Warren Spahn vs. Tom Glavine

[GiambiJuice]

Without looking at the numbers, I'm guessing 95% of people asked would say Spahn was the better pitcher. But upon examining the stats, I think it's extremely close and could really go either way, especially if Glavine puts together another good season or two.

Just a few numbers to chew on:

Career ERA+
Glavine 120
Spahn 118

Slight edge for Glavine

WHIP
Glavine 1.30
spahn 1.20

Winning Percentage (for what it's worth)
Glavine .603
Spahn .597

Lead league
Wins - Glavine 5
Spahn 8

ERA - Glavine 0 (8 top tens)
Spahn 3 (14 top tens)

Strikeouts - Glavine 0
Spahn 4

Games started - Glavine 6
Spahn 2

Shutouts - Glavine 1
Spahn 4

Keep in mind that it was much easier to lead the league during Spahn's era, which was before expansion. Glavine has to compete against double the amount of pitchers (especially Maddux, who was on his own team and is in the argument for top 5 pitchers of all time).

I think they would both be considered "finesse" lefties. Not overly powerful, but tremendously effective and not prone to injury.

So....Is Glavine in the same league as Spahn, or am I way off base?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Without looking at the numbers, I'm guessing 95% of people asked would say Spahn was the better pitcher. But upon examining the stats, I think it's extremely close and could really go either way, especially if Glavine puts together another good season or two.

Just a few numbers to chew on:

Career ERA+
Glavine 120
Spahn 118

Slight edge for Glavine

WHIP
Glavine 1.30
spahn 1.20

Winning Percentage (for what it's worth)
Glavine .603
Spahn .597

Lead league
Wins - Glavine 5
Spahn 8

ERA - Glavine 0 (8 top tens)
Spahn 3 (14 top tens)

Strikeouts - Glavine 0
Spahn 4

Games started - Glavine 6
Spahn 2

Shutouts - Glavine 1
Spahn 4

Keep in mind that it was much easier to lead the league during Spahn's era, which was before expansion. Glavine has to compete against double the amount of pitchers (especially Maddux, who was on his own team and is in the argument for top 5 pitchers of all time).

I think they would both be considered "finesse" lefties. Not overly powerful, but tremendously effective and not prone to injury.

So....Is Glavine in the same league as Spahn, or am I way off base?

I wouldn't say you're off base, you make a good point.

But at worst, we might be comparing an apple to an orange, stats wise. I mean think of this: Spahn had 608 decisions in his career. Glavine has had 381. Spahn led the NL in complete games nine times. Tom Glavine did it once in 1991, with nine. Spahn only had three seasons with less than nine CGs in 20 full sesaons. :crazy

[EvanAparra]

It's definately Spahn, Glavine was good, but he didn't dominate the way Spahn did. (although you noted a good reason for it) I still have to go with Spahn

[mwiggins]

Glavine's in the same league, but I think Spahn was clearly the greater pitcher.

Some other numbers...

20 Win Seasons:
Spahn - 13
Glavine - 5
* Spahn got more starts back then, but he was normal getting 35-36 in his 20 win seasons, not much more than Glavine averaged in his big years. But 13-5 is a huge gap.

Career MVP Shares:
Spahn - 2.44
Glavine - 0.12
* Spahn had less players to compete against, but once again, that's a huge gap. Spahn was clearly seen as more dominant/greater in his time that Glavine. But how much of that is having to be on the same team as Maddux and Smoltz, it's hard to say.

Cy Youngs:
Spahn - 1 wins, 3 2nd place, 1 3rd place
Glavine - 2 wins, 2 2nd place, 2 3rd place
* Spahn was competing against both the AL and NL during his run, so Glavine's didn't have that much more pitchers to compete against.

Glavine's winning % is better, but he's still pitching. If you take out Spahn's last to seasons, when he was 13-29, his career winning % was 618%, well above Glavine's. And Spahn did win a few pennants in Boston and Milwaukee, but I would say Glavine's pitched for more successful teams. But Spahn may have very well had better run support than Glavine enjoyed, esp, with the later 50's Milwaukee teams.

Plus Spahn missed 3+ season's in his early 20's to WWII. Considering the way he pitched right after WWII, it's not hard to fathom that he could have gotten over 400 wins if he'd have been pitching those seasons.

[538280]

SABR Matt did a good job showing how Tom Glavine has been a rather overrated pitcher in a thread a while ago. Glavine has been good and has lasted for quite some time, but he has been very reliant on the great Braves defense. His strikeout rate is not very good, below average in many cases. That can be okay if you don't walk anyone or give up HRs, but Glavine is not great in those categories either. This is the mark of a pitcher who has been carried to success a lot by his defense.

[EvanAparra]

SABR Matt did a good job showing how Tom Glavine has been a rather overrated pitcher in a thread a while ago. Glavine has been good and has lasted for quite some time, but he has been very reliant on the great Braves defense. His strikeout rate is not very good, below average in many cases. That can be okay if you don't walk anyone or give up HRs, but Glavine is not great in those categories either. This is the mark of a pitcher who has been carried to success a lot by his defense.

Does this mean Maddux is overrated as well?

[538280]

Does this mean Maddux is overrated as well?

No. Maddux did quite a bit better than Glavine in the BB and HR allowed categories. He also struck out more batters.

[JRB]

I agree that Spahn is the better of the two. Glavine is a fine pitcher, however Spahn seems clearly the second best southpaw of all time behind only Lefty Grove.

With regard to Cy Young Awards, it should be kept in mind that 6 of Spahn's 20 win seasons occurred before the inception of the Cy Young Award in 1956. If the Cy Young award had been given in each league throughout Spahn's career I think a fairly strong case could be made that he would have won up to 8 Cy Young Awards.

I would also mention that Spahn pitched 382 complete games while Glavine through 2005 had only pitched 63. Spahn pitched 63 career shutouts while Glavine had only 24.

Spahn was also an outstanding hitting pitcher, hitting 35 career homeruns to only 1 for Glavine.

During much of the period 1947 through 1961, Spahn was considered the best pitcher in baseball. I don't recall Glavine ever being perceived in the same light for any extended period. In 1963 when Sandy Koufax emerged as the best pitcher in baseball with a magnificent 25-5 season, Warren Spahn then at age 42 was not all that far behind with a 23-7 season.

Spahn is clearly better than Glavine.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I agree that Spahn is the better of the two. Glavine is a fine pitcher, however Spahn seems clearly the second best southpaw of all time behind only Lefty Grove.
Randy Johnson says hi. :waving

[BoSox Rule]

For what its worth I have

1. Grove
2. Carlton
3. Unit
4. Spahn

[JRB]

Randy Johnson says hi. :waving

How can one argue with your articulate and incisive reasoning?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How can one argue with your articulate and incisive reasoning?
Exactly. :p :D :clapping

I am glad you see the subtlety of my superior argument. It's kind of like the Dilbert comic strip. The Garbage Man in the Dilbert comic strip is in fact the smartest man in the world. When Dilbert asks him why if he is the Smartest Man in the World why he is a garbage man. He basically tells Dilbert being a garbage man is the smartest thing to do and that Dilbert isn't smart enough to understand his logic or reasoning. :D

Seriously though, a debate between Randy Johnson and Warren Spahn would be interesting. Johnson has the edge in Peak but Spahn has the monster career value.

[JRB]

Seriously though, a debate between Randy Johnson and Warren Spahn would be interesting. Johnson has the edge in Peak but Spahn has the monster career value.

Yes it would be interesting. My thinking up to now has been that Grove, Spahn and Carlton would be ahead of Johnson. I know that Johnson has the edge in the ERA+ stat with 138 (Spahn is 118 and Carlton 115), and both Carlton and Johnson were better power/strikeout pitchers. However, Spahn had 13 20+ game winning seasons, while Carlton had 6 and Johnson only 3. Spahn has 363 wins, while Carlton had 329, and Johnson so far has 280. Spahn had 63 career shutouts, while Carlton had 55 and Johnson only has 37 so far. Spahn has a big edge in complete games with 382, while Carlton had 254, and Johnson has only 98 complete games so far. In raw ERA Spahn's is 3.09, while Carlton and Johnson each have 3.22.

