The most important pitching stat

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I am gonna see how well this goes down but i wanna see what people here think is the most important stat for pitchers. Rank them like 1-10 then ill do a cummulative tally, cuz im kind of curious where everyone stands on this.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

1. W/L Record
2. WHIP
3. ERA
4. K/BB
5. Innings Pitched

Actually make it top 5 for now..... and this is for starting pitchers.

[KCGHOST]

1. WHIP
2. ERA
3. K/BB
4. Innings Pitched
5. HR/9

[STLCards2]

1. ERA+
2. Total Bases Allowed
3. HR/9
4. IP
5. W %

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

My ultimate goal here is to attempt to come up with a formula that combines the most important pitching tools which should be interesting.

[Blackout]

era+
whip
w-L %

[Blackout]

This thread is about the saddest thing I've ever seen.

K/BB
K/9
BB/9
HR/9
IP

sorry we dont meet your high standards, your almightyness :rolleyes:

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

This thread is about the saddest thing I've ever seen.

K/BB
K/9
BB/9
HR/9
IP

You posted on it what does that make you???

[mac195]

ERA+ is best if you are going by only one general, commonly available stat. The sum of the component stats is better of course.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

ERA+ is best if you are going by only one general, commonly available stat. The sum of the component stats is better of course.


Hehehe im working on a way to combine them in some mathematical way, ive been working on it for a few days and im liking what i can do with this, the thing is i kind of want a general opinion on this so i can combine everyone's knowledge so to speak. Ill weigh accordingly to what most think is the most important.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Desperate to get the word out that ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and W/L or W% are bad statistics by which to judge pitching.
Any stat alone is not good to judge pitching by

[Blackout]

None of those stats...no matter how many you use...are good to judge pitching by. They're ALL team statistics...not individual pitching statistics.

The best pitching evaluation will IMHO be some combination of the DIPS events, and the pitcher's actual impact on balls in play.

how does the amount of runs you give up become a team stat? :laugh

[leecemark]

--Uh, because the defense behind the pitcher has alot to do with how many runs are allowed?

[Blackout]

--Uh, because the defense behind the pitcher has alot to do with how many runs are allowed?

those would be scored as an error

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Um...no blackout...those would be scored as singles...doubles...triples...

You know...things that aren't errors but that the pitcher doesn't control?

Once the bat and ball tuch, the pitcher has no ability to impact apart form his own defense. Some pitchers have been proven to have a minor impact on the in play hit rate, but...not more than 60...SIXTY...out of 30,000...
Well, that's not technically true. The pitcher is also a defensive player also, right? He does occasionally field ground balls and popups. And yes, I'm being nitpicky.;) Your statement is generally true, though.

[RuthMayBond]

This thread is about the saddest thing I've ever seen.

K/BB
K/9
BB/9
HR/9
IPHR/9 say nothing about context, and none of the other stats say anything about BATTED balls. If K/BB was so great, that makes Randy Johnson/Bob Gibson not so good and Babe Adams/Deacon Phillippe really good

[RuthMayBond]

Um...no blackout...those would be scored as singles...doubles...triples...

You know...things that aren't errors but that the pitcher doesn't control?

Once the bat and ball tuch, the pitcher has no ability to impact apart form his own defense. Some pitchers have been proven to have a minor impact on the in play hit rate, but...not more than 60...SIXTY...out of 30,000...I still don't get this. I could throw the ball over the plate and have a great walks ratio, but I'm not responsible for the HRs I give up to every other batter?

[Brian McKenna]

this is the problem with statistical analysis - there is no consensus - in the end less than 1% of baseball fans give a rat's ass about the ratios outside the fantasy crowd - this number here, that number there - who cares - i want to hear a story - no statistician is ever going to define greg maddux for me - no one is going to tell me that strikeout pitchers are gods and the others suck

sabr is a private organization that encompasses a wide range of research and historians - it is not for one individual to be expressing his/her views, especially with arrogance and contempt for other opinions, under its moniker

[leecemark]

--I definately don't agree that pitchers don't have any control over balls in play. The type of pitches you are able to throw/command and your skill in locating them can definately make a difference in where/how hard a ball is hit. DIPS theory greatly understates pitcher value. During the course of a season, or even several seasons with the same team behind him, a pitcher may look better or worse than he really is (and that may vary for pitchers on the same team due to gb/fb tendancies or plain old luck). Over the course of a long career it should even out enough for most pitchers that ERA+ will be a fairly good indicator of quality. Used in isolation it miss mislead some, but it is the best starting point.

