I can't believe that Lolich was only 35 when he played for the Mets in '76. He look like he was 50 instead.

I curse him for the memory of the 1968 World Series - he started games 2, 5, and 7 (being jumped over Denny McLain to start game 7 on short rest) and won all three in complete games.

RA+ PythPat career record 215-189, very close to his actual record of 217-191. Incredible workhorse for a few years. His 376-IP 1971 season is a dead ringer in value for Wilbur Wood's 1972. I have both at 25-17. I also have Lolich at 23-14 for 1972.

That puts him among pitchers well worth scrutiny, but not on my ballot. Paul Derringer at 216-189 is the closest match I can find for the RA+ equivalent record. Grimes and Pennock aren't too far away.

I don't think Lolich or Hunter is a top 100 pitcher (I mean, a pitcher in the top 100 of eligible players).

Mickey Lolich should get into the Hall of Merit based on his amazing batting eye. How many players have an OBP almost twice as high as their SLG in a 17-year career?


90 career hits and 105 career walks.
.110/.215/.121

Crisp,

Great screen name.

90 career hits and 105 career walks.
.110/.215/.121

So, he of the two true outcomes. Were the Tigers going all TLR on the league and batting Lolich eight, allowing him to cop a bunch of IBBs ahead of Ray Oyler?

I curse him for the memory of the 1968 World Series - he started games 2, 5, and 7 (being jumped over Denny McLain to start game 7 on short rest) and won all three in complete games.

You forgot to mention he hit the only home run of his entire career in those games, too. There's a bar bet winning question for you: who is the only 3 time all-star with more career post-season homers than regular season homers?

Speaking as someone who has looked at game-by-game run support for over 100,000 starts by tons of pitchers, the worst stretch of run support any pitcher has suffered came in the second half of 1975. The victim was Mickey Lolich. Here's what the mighty Tiger offense did over fourteen starts in his final season with the club:

7/11 - 2 runs
7/17 - 0 runs
7/21 - 2 runs
7/26 - 0 runs
7/30 - 1 run
8/4 - 4 runs
8/9 - 0 runs
8/15 - 0 runs
8/19 - 3 runs
8/24 - 1 run
8/29 - 1 run
9/3 - 0 runs
9/8 - 0 runs
9/13 - 0 runs

Then, on September 20, in his last start ever with the squad, the Tigers exploded for an earth-shattering 5 run performance. That's fourteen runs in fourteen games, which means the two-run performance that kicks it off actually aids the average. Yeesh. Seven shutouts. Lolich picked up the decision in every stinking game, going 1-13 in that time. That caused him to lead the league in losses with 18. It's like they were saying farewell to Ray Oyler, not Mickey Lolich.

Right now I'm enaged in a lenghty study of starting pitcher leverage -- the idea that ace starters through much of baseball history were shaded towards better rivals. It does appear that this occurred somewhat regularaly from 1886 until the mid-1960s. The last really good example I've found of it occurring? Mickey Lolich, 1964. Makes some sense. The manager that year was long-timer Chuck Dressen, in his last full season as manager. That's exactly the sort of person who manage the last really good example of starting pitcher leverage.

So, he of the two true outcomes.

As opposed to his three true outcome teammate, Earl Wilson.

the worst stretch of run support any pitcher has suffered came in the second half of 1975.

That came out garbled. Makes it sound like Lolich's stretch was the only the worst stretch suffered over a 3 month period. No, it's the worst stretch I know of by any pitcher from 1871-2006.

Dollars to doughnuts he doesn't make it.

There's a bar bet winning question for you: who is the only 3 time all-star with more career post-season homers than regular season homers?

I'm amazed to see that he never made an All-Star team, but Don Gullett's only home run came in the 1975 NLCS...

Dollars to doughnuts he doesn't make it

How much are doughnuts going for these days? That must be pretty close to even money by now.

McLain started game 4 in '68 and was rocked early. After Lolich won game 5, McLain came back on 2 days rest and won game 6, then Lolich won game 7 on 2 days rest.

Lolich lost his last 3 starts in 1971, I think 3-2, 2-1, 2-1 or some such nonsense. All complete games. If he wins say 2 of those and goes 27-12 it would have been hard not to give him the Cy over Vida. Not that Vida didn't deserve it.

