Paul Derringer

[Cowtipper]

I've started a few threads on different pitchers recently, including Jim Perry, Hooks Dauss and Mel Harder. Each of them has at least one Hall of Famer that is statistically similar to them, and yet none of them match Paul Derringer's 177 grey ink or 16 black ink. Based on grey and black ink alone, Derringer is the most Hall of Fame worthy out of the bunch in my opinion - and yet, ironically, he does not have a single Hall of Famer that is similar to him (however, Harder, Dauss and Perry are all on his most similar player's list).

Derringer was a very solid pitcher, who went 223-212 with a 3.46 ERA over a 15 year career that spanned from 1931 to 1945. Despite pitching for some atrocious teams in his career - including the 1935 Reds, who won only 68 games with Derringer getting 32.4% (22) of his teams victories - he still managed to win over 15 games eight times (including his rookie year) and over 20 games four times, including a span of three seasons in a row.

A six time All-Star, Derringer finished in the top five in MVP voting twice. Having good control helped him lead the league in best BB/9IP and KK/BB ratio twice in his career. He also led the league in WL% once, games once, innings once, complete games once and games started three times.

He received votes for the Hall of Fame six times, with 15 being the most he ever received.

So, what do you think? Should Paul Derringer be in the Hall of Fame?

[Paul Wendt]

Paul Derringer was a durable pitcher especially in the year-to-year sense that he was never knocked out for a big part of the season. Yesterday I noticed that Mel Harder worked only ~3400 innings in his "20 seasons" but Derringer worked ~3600 innings in his "15 seasons". Because he packed all of his career work into rather full seasons, he put up a lot of rather good seasons.

Derringer also enjoyed his best seasons at the right time when his team was a contender, so he helped the team suddenly win two pennants. Teammate Bucky Walters and Derringers were stars, 1-3 and 3-4 in the MVP elections. (Derringer also ranked 17-11-x-8 for MVP in the preceding four seasons!)

At their peak the Cincinnati Reds were one of the best fielding teams ever, like the Chicago Cubs behind Mordecai Brown & Co. Certainly the fielders contributed something to the peak ERA+ seasons that Derringer enjoyed. Probably we will never know even roughly how much, and how much really was fortunate timing of the pitcher's own performance.

Paul Derringer has slipped far from view, certainly out of any recognized Hall of the Very Good where he belongs, so far that it is tempting to vote for him. The team is also forgotten, one of the least known winners of back to back pennants, right there with Firpo Marberry & Co.

[jjpm74]

Derringer is outside the HOF, but he was way too good on some way too bad teams to just be swept under the carpet. He may be a pitcher that will benefit greatly from loss shares when they become available.

[dgarza]

Hard to believe, but there was a time when the Reds had very good pitching.
The 1920s-1940s saw many "very good" to "quite possibley Hall" material pitchers.
Of them, Rixey is the only HOFer.
Walter probably belongs.
Derringer was probably equal or better than Rixey, but Rixey gets the Lefty credit in history.

Then you had Luque, Blackwell, Lucas, & Donohue.

Derringer is mostly forgotten, over shadowed by Walters (if you can imagine such a world), and is better and closer to the Hall than most people realize.

A good, solid choice for "maybe".

[STLCards2]

At their peak the Cincinnati Reds were one of the best fielding teams ever, like the Chicago Cubs behind Mordecai Brown & Co. Certainly the fielders contributed something to the peak ERA+ seasons that Derringer enjoyed. Probably we will never know even roughly how much, and how much really was fortunate timing of the pitcher's own performance.

.

Hold on...

[STLCards2]

Sorry, Derringer played with some good defences for a few peak seasons, but over the course of his career, it looks like (according to the somewhat questionable BBP sources - I wouldn't rely on single season data, but for careers, they do an admirable job) that the Reds defenses cost him 10-15 runs. Still not enough to inch him anywhere close to the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Derringer is in the HOF gray area, a little in the bottom half.