I know that Johnson has had to contend in the past decade with juiced up players hitting a juiced up ball. However, Spahn during his career had to face on a regular basis one of the most, if not the most, formidable array of tough right handed hitters including, among others, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Hank Sauer, Roy Campanella, Gil Hodges, Ken Boyer, Ernie Banks, Ron Santo, Del Ennis, Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, Tommy Davis, Orlando Cepeda, Monte Irvin, Bobby Thomson, Dick Groat, etc., not to mention a few really tough left handed hitters such as Stan Musial, Duke Snider, etc

Alll three are clearly great pitchers. c JRB

[cjedmonton]

Interesting topic. I happen to be a huge fan/follower of pitchers who throw from the portside.

Over the past 3-4 years I've been tweaking a career evaluation formula that I've used to assess virtually every noteworthy lefty since 1900. According to the criteria (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh/criteria) I've implemented, here is how my top 10 currently stack up:

Rank-Name-Career Merit Value

#1 Randy Johnson 1,937.691
#2 Lefty Grove 1,918.159
#3 Warren Spahn 1,850.769
#4 Sandy Koufax 1,728.422
#5 Steve Carlton 1,604.729
#6 Eddie Plank 1,560.249
#7 Carl Hubbell 1,535.952
#8 Rube Waddell 1,295.866
#9 Whitey Ford 1,128.788
#10 Hal Newhouser 1,083.496

#18 Tom Glavine 706.723


Recently though, I've devised another formula where I assess each pitcher dominance in relation to the top 25 pitchers in his league during 4 timeframes (career, 5 year peak, 3 year peak, single season peak). For simplicity's sake, I defined the 1/3/5 year peaks strictly based on the highest win totals for each period.

Also, each timeframe carries a different weight. The career score is weighted the heaviest, which is based on a factor of how many years he played, the 5 year peak carries a factor of 5, the 3 year peak a factor of 3, and the single season score carries the least weight (by a factor of 1). Basically, it measures how many standard deviations above the norm they were in 10 key pitching categories (z-scores). I then measured how consistently dominant they were across the 10 categories (standard deviation of the z-scores). Dividing the average z-score by the standard deviation gives us a Relative Dominance Factor for that timeframe.

The categories are:
Strikeouts,Shutouts,Wins
CG,BAA,Innings,
ERA,Win%,WHIP,K/BB

To illustrate, here is Randy Johnson's Relative Dominance Factor for his 5 Year Peak (RDF). Again, each score reflects how many standard deviations he was above his top 25 competitors during the years indicated:

Randy Johnson
5 Year (1998-02) Z-Score
Shutouts 3.898
Strikeouts 3.692
Innings 2.965
CG 2.756
Wins 2.507
BAA 2.124
ERA 1.868
WHIP 1.592
Win% 1.497
K/BB 1.378
Average 2.428
Standard Dev. 0.897
RDF 2.708

Here's Lefty Grove's 5 Year tally:
5 Year (1928-32) Z-Score
Wins 3.400
Innings 2.918
Strikeouts 2.871
ERA 2.789
CG 2.726
Win% 2.662
Shutouts 2.605
K/BB 2.566
WHIP 2.047
BAA 1.903
Average 2.649
Standard Dev. 0.427
RDF 6.207

In this case, you can see that Grove's degree of dominance over his peers is over twice as great as that of Johnson's during his 5 year peak.

For those who are interested, here are Johnson's other RDFs:

Career RDF (1988-2005) 2.465
5 Year RDF (1998-2002) 2.708
3 Year RDF (2000-02) 3.963
Single Season RDF (2002) 2.984
Average 3.030

TOTAL= 18(years played)*2.465 + 5*2.708 + 3*3.963 + 2.984 *3.030 = 220.522

And here's Grove's:
Career RDF (1925-41) 2.723
5 Year RDF (1928-32) 6.207
3 Year RDF (1930-32) 4.771
Single Season RDF (1931) 3.351
Average 4.263

TOTAL= 17(years played)*2.723 + 5*6.207 + 3*4.771 + 3.351 *4.263 = 404.965

But I digress...


I've only run the first 5 + Carl Hubbell's complete RDF through this formula, but the results are quite different:

Rank-Name-Relative Dominance Factor

#1 Lefty Grove 404.965
#2 Sandy Koufax 279.690
#3 Carl Hubbell 241.418
#4 Randy Johnson 220.522
#5 Steve Carlton 114.796
#6 Warren Spahn 74.089


Adding the Career Merit Value and the Relative Dominance Factor gives you a final total.

So,

#1 Lefty Grove 2,323.124
#2 Randy Johnson 2,158.213
#3 Sandy Koufax 2,008.112
#4 Warren Spahn 1,924.858
#5 Carl Hubbell 1,777.370
#6 Steve Carlton 1,719.525

Most purists will cry blasphemy when they see Koufax edging out Spahn. However, his peak value was so great, it was enough to slightly beat out Spahn's career value, at least by this measure.

Of course, I'm still in the tweaking phase, so take this at face value. It's just a fun project to get me through the winter months.


Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)

[STLCards2]

SABR Matt did a good job showing how Tom Glavine has been a rather overrated pitcher in a thread a while ago. Glavine has been good and has lasted for quite some time, but he has been very reliant on the great Braves defense. His strikeout rate is not very good, below average in many cases. That can be okay if you don't walk anyone or give up HRs, but Glavine is not great in those categories either. This is the mark of a pitcher who has been carried to success a lot by his defense.

Yes, but about 8 people threw out tons of data that suggested that the Braves defense wasn't that great, only good. Certainly not so good that it would make a slightly above- average pitcher an all-time great. Also, Glavine's HR ratios is borderline great (playing in homeruns parks or neutral parks most of his career)

Glavine was also at least moderately above average in every possible way a pitcher can be above average besides K's. For example: HR/9, BB/9, BABIP (even SaberMatt agreed that Glavine was the best on the Braves staff, and well above league average...even factoring in the Braves team BABIP. Glavine was about 80 hits prevented above team average over 14 seasons,This doesn't even account for the fact the team stats he is being compared against included other great pitchers who skewed the data against Glavine's favor.) X-Base hit average, (Saber Matt also agreed that Glavine saved 5-6 runs per season by giving up fewer doubles than the Braves' staff averages) GDP inducing (due to above average GB ratio), preventing HBP, preventing WP, holding runners, playing good defense, LOB%, etc. Glavine was able to prevent lots of runs scoring all of these ways. What you didn't mention about that 400 post thread was...after SaberMatt started with Glavine outside of his top 140, he ended up having Glavine in the Hall of Fame.

If Glavine could prevent 10 runs per season by givng up 7 fewer HR's than normal, 4 fewer runs giving up fewer BB's than normal, 5 fewer runs due to giving up fewer doubles, 3 fewer runs giving up fewer hits on BIP that aren't doubles, 2 fewer runs by never hitting batters or throwing wild pitches, 3 fewer runs by inducing so many double plays, and 5 runs by having a great LOB% (which stats show a strong correlation from year to year for pitchers) that leaves him at around 30 runs saved per year. Add 6-7 runs he doesn't save by striking out guys, that still leaves him over 20 runs saved per season Do that over an extended period of healthy, durable seasons, and there is nothing illigitamate lucky or flukey about Glavine. Oh yeah, Glavine was also a great hitter and one of the best sac guys ever.

Also, is it not just a possible that the Braves team BABIP was so low every year just as much beacuse those pitchers were good at preventing hits on balls in play as the possibility the pitchers all had good BABIP because the defense was so great?

Glavine did try to throw K's one year. 1994. He was 4th in the NL in K's...and had one of the worst years of his career. Not suprisingly, the year he was striking out players like crazy was also the year his BABIP was dreadful. Coincidence? I don't believe so. He was throwing mid-90's, but was wild and left balls over the middle consistantly. Even now, Glavine can throw near when he wants to. Give him credit for intentionally pitching to his defenses' strength. There are a whole lot of pitchers who will never do that. If Glavine had a good defense behind him, and tried to be a K pitcher and gave up more HR's and BB's, he would be the stupidest pitcher around. (not named Jason Marquis)

Do you honestly believe that Braves defense was so dynamic that it turned an okay pitcher into a guy with a top 25 career value guy almost by itself? There is no way. I agree that the Braves defense helped, but give the man some credit.