Dollars to doughnuts he doesn't make it.

best comment about Lolich was from The GABCFT&BB;
"it would be interesting to see Lolich now that he's been out of baseball for a few years and had a chance to get out of shape"

That came out garbled. Makes it sound like Lolich's stretch was the only the worst stretch suffered over a 3 month period. No, it's the worst stretch I know of by any pitcher from 1871-2006.

Wasn't Clemens' early 2005 comparable?

Dollars to doughnuts he doesn't make it.

Dollars to doughnuts Lolich would take the donuts.

Clemens 2005 run support start-by-start

4/13- 0
4/18- 0
4/23- 0
4/29- 2 runs
5/4- 4 runs
5/9- 2 runs
5/14- 4 runs
5/19- 1 run
5/24- 2 runs
5/30- 0
6/5- 6 runs
6/11- 6 runs

For the first three, Clemens got the no decision as the Astros lost 1-0. But then they scored 15 runs over his next 6 starts. Lolich needed 14 starts to get that much in the way of run support. And through that rough stretch, Clemens ended up with a lot of no decisions, but not a lot of losses. He only picked up 3 L's in games the Astros lost 3-2, 6-1 (Clemens gave up 3 runs, 2 earned) and 9-0 (Clemens gave up 2 runs, both earned). He certainly deserved better than the 3-3 record he had at the end of May, but his stretch is nowhere near as bad for nowhere near as long as Lolich's.

That came out garbled. Makes it sound like Lolich's stretch was the only the worst stretch suffered over a 3 month period. No, it's the worst stretch I know of by any pitcher from 1871-2006.

Wasn't Clemens' early 2005 comparable?

No, but Ross Baumgarten in 1980 was.

1,1,1,1,1,0,3,1,1,1,0,2,2,3 - 18 runs in 14 starts.

In his two starts prior to the streak he got 2 and 5.

In his 7 starts after the streak he got 2,2,1,2,3,6,3

The guy went 2-12 with an ERA+ of 117

Lolich was a rotund character, a very good pitcher for several years, but not up to HoM standards.

On historically awful run supports, what about Nolan Ryan's 1987 and Jim Abbott's 1992?

For the first three, Clemens got the no decision as the Astros lost 1-0

For the record, that't the only time I know of where a pitcher started three consecutive games where his team lost 1-0. There are a few occassions where a pitcher's team was shutout four consecutive times when he started. It happened in 1968 (of course) to a Giants pitcher. McCormick? He lost 18 games that year, whoever it was, IIRC. It happened to Paul Derringer in 1933 (which makes a lot of sense if you've ever seen his line that year). It happened in the early 1960s to some name Ortega or something. I think he was either a Senator or an Oriole. And most memorably it happened to Randy Johnson, who pitched brillantly only to see the D-backs get shutout four times straight, but be held to zero, one, two, and three hits in the process in the different games. There were almost certainly other times it happened; I never checked every start.

Mickey Lolich, over those 14 games, had run support that was only 22% of the league's park-adjusted average. Ouch. Take out the first game with its thunderous two run offensive barrage, and it's even worse.

I don't remember exactly what Ryan's was off the top of my head, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I would've guessed. I think it was 78. (That's 78% of league average adjusted for park). Yeah that's pretty bad, but nothing exceptionally bad. Paul Derringer's 1933 season was around 55. Ross Baumgarten's 1980 was about 50. A 78 is like a batter hitting .330. Notable, but rarely good enough to best the best in baseball. The reverse version of it is Bob Welch's 1990. Welch had a 122 or so. Good, but about 10% of all seasons with at least 20 starts can top that. Welch had extraordinarily consistent run support, the best bullpen ever assembled holding his leads, and a large number of 1-run victories. Ryan likely had the opposite.

I don't know about Abbott's 1992 campaign.

He ended up in the 60s on my list right next to Burleigh Grimes. Both are way ahead of Catfish Hunter.

ERA+s, best to worst, 154/162 IP minimum, only listing 100 or better:

MiLolich 126 23 19 12 07 07 06 02 02
CaHunter 141 40 34 14 12 07 03
BiPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03
RWaddell 179 79 65 53 26 25 23 21 07 02
JBunning 150 49 43 42 34 32 29 14 14 04

MiLolich top 10 in IP: 1 3 5 6 7 7 7
CaHunter top 10 in IP: 1 2 4 5 6 10
BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
RWaddell top 10 in IP: 3 4 4 10
JBunning top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8

I would definitely prefer Hunter over Lolich, but won't vote for either one.