Whether Derringer is worthy is almost beside the point, as there are at least 5 pitchers I can name right off the bat that are more Hall-worthy (John, Kaat, Blyleven, Tiant, Morris). That's for starters. There are others I'd suggest, but the list would get lengthy.

(Actualy, there are six pitchers; I'm adding Billy Pierce to the list.)

[Paul Wendt]

Sorry, Derringer played with some good defences for a few peak seasons, but over the course of his career, it looks like (according to the somewhat questionable BBP sources - I wouldn't rely on single season data, but for careers, they do an admirable job) that the Reds defenses cost him 10-15 runs. Still not enough to inch him anywhere close to the HOF.
First, is this statistics available to the public or only to subscribers?

Second, I wrote "at his peak" meaning 1938-1940 peak by OPS+. (His W-L peak, too, occurred then, no surprise.) I am wondering whether he really did have good timing, pitching more effectively when his team was a contender, or whether it was the team's doing. Perhaps the team can't make a difference between ERA+ 100 (median Derringer) and 125 (peak Derringer).

Good timing is what Mel Harder certainly did not have. He put up his last good season in 1939 and 1940 was the year the Indians needed one more win against the Tigers to take the pennant. The last of his 20 seasons was 1947 and 1948 was the year the Indians won it all.
Whether Derringer is worthy is almost beside the point, as there are at least 5 pitchers I can name right off the bat that are more Hall-worthy (John, Kaat, Blyleven, Tiant, Morris).
FB, I have now doubt you can name five who worked in the majors before 1943. That is the relevant group for anyone empowered to vote for Derringer --and "anyone" will be a small sit-down face-to-face committee. And for anyone not empowered to vote, this sort of argument that Derringer's worth "is almost beside the point" may carry no weight.

[STLCards2]

First, is this statistics available to the public or only to subscribers?

.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/derripa01.php

As I am sure you know, BBP should be taken with a grain of salt - the 15 runs it credits Derringer in relation to his defense can only be looked at as an estimate.

It looks like the defense really helped him for 5-6 years, but did nothing for him- if not hurt him-the rest of his career.

[Fuzzy Bear]

FB, I have now doubt you can name five who worked in the majors before 1943. That is the relevant group for anyone empowered to vote for Derringer --and "anyone" will be a small sit-down face-to-face committee. And for anyone not empowered to vote, this sort of argument that Derringer's worth "is almost beside the point" may carry no weight.

Derringer (and, for that matter, Mel Harder) come from an era that is quite over-honored. Some of this is due to the antics of the Frankie Frisch VC Cabal, which stacked the HOF with Frisch's friends and cronies.

While they were different types of pitchers, I find it hard to believe that Derringer should be in the HOF before Lon Warneke, an exact contemporary. Warneke's ERA vs. league was 0.61 better, and while some of the difference between Warneke and Derringer was that Derringer was more of a control pitcher (resulting in allowing more EARNED runs, but fewer UNEARNED runs), Derringer also led the league in hits allowed three (3) years in a row. And while W-L record is somewhat dependent on one's team, Warneke's winning percentage is so much better than Derringer's that the difference cannot be explained away merely by "their teams". (Derringer played on four (4) World Series teams, three (3) of them as a front-line starter; Warneke played on only two (2) World Series teams.) Warneke's lifetime W-L record was 192-121; he probably would have made the HOF had he made it to 200 wins (or have been a colorful character like Lefty Gomez).

Much of the same argument can be made for Wes Ferrell, who was 193-128 lifetime with an ERA that was 0.67 below league. People are put off by Ferrell's 4.04 ERA, but, in the context of his time, it's not bad. (The LEAGUE ERA during Ferrell's career was 4.70!)

Much of the same argument can be made for Tommy Bridges, who was 194-138 with an ERA 0.92 lower than league. Bridges lost time to WWII; he'd have won 200 had the war not intervened.

