Options
Pitching to the Score
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From Baseball Prospectus:
“He pitches to the score.”
When it’s heard: You know exactly when.
Why it’s weak: For centuries, humans have developed myths to explain complex phenomena that are beyond their current comprehension. The ancient Greeks explained the seasons by telling the story of Persephone, who was kidnapped by Hades and tricked into eating pomegranate seeds and was thus forced by Zeus to return to the Underworld for part of each year, during which the depression of her mother Demeter caused the onset of winter. Of course, seasons are actually caused by the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun, but no one would tell that story around a campfire—okay, I actually have, but you can take that up with my kids’ therapists—since math makes for far less compelling tales than those that assign human motivations to the gods. Similarly, math has shown time and time again that there is no evidence Jack Morris or anyone else “pitched to the score,” or more accurately, that their ERA was inflated by this tactic. Math also tells us that players with high ERAs who also compile high win totals do so because they receive excellent run support. Show me some numbers that prove otherwise, and then we can talk.
When it might be true: When Zeus was up by five runs in the middle innings, the cruel omnipotent ba*tard probably gave up a few runs just to breed a little hope for him to eventually revel in crushing.
“He pitches to the score.”
When it’s heard: You know exactly when.
Why it’s weak: For centuries, humans have developed myths to explain complex phenomena that are beyond their current comprehension. The ancient Greeks explained the seasons by telling the story of Persephone, who was kidnapped by Hades and tricked into eating pomegranate seeds and was thus forced by Zeus to return to the Underworld for part of each year, during which the depression of her mother Demeter caused the onset of winter. Of course, seasons are actually caused by the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun, but no one would tell that story around a campfire—okay, I actually have, but you can take that up with my kids’ therapists—since math makes for far less compelling tales than those that assign human motivations to the gods. Similarly, math has shown time and time again that there is no evidence Jack Morris or anyone else “pitched to the score,” or more accurately, that their ERA was inflated by this tactic. Math also tells us that players with high ERAs who also compile high win totals do so because they receive excellent run support. Show me some numbers that prove otherwise, and then we can talk.
When it might be true: When Zeus was up by five runs in the middle innings, the cruel omnipotent ba*tard probably gave up a few runs just to breed a little hope for him to eventually revel in crushing.
0
Comments
In his book "The Umpire Strikes Back" Ron Luciano claimed "Catfish" Hunter (one of those "he pitched to the score" guys) had the best control of any pitcher he had ever seen. Ron went on to say that "Catfish" would sometimes "get lazy with his fastball" and it would get clobbered. One time after a particularly titanic clout, Luciano handed Hunter a new ball and made a comment about how far the previous one had traveled. "Catfish" smiled and said "you should have seen the one Rice hit off me the other day, it brought rain". I doubt that Hunter gave a rat's a$$ about his ERA.
Not sure if this proves anything, but I am pretty sure that SOME pitchers relaxed a bit with a big lead and weren't worried about their ERA.
I doubt that every pitcher had the attitude of a Bob Gibson who hated to give up a hit much less a run. In his best season he got HORRIBLE run support. See below.
Your comment; "Math also tells us that players with high ERAs who also compile high win totals do so because they receive excellent run support." is 100% correct.
A better way of measuring it, would be to find the pitchers who had high win totals, and their ERA's were consistently just slightly lower than the combined era's of the opposing pitchers. Would that count as evidence? Certainly not proof.
One thing I have also heard a lot is that when a pitcher has a big lead he tends to throw more strikes or "not be as fine" with his pitches as to avoid walks. I would think this could lead to giving up a couple of (meaningless?) runs to avoid the big inning. The same pitcher in a close game (should) might bear down harder in an attempt to give up fewer or no runs.
I am not on the Morris bandwagon, but in 18 years he pitched 175 complete games, in their 45 combined years Glavine and Maddux pitched 165 total. I would GUESS Morris' ERA was inflated a bit as he got tired, (or just gave up runs) in the later innings. I don't care to look it up or even know how to.
I couldn't find Zeus' stats on Baseball reference, what was his lifetime ERA and win loss record?
Catfish Hunter, btw, is also arguably the worst post war starting pitcher in the HOF.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
"The difference in Morris' performance between close games and blowout games is along the lines of 15 OPS points and three OPS+ points by opposing batters. Pretty much negligible. The results were the same in tight games as they were when the score was out of hand. Morris had a career 3.90 ERA and 105 ERA+ simply because he was only good and not great at preventing runs, a pitcher's number one job.
