AstrosFan
09-24-2008, 06:47 PM
Can anyone explain this guy's bad luck to me? I know he pitched for bad teams, but he's not just unlucky compared to the rest of the league, he's unlucky compared to his teammates. Let's look at his seasons:
1896: We'll ignore it, since 13 IP doesn't matter
1899: Garvin pitched 199 innings for the Chicago Orphans with a 131 ERA+ on a team that went 75-73. He was rewarded with a 9-13 record. Two other pitchers had comparable ERA+s, Clark Griffith and Nixey Callahan, at 134 and 122, respectively. They went 22-14 and 21-12. (Pay attention to the winning percentages, not the value of the pitcher's contribution. A high ERA+ generally results in a high winning percentage. For Griffith and Callahan, this is true. For Garvin, it is not.)
1900: For the Orphans, Garvin pitched 246 1/3 innings with a 150 ERA+ on a team with a 65-75 record. He went 10-18. Only Jack Taylor had comparably bad luck, going 10-17 with a 142 ERA+.
1901: The Milwaukee Brewers were awful, going 48-89. Garvin had a 104 ERA+, and a 7-20 record. Tully Sparks was almost as unlucky, going 7-16 with a 102 ERA+. But Bill Reidy posted a 16-20 record with an 85 ERA+, and Bert Husting went 10-15 with an 84 ERA+.
1902: Ignoring the 18 innings he pitched for Brooklyn, Garvin pitched 175 1/3 innings for the White Sox, a team with a 74-60 record, with a 154 ERA+. He went 10-10. The rest of the starters had a combined 95 ERA+, and went 62-49.
1903: Pitching for Brooklyn, a team that went 70-66, Garvin posted a 104 ERA+ in 298 innings. He went 15-18. Oscar Jones was a little better in the ERA+ department (109), and went 19-14. Henry Schmidt was very lucky, going 22-13 despite an ERA+ of 83.
1904: Garvin pitched 181 2/3 innings for a 56-97 Brooklyn team. His 162 ERA+ trounced the efforts of any other major starter, yet he went only 5-15, easily the worst of the major starters.
Garvin added another 12 innings with the New York Highlanders that year, but by then it was over. His career record was 57-97, despite a career ERA+ of 124. It would be easy to explain his poor record as the effect of pitching for bad teams, but it was more than that. He was ALWAYS the unluckiest pitcher on any team he pitched at least 100 innings for.
So what gives? Is there an explanation for Garvin's unusual career, or is it simply the fact that out of all the pitchers in baseball history, one was bound to have a career pattern like this?
1896: We'll ignore it, since 13 IP doesn't matter
1899: Garvin pitched 199 innings for the Chicago Orphans with a 131 ERA+ on a team that went 75-73. He was rewarded with a 9-13 record. Two other pitchers had comparable ERA+s, Clark Griffith and Nixey Callahan, at 134 and 122, respectively. They went 22-14 and 21-12. (Pay attention to the winning percentages, not the value of the pitcher's contribution. A high ERA+ generally results in a high winning percentage. For Griffith and Callahan, this is true. For Garvin, it is not.)
1900: For the Orphans, Garvin pitched 246 1/3 innings with a 150 ERA+ on a team with a 65-75 record. He went 10-18. Only Jack Taylor had comparably bad luck, going 10-17 with a 142 ERA+.
1901: The Milwaukee Brewers were awful, going 48-89. Garvin had a 104 ERA+, and a 7-20 record. Tully Sparks was almost as unlucky, going 7-16 with a 102 ERA+. But Bill Reidy posted a 16-20 record with an 85 ERA+, and Bert Husting went 10-15 with an 84 ERA+.
1902: Ignoring the 18 innings he pitched for Brooklyn, Garvin pitched 175 1/3 innings for the White Sox, a team with a 74-60 record, with a 154 ERA+. He went 10-10. The rest of the starters had a combined 95 ERA+, and went 62-49.
1903: Pitching for Brooklyn, a team that went 70-66, Garvin posted a 104 ERA+ in 298 innings. He went 15-18. Oscar Jones was a little better in the ERA+ department (109), and went 19-14. Henry Schmidt was very lucky, going 22-13 despite an ERA+ of 83.
1904: Garvin pitched 181 2/3 innings for a 56-97 Brooklyn team. His 162 ERA+ trounced the efforts of any other major starter, yet he went only 5-15, easily the worst of the major starters.
Garvin added another 12 innings with the New York Highlanders that year, but by then it was over. His career record was 57-97, despite a career ERA+ of 124. It would be easy to explain his poor record as the effect of pitching for bad teams, but it was more than that. He was ALWAYS the unluckiest pitcher on any team he pitched at least 100 innings for.
So what gives? Is there an explanation for Garvin's unusual career, or is it simply the fact that out of all the pitchers in baseball history, one was bound to have a career pattern like this?