If I wanted to cite candidates prior to the thirties, I would cite Carl Mays and Urban Shocker as superior candidates to Derringer. They are not CLEARLY superior, but they all seem to have hit higher peaks, and avoided the low points Derringer hit. Of all the guys I've mentioned, the only guy I'm really sold on as a HOFer is Carl Mays. But I can't see how any of these guys rate behind Derringer.

[Brad Harris]

Very very good pitcher there for a short while, but he pales in comparison to teammate Bucky Walters (an MVP Award winner, btw), who should be considered.

[KCGHOST]

The guy had a pretty good career, but not that good.

[Paul Wendt]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/derripa01.php

As I am sure you know, BBP should be taken with a grain of salt - the 15 runs it credits Derringer in relation to his defense can only be looked at as an estimate.

It looks like the defense really helped him for 5-6 years, but did nothing for him- if not hurt him-the rest of his career.

Yes, comparing RAA and PRAA.
Walters enjoyed much greater benefit 1938-1946.
DH shows astonishing (to me) difference between Walters and Derringer. Of the balls in play against them, the defense turned far more of Walters' into outs. DR shows that Walters also yielded many fewer runs than would be expected, given the few hits.

The differences look enormous to me but I read the definitions of DH and DR only now so I have little basis for judgment.
Bucky Walters DT card (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/waltebu01.php) (see Advanced Pitching Statistics).

[STLCards2]

Yes, comparing RAA and PRAA.
Walters enjoyed much greater benefit 1938-1946.
DH shows astonishing (to me) difference between Walters and Derringer. Of the balls in play against them, the defense turned far more of Walters' into outs. DR shows that Walters also yielded many fewer runs than would be expected, given the few hits.

The differences look enormous to me but I read the definitions of DH and DR only now so I have little basis for judgment.
Bucky Walters DT card (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/waltebu01.php) (see Advanced Pitching Statistics).

DH shows the number of hits better or worse than teamates' BABIP avg. that a given pitcher has gotten, not how many the defense prevented. The higher the number, the better (or luckier depending on yoor McCracken stance) a pitcher is. The fact that Walters has a better DH score shows that he was either better or luckier than Derringer at preventing hits on BIP - compared to their teamates BABIP.

When a guy is that low on DR, it is a pretty good sign that he excelled in several of the following areas: inducing double plays, preventing extra base hits (not factored into DH), stranding runners/situational splits, controling the running game/preventing wild pitches.

The fact that Walters was better or "luckier" at preventing hits on balls in play and better at the DR stuff, explains why he was so much better preventing runs on the same team as Derringer.

[Paul Wendt]

Here are six pitchers from the Chicago Cubs of Tinker to Evers to Chance to Kling. (That was a triple play. None out, runners on first and third. The runner on third waited until Tinker threw to second and they later nabbed him at home.) Five of them worked also for other major league teams and I split their careers, which is subject to clerical error.

DH . DR ; RAA . PRAA

+24 -47 ; 071 -07 : Carl Lundgren, Chicago (1902-1909) = mlb career

-26 -23 ; 097 048 : Jake Weimer, Chicago (1903-1905)
-22 -37 ; 046 049 : Jake Weimer, 1906-1909

-34 -31 ; 333 190 : Mordecai Brown, Chicago (1903-1912)
-12 -19 ; 026 037 : Mordecai Brown, 1902 & 1913-1916

-68 -59 ; 188 074 : Ed Reulbach, Chicago (1905-1912)
-30 -10 ; 041 049 : Ed Reulbach, 1913-1917

-06 -11 ; -05 +09 : Orval Overall, Cin 1905-1906
+15 -39 ; 137 072 : Orval Overall, Chicago (1906-1910 & 1913)

+14 +07 ; -23 -24 : Jack Pfiester, 1903-1904
+02 -01 ; 079 013 : Jack Pfiester, Chicago (1906-1911)

If I understand correctly, RAA=71 means that the team saved 71 runs below average with Lundgren pitching. PRAA = -7 means minus seven runs credit to Lundgren's pitching and by subtraction 78 runs credit to the fielding, including Lundgren's.

