Dave Cone and Orel Hershiser

[ChrisLDuncan]

Are they a hall of famers?

I say yes to both, however I would say that Cone is more deserving. Cone was a legit big game pitcher, there wasn't a situation where he was uncomfortable pitching. He may not have the career stats, but as far as a resume goes he has it pretty full. Couple of rings (career 2.12 ERA in the WS), a perfect game, and a Cy Young. Also the big game pitcher is an underrated thing in my book. Everyone says that Maddux is a first ballot HoFer (no disagreements here) however in a big game I'd take Cone over Maddux. So I think that has to be accounted for, I dunno that's just my justifaction.

[mtortolero]

If someone as Hoffman deserves the HOF with less than 900 IP then why not Cone, who works three times more in IP and fiinished with four times the wins that Hoffman has.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If someone as Hoffman deserves the HOF with less than 900 IP then why not Cone, who works three times more in IP and fiinished with four times the wins that Hoffman has.
You can't compare a closer to a starter using starter's numbers. Not valid.
Neither belong in the HOF. They were both very good pitchers but not HOF-caliber.

[Brooklyn]

Hershiser had one of the best runs of all-time, starting with the last 59 innings of 1988 right through carrying a weak hitting Dodgers team to a World Championship. He should be in any conversation of the best 2 month stretch ever by a pitcher.

He actually had a nice 5-year run from 1985-1989 with 4 out of 5 very good years, although his W/L hardly reflected that. After that, he was really not any better than an average pitcher

I really like Hershiser, but he falls short, and there are several other more worthy candidates on the outside looking in.

[KCGHOST]

Hershiser, who had a good career, isn't even close to HoF caliber to me. He had a nice five year run spread over six seasons (1986 was not good). His career ERA+ of 122 if good but not exceptiona as is his career RSAA of 124. From age 31 on he was just "a guy".

Cone is another matter. His RSAA of 228 is very good. His ERA+ of 120. That's almost identical totals to Don Drysdale (221/121). However it is somewhat below my HoF standard of 250/125. Also, Kevin Appier totals are 225/120. He's in a group of pitchers where some make it and some don't. I tend to say "No", but wouldn't be offended if he made it.

[mtortolero]

You can't compare a closer to a starter using starter's numbers. Not valid.
Neither belong in the HOF. They were both very good pitchers but not HOF-caliber.
I know a closer is not comparative with a starter but looking as the workload bar for Hoffman has been adjusted to the point that with only 882 IP , only 1.07 IP per game played and the pocket full of cheap saves he is considered a HOF then the bar with SP who worked a lot more than Hoffman must be adjusted too.
Cone has the same ERA+ , better WL% and 400 more SO than Tom Glavine in less innings. Cone`s record (196-124) is better than Dazzy Vance (197-140) , he was CY once and deserves other one in 1988 (won by Hershiser) .
Cone had HOF quality as pitcher but finnished short in the number that voters see: how manny wins he had.

[brett]

Cone deserves serious consideration. In no way can I put Hershizer clearly above the likes of Gooden, Guidry, Saberhagen, Valenzuela, and maybe not even Dave Steib or Frank Viola. He had one fantastic and one real good year. Gooden had a fantastic year and at least 3 more very good ones and several other double digit .500+ seasons. Saberhagen won 2 CY's and WS MVP. Guidry won a CY in similar fashion to Hershizers, and had 2 more near misses.


Are they a hall of famers?

I say yes to both, however I would say that Cone is more deserving. Cone was a legit big game pitcher, there wasn't a situation where he was uncomfortable pitching. He may not have the career stats, but as far as a resume goes he has it pretty full. Couple of rings (career 2.12 ERA in the WS), a perfect game, and a Cy Young. Also the big game pitcher is an underrated thing in my book. Everyone says that Maddux is a first ballot HoFer (no disagreements here) however in a big game I'd take Cone over Maddux. So I think that has to be accounted for, I dunno that's just my justifaction.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cone deserves serious consideration. In no way can I put Hershizer clearly above the likes of Gooden, Guidry, Saberhagen, Valenzuela, and maybe not even Dave Steib or Frank Viola. He had one fantastic and one real good year. Gooden had a fantastic year and at least 3 more very good ones and several other double digit .500+ seasons. Saberhagen won 2 CY's and WS MVP. Guidry won a CY in similar fashion to Hershizers, and had 2 more near misses.

So is Cone in or out for you? I mean as far as peak value goes he was about as good as any, plus the dude was a serious big game pitcher.

[candy curveball cummings]

I know a closer is not comparative with a starter but looking as the workload bar for Hoffman has been adjusted to the point that with only 882 IP , only 1.07 IP per game played and the pocket full of cheap saves he is considered a HOF then the bar with SP who worked a lot more than Hoffman must be adjusted too.
Cone has the same ERA+ , better WL% and 400 more SO than Tom Glavine in less innings. Cone`s record (196-124) is better than Dazzy Vance (197-140) , he was CY once and deserves other one in 1988 (won by Hershiser) .
Cone had HOF quality as pitcher but finnished short in the number that voters see: how manny wins he had.

I'd like to know why Cone deserved the CY in 1988 rather than Hershiser. They are practically identical in statistics, but Hershiser had his amazing stretch at the end of the season.


As for the point of this thread, I think Cone deserves consideration. He's the kind of guy that is so borderline it's crazy. There are a lot of pitchers worse than he was in the Hall and pitchers outside the Hall that are better than he was. If I got to vote, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but if he gets in, It doesn't bother me.

Hershiser on the other hand shouldn't be a Hall of Famer. Sure he has more wins than Cone, but when it comes to the stats that matter, Cone is simply better.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'd like to know why Cone deserved the CY in 1988 rather than Hershiser. They are practically identical in statistics, but Hershiser had his amazing stretch at the end of the season.


As for the point of this thread, I think Cone deserves consideration. He's the kind of guy that is so borderline it's crazy. There are a lot of pitchers worse than he was in the Hall and pitchers outside the Hall that are better than he was. If I got to vote, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but if he gets in, It doesn't bother me.

Hershiser on the other hand shouldn't be a Hall of Famer. Sure he has more wins than Cone, but when it comes to the stats that matter, Cone is simply better.

Most people forget what's on Cone's resume. I mean a perfect game is pretty amazing, plus his performance in the WS was lights out.

[candy curveball cummings]

Most people forget what's on Cone's resume. I mean a perfect game is pretty amazing, plus his performance in the WS was lights out.

Yeah, but Len Barker threw a perfect game too.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I wasn't saying that a perfect game gets you in, all I'm saying that Cone's on the resume is the career wins.

[candy curveball cummings]

I wasn't saying that a perfect game gets you in, all I'm saying that Cone's on the resume is the career wins.

Okay. Cone makes a good case. Like I said, borderline. Let him, keep him out. either way, I don't care. He certainly isn't Blyleven, where he has a clear case for the Hall but still isn't in.

[mtortolero]

I'd like to know why Cone deserved the CY in 1988 rather than Hershiser. They are practically identical in statistics, but Hershiser had his amazing stretch at the end of the season.


As for the point of this thread, I think Cone deserves consideration. He's the kind of guy that is so borderline it's crazy. There are a lot of pitchers worse than he was in the Hall and pitchers outside the Hall that are better than he was. If I got to vote, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but if he gets in, It doesn't bother me.

Hershiser on the other hand shouldn't be a Hall of Famer. Sure he has more wins than Cone, but when it comes to the stats that matter, Cone is simply better.


Hershiser won the CY that year, as you say, by his amazing stretch at the end ofthe seaon and because he was the leader in innings pitched and games won in the NL.
However they were very very similars as pitchers in ERA (2.26 by Hershiser vs 2.22 by Cone) ERA+ (148 vs 145 ), and Whip (1.05 vs 1.11) .
Cone was 2th in SO with 213 in 231 IP , just behind the strikeout machine Nolan Ryan (228), meanwhile Hershiser was far from both pitchers with 178 SO in 267 IP.
Hershiser had better BB/IP (2.46 vs 3.11) but Cone had a huge better Hr/9 ratio (0.60 vs 0.38).
In Triple Crown :
Cone was #3 in wins,#2 in SO and #2 in ERA.
Hershiser was #1 in wins, #7 in SO and #3 in ERA
Cone record was 20 - 3 in 28 GS , 870 WL% ( the best in the league) Hershiser record was 23-8 in 34 GS (.742, fourth best in the league).
I see Cone´s regular season a slightly better than Hershiser.
But that was the year for Hershiser: in october he was the MVP in both, NLCS (against Cone´s Mets) and WS (against Oakland).

[Pine Tar]

I like Cone for the hall more than most. This is strickly based on his prime years from 1988 - 1999. I look at Cone as sort of the Albert Belle of pitchers minus the bad attitude, but plus five world series rings and a great postseason record.

Here are the total statistics from Cone's 12-year prime from 1988-1999.
W_____175
L______96
WL%___65%
IP_____2468.1
Hits____2028
SO_____2331
SO/9____8.5
ERA_____3.15
LgERA___4.18
ERA+____132

His ERA+ of 132 over nearly 2500 innings pitched over this time is really remarkable. By my counts, there are only 6 pitchers since WWII that have career ERA+ of better than 130 and have pitched at least 2000 innings, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Maddux, Koufax, and Ford.
I know its not fair to just look at prime years and then compare them to career totals, but if you look at Cone's career stats, he only pitched 400 more innings that wouldn't be considered prime years. These innings really hurt his career numbers because they were so bad. So I'm not sure how to count them. I mean, if a pitcher gets called up as a rookie for a couple years and stinks, should that hurt him? And if he decides to try a come back and stinks should that hurt him? If so, how much. These are hard questions to answer IMO.

[brett]

Well, this stretch alone is pretty much equal to Koufax's career. Koufax had a career 131 ERA+ for about 2300 innings, versus 132 for cone through 2400+ during the prime. Plus Cone would have to be as important a post season player, if not much more. Won 2 CY's and 3 more close finishes (2nd, 4th and 4th).

Here are a few ERA+ and IP for some "similar" guys:

Cone 2899/120
Saberhagen 2563/126
Guidry 2392/120
Steib 2895/122
Gooden 2800/110
Valenzuela 2930/103
Brown 3256/127
Mussina (through '05) 3123/125

Cone and Steib are almost identical, with Cone having the big seasons in his favor. Brown and Mussina look much stronger career wise, except for no huge seasons. Saberhagen and Guidry both were similar big season pitchers to Cone. Brown and Mussina get in before I start talking about Cone, but he probably has an edge on the rest of this pack.


I like Cone for the hall more than most. This is strickly based on his prime years from 1988 - 1999. I look at Cone as sort of the Albert Belle of pitchers minus the bad attitude, but plus five world series rings and a great postseason record.

Here are the total statistics from Cone's 12-year prime from 1988-1999.
W_____175
L______96
WL%___65%
IP_____2468.1
Hits____2028
SO_____2331
SO/9____8.5
ERA_____3.15
LgERA___4.18
ERA+____132

His ERA+ of 132 over nearly 2500 innings pitched over this time is really remarkable. By my counts, there are only 6 pitchers since WWII that have career ERA+ of better than 130 and have pitched at least 2000 innings, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Maddux, Koufax, and Ford.