[RuthMayBond]

Um...no blackout...those would be scored as singles...doubles...triples...

You know...things that aren't errors but that the pitcher doesn't control?

Once the bat and ball tuch, the pitcher has no ability to impact apart form his own defense. Some pitchers have been proven to have a minor impact on the in play hit rate, but...not more than 60...SIXTY...out of 30,000...30,000 what, exactly?

[RuthMayBond]

This thread is about the saddest thing I've ever seen.

K/BB
K/9
BB/9
HR/9
IPI'm glad bbref started posting K/BB because it's one stat that doesn't favor one era too much. The only thing is, look at bbref's lifetime leaders, like #5 Jon Lieber, #11 Sam Weaver, #14 Shane Reynolds.
NONE of the guys on the ERA+ lifetime leaders are crap.

[RuthMayBond]

Um...yes...you are. HRs are a DIPS event.

Duh.Ok, what if guys are slamming my pitches off the wall, into the gaps ,such that no OF could be expected to get to them?

[Blackout]

I'm glad bbref started posting K/BB because it's one stat that doesn't favor one era too much. The only thing is, look at bbref's lifetime leaders, like #5 Jon Lieber, #11 Sam Weaver, #14 Shane Reynolds.
NONE of the guys on the ERA+ lifetime leaders are crap.


Jon Leiber for Cooperstown

[RuthMayBond]

Then you would have a significantly worse in play hit rate than the other pitchers on your team and I would detect that in my analysis. Of course generally speaking, if you're getting hit hard enough to be giving up tons of wall bangers..you're also giving up home runs too.Nah, I'm an early 20th century guy, the anti-Blyleven. But at least you're starting to talk about hits, which affect runs more than the walks & strikeouts you were talking about

[RuthMayBond]

I've always talked about hits in the limited capacity with which pitchers can effect them.

The strikeout itself isn't what helps the pitcher...it's the lack of a ball in play that helps a pitcher. Each time a pitcher allows a ball in play, he's taking about a 28% chance in most seasons and teams that it will be one of those hits you care so much about...

Think about this RMB...when a batter squeaks a grounder through the hole at short...how is that so different than when he hits it right to the SS...same weak roller...this one just found a hole. When a batter pops one into shallow center...how is that so different than when he pops out the left fielder. When a batter hits a double into the gap in right center...how is that so different than when he flies out to deep center?

When you realize how impossible it is for the pitcher to control EXACTLY where the ball goes when it's hit, you will understand why scoring pitchers on the hits they give up is folly. Of course we have to consider hits...in that we need to know whether the pitcher had an impact on hits that can be identified...(I take the in play hit rate of his team when he's not on the mound and compare it to the in play hit rate when he is...that's a pretty stable way of seeing whether he's had an effect), but just looking at hit rates or ERA+ or ERA isn't going to get you anywhere.Well, I've never heard anyone explain it this way, so I see where you're coming from :clapping :clapping :clapping

[BoSox Rule]

1. K/bb
2. Bb/9
3. Hr/9
4. K/9
5. G/f

[RuthMayBond]

Hey...if El Halo hates walks, strikeouts and home runs...shouldn't Maddux be like his god? :) I mean the guy creates fewer walks, strikeouts and home runs than just about anyone else in major league history relative to his era...seems like the poster-child for ElHaloBall. :)You're assuming ElHalo is rational. He hates batter strikeouts, but he wants his pitchers to strike them out

[Captain Cold Nose]

The topic at hand is most important pitching stats, not Elhalo. Please refrain from the continued thinly veiled personal attacks, or at least take them to pms where you can deal with him and your disagreements one on one.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That wasn't a personal attack..that was a philosophical debating point...there's a huge difference. I was making a point about a discontinuity between what he values in his pitchers (entirely relevant to this thread) and what he values in his hitters.

If you can't handle me disagreeing rationally with another poster here and making my case strenuously...that's not my problem.
He's not even here right now and you're still going on and on. If that's rational . . .

[Captain Cold Nose]

On and on?

Yeah...cause making one post is going on and on...(end sarcasm)

Unkink your briefs and chill out dude.
You really need to look in the mirror and take your own advice.

[csh19792001]

Once the bat and ball tuch, the pitcher has no ability to impact apart form his own defense. Some pitchers have been proven to have a minor impact on the in play hit rate, but...not more than 60...SIXTY...out of 30,000...