In addition to the high ERA, Morris was a below-average strikeout pitcher (career 5.8 K/9) who was a little liberal with the walks (career 3.3 BB/9). During his best season (1983), he had a 7.1 K/9 and 2.5 BB/9, leading to a 2.80 K/BB. That's a tick below contemporary Ron Guidry's career mark (2.81)."
Morris Article
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Catfish Hunter, btw, is also arguably the worst post war starting pitcher in the HOF. >>
Please tell me why the harsh statement on Hunter? According to MLB.com he was #30 all time in WHIP, Koufax was at 1.11, Tom Seaver was at 1.12 Hunter was at 1.13. His ERA was slightly worse than Steve Carleton's and better than Bert Blyleven's and Randy Johnson's.
I like to use WHIP and ERA because they show what the pitcher can control, as opposed to wins. His opponents BA is 18th all time, tied with Feller and virtually the same as Jim Palmer.
Hunter had a short career of 15 years, but is top 75 all time innings pitched, so he was rarely hurt. Is #65 in wins (yes he played on good teams) but even though wins are deceiving he did win the games he was supposed to, and it looks to me like he did well in ERA, WHIP and opponents BA.
He gave up a lot of home runs I guess about 26 for every 33 starts and he only won 224 games, so his longevity is not the best.
You really think he was THE WORST? Show me why you think he was that bad, if you don't mind. Again I am not on Hunters bandwagon, but he looks pretty solid to me.He had to be better than Niekro and Bunning? How about Drysdale in that pitchers park of his?
However, if anyone still believes that guys are capable of pitching just good enough to 'always' beat their opponent, then if that were true, all a GM would have to do is find four of those pitchers(spend all his money on them), and then just buy the worst offense in the league...because when that offense scores zero and one run all the time, the pitchers who pitch to the score would have ERA's of 0.50, and the team would win.
Just another myth.
Hunter was a durable innings guy who played on excellent teams. He had a pretty good prime.
His best ERA+ years are:
144
140
134
114
113
107
102
Three nice years, and just another pitcher the rest of his career who played on good teams(and did pitch a good share of innings).
His best MLB league ranks in ERA+ were 6th, 9th, and 9th. No other top tens.
He had good control with his WHIP, but you can't just ignore giving up HR's, as ultimately it is the amount of runs a pitcher allows that defines how effective he was.
Please, none of that "post season" pitcher garbage either. No such thing. That is even worse than the 'playoff QB' myth.
I wouuld say Grot'e assessment is pretty spot on.
<< <i>Not sure if this proves anything, but I am pretty sure that SOME pitchers relaxed a bit with a big lead and weren't worried about their ERA. >>
It's human nature and a circumstance that one cannot place a numerical value on. Speaking from personal experiences during a blow out, either on the giving or receiving end, it is not unusual to let up off the gas. Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO.
<< <i>A better way of measuring it, would be to find the pitchers who had high win totals, and their ERA's were consistently just slightly lower than the combined era's of the opposing pitchers. Would that count as evidence? Certainly not proof. >>
There are lots of pitchers who this applies to. When it happens they all end up with as many losses as wins
<< <i>I am not on the Morris bandwagon, but in 18 years he pitched 175 complete games, in their 45 combined years Glavine and Maddux pitched 165 total. I would GUESS Morris' ERA was inflated a bit as he got tired, (or just gave up runs) in the later innings. I don't care to look it up or even know how to. >>
baseballreference.com makes it easy to look those things up. It is common for a pitcher to throw fewer pitches when they throw a complete game as opposed to only eight innings. Morris and Maddux had lower ERAs in the ninth than they did in other innings, Glavine slightly higher. The number of complete games for those three says far more about how the sport changed over the decades than anything about their pitching ability. Why aren't complete games and a low ERA ever used to show that Morris wasn't as good as Luis Tiant or Billy Pierce?
Who says they are not?
<< <i>
<< <i>Not sure if this proves anything, but I am pretty sure that SOME pitchers relaxed a bit with a big lead and weren't worried about their ERA. >>
It's human nature and a circumstance that one cannot place a numerical value on. Speaking from personal experiences during a blow out, either on the giving or receiving end, it is not unusual to let up off the gas. Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO. >>
In a pickup game, maybe. In a highly competitive game, not so much.