[STLCards2]

Cone has the same ERA+ , better WL% and 400 more SO than Tom Glavine in less innings.

That is the key. A 120 ERA+ in 4,200 IP (Glavine), is much more impressive than a 120 ERA+ in 2,900 IP (Cone) That is over 6 extra seasons worth of high-quality pitching for Glavine.

By the way, Glavine's 12 year peak ERA+ was also 132. Throw him in with the other guys mentioned. i am pretty sure that Brown, Mussina, and Schilling are pretty close if not over as well.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You guys are forgetting what made Dave Cone Dave Cone. THe big game pitcher aspect of his career can't be overlooked, maybe I am overrating it, but the dude was good in the big game.

[STLCards2]

Cone's ERA in post-season games was actualy over .3 runs higher than his regular season ERA. Of course he was consistantly going against good offenses in the playoffs, but 3.80 is hardly a spectacular post-season mark. In comparison, Glavine (who everybody slams for his poor post-season numbers) has a slightly-above 3.50 ERA in the playoffs.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cone's WS ERA was 2.12...which is amazing.

[STLCards2]

Cone's WS ERA was 2.12...which is amazing.

If that is true, than Cone must have really gotten kicked around in the other rounds.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If that is true, than Cone must have really gotten kicked around in the other rounds.

He wasn't as on in the DS, however in WS play his teams were 5-0, I'm saying that Dave Cone is Tom Glavine...all I'm saying is that he was a damn good pitcher and he is a legit HoFer

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cone's ERA in post-season games was actualy over .3 runs higher than his regular season ERA. Of course he was consistantly going against good offenses in the playoffs, but 3.80 is hardly a spectacular post-season mark. In comparison, Glavine (who everybody slams for his poor post-season numbers) has a slightly-above 3.50 ERA in the playoffs.

Yeah Glavine was good in the post season I remember in 95 when Maddux (not exactly one of the top twenty guys I'd like in the big game), went 7IP and gave up 4 ER, and than in Game 6 Glavine pitched 8 shut out innings in a 1-0 performance to clintch it for the Braves.

[candy curveball cummings]

Yeah Glavine was good in the post season I remember in 95 when Maddux (not exactly one of the top twenty guys I'd like in the big game), went 7IP and gave up 4 ER, and than in Game 6 Glavine pitched 8 shut out innings in a 1-0 performance to clintch it for the Braves.

Okay, I let it go by before, but now I'll call you on it. You mentioned Cone's WS ERA being 2.12. Maddux's WS ERA 2.08.

[ChrisLDuncan]

How many times did he pitch in the winning game of the WS, oh yeah that's right NONE, and his record is 1-2, and if it weren't for Tom Glavine or John Smoltz I don't know if Maddux gets a ring. Yeah Maddux is great, a better pitcher than Glavine, Smoltz, and Cone...but big game pitcher I dunno.

[Captain Cold Nose]

How many times did he pitch in the winning game of the WS, oh yeah that's right NONE, and his record is 1-2, and if it weren't for Tom Glavine or John Smoltz I don't know if Maddux gets a ring. Yeah Maddux is great, a better pitcher than Glavine, Smoltz, and Cone...but big game pitcher I dunno.
If it weren't for Maddux being baseball's best pitcher, the Braves may never have had the chance to even go to the World Series, especially in 1995, the year they won.

Don't ignore how they got to where they ended up. It's a long season.

Baseball is still a team sport. You have to be careful in giving a pitcher too much credit for a World Series victory. No knock on Cone, he was a very good pitcher. He is not the best postseason pitcher ever.

[cup2006sensrule]

I know a closer is not comparative with a starter but looking as the workload bar for Hoffman has been adjusted to the point that with only 882 IP , only 1.07 IP per game played and the pocket full of cheap saves he is considered a HOF then the bar with SP who worked a lot more than Hoffman must be adjusted too.
Cone has the same ERA+ , better WL% and 400 more SO than Tom Glavine in less innings. Cone`s record (196-124) is better than Dazzy Vance (197-140) , he was CY once and deserves other one in 1988 (won by Hershiser) .
Cone had HOF quality as pitcher but finnished short in the number that voters see: how manny wins he had.

Hershiser was the deserved unanimous Cy winner in 1988. Cone while he had a great season has no argument whatsoever that he should have won the Cy Young. Having a 0.04 lead in ERA means very, very little considering the season Hershiser put up that year. Pitching from the bullpen, his record 59 shutout innings down the stretch, his fielding and hitting. Orel's 1988 season including the playoffs is an alltime great pitching year. He may have had "only" a 148 ERA+ (Cone's was 145) but in the context of what he did for his team which won the WS, his playoff performance and his play down the stretch as well as leading the majors in innings, batters faced etc. 15 Complete games!

Not only did Hershiser deserve the Cy Young he probably should have won the MVP.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hershiser was the deserved unanimous Cy winner in 1988. Cone while he had a great season has no argument whatsoever that he should have won the Cy Young. Having a 0.04 lead in ERA means very, very little considering the season Hershiser put up that year. Pitching from the bullpen, his record 59 shutout innings down the stretch, his fielding and hitting. Orel's 1988 season including the playoffs is an alltime great pitching year. He may have had "only" a 148 ERA+ (Cone's was 145) but in the context of what he did for his team which won the WS, his playoff performance and his play down the stretch as well as leading the majors in innings, batters faced etc. 15 Complete games!

Not only did Hershiser deserve the Cy Young he probably should have won the MVP.


So do you put him in the hall than?

[dgarza]

Cone is borderline, but I wouldn't have a problem with him.
Hershiser is not quite Hall level, although he should not be left out of the discussion any more than Saberhagen, Gooden, Tiant, or Blue.

David Cone making the Hall would place him up there with Chief Bender.

Oral Hershiser making the Hall would place him along side of Herb Pennock and Jack Chesbro.

[cup2006sensrule]

So do you put him in the hall than?

No but 1988 is an all-time great year that will always be remembered.

[Pine Tar]

That is the key. A 120 ERA+ in 4,200 IP (Glavine), is much more impressive than a 120 ERA+ in 2,900 IP (Cone) That is over 6 extra seasons worth of high-quality pitching for Glavine.

By the way, Glavine's 12 year peak ERA+ was also 132. Throw him in with the other guys mentioned. i am pretty sure that Brown, Mussina, and Schilling are pretty close if not over as well.

You are right that those other players stack up well with Cone when just looking at prime years. The numbers below were from another Cone thread I posted before. As you can see, during his prime years, Cone had an identical ERA+ to Mussina, but interestingly both were much better than Smoltz, while Kevin Brown and Curt Schilling were a bit better. Now I tend tend to think that Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, and Glavine are all going to make the hall eventually.

Brown doesn't seem likley to go to me, although I think he should based on his peak from 96-2000 where he was absolutely dominant and probably the best pitcher in the NL. He just isn't easy to get along with and his last years in NY probably ruined it for him.

So Cone looks to me like he was the best of the rest of the pitchers. So he is very much on the hall border. What puts him over the top for me is his postseason success. He has 5 world series rings.

Basically, he has all the things that people criticize Mussina for not having. He has world series rings, 20-win seasons, and a CY award. To me, this all puts him over the bar.

player___yrs__win%__wins__losses__innings__hi ts__K's_200K_20wins_CY_K/9__ERA__lgERA__ERA+

martinez__ 12__ 71%__ 182__ 75__ 2288__ 1740__ 2645__ 8__ 2___ 3__ 10.4__ 2.71__ 4.51__ 182
Johnson__ 12__ 71%__ 197__ 80__ 2550__ 1963__ 3343__ 12__ 3___ 5__ 11.8__ 2.78__ 4.61__ 168
Brown____ 12__ 60%__ 168__ 113__ 2632__ 2455__ 1901__ 4__ 2___ 0__ 6.5__ 3.20__ 4.19__ 137
schilling___ 13__ 62%__ 180__ 112__ 2667__ 2343__ 2632__ 5__ 3___ 0__ 8.9__ 3.28__ 4.46__ 136
glavine___ 12__ 67%__ 209__ 102__ 2698__ 2514__ 1731__ 0__ 5___ 2__ 5.8__ 3.15__ 4.20__ 136
mussina___ 12__ 65%__ 195__ 105__ 2581__ 2420__ 2074__ 4__ 0___ 0__ 7.2__ 3.55__ 4.58__ 132
Cone_____ 12__ 65%__ 175__ 96___ 2468__ 2028__ 2331__ 6__ 2___ 1__ 8.5__ 3.15__ 4.18__ 132
Appier____ 13__ 57%__ 160__ 123__ 2458__ 2264__ 1927__ 1__ 0___ 0__ 7.1__ 3.60__ 4.60__ 130
saberhagen 12__ 59%__ 141__ 100__ 2227__ 2100__ 1510__ 0__ 2___ 2__ 6.1__ 3.26__ 4.08__ 130
steib_____ 12__ 57%__ 166__ 123__ 2666__ 2337__ 1557__ 0__ 0___ 0__ 5.3__ 3.34__ 4.19__ 129
Guidry____ 10__ 67%__ 163__ 79___ 2186__ 1995__ 1623__ 2__ 3___ 1__ 6.7__ 3.23__ 3.90__ 129
Key______ 13__ 62%__ 176__ 109__ 2450__ 2371__ 1441__ 0__ 0___ 0__ 5.3__ 3.46__ 4.30__ 127
Smoltz___ 11__ 59%__ 155__ 106__ 2350__ 2018__ 2061__ 4__ 1___ 1__ 7.9__ 3.29__ 4.09__ 126
Leiter____ 10__ 57%__ 133__ 99___ 1909__ 1670__ 1591__ 2__ 0___ 0__ 7.5__ 3.46__ 4.25__ 125
hershiser_ 13__ 59%__ 165__ 117__ 2521__ 2316__ 1674__ 0__ 1___ 1__ 6.0__ 3.16__ 3.82__ 125
finley____ 12__ 57%__ 167__ 128__ 2561__ 2422__ 2129__ 3__ 0___ 0__ 7.5__ 3.70__ 4.50__ 124
gooden___ 12__ 65%__ 168__ 92__ 2340__ 2067__ 2001__ 4__ 1___ 1__ 7.7__ 3.24__ 3.74__ 123
viola_____ 11__ 56%__ 170__ 135__ 2634__ 2578__ 1729__ 1__ 2___ 1__ 5.9__ 3.59__ 4.19__ 122
langston_ 12__ 54%__ 166__ 141__ 2648__ 2370__ 2252__ 5__ 0___ 0__ 7.7__ 3.81__ 4.27__ 115
welch____ 12__ 61%__ 176__ 112__ 2540__ 2319__ 1685__ 0__ 1___ 1__ 6.0__ 3.31__ 3.62__ 113
wells_____ 12__ 63%__ 165__ 99__ 2335__ 2458__ 1525__ 0__ 1___ 0__ 5.9__ 4.11__ 4.57__ 113

[overhandgas53]

i say yes to both of them. especially orel.

[brett]

Glavine is a Hall of Famer in my book. In fact, while people will not like it, I put him very close to Steve Carlton. He has everything that Don Sutton had, plus 6 top three CY seasons as well, however, among the rest, I do believe that Brown was the best pitcher. Put Brown in Glavine's situation and he would be in. If Mussina had been washed up this year, I would have said "no" but now it looks like he can at least get to 250. I don't put Schilling or Smotz in just yet. They both need 2-3 more solid years in my book.