Doesn't pitching ability/sklll, and overall "stuff" affect how well (and how often) the bat and ball touch though, Matt?

Isn't that the point?

[Bill Burgess]

Let's use a concrete example.

Let's compare Mathewson/Brown.

Matty won more with a worse team, so he was presumably a better pitcher, right?

But a Devil's Advocate might ask, "Maybe Brown's team was better because of Brown, Reulbach, Overall, etc. Better pitching made the Cubs better".

But a Matty advocate might come back with, "No, the Cubs hit better too."

So I think a more scientific method would be to calculate how many runs a pitcher received, indexed to the league average, and see whose run support was greater. If we ever have a stat, based on a pitcher's run support, compared against the League average, we can then assign points for whom overcame the least run support the best.

Does that sound rational, Matt?

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Have you seen me get angry at EH in this little mini-thread? Not one iota...just asking a reasonable question...

He didn't say you were angry at him, though; that wasn't his objection. He said you were openly mocking him in his absence.

[digglahhh]

Matt,

Let's get a little philosophical, old school Platonic, if you will. I'm going to give you two sets of assertions to choose from, pick one from each:

A pitcher is good because he strikes batters out.
A pitcher strikes batters out because he is good.

A pitcher is good because he is successful.
A pitcher is successful because he is good.


Wouldn't it stand to reason that the skill and success of the pitcher is contained within the pitcher himself and most closely related with his abilities AS A PITCHER. A pitcher's "goodness" is the essential and elements quality here, from which all subsequent accomplishments branch.

All the rest is window dressing. You seem to gravitate towards the pedantic, as if there is an intrinsic relationship between abstraction or complexity and truth and insight. Greg Maddux is not a good pitcher because he does all the things you think makes a good pitcher. GREG MADDUX IS AN AMAZING PITCHER INDEPENDENT OF ANY ANALYSIS OF HIS PERFORMANCE. He is not good because he does these things- HE DOES THEM BECAUSE HE'S GOOD.

DIPS is somewhat admirable in spirit, but REDUCTIONIST, in practice, downright myopic in the hyper-practice in which you engage. Didn't you just post some outrageous list of all time pitchers that ripped apart by our constituency?

I assure we, we are not the ignorant mass calling the heliocentric model heresy.

I would advise you to read the first chapter of the NYT bestseller, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. It details a very high quality forgery of a priceless ancient statue that was purchased by a museum. All the "experts" with the forensic geology or whatever concluded it was real. Art historians, and learned observers took one look at it and felt viscerally, that it was a forgery. After rigorous research and analytic scrutinization is was determined the statue was a fake. A conclusion, viscerally obvious to those who didn't fall victim to paralysis by analysis and were confident in their education and instincts.

You refuse to listen to your instincts. Because common instinct would tell you Sid Fernandez is not a top 50 pitcher. Yet you reach for the crutch of complex formulae. Perhaps this is a projection of your insecurities, perhaps its easier for you to become the foremost mathematician on this forum than the foremost baseball historian.

[RuthMayBond]

Matt,

Let's get a little philosophical, old school Platonic, if you will. I'm going to give you two sets of assertions to choose from, pick one from each:

A pitcher strikes batters out because he is good.But exhibit A, Matt Clement

<A pitcher is good because he is successful.>

Exhibit B, Ferdie Schupp

[plask_stirlac]

This thread is about the saddest thing I've ever seen.

K/BB
K/9
BB/9
HR/9
IP

So what are some of the most underrated pitching seasons combining all these things?

And how is this not in the stats forum?

[plask_stirlac]

Well not smack-in-the-face obvious ones like Pedro '00 and Big Train '13... you know, the ERA+ ones. :D

Schilling's K/BB jumped out at me... 1998 is probably really underrated since 1997 outshines it some. Sheets '04 will only not be underrated because that's what it will be called. Not that all that matters since it (264 K and 32 BB in 237 IP) is that good. 8.25 to 1. I really wish they had some heavy award to give him since he had a CYA-caliber season besides record... maybe Bronze or Platinum Arms for the dream rotation?

Or Kevin Brown with a 4.60 K/BB in 2000 of all years... probably Tewksbury, too.

