User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5059 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Wednesday, April 30, 2003PitchersOn this thread, I’ll put the adjusted W-L records for each pitcher who has received a vote, or is likely to in 1900. I’ll describe the methods as well, although I might not get to this until later, see the 1900 newbies thread for an explanation until I can put it here. Al Spalding Year W L Pct aIP 1871 NA 21 12 0.624 297.3 1872 NA 27 7 0.794 306.2 1873 NA 21 11 0.660 290.3 1874 NA 21 12 0.624 296.9 1875 NA 21 9 0.699 276.5 1876 NL 20 11 0.658 277.5 1877 NL 0 0 0.452 6.3 123 72 0.677 1751 Very Koufaxish for his time. Charley Radbourn Year W L Pct aIP 1881 NL 11 9 0.543 183.9 1882 NL 21 12 0.635 293.2 1883 NL 25 11 0.684 322.2 1884 NL 29 8 0.786 334.3 1885 NL 17 12 0.586 256.8 1886 NL 18 16 0.530 309.7 1887 NL 13 16 0.439 261.5 1888 NL 7 7 0.493 122.7 1889 NL 11 9 0.566 177.7 1890 PL 16 9 0.644 216.9 1891 NL 6 9 0.383 134.3 172 118 0.593 2613 A true horse, but comes up below Clarkson and Keefe, even with Galvin IMO. Pud Galvin Year W L Pct aIP 1875 NA 2 2 0.507 34.9 1876 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1877 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1878 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1879 NL 19 14 0.568 296.2 1880 NL 11 14 0.455 225.6 1881 NL 17 13 0.574 274.4 1882 NL 14 17 0.457 275.5 1883 NL 21 16 0.576 334.5 1884 NL 24 10 0.707 310.7 1885 NL/AA 9 15 0.336 211.1 1886 AA 15 10 0.612 222.7 1887 NL 18 13 0.576 275.4 1888 NL 14 14 0.505 255.5 1889 NL 11 13 0.445 217.1 1890 PL 7 9 0.441 139.4 1891 NL 10 7 0.563 153.0 1892 NL 6 5 0.550 101.7 198 171 0.536 3328 I'm thinking Niekro not Tanana. THE workhorse of his generation. He gets in line behind Clarkson and Keefe and about even with Radbourn. Mickey Welch Year W L Pct aIP 1880 NL 16 16 0.496 289.2 1881 NL 13 10 0.547 208.0 1882 NL 8 11 0.399 171.8 1883 NL 14 11 0.564 217.1 1884 NL 17 12 0.583 269.8 1885 NL 22 9 0.704 278.4 1886 NL 17 15 0.532 289.3 1887 NL 13 10 0.556 209.6 1888 NL 18 10 0.649 250.3 1889 NL 17 10 0.627 244.3 1890 NL 11 8 0.575 178.0 1891 NL 4 7 0.355 100.0 1892 NL 0 0 0.020 2.7 170 131 0.563 2708 I could see the line with him in, but like Kaat/John, he'll have to wait his turn. Jim McCormick Year W L Pct aIP 1878 NL 4 3 0.583 67.3 1879 NL 15 14 0.516 262.9 1880 NL 22 14 0.609 323.5 1881 NL 18 16 0.530 297.3 1882 NL 24 17 0.580 368.4 1883 NL 14 5 0.734 170.8 1884 NL/UA 21 12 0.639 290.4 1885 NL 10 6 0.597 144.6 1886 NL 14 8 0.621 198.0 1887 NL 10 12 0.442 201.5 150 108 0.582 2325 A couple of good years, but I think he's below the line. Jim Whitney Year W L Pct aIP 1881 NL 19 17 0.533 319.7 1882 NL 15 13 0.539 256.7 1883 NL 19 10 0.654 261.9 1884 NL 12 6 0.649 162.7 1885 NL 12 15 0.449 247.5 1886 NL 10 15 0.406 223.8 1887 NL 17 11 0.613 250.9 1888 NL 10 12 0.454 194.1 1889 NL 1 4 0.252 44.2 1890 AA 1 2 0.344 24.9 117 104 0.528 1987 Better than his teams, but basically a #3 starter in today's world. Tommy Bond Year W L Pct aIP 1874 NA 15 19 0.437 303.6 1875 NA 13 5 0.728 161.4 1876 NL 15 8 0.662 204.9 1877 NL 21 12 0.635 295.0 1878 NL 20 16 0.563 321.6 1879 NL 18 11 0.614 260.9 1880 NL 11 15 0.424 239.7 1881 NL 0 1 0.273 14.7 1882 NL 0 1 0.322 7.6 1883 NL 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1884 UA/AA 6 7 0.430 117.6 119 95 0.557 1927 Good career, not long enough or high enough peak though. A lot like Dave Stewart. Bobby Mathews Year W L Pct aIP 1871 NA 15 20 0.422 318.6 1872 NA 17 11 0.597 253.8 1873 NA 20 13 0.613 292.6 1874 NA 22 12 0.654 304.1 1875 NA 21 18 0.535 348.0 1876 NL 12 23 0.354 313.6 1877 NL 2 6 0.290 77.0 1878 NL 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1879 NL 5 5 0.512 87.7 1880 NL 