Love that Lolich postseason, though - 5 games, 46 IP, 8 ER allowed. wow.

IOW if you want a guy who was lights out effective, Waddell's your guy.

If you want a workhorse, well, I guess there's Bunning.

And what was the case for Pierce again?

And what was the case for Pierce again?

Leveraged relief innings.

-- MWE

Relatively speaking, Pierce threw significantly more innings per year and career, and provided a number of extra slightly above-average season pitching in an integrated era.

I have Waddell pretty high on my ballot, but not quite as high as Pierce. I do think both should go in.

Waddell gave up a ton of unearned runs, which for a high-K pitcher is pretty bizarre. Back in the day, it was the UER that kept him below contemporaries like McGinnity & Griffith in the vote totals.

Pierce was very consistent. His ho-hum years were never bad like Roberts' or Wynn's. So, Pierce scores very well on career RSAA lists. He's about even with Drysdale on that metric. I know 'very consistent' is not a ringing endorsement, but it means his prime is more impressive than his peak. Plus there is the issue that his era may be underrepresented. It could be that a guy with Pierce's numbers in the 60s-70s generation doesn't make it.

>Waddell gave up a ton of unearned runs

Actually this has been pretty much debunked...and debunked...and debunked...and won't die.

For Rube I think the number was 35 percent of runs. 28-33 percent was absolutely typical and 35 percent not unheard of by any means.

Of course Rube was stupid and so his is a special case. The UER must have been his fault. I mean, they must have. He was stupid! (This basically is the "proof" that has dogged Rube all these years.)

Actually this has been pretty much debunked...and debunked...and debunked...and won't die.

Oops... I hadn't heard that it was debunked. Didn't Chris J always tout him as the King of the UER? Anyhow, apologies if I missed it.



He did give up more than his share of UER. It deserves something of a discount, no? Perhaps the one I've been applying is too high, though.

You have to admit that his personality does seem to gel with the high UER%. He seems like the type of guy who might unravel if the defense made a mistake behind him.

I'll check the Waddell thread again.

The one I remember is Joss also at 35 percent.

Found the discussion Sunny. Thanks for the heads up. Its in the Waddell thread. I must have missed it back in July.

The UER effect is real, but perhaps not as strong as I figured. An adjusted career ERA+ of 127 was suggested. That sounds roughly fair.

I've always wanted to vote for Waddell and now I just might. 2960 IP and 134 ERA+ (127 adjusted). That's Coveleski-esque. Still a tough call as Stan was a borderline inductee, but should be enough to make my ballot.

I liked Lolich when I was a kid because he was fat just like me. I liked Sonny Jurgensen for the same reason.

I know 'very consistent' is not a ringing endorsement, but it means his prime is more impressive than his peak.

For pitchers, I've concluded 'very consistent' <u>is</u> a ringing endorsement. The vagaries of their consistency is the reason why GMs will say 'you never have enough pitching'.

I agree that those extra 100-110 ERA+ years for Pierce are underrated by many - to me those are more valuable than similar hitting OPS+S, for instance.

As far as I've seen, Waddell didn't really give up many more ER than his contemporaries.
His W-L record is odd, and it's possible that he folded up in big spots, but that's a difference claim and one that doesn't necessarily claim to have proof. It bothers me a little, but not enough to keep Waddell off my ballot. At this point, I'm surprised he isn't on more ballots - even though again, I see Pierce as the best unelected P.

And what was the case for Pierce again?

Leveraged relief innings.

And leveraged starts. He's one of the best leveraged major starting pitchers ever.


Actually this has been pretty much debunked...and debunked...and debunked...and won't die.

When? I've looked it up. I compared the % of UER allowed by Rube Waddell each year and compared that to the percentage of UER allowed by his teammates. That, to me, makes more sense because it accounts for the level of defense behind a pitcher and % of UER can vary from team-to-team as a result to league-wide averages strike me as inferior. When you compare Rube's % of UER to his teammates every year of his career he comes out high. I forget the exact number but if the same percentage of his RA had been earned as his teammates he would've had an extra 40-50 earned runs. From hazy memory, I think it would've knocked his ERA from 2.16 to 2.31. Looking it up, I see his ERA really was 2.16, so I feel pretty confident in the 2.31 adjusted mark. That would be 50 more earned runs.