That being said, and as much as I love Tommy, Glavine is not Warren Spahn.

[Iron Jaw]

Keep in mind that it was much easier to lead the league during Spahn's era, which was before expansion. Glavine has to compete against double the amount of pitchers (especially Maddux, who was on his own team and is in the argument for top 5 pitchers of all time).


You omitted one very important stat that was a huge part of Spahn's generation and not Glavine's - Complete Games.

Spahn completed 382 of his 665 starts - he completed over 20 games 12 times during his career (Tom had 55 CGs in 635 career starts going into the 2006 season). Spahn also tossed 63 shutouts, a result of finishing what he started so often. Spahn pitched out of a four-man rotation his entire career - and he wasn't the starter for the day, Spahn would come out of the bullpen and pitch a few innings - he relieved often enough to have 29 saves in his career. Warren Spahn won 363 games in his career, and over 20 games 13 times (including 23 at the age of 42 in 1963 - he completed 22 and threw 7 shutouts that season). With the 363 wins and 382 complete games, Spahn was the starter, set-up man and closer all roled into one. He didn't need help from the pen very often to get the job done (and on many occasions, he came out of the pen himself to help another pitcher).

Based upon the workload, I would say nothing was easy when it came to pitching during Spahn's career. Nothing against Tom Glavine who has been superior during his era of pitching. But how would his stats have looked if he were starting as often, getting the CGs as often and throwing a bit of relief during his off-days (Tom hasn't pitched one inning of relief his entire career, even in the playoffs)?

[SABR Matt]

Glavine and Spahn aren't even remotely close as pitchers. Spahn was (a) way more durable (b) possessing of much better control and (c) far less prone to the longball. He was easily and identifiably the better pitcher. Glavine is a good solid bubble hall candidate...Spahn was a first ballot no doubter.

[Ubiquitous]

Was way more durable? How so?

Spahn has 30 more starts and one more season under his belt then Glavine. Next year Mr. Glavine should reach and surpass Mr. Spahn's start total in the same amount of seasons. Spahn was not way more durable.

Tom Glavine finished in the top 10 of home runs allowed only once in his entire career, and that was in 1989, finishing 10th. Despite the fact that he has finished in the top 10 of innings pitched 12 times. Mr. Spahn finished in the top 10 of homers allowed 12 times.

Tom Glavine has excellent control. Tom Glavine is a nibbler that lives on the edge of the plate. This isn't Steve Dalkowski but a guy who intentionally puts the ball on the borderline. He isn't a pitcher that is going to throw a fastball down the middle just to avoid a walk.

[SABR Matt]

It's funny...but I don't seem to recall Glavine notching 300 innings in any one of his seasons..............

And you, by definition, cannot have good control if you do not have good command of the strikezone, measured by K/BB ratio. There are other pitchers who, like Spahn and Glavine, live at the edges of the strikezone who (like Spahn but unlike Glavine) run 3+ K/BB...Glavine's is around 1.7 which is below or very near league average. I could name a hundred pitchers who do what Glavine does (live on the edges) but do not run such terrible K/BBs...and most of them don't run high HR rates either.

[SABR Matt]

To clarify the last line of my post...I wasn't saying Glavine runs high HR rates...but you made the implication that as a result of living on the edges, Glavine's HR rates are low (which is true), but that other pitchers who run better K/BB rates necessarily have higher HR rates (relative to league) because they're out there centering fastballs to avoid walks which is patently UNtrue.

[Ubiquitous]

Tom Glavine does have excellent command of the strike zone, and that should be patently obvious to anyone who watches him pitch.

K//BB is just that a comparison of strikeouts to walks. A low one doesn't mean he lacks command. It means he doesn't strike a lot of players out. But not striking players out does not mean he has poor command.


but that other pitchers who run better K/BB rates necessarily have higher HR rates (relative to league) because they're out there centering fastballs to avoid walks which is patently UNtrue.

That is not what I said.


It's funny...but I don't seem to recall Glavine notching 300 innings in any one of his seasons..............

How is that being durable?

[ChrisLDuncan]

I dunno the top LHP in my mind are:
Lefty Grove
Sandy Koufax
The Big Unit
Warren Spahn
Steve Carlton
Tom Glavine

So I have Spahn over glavine, I don't see it being so close. I find the debate between Whitey Ford and Tom Glavine more interesting.

[bluezebra]

When Glavine wins 363 games, we'll discuss the topic.When Glavine amasses 2,583 strikeouts, 382 complete games and a 3.09 career ERA, we'll discuss this.

Bob

[DoubleX]

It's funny...but I don't seem to recall Glavine notching 300 innings in any one of his seasons..............

I doubt Spahn would have ever pitched 300 innings in a season if his career started in 1987.

Nevertheless, I would agree that era considerations aside, Spahn had better durability.

[Ubiquitous]

Steve Carlton was the last pitcher to pitch 300+ innings in a season, and that was 26 seasons ago. Does that mean since then no pitchers could throw 300+ innings or does it mean they were not allowed too?

[Ubiquitous]

When Glavine wins 363 games, we'll discuss the topic.When Glavine amasses 2,583 strikeouts, 382 complete games and a 3.09 career ERA, we'll discuss this.

Bob


MR Glavine basically has the same ERA, if not slightly better, as Spahns. Glavine will likely surpass Spahn's strikeout total next year. Will he get to 363 wins? No but I could see him finishing up with around 315-320 wins which I think is pretty darn good considering how pitchers are used nowadays.

[SABR Matt]

How is that being durable?

Is this a serious question? Durability is the pitcher's ability to take the ball when he's asked without fail and to go deep into games. Glavine doesn't go nearly as deep into games as Spahn did and if he did, you can be certain his ERA+ that is supposedly better than Spahn's would go down considerably.

And re: command...I wasn't saying Glavine had BAD command...I was saying he had bad command relative to Spahn. Get a group of pitchers together who live by similar philosophies (hitting the corners, refusing to challenge hitters, and trying to get them to expand the zone while throwing off their timing)...and the ones with the higher K/BBs will be the ones with better command of the strike zone. Spahn wasn't a master of the strikeout either and yet he managed to run outstanding K/BB ratios cnosistently. Same for guys like John Tudor, Jimmy Key, Jamie Moyer, Andy Pettitte...even though we all agree Glavine had good command, he could not have had as good a command of his pitches as guys with markedly better strikezone-oriented results.

[THE OX]

IMO Warren Spahn had a noticeably better career than Glavine. In complete games, shutouts, 20-win seasons, etc., there's no realistic comparison between the two.

That said, is Glavine a fine pitcher over his career? Absolutely!

And one poster in this thread mentioned that a comparison of Glavine with Whitey Ford might be more appropriate. I think that's an excellent idea. Had Whitey not lost 2 years in service during the Korean War, the career total stats might be very comparable.

[Ubiquitous]

Is this a serious question? Durability is the pitcher's ability to take the ball when he's asked without fail and to go deep into games. Glavine doesn't go nearly as deep into games as Spahn did and if he did, you can be certain his ERA+ that is supposedly better than Spahn's would go down considerably.

Glavine isn't his manager, and he isn't his pitching coach. He does what he is asked. If Spahn started his career in 1990 you can rest assured that no manager of his would ask him to throw 300+ innings or anything really close to it





And re: command...I wasn't saying Glavine had BAD command...I was saying he had bad command relative to Spahn. Get a group of pitchers together who live by similar philosophies (hitting the corners, refusing to challenge hitters, and trying to get them to expand the zone while throwing off their timing)...and the ones with the higher K/BBs will be the ones with better command of the strike zone. Spahn wasn't a master of the strikeout either and yet he managed to run outstanding K/BB ratios cnosistently. Same for guys like John Tudor, Jimmy Key, Jamie Moyer, Andy Pettitte...even though we all agree Glavine had good command, he could not have had as good a command of his pitches as guys with markedly better strikezone-oriented results.

Um Warren Spahn had a 1.80 K/BB ratio for his career, Glavine had a 1.77. Tom's best season beats Warrens best season in this stat. Warren had 7 seasons in which his ratio was 2 or greater. Glavine has had 7 seasons in which his ratio was 2 or greater.

