User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.0349 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Wednesday, September 18, 2002Pitchers for the Hall of MeritLet’s start discussing the pitchers here. I don’t have any adjusted numbers to post yet, but there’s no reason we can get the discussion cranking. I take that back. I went through season by season a ways back and came up with pythagorean W-L records for each pitcher, based on his ERA vs. park adjusted league (season by season), adjusting for an average number of decisions in each season (based on the pitcher’s career IP/dec ratio for his career). Those numbers will be in the extended text.
JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: September 18, 2002 at 05:16 PM | 571 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMost Meritorious Player: 1937 Discussion
(22 - 2:42pm, Apr 12) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1936 Results (4 - 2:23pm, Apr 08) Last: Qufini Most Meritorious Player: 1936 Ballot (13 - 4:58pm, Apr 07) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1936 Discussion (28 - 4:11pm, Apr 07) Last: Qufini Most Meritorious Player: 1935 Results (3 - 7:30pm, Mar 03) Last: Qufini Most Meritorious Player: 1935 Ballot (11 - 4:04pm, Mar 03) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1935 Discussion (37 - 1:42pm, Mar 03) Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy 2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (145 - 8:27pm, Feb 16) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Mark Teixeira, Justin Morneau and Prince Fielder (6 - 9:15pm, Feb 15) Last: puck Newt Allen (20 - 12:26pm, Feb 04) Last: Carl Goetz Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Discussion (18 - 11:51am, Feb 04) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Results (1 - 6:14pm, Feb 03) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Ballot (10 - 4:59pm, Feb 03) Last: DL from MN Jimmy Rollins (11 - 2:32pm, Jan 29) Last: Carl Goetz David Ortiz (53 - 11:37pm, Jan 28) Last: SoSH U at work |
|||||||
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 1.0349 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.
Teams: BalN 1899, BroN 1900, BalA 1901-02, NYN 1902-08.
Record: 246-142 2.66 era/3.76 runsallowed, K/W 1.32, WH9IP=10.69
Win Shares: Career 269; 3 yrs cons 105; 7 best yrs 221; per 40 starts 25. Seasons with 20+: 8. Seasons with 30+: 4. Seasons with 40+: 2.
AllStars: STATS 5, WS 6
Fibonacci WinPoints: 260
ERA+: 121
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 64/190
Bill James Rank: 41
Top 10s: Wins and IP 8 times with 5 firsts in W and 4 in IP. BB/9 7 times. W% 6 times with 2 firsts. ERA and aERA+ 5 times with 1 first. BBH/9IP 4 times.
Other Info: You can identify almost to the game when McGraw thought McGinnity lost it. Aug 20, 1907. In the first 105 games, he started 26 times. In the last 48, he started only 7 times and just 2 times against teams over .500. In 1908, he started 20 games, just 2 against .500+ teams and 18 against under .500 teams.
Other Breakdowns:
Against HoMers: For comparison's sake:
Records by opponent position
Records against over/under .500 teams
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.491
Teams: Bos 1898-1905, Pit 1906-09, StLN 1910.
Record: 249-205 2.63 era/3.67 runsallowed, K/W 1.36, WH9IP=10.88
Win Shares: Career 293; 3 yrs cons 84; 7 best yrs 199; per 40 starts 24. Seasons with 20+: 8. Seasons with 30+: 2.
AllStars: STATS 2, WS 4
Fibonacci WinPoints: 180
ERA+: 118
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 25/204
Bill James Rank: 84
Top 10s: Wins and Innings 9 times with 1 first in IP. SHo 9 times with 2 firsts. Ks 7 times. W%age 6 times. ERA and H/9IP 5 times with a first in each. aERA+ 5 times. Most walks 8 times.
Other/Unique: 67-19 against under .500 teams while with Pit while 29-27 against .500 or better. Lost final game of 1908 season against TF Brown, 5-2. If he won the Pirates would have finished 99-55, NY 98-55, Chi 97-56. That would put the make-up game in a totally different light. Lost Game 6 of 1909 WS. Agreed to jump to the AL in 1901 but changed mind. Agreed to jump to Detroit in 1902, but changed mind.
Teams he played for had losing records only in 1903, 04, 05, and 10.
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:
Against other STATS AllStars from 98-10: 10-15
Records against over/under .500 teams
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.505
Run Support Index:
McGinnity 106.94
Walsh 98.37
Joss 97.42
Willis 100.13
Range: 133 to 80 with 3 over 116 and 3 below 85.
Defensive WinShare Support:
McGinnity +14
Walsh +11.3
Joss +5.3
Willis +8.8
Range: Basically +20 to -10 with 2 pitchers over +19.5 and 3 with less than -10.
Over/UnderAchievement for Career:
McGinnity +8 wins
Walsh -8 wins
Joss +4 wins
Willis -10 wins
For reference, the range is from +15 to -18 wins
To access O' players (O'Neill, O'Rourke), you have to spell it O=Neill, using the equal sign.
Mr. Spock would not consider this logical.
1876: 48
1877: 38
1878: 35
1879: 33
1870's: 33 to 48
_________________
1880: 38
1881: 40
1882: 37
1883: 37
1884: 44
1885: 46
1886: 45
1887: 38
1888: 36
1889: 33
1880's: 33 to 46
____________________
1890: 34
1891: 36
1892: 40
1893: 40
1894: 40
1895: 38
1896: 36
1897: 33
1898: 32
1899: 32
1890s: 32 to 40
pre-1894 data only: 34 to 40
post-1894 data only 32 to 36
___________________________
1900: 30
1901: 29
1902: 27
1903: 32
1904: 33
1905: 33
1906: 31
1907: 29
1908: 31
1909: 31
1900s: 27 to 33
______________
1910: 33
1911: 32
1912: 35 (only post-1897 season over 33)
1913: 33
1913: 33
1914: 33
1915: 27
1916: 28
1917: 30
1918: 31
1919: 30
1910s: 27 to 35
______________
1920: 29
1921: 29
1922: 29
1923: 27
1924: 27
1925: 26
1926: 26
1927: 26
1928: 27
1929: 27
1920s: 26 to 29
______________
1930: 27
1931: 26
1932: 28
1933: 28
1934: 29
1935: 29
1936: 30
1937: 28
1938: 27
1939: 26
1930s: 26 to 30
_____________
1940: 26
1941: 27
1942: 26
1943: 25
1944: 26
1945: 26
1946: 27
1947: 26
1948: 27
1949: 27
1940s: 25 to 27
____________
1950: 27
1951: 26
1952: 26
1953: 25
1954: 25
1955: 24
1956: 24
1957: 23
1958: 23
1959: 22
1950s: 22 to 27
___________
1960: 23
1961: 23
1962: 23
1963: 24
1964: 25
1965: 26
1966: 27
1967: 27
1968: 27
1969: 27
1960s: 23 to 27
________
1970: 28
1971: 29
1972: 29
1973: 30 (post-1920 high)
1974: 29
1975: 28
1976: 28
1977: 27
1978: 27
1979: 26
1970s: 26 to 30
_____________
1980: 25
1981: 24
1982: 25
1983: 25
1984: 24
1985: 24
1986: 24
1987: 24
1988: 24
1989: 23
1980s: 23 to 25
___________
1990: 22
1991: 21 (all-time low)
1992: 22
1993: 23
1994: 25
1995: 25
1996: 25
1997: 24
1998: 25
1999: 25
1990's: 21 to 25
___________
2000: 24
2001: 23
2002: 23
2003: 23
200o's: 23 to 24
1
Teams: Lou 1897, 1899, Pit 1900-01, ChiN 1901, PhiA 1902-07, StLA 1908-10.