In any event, if that were true for a person, then it certainly hasn't manifested itself in the actual results, and not in Morris's case.
Problem is, is that the fans of pitchers(or the pitcher himself in Morris's case) use the 'letting' up as a reason for a person with a high win total, despite a high ERA. We already know that in 99.9 percent of the cases, the high win total(despite a high ERA) is resulting from good run support/good fortune.
<< <i>In a pickup game, maybe. In a highly competitive game, not so much. >>
Sure, in a competitive game but not in a blowout. Ask yourself if you think an athlete gives 100% effort 100% of the time, day in and day out, and regardless of the circumstances. There's a reason we don't hear the phrase "We put everything we have on the field today" after every game because they don't. As a fan, you would hope they do but humans aren't wired that way.
edited to add: Skin, we've discussed it in the past but I'll gladly revisit it again if you want to...
The excerpt below is from an article at Baseball Prospectus. Access might require a subscription, but some of their articles are free.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15750&mode=print&nocache=1390407962
Over the past few years, I've tested many pitchers to who have a "pitch to the score" reputation, including Jack Morris, Jack McDowell, Doc Gooden, and Dave Stewart. I have also followed the careers of two pitchers with the opposite reputation, Dave Stieb and Jose DeLeon. In no case have I found any pattern whatsoever of a pitcher winning or losing more games during his career than the formula projects. In all these cases I found pitchers who tended to win and lose the number of games that their runs allowed and run support totals project them to win and lose.
The pitchers who get a reputation of "pitching to the score" have one thing in common - they have all generally gotten good run support through most of their careers. It seems apparent to me that pitchers get this reputation because they get better run support than most other pitchers and thus have a W-L record that looks better than their ERA or runs allowed. In general, these pitchers get good run support because they are on good offensive teams for a number of years. Jack Morris is the best example of this; in his entire career, he was on only one below-average offensive team (1989), and he pitched for several great offensive teams. The "pitch to the score" theory seems to be an effort to imbue a pitchers' won-loss record with a value other than luck.
<< <i>
<< <i>In a pickup game, maybe. In a highly competitive game, not so much. >>
Sure, in a competitive game but not in a blowout. Ask yourself if you think an athlete gives 100% effort 100% of the time, day in and day out, and regardless of the circumstances. There's a reason we don't hear the phrase "We put everything we have on the field today" after every game because they don't. As a fan, you would hope they do but humans aren't wired that way.
edited to add: Skin, we've discussed it in the past but I'll gladly revisit it again if you want to... >>
Why? You never accounted for the points that were made back then, so why do you want another losing effort?
In baseball, it does not take a herculean effort to hit or pitch above and beyond what one can do already. Any extra 'effort' presented in either can actually be counterproductive. A pitcher who sits 92-94 can add all the extra effort he has in him, and will only get a few more miles on his fastball, but then he will lose his command. On the other side of the coin, it doesn't save much energy at all to drop to 89 MPH. If you are saying he lets let up, then going down to 70MPH would save something...but that doesn't happen.
If you are talking about a basketball player playing defense, then IT DOES take a lot of more effort to play defense at the top of your game for 40 minutes, and it can actually be productive to save your body from that grind when a blowout is happening. That is far different than the skills needed to pitch or hit...and that is what we are talking about here.
Stown, you believe Reggie Jackson was a post season player, and you point to his World Series hitting as your evidence of what you are talking about. You love those heroes and add these mythical qualities to them.
I asked you before, if he truly had that ability to put that extra effort in the big games, then why didn't he do the same thing in the ALCS?? He was awful in those games. Not bad, awful.
1)Was he dumb? Did he not realize that the same extra effort there would have given him MORE World Series to shine in?
2)Was he psychic? Did he already know his team was going to win, therefore he didn't need to?
3)Or Was he Lazy? He just didn't feel like doing it(which is kind of what you are saying by alluding to them putting it all out there when it matters most), in which case, that means they are NOT big game players if they cannot do it all the time, because that would mean they would have laziness as a character trait.
Oh, but some people can handle pressure, and some people can't, blah blah blah. Yeah, those people that make it and stay in the pros have already proven they can. Those other guys get weeded out well before then, most likely before even high school.
Barry, this is a curious statement~what exactly in a major league pitcher's mannerisms by watching film would indicate he is not pitching as well as he could due to the score?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Let's start with a simple premise: Do you think an athletes give 100% effort 100% of the time, regardless of the circumstances, from the first game to the last (including playoffs, if applicable) throughout an entire season?
