Top 100 pitcher project phase 2: ranking round 4 1986-present

[jjpm74]

The purpose of phase 2 of this project is to narrow down our round 1 candidates to 40 candidates who will eventually be narrowed down to 20. Here is the list of candidates we are choosing from in this round:

Bert Blyleven
Kevin Brown
Roger Clemens
David Cone
Dennis Eckersley
John Franco
Tom Glavine
Doc Gooden
Goose Gossage
Roy Halladay
Tom Henke
Orel Hershiser
Trevor Hoffman
Tim Hudson
Randy Johnson
Jimmy Key
Greg Maddux
Dennis Martinez
Pedro Martinez
Jack Morris
Mike Mussina
Roy Oswalt
Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
C.C. Sabathia
Brett Saberhagen
Johan Santana
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
John Smoltz
Dave Stieb
Bruce Sutter
Frank Tanana
Fernando Vanenzuela
Billy Wagner
David Wells

**This will be a vote for 10 and 10 only. Ballots cast with less than 10 or more than 10 will not be counted.***

This phase of polls will run for 4 days each to try to expedite this process.

[jjpm74]

Links to previous rounds:

Pre-1893 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78102)
1893-1919 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78755)
1920-1945 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79250)
NeL and Pre-NeL (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79656)
1946-1968 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79664)
1969-1985 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80460)
1986-2007 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80845)
Active Pitchers (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81263)

Phase 2 threads

pre-1893, 1919 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81666)
1919-1945, NeL (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81856)
1946-1985 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82095)
1986-present (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1288021)

Phase 1 winners:


Pre-1893:

John Clarkson
Tommy Bond
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Candy Cummings
Pud Galvin
Tim Keefe
Sliver King
Bobby Mathews
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Charley Radbourne
Al Spalding
John Ward
Mickey Welch

1894-1919:

Chief Bender
Mordecai Brown
Jack Chesbro
Eddie Ciccotte
Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Rube Marquard
Christy Mathewson
Joe McGinty
Kid Nichols
Deacon Phillippe
Eddie Plank
Ed Reulbach
Amos Rusie
Jesse Tannehill
Hippo Vaughn
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Vic Willis
Smoky Joe Wood
Cy Young

1920-1945:

Pete Alexander
Tommy Bridges
Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Dizzy Dean
Red Faber
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Waite Hoyt
Walter Johnson
Ted Lyons
Carl Mays
Herb Pennock
Eppa Rixey
Red Ruffing
Urban Shocker
Dazzy Vance
Bucky Walters

NeL and Pre-NeL:

Ray Brown
Andy Cooper
Leon Day
Martin DiHigo
John Donaldson
Bill Foster
Rube Foster
Bill Jackman
Jose Mendez
Satchel Paige
Cannonball Dick Redding
Bullet Joe Rogan
Luis Tiant Sr.
Smoky Joe Williams
Nip Winters

1946-1968:

Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Bob Feller
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Sandy Koufax
Bob Lemon
Dutch Leonard
Sal Maglie
Juan Marichal
Denny McLain
Don Newcombe
Hal Newhouser
Billy Pierce
Robin Roberts
Johnny Sain
Warren Spahn
Dizzy Trout
Virgil Trucks
Hoyt Wilhelm
Early Wynn

1969-1985:

Vida Blue
Steve Carlton
Rollie Fingers
Ron Guidry
Catfish Hunter
Fergie Jenkins
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Jerry Koosman
Mickey Lolich
Sparky Lyle
Tug McGraw
Phil Neikro
Jim Palmer
Gaylord Perry
Dan Quisenberry
Rick Reuschel
Tom Seaver
Don Sutton
Luis Tiant Jr.
Wilbur Wood

1986-2007:

Bert Blyleven
Kevin Brown
Roger Clemens
David Cone
Dennis Eckersley
John Franco
Doc Gooden
Goose Gossage
Tom Henke
Orel Hershiser
Jimmy Key
Dennis Martinez
Jack Morris
Nolan Ryan
Brett Saberhagen
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
Dave Stieb
Bruce Sutter
Frank Tanana
Fernando Vanenzuela
David Wells

Active pitchers:

Tom Glavine
Roy Halladay
Trevor Hoffman
Tim Hudson
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Roy Oswalt
Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
C.C. Sabathia
Johan Santana
John Smoltz
Billy Wagner

Phase 2 winners


pre-1893, 1893-1919

Mordecai Brown
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
Christy Matthewson
Kid Nichols
Eddie Plank
Amos Rusie
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Cy Young

1920-1945, pre NeL and NeL

Pete Alexander
Dizzy Dean
Lefty Gomez
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Walter Johnson
Satchel Paige
Bullet Joe Rogan
Dazzy Vance
Smoky Joe Williams

1946-1985

Steve Carlton
Bob Feller
Bob Gibson
Sandy Koufax
Juan Marichal
Phil Neikro
Jim Palmer
Gaylord Perry
Robin Roberts
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn

1986-present

Bert Blyleven
Roger Clemens
Dennis Eckersley
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
John Smoltz

[BlueBlood]

I chucked in Glavine instead of Ryan because I figured he could use the support.