Now I tend tend to think that Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, and Glavine are all going to make the hall eventually.

Brown doesn't seem likley to go to me, although I think he should based on his peak from 96-2000 where he was absolutely dominant and probably the best pitcher in the NL.

[Bravesfan1984]

I would say no to Cone Even though he had good seasonss including 2 20 win seasons most of his seasons were average to below average.

Here are some of the average to below average seaons
1986 0-0
1987 5-6
1990 14-10
1991 14-14
1993 11-14
1996 7-2
1997 12-6
1999 12-9
2000 4-14
2001 9-7
2003 1-3

[Mike90]

How many times did he pitch in the winning game of the WS, oh yeah that's right NONE, and his record is 1-2, and if it weren't for Tom Glavine or John Smoltz I don't know if Maddux gets a ring. Yeah Maddux is great, a better pitcher than Glavine, Smoltz, and Cone...but big game pitcher I dunno.

This is professional baseball: every game is big. Do you really think Maddux choked under pressure? Why would you think that? Maddux has a 3.27 ERA in the postseason and a 2.09 ERA in the World Series. You are a fool if you think Cone is a better "big game" pitcher than Maddux.

[Mike90]

I would say no to Cone Even though he had good seasonss including 2 20 win seasons most of his seasons were average to below average.

Here are some of the average to below average seaons
1986 0-0
1987 5-6
1990 14-10
1991 14-14
1993 11-14
1996 7-2
1997 12-6
1999 12-9
2000 4-14
2001 9-7
2003 1-3

In 1996 and '97, Cone's 2.88 and 2.82 ERAs were 74% and 59% better than average respectively. His combined record was 19-8, which is of course well above average. Are you a troll? If you truly believe these things you're posting, then I sincerely apologize for accusing you of trollish behavior, but sometimes it seems like you post purposefully ridiculous comments just so people will attack you.

[Bravesfan1984]

In 1996 and '97, Cone's 2.88 and 2.82 ERAs were 74% and 59% better than average respectively. His combined record was 19-8, which is of course well above average. Are you a troll? If you truly believe these things you're posting, then I sincerely apologize for accusing you of trollish behavior, but sometimes it seems like you post purposefully ridiculous comments just so people will attack you.

You have to look at each indivisual season. Havnig seven wins no matter what the era is not a HOF year especailly when you only pitch 72 innings. In 1997 he should have had more wins he pitched in 29 games but only won 12 of them.

[SamtheBravesFan]

You have to look at each indivisual season. Havnig seven wins no matter what the era is not a HOF year especailly when you only pitch 72 innings. In 1997 he should have had more wins he pitched in 29 games but only won 12 of them.

Have you even bothered to look at why he only won 12 games that year? Cone had six no-decisions where he pitched seven innings or more and gave up three runs or less. You think that's his fault?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'd like to know why Cone deserved the CY in 1988 rather than Hershiser. They are practically identical in statistics, but Hershiser had his amazing stretch at the end of the season.

So Hershiser deserved the CYA in '08 because of five weeks of brilliant work? That's the same argument used for Ryan Howard's MVP case in '08. Here are the records of David Cone, Danny Jackson, and Orel Hershiser on August 24 of the 1988 season. Who was the leading CYA contender at this point of the season?

O. Hershiser 17-8, 2.88 ERA, 135 K's
David Cone 13-3, 2.37 ERA, 173 K's
D. Jackson 18-5, 2.43 ERA, 145 K's

It's obvious the Hershiser was just one of three leading CYA contender 5/6 through the season. I'm ok with Hershiser winning the CYA but the voters were blinded by his scoreless streak. Hershiser wasn't the best pitcher over the entire season. He didn't lead the league in ERA nor Ks, Cone did. However, Hershiser did lead the league in shutouts and complete games which does give more weight to his CYA candidacy. But Cone also won 20 games as well. But break a major record and presto the CYA is yours. Again, I'm ok with Hershiser winning the CYA.

[SABR Matt]

By PCA, David Cone is definitely not a HOF pitcher:

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1986 -0.10 75 0.210
1987 1.35 291 0.270
1988 4.79 686 0.294
1989 3.59 650 0.279
1990 4.62 638 0.297
1991 5.20 710 0.297
1992 1.03 154 0.291
1992 3.00 594 0.275
1993 5.05 736 0.293
1994 7.36 490 0.375
1995 3.13 382 0.306
1995 1.84 288 0.288
1996 3.23 208 0.380
1997 4.94 580 0.309
1998 3.51 623 0.280
1999 3.27 567 0.282
2000 0.58 486 0.236
2001 1.17 418 0.252
2003 0.04 54 0.232

HOF Marker score of 52.6 (128th among all pitchers)

It's possible that he's being underrated by PCA, so let's look at his DNRA+ line:

Year Lg Team Outs RSAM DNRA+
1986 AL KCA 67 -1.1 63
1987 NL NYN 298 15.5 103
1988 NL NYN 695 62.9 134
1989 NL NYN 663 30.0 102
1990 NL NYN 646 53.8 126
1991 NL NYN 702 52.2 121
1992 AL TOR 163 11.7 117
1992 NL NYN 601 36.9 114
1993 AL KCA 756 62.1 120
1994 AL KCA 514 84.1 158
1995 AL NYA 297 25.8 120
1995 AL TOR 396 45.5 135
1996 AL NYA 219 49.1 186
1997 AL NYA 586 68.7 137
1998 AL NYA 605 45.5 114
2000 AL NYA 465 2.1 76
2001 AL BOS 421 21.0 100
2003 NL NYN 54 -0.4 68

Career DNRA+ of 117, which is the same as Camilo Pasqual, Kevin Appier, Tom Glavine and Don Drysdale. So I would have to say that the more sophisticated tool is going to win this argument. Yes to David Cone in the HOF. What about Orel Hershiser? By PCA:

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1983 0.04 23 0.239
1984 6.57 565 0.341
1985 6.83 691 0.323
1986 3.76 693 0.278
1987 5.70 797 0.296
1988 7.67 770 0.324
1989 4.51 766 0.283
1990 0.37 78 0.272
1991 1.60 342 0.271
1992 2.48 633 0.263
1993 4.04 638 0.287
1994 1.34 406 0.257
1995 3.19 485 0.290
1996 2.63 633 0.265
1997 2.42 573 0.266
1998 1.78 596 0.254
1999 2.15 525 0.265
2000 -0.27 83 0.191

HOF Marker of 40.8 (193rd all time)...that would be a resounding no despite his run of ace-hood in the 80s.

Let's look at DNRA+

1983 NL LAN 24 -0.1 70
1984 NL LAN 580 62.0 143
1985 NL LAN 723 90.4 155
1986 NL LAN 714 48.6 116
1987 NL LAN 799 69.1 124
1988 NL LAN 804 67.7 130
1989 NL LAN 754 54.6 121
1990 NL LAN 76 5.5 119
1991 NL LAN 338 19.8 110
1992 NL LAN 650 25.2 98
1993 NL LAN 647 41.0 111
1994 NL LAN 410 21.1 103
1995 AL CLE 499 50.6 127
1996 AL CLE 612 38.1 105
1997 AL CLE 579 34.1 105
1998 NL SFN 604 26.2 98
2000 NL LAN 75 -4.1 43

Career DNRA+ of 115 (again...similar range and similar out count to Cone)...so, I would support his nomination as well.

[STLCards2]

By PCA, David Cone is definitely not a HOF pitcher:

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1986 -0.10 75 0.210
1987 1.35 291 0.270
1988 4.79 686 0.294
1989 3.59 650 0.279
1990 4.62 638 0.297
1991 5.20 710 0.297
1992 1.03 154 0.291
1992 3.00 594 0.275
1993 5.05 736 0.293
1994 7.36 490 0.375
1995 3.13 382 0.306
1995 1.84 288 0.288
1996 3.23 208 0.380
1997 4.94 580 0.309
1998 3.51 623 0.280
1999 3.27 567 0.282
2000 0.58 486 0.236
2001 1.17 418 0.252
2003 0.04 54 0.232

HOF Marker score of 52.6 (128th among all pitchers)

It's possible that he's being underrated by PCA, so let's look at his DNRA+ line:

Year Lg Team Outs RSAM DNRA+
1986 AL KCA 67 -1.1 63
1987 NL NYN 298 15.5 103
1988 NL NYN 695 62.9 134
1989 NL NYN 663 30.0 102
1990 NL NYN 646 53.8 126
1991 NL NYN 702 52.2 121
1992 AL TOR 163 11.7 117
1992 NL NYN 601 36.9 114
1993 AL KCA 756 62.1 120
1994 AL KCA 514 84.1 158
1995 AL NYA 297 25.8 120
1995 AL TOR 396 45.5 135
1996 AL NYA 219 49.1 186
1997 AL NYA 586 68.7 137
1998 AL NYA 605 45.5 114
2000 AL NYA 465 2.1 76
2001 AL BOS 421 21.0 100
2003 NL NYN 54 -0.4 68

Career DNRA+ of 117, which is the same as Camilo Pasqual, Kevin Appier, Tom Glavine and Don Drysdale. So I would have to say that the more sophisticated tool is going to win this argument. Yes to David Cone in the HOF. What about Orel Hershiser? By PCA:

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1983 0.04 23 0.239
1984 6.57 565 0.341
1985 6.83 691 0.323
1986 3.76 693 0.278
1987 5.70 797 0.296
1988 7.67 770 0.324
1989 4.51 766 0.283
1990 0.37 78 0.272
1991 1.60 342 0.271
1992 2.48 633 0.263
1993 4.04 638 0.287
1994 1.34 406 0.257
1995 3.19 485 0.290
1996 2.63 633 0.265
1997 2.42 573 0.266
1998 1.78 596 0.254
1999 2.15 525 0.265
2000 -0.27 83 0.191

HOF Marker of 40.8 (193rd all time)...that would be a resounding no despite his run of ace-hood in the 80s.

Let's look at DNRA+

1983 NL LAN 24 -0.1 70
1984 NL LAN 580 62.0 143
1985 NL LAN 723 90.4 155
1986 NL LAN 714 48.6 116
1987 NL LAN 799 69.1 124
1988 NL LAN 804 67.7 130
1989 NL LAN 754 54.6 121
1990 NL LAN 76 5.5 119
1991 NL LAN 338 19.8 110
1992 NL LAN 650 25.2 98
1993 NL LAN 647 41.0 111
1994 NL LAN 410 21.1 103
1995 AL CLE 499 50.6 127
1996 AL CLE 612 38.1 105
1997 AL CLE 579 34.1 105
1998 NL SFN 604 26.2 98
2000 NL LAN 75 -4.1 43

Career DNRA+ of 115 (again...similar range and similar out count to Cone)...so, I would support his nomination as well.

Based on what you have said, you see to be basing your HOF criteria on a pitcher's DNRA. Since Cone's 117 DNRA is the same a Pasqual's - do you support his induction as well. Or were you just giving your support of Cone and Hershiser without telling us the IP (BFP) adjustments that you did on your own?