[Sirmudgeon]

How about comparitive road attendance figures for all pitchers in the league? Some of your other stats make as much sense. Some things must be intuitive: we feel that Koufax's peak was superior to that of Maddux, yet give the latter the longevity/300 win/HOF nod. It seems that there could be a number of categories, such as Guys You Want For A Season At Their Peak, Guys You Want For Their Career, and Guys You Want For Just One Game. Different criteria for each, in many cases.

Then there's Guys You Don't Want Throwing To Kirk Gibson In The World Series. Eck, how could you?

[Bill Burgess]

Yep...if you want to make sense of wins and losses, you definitely need to look at their average run support is...but even once you neutralize the impact of his run support on his wins and losses...you still have to factor in the impact of his defense behind him...because that will change the rate at which he himself gives up runs...

If you do both of those things though...if you look and see which pitchers managed to win at a higher than expected rate given their run support and the strength of their defense...then you might have a measure you could use to test whether some pitchers have an innate ability to "win"...IOW...do some pitchers pitch to the win better than others all else being equal?

So, the stat we seek must consider ERA+, run support, and pitcher defense, in some coherent formula. Am I on the right track?

[leecemark]

--Run support has nothing to do with the pitcher. It just reflects how lucky (or unlikley) he was in his teammates. Wild variations in run support is one of the reasons why wins are not the best (or close to it) stat in evaluating pitchers. It (run support) has no place in a formula used to identify the best pitchers (except to the modest extent in which a pitchers own offense helps his team).

[Bill Burgess]

My slate of candidates for Best Seasons Ever for a Pitcher:

----Name---------Year------W-L------ShO---ERA+--Inn.--WS---TPR
1. Johnson ----- 1913------36-7------11---258---346---54---8.0
2. Alexander --- 1915------31-10---- 12---225---376---43---7.0
3. Koufax ------ 1965------26-8-------8---160---336---33---4.8
4. Gibson -------1968------22-9------13---258---305---36---7.0
5. Brown ------- 1906------26-6------10---254---277---35---4.9
6. Matty ------- 1909------25-6-------8---223---275---34---5.8
7. Joss -------- 1908------24-11------9---206---325---35---5.0
8. Wood -------- 1912------34-5------10---178---344---44---6.9
9. Coombs ------ 1910------31-9------13---182---353---37---4.2
10. McGinnity -- 1904------35-8-------9---169---408---42---4.3

I give high precedence to ERA+, in conjuction with W-L, Shutouts, and a variety of other stats. Some of the flashier ERA+ seasons of modern vintage by Maddux/Martinez came with too few inninings pitched to make my cut. Sorry about that. I like to see at least 250 innings pitched or so. I have no hard rules.

My award winner, Walter Johnson's 1913 campaign led his league in:
Wins, W-L%, shutouts, CG, innings, SO, ERA, ERA+, Total Baseball's RATIO, Opponents BA, Opponents on-base ave., pitching runs+, wins shares, total pitching wins, fewest hits/g, fewest BB/g, SO/g, Total Baseball's starter runs, adjusted starter runs, total pitcher index.

In other words, Walter swept the boards that year. And he did it while pitching 346 innings. He also won the MVP award. A true evergreen, classic, vintage Year For the Ages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greatest Pitching Seasons:

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc. This list is in order of sequence according to ERA+.