Blyleven
Eckersley
Glavine
Johnson
Maddux
Martinez
Mussina
Rivera
Schilling
Smoltz

Clemens was left out for you know what. Gossage was at least clicked in my initial run-through before I narrowed to ten.

[jjpm74]

I chucked in Glavine instead of Ryan because I figured he could use the support.


I'm thinking Ryan will be the one who ultimately needs the support of those two as Glavine probably has more than his share whereas Ryan seems to be universally seen as overrated around here.

[bambambaseball]

There are 14 or 15 guys here who are too good to not make it!

[Brad Harris]

There are 14 or 15 guys here who are too good to not make it!
Sucks to be 4 or 5 of them then, huh?

[Paul Wendt]

There are 14 or 15 guys here who are too good to not make it!
I don't see any gross inequality across the four round two polls. I can see putting 14 or 15 from one of them in the overall top fifty but not in the top forty --the number we are electing.

Mussina, Schilling, and Brown rank just outside the period top ten for me; Gossage too. None of them would waltz into my all-time forty. Compare Jenkins, Palmer, Marichal, and Ford from the preceding poll; perhaps Lyons, Dean, Vance, and Coveleski from the one before that (the weakest of these quartets); Brown, McGinnity, Radbourne, and Keefe from the earliest round two. The group has elected several of these and rejected the same number who were just inside my own top tens: Spalding, Caruthers, Mendez, W.Foster, R.Brown, and Wilhelm so far.

No doubt a majority of us personally put a majority of the named pitchers somewhere between ranks thirty and fifty. Probably a couple of them will finish in the twenties here but none of them should take that for granted. Even Jim Palmer should be looking to hire a campaign manager.

(The group has also elected Lefty Gomez. He should not hire a campaign manager but should save his money.)

--
Mussina, Schilling, and Brown saved boatloads of runs according to some sabrmetrics. The count against them is what others were suddenly doing at the same time. Twenty years after Tom Seaver we suddenly had Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez pitching their way into the inner circle. Glavine and Smoltz worked at the same time and many of us had come to doubt that we would again see careers even as good as theirs. Ten years earlier Mussina, Schilling, or Brown would have been the best of his generation. Instead the actual near-coincidence of all these outstanding career pitchers suggests that something made the occupation once again easier to dominate.

[BlueBlood]

Blyleven's results in this poll (currently 100%) only makes his Hall non-selection more depressing.

[STLCards2]

--
Mussina, Schilling, and Brown saved boatloads of runs according to some sabrmetrics. The count against them is what others were suddenly doing at the same time. Twenty years after Tom Seaver we suddenly had Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez pitching their way into the inner circle. Glavine and Smoltz worked at the same time and many of us had come to doubt that we would again see careers even as good as theirs. Ten years earlier Mussina, Schilling, or Brown would have been the best of his generation. Instead the actual near-coincidence of all these outstanding career pitchers suggests that something made the occupation once again easier to dominate.

Why can't it be coincidence? There have been eras with 5-6 HOF centerfielders, and eras with 4-5 HOF caliber 3rdbaseman, why is it so hard for people to accept that their might be 10 HOF starters in the league at the same time? It already has happend several times in history (the 1960's/70's and 20's/30's). We might be entering an era that is very catcher and seconbase heavy, as we though before Tejada's "issues", A- Rod's move, and Nomar's injuries we were in the "SS" era.

The 80's weren't void of great pitchers either. Many greats started strong in the decade before age and injuries set in (Carlton, Blyleven, Ryan) and many greats started mid decade (Clemens, Maddux). Many 80's pitchers were in the midst of HOF careers before injury or other problems derailed them (Saberhagen, Gooden, Stieb, Hershiser,Viola, Key, etc.) All of those guys could have been HOFers with a few breaks and fewer injuries.

I have seen reports that claim it is easier to post low ERAs in high offensive environemnts, but I have also read reports for statistical experts at HT that claim it is harder to seperate from the pack in high-offensive environments.

Either way, it is important to remember that relievers who post ERAs much lower than starters, pitch 1/3 of all innings now. That significantly supresses starters ERA+ in comparison to where it should be comparing to a league average in which relievers only pitched 1/8 of all innings.

[Paul Wendt]

Why can't it be coincidence? There have been eras with 5-6 HOF centerfielders, and eras with 4-5 HOF caliber 3rdbaseman, why is it so hard for people to accept that their might be 10 HOF starters
No one said anything about "HOF starters". Of course there are many of those outside the top forty pitchers, and among losers in every one of these round two polls.

Many 80's pitchers were in the midst of HOF careers before injury or other problems derailed them (Saberhagen, Gooden, Stieb, Hershiser,Viola, Key, etc.) All of those guys could have been HOFers with a few breaks and fewer injuries.
Some of them may have been in the midst of HOF careers but none of them put up more than two seasons at ERA+ 150. And 140 was the exception not the rule. Only Gooden before he was old enough to buy a beer accomplished anything to suggest that he might be one of the greats.

Contrast Oswalt and Santana in their first five seasons, and now Webb (too young for this series of polls).


I have seen reports that claim it is easier to post low ERAs in high offensive environemnts, but I have also read reports for statistical experts at HT that claim it is harder to seperate from the pack in high-offensive environments.
Judging by the best players the standard deviation is high in the '90s and '00s for both pitchers and batters.


