problem here as with the ERA+ -- Zito is excluded because he hadn't pitched 1500 innings by the end of his age 28 season. Fine. But Clemens had thrown 1500 innings by the end of his age 27 season. You can't pick a lower bound and not pick an upper bound.
Buehrle through age-28 season (so far): 1543.2 IP, 350 BB, 898 SO, 123 ERA+
Zito through age-28 season: 1430.1 IP, 560 BB, 1096 SO, 126 ERA+
Clemens through age-28 season: 1784.1 IP, 490 BB, 1665 SO, 148 ERA+
Clemens is really the better comp?
I agree Rauseo. I'm not sure how the ERA+ helps you at all in projecting the injury rate. I've never seen anything that shows that correlation.
What may be more instructive was a thingy that BPro did that shows attrition rate. Age wise, Buerhle's contract will cover some of the lower levels of attrition. Or to put it in your words, he's past the injury vortex and he will not reach the injury cliff during the term of this contract.
Dial's IP based comparisons may or may not help give even more information on factors that refine that generalized attrition rate.
I'd still worry about Buehrle going the Alex Fernandez or Mark Mulder route. I would want something that makes me feel better about the Glavine comp, but it still seems like a safer bet than some other long term pitching contracts.
Zito, born 5/13/78: 1535.0 IP, 123 ERA+
If the object of the exercise is to look at how Buerhle can be expected to pitch in his age 29-32 seasons, isn't Zito being excluded just because he hasn't pitched his age 29-32 seasons yet?
Maybe, especially considering the career arcs of the A's Big 3. The declines and where and how they are occuring may lead you to start to examine special considerations for those pitchers.
I dropped the ERA+ requirement, and 1350 IP, and you get 42 pitchers. As I say above - the likelihood of throwing a lot of innings from ages 29-32 is heavily dependent on your ability to throw them from 22-28.
Setting the ERA+ at 110, and you drop the count to 25 pitchers:
A good collection of durable pitchers (I'm at work, so it's not convenient for me to average their next four seasons. Buerhle does fall in the middle of these guys - which is more ideal, as well as closer to the middle wrt IP.
He's going to be good, and I think these lists show those odds to be pretty strong.
His peers wrt handling the workload. Those are his peers (they just pitched better with that workload).
I think handling the workload at a young age is important. Young being <24.
-- MWE
I don't think you need a ceiling. I'm not using it to project his ERA+. I'm merely looking at the likelihood that he'll stay healthy.
Is that true. I'm just eyeballing it, and it looks like during the contract period of Buerhle, you are either getting an injury or dead arm suckitude from Appier, Saberhagen, Matlack, Soto, Eckersley, Langston, Tanana, Blue, Gubizca, Zito, and Viola. That is about a 44% chance you are going to have some season for sh1t, and probably a 20-something chance you are going to have 2 or more seasons for sh1t.
I'd think this list shows a good chance that Buerhle will pitch late into his career. Only about 2 pitchers never respond and bounce back. But that is not looking as good as it did originally.
On the flipside, with no lower limit, you might add a lot of pitchers who didn't get hurt, but just started to suck. Something that's unlikely in Buerhle's case.
You can get a decent group of comparables by looking at IP within 250, ERA+ within 10, K rate within 1, walk rate within .5. You'll get a list something like this:
Greg Maddux
Bret Saberhagen
Fergie Jenkins
Tom Glavine
Dave Stieb
Frank Tanana
Johnny Antonelli
Frank Tanana
Mark Gubicza
Dan Petry
Alex Fernandez
Curt Simmons
Jim Kaat
Jim Abbott
Some of them thrived; some of them were half and half; and some of them blew out their arms entirely. There's no guarantee that Buehrle won't blow out his arm and that his K rate will fall too low within the contract period, but there is also a reasonable possibility that he will be a Hall of Fame candidate in 15 years. Feeling lucky?
Neither of those guys is similar stylistically to Buehrle.
You are right. I'd happily throw out Antonelli and Tanana (who I listed twice). The point is that you shouldn't be comparing If you want to be fancy about it, you'd use park/era indexed W and K rates.
Incidentally, when I think of Tanana, it is 1987 not 1976 that I think of. He threw the shutout against Jimmy Key on the final day of the season, and by that point, Tanana and Key were fairly similar.