<< <i> Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO.
Barry, this is a curious statement~what exactly in a major league pitcher's mannerisms by watching film would indicate he is not pitching as well as he could due to the score? >>
Because the body will show signs of fatigue (shoulders slumping, slower reaction time, unable to get their HR back up, etc) in addition to mentally (attention span), especially if they're on the losing end of a blowout. You could measure these traits but it would require being plugged in with electrodes, monitors, and such. With today's technology, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they become requirements to keep tabs on an athlete's health.
<< <i>Skin, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth and then making a ton of assumptions.
Let's start with a simple premise: Do you think an athletes give 100% effort 100% of the time, regardless of the circumstances, from the first game to the last (including playoffs, if applicable) throughout an entire season? >>
Stown,
I've never met a pitcher that likes to give up runs(anytime). I've never met a batter who gives away at bats.
Baseball has far different circumstances than football and basketball(as I said above).
As stated above, basketball players(mainly on defense), certainly do not give 100% all the time.
Football players(mainly on blocking or the plays they are not specifically engaged in), certainly not 100% all the time.
Baseball players in hitting and pitching, very close to 100%, with a few outliers, and possibly not in extreme games(less than 1% type games). Defenders would be more apt to take plays off.
What does that mean?
In relation to Jack Morris, that stuff is said to make him look better than he actually was, because he indeed did NOT pitch to the score. Neither did Hunter, or any of those other guys who had high ERA's and were just lucky to have offenses bailing them out to make them look better in their win totals. Wins are a poor measurement of an individual player.
Actually, Jack Morris did pitch to the score. He had a habit of giving away leads that his offense gave him...only for his offense to bail him out again so the TEAM would win.
Finally, blowout games are few and far between(especially in baseball), so in the rare event there are a handful of players that do play lazily in such games, it is a rare enough event that it won't have much of an impact on what the other 585 at bats in the season are already telling us. Or in Morris's case, what the other 225 innings that were in a non blowout environment that are telling us....which is that his career ERA+ of 105 shows that he isn't nearly as good as he(or others) think he was.
<< <i>
<< <i> Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO.
Barry, this is a curious statement~what exactly in a major league pitcher's mannerisms by watching film would indicate he is not pitching as well as he could due to the score? >>
Because the body will show signs of fatigue (shoulders slumping, slower reaction time, unable to get their HR back up, etc) in addition to mentally (attention span), especially if they're on the losing end of a blowout. You could measure these traits but it would require being plugged in with electrodes, monitors, and such. With today's technology, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they become requirements to keep tabs on an athlete's health. >>
I would agree that signs of fatigue would correlate with decreased effectiveness in a pitcher's performance, but that really has much more to do with getting tired than what the score is.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO.
Barry, this is a curious statement~what exactly in a major league pitcher's mannerisms by watching film would indicate he is not pitching as well as he could due to the score? >>
Because the body will show signs of fatigue (shoulders slumping, slower reaction time, unable to get their HR back up, etc) in addition to mentally (attention span), especially if they're on the losing end of a blowout. You could measure these traits but it would require being plugged in with electrodes, monitors, and such. With today's technology, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they become requirements to keep tabs on an athlete's health. >>
I would agree that signs of fatigue would correlate with decreased effectiveness in a pitcher's performance, but that really has much more to do with getting tired than what the score is. >>
Because the score typically dictates how much you keep or not in reserve. I'm sure there are some exceptions, like a promising young pitcher attempting to get a roster shot. If you're up or down 5 runs, you're not going to have the same focus as you would in a 1-run or tie game. It's human nature and we're all guilty of it.
<< <i>Baseball players in hitting and pitching, very close to 100%, with a few outliers, and possibly not in extreme games(less than 1% type games). >>
If it's very close to 100%, then it should be something you can easily prove. I disagree that's the case but will gladly reconsider if/when you can show me otherwise.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Don't know if there's a formula that can prove it one way or another but watching film of players' mannerisms during a blowout does IMO.