[SABR Matt]

Camilo Pasqual would be a HOF candidate as well IMHO. Unless there are extenuating circumstances that I'm not aware of that help explain his 117 DNRA+ in almost 9000 outs as some fluke of performance. All of these guys are bubble candidates...Glavine, Pasqual, Cone etc...all of the guys with DNRA+ lower than 120 but a lot of innings get into the HOF by the value = quantity * quality paradigm. But they're not first ballot guys.

[STLCards2]

Camilo Pasqual would be a HOF candidate as well IMHO. Unless there are extenuating circumstances that I'm not aware of that help explain his 117 DNRA+ in almost 9000 outs as some fluke of performance. All of these guys are bubble candidates...Glavine, Pasqual, Cone etc...all of the guys with DNRA+ lower than 120 but a lot of innings get into the HOF by the value = quantity * quality paradigm. But they're not first ballot guys.

I still don't see how a guy with a 117 DNRA and well over 12,500 outs is a "bubble candidate."

Plus, I have Pasqual has having less than 8,000 outs. Also, how does pasqual get from a 103 ERA+ to a 117 DNRA? Were his defenses that bad? They must have been awful! We are talking the Senators/Twins costing him 15 runs a season bad.

[SABR Matt]

Let's do this...just for fun...let's use DNRA (specifically, marginal runs saved, which accounts for both quality and quantity) to make a list of the top total value earners in the same way PCA's HOF-marker works.

DNRA pitching marker = (RSAM * 2 - Avg. RSAM)/10

When I do that...I get this list (1957-2005, excluding 1999, so keep that in mind...):

First Last DPMarker
Roger Clemens 305.86
Greg Maddux 236.48
Randy Johnson 225.24
Pedro Martinez 198.96
Nolan Ryan 198.37
Tom Seaver 167.92
Gaylord Perry 165.11
Kevin Brown 153.96
Bert Blyleven 153.05
Mike Mussina 144.20
Steve Carlton 143.45
Curt Schilling 129.78
Bob Gibson 122.50
Fergie Jenkins 121.61
Juan Marichal 118.41
Don Sutton 117.60
John Smoltz 115.71
Tommy John 114.79
Tom Glavine 113.11
Phil Niekro 112.14
Dennis Eckersley 111.23
Mariano Rivera 110.99
Sandy Koufax 104.43
Dave Stieb 103.45
Jim Palmer 98.39
Don Drysdale 96.73
Bret Saberhagen 95.91
Rick Reuschel 95.34
Jim Bunning 94.49
David Cone 94.45
Kevin Appier 91.88
Luis Tiant 90.85
Dwight Gooden 90.36
Frank Tanana 90.28
Chuck Finley 89.96
David Wells 89.72
Orel Hershiser 89.14
Sam McDowell 89.11
Jimmy Key 88.83
Rich Gossage 88.07
Tom Gordon 87.93
Ron Guidry 86.98
Andy Pettitte 85.72
Vida Blue 85.15
Mark Langston 85.06
Camilo Pascual 83.04
Kenny Rogers 82.55
Dennis Martinez 80.67
Jerry Koosman 80.21
Larry Jackson 78.73

FWIW. These 50 guys represent the best pitchers during the 1957-2005 period.

BTW STL...you're right...Glavine is not a bubble candidate (because his DI Out count is higher than the rest of the guys we've been talking about)...those other guys fall further down the leaderboard, you'll notice

[STLCards2]

Let's do this...just for fun...let's use DNRA (specifically, marginal runs saved, which accounts for both quality and quantity) to make a list of the top total value earners in the same way PCA's HOF-marker works.

DNRA pitching marker = (RSAM * 2 - Avg. RSAM)/10

When I do that...I get this list (1957-2005, excluding 1999, so keep that in mind...):

First Last DPMarker
Roger Clemens 305.86
Greg Maddux 236.48
Randy Johnson 225.24
Pedro Martinez 198.96
Nolan Ryan 198.37
Tom Seaver 167.92
Gaylord Perry 165.11
Kevin Brown 153.96
Bert Blyleven 153.05
Mike Mussina 144.20
Steve Carlton 143.45
Curt Schilling 129.78
Bob Gibson 122.50
Fergie Jenkins 121.61
Juan Marichal 118.41
Don Sutton 117.60
John Smoltz 115.71
Tommy John 114.79
Tom Glavine 113.11
Phil Niekro 112.14
Dennis Eckersley 111.23
Mariano Rivera 110.99
Sandy Koufax 104.43
Dave Stieb 103.45
Jim Palmer 98.39
Don Drysdale 96.73
Bret Saberhagen 95.91
Rick Reuschel 95.34
Jim Bunning 94.49
David Cone 94.45
Kevin Appier 91.88
Luis Tiant 90.85
Dwight Gooden 90.36
Frank Tanana 90.28
Chuck Finley 89.96
David Wells 89.72
Orel Hershiser 89.14
Sam McDowell 89.11
Jimmy Key 88.83
Rich Gossage 88.07
Tom Gordon 87.93
Ron Guidry 86.98
Andy Pettitte 85.72
Vida Blue 85.15
Mark Langston 85.06
Camilo Pascual 83.04
Kenny Rogers 82.55
Dennis Martinez 80.67
Jerry Koosman 80.21
Larry Jackson 78.73

FWIW. These 50 guys represent the best pitchers during the 1957-2005 period.

BTW STL...you're right...Glavine is not a bubble candidate (because his DI Out count is higher than the rest of the guys we've been talking about)...those other guys fall further down the leaderboard, you'll notice


Does this include offensive performance too?

So factoring in 1999, boost active pitchers up about 5ish points and adjust up/down for offense (maybe even close to 15 points for the Drysdales and Gibsons), and you get a very good value comparison.

Why Niekro so low? He leads the entire bunch in IP and had a 115 ERA+ playing on poor defensive teams?

[Mike90]

Let's do this...just for fun...let's use DNRA (specifically, marginal runs saved, which accounts for both quality and quantity) to make a list of the top total value earners in the same way PCA's HOF-marker works.

DNRA pitching marker = (RSAM * 2 - Avg. RSAM)/10

When I do that...I get this list (1957-2005, excluding 1999, so keep that in mind...):

First Last DPMarker
Roger Clemens 305.86
Greg Maddux 236.48
Randy Johnson 225.24
Pedro Martinez 198.96
Nolan Ryan 198.37
Tom Seaver 167.92
Gaylord Perry 165.11
Kevin Brown 153.96
Bert Blyleven 153.05
Mike Mussina 144.20
Steve Carlton 143.45
Curt Schilling 129.78
Bob Gibson 122.50
Fergie Jenkins 121.61
Juan Marichal 118.41
Don Sutton 117.60
John Smoltz 115.71
Tommy John 114.79
Tom Glavine 113.11
Phil Niekro 112.14
Dennis Eckersley 111.23
Mariano Rivera 110.99
Sandy Koufax 104.43
Dave Stieb 103.45
Jim Palmer 98.39
Don Drysdale 96.73
Bret Saberhagen 95.91
Rick Reuschel 95.34
Jim Bunning 94.49
David Cone 94.45
Kevin Appier 91.88
Luis Tiant 90.85
Dwight Gooden 90.36
Frank Tanana 90.28
Chuck Finley 89.96
David Wells 89.72
Orel Hershiser 89.14
Sam McDowell 89.11
Jimmy Key 88.83
Rich Gossage 88.07
Tom Gordon 87.93
Ron Guidry 86.98
Andy Pettitte 85.72
Vida Blue 85.15
Mark Langston 85.06
Camilo Pascual 83.04
Kenny Rogers 82.55
Dennis Martinez 80.67
Jerry Koosman 80.21
Larry Jackson 78.73

FWIW. These 50 guys represent the best pitchers during the 1957-2005 period.

BTW STL...you're right...Glavine is not a bubble candidate (because his DI Out count is higher than the rest of the guys we've been talking about)...those other guys fall further down the leaderboard, you'll notice

Nolan Ryan (ERA+ of 111) is higher than Tom Seaver (ERA+ of 127)? That's surprising.

[STLCards2]

Nolan Ryan (ERA+ of 111) is higher than Tom Seaver (ERA+ of 127)? That's surprising.

Yeah, obviously Ryan did not have Palmeresque defenses behind him - but neither did Seaver. Both seemed to have pretty pedestrain defenses. I am not sure where the 16 point ERA+ gap is bridged if it isn't the defenses mostly responsible.

Also- I am interested in Kevin Brown being so high. He has a worse ERA+ and lower IP than Schilling and played with defenses that were probably a tad better than Curt as well.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

in a big game I'd take Cone over Maddux

That's crazy talk...and it's eerily similar to what's being said on the Jerry Koosman versus Tom Glavine thread. I don't buy the "big game pitcher" branding. Maddux was a flat-out better pitcher than David Cone, and it's not even close.

As for the Hall of Fame question, Cone and Hershiser both fall short in my opinion, but I wouldn't be upset if either got inducted.

[SamtheBravesFan]

That's crazy talk...and it's eerily similar to what's being said on the Jerry Koosman versus Tom Glavine thread. I don't buy the "big game pitcher" branding. Maddux was a flat-out better pitcher than David Cone, and it's not even close.

Clearly, that crazy talk is the result of eyeballing postseason records. In 21 games and 18 starts, Cone is 8-3 with a 3.80 ERA. In 35 games and 30 starts, Maddux is 11-14 with a 3.27 ERA. Even with that, I'd still take Maddux. He is Greg Maddux after all.

[SABR Matt]

Does this include offensive performance too?

So factoring in 1999, boost active pitchers up about 5ish points and adjust up/down for offense (maybe even close to 15 points for the Drysdales and Gibsons), and you get a very good value comparison.

Why Niekro so low? He leads the entire bunch in IP and had a 115 ERA+ playing on poor defensive teams?

No...offense isn't in there...it's pitching only (but DNRA does include pitcher defense in the form of pitcher assists counting as pitcher-created outs instead of ball in play outs).

Here's Niekro's DNRA line:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1964 NL ML1 38 86 0.00
1965 NL ML1 179 107 1.14
1966 NL ATL 137 99 0.53
1967 NL ATL 608 145 10.25
1968 NL ATL 665 101 2.70
1969 NL ATL 856 126 10.29
1970 NL ATL 708 107 4.88
1971 NL ATL 800 118 7.41
1972 NL ATL 862 122 9.09
1973 NL ATL 739 118 7.21
1974 NL ATL 891 115 7.79
1975 NL ATL 845 102 4.12
1976 NL ATL 824 102 3.91
1977 NL ATL 1030 118 10.50
1978 NL ATL 1024 124 11.34
1979 NL ATL 1049 109 7.33
1980 NL ATL 818 101 3.58
1981 NL ATL 417 107 2.53
1982 NL ATL 698 107 4.42
1983 NL ATL 596 79 -1.28
1984 AL NYA 649 111 5.21
1985 AL NYA 655 90 0.69
1986 AL CLE 639 85 -0.29
1987 AL CLE 378 83 -0.56
1987 AL TOR 34 48 -0.48
1987 NL ATL 9 30 -0.17

His career DNRA+ is 108...he hurt himself a little by hanging on too long after 1982, but the main culprit appears to be something DNRA is catching that ERA is not...and it's not as simple as looking at the overall skill of his defense...it looks like Niekro, being a flyball pitcher, gave up to many 2B and HR so his SLG was very high for the period (making his OPS+ roughly AVERAGE for the times...not significantly better). DNRA still won't catch it if Niekro was somehow stranding a lot of those baserunners he was allowing through selective pitching with men on base...but the surface numbers say he was a bit too hittable in the power department.