> many greats started mid decade (Clemens, Maddux).

There is nothing special when the third digit of a date turns over. Seaver didn't "start" until the "late sixties" (last of his cohort) but he pitched more than 250 innings in 1967. Maddux and Kevin Brown pitched only 31 and 5 innings in 1986, the year Clemens first pitched more than 150 innings and the first of his 20 seasons with more than 20 starts.

[STLCards2]

No one said anything about "HOF starters". Of course there are many of those outside the top forty pitchers, and among losers in every one of these round two polls.

Some of them may have been in the midst of HOF careers but none of them put up more than two seasons at ERA+ 150. And 140 was the exception not the rule. Only Gooden before he was old enough to buy a beer accomplished anything to suggest that he might be one of the greats.

Contrast Oswalt and Santana in their first five seasons, and now Webb (too young for this series of polls).


Judging by the best players the standard deviation is high in the '90s and '00s for both pitchers and batters.


From 1960-1993, there were over 30 occasions in which pitchers had a better ERA+ than Webb, Oswalt's or Santana's (save 2004) career high. In fact outside of Santana's 2004, none of these pitchers have ever past 165 ERA+ in a full season. If it is so easy to post huge ERA+ seasons, why are none of them capable of hitting 165, much less higher. Hudson, Buehrle, Zambrano, Sabbathia umong others have yet to come close to hitting the ERA+s of the best seasons from Guidry, Chance, Tiant, Righetti, Wilhelm, Wood, Ryan, Stieb, Saberhagen, Gooden, Koufax, Aguire, Candelaria, Palmer, Appier, Leonard, and a bunch of other guys.

In fact, Mussina has never crossed 150 for a full seasons, Schilling never crossed 160 (with 3-4 at 150), and Smoltz never crossed 150 either. Glavine is the only pitcher in the second tier of guys who ever hit the 160 mark, and he hit 150 only twice.

Take out Maddux and Pedro, and non of the other ERA+s seem out of the ordinary. Clemens and Brown had a couple of great ERA+ seasons, but steroid issues surround many of those seasons. Even as great and dominatas Randy Johnson has been, his top few ERA+ seasons are no better than the top few seasons of Seaver, Gibson, and others.

That is my point. You have a huge coincidennce with Pedro, Madux, Johnson, and Clemens/Brown* who have huge ERA+'s -but none of the other "greats" of even "very goods" from the era seem seperate themselves from past ERA+ leaders at all.

[STLCards2]

Check out this famous article:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/moving-beyond-era/

[PVNICK]

Blyleven (at the last second over Ryan)
Clemens
Glavine
Johnson
Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Mussina
Rivera
Schilling
Smoltz (over Kevin Brown)

I would have liked to vote for Jimmy Key who was the best LHP, if not pitcher, in the AL for a stretch in the early to mid 90s, but this field is so strong that there were only a few places left after the "locks."

[Paul Wendt]

During the 1990s and 2000s, every one of the league leaders by adjusted ERA has scored ERA+ 150 or higher.
During the 1970s and 1980s there were eleven of forty league leaders below 150.

During the 1990s and 2000s we have eleven of 36 league leaders above 200.
During the 1970s and 1980s, there were single seasons by Ron Guidry and Dwight Gooden.
During the 1950s and 1960s there were single seasons by Billy Pierce and Bob Gibson.
During the 1930s and 1940s there was a single season by Lefty Grove.
During the 1920s there was one by Dolf Luque.
That is six seasons by qualifying pitchers in seventy years 1920-1989.



You have a huge coincidennce with Pedro, Madux, Johnson, and Clemens/Brown* who have huge ERA+'s -but none of the other "greats" of even "very goods" from the era seem seperate themselves from past ERA+ leaders at all.
It isn't only Martinez, Clemens, Johnson, and Maddux.
Among pitchers with 2700 career innings,
Brown, Schilling, and Smoltz are in a seven-way tie for 20th at career ERA+ 127.

Seaver and Gibson are in that tie. So are Stan Coveleski and Tim Keefe.

Who are the 19 pitchers ahead of them? Beside the big four contemporaries, no one so recent as Seaver and Gibson. Whitey Ford, debut 1950; Hal Newhouser 1939; Carl Hubbell 1928; Lefty Grove 1925 (that is 4). Alexander, Johnson, Walsh, Brown, and Mathewson (5). Waddell, Young, Nichols, Rusie, Clarkson, and Spalding (6).

[PVNICK]

During the 1990s and 2000s, every one of the league leaders by adjusted ERA has scored ERA+ 150 or higher.
During the 1970s and 1980s there were eleven of forty league leaders below 150.

During the 1990s and 2000s we have eleven of 36 league leaders above 200.
During the 1970s and 1980s, there were single seasons by Ron Guidry and Dwight Gooden.
During the 1950s and 1960s there were single seasons by Billy Pierce and Bob Gibson.
During the 1930s and 1940s there was a single season by Lefty Grove.
During the 1920s there was one by Dolf Luque.
That is six seasons by qualifying pitchers in seventy years 1920-1989.
Is that all or nearly all a byproduct of expansion adding to the bottom of the pool and dragging the league averages?

[Freakshow]

Is that all or nearly all a byproduct of expansion adding to the bottom of the pool and dragging the league averages?
If that were true we should see it happening after previous expansions.