Barry, this is a curious statement~what exactly in a major league pitcher's mannerisms by watching film would indicate he is not pitching as well as he could due to the score? >>
Because the body will show signs of fatigue (shoulders slumping, slower reaction time, unable to get their HR back up, etc) in addition to mentally (attention span), especially if they're on the losing end of a blowout. You could measure these traits but it would require being plugged in with electrodes, monitors, and such. With today's technology, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they become requirements to keep tabs on an athlete's health. >>
I would agree that signs of fatigue would correlate with decreased effectiveness in a pitcher's performance, but that really has much more to do with getting tired than what the score is. >>
Because the score typically dictates how much you keep or not in reserve. I'm sure there are some exceptions, like a promising young pitcher attempting to get a roster shot. If you're up or down 5 runs, you're not going to have the same focus as you would in a 1-run or tie game. It's human nature and we're all guilty of it. >>
Except that conclusion has already been statistically disproven and debunked by the facts. I disagree that a pitcher loses focus just because he has a lead. And if he's given up a lot of runs already, giving up additional runs has more to do with his lack of effectiveness than focus.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
Because the score typically dictates how much you keep or not in reserve. I'm sure there are some exceptions, like a promising young pitcher attempting to get a roster shot. If you're up or down 5 runs, you're not going to have the same focus as you would in a 1-run or tie game. It's human nature and we're all guilty of it. >>
Jack Morris pitched 1,224 innings when the game was tied. His ERA in those innings was 3.97
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
Morris's career ERA is 3.90. As you can see, in the innings that required the MOST intense concentration, his ERA was 3.97 and 4.18...and those were the innings he pitched most often in his career. So, his career 3.90 ERA is not lying. He did not pitch to the score.
His ERA in the most extreme blowout games where he would relax was 3.92 and 4.14.
No difference.
His ERA+ of 105 is telling the truth
Really. Really?
The predominant amount of innings a starting pitcher pitches in is when the game is close. Blowouts are few and far between,
<< <i>Except that conclusion has already been statistically disproven and debunked by the facts. >>
Perceived effort (or lack thereof) has been disproven and debunked? Please show me these statistics and I'll gladly concede if that's the case.
<< <i>
<< <i>Except that conclusion has already been statistically disproven and debunked by the facts. >>
Perceived effort (or lack thereof) has been disproven and debunked? Please show me these statistics and I'll gladly concede if that's the case. >>
The notion that a pitcher somehow pitches more effectively if a game is tied or within 1-2 runs as opposed to a blowout. In the case of this thread, I used Jack Morris as an example, as his name is linked most often with the "pitching to the score" myth. In fact, his career stats are essentially no better when pitching in a tie game than when pitching in a blowout. Here's an excerpt from a good analysis of Morris based on actual stats. Link to full article is below.
THE CASE AGAINST INDUCTION
No current Hall of Famer has a career ERA as high as Morris. Red Ruffing currently holds the dubious honor of "highest career ERA in Cooperstown" at 3.80. Only two current Hall of Famers have a lower career ERA+: Rube Marguard (103) and Catfish Hunter (104).
The argument most often made in defense of Morris' high career ERA is that he pitched to the score -- pitching more aggressively and attacking hitters in the strike zone to get quick outs in blowout games -- which is kinda silly at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Do pitchers pitch differently in blowout games than they do close games? Absolutely. Does that explain a 3.90 ERA over 3,824 (!) innings? No way. That assumes his teams played blowout games way more often than not when Morris was on the mound.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that we have instant access to stats (aka the factual record of what actually happened on the field) that can shed some light on the "he pitched to the score" argument. Courtesy of Baseball-Reference:
I Split PA R H 2B 3B HR BB SO SO/BB BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip tOPS+
Tie Game 4719 468 1043 174 24 100 433 719 1.66 .249 .319 .373 .692 .276 100
Within 1 R 8981 934 1955 315 42 205 796 1414 1.78 .244 .313 .371 .684 .271 98
Within 2 R 11711 1236 2581 403 64 269 1033 1789 1.73 .247 .315 .375 .691 .273 99
Within 3 R 13501 1439 2978 469 74 319 1173 2064 1.76 .247 .314 .377 .691 .272 100
Within 4 R 14606 1555 3222 518 86 346 1270 2244 1.77 .247 .314 .379 .693 .272 100
Margin > 4 R 1514 156 345 54 5 43 120 234 1.95 .249 .310 .389 .699 .272 101
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/22/2013.
The difference in Morris' performance between close games and blowout games is along the lines of 15 OPS points and three OPS+ points by opposing batters. Pretty much negligible. The results were the same in tight games as they were when the score was out of hand. Morris had a career 3.90 ERA and 105 ERA+ simply because he was only good and not great at preventing runs, a pitcher's number one job.