I think its very defensable to exclude the arm slagging practices of the 60's and guys like Earl Weaver. Buerhle has not been asked to endure a barbaric workload. And when you do look at it, you are in an injury-age nadir generally, and still have better than average odds at getting a complete injury free run. But it does look like the injury potential or dead arm potential is pretty high.
IMHO, if you are doing an ROI calculation, what you want to arrive at is both the expected return (which is something like the ERA+ projection) and factor in the catastrophy rate as a risk factor (which is the IP projection, or maybe better, the loss of year(s) projection). The latter is never going to be granular enough for most sabe tastes, but I think that gets you the best ROI number. Its pretty close to other pricing methods in the real world too.
Well, if you take the old Bill James' observation that if you take 10 pitchers with an ERA of 3.00 and 175ks a piece and ten pitchers with an ERA of 3.00 and 125ks a piece, the 10 high K guys will be better in 5 years than the low K guys- and they pitch more in 5 years because they are more effective.
In other words you really have to control for Ks in a study like this.
One thing that seems to stick out when looking at them is how rarely those guys broke down before age 33.
If we remove Buerhle, Zito and Vazquez because none of them have made it to their age-32 seasons, we end up with only 12 out of 22 having most of their ERA+ peaks by age 30. I know that K/BB, WHIP and other stats are MUCH more predictive in terms of performance. But this makes me think that being a workhorse early on doesn't necessarily mean you also have your best ERA+ years early on too. Buerhle could still turn into a 110 ERA+ guy in 2008 or 2009, of course, but this particular deck doesn't seem to be stacked against him.
In other words you really have to control for Ks in a study like this.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Buehrle, with the exception of a couple of nasty streaks where he was very hittable (May-June 2003, July-Sept 2006) has been able to be consistently and sustainably successful over the course of 6 1/2 seasons now, despite never putting up more than a mediocre "K" rate. James' adage is definitely true if you look at single-season performance, but Buehrle isn't Mark Fidrych or Jose Lima.
and I'm sure he's not the only one, I want the other pitchers who've been successful with stable but mediocre (not poor mind you) K rates from ages 23-28 and see how they did 29-32
I think the assumption through all of this discussion has been that pitchers like Buehrle don't decline sharply for reasons other than injury (or age, which doesn't apply here).
I think Mike Green's list above gives you a good indication.
Of course, when you look at the actual names, you can come up with reasons why Buehrle is completely different from each of them.
I used to think that Zito was a good comp, but Zito is a bit better at striking guys out and significantly worse at not walking them. He's also a more extreme flyballer than Buehrle is. Really, the similarity begins and ends at age, handedness, and ERA+.
Petry apparently had bone chips in his elbow in 1986. (http://www.tigerscentral.com/history.php?year=1986)
Abbott, Fernandez, Gubicza, Stieb, Petry and Simmons all broke down in their late 20s. What is interesting is that it is not easy to find a comparable who declined significantly in effectiveness without hint of significant injury. An ERA+ of 123 in 1500 innings is suggestive of an ability to maintain effectiveness with mediocre K rates.
Right, I either know they got hurt, or strongly suspect so. All those guys pretty much fell off the table - I don't see much steady decline into mediocrity or worse.
I guess how good this contract is boils down to how well-justified the team's feeling is that Buehrle isn't a significant injury risk over the next four years.
Do you really feel confident in saying that this is entirely Buehrle's doing? His FIP caught up to him pretty much whenever he didn't have someone the caliber of Aaron Rowand or Darin Erstad in center. I'm sure he's a little better than his defense-independent stats, but I don't think the difference is as big as ERA+ indicates.
Untrue. He pitched well in 2001 and 2002, when he spent a great deal of time pitching in front of a mediocre defense, and he continued to pitch well this year when Darin Erstad and Joe Crede went on the DL.
While I agree that all of Buerhle's difference in FIP and ERA is not his doing I would say that at least some part of it is.
-age
-IP total
-time period of career
-ERA+ range
-K rate
-FIP
-defense
-handedness
-velocity
You take all these characteristics together, you search for players who have them, you get Mark Buehrle. Obviously, in order to get a sense of Mark Buehrle's future, it makes sense to study players who were like Mark Buehrle, but the determination of resemblance- the meaning of "like" - is a qualitative thing which is simply skipped over in the desire to achieve a single number which, apparently purely by virtue of being a number, is authoritative.
The only thing that can give such a number authority is the qualitative study that determines likeness, but that hasn't been done. So we get these debates going in circles, picking different comparison groups, sometimes listing them, sometimes homogenizing them into a number, but never asking the question that underlies all this. once we start asking the question, we see how shaky the ground really is.
See, I don't think so. If you look at the pitchers who pitched poorly, they weren't allowed to pitch a lot after age 29. If Pedro pitches poorly, he'll get DLed.
Well, at least this thread is doing a better job of finding comps than mgl's study from the other thread.
No, I said I am looking at minimum workload peers. And have lowered the minimum below Buerhle's level. The problem is no one that isn't great even gets to Buerhle's level (or within 5% of Buerhle), and that's over 35 seasons.
What's the analysis of Zito's contract say? That he's not worth 7/105, but is worth 4/56?
I agree. I think Buerhle's actual quality is difficult to assess. I think I am trying to say that if you can throw 1500 IP from ages 21-28, then you can throw 700 over the next four.
WRT K/9. Those have to be league adjusted. That search doesn't work (I don't think).
Chris, much better analysis than what the Hardball Times came up with.
Still, if you're doing comparisons for Beuhrle and you're coming up with names like Clemens, Saberhagen, and Stieb, your methods are questionable. If you come up with names like Moyer, Pettitte, and Key, now you're on to something. Perhaps if you removed the specific age requirement you'd get there. I say this because I think Neyer did a column a few years back noting that the better MLB starters seemed to have 10 solid seasons in them regardless of the age they started their run of quality pitching.
Well, I think that looks to expect 4 great years, and I don't think pitchers pitch like that. Taking Blue frinstance, he threw 767 innings over the next four seasons to an average of ERA+105. Now one year was awful (70), but the other three were pretty good, and one was real good (119, 139, 108). Matlack wandered around the 100 ERA+ plus mark, but 750 IP of average performance is worth a good deal of money. Tanana threw 808 IP with ERA+s of 128, 128, 97, 100. That's worth a bunch of money. How many wins above replacement is 200 IP of 100 ERA+? A lot, I think. Tanana is a bad comp, IMO because he had the arm injury at 23 and and limped into the gate. there should be a better way to search, that you've had 5 or 6 years of 200 IP leading up to the contract.
I don't think the K-rates or anything else will matter - the thing that will largely determine if Buerhle is worth his contract is if he can get to the post every week. And I think his track record shows he can.
And Mark Buerhle is a very good comp to Roger Clemens wrt IP, GS, etc. And besides, the 1984 AL was only about 80% as good as the 1999 AL...right?
Well, my problem was I came up witht he methodology, and then posted what I got (I was trying to do it quickly because of the way the others were done.
I tend to think of this work as collaborative, and what I post as a starting point, rather than a conclusive "case closed" matter. As we discuss several have run tweaks to the criteria to see who else might be viewed as a comp. I do think that the biggest determinant in Buehrle's next four seasons is the fact that he's thrown 200 IP for 6 straight seasons, and working on his seventh *at a young age*. I do think looking at like grroups from ages 23-29 would also be beneficial and informative.
I think at 23-30 you start to edge toward the natural cliff , and Buerhle won't be 34 when this contract ends - he's younger.
What I am defending is that I believe the most critical parameter is having withstood the workload consistently through the young part of his career, and his body type, IMO, that makes me feel confident in my assessment. Can my mind be changed? Certainly, but I think hadwaving off Clemens is wrong - yes, Clemens threw *better* innings, but not *more* innings (he did throw about 20 more IP a season).
That's why I'm not terribly concerned about the ERA+ difference. I don't think Buerhle's K/9 is low enough to be concerned about. Once you get over 4.5 or so, the advantage of 2 K's per game is lessened, particularly if you are doing something else well enough to produce a 123 ERA+ over 200+IP for seven straight seasons.
It goes to "what sabermetrics can't see". It's in the fog, and we shouldn't (wrt pitching) just pretend it doesn't matter.
The only player who doesn't really fit is El Sid.
Player ERA+ IP K/9 From To Ages W L W-L%
1 Frank Tanana 115 2330.1 6.28 1974 1984 20-30 133 128 0.51
2 Frank Viola 113 2107.2 6.27 1982 1990 22-30 137 110 0.555
3 Sid Fernandez 112 1590.2 8.25 1983 1993 20-30 98 79 0.554
4 Tom Glavine 116 1956.1 5.58 1987 1996 21-30 139 92 0.602
5 Jon Matlack 117 1756.2 5.97 1973 1980 23-30 97 95 0.505
6 Barry Zito 123 1535 6.81 2000 2007 22-29 108 72 0.6
7 Andy Pettitte 118 1584.1 6.22 1995 2002 23-30 128 70 0.646
8 John Cande 120 1799 5.48 1975 1984 21-30 122 80 0.604
9 Wilson Alvez 114 1433 6.75 1991 1999 21-29 86 76 0.531
10 Chuck Finley 119 1450 6.37 1986 1993 23-30 89 76 0.539
11 Mark Buehrle 123 1543.2 5.24 2000 2007 21-28 103 70 0.595
12 Jimmy Key 122 1479 5.03 1984 1991 23-30 103 68 0.602
Chris, if you're suggesting that Buehrle and Clemens/Seaver are similar because of their "innings pitched" histories and their lower body build, that's a whole different matter. You may indeed be right, but an ERA+ floor is not the ideal way to test this proposition.
excluded Buehrle, Vazquez and Zito (haven't pitched from 29-32)
and divide dinto 3 groups based on k/9 (no I didn't normalize)
The high K group had a k/9 of 8.71 and ip of 224 at age 28
The middle K group had a k/9 of 6.53 and ip of 210 at age 28
The high K group had a k/9 of 4.93 and ip of 215 at age 28
and from ages 29-32???
No separation
The high K group averaged 186 ip
The middles averaged 192 ip
and the low averaged 184 ip
What I should do is adjust for the strike seasons (1981 & 1994) and normalize to league averages- but it doesn't look like that will make much of a difference (it could if it boosts Rogers into the middle K group, boosts Morris into the High but that really won't make too much of a difference
Player ERA+ IP K/9 From To Ages W L W-L%
1 Frank Tanana 115 2330.1 6.28 1974 1984 20-30 133 128 0.51
2 Frank Viola 113 2107.2 6.27 1982 1990 22-30 137 110 0.555
3 Sid Fernandez 112 1590.2 8.25 1983 1993 20-30 98 79 0.554
4 Tom Glavine 116 1956.1 5.58 1987 1996 21-30 139 92 0.602
5 Jon Matlack 117 1756.2 5.97 1973 1980 23-30 97 95 0.505
6 Barry Zito 123 1535.0 6.81 2000 2007 22-29 108 72 0.6
7 Andy Pettitte 118 1584.1 6.22 1995 2002 23-30 128 70 0.646
8 John Candelaria 120 1799.0 5.48 1975 1984 21-30 122 80 0.604
9 Wilson Alvarez 114 1433.0 6.75 1991 1999 21-29 86 76 0.531
10 Chuck Finley 119 1450.0 6.37 1986 1993 23-30 89 76 0.539
11 Mark Buehrle 123 1543.2 5.24 2000 2007 21-28 103 70 0.595
12 Jimmy Key 122 1479.0 5.03 1984 1991 23-30 103 68 0.602
Let's see if that works.
That's mostly the case, but it is important that the pitcher wasn't just terrible, on a team running anyone out there. Not the largest component, but a component.
He's not got the wins one would hope to carry him to 300, but he's solid. I think the next four years will be worth the money.
A 115 ERA+ is worth about 4 wins over a season, and over 4 year that's 16 which translates to something like $80million worth of value (at $5 million per win, which may be lower than the average of 2012-2015). His contract is for just $58 million, so it's a very good signing. I can't believe that no one topped that contract offer.
Even if we go with that, it's still worth $72 million.
A 4 year contract for a league average pitcher would be $36 million. So even if Buerhle becomes that, it isn't an awful contract. Certainly a much better value than Ryan Howard.
Greg Maddux
Roger Clemens
Bert Blyleven
Dave Stieb
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz
Mark Buehrle
Doc Gooden just misses the comparison at ERA+ 113. So what is Buerhle going to do next? When I drop the innings to 2300, I pick up Sabathia and Steve Rogers. How do the next four years go? Stieb was done, throwing just 178 IP over the next three seasons. Rogers was almost done - he managed 400 innings. Smoltz had just blown out his arm and would miss his age 33 season and move to the bullpen for four years. The others averaged well over 900 innings, with Blyleven leading the way.
So Buehrle, if his arm isn't blown out today (like Stieb and Smoltz), he's going to keep rolling - another 800 innings (average SP innings have gone down).
It isn't about strikeouts or whatever else. Durability is about what you have already made it through. 800 innings at a 112-115 ERA+. It's a shame his win total lagged the last four seasons - not that he'd be at 200 now, but he could have 9 or 10 more.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main