[SABR Matt]

Clearly, that crazy talk is the result of eyeballing postseason records. In 21 games and 18 starts, Cone is 8-3 with a 3.80 ERA. In 35 games and 30 starts, Maddux is 11-14 with a 3.27 ERA. Even with that, I'd still take Maddux. He is Greg Maddux after all.

It's not Maddux' fault his teams couldn't score in his post-season starts.

[SABR Matt]

Yeah, obviously Ryan did not have Palmeresque defenses behind him - but neither did Seaver. Both seemed to have pretty pedestrain defenses. I am not sure where the 16 point ERA+ gap is bridged if it isn't the defenses mostly responsible.

Also- I am interested in Kevin Brown being so high. He has a worse ERA+ and lower IP than Schilling and played with defenses that were probably a tad better than Curt as well.

Actually, Seaver's Mets defenses were better than you think and his Reds defenses averaged out better than average, whereas Ryan pitched for some of the worst team defenses in the last 50 years (the Rangers have had a history of horrible defense, for example, that dates back to their inception...the weather in Texas may have something to do with this). Ryan is getting shortchanged badly by almost every pitching metric in existence. The DIPS-friendly ones don't give him enough credit for lowering the XBH rate, the traditional ones don't adjust for the lousy defenses and TERRIBLE bullpens he pitched with for more of his career. I believe the fact that DNRA is correcting this problem with Ryan and matching more closely with those who watched him pitch and came away with the "wow" impression is a testament to the robustness of the metric.

Tom Seaver:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1967 NL NYN 753 112 5.67
1968 NL NYN 810 115 6.12
1969 NL NYN 788 118 7.50
1970 NL NYN 865 136 14.24
1971 NL NYN 856 160 18.17
1972 NL NYN 787 122 8.27
1973 NL NYN 867 144 15.24
1974 NL NYN 709 130 9.55
1975 NL NYN 842 152 16.95
1976 NL NYN 809 133 11.23
1977 NL CIN 497 170 13.49
1977 NL NYN 289 124 3.57
1978 NL CIN 795 114 6.67
1979 NL CIN 645 127 8.15
1980 NL CIN 507 99 2.01
1981 NL CIN 497 118 4.62
1982 NL CIN 338 68 -1.85
1983 NL NYN 686 101 3.06
1984 AL CHA 698 109 5.21
1985 AL CHA 715 117 7.41
1986 AL BOS 314 106 2.08
1986 AL CHA 216 94 0.56

Nolan Ryan:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1966 NL NYN 9 34 -0.14
1968 NL NYN 394 97 1.20
1969 NL NYN 263 128 3.28
1970 NL NYN 390 120 4.41
1971 NL NYN 470 91 0.67
1972 AL CAL 853 126 8.73
1973 AL CAL 988 131 14.11
1974 AL CAL 1018 145 17.98
1975 AL CAL 602 111 4.64
1976 AL CAL 857 124 9.69
1977 AL CAL 900 151 19.29
1978 AL CAL 715 112 5.74
1979 AL CAL 679 140 12.40
1980 NL HOU 706 109 4.87
1981 NL HOU 451 142 7.30
1982 NL HOU 752 107 4.82
1983 NL HOU 579 124 6.70
1984 NL HOU 551 113 4.53
1985 NL HOU 690 102 3.40
1986 NL HOU 538 120 5.58
1987 NL HOU 639 139 11.23
1988 NL HOU 663 97 2.06
1989 AL TEX 729 145 13.62
1990 AL TEX 610 138 10.09
1991 AL TEX 530 179 16.23
1992 AL TEX 478 114 4.26
1993 AL TEX 202 110 1.68

It should also be noted that Ryan record over 2000 more outs than Seaver did.

[STLCards2]

Of course Ryan is said to have notiously worse numbers with men on and RISP - something you admitted that DNRA doesn't pick up in full.

Also- you mentioned terrible bullpens for Ryan- is that missed by ERA+ because a whole lot more stranded runners are scoring because of the bad bullpens than expected? So we should see an abnormal gap between Ryan's RA and ERA. Has anybody looked at this?

[SamtheBravesFan]

It's not Maddux' fault his teams couldn't score in his post-season starts.

Darn straight. It was like a yearly ritual.

[SABR Matt]

Of course Ryan is said to have notiously worse numbers with men on and RISP - something you admitted that DNRA doesn't pick up in full.

Also- you mentioned terrible bullpens for Ryan- is that missed by ERA+ because a whole lot more stranded runners are scoring because of the bad bullpens than expected? So we should see an abnormal gap between Ryan's RA and ERA. Has anybody looked at this?

RA and ERA are only different due to runs that score due to errors. The problem comes in when Ryan leaves a game with runners on base and his sucky bullpens let more of those runners score than league average rates predict...and those runners get charged to Ryan. In a typical season, a starting pitcher who makes 35 starts will strand 25-30 baserunners in partial innings. The typical bullpen Inherited Runners Scored % is around 25...meaning typically 6-8 of those runners will score. Ryan's bullpens were bad enough some years to allow 10 or 12 of those 30 runners to score. It may not sound like much, but it's on the order of 0.15-0.25 ERA points in a typical Ryan season.

As for Ryan being "significantly worse with runners on base"...the primary thing used to show that is a comparison of his OPS+ with his ERA+ relative to other pitchers. However, according to B-Ref, his OPS split with men on base vs. bases empty is .577 with the bases empty vs. .645 with runners on...the typical OPS split ratio for your average pitcher is about 15% worse with men on (because the defense becomes compromised and BABIP goes up)...Ryan is 12% worse. Certainly not significantly worse with men on base than with the bases empty relative to other pitchers.

[SABR Matt]

Darn straight. It was like a yearly ritual.

Indeed...he lost some really low scoring heartbreakers, especially early on when the Braves were fairly weak offensively.

[STLCards2]

RA and ERA are only different due to runs that score due to errors. .

Right - I really knew that. Don't know why I came up with that. Even though a RA vs. ERA difference could explain some ERA+ skewing.

[SABR Matt]

It would explain why pitchers who pitched in front of relative error-prone defenses might have higher ERA+s than they deserved (a lot of times one error leads to multiple unearned runs even though the pitcher is really creating a lot of that)

[Mike90]

RA and ERA are only different due to runs that score due to errors. The problem comes in when Ryan leaves a game with runners on base and his sucky bullpens let more of those runners score than league average rates predict...and those runners get charged to Ryan. In a typical season, a starting pitcher who makes 35 starts will strand 25-30 baserunners in partial innings. The typical bullpen Inherited Runners Scored % is around 25...meaning typically 6-8 of those runners will score. Ryan's bullpens were bad enough some years to allow 10 or 12 of those 30 runners to score. It may not sound like much, but it's on the order of 0.15-0.25 ERA points in a typical Ryan season.

As for Ryan being "significantly worse with runners on base"...the primary thing used to show that is a comparison of his OPS+ with his ERA+ relative to other pitchers. However, according to B-Ref, his OPS split with men on base vs. bases empty is .577 with the bases empty vs. .645 with runners on...the typical OPS split ratio for your average pitcher is about 15% worse with men on (because the defense becomes compromised and BABIP goes up)...Ryan is 12% worse. Certainly not significantly worse with men on base than with the bases empty relative to other pitchers.

My opinion of Ryan has changed a lot over the past few years. First he was the freak of nature with 7 no-hitters and 5700 Ks who could have won 400 games if it wasn't for his crappy teams. Then I paid more attention to his home/road splits (2.77 ERA at home and 3.73 on the road) and his massive amount of walks and decided he was overrated. Now I'm finding out his bullpens were crap. Hmm.

[brett]

Camilo Pasqual would be a HOF candidate as well IMHO. Unless there are extenuating circumstances that I'm not aware of that help explain his 117 DNRA+ in almost 9000 outs as some fluke of performance. All of these guys are bubble candidates...Glavine, Pasqual, Cone etc...all of the guys with DNRA+ lower than 120 but a lot of innings get into the HOF by the value = quantity * quality paradigm. But they're not first ballot guys.

What is Saberhagen's DNRA+? He looks comparable to Koufax, and even has the big seasons, and post-season performances.

[SABR Matt]

I wouldn't read much into his Home/Road split BTW.

It's not like he pitched in a bunch of terrific pitcher's parks that we would expect should produce lower ERAs (he did pitch for Houston for a while...but he also pitched for California when they had a hitter's park and then Texas) Maybe he just enjoyed pitching to the thrill of the crowd?

He was a flyball pitcher which would have made it favorable for him to pitch at Houston. And would help explain some of those low XBH rates in his prime. That's worth thinking about.

But even if you want to dock him some for that, I still think he's underrated at Fever. His defenses were chronically AWFUL, his bullpens sucked...and the walks weren't that much of a problem given his career .211 BAA (which made his career on base percentage allowed .313, which is still way below normal).

[SABR Matt]

What is Saberhagen's DNRA+? He looks comparable to Koufax, and even has the big seasons, and post-season performances.

I wouldn't put Saberhagen on the same level as Koufax...but he was very good.

While Koufax posted 104.4 DNRA Marker points from 1957 til his retirement (we're missing a few early seasons, but he wasn't that great early on), Saberhagen produced 95.9 DNRA Marker points in his 15+ year career:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1984 AL KCA 462 117 4.68
1985 AL KCA 702 139 12.36
1986 AL KCA 463 104 2.79
1987 AL KCA 764 123 10.10
1988 AL KCA 781 106 5.02
1989 AL KCA 790 163 19.24
1990 AL KCA 409 114 3.66
1991 AL KCA 597 149 12.31
1992 NL NYN 298 125 3.30
1993 NL NYN 415 130 5.96
1994 NL NYN 524 137 9.11
1995 NL COL 137 80 -0.32
1995 NL NYN 329 117 3.41
1997 AL BOS 80 76 -0.33
1998 AL BOS 519 111 4.66
2001 AL BOS 44 84 -0.04

Here's Koufax, for comparison:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1957 NL BRO 312 107 2.09
1958 NL LAN 486 100 2.12
1959 NL LAN 463 94 1.14
1960 NL LAN 531 109 3.87
1961 NL LAN 777 136 12.78
1962 NL LAN 557 161 13.76
1963 NL LAN 939 164 20.70
1964 NL LAN 663 150 12.47
1965 NL LAN 993 151 19.06
1966 NL LAN 963 143 16.44

Koufax hit and sustained a peak matched only by guys like Pedro Martinez. He was merely an average pitcher outside of that peak...Saberhagen wasn't nearly so consistent though he had a few good years in there between injuries. Koufax' career DNRA+ (1957+) was 135, Saberhagen's was 123. Nonetheless, he's a no doubter for the HOF in my book.