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1881 NL 3 4 0.438 71.2 1882 NL 10 10 0.498 174.2 1883 AA 15 7 0.661 198.2 1884 AA 13 12 0.507 223.9 1885 AA 18 9 0.662 243.3 1886 AA 5 6 0.438 102.0 1887 AA 1 3 0.268 32.1 178 159 0.528 3041 Better candidate than I expected. Pretty much Galvin with a shorter career. Not enough for me to say yes, we'll see how he ranks though. Candy Cummings Year W L Pct aIP 1872 NA 24 12 0.666 322.4 1873 NA 16 10 0.610 234.6 1874 NA 17 15 0.531 284.2 1875 NA 15 6 0.719 191.2 1876 NL 8 4 0.664 108.5 1877 NL 3 8 0.257 92.7 82 55 0.601 1234 About the same value as if Fidyrich had blown out 3 years later. Tim Keefe Year W L Pct aIP 1880 NL 5 1 0.866 52.9 1881 NL 11 14 0.450 227.2 1882 NL 14 11 0.560 229.2 1883 AA 23 12 0.652 318.7 1884 AA 17 9 0.647 242.2 1885 NL 18 7 0.721 226.3 1886 NL 21 14 0.604 309.5 1887 NL 19 13 0.591 288.7 1888 NL 20 9 0.688 255.6 1889 NL 15 11 0.585 237.1 1890 PL 10 6 0.648 142.6 1891 NL 3 6 0.352 82.6 1892 NL 12 7 0.646 169.4 1893 NL 7 6 0.520 119.7 197 126 0.610 2902 A Steve Carlton type. A no-brainer for induction. Bob Caruthers Year W L Pct aIP 1884 AA 3 2 0.602 42.2 1885 AA 21 9 0.705 272.9 1886 AA 15 7 0.682 199.9 1887 AA 14 7 0.660 193.1 1888 AA 15 10 0.601 222.5 1889 AA 18 12 0.587 271.2 1890 NL 12 10 0.550 191.2 1891 NL 11 10 0.529 184.3 1892 NL 1 5 0.214 55.7 110 72 0.606 1633 Nice pitcher, but never a horse, only 2 years over 250 IP, when 300+ leads the league. He was a great pitcher from 1885-87, but wasn't pitching full-time in 86-87. John Clarkson Year W L Pct aIP 1882 NL 1 1 0.308 14.8 1883 NL 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1884 NL 4 2 0.675 58.6 1885 NL 28 11 0.717 349.4 1886 NL 20 9 0.688 265.7 1887 NL 24 12 0.678 321.7 1888 NL 16 16 0.512 286.5 1889 NL 31 13 0.697 397.8 1890 NL 15 11 0.567 235.0 1891 NL 20 11 0.630 279.7 1892 NL 15 8 0.650 213.6 1893 NL 12 10 0.550 204.5 1894 NL 7 5 0.612 108.8 194 110 0.638 2736 The best pitcher of his generation. If Keefe is Carlton, Clarkson is Seaver. Tony Mullane Year W L Pct aIP 1881 NL 1 2 0.282 25.2 1882 AA 21 12 0.595 299.0 1883 AA 19 7 0.677 234.8 1884 AA 21 12 0.618 289.5 1885 AA 0 0 #NUM! 0.0 1886 AA 14 16 0.477 269.5 1887 AA 17 9 0.625 239.2 1888 AA 14 11 0.546 225.5 1889 AA 9 5 0.614 133.1 1890 NL 10 4 0.677 128.2 1891 NL 15 14 0.519 262.6 1892 NL 11 7 0.590 159.5 1893 NL 15 13 0.534 251.8 1894 NL 5 7 0.405 109.7 171 121 0.586 2627 Pretty good pitcher, weak competition for his best years though. About even with Welch. John Ward Year W L Pct aIP 1878 14 8 0.635 195.1 1879 16 14 0.534 272.5 1880 19 13 0.588 285.9 1881 12 9 0.586 186.5 1882 10 9 0.532 172.0 1883 9 7 0.558 141.2 1884 1 2 0.441 29.4 81 61 0.569 1283 Nice part career as pitcher, but less valuable as a pitcher than Caruthers, really just two pretty good years and three years where he was good but didn't pitch full-time. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: April 30, 2003 at 11:34 PM | 67 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(20 - 10:37pm, Nov 30) Last: Alex02 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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. jimd Posted: April 30, 2003 at 11:56 PM (#512788)Joe, what is the point of the Spalding exercise? How does it help us place a value on the pitchers so that we can compare with the position players?
The numbers look pretty but that doesn't mean they convey real value. I think that they imply a very heavy discounting of the value of pitching for that period. I estimate that your method is placing that discount at about 22% of the effectiveness of modern pitching (for Spalding); do we have any justification for discounting it that heavily? (Of course I may be misunderstanding what's going on here.)