I'm guessing it's due to the higher offensive level since the mid-90's, allowing for greater spread in the runs allowed data.

[Paul Wendt]

If that were true we should see it happening after previous expansions.

I'm guessing it's due to the higher offensive level since the mid-90's, allowing for greater spread in the runs allowed data.
The data I provided here are based on relative runs. Regardless of the (earned) run-scoring context, ERA+ 200 represents 1/2 of league scoring rate and ERA+ 150 represents 2/3 of league rate.

The 1960s expansions in number of teams --and trivially, number of team games-- occurred together with contraction in number of regular starting pitchers or expansion of ace pitcher workload. The 1990s expansions in number of teams were small --only 4/26 vs 8/16 in the 1960s-- but there was continuing contraction in ace pitcher workload.

The other big expansion in number of teams was in 1901. Comparing 1893-97 with 1904- there was 4/12 expansion in teams, 22/132 expansion in number of team games scheduled, and expansion of the pitching staff that is not easy to quantify.

[STLCards2]

During the 1990s and 2000s we have eleven of 36 league leaders above 200.

It isn't only Martinez, Clemens, Johnson, and Maddux.
Among pitchers with 2700 career innings,
Brown, Schilling, and Smoltz are in a seven-way tie for 20th at career ERA+ 127.

).



How many of those 11 were Pedro, Maddux, and Clemens? Like I said, take out those "coincidental" greats and there are only a couplke of 200 ERA+ seasons left.

Intersting data, thanks.

I was refering to single seasons ERA+, not careers.

Also, guys like Carlton, Niekro, Perry, Blyleven, etc. threw upwards of 2,000 or more inningd than Smoltz, Schilling, Brown. Put an extra 2,000 innings on these arms, and I guarantee, their ERA+ would be lower that that of the older guys I just mentioned.

[Paul Wendt]

Jow many of those 11 were Pedro, Maddux, and Clemens?
Ten.
I don't have single-season ERA+ in a database so I was skimming the list of league leaders (one each league) at baseball-reference.
Year-by-Year League Leaders & Records for Adjusted ERA+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_leagues.shtml)
Better, the leagues with a 200-ERA+ leader should be checked for another 200-ERA+ pitcher.

By the way the count continues,
During the 1910s we have six of 20 league leaders above 200 (four by Johnson).
During the 1900s we have seven of 19 league leaders above 200 (scattered).
During the 1890s we have none of 13 league leaders above 200 --and one below 150, the first time since 1922.
During the 1880s we have four of 19 league leaders above 200 (using 1 IP per team game, which catches two part-season pitchers), and three below 150.
During the 1870s we have none of 9 league leaders above 200, and four below 150.
(ok, when every team used one regular pitcher there was a fair chance to lead the league with ERA+ 140.)

Count one leader per league, ERA+ >= 200, by decade 1870s-2000s
0 4* 0 7 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 4

* including Tim Keefe NL 1880 and Jim McCormick UA 1884, who surpassed 1 IP per team game by working about 1/3 season on teams with two pitchers.

[Paul Wendt]

FYI here are the debut years for 80 players with career OPS+ 140 or greater. Kevin Mitchell in 1984 (same year as Roger Clemens!) marks the beginning of a boom or the end of a trough when almost no one achieved that mark. Mike Schmidt 1972 is the only one with debut during the 20 years that passed between Dick Allen 1963 and Mitchell.

Debuts of 80 players with career OPS+ 140 or greater
.5...1...1 (1870s)
211211..2.
2.....1112
...1.1112. (1900s)
..2.21...1
...2.12...
1.....2..2
.1....11.. (1940s)
.21.2.1.11
..11......
..1.......
....1.2112
12121111 (1990s)
.1.1

Five in 1871 is an artefact of the overall start date. Only Anson was a rookie professional in that first league season. The other four are not listed at baseball-reference because they have only about 1700 to 2500 plate appearances (Hall, Pike, Barnes, McVey). They are the only ones I have added to the Baseball-reference list, where the top 76 players have OPS+ 140 or greater.

[Brad Harris]

Starters
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Nolan Ryan
Tom Glavine
Bert Blyleven
Mike Mussina
------------------
Curt Schilling
Bret Saberhagen
John Smoltz
Kevin Brown
David Cone
Johan Santana
Dave Stieb
Orel Hershiser
Dwight Gooden
Roy Halladay
Jimmy Key
Jack Morris
Andy Pettitte
Roy Oswalt
C.C. Sabathia
Frank Tanana
David Wells
Dennis Martinez
Tim Hudson
Fernando Valenzuela

Relievers
Mariano Rivera
Goose Gossage
---------------------
Trevor Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Dennis Eckersley
Bruce Sutter
Lee Smith
Tom Henke
John Franco

[STLCards2]

FYI here are the debut years for 80 players with career OPS+ 140 or greater. Kevin Mitchell in 1984 (same year as Roger Clemens!) marks the beginning of a boom or the end of a trough when almost no one achieved that mark. Mike Schmidt 1972 is the only one with debut during the 20 years that passed between Dick Allen 1963 and Mitchell.