[SABR Matt]

BTW...I don't mean this to sound conceited, but I'm glad the DNRA data came back into the general conversation here at BBF, because it reminded me of just how solid that metric is in the PBP era and it gave me the chance to play around with it some more and produce an ad hoc value metric from it (the part of the Marker calculation where I divide by 10 is essentially the conversion from Marginal runs saved to wins...the real ratio is slightly variable by team and biased lower than 10, but this is pretty close).

And it reconfirmed for me just how solid the essentials of the HOF Marker calculation are for balancing peak dominance (departure from average in a single season) with longevity (maintaining high performance over long intervals).

One of Pedro's peak years is worth 20 points...it takes four 110 DNRA+ seasons to equal that and I think that's an accurate representation of how valuable truly dominant seasons actually are. Another way to look at it is the Marker to Real Win exchange rate.

If you're an average pitcher, your marker score will equal your win count (it's wins plus departure from average)...the more dominant you get, the more the exchange rate rises asymptotically toward 2. That upper limit is IMHO important because it recognizes an economic reality (the law of diminishing returns)...that no matter how good you get, you're only replacing an average player (you're only saving your team the difference between finding a real player and finding a marginal replacement at some other position). As you move down from average toward the margin, the exchange rate drops to zero at half the win scoring rate of average (if you're worth half of an average pitcher, you aren't really worth discussing) and then goes negative (there's no lower bound on this...which is also true...you can fall very far from the average major leaguer and erase the performance of more than one additional player).

It's such a simple calculation to do mathematically and it produces results that model the reality of how value is viewed. I think that's cool. :)

[Paul Wendt]

RA and ERA are only different due to runs that score due to errors. The problem comes in when Ryan leaves a game with runners on base and his sucky bullpens let more of those runners score than league average rates predict...and those runners get charged to Ryan. In a typical season, a starting pitcher who makes 35 starts will strand 25-30 baserunners in partial innings. The typical bullpen Inherited Runners Scored % is around 25...meaning typically 6-8 of those runners will score. Ryan's bullpens were bad enough some years to allow 10 or 12 of those 30 runners to score. It may not sound like much, but it's on the order of 0.15-0.25 ERA points in a typical Ryan season.
Let me make two points by illustration, using a caricature of Nolan Ryan.
Nolan Ryan pitches 8 successive complete games (9-inn wins) and in the ninth game he is pulled from the game in the first inning with bases loaded, none out, after a walk, wild pitch, hit batsman, and walk.

When he is removed for a relief pitcher, the base-out situation is worse than the league-average situation at a pitching change. The quality of the relief pitcher is also worse than league-average quality.

Ryan Nolan pitches 9 successive 8-inning games. Sometimes he is replaced at the beginning of the ninth but he sometimes works until there is a runner on base.
When he is removed for a relief pitcher the situation is better than the league average situation at a pitching change. The quality of the relief pitcher is also better than league-average quality.

This Nolan Ryan's "bad luck" is not really luck but a consequence of his own pitching performance, and the same is true of this Ryan Nolan's "good luck". A starting pitcher who occasionally fails early does overwork the bullpen, with some cost to the team (on average). The quality of relief pitching used in that game is below average --not merely below league average if the team's bullpen is weak, but below team average. The cause is a fault in the starting pitcher, and partial accounting may be possible via the Quality Start or a similar statistic.

As for Ryan being "significantly worse with runners on base"...the primary thing used to show that is a comparison of his OPS+ with his ERA+ relative to other pitchers. However, according to B-Ref, his OPS split with men on base vs. bases empty is .577 with the bases empty vs. .645 with runners on
I don't see the role of ERA+ (so what does "however" mean?).
This explanation does ignore baserunning, sacrifice hitting and may be more that differs among pitchers.

Later,

But even if you want to dock him some for that , I still think he's underrated at Fever. His defenses were chronically AWFUL, his bullpens sucked...
He was AWFUL in the field himself. No major league pitcher, however AWFUL, makes AWFUL team defense with eight average fielders, but Nolan Ryan's personal contribution was a big one, just as Tom Glavine's personal contribution to the good team fielding he enjoyed in Atlanta.

Furthermore, what if Nolan Ryan's fielders sometimes fell asleep while he was fanning and walking so many batters? His own performance was the cause of all those naps. Right?


add:
Nolan Ryan's meltdown. The Astros played errorless ball in Game Five but the Phillies picked on a Ryan with a single to pitcher and bunt single to thirdbase --according to this Retrosheet play-by-play, whereas I mis-remember an error for Ryan.

[B]1980 October 12, The Astrodome (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU198010120.shtml) (game account at baseball-reference)
Top of the 8th, Phillies Batting, Behind 2-5, Nolan Ryan facing 7-8-9
Dave Bergman moves to 1B
--- 3 9% L Bowa Single to CF
1-- 1 16% B Boone Single to P; Bowa to 2B
12- 1 27% G Gross Single to 3B (Bunt); Bowa to 3B; Boone to 2B
R 123 7 42% P Rose Walk; Bowa Scores; Boone to 3B; Gross to 2B
Joe Sambito replaces Nolan Ryan pitching and batting 9th; Keith Moreland pinch hits for Bake McBride batting 2nd
RO 123 4 40% K Moreland Groundout: 2B-SS/Forceout at 2B; Boone Scores; Gross to 3B
Ken Forsch replaces Joe Sambito pitching and batting 9th; Rafael Landestoy replaces Joe Morgan playing 2B batting 3rd; Ramon Aviles pinch runs for Keith Moreland batting 2nd
O 1-3 3 23% M Schmidt Strikeout Looking
Del Unser pinch hits for Ron Reed batting 4th
R 1-3 1 49% D Unser Single to RF; Gross Scores; Aviles to 2B
RR 12- 2 89% M Trillo Triple to LF; Aviles Scores; Unser Scores
O --3 4 88% G Maddox Flyball: CF
5 runs, 5 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. Phillies 7, Astros 5.
His career record suggests that Ryan worked on his fielding after this debacle. Through 1980 and age 33 he managed .900 fielding percentage only three times; after 1980 he topped .900 after season but one. So he retired with career fielding percentage .895, only a little more than twice as bad as average .952.
That is, error rate Ryan career .105; league average during his career .048.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

BTW...I don't mean this to sound conceited, but I'm glad the DNRA data came back into the general conversation here at BBF, because it reminded me of just how solid that metric is in the PBP era and it gave me the chance to play around with it some more and produce an ad hoc value metric from it (the part of the Marker calculation where I divide by 10 is essentially the conversion from Marginal runs saved to wins...the real ratio is slightly variable by team and biased lower than 10, but this is pretty close).

And it reconfirmed for me just how solid the essentials of the HOF Marker calculation are for balancing peak dominance (departure from average in a single season) with longevity (maintaining high performance over long intervals).

One of Pedro's peak years is worth 20 points...it takes four 110 DNRA+ seasons to equal that and I think that's an accurate representation of how valuable truly dominant seasons actually are. Another way to look at it is the Marker to Real Win exchange rate.

If you're an average pitcher, your marker score will equal your win count (it's wins plus departure from average)...the more dominant you get, the more the exchange rate rises asymptotically toward 2. That upper limit is IMHO important because it recognizes an economic reality (the law of diminishing returns)...that no matter how good you get, you're only replacing an average player (you're only saving your team the difference between finding a real player and finding a marginal replacement at some other position). As you move down from average toward the margin, the exchange rate drops to zero at half the win scoring rate of average (if you're worth half of an average pitcher, you aren't really worth discussing) and then goes negative (there's no lower bound on this...which is also true...you can fall very far from the average major leaguer and erase the performance of more than one additional player).

It's such a simple calculation to do mathematically and it produces results that model the reality of how value is viewed. I think that's cool. :)

SabrMatt, can I bother you of your personal opinion of Greg Maddux and what his DNRA+ numbers look like. Surely, they had to be in the dominant class during his peak.

[SABR Matt]

Let me make two points by illustration, using a caricature of Nolan Ryan.
Nolan Ryan pitches 8 successive complete games (9-inn wins) and in the ninth game he is pulled from the game in the first inning with bases loaded, none out, after a walk, wild pitch, hit batsman, and walk.

When he is removed for a relief pitcher, the base-out situation is worse than the league-average situation at a pitching change. The quality of the relief pitcher is also worse than league-average quality.

Ryan Nolan pitches 9 successive 8-inning games. Sometimes he is replaced at the beginning of the ninth but he sometimes works until there is a runner on base.
When he is removed for a relief pitcher the situation is better than the league average situation at a pitching change. The quality of the relief pitcher is also better than league-average quality.

This Nolan Ryan's "bad luck" is not really luck but a consequence of his own pitching performance, and the same is true of this Ryan Nolan's "good luck". A starting pitcher who occasionally fails early does overwork the bullpen, with some cost to the team (on average). The quality of relief pitching used in that game is below average --not merely below league average if the team's bullpen is weak, but below team average. The cause is a fault in the starting pitcher, and partial accounting may be possible via the Quality Start or a similar statistic.

I don't see the role of ERA+ (so what does "however" mean?).
This explanation does ignore baserunning, sacrifice hitting and may be more that differs among pitchers.

Later,

He was AWFUL in the field himself. No major league pitcher, however AWFUL, makes AWFUL team defense with eight average fielders, but Nolan Ryan's personal contribution was a big one, just as Tom Glavine's personal contribution to the good team fielding he enjoyed in Atlanta.

Furthermore, what if Nolan Ryan's fielders sometimes fell asleep while he was fanning and walking so many batters? His own performance was the cause of all those naps. Right?

--
Nolan Ryan's meltdown. The Astros played errorless ball in Game Five but the Phillies picked on a Ryan with a single to pitcher and bunt single to thirdbase --according to this play-by-play; I mis-remember an error for Ryan.

1980 October 12, Astrodome (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU198010120.shtml)
Top of the 8th, Phillies Batting, Behind 2-5, Nolan Ryan facing 7-8-9
Dave Bergman moves to 1B
--- 3 9% L Bowa Single to CF
1-- 1 16% B Boone Single to P; Bowa to 2B
12- 1 27% G Gross Single to 3B (Bunt); Bowa to 3B; Boone to 2B
R 123 7 42% P Rose Walk; Bowa Scores; Boone to 3B; Gross to 2B
Joe Sambito replaces Nolan Ryan pitching and batting 9th; Keith Moreland pinch hits for Bake McBride batting 2nd
RO 123 4 40% K Moreland Groundout: 2B-SS/Forceout at 2B; Boone Scores; Gross to 3B
Ken Forsch replaces Joe Sambito pitching and batting 9th; Rafael Landestoy replaces Joe Morgan playing 2B batting 3rd; Ramon Aviles pinch runs for Keith Moreland batting 2nd
O 1-3 3 23% M Schmidt Strikeout Looking
Del Unser pinch hits for Ron Reed batting 4th
R 1-3 1 49% D Unser Single to RF; Gross Scores; Aviles to 2B
RR 12- 2 89% M Trillo Triple to LF; Aviles Scores; Unser Scores
O --3 4 88% G Maddox Flyball: CF
5 runs, 5 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. Phillies 7, Astros 5.

OK...to your first set of points, I raise one question. Can you prove that Nolan Ryan was more prone to getting blasted periodically and needing to leave games early? Because if he was, then your point is valid...otherwise it is not. And his high IP counts suggest he was probably not prone to getting shelled periodically.