In addition to the high ERA, Morris was a below-average strikeout pitcher (career 5.8 K/9) who was a little liberal with the walks (career 3.3 BB/9). During his best season (1983), he had a 7.1 K/9 and 2.5 BB/9, leading to a 2.80 K/BB. That's a tick below contemporary Ron Guidry's career mark (2.81).
Link
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
I think somebody should ask Jack why he chose to pitch so bad in the inning where his team was down by one run? Did he give up or something?
Jack, why only a 4.18 ERA in the innings where your team was leading by one!? Aren't you supposed to be shutting them down in that situation? That is the pitchers dream spot right there! If you indeed did pitch to the score, I would expect an all-star/HOF type ERA in the situation where your team has entrusted you with a one run lead. Instead, just mediocrity!
<< <i>ack Morris pitched 1,224 innings when the game was tied. His ERA in those innings was 3.97
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
I think somebody should ask Jack why he chose to pitch so bad in the inning where his team was down by one run? Did he give up or something?
Jack, why only a 4.18 ERA in the innings where your team was leading by one!? Aren't you supposed to be shutting them down in that situation? That is the pitchers dream spot right there! If you indeed did pitch to the score, I would expect an all-star/HOF type ERA in the situation where your team has entrusted you with a one run lead. Instead, just mediocrity! >>
Sir,
You playing the facts card. That is frowned upon on this board.
Did Jack Morris say he gave 100% of his effort 100% of the time each and every moment the ball left his hand?
<< <i>That's an interpretation of his statistics.
Did Jack Morris say he gave 100% of his effort 100% of the time each and every moment the ball left his hand? >>
LOL, now you're just being difficult, Barry.
Actually, I motion that Baseball Reference should add a new statistic to a pitcher's career numbers--the "slumped shoulders" metric, designed to gauge just how halfheartedly (or not) a pitcher pitches in a blowout game.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>That's an interpretation of his statistics.
Did Jack Morris say he gave 100% of his effort 100% of the time each and every moment the ball left his hand? >>
Interpretation? Nice reach. NO interpretation needed. Already showed you what actually occurred.
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18.
There isn't any interpretation to be had. That is the situation most germane to Morris's comment of "pitching to the score" for a reason he had a high ERA. His words or perception(and yours too), mean little. The reality is, he did not pitch to the score.
His high ERA was NOT a result from 'letting up' in blowout wins as you and he claim.
Your thinking otherwise has put you into fairy tale land...and that is where you are welcome to stay.
If it's indeed proven that a certain hurler subconsciously pitched to the score whenever the situation presented itself over the duration of a lengthy career, then that's not only remarkable, but dare I say scary. If consciously done? Any HoF talk obviously ends right then and there.
I personally think these guys have far too much pride for this ever to be taken seriously. If I had a dollar for every time a starter looked like he was ready to brawl with a pitching coach who was slowly strolling to the mound, I'd be taking care of biz on a solid-gold toilet.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's an interpretation of his statistics.
Did Jack Morris say he gave 100% of his effort 100% of the time each and every moment the ball left his hand? >>
LOL, now you're just being difficult, Barry.
Actually, I motion that Baseball Reference should add a new statistic to a pitcher's career numbers--the "slumped shoulders" metric, designed to gauge just how halfheartedly (or not) a pitcher pitches in a blowout game.
It's not a matter of being difficult. While I agree that advanced statistics can assist the evaluation of a player, it cannot put a numerical value on their brain. Sure, stats don't necessarily 'lie' but they don't necessarily tell the whole story either. If you've been in a physically competitive situation, you know all about it. If not, then I can understand why you would only rely on stats.
Different perspectives, different conclusions.
<< <i>Your thinking otherwise has put you into fairy tale land...and that is where you are welcome to stay. >>
No, it's called reality. You can crunch all the numbers you want on a computer screen but you'll never fully understand of what it's really like. And that's okay.
<< <i>
<< <i>Your thinking otherwise has put you into fairy tale land...and that is where you are welcome to stay. >>
No, it's called reality. You can crunch all the numbers you want on a computer screen but you'll never fully understand of what it's really like. And that's okay. >>
Numbers prove your assertion to be faulty and you fall back on the tiresome and pathetic "you never played the game all you do is sit in you parents basement" line? Typical stown BS.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That's an interpretation of his statistics.
Did Jack Morris say he gave 100% of his effort 100% of the time each and every moment the ball left his hand? >>
LOL, now you're just being difficult, Barry.