Lundgren played in the majors only with the Cubs. What do the same statistics show about his five teammates who worked with the Cubs and elsewhere in the majors?
1. Referring to PRAA: Weimer, Brown, and Reulbach were good to great pitchers, personally credited with saving a lot of runs both when they pitched for the Cubs (bold) and elsewhere. Overall is credited with saving a lot of runs with the Cubs, Pfiester only a baker's dozen runs.
2. Comparing RAA and PRAA: the Cubs fielding saved another boatload of runs behind every one of them (bold). The fielding didn't contribute or cost anything above or below average when they pitched with other teams.

There are discernable patterns in the DH and DR columns too. :understt:

[STLCards2]

Here are four pitchers from the Chicago Cubs of Tinker to Evers to Chance to Kling. (That was a triple play. None out, runners on first and third. The runner on third waited until Tinker threw to second and they later nabbed him at home.) Three of them worked also for other major league teams and I split their careers, maybe errorprone.

_DH _DR ; RAA PRAA
+24 -47 ; 071 -07 Carl Lundgren, Chicago (1902-1909) = mlb career

-26 -23 ; 097 048 Jake Weimer, Chicago (1903-1905)
-22 -37 ; 046 049 Jake Weimer, 1906-1909

-34 -31 ; 333 190 Mordecai Brown, Chicago (1903-1912)
-12 -19 ; 026 037 Mordecai Brown, 1902 & 1913-1916

-68 -59 ; 188 074 Ed Reulbach, Chicago (1905-1912)
-30 -10 ; 041 049 Ed Reulbach, 1913-1917

If I understand correctly, RAA=71 means that the team saved 71 runs below average with Lundgren pitching. PRAA = -7 means minus seven runs credit to Lundgren and by subtraction 78 runs credit to the defense. Lundgren played in the majors only with the Cubs. The same statistics show that his three teammates
[1. PRAA] were good pitchers, at least, personally credited with saving a lot of runs both when they pitched for the Cubs and elsewhere.
[2. RAA] The Cubs fielding saved a lot more runs, but the fielders didn't contribute anything extra when they pitched with other teams.

There are discernable patterns in the DH and DR columns too. :understt:

RAA is the number of runs that the pitcher saved above the average pitcher over the same period of time. PRAA show how many runs he would have saved if he had a neutral defense behind him instead of what he really had. So when you look at Brown's RAA ( 333) you say "wow, that guy was incredible!" When you see that his defense was responsible for 143 of those runs, it puts things into perspective a bit more. Brown's Dh of -34 shows that Brown gave up 34 fewer hits on BIP that you would expect for the defense he played on. The DR of -31 shows that Brown gave up 31 fewer runs than his BB/K, H/9 (with team not seperated from), and HR/9 rates would indicate. The reasons for this are numerous, and I mentioned them earlier.

It is clear that Brown and Reulbach were very good pitchers who were helped a lot by a great defense behind them.

There is a lot of critisizm for BBP, as they don't say how they arrive at all of their stats, but I would say it does give a pretty quick snapshot at how mych defensive support (or lack thereof) a pitcher gets. Just like suspected, if you look pitcher for pitcher, guys like Brown and Palmer have much better RAA than PRAA, and guys like Blyleven have worse RAA than PRAA. Looking through hundreds of pitchers, I didn't see any that really went against conventional wisdom or newer defensive metrics (UZR, +/-, etc.) that much.

[Paul Wendt]

I have added two more Cubs pitchers to #15. I don't recall seeing so consistent a team effect for any other statistic.

Jack Taylor (DT card) (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/tayloja02.php) pitched for the Cubs 1898-1903 and 1906-1907. His record implies neutral fielding 1898-1900, poor in 1901 (the team weakened by departures to AL), big improvements in 1902 and 1903. Kling took on half of the catching in 1901, most of the remainder in 1902. Tinker joined the regular lineup in 1902, Evers in 1903.