------Name----------yr.---ERA+--Inn.---W-L---ShO--CG-Ratio*-WS*-TPR--PCA

Pedro Martinez-----2000---285---217---18-6----7----4--.617--29--7.3
Greg Maddux--------1995---259---209---19-2---10----3--.673--30--6.2
Walter Johnson-----1913---258---346---36-7---11---29--.665--54--8.0
Bob Gibson---------1968---258---305---22-9---13---28--.771--36--7.0
Mordecai Brown-----1906---253---277---26-6---10---27--.812--35--4.9
Dwight Gooden------1985---226---276---24-4----8---16--.679--33--7.0
Grover Alexander---1915---224---376---31-10--12---36--.754--43--7.0
Christy Mathewson--1909---223---275---25-6----8---26--.834--34--5.8
Lefty Grove--------1931---218---289---31-4----4---27--.785--42--6.3
Cy Young-----------1901---217---371---33-10---5---38--.768--41--5.7
Ron Guidry---------1978---208---273---25-3----9---16--.759--31--5.7
Addie Joss---------1908---205---325---24-11---9---29--.738--35--5.0
Jack Taylor--------1902---203---324---22-11--10---33--.824--32--5.1
Dean Chance--------1964---199---278---20-9---11---15--.823--32--4.6
Spud Chandler------1943---197---253---20-4----5---20--.810--29--5.0
Hal Newhouser------1945---194---313---25-9----8---29--.861--36--6.6
Mort Cooper--------1942---193---279---22-7---10---22--.808--29--5.0
Carl Hubbell-------1933---193---309---23-12--10---22--.817--33--5.1
Tom Seaver---------1971---193---286---20-10---4---21--.793--32--5.7
Randy Johnson------2002---190---260---24-5----8----4--.827--29--6.3
Ed Walsh-----------1910---189---369---18-10---7---33--.733--36--5.8
Warren Spahn-------1953---187---266---23-7----5---24--.803--31--5.3
Lefty Gomez--------1934---185---281---26-5----6---25--.803--31--4.3
Luis Tiant---------1968---185---258---21-0----9---19--.776--28--3.6
Vida Blue----------1971---183---312---24-8----8---24--.787--30--4.8
Jack Coombs--------1910---182---353---31-9---13---35--.886--37--4.2
Steve Carlton------1972---182---346---27-10---8---30--.814--40--6.8
Rube Waddell-------1905---180---328---26-11---7---27--.880--35--5.7
Orvie Overall------1909---179---285---20-11---9---23--.845--30--4.5
Joe Wood-----------1912---178---344---34-5---10---35--.816--44--6.9
Joe McGinnity------1904---178---408---35-8----9---38--.833--42--4.3
Dazzy Vance--------1924---176---309---28-6----3---30--.798--36--6.0
Dizzy Dean---------1934---170---324---30-7----3---29--.867--37--5.3
Stan Coveleski-----1917---167---298---19-14---9---24--.820--29--2.4
Roger Clemens------1986---166---254---24-4----1---10--.759--29--4.9
Jack Chesbro-------1904---158---454---41-12---6---48--.851--53--4.6
Denny McLain-------1968---157---336---31-6----6---28--.810--33--4.4
Sandy Koufax-------1965---156---335---26-8----8---27--.728--33--4.8
Dave McNally-------1968---154---273---22-10---5---18--.780--26--3.2
Bob Feller---------1946---145---371---26-15--10---36--.887--32--4.7
Nolan Ryan---------1972---120---284---19-16---9---20--.948--24--2.0
Whitey Ford--------1961---117---283---25-4----3---11--.879--22--0.9


*ratio = Relative Onbase Ave.; Opponent's Onbase Ave / L. onbase ave.
WS = Bill James' Win Shares
TPR = Total Baseball's Total Player Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Impressive Pitcher's Peaks:

1. Pedro Martinez, 1997-2003,-------215 ERA+

2. Walter Johnson, 1910-1914,-------204 ERA+

3. Roger Clemens, 1986-1992,--------164 ERA+

4. Sandy Koufax, 1961-1966,---------161 ERA+

5. Ed Walsh, 1907-1912,-------------160 ERA+

6. Christy Mathewson, 1903-1909,----155 ERA+

7. Grover Alexander, 1911-1917,-----150 ERA+

8. Rube Waddell, 1902-1908,---------145 ERA+

[Bill Burgess]

--Run support has nothing to do with the pitcher. It just reflects how lucky (or unlikely) he was in his teammates. Wild variations in run support is one of the reasons why wins are not the best (or close to it) stat in evaluating pitchers. It (run support) has no place in a formula used to identify the best pitchers (except to the modest extent in which a pitchers own offense helps his team).

By itself, you are right. Run support has no value. But in conjunction with ERA+ and pitcher defense, perhaps a pattern might be discerned, to give W-L more relevance than it has by itself.

I'm only speculating here, Mark. Not pontificating, as usual.

[538280]

By itself, you are right. Run support has no value. But in conjunction with ERA+ and pitcher defense, perhaps a pattern might be discerned, to give W-L more relevance than it has by itself.

I'm only speculating here, Mark. Not pontificating, as usual.

Maybe instead of mixing the bad, unreliable stat (won-lost record) with ERA+ and others so that it's impact is minimized, we should just not use it at all? Maybe?

Maybe instead of worrying about team dependant stats we should look at the things that are the responsibility of the pitcher alone? Even ERA+ doesn't do that, but it certainly does it better than a won-lost record.