Debuts of 80 players with career OPS+ 140 or greater
.5...1...1 (1870s)
211211..2.
2.....1112
...1.1112. (1900s)
..2.21...1
...2.12...
1.....2..2
.1....11.. (1940s)
.21.2.1.11
..11......
..1.......
....1.2112
12121111 (1990s)
.1.1

.

It is important to remember that many of the 1990s debut players have yet to hit their decline phase yet or have just started. A good chunk of those guys will below 140 when their decline phases are over.

[Paul Wendt]

Also, guys like Carlton, Niekro, Perry, Blyleven, etc. threw upwards of 2,000 or more inningd than Smoltz, Schilling, Brown. Put an extra 2,000 innings on these arms, and I guarantee, their ERA+ would be lower that that of the older guys I just mentioned.
First, it's upwards of 1575 innings, the current gap between Blyleven and Smoltz.

Second, among that quartet only Blyleven enjoyed career rate 127 at any stage and he dropped below that before he pitched 3000 innings. Carlton, Niekro, and Perry achieved ERA+ 127 in merely four or five single seasons.

Third, only Blyleven falls in the generation between Seaver and Clemens, barely. And Blyleven is in this poll; he is one of those responsible for Mussina, Schilling, and Brown ranking outside the top ten for many voters.

Fourth, Smoltz now ranks around 80 by career innings; Schilling and Brown rank around 100. Those are no longer short careers. Marichal and Feller worked only a little more, 3500 and 3800, yet slumped to career rates only 123 and 122. Wilhelm and Koufax finished at 146 and 131 but they pitched only 2300 innings. And so it goes. Newhouser 130 but short of 3000 innings; Dean 130 and Brecheen 133 but short of 2000 innings. Tommy Bridges, Lefty Gomez, and Dizzy Trout finished at 126 to 124 but worked only 2800 to 2500 innings. Warren Spahn was a great pitcher for almost twenty years but he broke 125 in merely three seasons.

For more than fifty years after Grove and Hubbell (debut dates Hubbell 1928 and Clemens 1984) almost no one worked even 3000 innings at their shared career rate 127. Gibson, Palmer, and Seaver surpassed 3000 innings at higher rates before slumping to 127-126. That is a short list and they were the best of their time as Smoltz, Schilling, and Brown were not.

[Paul Wendt]

It is important to remember that many of the 1990s debut players have yet to hit their decline phase yet or have just started. A good chunk of those guys will below 140 when their decline phases are over.
A good chunk have good chances to slip below 140. Sheffield is down to 141 but he is 39 and not playing a lot so he is no sure thing. Helton is at 141 and much younger, a good bet. Giambi and Jones are down to 146 and 144 so they have chances. Berkman, A-Rod, and Vladi are 32 years old at 148-147. If five of them slip to 139-137 then their generation will have (a) unprecedented numbers in the high 130s and, still, (b) more batters at 140+ than any generation since the 1880s.

[jjpm74]

This is at the half way point. We have a nice turnout so far but could use some more opinions. ;)

[STLCards2]

jjpm74

Curious...why Sutter over Eck, Glavine, and Smoltz?

OBA

Even more curiois....why Venezuala and Morris over Glavine, Pedro, and Rivera?

I am also suprised to see Schilling getting no support at all. A 127 ERA+ ( a very clean 127 ERA+ too - no defensive help) with 3,300 IP is huge. Throw in the fantastic postseason, and I am shocked that he isn't on par with Mussina in the voting.

[jjpm74]

Sutter is one of my top 4 pure modern relievers of all time (behind Rivera, Gossage and Quisenberry). Eck hit 11 on this list. Glavine is overrated, but so is Ryan. I felt Ryan was the less overrated of the two. ;) Smoltz was 12. I'm hoping Eck and Smoltz make it into tier 2. Same with Schilling who IMO is a top 50 worthy pitcher.

Valenzuela and Morris make zero sense to me at this stage, so I'm also curious about those two.

[STLCards2]

. Glavine is overrated.


Overrated enough to be behind a closer with barely 1,000 innings and really only a couple very good seasons? Why do you think Glavine is so overrated?

[jjpm74]

Overrated enough to be behind a closer with barely 1,000 innings and really only a couple very good seasons? Why do you think Glavine is so overrated?

I'll take one of the best relievers in the history of baseball and a definite yes HOFer over a very good 3rd tier (but also definite) HOFer any day. Glavine is a pitcher who had some great years in the prime of his career, but held on about 4 years too long so he could acquire the gawdy career numbers (a lot like Ryan).

[STLCards2]

I'll take one of the best relievers in the history of baseball and a definite yes HOFer over a very good 3rd tier (but also definite) HOFer any day. Glavine is a pitcher who had some great years in the prime of his career, but held on about 4 years too long so he could acquire the gawdy career numbers (a lot like Ryan).

Most would disagree with you that Sutter is a "definite HOFer".

In 2004, Glavine pitched 212 innings with a 119 ERA+
IN 2005 Glavine pitched 210 innings with a 116 ERA+
In 2006, Glavine pitched 200 innings with a 114 ERA+

In 2007, Glavine pitched 200 innings with a 96 ERA+, but before his crash in his last 3 starts, Glavine was 13-6 with 190 IP and a 110 ERA+. Even still, 200 IP and a slighlty below average ERA is a valuable pitcher.