For Rube I think the number was 35 percent of runs. 28-33 percent was absolutely typical and 35 percent not unheard of by any means.

This strike anyone else as an odd counter-argument. And if average is around 30%, and a pitcher has about 35% UER, then those UER would add up over the course of 3000 innings. I don't see this statement as debunking the idea that Rube allowed too many unearned runs. I think it confirms that belief.

Not unheard of is pretty far from being average. An ERA of 5.00 isn't unheard of. An OPS of 600 isn't unheard of.

Of course Rube was stupid and so his is a special case. The UER must have been his fault. I mean, they must have. He was stupid! (This basically is the "proof" that has dogged Rube all these years.)

That ain't the proof. The proof's the numbers.

Oops... I hadn't heard that it was debunked. Didn't Chris J always tout him as the King of the UER? Anyhow, apologies if I missed it.

I called him that but I recanted when I looked up Dutch Leonard's UER. He, Ted Lyons, Red Faber, and maybe a few others were worse. The others are mostly knucklers and spitters, though. Maybe it was Rube's fastball that threw everyone off. I have no idea.

The one I remember is Joss also at 35 percent.

From memory, Joss's UER % was about the same as his teammates. . . . Actually, I just found some of my old UER paperwork. Joss allowed 10 more UER than he should ahve based on his teammates's % of UER.

I curse him for the memory of the 1968 World Series - he started games 2, 5, and 7 (being jumped over Denny McLain to start game 7 on short rest) and won all three in complete games.

No, both pitched on short rest, McLain 1-4-6 and Lolich 2-5-7.

Six was a laugher, 13-0 when I turned on the TV (after school?).
Five was no gem by Lolich, probably saved by Lou Brock's "waltz" with Bill Freehan.

sunnyday2:
Actually this has been pretty much debunked...and debunked...and debunked...and won't die.

For Rube I think the number was 35 percent of runs. 28-33 percent was absolutely typical and 35 percent not unheard of by any means.

It hasn't been debunked again and again. One person presented counterevidence that has been cited by others in ballot comments. I observed that the new evidence doesn't amount to debunking until we can compare the method (simple) with Chris James method (unknown). James identified Waddell as the outstanding permitter of unearned runs, for a few decades; later merely one outstanding p.o.u.r. Later yet he retired to write a PhD thesis.

It was my method which "debunked" the myth. The method was simple. Did it need to be complicated?
Waddell's UER's were slightly above the norm for his time, his league, his team. I feel that this was effected mainly by his own presence on the mound as a bad fielding pitcher.
I did another simple, crude study of the weight of pitching defense over the years, looking at similarish lefty strikeout pitchers throughout time. From Rube's time to Randy Johnson's time, the league average Range Factor dropped by around 80%. In today's game, pitching defense is almost of no relevance.
In Rube's time, it could add up to give a pitcher an extra 15 or so UERs a year.
That is the difference, I am quite confident.
I am also pretty confident that this black smudge on Waddell's record does not, nor should not mask his dominance in pitching a baseball.

Later yet he retired to write a PhD thesis.

I am only doing my Master's. Sorry.

"When? I've looked it up. I compared the % of UER allowed by Rube Waddell each year and compared that to the percentage of UER allowed by his teammates. That, to me, makes more sense because it accounts for the level of defense behind a pitcher and % of UER can vary from team-to-team as a result to league-wide averages strike me as inferior. When you compare Rube's % of UER to his teammates every year of his career he comes out high. I forget the exact number but if the same percentage of his RA had been earned as his teammates he would've had an extra 40-50 earned runs. From hazy memory, I think it would've knocked his ERA from 2.16 to 2.31. Looking it up, I see his ERA really was 2.16, so I feel pretty confident in the 2.31 adjusted mark. That would be 50 more earned runs."

Did you check this for everyone else and their teammates?

I would hypothesize that if unearned runs are doled out equally by the defense, the best pitchers are going to give up a higher % of unearned runs than their teammates because they are giving up many fewer earned runs.