Record: 193-143 2.16 era/3.23 runsallowed, K/W 2.88, WH9IP=9.92
Win Shares: Career 240; 3 yrs cons 94; 7 best yrs 186; per 40 starts 25. Seasons with 20+: 6. Seasons with 30+: 3.
AllStars: STATS 3, WS 4
Fibonacci WinPoints: 161
ERA+: 134
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 46/158
Bill James Rank: 53
Top 10s: Ks and K/9IP 10 times with 6 first in Ks and 8 in K/9IP. SHo 9 times. H/9IP 8 times with 2 firsts. aERA+ 7 times with 3 firsts. ERA and BBH/9IP 6 times each with ERA 2 firsts. Wins 5 times.
Other/Unique: Usage Pattern almost every year, usually b/c he jumped the team or was suspended: 1901 last start on 8/28. 1902 - played for LA in PCL and didn't start for Phi until 6/26 and had his last start on 9/22, he had 27 starts and 6 relief appearances in 81 games. No starts after game 131. 1903 - 38 starts in game 106, none after. 1905 - didn't start until game 15 and between games 120 and 148. 1906 - only one start in a month between 5/21 - 6/19.
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:
Record depending on opponent's finish:
Records against over/under .500 teams
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.537
Teams: StLN 1903, ChiN 1904-12, Cin 1913, StLF 1914, BroTTF 1914, ChiF 1915, ChiN 1916.
Record: 239-129 (130) 2.06 era/2.96 runsallowed, K/W 2.04, WH9IP=9.59
Win Shares: Career 296; 3 yrs cons 99; 7 best yrs 208; per 40 starts 28. Seasons with 20+: 9. Seasons with 30+: 3.
AllStars: STATS 5, WS 5
Fibonacci WinPoints: 265
ERA+: 138
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 35/195
Bill James Rank: 20
Top 10s: ERA, aERA+, BBH/9IP 9 times each with 1 first in ERA and aERA+ and 3 firsts in BBH/9IP. Saves 9 times with 4 firsts. BB/9IP 8 times. Wins, W%, H/9IP, SHo 7 times each. IP, K/9 4 times.
Career Breakdowns:
Should have done Lefty Leifield b/c they faced each other a lot.
Record depending on opponent's finish:
Records against over/under .500 teams
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.586
(1) Looked in detail at the WARP PRAR numbers on a seasonal and career basis.
(2) Calculated a sort of grey ink score for pitchers using Win Shares and another using Baseball Encyclopedia numbers. (I'd do WARP but the lack of league pages makes it too much of a pain.)
(3) Used the win share benchmarks numbers I posted above to calculate number of excellent, near-excellent, and very good seasons.
(4) Made allowances for defensive and offensive support.
(5) Did a subjective doublecheck where I say, you are a manager and you know in advance what this guy's career is going to look like in general terms (i.e., pitching skills, personality, injury frequency, length of career, ability to pitch to the score, reliability, durability), whose career do you want? (Answer: Not Rube Waddell's.)
(6) Worked the Negro Leaguers into my list where they would be based on Chris's numbers.
(7) Evaluated whether I was comfortable with those numbers and significantly downgraded Foster based on a lack of fit between good ERA+ numbers and amazing WS.
I ended up with the following conclusions:
(1) Anyway we slice it, Griffith has been significantly overrated. In none of my systems did he rate at the top; in most of them, he barely cracked the top 10. He only had one season where he was within five pitching WS of my benchmark for an excellent season (average of third-best pitcher's WS over the previous 3 seasons).
(2) Willis is significantly underrated. He was at the top of this group (though by small margins) in just about every metric.
(3) Leaving Spalding aside, every eligible pitcher ranks a full level below every elected pitcher on just about every metric.
(4) The top ten or so eligible pitching candidates are tighly grouped, then there is a drop off to other guys with superficially similar stats.
(5) Due to the tightness of this pack, its size, and the fact that every eligible pitcher is noticeably worse than every elected HoMer, I think most of these guys belong between 15 and 302 on this ballot. (Willis sneaks onto my ballot in 14th place.)
As I now see the eligible pitchers:
(1) Willis (14th overall)
(2) Welch (17th overall)(moved up subjectively)
(3) Mendez (18th overall)
(4) Cooper (20th overall)
(5) Foster (21st-25th overall)(hitting credit)
(6) Griffith (21st-25th overall)
(7) Joss (25th-30th overall)(moved up)
(8) Vaughn (25-30th overall)
(9) Waddell (25t-30th overall) (moved down)
(10) McCormick (30th to 35th)
(11) Bond (35th to 40th)
(1) Willis
(2) Welch
(3) Mendez
(4) Cooper
(5) Foster
(6) Griffith
(7) Cicotte
(8) Joss
(9) Vaughn
(10) Waddell
(11) McCormick
(12) Bond
Records against over/under .500 teams
Record Brown
.500+ 114-80 .588
.500- 103-34 .752
% of career dec'n vs. .500+teams
.586
A fine record against strong opposition.
Do we need Opponent-Neutral pitcher records?
A few years ago concerning Lefty Grove and Wes Ferrell, Dick Thompson showed that there may be significant differences in the usage of pitchers, measured by the quality of opponents. If so, then it may be just as important to "neutralize" a pitcher record for opponent quality, as for defensive efficiency and run support.
It'd be a good thing, sure. The main thing we'd need to add would be an assessment of the quality of the opposition on offense. The quality of the opposing pitching and fielding is accounted for in the Run-Support Index, isn't it?