From 2004 through his first 31 starts of 2007, Glavine averaged 203 IP per season and about a 115 ERA+. This is about as well as a 38-41 year old can pitch-unless you are Warren Spahn or Phil Niekro. In fact, over this same amount of time, Glavine has similar IP and better ERA+ than Maddux, far more innings than Schilling and Johnson, fewer performance enhancements than Clemens, and a better IP/ERA+ combo than Mussina who has been very hit-or-miss over the same period. In fact from 2004-2006, Glavine finished in the teens every year in Win Shares and Pitcher Runs Ceated. It is not out of the realm of logic to claim that from 2004-2007, Glavine was the most valuable (in terms of ERA+ and IP) of any of the "old" guard pitchers, with the exception of Smoltz.

In 2008...well, yikes!:eek:

Seems like he held on for about 16 starts too long - not 4 years. If you want to dock him for his last 4-5 years, you had better start docking everybody, since most HOF pitchers flamed out before Glavine did.

[AstrosFan]

I'm having trouble ranking relievers. I consider them inferior to starters, and I would probably rank all ten starters I chose ahead of the best reliever on the list. However, I believe I may be being unfair, and I think in future rounds I will need to put an emergency override to include at least one reliever I feel is deserving of consideration.

[jjpm74]

Most would disagree with you that Sutter is a "definite HOFer".


The fact that he was elected to the BBFHOF seems to suggest otherwise. ;)

[jjpm74]

I'm having trouble ranking relievers. I consider them inferior to starters, and I would probably rank all ten starters I chose ahead of the best reliever on the list. However, I believe I may be being unfair, and I think in future rounds I will need to put an emergency override to include at least one reliever I feel is deserving of consideration.

Anyone not giving serious consideration is overlooking a significant role in baseball. The reliever isn't going anywhere and serves an important role in baseball. One can argue IP and try to downplay/belittle the role of relievers all they want. Baseball over the past 2 generations would not be anywhere near as competitive as it is without relievers. If they didn't serve an important role, the NY Mets wouldn't be panicking right now without a closer and would just throw any old starter into that role.

[STLCards2]

The fact that he was elected to the BBFHOF seems to suggest otherwise. ;)

I didn't realize that. However, he got in with 76% of the vote after staying on the ballot for a very long time. If 1/2 of the 75% that voted for him consider him borderline, then it is not unreasonable to claim that at least a majority of BBFerers would not claim that he is definitiely a hall of famer.

[Brad Harris]

I am also suprised to see Schilling getting no support at all. A 127 ERA+ ( a very clean 127 ERA+ too - no defensive help) with 3,300 IP is huge. Throw in the fantastic postseason, and I am shocked that he isn't on par with Mussina in the voting.
I voted for eight starters and two relievers. Moose was #8 and Schilling #9 on my list of starters so the only reason I didn't vote for Schilling was because Rivera/Gossage received votes.

[Paul Wendt]

I didn't realize that. However, he got in with 76% of the vote after staying on the ballot for a very long time. If 1/2 of the 75% that voted for him consider him borderline, then it is not unreasonable to claim that at least a majority of BBFerers would not claim that he is definitiely a hall of famer.
Anyway the number of people who put Sutter above the "third tier" of the Hall of Fame must be very close to the number who recognize only one or two tiers.

I don't understand the big majorities for Smoltz and Mussina over Schilling. For their shutout of Brown, he never fell far from the crabapple tree so there was no reservoir of good feeling, maybe not even respect, to withstand the PED report.

I do understand why none of these pitchers enjoys a big majority of the vote. The competition is too much for them. They are the little four; Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez are the big four. As I explained yesterday, the coincidence of gaudy rate statistics by so many pitchers of that generation is a count against them. Not a big enough count to plunk for Guidry, who pitched almost 1000 innings less, but big enough for me at this stage to vote for Ryan, Blyleven, and Eckersley (debuts 1966, 1970, 1975).

The big four, Rivera, Glavine, and the little four make ten debuts in twelve years 1984-1995 and eight rookies in six seasons 1987-1992.(!) Having spent three votes on the old guys, I must save three here, and I went for the big four, Rivera, Glavine, and Smoltz alone from the little four. Rivera, Glavine, and Smoltz were on TV more than Mussina, Schilling, and Brown. ;)
I have looked at their postseason records. Rivera has worked longer at average quality greater than one full season as "Mariano Rivera"; Glavine has about one full season as "Tommy Glavine"; Smoltz has a good Cy Young Award season!

[jjpm74]

There's only a few more hours left on this poll and Moose and Eck are battling it out for the 10th spot in this group.

[BlueBlood]

Moose could use the vote more as Eck will be a shoe-in during the run-off.

[Brad Harris]

There's only a few more hours left on this poll and Moose and Eck are battling it out for the 10th spot in this group.

If Eck was anywhere near the pitcher Moose is, he wouldn't have been relegated to the bullpen in the first place.

[STLCards2]

If Eck was anywhere near the pitcher Moose is, he wouldn't have been relegated to the bullpen in the first place.

Just to play devil's advocate here, at the age of 32, when Eck had his last 100+ IP seasons, he had over 2,600 IP and an ERA+ near 120. He won over 130 games, and finished in the top 10 in ERA+ five times. Had he not moved to the bullpen, I'd say he had an outside shot of making the HOF anyway. He could have cleared 240 -250 wins and 4,000 IP as a starter and kept his ERA+ above Jack Morris territory.

Even based on career totals, Eck is only slightly behind Moose in career IP and within striking distance of his ERA+. We both agree that the closer is overrated, but there is certainly some value at being a great closer - which Eck was the best for 5-6 years before he got old.

I would agree that Eck was probably not as valuabe as Moose, but to say he was "nowhere near Mussina" seems a bit much.

Just because eck was moved from starter to closer doesn't mean he wasn't a great pitcher. Larussa was very much into speacializing everything. You can't say that Eck was moved to reliever because he wasn't good enough to be a starter anymore. Is Paplebon not good enough to be a starter? Of course he is - it isn't his fault that his manager put him in at closer.

[jjpm74]

These pitchers advance to the next round:

Bert Blyleven
Roger Clemens
Dennis Eckersley
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
John Smoltz

[Paul Wendt]

shoo! shoo! :lookitup:

Moose could use the vote more as Eck will be a shoe-in during the run-off.
But either one must "win" now to be considered for the top 20, before we run off for 40 or whatever. Right? And Eck more deserves a shot at the top 20, for his remarkable career. Either way, they should end up on the ballot together again, sometime after the top 20 has been filled.

[That was from yday afternoon but sitting in one of my browser windows this morning. I suppose my internet lifestyle means that the green light by my name is "always on" here.--using my own computer permanently logged in; not my boss's computer; not shutting down overnight.]


Classic: "If Eck was anywhere near the pitcher Moose is, he wouldn't have been relegated to the bullpen in the first place."

But when they did move him, he accomplished more than Mussina has done in his late 30s.

Clay Davenport credits Eckersley with saving 319 runs including 171 before they moved him to the pen. They did it because he wasn't consistently pitching as well or as much as he had done(*). Davenport credits Mussina with saving 291 runs through the end of last season, now 309 and holding. For a few mediocre seasons the Yankees have been living on hopes that he will regain the form of his first 12+ years, and through August he is doing it. Let's hope he keeps it up.

runs saved (PRAA) - best seasons in descending order
40 29 24 22 21 20 20 : Eckersley
38 35 32 27 25 25 24 20 : Mussina (DT card, by Davenport @baseballprospectus) (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/mussimi01.php))

bold marks Eckersley 1985-1987 --three seasons with Chicago before Oakland moved him to the pen. And it also marks Mussina 2004-2007 (or 2008 but he is on pace to save 20+ runs before it closes)

[leecemark]

--Neither Mussina nor Eckersley are anywere close to being top 20 all time pitchers. Top 50 maybe. I tihnk this format is going to squeeze some top pitchers from some era and elevate lesser pitchers from others. Probably not enough to seriously distort the final rankings too much though.

[jjpm74]

--Neither Mussina nor Eckersley are anywere close to being top 20 all time pitchers. Top 50 maybe. I tihnk this format is going to squeeze some top pitchers from some era and elevate lesser pitchers from others. Probably not enough to seriously distort the final rankings too much though.

Hopefully the tiered approach will prevent that from happening.

[leecemark]

--I was very satisfied with my options for the top 20 vote.

[csh19792001]

deleted post.

[AstrosFan]

runs saved (PRAA) - best seasons in descending order
40 29 24 22 21 20 20 : Eckersley
38 35 32 27 25 25 24 20 : Mussina (DT card, by Davenport @baseballprospectus) (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/mussimi01.php)

Just for comparison, here are Curt Schilling's best seasons and career numbers in PRAA. He is getting no love in this poll, and I can't figure out why.

Schilling: 41, 41, 40, 39, 37, 33, 29, 25, 24. Career 348.

Schilling appears to be the superior pitcher to both Moose and Eck by BP's metrics, and I tend to agree. Why did he get so few votes?

[Paul Wendt]

Hopefully the tiered approach will prevent that from happening.
As I understand the tumbling tiers, there should be no forced elevation. The 41 stage two winners have not won anything yet. As long as he finishes in the bottom third of a series of 30-man polls, Lefty Grove or Lefty Gomez will drop out of the top 30, out of the top 50, etc. Technically that could even happen to some of the 20 phase three winners [neighboring title says phase 2, should be phase 3] who do not win in phase four

Clearly there is a ceiling on how high our phase two losers, Schilling & Co., can rise by winning all of their upcoming contests. Even if they cannot rise above #31 because the structure forces 30 of our 41 stage two winners to be the top 30 (and I don't understand whether it does), that is fairly good flexibility in the top half of the hundred.

Even if the guys with zero votes in this stage two poll have been eliminated from the hundred (and I don't understand whether they have), that isn't so bad. Most of us are Americans so there is nothing we like more than voting but we must stop sometime, and must put some limit on the size of our fields.

[csh19792001]

No thoughts here from Paul or others as to why there's been so much more domination in the past 15 years?


During the 1990s and 2000s, every one of the league leaders by adjusted ERA has scored ERA+ 150 or higher.

During the 1970s and 1980s there were eleven of forty league leaders below 150.

During the 1990s and 2000s we have eleven of 36 league leaders above 200.