[SABR Matt]

You have to look RELATIVE Ubi when it comes to K/BB. The league average K/BB in Spahn's day was quite different than it is today.

And I agree...Spahn would not have thrown 300 innings in the modern game...which would have made his relative performance noticeably better than Glavine's relative performance is today because there would have been less strain on him to conserve pitches and he'd have been more free to give max effort more of the time.

[Ubiquitous]

Why relative? It is a strike zone. So if Warren played today he would be more likely to find the strike zone?

But since you want to talk relative. In Warrens day the average pitcher gave up 3.35 walks per 9. In Tom's day the average pitcher gave up 3.35 walks per game. Warren was a below league average strike out pitcher. Tom Glavine is a below average strikeout pitcher.

Warren did slightly better in his rate stats relative to league but looking at those numbers one cannot say that they are not even remotely close.

[AstrosFan]

Strikeouts go up if the batters are more free-swinging, which they are in this day and age. And if they chase more pitches out of the zone, walks go down.

[SABR Matt]

The walk rate didn't change, but the K rate in their respective times certainly did...and why relative? Because the strike zone ISN'T just the strikezone...the size of the strikezone has changed dramatically and the way the umpires call pitches on the corners has as well. And because the batters are swinging and missing a lot more now than they did in Spahn's age...aren't you a sabermetrician...or at least don't you aspire in that direction? I thought that was basically understood.

Perhaps the gap in K/BB isn't as large as I made it sound, but there's a definite gap and when you factor in the fact that pitchers do better the less they have to work per start, it becomes obvious who was the better pitcher. And by enough of a margin that comparing the two is a little silly.

[Ubiquitous]

No I am not a sabermetician nor do I want to be one.

If we put Tom Glavine in that day and age and have him pitch exactly like he does now with that strike zone would we see his walks go down and his strike outs go up? Possibly. Maybe we don't see his strikeouts go up at all, maybe we see a few more groundouts instead. But would we see his walks go up? What is it about Glavine's pitching that would make one think his walk rate would go up simply because he would be pitching in another era, an era in which the strike zone is larger?

Now then would Warren Spahn strike more batters out in todays game? Yes and no, first part of his career yes. Second part of his career? NO I don't think so. But lets just say it would go up, now then would his walk rate decline? Why would it? If the strike zone is smaller and the players more free swinging and we already know he walked X amount of players in a larger strike zone why would his walks go down? Just because he happened to be 10% better or whatever then his league in 1950? That is why I questioned relative. Because what is important isn't where they stand in some group but the actual skill they have.

It doesn't totally fit, but if I am 50% better then the average 100 m sprinter in 1950 that doesn't mean I am going to be 50% better then the average sprinter in 2000.

Nor is Babe Ruth going to hit 200 homers in 1998 because he was 200% better then average in 1921.

Tom Glavine and Warren Spahn except for strikeouts played in a very similar environment. The scoring was about the same, the hit rate was about the same, the home run rate was about the same (until that is the 2000's), and the walk rate was about the same. The only difference being the number of strikeouts.

[Sports Fan 07]

Is this a serious question? Durability is the pitcher's ability to take the ball when he's asked without fail and to go deep into games. Glavine doesn't go nearly as deep into games as Spahn did and if he did

Extremely unfair. Hardly any pitcher today goes as deep into games as Spahn did in his era. Glavine has been remarkably durable for a pitcher in this era.

[EvanAparra]

Extremely unfair. Hardly any pitcher today goes as deep into games as Spahn did in his era. Glavine has been remarkably durable for a pitcher in this era.

I still don't see how this is an arguement. Spahn was clearly better.

[Sports Fan 07]

No I am not a sabermetician nor do I want to be one.

If we put Tom Glavine in that day and age and have him pitch exactly like he does now with that strike zone would we see his walks go down and his strike outs go up? Possibly. Maybe we don't see his strikeouts go up at all, maybe we see a few more groundouts instead. But would we see his walks go up? What is it about Glavine's pitching that would make one think his walk rate would go up simply because he would be pitching in another era, an era in which the strike zone is larger?

Now then would Warren Spahn strike more batters out in todays game? Yes and no, first part of his career yes. Second part of his career? NO I don't think so. But lets just say it would go up, now then would his walk rate decline? Why would it? If the strike zone is smaller and the players more free swinging and we already know he walked X amount of players in a larger strike zone why would his walks go down? Just because he happened to be 10% better or whatever then his league in 1950? That is why I questioned relative. Because what is important isn't where they stand in some group but the actual skill they have.

It doesn't totally fit, but if I am 50% better then the average 100 m sprinter in 1950 that doesn't mean I am going to be 50% better then the average sprinter in 2000.

Nor is Babe Ruth going to hit 200 homers in 1998 because he was 200% better then average in 1921.

Tom Glavine and Warren Spahn except for strikeouts played in a very similar environment. The scoring was about the same, the hit rate was about the same, the home run rate was about the same (until that is the 2000's), and the walk rate was about the same. The only difference being the number of strikeouts.

Good post. Both Glavine and Spahn knew how to pitch and were winners. Plus they did a lot of the "little things" that helped themselves. Both excellent fielders and hitters as well. Both were smart, outstanding athletes that ran the bases well also. They could both pitch for me. They wouldn't miss and turn and both would go out there and give your team an excellent chance to win each time out.

[Sports Fan 07]

I still don't see how this is an arguement. Spahn was clearly better.

I'm not arguing that, I know Spahn was better.

[EvanAparra]

I'm not arguing that, I know Spahn was better.

Oh ok. I didnt go back far enough to check... I guess you were just arguing Matt's post about durability. Although I tend to agree with you, you can't fault Spahn either. Just because he was give the opporunity to pitch more often and go later into games didn't make it any easier. Although I don't discount pitchers in this ERA for low pitch counts, I do think its a plus when a pitcher can preform for a long period of time, even if his counterpart wasn't given the chance to.

[Los Bravos]

Both Glavine and Spahn knew how to pitch and were winners. Plus they did a lot of the "little things" that helped themselves. Both excellent fielders and hitters as well. Both were smart, outstanding athletes that ran the bases well also. They could both pitch for me. They wouldn't miss and turn and both would go out there and give your team an excellent chance to win each time out.That's really about the bottom line.

All HOFers aren't necessarily equal, they've all simply reached a certain (high) level. I don't think Tom would even consider claiming equal status with Warren, but they're both going to be in the Hall in 6-7 years.

A couple of quick things about Tom: he's the leader among all active players in sacrifice bunts. He's also never been on the disabled list in his career. As ubiquitous wrote, he's not in control of when he comes out. He takes the ball when it's his turn, consistently, and his results speak for themselves.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

On one issue, strikeouts, ratio of strike outs. No way to ever know how Tom would have done in Warren's era or how Warren would do in todays game.

Comparing their numbers as they did in their own times is not that simple. It's true Tom is dealing with a smaller strike zone, one of the lowest I have ever seen in the years I've watched this game.

We have to consider more than the size of the strike zone, what about the change in the game, hitting strategy. More contact hitter in Warren's time, especially middle infielders. Their job to get on base, today more middle infielders going long ball and overall most hitters going that way.

Took a look at the top 100 teams with the highest single season strikeouts in the NL from 1940 to 2005. Only 7 teams made the list that were from before 1970, none from before 1960, most from 1990 to 2005.

[SABR Matt]

It is self-evident to me that Spahn would have been better served (K-wise) pitching now than he was in his era...it is also self-evident to me that Spahn's heavier workload held him back in the rate stats (K rate, BB rate, and things like ERA+) because he had to consider that his job was to go the distance in a game and alter his pitching style to compensate and because he had to deal with pitching tired a lot more often than Glavine does. TangoTiger more or less CONCLUSIVELY proved that the harder a pitcher has to work, the worse he does statistically. While the ERA+ figures may seem close (a) Glavine's ERA+ is slightly inflated by his good team defenses and (b) Spahn's ERA+ is BADLY deflated by having to pitch a lot more than Glavine does.