From what I've learned in recent discussions of park factors, I'd hazard a guess that ERA+ as published on baseball-reference does take the quality of opposition into account, as may DERA. Is that true? If so, we have some numbers that attempt to be opposition-neutral.
However, the way they take opponents into account is generic, not tailored to the individual. The same "opponent factor" is applied to Keefe as well as Welch in any given year, to the other Cubs pitchers as well as Brown. It works well for offense where one would expect that Tinker and Evers would have a similar "opponent factor" and it's probably the best one can do absent the newly available starting-pitcher logs. I know we can do better with this data.
Teams: IndN 1878, CleN 1879-1884, CinU 1884, ProN 1885, ChiN 1885-1886, Pit 1887.
Record: 265-214 2.43 era/ 4.41 runsallowed, league era 2.88, K/W 2.28, WH9IP=10.19
Win Shares: do not have the information with me
AllStars: do not have the info with me
Fibonacci WinPoints: 198
ERA+: 118
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 40/220
Bill James Rank: do not have the info with me
Top 10s: ERA, wins 9 times each with 2 firsts in each. BBH/9IP, H/9, K, K/9 8 times with 2 firsts in H/9 and one in baserunners. WL%, IP 7 times each with one first in WL% and two in IP.
Other/Unique: 1884 split season has a dramatic effect on some of his numbers. How much weight do you give to the Union Assoc? I give the numbers very little credit. I see it as a minor league that is not close to the quality of the NL or AA. Be that as it may... For example, his career WL of 265-214 .553 WL% drops to 244-211 .536. His K/W drops from 2.28 to 2.10. His Black Ink drops from 40 to 33 and he gets double credit in Grey/Black Ink for wins, walks per 9, strikeouts, and shutouts because he split the season. And 6 of his 7 shutouts were against the two of the three worst "full time" teams and he didn't pitch against the other one.
Team finish: 1878 5/6, 1879 6/8. 1880 3/8, 1881 7/8, 1882 5/8, 1883 4/8, 1884 7/8, 1884 UA 2/8 (near full-season teams), 1885 Pro 4 games 4/8, Chi 24 games 1/8, 1886 1/8, 1887 6/8.
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:
Record depending on opponent's finish:
Records against over/under .500 teams
I am under the impression that ERA+ factors in that a pitcher did not face his own team, but assumes that said pitcher works the same amount of innings against each other team in the league. It also assumes that home and away innings are egually dispersed.
However, the way they take opponents into account is at the team level, not tailored to the individual.
It helps to be able to write clear sentences. Maybe someday I'll learn how :-)
Part 1: NL, PL, AA 1876-1900
year 1st total 2nd total 3rd total 4th total
National League
American Association
Players' League
American League
National League
Federal League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
American League
National League
' didn't do it.
" had to be.
Use the = sign. It doesn't work in the "Find Player" box, but it works in the html address. So pick a player without an apostrophe and find that player. Then in the html address, type in the code for the player you are looking for.
For example, Jim O'Rourke would be o=rouji01. Note that the = sign counts as a character when determining the first five letters of the player's last name.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt
Teams: StLNA 1875, BufN 1879-1885, PitAA 1885-1886, PitN 1887-1889, PitPL 1890, PitN 1891-1892, StLN 1892.
Record: 364-310 .540 2.87 era/ 5.03 runsallowed, league era 3.08, K/W 2.42, WH9IP=10.72
Win Shares: Career 403; 3 yrs cons 133; 7 best yrs 296; per 50 starts 29. Seasons with 20+: 8. Seasons with 30+: 7. Seasons with 40+: 3. Seasons 50+: 2. 60+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 0. WinShares 1.
Fibonacci WinPoints: 245
ERA+: 108
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 15/248
Bill James Rank: 100-200
Top 10s: BB/9 14 times with 3 firsts. SHo 14 times. Wins, CG, IP 10 times each. BBH/9IP 9 times. ERA, WL% 8 times.
Other/Unique: Galvin played for 8 teams that finished with winning records and 8 teams with losing records. The records of his teams 883-968 .477 (per 162 games 77-85) is pulled down because he played for 6 of his losing teams from 1887-1892 when schedules were longer as opposed to winning Buffalo teams in 1879, 1881-1884 when schedules were shorter. Without his games included, his teams finished 526-662 .443 (or on 162 games 72-90)
Team finish: 1879 53/8, 1880 7/8, 1881 3/8, 1882 4/8, 1883 5/8, 1884 3/8, 1885 NL 7/8, 1885 AA 3/8, 1886 2/8, 1887 6/8, 1888 6/8 1889 5/8 1890 6/8, 1891 8/8, 1892 6/12 and 11/12.
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers:
Record depending on opponent's finish:
Records against over/under .500 teams
Run Support Index: 102.11 (13th out of 20 pre 93 pitchers- approx)
Defensive Support: -7.3 (One of the worst ever)
The first list shows the IP of the 5th ranked pitcher in IP for each league / season. I chose the number 5 pitcher, figuring that his workload would represent a typical "full" schedule while avoiding the outliers. The second list will show the IP for the same pitchers as a percent of his team's total IP. By showing percentages, this second list adjusts for changes in season length and more clearly shows the movements from 2 to 3 to 4 starters.
A couple of comments:
- The transitions to ligher workloads have usually taken place gradually over periods lasting 2 to 5 years. For example, the movement from 2 starters to 3 appears to have taken place from 1884 to 1888, the movement from 3 starters to 4 between 1896 to 1898. There's another gradual reduction in workload from 1904 to 1909, and another from 1921 to 1925.
- Several writers including, Bill James, have emphasized a drop in pitcher workloads in 1893 when the 60 ft. 6 inch distance was adopted. However by looking at the IP as a percentage of the team's, we see that the decline in IP that year was actually due to the shorter 132 game schedule. The percentage workload didn't drop until 1896-98 when the number of games went back up and teams responded by adding a fourth starter.
Teams: NYA 1916-1917, StLA 1918-1924, NYA 1925-1928.
Record: 187-117 .615 WL%, 3.16 era/3.78 runsallowed LgERA 3.88, K/W 1.50, WH9IP=11.3
Win Shares: Career 225; 3 yrs cons 84; 7 best yrs 166; per 40 starts 24. Seasons with 20+: 5. Seasons with 30+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 5, WS 3
Fibonacci WinPoints: 185
ERA+: 124
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 15/179
Bill James Rank: 71
Top 10s: BBH/9IP 9 times. ERA and BB/9IP 8 times with 2 firsts in BB. Wins 7 times with one first. SHo 7 times. WL%, IP, CG 6 times. Strikeouts 5 times with one first, K/9 5 times.