On your second paragraph, the role of ERA+ was to answer the chart I always see displayed showing how Ryan's best ERA+ seasons compare with ihs OPS+ allowed...and then showing the same paired data for another long-lasting pitcher (usually someone like Glavine)...the point attempted to be made would be that Ryan's ERA+ was consistently lower than his OPS+ would predict compared to another pitcher...thus "proving" that he was worse in clutch situations and that's why he gave up more runs.

I showed using actual data that he was not worse in clutch situations...at least no worse than the typical pitcher.

On your third point...Nolan Ryan's personal defense in INCLUDED in DNRA...all pitchers get credit for creating DIPS-friendly outs not only by the K but also by pitcher-assisted groundouts. Most pitcher assists are on comebackers to the mound and bunts, so it's hard to argue that the pitcher relies on his defense on those plays...thus, I credit the pitcher with creating that out instead of creating a batted ball in play (which is worth significantly less to the pitcher). If Ryan was a bad fielder...that is pulling his DNRA+ figures down and thus goes AGAINST your argument.

[SABR Matt]

SabrMatt, can I bother you of your personal opinion of Greg Maddux and what his DNRA+ numbers look like. Surely, they had to be in the dominant class during his peak.

Absolutely he was...here's his DNRA+ profile:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1986 NL CHN 95 68 -0.52
1987 NL CHN 479 87 0.11
1988 NL CHN 761 124 8.31
1989 NL CHN 708 108 4.62
1990 NL CHN 725 125 8.79
1991 NL CHN 795 135 11.67
1992 NL CHN 791 151 14.72
1993 NL ATL 786 143 14.65
1994 NL ATL 615 240 32.21
1995 NL ATL 627 253 35.58
1996 NL ATL 746 171 21.78
1997 NL ATL 686 171 19.49
1998 NL ATL 750 177 22.96
2000 NL ATL 751 147 16.61
2001 NL ATL 686 128 9.73
2002 NL ATL 578 108 4.06
2003 NL ATL 647 107 4.60
2004 NL CHN 635 108 4.57
2005 NL CHN 664 98 2.54

Let's put is this way...Maddux rates as the second most valuable pitcher of the play by play era using the Marker tool I created based on DNRA. And I'm missing 1999 at the moment (when I calculated all of this that PBP data hadn't come out yet), but he was about as good in '99 as he was in '98 and '00 so you can expect another 15-20 marker points that year and a few more in 2006-2008. The man was/is easily a top-10 pitcher all-time.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Absolutely he was...here's his DNRA+ profile:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Marker
1986 NL CHN 95 68 -0.52
1987 NL CHN 479 87 0.11
1988 NL CHN 761 124 8.31
1989 NL CHN 708 108 4.62
1990 NL CHN 725 125 8.79
1991 NL CHN 795 135 11.67
1992 NL CHN 791 151 14.72
1993 NL ATL 786 143 14.65
1994 NL ATL 615 240 32.21
1995 NL ATL 627 253 35.58
1996 NL ATL 746 171 21.78
1997 NL ATL 686 171 19.49
1998 NL ATL 750 177 22.96
2000 NL ATL 751 147 16.61
2001 NL ATL 686 128 9.73
2002 NL ATL 578 108 4.06
2003 NL ATL 647 107 4.60
2004 NL CHN 635 108 4.57
2005 NL CHN 664 98 2.54

Let's put is this way...Maddux rates as the second most valuable pitcher of the play by play era using the Marker tool I created based on DNRA. And I'm missing 1999 at the moment (when I calculated all of this that PBP data hadn't come out yet), but he was about as good in '99 as he was in '98 and '00 so you can expect another 15-20 marker points that year and a few more in 2006-2008. The man was/is easily a top-10 pitcher all-time.

Thanks for your input SabrMatt. It's god to know that sabermetrics junkies confirm what normal folk already know: That great Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time. I wonder if if Maddux's combined DNRA+ of 293 is the best all time over a two season span??

[SABR Matt]

his combined 2-year DNRA+ was 247 (1994-5), but that is a good question.

I think Pedro may have him beat...

2000-2001, he had a combined DNRA+ of 268, but that includes a partial injury interrupted 2001, so it wound up being worth a little less than Maddux' 2-year peak by the Marker (64.3 to 67.8 LOL)

I don't see any other starting pitchers with that kind of two-year peak. Not even Roger Clemens.

[brett]

Let's do this...just for fun...let's use DNRA (specifically, marginal runs saved, which accounts for both quality and quantity) to make a list of the top total value earners in the same way PCA's HOF-marker works.


Could you post Clemens '93-'96 please? Many have argued that that 4 year "dropoff" indicated that he was finished, but they look pretty good to me.

[brett]

Let's do this...just for fun...let's use DNRA (specifically, marginal runs saved, which accounts for both quality and quantity) to make a list of the top total value earners in the same way PCA's HOF-marker works.



Could you list the top 25 relievers since 1957? Where would you put the HOF cutoff? Can you count relief appearances only?

I tend to favor the following relievers:

Rivera
Gossage
Eckersley (though he was an underrated starter and overrated reliever)
Wilhelm

And then am unsure but have the following in order:
Franco
Quisenberry

Then
Sutter, Lee Smith and Hoffman probably just outside.

Am I correct that pitchers who may induce double plays don't get credit for that in PCA?

[brett]

Lastly, where would you guess Santana is at this point?

[Mike90]

Could you post Clemens '93-'96 please? Many have argued that that 4 year "dropoff" indicated that he was finished, but they look pretty good to me.

I know you're getting a lot of requests Matt, but I second Brett's suggestion. I'm guessing there's less variability in Clemens' performance once defence and the quality of his league are (almost) taken out of the equation.

[SABR Matt]

Here's Clemens:

1984 AL BOS 408 108 2.89
1985 AL BOS 296 136 4.98
1986 AL BOS 768 175 23.22
1987 AL BOS 855 150 19.59
1988 AL BOS 802 155 17.72
1989 AL BOS 766 136 12.06
1990 AL BOS 695 165 17.40
1991 AL BOS 812 159 19.50
1992 AL BOS 745 157 16.78
1993 AL BOS 565 110 4.52
1994 AL BOS 514 169 16.22
1995 AL BOS 416 103 2.46
1996 AL BOS 750 157 20.77
1997 AL TOR 789 198 32.06
1998 AL TOR 705 173 22.66
2000 AL NYA 629 131 10.81
2001 AL NYA 673 132 10.96
2002 AL NYA 548 116 5.71
2003 AL NYA 645 129 9.83
2004 NL HOU 652 158 15.82
2005 NL HOU 633 181 19.90

It looks like maybe he was a little hurt in 1993 and 1995 because the out counts went down, but that's all I see...otherwise it was still the same old Clemens. The suspicious part starts in 2004...that's when I think Clemens started using PEDs to stay alive in the game because he had started to fall apart and lose innings to nagging injury and ineffectiveness.

[SABR Matt]

Am I correct that pitchers who may induce double plays don't get credit for that in PCA?

I'll answer the relief pitching questions in a moment, but to answer this question...yes you are correct. DPs couldn't really be counted using the standard databank so PCA doesn't have that information. DNRA does.

[Paul Wendt]

on Cone 1988-99,

His ERA+ of 132 over nearly 2500 innings pitched over this time is really remarkable. By my counts, there are only 6 pitchers since WWII that have career ERA+ of better than 130 and have pitched at least 2000 innings, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Maddux, Koufax, and Ford.

I know its not fair to just look at prime years and then compare them to career totals [correct]
but if you look at Cone's career stats [rhetorically what follows should be a justification for doing it],
he only pitched 400 more innings that wouldn't be considered prime years. These innings really hurt his career numbers because they were so bad. So I'm not sure how to count them. I mean, if a pitcher gets called up as a rookie for a couple years and stinks, should that hurt him? And if he decides to try a come back and stinks should that hurt him? If so, how much. These are hard questions to answer IMO.
But to set those innings aside for David Cone is cherry-picking. Twenty years earlier Jim Palmer pitcher over 2900 innings at ERA+ 136. Eight to ten years before Palmer, Juan Marichal pitched over 2500 innings at ERA+ 135. So the comparison set grows. Maybe it grows a lot.


brett schreit,

Well, this stretch alone is pretty much equal to Koufax's career. Koufax had a career 131 ERA+ for about 2300 innings, versus 132 for cone through 2400+ during the prime. Plus Cone would have to be as important a post season player, if not much more.
What do you mean "would have to be"?

Cone would be about equal to Koufax for his career only if he were at least so important as Koufax post-season?
or
Surely everyone agrees that Cone was so important a post season player as Koufax?

[SABR Matt]

Koufax and Cone aren't comparable BTW. It's better to be a 10-year pitcher with a 134 ERA+ achieved by having a 100 ERA+ for five seasons and a 170 ERA+ for 5 seasons than it is to be a 10 year pitcher with a 134 ERA+ achieved by 7 or 8 120-145 ERA+ seasons with a couple of bad ones mixed in. Great dominance is worth more than good solidness.

[SABR Matt]

OK...the reliever question:

Here are the top 25 relievers by the Marker (1957-2005 only):


Dennis Eckersley (111.2)
Mariano Rivera (111.0)
Goose Gossage (88.1)
Hoyt Wilhelm (65.3)
Kent Tekulve (61.7)
Bob Stanley (57.4)
Rollie Fingers (57.3)
Lee Smith (56.1)
Trevor Hoffman (53.2)
Dave Righetti (52.6)
Bruce Sutter (51.9)
Tug McGraw (51.5)
Billy Wagner (51.1)
Tom Henke (51.0)
Stu Miller (50.6)
Mike Jackson (48.0)
Jesse Orosco (47.6)
Mike Timlin (47.5)
Lindy McDaniel (47.2)
Jeff Nelson (46.3)
Arthur Rhodes (46.3)
Doug Jones (45.9)
Troy Percival (44.5)
Steve Reed (44.1)
Dan Quisenberry (44.0)


Honestly...the HOF cut for me is the top 3 and no more. THere are a lot of very good relievers right below there...but the dropoff in value is rather big. If you let Hoyt Wilhelm in...it's not a far reach to say that everyone from (say) Stu Miller up on my list there should also get in.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Wow... Tom Gordon was a name I wasn't expecting to be even close to the top, let alone top 4.

[SABR Matt]

OK...I see what happened...Gordon was a starter for a long time (and a pretty darned good one)...he was not primarily a relief pitcher...that'll teach me to go on memory.

I've fixed that post to better reflect reality. :)

[brett]

Koufax and Cone aren't comparable BTW. It's better to be a 10-year pitcher with a 134 ERA+ achieved by having a 100 ERA+ for five seasons and a 170 ERA+ for 5 seasons than it is to be a 10 year pitcher with a 134 ERA+ achieved by 7 or 8 120-145 ERA+ seasons with a couple of bad ones mixed in. Great dominance is worth more than good solidness.


In terms of wins? I thought that a .75 relative ERA (133 ERA+) was worth more than half as many wins above average as a .5 relative ERA (200 ERA+) using pythagorian estimates.

If an average offense gave up only 75% of league average runs, and another average offense gave up 50% of league average runs, don't you get around 27 wins above average in situation 1 and 47-48 in situation 2?