I know that you put a lot of work into this, and have no problem using these numbers for comparisons within the same season, but not across seasons, at least when schedule lengths are changing drastically. I do not see how it reduces the seasons to a common value metric.
I strongly disagree with the conclusions implied by these numbers. I think that WARP3's conclusions are not that far off; the pitchers of the early 1880's were almost one man staffs, and they had disproportionate value because of that; real pennants were won against an All-Star Chicago team because of Radbourn, Whitney, and Ward. Schedule expansion then diluted the impact of individual pitchers, because they could no longer pitch most of a team's innings, which helped create a more balanced team game.
I have nothing against Clarkson, and believe that he is a solid HOM'er. But this system rewards what I believe are the negative arguments against Clarkson's value in a comparison with Radbourn. He is pitching less actual innings than Radbourn just 5 seasons earlier, but he is being given extra credit (in terms of virtual IP) for being the last holdout against the rapid decrease of IP as teams went to three man starting staffs. Not only did Radbourn pitch more innings, but they were a considerably greater percentage of his teams innings due to the shorter schedule; I believe Radbourn's innings had considerably more impact and hence value, unless you can prove to me that the pitching/fielding balance changed drastically during the interim. Clarkson is also given additional wins due to his "better" ERA+, but no adjustment is being made for the schedule expansion that diluted the pitching quality in the interim, requiring the addition of an extra starter to pitch the additional innings, increasing the dominance of the elite pitchers relative to the league average. It also gives no credit for hitting (or fielding), something which is important to evaluating some pitchers of this era, particularly those who are close to full-time pitchers.
At first, Joe was a big proponent of normalizing to a 162 game schedule to point everything in context. But for pitchers, that means that the value of Spalding pitching was approximately the value of pitching all of 150 games. That is actual value to the team that needs to be considered, even if every other team was doing the same thing. Downgrading Spalding just because everyone was doing it doesn't mean that Boston wasn't relying more on him to win pennants than Keefe's teams were on him.
I'm afraid that both approaches have merit, and that just makes the job that much harder.
I have sort of mentally divided the era into four eras: 1871-1876 (the "short season" era); 1877-1883 (the "underhand" era); 1884-1892 (the "close mound" era); and 1893-present (the "far mound" era). Joe's method may be a good way to compare "across eras", but I think a full appreciation for the players will consider where they ranked within their era
Each of the four "eras" had their stars, and comparing Spalding and Cummings (era 1) to Radbourn and McCormick (era 2) to Keefe and Clarkson (era 3) is nearly impossible. And when comparing pitchers within eras, I try not to penalize players for the randomness of their ages (e.g., Keefe was four years younger than Clarkson, so got a longer shot in era 3 before the new rules derailed both of their careers.)
I think the true value of Pud Galvin, when looked at in this light, is that he is the only pitcher who had a long string of successes in two different eras (2 and 3). He was the rare bird who could win throwing underhand, and then keep his job when everyone started throwing overhand.
Also, Joe wrote:
"I have nothing against Clarkson, and believe that he is a solid HOM'er. But this system rewards what I believe are the negative arguments against Clarkson's value in a comparison with Radbourn. He is pitching less actual innings than Radbourn just 5 seasons earlier, but he is being given extra credit (in terms of virtual IP) for being the last holdout against the rapid decrease of IP as teams went to three man starting staffs."
I agree (I've also said the same thing on occasion), though I think I would have been less crude. Okay, I've been known to be crude, too. So sue me! :-)
Caruthers had the bad luck (?) to spend his career with teams that also had other great pitchers (or at least pitchers having great years).
For most of his AA years, he was paired with Dave Foutz, who had a peak almost as high, but a huge drop-off.
Take 1885. Caruthers and Foutz both had 400+ innings pitched. Baltimore had Hardie Henderson going 539 innings, with no one else over 107. Almost every other team had their "#1" guy who pitched well over twice as many innings as anyone else.
In 1887, Caruthers and Foutz were joined by the young emerging ace Silver King. Each got 300+ innings. Huge advantage for St. Louis with 3 relatively well-rested aces going against teams like Cincinnati and Baltimore that were just starting to use the "two ace" pitching rotation that St. Louis was using two years earlier.
In 1888, Caruthers and Foutz move to Brooklyn and Silver King gets "sole ace" designation in St. Louis. King goes 500+ innings and pulls St. Louis to another pennant. Brooklyn has the luxury of resting Caruthers' arm while using A pitchers Mickey Hughes and Adonis Terry.
In both 1887 and 1888, Caruthers also played over 50 games in the outfield, allowing his bat to stay in while other ace pitchers were on the mound.
Those three years are an example of how innovative pitcher usage by St. Louis and Brooklyn gave their teams big advantages at the expense of each individual's total innings. It may, in fact, have been Caruthers' (and Foutz's) hitting that allowed his managers to construct their rosters so differently. ("Why waste money on an extra outfielder when I've got Caruthers to play back up. Better to spend the money on an extra ace pitcher!")