Won 11 games in relief from 1920-27 per Retrosheet.
World Series: 1926, 1927 (didn't pitch)
Run Support Index: 101.77 - approx 38th for pitchers up through 1930
Defensive Support: 5.5 wins shares better than an average defense - approx. 44th
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers and top pitchers of the day since no HoMers yet:
Record depending on opponent's finish:
Records against over/under .500 teams
Records againt each team (just for fun):
Would it be easy to redo the list, using a % of some type, based on teams? Like instead of 5th best, do it best on a number equal to 1/2 of the total teams in baseball (or the league) or something like that. With the changing number of teams in the 1800s, I could see that possibly throwing the dates off. Does anyone agree? Being 5th in a 16-team league is more impressive than being 5th in a 12-team league, right? Just a thought, maybe it wouldn't matter. Interesting stuff either way, thanks!
Teams: PhiA 1912, Cle 1916-1924, Was 1925-1927, NYA 1928.
Record: 215-142 .602 WL%, 2.88 era/3.60 runs allowed / LgERA 3.65, K/W 1.22, WH9IP=11.22
Win Shares: Career 245; 3 yrs cons 88; 7 best yrs 187; per 40 starts 23. Seasons with 20+: 7. Seasons with 30+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 4, WS 4
Fibonacci WinPoints: 202
ERA+: 127
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 22/193
Bill James Rank: 58
Top 10s: ERA, SHo 9 times with 2 firsts in each. aERA+ 8 times with 2 firsts. IP 8 times. CG, BB/9IP 7 times. Wins, Strikeouts, BBH/9IP 6 times each with one first in Ks and baserunners. WL%, H/9IP 4 times each with one first in WL%, 2 firsts in hits.
World Series Teams: 1920 (3-0, .67 ERA 3 CG), 1925 (0-2, 3.77 ERA), 1928 (did not pitch)
Run Support Index: 100.57 so received average support
Defensive Support: +4.8 (approx 45th among pre-1930 pitchers)
Chris J. WL adjusted for Run and Defensive Support: 212-145
Other: Most similar pitchers include 10 pitchers with similarity scores over 900 - he is not a highly individual pitcher, though it includes one HoMer. Most similar: Carl Mays, Freddie Fitzsimmons, Eddie Cicotte, Jack Chesbro, McGinnity, Warneke, Buffington, Clark Griffith, Wilbur Cooper, Babe Adams
Career Breakdowns:
Against HoMers and top pitchers of the day since no HoMers yet:
Records against over/under .500 teams
.651
1916..1-1
1917..0-1
1921..1-2
1923..0-4
1924..0-1
Did I screw one up?
And him means Coveleski. That could've been worded better.
Covaleski 11.1 "seasons"
Welch 10.4 "seasons"
Should be interesting to see how pitchers compare across eras.
Rank among pitchers in IP, age 27 1881-1890:
1. Galvin
2. Keefe
3. Welch
Rank among pitchers in IP, age 27 1911-1920:
1. Johnson
2. Alexander
3. Rixey
4. Faber
5. Quinn
6. Jones
7. Cooper
8. Dauss
9. Marquard
10. Cicotte
11. Luque
12. Bush
13. Covaleski
Will all 13 end up with more seasons than every 1880s pitcher except Galvin and Keefe?
"Seasons" pitched:
Covaleski 11.1
Cicotte 11.1
Welch 10.4
Radbourn 10.3
Griffith 9.8
Waddell 9.1
Joss 7.3
Kelly, I have at 2-9 vs. Johnson:
1916..1-1
1917..0-1
1921..1-2
1923..0-4
1924..0-1
Chris, I think the difference is the Aug 5, 1923 game. Coveleski and Johnson started. Washington won the game, but Zahniser got the win. Since Johnson didn't get the win, I didn't count the game as a loss against Johnson.
This leads to a method question: After 1919, Retrosheet includes information on Starters and Winning Pitcher. If the subject pitcher loses the game but the opposing starter does not figure in the decision, should the game count as a loss to the opposing pitcher? Obviously, for games before 1920 we can't do this so we have to go by starters only. Should we remain consistent with the earlier era or should we take all the information into account and have to different databases of info?
Your thoughts...
Galvin 13.1 [no credit for 1876-1878]
Willis 12.3
Cooper 12.1
Coveleski 11.1
Cicotte 11.1
Clarkson 11.1
McGinnity 10.5
Welch 10.4
Radbourn 10.3
Griffith 9.8
McCormick 9.5
Rusie 9.5
Waddell 9.1
Joss 7.3
Caruthers 6.0
Would it be easy to redo the list, using a % of some type, based on teams?
For the 1892-99 period when there were 12 teams in the NL, here are the data for the 7th best pitcher. (I couldn't get the percentages to come out exactly equal, but I think the 7th best for a 12-team league is close to equivalent to 5th best for an 8-team league.)
The only year for which it seems to make much difference is 1894.
My recollection is that there were two or three other leagues in the 1870s or 80s with maybe 6 or 10 teams, but I don't have time to track them down right now.
FYI - from 1871-1881 there's only one league to worry about, either the NA or the NL. From 1882-1891 there is the AA/NL (I wouldn't even bother with the 1884 UA), except for 1890 with the PL.
NA - different number starting every year, lots of teams folding during season
NL - always 8 teams before 1961, except for 1877-78 (6) and 1892-99 (12)
AA - usually 8 "scheduled" teams, 6 in 1882, 12 in 1884 (one folded and was replaced), midseason fold/replacement also in 1890 and 1891.
UA - 8 "scheduled" teams, with many folds/replacements (but no more than 8 members at any given time)
Anyway, I think the result should be a continuous rather than integer measure. Perhaps a moving average (3 yrs?) of some annual variable.
I haven't kept up. How many measures of workloads or full seasons (which may be equivalent) are presently in systematic use?
Paul Wendt
jimd, 27 Aug 2004, 1933 Ballot Discussion page 3
I've been doing something somewhat similar, based on the concept of a "median ace". I take the number of teams in MLB, N, and then grab the top N pitchers in whatever counting stat (GS or IP) and take the median. That's the median "ace". I then divide the team average (GS or IP) by the "median ace" and that's the number of "aces" that a team would require to cover it's schedule. This yields an ideal number of starters/pitchers for MLB, ideal in the same sense than an 8 team league would require 8 shortstops, even though the number of actual full-time starters may vary from, say, 6-9 depending on injuries, trades, replacement, etc.