Won-lost records are like RBIs and range factors. A player gets lots of RBI if he A)plays a lot, if B)his teammates hit well, and C)he hits well. A player (like Joe Carter in 1990) can get over 100 RBI entirely on factors A and B as opposed to C. And when using stats, we're not measuring A and B, we're measuring C. Wins are the same way.

Not saying wins are completely useless, but they're nothing but a thumbnail sketch. Any sort of comprehensive reasearch on the greatest pitching seasons of all time should leave them out, Bill.

[Bill Burgess]

Any sort of comprehensive research on the greatest pitching seasons of all time should leave them out, Bill.

I agree. If you read carefully, I suggested a stat which encompassed 3 things.

1. ERA+
2. Run support
3. Pitcher defense

At least that was my intent.

Bill Burgess

[Appling]

Obviously, W-L % is the single most important stat.
Otherwise, Bert Blyleven would be elected to the Hall of Fame some time ago.

[Bill Burgess]

What Bill wants to do I think is create a win-loss metric...or a winning percentage like statistic to make it easier to see and comprehend the context in which a pitcher pitched.

He wants an offense-independent Runs Scored For and a Defense Independent Runs Allowed By...so he can put them together and see the pitcher's true W-L

That would be an interesting way to view pitching skill.

Bill doesn't have a clue what he wants, but he trusts Matt does. Going back to the Matty/Brown example, we need to adjust for Brown having the better team.

I don't know if the Cubs were better offensively, or better defensively. But I must believe that a way can be discovered by Matt to make these adjustments.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You need a "necessary runs" formula that will include team defensive rank, park factors, and how the planets were aligned :D Should be simple enough.

[RuthMayBond]

Obviously, W-L % is the single most important stat.
Otherwise, Bert Blyleven would be elected to the Hall of Fame some time ago.If only that explained Ryan, Eck, Lyons, Niekro, Roberts . . .

[SABR Steve]

1. ERA
2. Innings
3. ball park
4. Completions
5. total run average
6. total bases allowed per game
7. wins above .500

[SABR Steve]

Your forgetting that Martinez needs relief, Johnson didn't. What would Martinez' ERA look like had he been forced to go nine? To me it's a combination of effectiveness and endurance.

[Dasperp]

Your forgetting that Martinez needs relief, Johnson didn't. What would Martinez' ERA look like had he been forced to go nine? To me it's a combination of effectiveness and endurance

And what would Johnson be like if he had to pitch off a lower mound? or in today's smaller ballparks? or against today's weight training (and steroid using) sluggers? or against black and latino players? There are so many problems you encounter when comparing players of such different eras that you can't just say Pedro couldn't have gone nine innings in a four man rotation and have that be the end of it.

[BoSox Rule]

Your forgetting that Martinez needs relief, Johnson didn't. What would Martinez' ERA look like had he been forced to go nine? To me it's a combination of effectiveness and endurance.
This is such an original user name :laugh

[digglahhh]

And what would Johnson be like if he had to pitch off a lower mound? or in today's smaller ballparks? or against today's weight training (and steroid using) sluggers? or against black and latino players? There are so many problems you encounter when comparing players of such different eras that you can't just say Pedro couldn't have gone nine innings in a four man rotation and have that be the end of it.


Agreed.

Some assumptions seem more abled to be extrapolated than others (increasing IP vs. hypothesizing the impact of segregation), but that doesn't make the conclusions any more factual.

I think this is a problem. Numbers are better measuring some things than others (the more tangible the better) and therefore we feel that we can make such assumptions with confidence. Conversely, the abstract considerations are not easily hypothesized, so they are treated as unaddressable. This is the case with the respective concerns for Johnson and Martinez.


BTW, I don't think its a foregone conclusion that Pedro pitching more innings wouldn't have made his season better. By extending Pedro to 275 innigs at say, 85% of his relative effectiveness, you might produce what is considered an even greater result once sample size is considered. In effect, you would be minusing the only knock one can have against that season. I am certainly unconvinced you would wind up with enough of a drop off in overall dominance to actually make it a "worse" season.

Just for kicks let's take this hypothetical:

We'll extend Pedro's IP by 1/3 to 289

then we'll assume that over those extra 72 innings he pitched to the tune of a 3.00 ERA (a 58% increase in ERA)

Pedro would then finish that season with a 2.05 ERA over 289 innings as opposed to a 1.74 ERA over 217. Which is more impressive? I guess that depends on your taste

Assuming one K per inning over this streach (his actual K/9 was almost 12, that season) he would also wind up with 356 strikeouts.

This is not to mention how his win, CG or shutout totals may also inflate.

His Rel. ERA undajusted for ballpark would still 241, and he would have led the league in IP by over 50.

The point is, even extrapolating a severe drop-off in efficiency and compounding Pedro's season, you get one of utter (possibly even greater) domination.

All these adjustments are abitrary, but the point remains rather clear. No adjustment of that season for workload, etc. can mute how amazing that season was.

[SABR Matt]

Agreed.

Some assumptions seem more abled to be extrapolated than others (increasing IP vs. hypothesizing the impact of segregation), but that doesn't make the conclusions any more factual.

I think this is a problem. Numbers are better measuring some things than others (the more tangible the better) and therefore we feel that we can make such assumptions with confidence. Conversely, the abstract considerations are not easily hypothesized, so they are treated as unaddressable. This is the case with the respective concerns for Johnson and Martinez.


BTW, I don't think its a foregone conclusion that Pedro pitching more innings wouldn't have made his season better. By extending Pedro to 275 innigs at say, 85% of his relative effectiveness, you might produce what is considered an even greater result once sample size is considered. In effect, you would be minusing the only knock one can have against that season. I am certainly unconvinced you would wind up with enough of a drop off in overall dominance to actually make it a "worse" season.

Just for kicks let's take this hypothetical:

We'll extend Pedro's IP by 1/3 to 289

then we'll assume that over those extra 72 innings he pitched to the tune of a 3.00 ERA (a 58% increase in ERA)

Pedro would then finish that season with a 2.05 ERA over 289 innings as opposed to a 1.74 ERA over 217. Which is more impressive? I guess that depends on your taste

Assuming one K per inning over this streach (his actual K/9 was almost 12, that season) he would also wind up with 356 strikeouts.

This is not to mention how his win, CG or shutout totals may also inflate.

His Rel. ERA undajusted for ballpark would still 241, and he would have led the league in IP by over 50.

The point is, even extrapolating a severe drop-off in efficiency and compounding Pedro's season, you get one of utter (possibly even greater) domination.

All these adjustments are abitrary, but the point remains rather clear. No adjustment of that season for workload, etc. can mute how amazing that season was.

Nice post digglahhh.

I do think however that we can get some idea of how a pitcher would respond to an increased workload by studying that pitcher's effectiveness as his innings mount in each game and as they mount over the course of a full season. That's one form of situational analysis I intend to explore at some point down the road.

[digglahhh]

Thanks Matt.

I would think your idea is possible, and I'd be interested in seeing what you find,but there are so many variables, opposing team, situation...

I would need to see a crystal clear trend to make a determination as to a direct causal relationship. The idea that as a pitcher pitches more innings in more games, and then more games, he weakens is certainly logistically syllogistic, but I'm not going take it as a given.

I don't know if we really clash as much as it seems. I just think that I have a high burden of proof when evaluating your type of work. I'm willing to allow a lot more random variation in numbers than most, because I feel the game has infinite variables and situations.

As we've seen with Pedro, the accomplishments over 217 innings leave plenty of room for a drop off while still maintaining "dominance" throughout the season, at least on paper.

If it becomes clear that there is a directly proportionate relationship between Pedro's attrition and number on innings, or pitches, or games throughout a game/season. I'd have to recognize it.

The nature of the downturn would be important too. If it was a deliberate but relatively slowly incremental process I wouldn't mind so much, b/c at this rate he still would probably be better than any choice in a manager's bullpen, save perhaps the closer. If the curve was exponential, then that would show that there was clearly a wall to Pedro's effectiveness.

One thing that has always amazed me about Pedro is how he can strike out so many but still go deep into games with a relatively low pitch count. Pedro as dominant a K artist as anyone, but what makes him unique is that his make-up is more like that of a Greg Maddux than a Randy Johnson.

[Brew Fan]

Winning % above team

http://baseballgm.blogspot.com

[csh19792001]

Winning % above team

http://baseballgm.blogspot.com

That's actually a very flawed way of measuring things (I once thought it was a very accurate way of assessing things, as well). Why?

Pretty simply... a guy on a great team can't seperate himself as much in terms of percentage as a guy on a bad team.

Example: Even if Maddux had gone 21-0 in 1995, he wouldn't have been able to even come close to surpassing Steve Carlton's .461 pt WPCT differential from his 1972 campaign. Totally unfair to penalize Greg further due to being on a great team.

There's an excellent article in the latest SABR Baseball Research Journal (from which I excerpted the example above) that looks at normalized winning percentage used in combination with Wins Above Team (Palmer's Total Baseball metric). I think it's more fair, and doesn't double penalize pitchers who were, overall, on above average teams.

[SABR Matt]

It still misses another important point. Pitchers on the same team don't necessarily get the same run support. You don't believe me...you talk to Ryan Franklin.

[csh19792001]

It still misses another important point. Pitchers on the same team don't necessarily get the same run support. You don't believe me...you talk to Ryan Franklin.

Oh, I know. There's definately more to the story, you're absolutely right.

Ever heard of the Marichal-Perry syndrome? You can google it. A blogger came up with that and MOWP (Median Offensive Winning Percentage).

The link is dead, which SUCKS. But I found some fantastic stuff there. Very equilizing.

http://baseballblogs.org/entries.php?start=0&date=2004-08-16

http://runsupportindex.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_runsupportindex_archive.html

[Dontworry]

Both ERA and WHIP are flawed, and the flaws in both are related to the defense behind the pitcher.
A pitcher for a strong defensive team (one that takes away hits with its defense) will have a better WHIP than the same pitcher for a weak defensive team (one that gives away hits that might otherwise be outs).
On the other hand, a pitcher for an error-prone team will see his ERA benefit from those errors when they're followed by hits and unearned runs, even though he's the one letting up those post-error hits. The same pitcher for a team that doesn't make errors will see his ERA take a hit because of the lack of unearned runs.
Give me RPG -- runs allowed per game (nine innings).

[Splintergroup]

Both ERA and WHIP are flawed, and the flaws in both are related to the defense behind the pitcher.
A pitcher for a strong defensive team (one that takes away hits with its defense) will have a better WHIP than the same pitcher for a weak defensive team (one that gives away hits that might otherwise be outs).
On the other hand, a pitcher for an error-prone team will see his ERA benefit from those errors when they're followed by hits and unearned runs, even though he's the one letting up those post-error hits. The same pitcher for a team that doesn't make errors will see his ERA take a hit because of the lack of unearned runs.
Give me RPG -- runs allowed per game (nine innings).

Interesting. but how much difference could a bad defensive team really make in improving a pitchers ERA?

[SABR Matt]

Well a bad team defense would make a pitcher's ERA worse...:D

But in all seriousness, the difference between a good defense and a bad one is about 40 points in DER (defensive efficiency rating...the rate at which balls in play become outs)...that's...a pretty big swing. the normal DER is .690...bad teams are around .665-.670...good ones around around .710 (although the 2003 Mariners had an eye popping .721 DER)...that could have a tremendous impact on run scoring.

[Chisox]

Both ERA and WHIP are flawed, and the flaws in both are related to the defense behind the pitcher.
A pitcher for a strong defensive team (one that takes away hits with its defense) will have a better WHIP than the same pitcher for a weak defensive team (one that gives away hits that might otherwise be outs).
On the other hand, a pitcher for an error-prone team will see his ERA benefit from those errors when they're followed by hits and unearned runs, even though he's the one letting up those post-error hits. The same pitcher for a team that doesn't make errors will see his ERA take a hit because of the lack of unearned runs.
Give me RPG -- runs allowed per game (nine innings).

So total runs allowed is less defensive dependant than earned runs allowed?:confused: :confused: :noidea :noidea :noidea :noidea

[SABR Matt]

no....I avoid the use of runs allowed (period) in my evaluation of pitchers. DIPS Theory makes it a lot easier to see what the pitcher is doing and what the fielders behind him are doing.

[HogWash]

There is no best pitching stat. You have to judge them on a variety of stats.

[Chisox]

no....I avoid the use of runs allowed (period) in my evaluation of pitchers. DIPS Theory makes it a lot easier to see what the pitcher is doing and what the fielders behind him are doing.

I wish we had the same stats for pitchers as we have for offense.

BTW, did you think I was questioning you or were just responding? I really want dontworry to answer that. I'm really confused.


There is no best pitching stat. You have to judge them on a variety of stats.

Totally agree there. Just like offense.

[SABR Matt]

I was just responding...sorry...didn't mean to get in the way. :D

Yeah...good pitching statistics aren't readily available in a "quick find" manner...I intend to fix that, but it's taking me a while to find programmers with any free time.