During the 1970s and 1980s, there were single seasons by Ron Guidry and Dwight Gooden.


Interesting. Why so many relative outliers?

It's clearly been easier for the best to separate themselves on both sides of the ball.What do these facts divulge about the role of expansion and competitive balance? How about steroids? What other factors are likely contributing to this disparity?

Was MLB stronger, on average, in the 70's and 80's than it was in the 90's and 00's?

Or were the best simply not as great as the subsequent two decades?

[Paul Wendt]

No deep and convincing thoughts.

Certainly expansion boosts the best teams and best players relative to league average but that effect diminishes rapidly as the majors identify the better players who should keep mlb jobs, and as new players develop every year.

From Dan Rosenheck, a leading contributor at the Hall of Merit whose research focuses on standard deviation (a measure of variation), I know both that number of years since expansion is a significant factor *and* that standard deviations were remarkably low in the 1970s and 1980s. It was very "difficult" meaning infrequent for players to dominate those leagues. But not only difficult to dominate as in ERA+=200 or 180; from top to bottom the whole distribution of the league's regular players was generally more compactin those two decadees than in the 60s and 90s/00s.

Among teams there wasunusual balance in the sense of passing the pennant around the table only in the 80s.

[csh19792001]

From Dan Rosenheck, a leading contributor at the Hall of Merit whose research focuses on standard deviation (a measure of variation), I know both that number of years since expansion is a significant factor *and* that standard deviations were remarkably low in the 1970s and 1980s. It was very "difficult" meaning infrequent for players to dominate those leagues. But not only difficult to dominate as in ERA+=200 or 180; from top to bottom the whole distribution of the league's regular players was generally more compactin those two decadees than in the 60s and 90s/00s.


Is this strong evidence that MLB was stronger in the 70's and 80's than since 1993? I.e., does a more compact league necessarily mean a stronger league?

Significantly smaller standard deviations from the pre-steroid era seems to necessarily imply one of the following:

A) The average player was better, ergo the best stood out less.
or
B) The top pitchers/position players in decades past simply weren't as phenomenal as they have been the last 15 years or so.
and/or
C) The guys really separating themselves did so using steroids and/or other PED's, thus elevating themselves more than stars of several decades previous were able to.

What I'd love to see would be a study looking at the average career length and innings player per year of the true mop-up guys. Or maybe even the number of minor league level players in the league, by year. The syndicate years of the 1890's certainly featured a higher percentage of these kind of players than any era since, by far.

Here's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacobbe01.shtml) an archetypal guy I ran across when I was researching Cobb against left handed pitching. Here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/patteca01.shtml) is another.

What's a guy with lousy ERA+ doing throwing 357 innings and 37 CG's?

Contemporaneously, it's clear the National League has been weaker than the AL for years- by how much it's difficult to say- but there's abundant evidence to suggest this is true. How much of it is strictly due to featuring 2 more teams? The pitching is certainly weaker, on average, in the NL today. How else could guys like Dennis Tankersley and Lance Cormier make it for more than a cup of coffee? Maybe the NL/AL disparity deserves its own thread....

Anyway, we've been batting the idea of correlating standard deviations with league quality for years here. You might find these interesting:

Greatest Hitters (http://www.amazon.com/Baseballs-All-Time-Hitters-Michael-Schell/dp/0691004552)

Greatest Sluggers (http://www.amazon.com/Baseballs-All-Time-Best-Sluggers-Performance/dp/0691115575)

[Paul Wendt]

Is this strong evidence that MLB was stronger in the 70's and 80's than since 1993? I.e., does a more compact league necessarily mean a stronger league?
No, it doesn't. Dan R's empirical research shows that it doesn't, or perhaps supposes it doesn't and gets good results.

Michael Schell takes it for granted and uses standard deviation as a measure of quality, at least in his first book.

S.J. Gould argues for that in terms of competitive evolution in a stable environment. There are no world wars, mass migrations, competing sports, foreign leagues, collegiate baseball --or, if they exist, they don't change. There are no major leagues entering or exiting or occasionally adding new clubs. There are no important rules changes. And no important rules differences; practically there is only one league.

[Paul Wendt]

Contemporaneously, it's clear the National League has been weaker than the AL for years- by how much it's difficult to say- but there's abundant evidence to suggest this is true. How much of it is strictly due to featuring 2 more teams?
none


The pitching is certainly weaker, on average, in the NL today. How else could guys like Dennis Tankersley and Lance Cormier make it for more than a cup of coffee? Maybe the NL/AL disparity deserves its own thread....
This is the wrong place because it must be sabrmetric

Certainly mean and standard deviation quality of play in multiple contemporary leagues needs separate analysis. S.J. Gould's theory concerns evolution in time so it pertains to baseball history: differences between earlier and later where competition occurs in the meantime.

[csh19792001]

none

So why do you think the AL is stronger?



This is the wrong place because it must be sabrmetric

That or current events...



Certainly mean and standard deviation quality of play in multiple contemporary leagues needs separate analysis. S.J. Gould's theory concerns evolution in time so it pertains to baseball history: differences between earlier and later where competition occurs in the meantime.

Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville was interesting. People have attacked his analysis of DiMaggio's streak that I excerpted from that book vociferously, though, deeming it "far too simplistic".