My numbers are less "conservative" than yours.
1871-1880 1 starter/pitcher
1881-1886 2 starters/pitchers
1887-1897 3 starters/pitchers
1898-1908 4 starters/pitchers
1909-1923 4 starters (GS) 5 pitchers (IP)
1924-1954 5 starters/pitchers
The two counting stats yield different dates when a fifth pitcher is added, I suppose due to the slow rise of the relief pitcher (probably more due to the rise of the pinch hitter for late inning offense rather than any desire to get the starter out of there).
This also agrees pretty well with the STATS All-Stars dates for adding more pitchers to their All-Star teams (1882, 1886, 1898, 1924), though I will note that STATS adds a relief pitcher instead of a starter in 1924. This is probably justified in part because 1923 was the landmark year when Complete Games dropped below 50%.
Starts Name Shutouts
483 FABER, 29
307 Schalk, 22
176 other, 5
(22 of pitcher Red Faber's 29 shutouts were complete games for catcher Ray Schalk, too. 5 were complete games for another catcher.)
554 RIXEY, 37
142 Hargrave, 12
118 Killefer, 13
294 other, 11
In Schalk and Killefer, Faber and Rixey worked with two famous catchers. But the catcher shutout data reflects timing. For example, Killefer was Rixey's regular catcher in the deadball era, 1912-1917.
I've got all his info up (mostly in rough format) right now. Over 600 (!) pitchers done by him. Eventually, I intend to write in everyone's full name, and separate the relievers & starters, but for now it's just what it is. Also, I'd like to put direct links to all the pitchers I have individual thread/pages for & then put all the Dr M's info listed on them with links back to the 3 Dr M threads.
Worst K/BB+ number of any Hall of Famer? Mickey Welch.
Caveats:
(1) Calculations done by hand and are likely inaccurate in a number of places.
(2) I use the 5th highest inning total in the pitcher's league as the marker of a full season, thus setting the bar at different heights for different leagues.
(3) There is no guarantee that an 1880 pitcher season is exactly as valuable as a 1920 pitcher seasons-- it might be more valuable (e.g., b/c/ greater number of innings) or less valuable (e.g., b/c/ greater fielder responsiblity for run prevention).
(4) I make no effort to give credit in these numbers for war years, holdouts, blacklists, minor league play, pre-NA seasons, etc.-- this is a purely descriptive number of major league "seasons."
For what it's worth:
(1) Young 21.0
(2) Johnson 20.3
(3) Alexander 17.9
(4) Matthewson 15.4
(5) Plank 14.5
(6) Nichols 13.5
(7) Galvin 13.1
(8) Keefe 12.7
(9) Willis 12.3
(10) Cooper 12.1
(11) Coveleski 11.1
(11) Cicotte 11.1
(11) Clarkson 11.1
(14) Matthews 11.0
(15) Mays 10.6
(16) McGinnity 10.5
(17) Welch 10.4
(18) Mullane 10.4
(19) Radbourn 10.3
(20) Brown 10.1
(21) Walsh 9.8
(21) Griffith 9.8
(23) McCormick 9.5
(23) Rusie 9.5
(23) Shocker 9.5
(26) Waddell 9.1
(27) Bond 8.5
(28) Vaughn 8.4
(29) Leever 8.1
(30) King 7.8
(31) Spalding 7.5
(32) Joss 7.3
Caruthers 6.0
(33) Caruthers 6.0
Since the debated-man-of-the-hour is Stan Covaleski, I'd be most interested to see how he ranked to his peers -- say, Eppa Rixey, Dolf Luque, Red Faber, Sam Jones, Waite Hoyt, Carl Mays, Burleigh Grimes. Due to your Caveat #3, I am dubious about applying the numbers across generations.
The only Covaleski peers to be eligible so far are Cooper and Shocker, and Marquard too, but I guess he didn't get any votes. None are really serious candidates, though. Of course, my assumption is that Covaleski is eligible first because his career was markedly shorter, but it'd be interesting to see by how much.
Mays is on the list above; the other new eligibles will come soon. Eventually, I'll do Babe Adams, Marquard, Jack Powell, Jim Whitney, Charlie Buffinton, etc. for comparisons sake, but for now I limited myself to guys getting votes.
In contrast to the data for 1876-1929, for this period the data are really stable without any trends. Over most of the period, the best pitchers would work 240 to 270 innings, or between 17 to 20 percent of their team's total IP.
Being familiar with some seasons in the 1940s and early 50s when Feller and Roberts pitched 350+ innings, I had expected to see an uptick during that period, but it turns out those seasons are just real outliers. Nobody else was pitching those kind of workloads.
Number of pitchers among Win Shares leaders by decade
Years Top50 Top10
1880s - 21 - 10
1890s - 19 - 4
1900s - 20 - 4
1910s - 12 - 2
1920s - 19 - 3 !
1930s - 12 - 2
1940s - _9 - 1
1950s - _7 - 2
1960s - _6 - 0
1970s - _9 - 1
1980s - _3 - 0 (29 stieb, 44 morris, 46 quisenberry)
1990s - _7 - 1
The threshold number of Win Shares for Top50 ranges from 125 in the 1940s to 157 in the 1890s.
Who is a pitcher? My call, considering performance within decade, but it turns out that I counted everyone who generated 50% of his career Win Shares by pitching. Only five players who ranked within any decade Top50 generated between 20% and 70% by pitching.
1880s - Dave Foutz (56%), not Monte Ward (42%)
1890s - Kid Gleason (51%), not Elmer Smith (34%)
1900s - not Cy Seymour (22%)
Number of pitchers among Win Shares leaders by decade
Years Top50 Top10
1880s - 21 - 10 ; that is, 21 of the top 50 and all of the top 10
1890s - 19 - 4
1900s - 20 - 4
1910s - 12 - 2
1920s - 19 - 3 !
1930s - 12 - 2
1940s - _9 - 1
1950s - _7 - 2
1960s - _6 - 0
1970s - _9 - 1
1980s - _3 - 0 (29 stieb, 44 morris, 46 quisenberry)
1990s - _7 - 1
The threshold number of Win Shares in-decade ranges from 121 in the 1880s to 157 in the 1900s.
Who is a pitcher? I call 'em as I see 'em, in a glance at performance within decade. My calls turn out to be everyone who generated at least 50% of career Win Shares by pitching.