I haven't checked, but I wouldn't take the comparison to teammates until I've seen it for a lot of other guys . . . Joss is a start, but I'd want to see a comparison to at least all of the other top pitchers of his era.

BTW, my numbers on the pitchers thread use Runs, not Earned Runs, and Waddell still comes out as being equivalent to Three-Finger Brown.

Did you check this for everyone else and their teammates?

Yea. Somewhere or another I should have about 60-70 on file somewhere. Waddell's among those whose ERA is most notably affected.

I would hypothesize that if unearned runs are doled out equally by the defense, the best pitchers are going to give up a higher % of unearned runs than their teammates because they are giving up many fewer earned runs.

So? The best pitchers should also allow the fewest runs period. Besides, when your teammates are Eddie Plank and Chief Bender, it's not clear if you're really that much better than your teammates anyway.

I observed that the new evidence doesn't amount to debunking until we can compare the method (simple) with Chris James method (unknown).

This mean me? Wasn't aware my method was unknown. I'll describe in detail.

Say you want to figure UER% for . . . I dunno, Cy Young's 1900 season. Go to his team (St Louis) and subtract his RA from the team RA. That's his teammates' RA. Then subtract his ER from team ER. That's his teammates ER. Now divide teammate ER by teammate RA, and multiply by his own RA. That's how many ER he should've had if he'd had the same % of ER as everyone else behind that defense. Do this for every year of his career, and there you go.

I haven't checked, but I wouldn't take the comparison to teammates until I've seen it for a lot of other guys . . . Joss is a start, but I'd want to see a comparison to at least all of the other top pitchers of his era.

Can't find all of it, but here's what I can find. Here, positive is good - it means a pitcher's ERA should be improved because he allowed more UER than one would expect. Negative is bad. I only adjust for seasons where a pitcher threw less than 50% of a team's innings. Even still, some 1880s seasons are questionable if they should be adjusted at all. Here's the pitchers I can find it for (hopefully I have the rest on disk):

Jim McCormick +50
Jake Powell +46
Silver King +44
Dazzy Vance +43
Nap Rucker +36
Charlie Buffinton +36
Wild Bill Donovan +30
Red Ruffing +30
Ted Breteinstein +29
Will White +28
Bob Shawkey +27
George Uhle +26
Al Orth +26
Bob Caruthers +25
Charley Root +24
Urban Shocker +24
Babe Adams +24
Ed Reulbach +21
Billy Pierce +19
Rube Marquard +18
Deacon Phillippe +16
Bob Feller +15
Eddie Cicotte +13
Gus Weyhing +12
Wes Ferrell +12
Waite Hoyt +11
Vic Willis +10
Carl Hubbell +10
Jack Chesbro +6
Joe McGinnity +5
Chief Bender +4
Paul Derringer +3
Sam Leever +2
Tommy Bond +2
Tom Zachary EVEN
Tony Mullane EVEN
Jesse Tannehill EVEN
Dolf Luque -3
Lee Meadows -4
John Ward -5
Dizzy Dean -6
Hooks Dauss -6
Adonis Terry -6
Jesse Haines -7
Carl Mays -8
Addie Joss -10
Stan Coveleski -11
Lon Warneke -11
Eddie Smith -17
George Mullin -20
Bucky Walters -20
Chick Fraser -22
Lefty Grove -23
Tommy Bridges -23
Tommy Bridges -23
Freddie Fitzsimmons -25
Jack Stivetts -26
Eppa Rixey -28
Juan Marichal -29
Thornton Lee -30
Hippo Vaughn -33
Smokey Joe Wood -35
Jack Quinn -37
Sad Sam Jones -37
Wilbur Cooper -38
Mordecai Brown -38
Ed Walsh -44
Burleigh Grimes -52
Ted Lyons -56
Red Faber -66

The bottom four are either spitters or kuncklers. Dutch Leonard was as bad or worse. Rube Waddell, as mentioned upthread, was around -50. Hopefully I have other guys on disck because I'm pretty sure I did all my RSI guys up through 1920 at some point.

As the person who mentioned Waddell's UER as a red herring a week or so ago, thanks to Dag for some details. Yes, Waddell was in the higher percentile, and Joss was identical, and Ed Walsh and Faber were close, and Wilber Cooper and Juan Marichal. So a large part of his "problem" was that he was a good enough pitcher to prevent ER and so his percentage UER is high.