The two are far FAR apart as I see it...and I don't think you make for a particularly good analyst of the game if you can't tell the difference between them.

[Ubiquitous]

And who has conclusviely proven that starters worked harder back then then they do now?


The two are far FAR apart as I see it...and I don't think you make for a particularly good analyst of the game if you can't tell the difference between them.

Who says I can't tell the difference between them? Why does it have to be so polarizing? Why is it that if I don't agree with your definition of FAR apart I'm not a good analyst? Is that really the kind of debates you want on this forum? Do you honestly want everybody that disagrees with you to question your devotion, your knowledge, or your interest in the game?

[SABR Matt]

And who has conclusviely proven that starters worked harder back then then they do now?

Who says I can't tell the difference between them? Why does it have to be so polarizing? Why is it that if I don't agree with your definition of FAR apart I'm not a good analyst? Is that really the kind of debates you want on this forum? Do you honestly want everybody that disagrees with you to question your devotion, your knowledge, or your interest in the game?

To answer your on-topic question, OF COURSE starters back then worked harder! They were in 4-man rotations and regularly completed their games...at least more regularly than they do today. It may not have always translated into enormous pitch counts, but they didn't keep track of pitch counts in Spahn's day and pull starters when they got near 100 the way they do today and the results are clear. All you need to do is look through the IP leaders to see how much harder starters were ridden back then.

In any case, Tango's study wasn't focused on pitch counts since that is often a red herring...his study was focused on days between starts and times through the batting order, and it is pretty conclusive in finding that pitchers lose their edge as a game progresses and that if they pitch with fewer days rest, they perform a big step worse.

On your second question, I will simply say that it is not every issue that I feel should be polarizing, but this PARTICULAR issue is to me because I think it is very important that people studying the game at least be able to tell pitchers like this apart...if we're arguing about the difference between Warren Spahn and Tom Glavine, then we don't have a danged clue as a group because there is a difference that should be readily visible and apparently is not. What use can there be in studying the game if we cannot even agree that a first ballot HOF stud is significantly better than a bubble candidate with a long and productive but never truly spectacular career?

And I don't question your devotion to the study of the game nor your interest, nor do I question your "knowledge"...in that we all have the same facts in front of us...I question your ability to interpret the available data with enough clarity to make any useful observations if you cannot distinguish between pitchers like this. It would be like aspiring to be an interior decorator and not being able to tell the difference between sky blue and turquoise. If you can't tell them apart...you can't decorate...if you can't tell Spahn and Glavine apart, you shouldn't be trying to draw conclusions from their statistics.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay again how is OF COURSE they worked harder? That is an assumption and one that has not even been proven. To me taking it as a matter of fact is like saying ballplayers in 1920 were better, or some other stereotype. What Tango looked at was the average pitcher in todays game and the effects of innings, games, days and so on. I'm not about to assume that it applies to all pitchers throughout history. Now it may very well be true, or it may even be slightly less true, but I'm not going to assume.

And again who says I can't see a difference between the two? Where did I say they were the exact same? What I do believe is that you simply made up your mind ahead of time and didn't really look closely at the data. I don't blame you I think most people would too. Anytime somebody mentions Warren Spahn vs. Pitcher X most of the time the first inclination is to say Spahn. I get it, I understand it, but that doesn't mean I am going to blindly assume it.

Warren Spahn is really two different pitchers. His younger days and his older days. As an older player he became the control pitcher that Glavine has always been. In fact as Glavine gets older Spahn is moving up his similarity chart.

Now then I personally believe that had Tom Glavine played in the 50's he too would have high inning counts, nor do I think his rates stats would go down because of it. By the end of next year Glavine will have matched Spahns seasonal total and have the same amount of starts, but spahn will have about 80 more games on him, and end up having about 900 more innings. A couple of things get into Glavines way, 1994 and 1995. Which probably costs him about 110 innings and not relieveing in games which probably added about 125 innings to Spahns total. Glavine wasn't some guy who could only pitch 190 innings or so a year. He wasn't some fragile guy who was always on the DL. This is a guy who in his prime was pitching 230+ innings a year and making 34 starts a season. Do I think that if Tom was brought up to pitch in a different rotation and length he could adept and play well? Yep, he hasn't shown me anything that would lead me to believe he cannot adept. If it was Glavine and Sain and prey for rain would Glavine have 363 wins? Probably not, but I do think the difference between the two wouldn't be as vast as you want me to believe it would have been.


One final note Spahn and most pitchers were not on a strict 4 mand rotation. Meaning they didn't come out and pitch every 4th day. There were stretches especially when you were the best pitcher on the team and they needed you they would do it, but Spahn did pitch a lot with 4 days of rest and at times with 5 days of rest. Check out retrosheet for his daily logs.

[SABR Matt]

Do you really believe I haven't spent hours and HOURS looking at pitchers, Ubi? Good lord...I spent WAAAAYY too much time comparing pitching careers for it to be healthy. And you're treading on dangerous ground when you accuse me of not knowing what Glavine's career looks like, because no one on Fever will agree with you. I've spent, in the last four months, something like 500 posts at Fever discussing Tom Glavine...often times heatedly...and I've been motivated to do what I consider to be solid research into the PBP database in the development of a PBP oriented DIPS-based pitching metric which resulted in me CHANGING my opinion of Glavine (to a more favorable position I might add)...and I am still firmyl of the opinion that he's not close to Spahn.

You are dead...DEAD wrong when you accuse me of not spending the time to look at their careers...and frankly I am more than insulted.

[Ubiquitous]

A person can feel however they choose after reading my posts. That is your decision not mine. But frankly want do you want me to think after you say,

Glavine and Spahn aren't even remotely close as pitchers. Spahn was (a) way more durable (b) possessing of much better control and (c) far less prone to the longball. He was easily and identifiably the better pitcher. Glavine is a good solid bubble hall candidate...Spahn was a first ballot no doubter.

Because A) Spahn wasn't. B) Not really, and C) No he wasn't.


You say Glavine isn't remotely close, I think he is. I may be wrong, but I do know that your ABC does not prove me wrong.

[SABR Matt]

Apparently you just don't know the meaning of the word durable.

*shrug*

The innings pitched speak loudly and for themselves. It's not Glavine's "fault" that he didn't get as many opportunities to pitch, but he achieved the same ERA+ (essentially) in far less work. This isn't rocket science here...5243.7 IP for Spahn, 4149.7 IP for Glavine...end of story. And it may be true that no study has been done on the effect of more innings and fewer rest days on pitchers in 1960, but this is blindingly obvious common sense stuff here. The more you pitch, you harder it is to (a) fool batters and (b) keep pitching as effectively. I'm not talking in tongues...this should be perfectly obvious.

And I don't think you've been carefully reading my explanation of control and effectiveness. If Glavine can pitch it into a teacup just as well as Spahn, then why is he less capable relative to his league or getting the positive results you want to get within the strikezone? Control has no value if it nets you no gains...and those gains are measured in your ability to get positive results when the batter does not put it in play.

Career DNRA+ for Spahn from 1957 on (that's his age 36 season) was 110. he recorded about 6000 defense independent outs from age 36 on.

Glavine's entire career DNRA+ is 114 in about 11750 DI Outs, including his entire prime (except 1999). From his age 36 season on, Glavine has posted DNRA+ values of 100, 88, 111, and 102 for total average in that span of 102 and this is just in 2500 or so DI Outs.

Take a look at the years from 1957 on in Spahn's career...these are not his better seasons...his prime was already mostly over by that point though he was obviously still quite good. And he has Glavine beat by a sizeable margin from age 36 on. If the PBP data went back further, I would be able to say with a little more certainty what I strongly believe at this point to be true...Glavine does not get the kind of good results Spahn got. And it's not close enough to warrant this comparison.

[Ubiquitous]

Yet which pitchers have the best ERA. Which pitchers have the most wins? SO on and so on. Cy Young had a 2.63 ERA and pitched over 7000 innings. Pud Galvin has 6000 innings and a 2.83 ERA. When Glavine retires he will probably be in the top 25 of innings of all time, possibly even top 20. Only 2 other current players are there. Maddux and Clemens. Glavine has been of the most durable pitchers of his era, this we know. We know it for a fact. Of this era he is one of the most if not top 2 or 3 most durable pitchers out there. Yet you want me to believe that isn't even close in terms of durability. So basically using your logic pitchers from the 19th century and early 20th century are the most durable pitchers of all time and nobody can touch them.