My advice is: Don?t do it. If even Bill James can?t get a handle on it, what chance to we mere mortals have of figuring it out?
Having established we?re tilting at windmills, here is what I see as a reasonable approach. I think Joe suggested that about 4 pitchers for every 10 position players (28.6%) seems like a good ratio, and I tend to agree. The HOF has a bit higher percentage (30.4%), Bill James has a lower number (20 of his top 100). Compromising between these, I think we need a percentage of at least 25% pitchers in the HoM. (54 out of 217)
Oh my god, we?ve elected 6 players, but zero pitchers! We?re missing our quota! HELP! Calm down, this is appropriate, we?re on track. At the very top end, there are fewer pitchers. Among the consensus ten greatest players ever there is only one pitcher (W.Johnson). Among the top 20 we see three, maybe four pitchers. Among the top 50 are about 12 pitchers.
Now that the initial big guns have been cleared away, we?ll elect some pitchers. Clarkson?s election is imminent; Keefe will soon follow. After ten elections I expect we?ll have Rusie, Radbourn and Spalding, as well. Five out of twenty; sounds good to me. The order we elect them isn?t terribly important.
The problem now is how do we measure value? The task of assembling and evaluating data to ascertain value is daunting, especially given the volatile conditions besetting the pitching profession in the 19th century.
Here?s a simple method. It?s a lot easier to compare pitchers in the same year. So, for each season, rank the top X pitchers in the game, from one to X. Use a small X to measure peak and a larger X to measure career. Assign points based on these yearly standings. That?s it.
Have I actually done this? Well, some, but not enough work to present to anyone. Maybe someone here has already done this work. It?s not that hard. Look at a year and rank them, using your favorite measures of quality. If you?re doing a top 10, it doesn?t matter if the ranking is off by a spot or two.
Thinking about it, this could be an idea for a future project: MVP voting for the 19th century. If we had this sort of top 25-player list for each year, our HoM assessments would be greatly aided.
Doesn't this make more sense later on when the four-man pitching staff comes into vogue? The pitchers that we are evaluating now were, for the most part, still part of the one-man staff. Don't we risk honoring the "very good" if we use that ratio this early on?
This is all fine and good, but this was all possible because it was so much easier to do. They wouldn't be able to do any of this today (as you obviously know). They weren't eating nails for breakfast back then! :-)
Again, I think we are unconsciously overrating the pitchers of this era somewhat. But I assume some here think I'm underrating them (though I do have three in the top ten).
For the nineties, Young, Nichols and Rusie are definites. Beyond them, I'm not so sure.
It's the old value vs ability debate muddying the waters again. I thought we had agreed to judge the players on their value to their teams. If so, there is no relevance to your remark.
If that is so, then there should be no "AA discounting" going on either.
Is that in our Constitution?
It's not the same issue, becuase there you're dealing with players in the same era. Adjusting for a weaker league in the same era is entirely eppropriate.
When we get to the larger pitching staffs, then I'll include more on my ballot. However, I'm always open to persuasion.
This is not necessarily a value vs ability issue, since value is relative to some other player taking his part. Let's call it replacement above replacement. The fact that pitcher X could pitch 500 innings per season, or whatever, is germaine. But he doesn't get credit for the entire season's worth of pitching credit using today's splits. The split between fielding and pitching is much different than today. Pitching surely was far less important than it is today.
Top pitchers then were probably worth about what they are today. You should not give them extra credit. In fact, due to the many changes in the circumstances, very few pitchers back then had comparable careers to today's star pitchers (or contemporary hitters). Clarkson is the first that I would put in that category, with Nichols and Young to follow in due course.
I will have Clarkson in my top 2 this year, with Keefe, Spalding, Galvin, and Radbourn also appearing on my ballot. I think this is about right (of course I do).
Yes. But I think that some people are discounting it too much. The defensive spectrum serves as a guide here. If pitching is too easy, then Dan Brouthers would be doing it to get his bat into the lineup. I think that pitcher is still the major defensive position back then, it's just not 10 times more valuable defensively than a C or SS (as Win Shares values modern pitchers).
I remember Charlie Saeger posting some estimates that pitching in the early 1870's was maybe about 20-25% of defense (compared to today's 67-70%; this was in a discussion of those Win Shares that never got perfected). Today's workhorses pitch about 1/6th of a season compared to ALL of a season back then; the workhorses of back then had about 1/3rd of the impact on a game-by-game basis. It still works out that their season's value is probably double a pitcher of today.
Having said all of that I agree that this is the trickiest evaluation we will ever make. I have resolved it in my own mind as follows: adjust to 162 games (which is part of why Spalding rates so highly on my ballot but please keep in mind he also has the highest ERA+ on the board), then divide by two and allocate the left-over WS to the fielders. "My adjWS" for guys like Clarkson et al thus end up somewhere in the same range as modern pitchers. I then factor in TPR, which for most pitchers is fairly comparable but sometimes not; ERA+; BI, GI, HoF Monitor and HoF Standards; and offensive WS, which I realize are already in WS generally but I take another look. Oh, and the AA discount. Overall adjWS is the major factor but the others are important when you're trying to get your arms around such a slippery subject.
In the end, I guess I'm mostly interested in how "dominant" a pitcher was in his own "era" at a "peak" of three to five years given a "normal" longevity also for the "era." Actually it's really easy.
Bat Pitch
1876-as of the end of the '76 season the leader in career WS is (are) Bradley and Spalding 57 each
This list was compiled using a stricter criterion; you must pitch more than half the IP of the league leader in IP.
....K/9IP BB/9IP ERA+
I seek a compelling logic in support of either Caruthers or Galvin. At the moment, they're tied for the 15th spot on my ballot, but I suspect one of them may be a HoMer. Which one?
Caruthers, of course, is the Peak player, and the Hitter, possibly earning two MVPs and having a major impact on a number of pennant races. Would Ron Guidry be a good recent comp?
Galvin is the Longevity player, the workhorse, playing in the tougher league with weaker teams. He made the adjustments necessary to thrive in a rapidly evolving game. Would Bert Blyleven be a good recent comp?
To this point I have not voted for either one, since our quota of pitchers for the era seems to be filled without including either one. OTOH, supporters of each have made good arguments as to their merit. If we used HoF style voting each would be drawing around 50%.
To me, these two are in the HoM gray area along with Start, Bennett and Browning. Unlike the three position players, Caruthers and Galvin are directly comparable, playing the same position at the same time.
I'm thinking that by experiencing a compelling argument favoring one over the other that I'll be persuaded that the winner is over the HoM line.
In a way, it's like the recent BBWAA Hall voting. With Blyleven, John and Kaat on the ballot together, voters failed to distinguish any meaningful difference between them. They all fell well short of election. I think if we can distinguish a meaningful difference between Galvin and Caruthers that one of them has a shot at eventual election, but probably not both.
I'm asking the analysts out there. Who should we vote for? "Ruben" Caruthers or "Clay" Galvin?
I have Galvin (roughly) 30% greater in value than Caruthers, FWIW.
Good analogy with the American Idol guys. All four are good, but not great.
Caruthers is a solid candidate in 4 separate years: 1885, 86, 87, and 89.
1885: He's probably the best player on the champion Browns, either him or Curt Welch. He's got competition around the league though. Pete Browning is having his best season (assuming you apply a quality discount to 1882) though Louisville never really contends. Dave Orr is at his peak for the defending champs, but they don't contend either. However, a big AA story would be the rise of Pittsburgh from a horrible 11th place finish the year before; they are still in 2nd, 12 GB in early September before fading. P Ed Morris is the best player on that team, and has more Win Shares than Caruthers and better WARP numbers. Morris probably had the better season, and may also have won the award.
1886: The most serious competition comes from two other pitchers; teammate Dave Foutz, and the Association's new strikeout sensation, Toad Ramsey of Louisville. Dave Orr has another top season as the league's best full-time hitter. Ramsey won the WARP crown, and Foutz won the Win Shares crown. Caruthers may not have won the MVP this time either.
1887: Again he's got competition from his own teammates; Tip O'Neill has his monster .435 season. Around the league Elmer Smith takes the ERA+ crown, and Matt Kilroy loads up with quality power innings while putting perennial cellar-dweller Baltimore into the race for 2nd place. Kilroy won the WARP crown, while Caruthers and Smith tied for the Win Shares lead. However, if you apply any significant discount for the pitching/defense balance, Caruthers will pull ahead of Smith, but O'Neill quickly moves into the picture. Caruthers may not have won the MVP this time either.
In each of the above 3 seasons, the AA pennant race was non-existent, effectively over in July. There was no indispensable "most valuable" player on that St. Louis team.
1889: Now there's a real pennant race, as Foutz and Caruthers haunt their ex-teammates by helping Brooklyn into the lead on Aug. 31. On 9/22, Brooklyn held a 4+ game lead; St. Louis ran off a 12 game winning streak, forcing Brooklyn to go 11-4 to clinch, the Browns then splitting a meaningless double-header on the final day. Caruthers is the stand out on that Brooklyn team. Harry Stovey or Tommy Tucker is the best hitter, but neither are on the contenders. Kilroy had a small lead in WARP, Caruthers a small lead in Win Shares over Kilroy and both Silver King and Icebox Chamberlain of St. Louis. Finally, unless he had problems down the stretch, I believe it's Caruthers turn to have won the MVP award.
I'm still obsessed with the league quality analysis regarding the AA and would like your thoughts on the following:
In an attempt to compare apples to apples, I made a list of every AA player that had at least one 140+ at-bat season in the AA and at least one 140+ at-bat season in another league. Once I had the list, I compiled all of those players' seasons in which they had 140+ ABs in the AA and 140+ ABs in another league. This produced a list of 1,622 seasons -- AA (541), NL/AL (970), PL (57) and NA (54).
I then calculated the OBA, SLG and OPS figures for these seasons, grouped by league. The results should tell us something about how AA hitters fared in the AA vs. how they fared in other leagues. Here are the results for the AA vs. NL/AL with standard deviations in parentheses. Sorry I haven't figured out how to format this nicely.
Category ---------AA--------------------NL/AL
Blyleven says "yes." :)
Both Young and Nichols had careers that started in 1890. Assuming their ages are correctly reported, Young was actually a couple of years older. Nichols started up with a big 1890; Young eased into it and wasn't full-time until the next year. If you look at them 11 years later, after the 1900 season, we see this:
Nichols had the better W-L record, 311-167 versus 286-170.
Head-to-head comparisons of Young, Nichols and Amos Rusie take away from the latters luster, IMO. He'll be on my ballot, but where? I don't know yet.
Posted 4:41 p.m., June 3, 2003 (#88) - James Newburg
Would someone have the time to compare these 19th century players by doing a similar comparison to today's ERA+ leaders? Say, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, and Mike Mussina?
>Could somebody who understands the methodology better than I do calculate Tommy Bond as well?
>since the stat was kind of
>Could somebody who understands the methodology better than I do calculate Tommy Bond as well?
>since the stat was kind of
lgERA/ERA is the formula for ERA+. That is the right half of the formula used above.
The BPro glossary states: "Note that if DERA is higher than NRA, you can safely assume he pitched in front of an above-average defense."
By dividing NRA/DERA you essentially get a fraction. If the pitcher had an "above average defense", that fraction will be less than one, and if the pitcher had a "below average defense" then the fraction will be greater than one.
So, for example, if DERA is 4.50 and NRA is 4.00. Defense is assumed to be above average. Dividing them gives the fraction 4.00/4.50 = 0.89. So instead of dividing ERA by lgERA, you divide it 89% of lgERA (and hence get a lower ERA+).
It is a "junk stat" for several reasons. First, NRA and DERA are scaled to an average of 4.50. 4.50 will always be "average" irrespective of context. lgERA is an actual number, and will usually be a number different from 4.50. Second, the NRA/DERA is a "made up" factor. We are told that if DERA is greater than NRA, then defense is above average, but we are not told that the stats are proportional (i.e., that a DERA 10% above NRA means a defense 10% below average). That was an assumption that was made. Finally, the stat adjusts lgERA by the NRA/DERA factor. Assuming that the factor is accurate, it should only be applied to the portion of the lgERA that involves the defense. A high K pitcher is hurt less by his bad defense than a his low K teammate, but the stat treats them identically, and thus gives them equal boosts.
Not saying the analysis is worthless, just pointing out its weaknesses so we know how much weight to give it.
Clemens goes from 142 to 145.
(Also, if you look at the careers of the pitchers I profiled, their career paths seem to be more "sensible." They don't go from a 105 ERA+ to 161 to 93.)
>if DERA is 4.50 and NRA is 4.00. Defense is assumed to be above average
So, we assume the defense was whatever we assumed it to be? And the defensive ratings that were cited (where the players had ratings revolving around 100 like an OPS+ number), how were they derived? And do they have something to do with the derivation of DERA?
Joe, you are right about one thing, a number of these pitchers is close. I spent a lot of time figuring out that Clarkson and Keefe really were better than Radbourn, and that Galvin and Welch really were not, and that McCormick was probably the best of the rest. It isn't obvious or anything. But this new information makes them A LOT CLOSER and seems to support, as I see it, the notion that frankly none of them deserves to get elected. Sure I understand 6000 innings, but inning for inning they're still interchangeable. We're back to slow pitch softball, or worse. I'm not willing to make a list based on innings pitched.
Anyway, I'm nagging you on this because it's important. And again, as I try to follow this debate without understanding how DERA is derived, it seems to me that the conclusion is to elect none of them.
I'd like to point out that the three best WARP1 (Wins Above Replacment) seasons for these four modern pitchers, plus Spalding, are:
1T) 13.5 Pedro Martinez 2000 (127 PRAR, Pitching Runs above Replacement)
Spot on. If you think about it, pre-rule change pitchers (whether in 1878 or in 1884) kept trying after the rule changes. I wouldn't go so far as to say they weren't good at it, but maybe they weren't as good at it as some newer guys, and those newer guys may have been terrible under the former rules. If you are a hitter and are facing sub-mariners, you're going to have a harder time against them, if only because things are coming at a different angle, with different movement, etc. In 1884, a hitter is going to have a harder time with the overhand guys. The veterans are going to look like batting practice. That doesn't mean we have to negate the veterans' effectiveness prior to the rule changes.
Non-MLB example: If you told the pitchers in NCAA women's fast pitch softball that next year pitches could be thrown overhand, who do you think the hitters would have more trouble with, the new overhanders or the old underhanders (including those who try to throw overhand)?
In his big 1884, his ERA was over two points lower than #2 pitcher Billy Serad (1.99 to 4.27), showing that Pud wasn't doing it with just defense.
In fact, let's try a comparison, Radbourn and Galvin compared to the pitcher who threw the next most innings. It's a complete junk stat, because it assumes that their respective #2 pitchers are comparable, which may or may not be true, and weighs each season equally, but here it is anyway. If you assume that the teams had vaguely the same quality of "other pitcher"s, then you can get some sort of picture of how they were impacted by their defenses:
Radbourn ERA+: Next Pitcher ERA+: Difference (1881-1891)
I have had Hoss anywhere from #4 to #10 on my ballot. I've never had him in the hot slot and I don't know if I ever will. The fact is he had a very short peak even for the 19th century. But I've seen a lot of junk stats and a lot of efforts to build Galvin up and so far I am unconvinced. This just reminds me why I had Hoss #10 on my first ballot in '98.
>Overall its hard for me to get excited about the quality level of the pitchers in the 1880s.
Especially considering we have already elected two (who are BTW obviously the best two and deserving but, really, do we need any more?).
>Overall its hard for me to get excited about the quality level of the pitchers in the 1880s.
Especially considering we have already elected two (who are BTW obviously the best two and deserving but, really, do we need any more?).
It is hard to get excited about players who only appear subtly different from the players to whom they're being compared, but in context even subtle differences can be very meaningful. Radbourn's ERA was not a whole lot better than Sweeney's, but with (probably) similar run support and similar defensive support, his winning percentage (which is essentially his team's winning percentage, because he was able to pitch every game) was .830, which Sweeney's was .680. Not an insignificant difference at all. Over 71 decisions, Radbourn and his team were 11 wins better than Sweeney and the same team would have been over 71 decisions. And Sweeney was a better hitter that year than Radbourn, too, so everything Radbourn was adding, he added on the pitching side of the ledger.
I find it hard to get excited over 20 points of ERA+, but I find it much easier to get excited about 11 wins.
Radbourn had tremendous value to his teams when he was at his best. The performance gap on a per game basis between a top pitcher and an average pitcher in the 1880s was not dramatic, but that wasn't where pitchers had their value. Their value started with their capacity to keep their teams in games over the course of 400 innings of work. Over the course of a season, a pitcher who could throw a lot of innings even 5 or 10% better than the alternatives (let alone Hoss's 20% or more at his peak) would win a lot of games for his team, and the best ones did.
It is hard to get excited about players who only appear subtly different from the players to whom they're being compared, but in context even subtle differences can be very meaningful. Radbourn's ERA was not a whole lot better than Sweeney's, but with (probably) similar run support and similar defensive support, his winning percentage (which is essentially his team's winning percentage, because he was able to pitch every game) was .830, which Sweeney's was .680. Not an insignificant difference at all. Over 71 decisions, Radbourn and his team were 11 wins better than Sweeney and the same team would have been over 71 decisions. And Sweeney was a better hitter that year than Radbourn, too, so everything Radbourn was adding, he added on the pitching side of the ledger.
I find it hard to get excited over 20 points of ERA+, but I find it much easier to get excited about 11 wins.
Radbourn had tremendous value to his teams when he was at his best. The performance gap on a per game basis between a top pitcher and an average pitcher in the 1880s was not dramatic, but that wasn't where pitchers had their value. Their value started with their capacity to keep their teams in games over the course of 400 innings of work. Over the course of a season, a pitcher who could throw a lot of innings even 5 or 10% better than the alternatives (let alone Hoss's 20% or more at his peak) would win a lot of games for his team, and the best ones did.
His defense didn't help him compile those two stats. He's also the FIRST pitcher to strike out 19 batters in a 9-inning game, doing it to defending champion Boston, and he did it without foul-ball strikes. He was very good for that half-season, defense or no defense. He just didn't amount to anything after that; I don't know why.
He was a promising young pitcher who apparently had quite a temper (and/or a "thirst"). He allegedly staged the incident which got him thrown off the Providence team, freeing him to sign with the Unions mid-season, who were courting him. He was getting roughed up, the manager wanted to swap pitchers, an argument ensued, and Sweeney wound up walking off the field, leaving his teammates to play a man short under the no-substitution rule. (The other version is that he was badly hung-over.) BTW, he died in jail, "just recently".
His '84 season destroyed his arm. Pitching 60 games at the age of twenty-one is not the best way reach 300 wins. :-)
He would have been a great one, but...
They are not obviously the best two. Suppose there were 16 teams during Galvin's peak playing 140 games and only 8 during Clarkson's peak playing 84 games. Galvin's ERA+ stats would be much gaudier because the replacement level would be much lower and the league ERA much higher. Meanwhile Clarkson's stats would be much less so because he'd be compared against primarily only the 8 #1 pitchers, instead of 3 man rotations from 16 teams, not to mention he'd be pitching against a higher average quality of everyday players with only 8 teams.
Using ERA+ is highly misleading here because it measures against "average" and there is a big difference between the average quality of the 6000 innings of 1879 and the 19000 innings of 1889, when they are thrown by pitchers from a pitching pool of about the same depth. Most of the pitchers of 1889 wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for schedule expansion and the added AA teams.
We're all suspicious of any batting feats that occur following an expansion. Well, the pitching has been diluted three-fold between 1879 and 1889; it's much easier to post great ERA+ numbers after that expansion.
He had a four game tryout with Providence in 1885 and couldn't beat out Dupee Shaw as Radbourn's backup. Either that or he wanted too much money.
That was probably a mistake by Providence because he wound up with pennant winner Chicago, and pitched well the following year, too. I don't want to trash McCormick to make points in favor of Radbourn because he's on my ballot, too. IMO, his peak wasn't as good, nor his career as valuable, nor his reputation as high as Radbourn's.
Obviously, I'm a pro-pitcher voter. Radbourn, Spalding, Galvin were 3-5 on my last ballot, with McCormick 13th. I had Clarkson and Keefe ranked between Spalding and Galvin. I think some voters here are underestimating the value of the 19th century pitchers.
In Win Shares, Bill James estimates that pitching is about 2/3rd of the defense. The pitchers during Galvin's peak pitched 2-3 times the innings of today in a season 1/2 as long. After you adjust for both of those factors, the average pitcher then was 4-6 times as valuable to his team as the average starting pitcher of today, primarily because he was close to being the entire pitching staff. Now, most of us agree that the pitching wasn't as important then on a game-by-game basis, so we reduce the pitching impact (increasing fielding at the same time). However, applying JoeDimino's defensive adjustment still leaves the average pitcher of 1879 worth 2.5-3.75 times more than the average pitcher of today. If we decide to cut the pitcher's value in half again to bring it closer to today's value, we are asserting that Catcher, SS, and 3B are more important defensively than the pitcher, which IMO is nonsense.
The strikeout rates in 1879 are comparable to the 1920's. Can the error rate change the pitching/fielding balance so much that pitchers like Ward and Galvin have that much less impact on each game than pitchers like Grove and Vance?
>Suppose there were 16 teams during Galvin's peak playing 140 games and only 8 during Clarkson's peak playing 84 games.
We can suppose anything you want but why? I don't get your point. Clarkson had a great year in '89? So, Galvin won 46 games in '84 when a 23-year old Clarkson pitched in 14 games. And a 33-year old Galvin was still chucking in '89, he had a chance to make hay, too. Clarkson pitched basically '84-'94, Galvin '79-'92. I'll give you two years of Galvin in an 8 team league, but really, they faced basically the same competition.
Also re. Sweeney, anybody whose claim to fame is '84 is the most suspect of all.
But I agree on the importance of pitching. Cut it by 50% and it is still important as it relates to the huge number of innings. And the idea that the errors (unearned runs) mean the pitcher was less important is silly. The defense is more important and gets more credit because it makes errors?
At different ages. The 33 year old Clarkson was retired. Galvin was good enough to compete (though not star) against the new generation of overhand pitchers. Clarkson either wasn't or chose not to when the mound was moved.
My point was that expansion makes Clarkson's and Keefe's peak numbers appear more impressive than Galvin's, at least when viewed through the lens of ERA+. I guess I didn't make that clear. Looked at through Win Shares or WARP3, Galvin and Radbourn appear to be more valuable pitchers than Clarkson or Keefe. I'm just contesting your claim that the two best pitchers have already been inducted, not Keefe's or Clarkson' HOM-worthiness.
Also re. Sweeney, anybody whose claim to fame is '84 is the most suspect of all.
Agreed; 1884 is the weakest NL season, comparable to the best AA season and the NA. That doesn't mean that we ignore it entirely; it was still the best league that year. My point was that Sweeney showed signs of having the potential to be a very good pitcher, unlike Galvin's backup Billy Serad. Please don't think I'm proposing him for the HOM :-)
1890 E.Cushman, Toledo AA (38 yrs old)
The only qualifier was a former AA pitcher who came back into the AA with the minor-league Toledo team in 1890 when the AA was desperate for new teams after losing three teams. (Note that there were 12 such pitchers pitching in 2002 alone; Clemens, Moyer, Wells, Johnson, Reed, Rogers, Yoshii, Sparks, Leiter, el Duque, Glavine, Maddux.)
****
Here's a less exclusive list, a year younger and less IP to qualify; every pitcher who was 35 or older and whose IP was 1/4 or more of the league leader (a semi-regular starter).
1871 H.Wright, Bos NA (36)
Amateur ball. He refused the big league offersto play elsewhere. Don't know how good he was.
The handling that Nichols and Young enjoyed in the early '90s (fewer innings) as youngsters is extremely suggestive.
It seems to me that pitching had already become much more difficult in the early '90s and the managers simply did not recognize the wear on their pitchers until too late--except for Nichols' and Young's. Who were these geniuses?
The following list of IP leaders shows them near the top every year after 1891, but never to the extreme workloads that the top pitchers traditionally received.
1889
The following list of IP leaders shows them near the top every year after 1891, but never to the extreme workloads that the top pitchers traditionally received.
1889
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main