[brett]

Wow... Tom Gordon was a name I wasn't expecting to be even close to the top, let alone top 4.


Were Quisenberry's defenses good or something? Does his leverage turn out to be low because he pitched more innings in games?

Just suprised that he has the highest ERA+ of anyone with 1000 innings but it seems that low K guys always get ranked lower in PCA. And he did have a very good rate of double plays created.

Also, do I not see John Franco?

[SABR Matt]

In terms of wins? I thought that a .75 relative ERA (133 ERA+) was worth more than half as many wins above average as a .5 relative ERA (200 ERA+) using pythagorian estimates.

If an average offense gave up only 75% of league average runs, and another average offense gave up 50% of league average runs, don't you get around 27 wins above average in situation 1 and 47-48 in situation 2?

Not in terms of wins, no. In terms of straight wins created, the consistent 134 ERA+ guy would be ever so slightly more valuable...however greatness is not linear with value. And the reason is because having a great player does more to counterbalance other difficiencies for a team than having two good players. One Sandy Koufax (in his prime) means a lot more to winning championships and drawing fans (and the collateral impacts on the opposition and on your own team's ability to perform increase with increasing skill too BTW) than two typical David Cone seasons.

Greatness is a combination of dominance and durability...and that's what I'm talking about...why Koufax is worth considerably more than Cone despite similar IP numbers and ERA+.

[Paul Wendt]

Here are the top 25 relievers by the Marker (1957-2005 only):

Dennis Eckersley (111.2)
Mariano Rivera (111.0)
Goose Gossage (88.1)
Hoyt Wilhelm (65.3)
Kent Tekulve (61.7)
Bob Stanley (57.4)
Rollie Fingers (57.3)
Lee Smith (56.1)
Trevor Hoffman (53.2)
Dave Righetti (52.6)
Bruce Sutter (51.9)
Tug McGraw (51.5)
Billy Wagner (51.1)
Tom Henke (51.0)
Stu Miller (50.6)
[. . . cut at 15 . . .]

Honestly...the HOF cut for me is the top 3 and no more. THere are a lot of very good relievers right below there...but the dropoff in value is rather big. If you let Hoyt Wilhelm in...it's not a far reach to say that everyone from (say) Stu Miller up on my list there should also get in.
At best that is true only if you believe that Hall of Fame honors should be derived from "The Marker" alone.

That is odd first considering the circumstances of revision: Tom Gordon drops from 4th to somewhere beyond 25th by a revised definition of relief pitcher. But mixed starting and relief careers are a continuum, perhaps bimodal but a continuous distribution. Some who remain on the list after cutting Gordon started many games, others started few.

That is odd second because The Marker covers 1957-2005 only, you say, whereas Wilhelm and Miller pitched a lot before 1957, and Wilhelm should get a lot of credit for work before 1957.

Depending on how you handle these issues, at least it is reasonable to base honors on The Marker and yet to select Wilhelm alone, Tekulve alone, or Wilhelm and Tekulve together --making four or five relief pitchers based on but not strictly derived from the rating.

[SABR Matt]

Were Quisenberry's defenses good or something? Does his leverage turn out to be low because he pitched more innings in games?

Just suprised that he has the highest ERA+ of anyone with 1000 innings but it seems that low K guys always get ranked lower in PCA. And he did have a very good rate of double plays created.

Also, do I not see John Franco?

This list wasn't PCA, brett...this list was DNRA-based. DNRA accounts for the DPs Quisenberry induced. And yes, his defenses were better than average. They had to be...that's the only logical explanation for why his DNRA+ is lower than his ERA+.

[SABR Matt]

At best that is true only if you believe that Hall of Fame honors should be derived from "The Marker" alone.

That is odd first considering the circumstances of revision: Tom Gordon drops from 4th to somewhere beyond 25th by a revised definition of relief pitcher. But mixed starting and relief careers are a continuum, perhaps bimodal but a continuous distribution. Some who remain on the list after cutting Gordon started many games, others started few.

That is odd second because The Marker covers 1957-2005 only, you say, whereas Wilhelm and Miller pitched a lot before 1957, and Wilhelm should get a lot of credit for work before 1957.

Depending on how you handle these issues, at least it is reasonable to base honors on The Marker and yet to select Wilhelm alone, Tekulve alone, or Wilhelm and Tekulve together --making four or five relief pitchers based on but not strictly derived from the rating.

You are correct about Wilhelm. He did pitch a lot before 1957 and that would almost certainly place him into the HOF bracket. FWIW, by PCA, Wilhelm rated as the most valuable relief pitcher of all time...and Kent Tekulve was third (Rivera second). This particular marker is based on DNRA was doesn't go back far enough to catch all of Wilhelm's career (and two of his best seasons were before 1957 oh BTW). I got all of Tekulve's career and he's not measuring up with the other top relievers by DNRA despite being highly rated by PCA. Tekulve would be about as low as I'd want to go though.

As for this continuum...you have to understand that what I have is a list of pitchers...no definition for who is who...this DNRA data makes no distinction between defense neutral baseRuns allowed in starts vs. in relief appearances so it's a practical impossibility to define value based ONLY on a pitcher's relief appearances. So I have a list of generic pitchers and I was picking out the names I saw that were definitely remembered as relievers. I remember Gordon as a relief but his career is dominated by starting seasons so I dropped him from consideration. Whereas Eckersley, for example, had remarkably better DNRA+ figures as a closer and thus more marker points in seasons where he closed than where he started despite his career being about half and half.

[Paul Wendt]

Not in terms of wins, no. In terms of straight wins created, the consistent 134 ERA+ guy would be ever so slightly more valuable...however greatness is not linear with value [wins].
Here many of us would say value is not linear with wins but Matt identifies value with wins.

And the reason is because having a great player does more to counterbalance other difficiencies for a team than having two good players. One Sandy Koufax (in his prime) means a lot more to winning championships and drawing fans (and the collateral impacts on the opposition and on your own team's ability to perform increase with increasing skill too BTW) than two typical David Cone seasons.
Except for the point about attendance, this is all limited in scope to "good" and "average" teams in some sense. Right? Well, in particular, teams whose championship probabilities that are not tiny, within the time horizon of their Koufax and Cone contracts, and with some willingness and ability to improve using resources to fill other roster spots with good players.

On a "bad" team, as a catchall term, it would be more valuable to stumble upon two David Cones under 10-year contract than to stumble upon one Sandy Koufax under 10-year contract, right? Because this team would probably fill the extra roster spot (and rotation spot in this case) with a subpar player.
--below average, maybe below replacement level, the details depend on the details of these informal rating scales we are throwing around, but the point should be clear without the details.

[SABR Matt]

Greatness matters not on bad teams. We talk only about average baseball teams when talking about how to conceive of the value of any player because the player does not determine where he plays (at least not exclusively)...the only fair way to judge greatness is to assume that all players replace someone average on an average team.

[SABR Matt]

BTW...I just noticed the question about John Franco. DNRA is not too impressed with him:

1984 NL CIN 242 127 2.95
1985 NL CIN 284 117 2.60
1986 NL CIN 301 125 3.59
1987 NL CIN 246 137 4.12
1988 NL CIN 253 185 7.16
1989 NL CIN 244 132 3.24
1990 NL NYN 202 105 1.21
1991 NL NYN 173 110 1.25
1992 NL NYN 102 182 2.80
1993 NL NYN 108 67 -0.71
1994 NL NYN 151 132 2.33
1995 NL NYN 148 125 1.93
1996 NL NYN 160 126 2.17
1997 NL NYN 177 141 3.26
1998 NL NYN 193 104 1.13
2000 NL NYN 169 135 3.01
2001 NL NYN 161 92 0.28
2003 NL NYN 104 102 0.53
2004 NL NYN 139 85 -0.08
2005 NL HOU 45 66 -0.31

A reliever, to be considered great, should have a career DNRA+ of at least 150. Fracno's is 125.

He just put the ball in play way too much for a reliever.

[brett]

Greatness matters not on bad teams. We talk only about average baseball teams when talking about how to conceive of the value of any player because the player does not determine where he plays (at least not exclusively)...the only fair way to judge greatness is to assume that all players replace someone average on an average team.

So lets say you have an average team, and you add to that a player who gives you an extra 6 wins above average for 10 years. Now you have an 87 win team for 10 years.

Another player gives you 12 wins a year for 5 years. Now you have a 93 win team for 5 years (and an 81 win team for the other 5).

Which team will a) make the playoffs most and b) win the most championships, the team with 10 straight 87 win seasons or the team with 5 93 win seasons and 5 81 win seasons?

And how much value would you be giving to player a and player b over the 10 year period?

Would you rather have an entire pitching staff with a 110 DERA+ or a guy with a 250 DERA+ for 200 innings added to an average staff? The first staff would actually win slightly more games (because the 250 guy would have his RS concentrated in a few games and so they would interfere with each other's value).

[brett]

BTW...I just noticed the question about John Franco. DNRA is not too impressed with him:

1984 NL CIN 242 127 2.95
1985 NL CIN 284 117 2.60
1986 NL CIN 301 125 3.59
1987 NL CIN 246 137 4.12
1988 NL CIN 253 185 7.16
1989 NL CIN 244 132 3.24
1990 NL NYN 202 105 1.21
1991 NL NYN 173 110 1.25
1992 NL NYN 102 182 2.80
1993 NL NYN 108 67 -0.71
1994 NL NYN 151 132 2.33
1995 NL NYN 148 125 1.93
1996 NL NYN 160 126 2.17
1997 NL NYN 177 141 3.26
1998 NL NYN 193 104 1.13
2000 NL NYN 169 135 3.01
2001 NL NYN 161 92 0.28
2003 NL NYN 104 102 0.53
2004 NL NYN 139 85 -0.08
2005 NL HOU 45 66 -0.31

A reliever, to be considered great, should have a career DNRA+ of at least 150. Fracno's is 125.

He just put the ball in play way too much for a reliever.

For a 1 inning reliever, as well as a 2+ inning reliever? There has to be a difference.

[SABR Matt]

Franco was a 1-inning reliever for most of his career. Notice though that in the seasons where he pitched more, he got more value.

On your other post, if I have the choice between being an 81 win team (makes the playoffs 0.5% of the time...not zero because average teams sometimes overperform their PythagenPat W% by luck) for five years and a 93 win team (makes the playoffs 60% of the time) for 5 years...or being an 87 win team (makes the playoffs something like 10% of the time) for 10 years, I'm taking the 5 and 5 solution.

I'd rather have the inconsistent staff with one big ace than the consistent staff with all 110 DNRA+ guys. Why? Because inconsistent pitching beats its' PythagenPat expectation more often (because inconsistent pitchers bunch their runs in bad outings that become lost causes and nearly-guaranteed wins in their other starts). Also, the team with 100 DNRA+ and one 200 inning phenom will find it much less difficult to upgrade their pitching with simple moves than the team with all 110 DNRA+ guys. Part of the value of being spectacular is that you can buy cheaper parts to fill other slots and it's easier to upgrade on your existing cheap parts.

[Bravesfan1984]

Have you even bothered to look at why he only won 12 games that year? Cone had six no-decisions where he pitched seven innings or more and gave up three runs or less. You think that's his fault?

That still leaves 5 other games he could have won and been 17-6