Then we have Spahn and Glavine for control. Well Mr. Spahn gave up more homers per 9 then Glavine despite the fact that Glavine players in the more homer friendly environment. Spahn walked about a half walk less then Glavine. That is good that is better, and Spahn was only slightly below average for his career on strikeouts. But to me if Spahn played in todays game I don't think his strikeouts would go up much, but I do think his walks would go up a bit. I think overall he would have a better rate of strikeouts then Glavine and he probably would still have a better rate of walks but neither would be vastly better. Which neither are vastly better now.

Spahn is the better pitcher, never said he wasn't. Spahn is easily a top 10 pitcher. Probably somewhere around 7th. Glavine is somwehere in the mid 20's right now. That to me isn't ridiculously far apart.

[SABR Matt]

They don't make pitchers the way they used to, Ubi. The pitchers from this era ARE less durable than they were thirty years ago, because they are being trained NOT to be durable. That is a real condition of the modern game...from the time they're in little league to the time they retire from the majors, they're trained not to expect the kind of hard work and strain that pitchers from prior eras expected. If Spahn pitched today, he owuld have thrown more of his pitches at maximum effort, and yes, I do believe that would have resulted in fewer innings pitched, more strikeouts, and a better ERA+. And yes, I do believe that difference is too much for us to start comparing Spahn to Glavine as tohugh they were on the same level.

[Ubiquitous]

So you are willing to set aside relative stats when it supports your cause? But when it doesn't you cast them aside.

But again if we use your logic no modern pitcher should be anywhere on the leaderboards for all time pitchers. Because all those pitchers from before are better then modern pitchers.

[Yankee Legend]

I would say Spahnn but they are pretty comparable. Also don't forget that Glavine pitched in a high offensive era. This was the 90's and 2000's you know.

[SABR Matt]

So you are willing to set aside relative stats when it supports your cause? But when it doesn't you cast them aside.

But again if we use your logic no modern pitcher should be anywhere on the leaderboards for all time pitchers. Because all those pitchers from before are better then modern pitchers.

You do realize you're speaking to a person who has like 6 of his top ten pitchers as guys from the modern game, right? I guess you don't, because you don't bother to read my posts.

I set aside the "relative stat" that is relative durability because it makes no sense to give Glavine credit for pitching more innings than he actually did without also penalizing his career rate stats like ERA+ for the likely result if he HAD thrown more innings, which is what you're doing. If Glavine pitched as much as Spahn did, he'd have been a much worse looking pitcher when his career was over...that is something I firmly believe.

[SABR Matt]

For those of us who are keeping score:

First Last P-Rk GI
Walter Johnson 1 459.72
Cy Young 2 455.23
Roger Clemens 3 429.98
Lefty Grove 4 399.90
Pete Alexander 5 390.76
Christy Mathewson 6 377.07
Greg Maddux 7 360.53
Pedro Martinez 8 342.54
Randy Johnson 9 333.53
Carl Hubbell 10 331.94
Tom Seaver 11 327.35
Dazzy Vance 12 291.35
Tim Keefe 13 290.36
Ed Walsh 14 287.85
Dennis Eckersley 15 282.46
Kid Nichols 16 282.34
Sandy Koufax 17 281.28
Bert Blyleven 18 277.92
Fergie Jenkins 19 277.64
Rube Waddell 20 274.9
Nolan Ryan 21 273.31
Bob Gibson 22 267.13
Hal Newhouser 23 267.04
Warren Spahn 24 265.17
Amos Rusie 25 261.78

Mind you, those top 25 are subject to change since they're based on PCA, which I've already convinced myself is shorting certain types of pitchers in the pitching leaderboard (namely, control artists who have success at preventing extra base hits and at generating double plays on balls in play...the groundball/contact family) because it is based on a method designed before I had access to the PBP database. But of the top 25 pitchers on this list, 8 had the bulk of their career after 1970 (a very appropriate ratio...those guys being Clemens, Maddux, Martinez, Johnson, Seaver, Blyleven, Ryan and Eckersly) and 4 after 1990. And those 4 after 1990 are all in the top 9.

Also note that this leaderboard is only through 2004...GI statistics didn't get updated beyond that release of the B-DB. Martinez, Maddux and Clemens have a good chance of moving up in the rankings if you include their last two seasons...RJ not quite so much, but he might move up a tick.

[Ubiquitous]

You do realize you're speaking to a person who has like 6 of his top ten pitchers as guys from the modern game, right? I guess you don't, because you don't bother to read my posts.

I set aside the "relative stat" that is relative durability because it makes no sense to give Glavine credit for pitching more innings than he actually did without also penalizing his career rate stats like ERA+ for the likely result if he HAD thrown more innings, which is what you're doing. If Glavine pitched as much as Spahn did, he'd have been a much worse looking pitcher when his career was over...that is something I firmly believe.


If Glavine tried to pitch 300 innigs a year in todays game his stats would go up. I can believe that. I also think that Glavine probably could have squeezed 20 to 30 extra innings a year in todays game without ill effect (of course not throughout his whole career). I don't think managers use their pitchers to optimal effect. Sometimes they have too strict a rotation or are too quick or regimented in their substitutions. I also think that Glavine could have pitched in Spahn's era and pitched 280 to 290 or so innings easy at his peak without it damaging his rate stats. His walk rate and homer rate would go down in that era so his rate stats would also improve and whatever bump he might get because he pitches more into a game will be more then offset by this.

[SABR Matt]

The walk rate would have gone down, to be sure, have Glavine pitched in the 1950s/1960s, but I'm not sold on him being able to go from 200-230 IP (occasionally a little more) per year to 280-290 without suffering at least somewhat relative to those leagues and relative to Spahn. His walk rate goes down but everyone else's is already down and Spahn's era was much harder to dominate if you were a pitcher. Point taken though, about pitch counts per inning possibly not being as high because batters faced per inning were lower. One of the reasons pitchers don't get CGs as often today is that they can be on their best game and still have to face 4 or 5 batters every inning whereas it was easier to get quick innings back in the 60s.

I would like to spend more time studying the trade-off of time for aggressiveness in pitching history. The more a pitcher has to work, the less he can be aggressive and take control of his own game. That's why K rates were so low back in the earliest years of baseball and that's a big part of the reason why K rates are increasing today...no it's not just because all of the hitters are going to an all or nothing approach...the PBP data doesn't support the notion that the all-or-nothing approach is really being employed by the majority of today's players...the increased "power game" among the hitters contributes, but so does the knowledge a pitcher has that he can go max effort for 6 innings instead of worrying about how much he'll have in the tank in inning #8 and 9...not to mention the specialization of relief pitching. I would like to get more insight into how a pitcher's performance would translate to different managerial styles (expect more innings from your pitchers and you expect less aggression and more of the onus on your team defense...spread the innings around more...and you put more power in the hands of your pitchers...even the control artists)...it's on the list of things to study.

[Ubiquitous]

Glavine in his prime (1991-2000) wasn't a 200 to 230 inning guy he was about a 230 to 240 inning guy. SO the increase in workload would only be about half of what you are thinking it would be.


Yes his walk rate would go down, but so would his home run rate as well. And since home run rates are just a short-hand for measuring hard hit balls it stands to reason that his hard hit ball rate would go down as well. Resulting in more outs less runs being scored and quicker innings. So it isn't just less walks equals less work, but less walks, less homers, less hard hit balls equals less work.

[SABR Matt]

I don't totally disagree with that point Ubi...but from 1991-2002, Glavine averaged 228.2 IP per full season (I adjusted for the shortness of 1994 and 1995)...not higher than 230...and outside that range he's been struggling to reach 215. And I don't think the rate of line drives has rised quite as much as you're probably envisioning from the 50s to the 90s.