1880s - Dave Foutz (56%), not Monte Ward (42%)
1890s - Kid Gleason (51%), not Elmer Smith (34%)
1900s - not Cy Seymour (22%)
National League
1876 Spalding 57
1877 Devlin 60
1876 is a tie, Spalding and Bradley
1919 is a tie for second, Johnson and Coveleski
A little explanation: My idea behind making the lists was to determine the "all-star" or "stars" for the particular year. There would only be one pitcher on the 1876 team and I thought Spalding would have been picked as he was on the pennant winning team.
Second, there are many instances of ties with pitchers, but I usually listed "tie" only when there was a tie that resulted in more pitchers being listed than normal. For example, in 1915 AL, there is a tie for a second between Dauss and Foster, but I did not use "tie." I should have used "tie" for the next two pitchers in a tie for 4th because there were now 5 pitchers listed instead of the usual 4.
By the way, I guess that Bradley would have been the one contemporary pitcher selected in 1876, with the shutouts and the hint of carrying the team.
More Career Than Peak
8. Red Ruffing 25 ballots-330 points. high of #2
13. Eppa Rixey 21-247-2nd
20. Mickey Welch 10-144-2nd
35. Burleigh Grimes 6-74-6th
More Peak Than Career
10. Wes Ferrell 23-282-2nd
24. Bucky Walters 11-125-4th
27. Jose Mendez 10-113-2 6ths
31. Rube Waddell 10-97-8th
38. Dizzy Dean 5-54-7th
41. Tommy Bridges 5-49-3 9ths
51. Tommy Bond 13-1-8th
54T. Lefty Gomez 1-10-11th
54T. Sam Leever 1-10-11th
Combo(?)
14. Clark Griffith 20-230-4th
21. Dick Redding 12-137-2 5ths
49. Eddie Cicotte 1-17-4th
52T. Dolf Luque 1-12-9th
57T. Carl Mays 1-8-13th
57T. Vic Willis 1-8-13th
61T. Bill Byrd 1-6-15th
Over the next few years we will be seeing Bob Feller (combo), Hal Newhouser (peak), Bob Lemon (combo), Don Newcombe (peak/combo?). Probably missed a couple.
And there have been of course many many others who have gotten support over the years including:
Addie Joss (peak)
Jack Chesbro (kidding)
Tony Mullane (career)
Wilbur Cooper (career)
Jim Whitney (peak)
Jim McCormick (combo)
Silver King (peak)
Urban Shocker (combo)
There are many more recent pitchers not on either list but who have succumbed to the very tough competition of the past decade or two, whereas many of the above probably would never have had support either if they had faced that competition. Highly speculative list of some of them might include Hippo Vaughn, Lon Warneke, Paul Derringer, Mel Harder, Jack Quinn, Hilton Smith, among others.
Questions
1. Is Ruffing better than Rixey as the leading career candidate?
2. Is Ferrell the best peak candidate? What about Walters, Waddell, Dean? What about Mendez?
3. And if the answers to 1 and 2 are yes and yes, then is Ruffing better than Ferrell?
4. Where do Griffith and Redding fit in? Do they suffer unfairly because they don't fit and dominate in either the career or peak category?
5. Where do Redding and Mendez rank to one another? And is there another NeLer who has been overlooked but was better? Andy Cooper, Bill Byrd, Hilton Smith?
6. Who have we missed on? Some obviously would say Welch, or Mays, or Cicotte, or Joss. As contemporaries, was Mays better or Cicotte?
More than enough to think about here. I of course prefer the peakers as a group, I might follow up with some arguments. Anybody want to convince us on the careerists? And the combonists?
Anyway, here's the top 30+ a few others, for the period 1893-1952, HoMers in bold, (+) - incomplete career:
1. Cy Young 264+
2. Walter Johnson 264
3. Grover Cleveland Alexander 187
4. Lefty Grove 184
5. Christy Mathewson 179
6. Kid Nichols 170+
7. Ed Walsh 116
8. Carl Hubbell 107
9. Joe McGinnity 106
10. Bob Feller 105
11. Hal Newhouser 105
12. Wes Ferrell 96
13. Three Finger Brown 95
14. Amos Rusie 94+
15. Vic Willis 93
16. Wilbur Cooper 87
17. Bucky Walters 86
18. Clark Grifith 83
19. Stan Coveleski 83
20. Carl Mays 81
21. Burleigh Grimes 81
22. Ted Breitenstein 79
23. Dizzy Dean 78
24. Pink Hawley 72
25. Dazzy Vance 71
26. Eddie Plank 70
27. Ted Lyons 68
28. Red Ruffing 65
29. Lon Warneke 64
30. Eddie Cicotte 63
T31. Eppa Rixey 62
33. Urban Shocker 61
T34. Hippo Vaughn 60
T36. Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro 58 (not kidding)
38. Rube Waddell 56
T39. Mel Harder 55
45. Lefty Gomez 52
T49. Addie Joss 50
T52. Red Faber 49
Dolf Luque 43+
Tommy Bridges 41
Sam Leever 33
Obviously, there does seem to be a bit of a bias to older players. I did a quick extrapolation on Spahn, and he probably winds up around 160.
Some thoughts:
1) This is part of the reason Clark Griffith never makes my ballot any more. He's very close to a couple of contemporaries who were never considered seriously.
2) Dean does pretty good, but I think this accurately shows he's a step behind Ferrell. Here's their qualifiying years, best to worst:
Ferrell: 19, 19, 14, 13, 12, 10, 5, 4
Dean: 24, 16, 15, 11, 8, 4
Dean's best year was better, but their next 3 are roughly equal, and the next 4 are much better for Ferrell.
3) Walters does well, but with a wartime adjustment, he's pretty even with Dean. (And checking my rankings, I'd been overlooking that.)
4) Waddell and Joss don't look so hot, but Vic Willis does. He's one guy I always worry I'm underrating.
5) I'm reluctant to rely on this too heavily for the pitchers with mainly a career argument, because I do think it underrates them. I can see liking Ed Walsh more than Eddie Plank, but not that much. (Still, Red Faber, what were we thinking? That includes me.) Grimes as the best career candidate is a bit of a surprise, though.
Lexicographic key:
Upper Case -- A TOP star; one of top N players in MLB
Lower Case -- a 2nd tier star; one top 2N players in MLB
(in parentheses) -- nearly a 2nd tier star (withing 10%)
<in angle brackets> -- best at position; not an all-star season
Note: N is approximate number of teams:
9 from 1871-1881; 12 from 1882-1900; 16 from 1901-1960
Note: All TOP stars are listed, even if not best at position
This represents a level of play where one might expect the player
to be the best on his team, except for uneven talent distribution.