Actually, I motion that Baseball Reference should add a new statistic to a pitcher's career numbers--the "slumped shoulders" metric, designed to gauge just how halfheartedly (or not) a pitcher pitches in a blowout game.
It's not a matter of being difficult. While I agree that advanced statistics can assist the evaluation of a player, it cannot put a numerical value on their brain. Sure, stats don't necessarily 'lie' but they don't necessarily tell the whole story either. If you've been in a physically competitive situation, you know all about it. If not, then I can understand why you would only rely on stats.
Different perspectives, different conclusions. >>
I still say that the "slumped shoulders" metric would be a great addition to sabremetrics, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The conspiracy theory side of me wonders if a statition created it just to debunk it.
Heh.
<< <i>I still say that the "slumped shoulders" metric would be a great addition to sabremetrics, LOL.. >>
If it's possible, they should. It's a key indicator if your opponent is at the point of being, or beyond, physically drained. True story.
<< <i>Bunning and Drysdale were better than Hunter. Niekro far better. When Hunter retired, Niekro had already pitched more innings and had a lower ERA in much tougher ball parks. He then went on to pitch an additional 1600 innings with an ERA at league average. It really isn't even close. Drysdale pitched in even easier ball parks and never had to face the DH, but even when adjusting for those things, his ERA is still significantly lower, same for Bunning >>
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying Hunter needed to pitch more innings and keep his numbers about where they were to be considered as good as these three? If that's what you are saying, I can certainly see your point.
Looking at WHIP I see that Hunters highest year, other than his final year, was 1.284 or below and Niekro had 14 of his 24 years above that number, if you exclude his final year. Longevity is a good thing, but it does tend to lower your numbers. You have to take the good with the bad.
I am assuming the ballpark factor (and longevity) is what you are basing your statement that Niekro was "far better" as his lifetime ERA is higher as well. Niekro may have been better, but "far better"? I don't see that.
Hunter and Bunning look pretty similar; same number of wins, Bunning more losses, ERA the same, both had similar length careers with Bunning having 300 more IP, Hunter had 30 more Complete games and a couple of more Shut-outs a lower career WHIP, four years in top 4 Cy Young with one CYA, Bunning was 2nd once. Five years (in a row) 20 game winner, Bunning had one (although he had four 19 win seasons), The only significant statistic Bunning has over Hunter is ERA+.
I would say they were pretty close. I just can't put THAT much importance on ERA+. I might agree Bunning might have been a better pitcher than Hunter if they had played on the other guys team (OPS+ would seem to claim that), but they look AWFULLY close.
Good discussion, I enjoy a debate with an adult.
<< <i>Who coined the phrase 'pitching to the score'?
The conspiracy theory side of me wonders if a statition created it just to debunk it.
Heh. >>
What's a statition?
<< <i>
There isn't any interpretation to be had. That is the situation most germane to Morris's comment of "pitching to the score" for a reason he had a high ERA. His words or perception(and yours too), mean little. The reality is, he did not pitch to the score.
His high ERA was NOT a result from 'letting up' in blowout wins as you and he claim.
Your thinking otherwise has put you into fairy tale land...and that is where you are welcome to stay. >>
Stown loves to use the condescending "if you don't play sports you can't understand sports" BS that so any talking heads on sports talk use as a catch all to cover their idiocy and lack of understanding sports and anything that defies their ill conceived notions,
This is a pretty accurate summation. Those players good enough to make the major leagues level in the first place, are super competitive by nature, and have too much professional pride to dial it down just because they are pitching when the run differential is greater than a certain amount. If anything, a manager may relieve a pitcher at that point later in the game either because he wants to afford the pitcher some extra rest or because he is so ineffective leaving him out there would be cruel and unusual punishment. Guys who play on weekends or in pickup games may lollygag if a game is in hand, but a major league pitcher? These guys are fierce competitors who aren't going to give up a few runs just because the score is 8-2 and they want to get to the local tavern in time for happy hour.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'?
<< <i>
Hunter and Bunning look pretty similar; same number of wins, Bunning more losses, ERA the same, both had similar length careers with Bunning having 300 more IP, Hunter had 30 more Complete games and a couple of more Shut-outs a lower career WHIP, four years in top 4 Cy Young with one CYA, Bunning was 2nd once. Five years (in a row) 20 game winner, Bunning had one (although he had four 19 win seasons), The only significant statistic Bunning has over Hunter is ERA+.