The data is far from complete back in 1957 as far as batted ball trajectories go, but what we do have from that season is:

G: 26894
F: 19596
P: 3739
L: 4005

LD%: 7.4%
PU%: 6.9%

The same data from 2005:

G: 63412
F: 38517 (GB/FB is about the same as 1957)
P: 11377
L: 25456

LD%: 18.3%
PU: 8.2%

As we would expect the LD% is up (well duh) the difference is partially explained by the increasing non-BIP event rates...pitchers aren't going for grounders...they're going for strikeouts now. And while it's true that line drives are up...so are pop-ups which are easy outs though granted...by less.

From 1957 to 2005 the ball in play hit rate hasn't changed all that much (it changes some, yes, but not huge amounts, though it did get pretty low in the late 60s owing mostly to a glut of BRILLIANT fielders all playing at their peak simultaneously) despite the increasing line drive rate so I'm sure you can really say that it's getting harder for the pitchers just beacuse the LD% has increased. Other things seem to be compensating some for the changes.

*shrug* I don't think Glavine and Spahn are terrible comparable in that we should really be asking how close Glavine is to Spahn...there is a sizeable gap between them...and better examples of guys Glavine is approaching who pitched similarly...that's all I'm saying. Perhaps not as large a gap as I thought when I started this debate, but it's hard for me to believe they're close enough to merit this whole debating question.

[Ubiquitous]

Not sure how you got to 228. In 1994 he was on pace for 239 innings and in 1995 he was on pace for 224 innings. Add those plus the 8 others seasons and you have a guy averaging 235.3 innings per season.

1991: 246.7
1992: 225
1993: 239.3
1994: 165.3 (239)
1995: 198.7 (224)
1996: 235.3
1997: 240
1998: 229.3
1999: 234
2000: 241

The only way Glavine averages 228 innings per season is if you think Glavine would pitch only 30 extra innings in 1994 and 1995 combined. I don't see that happening. To me it is pretty clear that in that 10 year span he was good for 230 to 240 innings of pitching.

AS for after that I don't know about struggling to get to 215. Two years immediately after that 10 year stretch he goes over it. Moves to a new organization where everybody is put into an exact regiment. He went from starting 35 to 36 games a year to 32 to 33. Granted his first year in New york was not good but he rebounded the next year and would have easily gone past 215 if it wasn't for the taxi cab accident. Then yes at 39 and beyond expecting 215 or so innings out of him would be wrong to do.

[SABR Matt]

I got to 228 because I'm an idiot. I rechecked and got a different number this time, which means I must have hit the wrong button on my calculator. I still don't see how you can go from (he successfully pitches 230 innings a year in the current game) to (he would be just as effective pitching 290 innings a year in the 50s/60s)...I'd buy 260 maybe given the likelihood that it was a little easier to get outs on fewer pitches back then...but not 290.

[Ubiquitous]

This is what I believe.

In Tom's prime he pitched 230 to 240 innings. I firmly believe that in a perfect world in which he was used to his most effective he could have gotten about 250 to 260 innings in todays game without unduly effecting his stats. Now then I believe if you put him back in the 50's and have him pitch like those guys I do believe that he could pitch to around 275 to 285 (with something like 290 or 300 being his peak) innings and not have it alter his stats. I believe this because while I do believe that those extra innings will or could be mediocre or worse the 260 or so other innings, the innings in which he is probably better then his numbers now will act as a buffer to his stats. Like I said above Tom Glavine's walk rate, homer rate, and hard-hit rate would go down in that era so I believe his stats would look better and act as a buffer against any mediocre or worse performances at the back end.

An example. 1957, through 8 innings Glavine gives up one run goes into the 9th and gives up 2 runs. He now has a 3.00 ERA for the game and of course his walk and hit rates have either both gone up or at least one of them has gone up. Now it is possible in todays game he would give up 2 runs through 7 or 6 innings and then get pulled. His hit and walk rate won't go up because he is pulled but they are probably higher then his 1 run game through 8. So they even out. On one hand he pitches more gets beat up in the last inning or so and on the other hand he pitches fewer but gives up more runs and hits.

[SABR Matt]

But that's not relative to the league run scoring rate. His walks and homers go down in 1957 because in 1957 EVERYONE'S walks and HRs go down...we EXPECT Glavine's ERA to look better in those years. I don't see how pitching in 1957 would improve Glavine relative to the league in the innings before he starts getting hit harder because he's having to work more.

I think a place to begin is to ask the question...how many outs would Glavine get if he faced the same number of hitters in 1957 that he actually faced in 1996 or whatever modern year...assuming he stays about the same relative to the league (and therefore would get some more outs because the K and hit rates are different...among many other factors that would need to be considered). I haven't done all of the complex analysis needed to answer that question difinitively but right now I'm of the opinion that he would get maybe 20 or 30 more innings (60 or 90 extra outs) tops...maybe less than that...if he were the same level of relative effectiveness...if he pitched in 1957 than he does in the modern game...and that all of the other innings you add onto that to get him to where Spahn was in the same time period would be detrimental to his rate state (league relative). Now you have expressed a belief that he lost perhaps 15 or 20 innings every year because his mangers pulled him too soon or didn't start him enough...I'm curious what makes you think that, because I hadn't considered the idea and I don't really see anything that points to that being true in his record or having watched him pitch (and yes...I have seen Glavine pitch quite a bit...TBS is a national station, remember).

[Ubiquitous]

How many times does Glavine and every other pitcher out there in the NL get pulled for a pinch hitter in the late innings. Were all of the at the end of their tethered each time it happened? How many times did Glavine and other pitchers get stuck to a rigid 5 man rotation in which you wouldn't pitch again until 4 other pitchers started even if that meant you didn't pitch every fifth day? How many times did Glavine and other pitchers get pulled so that the "setup" man or "closer" regardless of whether or nor he needed to be pulled?

[wu-tang clan]

warren spahn is better, cuz like glavine hasnt pitched as many complete games

[SABR Matt]

How many times does Glavine and every other pitcher out there in the NL get pulled for a pinch hitter in the late innings. Were all of the at the end of their tethered each time it happened? How many times did Glavine and other pitchers get stuck to a rigid 5 man rotation in which you wouldn't pitch again until 4 other pitchers started even if that meant you didn't pitch every fifth day? How many times did Glavine and other pitchers get pulled so that the "setup" man or "closer" regardless of whether or nor he needed to be pulled?

Spahn got pulled for pinch hitters too...his teams made liberal use of pinch hitters on many occasions. I'll give you the five-day rotation comment, but Tango showed that pichers are better on five days rest than four days rest so we can infer that this probably marginally helped Glavine's rate stats too...especially at the age he started getting used that way.

[Ubiquitous]

Um. . . Spahn didn't get pulled anywhere close to the amount of times a modern day pitcher gets pulled for a pinch hitter.

For instance in 1958 there was only 13 opps for him to get pulled for a pinch hitter. In his first game he went 9 innings was pulled in the bottom of the 9th for a PH, game went 14 innings. A month later he went 8 and 2/3 innings before being pulled because he blew the lead and let them tie the game. Game went 12 innings. A couple of weeks later he was pulled for a reliever in 7th. His next turn he was finally pulled for a PH in the 8th. 9 days later he was pulled in the 9th for a reliever when he gave up the lead run. About a month later Spahn was pulled in the 5th for a reliever because he was getting shelled. Next time Spahn was pulled for a reliever when he walked the bases full in the 8th with a one run lead. Next time up Spahn didn't make it out of the first inning. SPahn was pulled for a reliever in the 7th, he wasn't doing well. A couple of weeks later Spahn was due to leadoff the 8th inning. He was pulled for a PH for the second time that year. 2 of his last 3 starts of the year he was pulled for a PH. So he was pulled for 4 times for a PH that season. His first two PH outings cost him at most 2 innings, while his last two at most cost him 3 innings.


I'll give you the five-day rotation comment, but Tango showed that pichers are better on five days rest than four days rest so we can infer that this probably marginally helped Glavine's rate stats too

No we cannot infer it. We are not talking about groups of players or averages. We are talking about one player and the results on his stats. We are not talking about 10,000 game sample but something like one or two games or just a little bit more a season and that is it. It might very well be true that Glavine is better with an extra day of rest but it also might be true that had he played with 4 days rest he faces up against a bad offense and by resting an extra day he faces a better offensive lineup. In otherwords we cannot infer anything from Tango's studies as it applies to Tom Glavine the lone pitcher.