Pitcher's Note: The number listed varies by year, depending on the
number of top "median aces" that a team requires to cover the innings
pitched. It is similar but not identical to the number of All-Stars
selected by STATS in their All-Time Sourcebook.
1871-1880 1 "First Team All-Star"
1881-1886 2 "First Team All-Stars"
1887-1897 3 "First Team All-Stars"
1898-1923 4 "First Team All-Stars"
1924-1940 5 "First Team All-Stars"
First Team All-Stars (top 4 actually)
Extra pitchers: Not First-Team All-Star, but one of top N players in MLB, or the #5 "First Team All-Star" post 1924.
e.g. Waddell Prime ERA+ 152 (152-100 = 52) and Prime IP 1,772 (1772/100 = 18). 52 + 18 = 70
S. King (4 years) 153 + 1,894 = 73
Devlin (3) 159 + 1,305 = 72
Joss (8) 148 + 2,220 = 70.2
Waddell (6) 152 + 1,772 = 69.8
Reulbach (5) 156 + 1,262 = 69
Lyons (17) 126 _ 3,779 = 64 not yet PHoM thus on the list
W. White (5) 136 + 2,722 = 63
Wood (4) 151 + 975 = 61
Mullane (8) 132 + 3,243 = 58.9 with AA discount
Bond (6) 130 + 2,865 = 58.6
Cicotte (12) 129 + 2,905 = 58.01
Vaughan (6) 138 + 2,000 = 58.00
Gomez (8) 138 + 1,977 = 57.8
Griffith (6) 135 + 2,221 = 57.21
Welch (7) 126 + 3,121 = 57.21
Hahn (6) 138 + 1,910 = 57.1
Bridges (10) 134 + 2,284 = 56.8 no WWII bonus
Luque (5) 141 + 1,397 = 55.0
McCormick (5) 128 + 2,689 = 54.9
The best careers FYI include Devlin with his flukey 3 year career at 72 and Mickey Welch (113 + 4,802 = 61). More recently Joss and Waddell both at 65, Joe Wood at 60, Lyons at 60 and Rixey at 61.
Thus (because they make both the career and primje lists) Waddell, Lyons and Joss are my top 3 rated ML pitchers. It's also my juddgment that this exercise is a positive one for Griffith and Cicotte.
********
Pitcher counts follow, but also note that Ruth qualified 3 additional times as a pitcher (16 total), and Ward also qualifies twice as a pitcher (making 4 total).
8+ (100% PosPlayers; 100% Pitchers): 15 Cy Young; 11 Walter Johnson; 9 Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove; 8 Pete Alexander
6-5 (80% PosPlayers; 75% Pitchers): 6 Amos Rusie; 5 Al Spalding, Jim Whitney, Kid Nichols, Ed Walsh, Stan Coveleski, Dazzy Vance, Wes Ferrell
4 (50% PosPlayers; 67% Pitchers): Charles Radbourn, John Clarkson, Ted Breitenstein, Joe McGinnity, Carl Hubbell, Dizzy Dean
3 (25% PosPlayers; 35% Pitchers): Tommy Bond, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Charlie Ferguson, Bob Caruthers, Charlie Buffinton, Bill Hutchison, Clark Griffith, Noodles Hahn, Rube Waddell, 3Finger Brown, (Babe Ruth), Ted Lyons, Lefty Gomez, Bob Feller (A)
2 (5% PosPlayers; 3% Pitchers): Jim Devlin, (Monte Ward), Jim McCormick, Matt Kilroy, Silver King, Jesse Tannehill, Vic Willis, Addie Joss, Nap Rucker, Eddie Cicotte, Hippo Vaughn, Bob Shawkey, Jim Bagby, Burleigh Grimes, Red Faber, Urban Shocker, Eddie Rommel, Howard Ehmke, Dolf Luque, Herb Pennock, George Uhle, Tommy Thomas, Red Lucas, Ed Brandt, Lon Warneke, Mel Harder, Curt Davis, Red Ruffing, Bill Lee (A), Bobo Newsom (A), Claude Passeau (A)
No Major-league position player HoMers with less than 2 yrs. "WARP Best at Position"
Only one pitcher HOMer with less than 2yrs "WARP Best at Position": Eddie Plank.
I wanted to present an expanded list of the Reliever Adjusted JAWS rankings from today’s article on the ballot’s pitchers. This list is somewhat provisional as it only goes back to 1960 pitchers whose careers include pre-1960 seasons are designated with an asterisk). It includes every pitcher I could cull with a RAJAWS above 50.0, but in order to be flagged a pitcher either had to rank in the top 50 JAWS scores among pitchers who accumulated more than half their WARP in relief (and thus show up as a reliever in my master JAWS file) or have 25.0 career Reliever Expected Wins Added (WXRL), so some may have slipped through the cracks. The formula for RAJAWS is (JAWS + 0.5*WXRL), where JAWS is a the average of a pitcher’s career WARP3 (subject to an adjustment for AL pitchers in the DH era) and seven best season WARP3.
"JAWS is a the average of a pitcher’s career WARP3 (subject to an adjustment for AL pitchers
in the DH era) and seven best season WARP3."
AL hitters need the adjustment, not AL pitchers.
Try a carriage return in the middle of the first pre-formatted line in KJOK #269
Among pitchers I've calculated so far, Jack Quinn, for example, is #26 among post-1893 SP in Pennants Added, but drops to #33 in JAWS. In the system Bill James uses in the NHBA he's #103.
Or on the other extreme, Ed Walsh. Walsh is #28 in PA, but moves up to #18 in JAWS. In the Bill James system he's #3. Sandy Koufax is similar, #32 in Pennants Added, #27 in JAWS, #5 by the James system.
I'll throw a few random ones out there.
Tommy John, #36 PA, #42 JAWS, #129 James.
Urban Shocker, who we are missing the boat on, #39, #38, #30.
Dave Stieb who will be joining us shortly, #42, #39, #36. His twin, Bucky Walters is #44, #40, #27. Jack Morris, who stayed on the ballot while Stieb fell of is #87, #86, #132.
Billy Pierce, near the bottom of our electees, #41, #41, #54.
Don Sutton, #19, #25, #81.
Dizzy Dean, #69, #48, #16.
But he might not even be the best Dizzy. Dizzy Trout is #51, #56, #35
The worst we've elected, either Iron Man McGinnity #75, #63, #33 or Bob Lemon, #62, #50, #41 or Three-Finger Brown #57, #52, #39 or Clark Griffith #50, #49, #49.
The worst in the Hall of Fame? Rube Marquard, #142, #141, #150. Although the James rankings say Jessie Haines, #128, #146, #190. Catfish is easily the worst the writers picked, #119, #116, #147.
Clemens comes out 2nd so far, behind Walter Johnson and ahead of everyone else, but just barely ahead of Cy Young and Pete Alexander.
Rivera is currently #4 on the reliever list, behind Wilhelm, Goose and Fingers. He'll pass Fingers if he doesn't get hurt in 2007.
That's pretty exciting for me, because I was very nervous about how the modern closers would look, but it seems like my system balances their increased effectiveness over the previous generation with their lack of innings pretty well. Cool!
And to fuel some discussion, Jim Palmer is #35, #35 and #45 :-)
I believe our current count is 53 pitchers, including 8 NeLers.
If we were to elect 30% pitchers (as some have advocated), we should have about 56 pitchers now out of 186 HOMers, and 69 pitchers out of 231 HOMers at the end of 2007.
the James system picks on the (relative) lack of a peak
James' system from the NewHA is very strongly peak oriented.
I didn't realize we'd be at 231 HOMers by 2007. I thought it was like 220 for some reason....
AL hitters need the adjustment, not AL pitchers.
"On the advice of WARP creator Clay Davenport, the pitching portion of this year's edition of JAWS includes a downward adjustment for pitchers in the AL after 1973 to counteract the negative hitting contributions of their non-DH brethren. This prevents the system from overly favoring recent AL pitchers.."
How much you deducting for Caruthers, Rogan, and Dihigo? ;-)
Not enough! ;~)
That doesn't make any sense - so he's saying WARP penalizes pitchers that hit too much? WOW, that's a pretty major mistake in WARP.
He should be comparing an NL pitcher's hitting to the average NL pitcher's hitting. Then the league as a whole would wash to zero, and all AL pitchers would be zero and no adjustment would be necessary. That's how I handle it, and it works fine. I don't understand how he could do it any differently.
For pitchers, replacement level hitting is the league average pitcher's hitting, because pitchers aren't selected for their ability to hit. It'd be much better if WARP worked that way, I always suspected that was a problem with WARP, glad to have it confirmed.
But overall, this tells me he's underrating all pitchers, compared to position players. Just something to keep in mind.
No Joe. NL pitchers have to hit, and almost all of them have negative BRAR. AL pitchers don't, and get 0 BRAR of course. Both situations are consistent within the context of their own leagues (WARP1). So is the handling of the DH in WARP1 for same-league comparison.
The problems come when you attempt to make cross-league comparisons. The All-Time BRAR adjustments that he makes handle the DH just fine (WARP2). They project what a hitter would hit in the All-Time context and produce a value for that. They don't work for the AL pitchers, because they have to hit in the All-Time context, but there is no batting data for them. They just get a 0. This overrates the AL pitchers as a group because most of them would be negative if they hit like their NL brethren. One could make them all average-hitters-for-a-pitcher, but that penalizes those that could hit better than that, given the chance. (This is the downward adjustment mentioned above.)
There really is no good solution for this. (Win Shares makes no attempt, stopping at the WARP1 level.)
Sure there is, as I said in post #286, use RARP instead of BRAR for pitchers.
So Joe McGinnity is the very worst HOM pitcher as measured by Pennants Added and JAWS, while Bill James plunks for Clark Griffith.
Clark Griffith should be one of the weakest, since he was elected so slowly, and partly by a favorable view of his bad career timing --trying to make it during the contraction of 1890-1892.
For the newcomers, there is a lot on Mordecai "Overrated" Brown scattered on this site, including some before his election. That he is a plausible candidate to be the very worst HOM pitcher is astonishing to me.
Bob Lemon? Do the three systems all credit his batting? Probably, as none puts Wes Ferrell or Bob Caruthers near the "top".
Lemon's (and all pitchers') batting is credited.
Thanks. I'm only paying half attention.
Pitcher workload time series: percent of team innings pitched by the league 5th-best in innings
Brent %, Wendt comment [please pronounce this correctly]
1892 33.9 up to 154 games, from 140
1893 33.2 down to 132 games
1894 34.9
1895 32.3
1896 32.2
1897 29.3
1898 27.1 up to 154 games
1899 28.3
1900 25.9 down to 140 games
........ NL .. AL
1901 27.3 27.4
1902 25.3 25.4
1903 25.2 26.8
1904 26.0 27.0 up to 154 games
1905 24.2 23.3
1906 23.0 22.3
. . .
Several writers including, Bill James, have emphasized a drop in pitcher workloads in 1893 when the 60 ft. 6 inch distance was adopted. However by looking at the IP as a percentage of the team's, we see that the decline in IP that year was actually due to the shorter 132 game schedule.
Yes
The percentage workload didn't drop until 1896-98 when the number of games went back up and teams responded by adding a fourth starter.
The largest one-year decrease in pitcher workload is 1896-97 and the 154-game schedule was adopted 1897-98. The share of team workload decreased slightly in '98 and '99, net, but decreased further and faster when the 140-game schedule was restored for the 1900-1903 seasons.
I don't understand the response to 154 games, finally instituted in 1904, but that doesn't stop me from describing it. During 1904 McGraw and Griffith in New York led in working their ace pitchers very hard; beginning in 1905 McGraw and Griffith led in the introduction of relief pitching.
Comment 111 in second place
Brent, Are you one of the Brents I know by full name? I would like to exchange email about using your workload statistic. I don't use the Baseball Think Factory message service.
Paul Wendt .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Pete Palmer has the relief pitcher data in his database, probably input by hand from the 1969 first Baseball Encyclopedia. He used it to produce the Relief Register in TB3 but the scope of that print data is pitchers with something like 500 career relief innings.
IP of 5th highest pitcher in IP, 1930-1959
. . .
In contrast to the data for 1876-1929, for this period the data are really stable without any trends. Over most of the period, the best pitchers would work 240 to 270 innings, or between 17 to 20 percent of their team's total IP.
Here is the count of high and low magnitudes by decade, relative to that 240-270 IP norm. This suggests stability no earlier than the 1940s
1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s
>270: 9 7 2 3 ; of 20 data points during each decade
<240: 0 1 4 4
It was surprising to get a comment on a post that's 2-1/2 years old. For the 1924-40 period, I probably should have described the range as 250-280 IP. IOW, the 1925-60 period continued the trend of lower work loads, but only very gradually.
I've sent you an email regarding your other request.
The entire current page is vulnerable, no matter how long a timespan it covers.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main