>>
When they're that close, wouldn't it make sense that the one who pitched in tougher ball parks with weaker defenses behind him did better? The three things a pitcher has complete control over home runs, walks and strikeouts, Bunning was better at for his career -- and he pitched more.
Ignoring his first and last year, Bunning had 3600 innings, 3.16 ERA, 119 ERA+, 353 home runs allowed, 939 walks and 2760 strike outs (0.9, 2.3 and 6.9 per nine innings). For Hunter's career, also taking away his mediocre first and last years: 3211 innings, 3.15 ERA, 107 ERA+, 338 home runs, 874 walks and 1896 strike outs (0.9, 2.4 and 5.3 per nine innings)
<< <i>Who said anything about lollygagging and purposefully giving up runs? Just because you don't give 100% doesn't necessarily mean you're at 0%.
I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'? >>
Fans who try to explain why a pitcher was not as good as they would seem to recall. The phrase has no real value or significance to begin with, imo.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18.
There isn't any interpretation to be had. That is the situation most germane to Morris's comment of "pitching to the score" for a reason he had a high ERA. His words or perception(and yours too), mean little. The reality is, he did not pitch to the score.
His high ERA was NOT a result from 'letting up' in blowout wins as you and he claim. >>
Wouldn't "pitching to the score" be harder because of the opponents "hitting to the score?"
<< <i>Who said anything about lollygagging and purposefully giving up runs? >>
YOU DID. You said that pitchers stop giving 100% when there's a blowout. You're implying that they are no longer giving max effort therefore the conclusion must be drawn that they are purposefully giving up runs.
And please, stop with your nonsense trying to equate elite, major league pitching with whatever beer league you play in. They aren't the same, and the players pitching at the major league level aren't going to let off the gas and 'pitch to the score' just because they are far ahead or behind. Skin has proven this without a doubt through his analysis, and your continued insistence on trying to belittle those who use statistical analysis and say it doesn't mean anything if they didn't compete is frankly insulting.
<< <i> Just because you don't give 100% doesn't necessarily mean you're at 0%. >>
But it means you're intentionally not gviving your best, which major league pitchers don't know how to do.
<< <i>I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'? >>
It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but the phrase has been used repeatedly in trying to prop up Morris' HoF candicacy.
<< <i>
<< <i>Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18.
There isn't any interpretation to be had. That is the situation most germane to Morris's comment of "pitching to the score" for a reason he had a high ERA. His words or perception(and yours too), mean little. The reality is, he did not pitch to the score.
His high ERA was NOT a result from 'letting up' in blowout wins as you and he claim. >>
Wouldn't "pitching to the score" be harder because of the opponents "hitting to the score?" >>
That last statement actually raises an interesting countrerpoint~if you're going to argue that effort correlates with game situation (which I don't subscribe to), if a team is way ahead (or behind) in the score, isn't it just as likely (by such reasoning), that the hitters aren't fully focusing as much either, thereby making the pitcher's job that much easier?
To me, such speculative assertions underscore even more persuasively why the best way to evaluate a player's performance and worth is by utilizing the statistics available at hand, as such measures are removed from the subjective nature inherent in personal perception anmd opinion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Who said anything about lollygagging and purposefully giving up runs? Just because you don't give 100% doesn't necessarily mean you're at 0%.
I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'? >>
Fans who try to explain why a pitcher was not as good as they would seem to recall. The phrase has no real value or significance to begin with, imo. >>
If it doesn't have significance to the point, why is it so commonly used as an argument? It comes off as saying, "I can prove he always gave it all because MATH." May not be the intent but that's the impression I get.
I can't answer that question, as I have no idea why people assert the things they do, but if I had to speculate, I'd say it's because if you don't have conclusive evidence to support your assertion, you're that much more likely to grasp at straws and invent such phrases that have no relevance to reality.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If it doesn't have significance to the point, why is it so commonly used as an argument?
I can't answer that question, as I have no idea why people assert the things they do, but if I had to speculate, I'd say it's because if you don't have conclusive evidence to support your assertion, you're that much more likely to grasp at straws and invent such phrases that have no relevance to reality. >>
Thanks Tim. That's why I'm honestly curious who started the phrase. The only thing google brings up are articles mocking people that make the claim. If some fans believe pitchers purposefully gave up runs to keep the game close, well, they deserve it.