[FatAngel]

Don´t know if we already had this comparison, but I´d consider Spahn vs Maddux much more entertaining.

[SABR Matt]

Spahn vs. Maddux is probably more of an appropriate comparison, yes, though I would side strongly with Maddux. Spahn's K/BB, which is relatively better than Glavine's, is relatively MUCH worse than Maddux' 3+ figure and Maddux is one of the greatest pitchers of all time at limiting extra base hits and home runs.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Maddux and Glavine take similar approaches. Both aim to use the hitters aggressiveness against them (perfect for this era), but the difference imo, is that Glavine has no plan B. Once a team decides to take what is given (up the middle and the other way), Glavine is done. Maddux has the ability to recognize when he's being adjusted to, and counter that with a different approach. If we had spray charts for Glavine's starts where he gives up 5 or 6+ runs, you'd more than likely see a ton of opposite field hits.

[SABR Matt]

Correct Sultan. Glavine doesn't have an "out pitch"...he has four or five different wrinkles he uses to keep you honest, but he doesn't have go-to pitches that he can be confident will "get you"...he relies totally on you being too eager. Maddux on the other hand has three legitimate out pitches...the HARD 2-seamer (not velocity hard, but hard-moving), the straight change with GREAT deception on it and the the perfectly located 4-seamer (he likes throwing this pitch up and in and getting a bajillion pop-ups with it...and it was a legitimate out pitch back when he could throw 92 when he reached back...now he's throwing 87 and he can't use that one as much). Glavine just has a cute little slider, solid location on his change-ups (not quite as deceptive though) and located fastballs with much less movement.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

now he's throwing 87 and he can't use that one as much).

I used to be surprised at the actual game knowledge you had for a stat guy. Not any more.

The only thing I would add, is that its not that he "can't use that one as much" so much as now, he needs to focus even more on making sure that pitch is set-up properly; and when he does go to it, location is all the more important ;)

[SABR Matt]

Well...when he was in a jam in the past, he would throw that up and in fastball three times in a row occasionally...if he does that now, the second one is going about 450 feet. Which is why his HR rate is up. :)

I don't think of myself as a "stat-head" if the term means that I see everything about the game through a numerical prism. I am a devotee of baseball...I spend my free time not already occupied by watching games cutting through the enormous amounts of historical data available and trying to learn that way, yes...but when I'm actually watching the games, I'm looking at visual patterns and trying to think with the players and watching for clues about what is really going on during play. ESPECIALLY when it comes to pitching and fielding which are my favorite aspects of baseball.

[SABR Matt]

The other problem with Maddux' declining velocity is that his change-up doesn't move as much as it used to and there is less difference in speed between the change and the 2-seamer. Physically...a baseball will move more the harder it is thrown (within reason...an 85 mph curve is usually a sharper break than a 65 mph curve...a change-up sinks more if it's thrown at 82 than it does if it's at 75...knuckleballs don't knuckle at all unless they are at least 55-58 mph and knuckle more if they're at Wakefield's 75 mph than Sparks' 62 mph)...Maddux used to throw his 4-seamer at 90-92, his 2-seamer at 86-90 and his change-up around 78-80...now he throws his 4-seamer at 85-87, his 2-seamer at 83-86 and his change-up at 76-78...he's lost a bit of his speed range and the 2-seamer and change aren't as sharp. Happens to the best of us...he's battling amazingly well for someone who has no plus pitches anymore (same for Glavine).

[EvanAparra]

If we had spray charts for Glavine's starts where he gives up 5 or 6+ runs, you'd more than likely see a ton of opposite field hits.

Couldn't that be said for almost any runs glavine gives up? If he lives on the outside, even if a team only scores 2 runs, a lot of hits will still probably be opposite field.

[SABR Matt]

Probably the HITS would be to the opposite field, but the outs would be more pulled in good Glavine starts than they would be on bad starts.

[EvanAparra]

Probably the HITS would be to the opposite field, but the outs would be more pulled in good Glavine starts than they would be on bad starts.

Well, yeah, thats what I mean. If you are going to touch up Glavine for any runs, even if its just 1 or 2 a game, its going to be opposite field more often than not. Unless he's just missing in, which isnt going to happen very often.

[Ubiquitous]

Correct Sultan. Glavine doesn't have an "out pitch"...he has four or five different wrinkles he uses to keep you honest, but he doesn't have go-to pitches that he can be confident will "get you"...he relies totally on you being too eager. Maddux on the other hand has three legitimate out pitches...the HARD 2-seamer (not velocity hard, but hard-moving), the straight change with GREAT deception on it and the the perfectly located 4-seamer (he likes throwing this pitch up and in and getting a bajillion pop-ups with it...and it was a legitimate out pitch back when he could throw 92 when he reached back...now he's throwing 87 and he can't use that one as much). Glavine just has a cute little slider, solid location on his change-ups (not quite as deceptive though) and located fastballs with much less movement.


The reason Maddux throws a straight change with "GREAT deception" is because he isn't throwing a straight change. He throws the circle change. Nor does he do it along with a perfectly located 4 seamer. He throws a cutter. I doubt Maddux has thrown a 4 seamer in a jam in 15 years or so.

[SABR Matt]

That's not true, Ubi...I've seen a LOT of Maddux starts and he ROUTINELY used to throw a rising fastball for the express purpose of getting in on a righty and collecting a pop-out to third or short. He does have a cutter but it's not his ham pitch except to lefties. And if he is throwing a circle change, it doesn't drop down in the zone very much for that type of pitch...it looks pretty straight...the deception comes from his arm speed, not the movement on the pitch...at least not the majority of that deception.

[Ubiquitous]

Trust me it is a circle change. He throws one of the best if not the best circle change in the game. He teaches it to other pitchers and has praised it up and down.

If Maddux throws a 4 seamer and uses it or used to use it as his out pitch it is news to practically everybody out there.

[SABR Matt]

OK...I'm taking a look at game footage from this season because I hate when I'm missing something that should be obvious...his change-up always looked pretty straight to me but I didn't see much of him as young-dominant stud that he was in 1994/1995...I started paying a lot more attention to baseball AFTER the 1995 seaosn. But now that I'm looking at it really closely, it does have a wrinkle in it...I still think the bulk of his deception is coming from his picture perfect IDENTICAL arm speed and delivery between his change and his fastballs. I have never seen a pitcher with such a PERFECT change-up delivery in my lifetime.

And I never said Maddux used the 4-seamer as a PRIMARY out pitch...he uses some kind of rising high fastball when he needs a pop-out to escape a jam...or...used...is probably the more appropriate term since he doens't have it now.

[Ubiquitous]

I didn't say you said it was his primary out pitcher either. Though you did say it was one of his three out pitches. Which I don't think it was. Maddux does have a cutter that he throws on righties, it isn't just a lefty pitch for him.


Do a google search of practically any pitch of Maddux's and his name and you will find references.

The slider, the curve, the 2 seam, the split finger, the cutter, and the sinker all have articles and mentions. Do a google search of Maddux and 4 seam or any other name you can think of for it and you will find zip.

[Sports Fan 07]

For those of us who are keeping score:

First Last P-Rk GI
Walter Johnson 1 459.72
Cy Young 2 455.23
Roger Clemens 3 429.98
Lefty Grove 4 399.90
Pete Alexander 5 390.76
Christy Mathewson 6 377.07
Greg Maddux 7 360.53
Pedro Martinez 8 342.54
Randy Johnson 9 333.53
Carl Hubbell 10 331.94
Tom Seaver 11 327.35
Dazzy Vance 12 291.35
Tim Keefe 13 290.36
Ed Walsh 14 287.85
Dennis Eckersley 15 282.46
Kid Nichols 16 282.34
Sandy Koufax 17 281.28
Bert Blyleven 18 277.92
Fergie Jenkins 19 277.64
Rube Waddell 20 274.9
Nolan Ryan 21 273.31
Bob Gibson 22 267.13
Hal Newhouser 23 267.04
Warren Spahn 24 265.17
Amos Rusie 25 261.78

Nolan Ryan and Ferguson Jenkins ahead of Warren Spahn. :rofl: