<< <i>That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
It's hard to imagine a ten time all star with ony 150 wins-unles he spent a lot of his career as a reliever. Anyway, you just look at the entire body of work and decide. >>
That's because no such pitcher exists. There's never been a pitcher with a 4.12 ERA and 150+ wins.
In my humble opinion, the question of whether lineup protection exists needs to be changed to "what does having a good hitter behind a slugger do"?
I believe there is statistical evidence that an unprotected hitter gets walked more often but also strikes out slightly more too. What we don't see is a noticeable change in the outcome of balls put into play between a protected and an unprotected hitter.
I think you can extrapolate that if a batter is getting walked more some of his counting stats will decrease (HR, RBI) and that might look like he's having a down year. On the flip side though, that batter will be on base more, make fewer outs, and score more often.
<< <i>That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
It's hard to imagine a ten time all star with ony 150 wins-unles he spent a lot of his career as a reliever. Anyway, you just look at the entire body of work and decide. >>
That's because no such pitcher exists. There's never been a pitcher with a 4.12 ERA and 150+ wins. >>
Jack Morris tried his best to be the first.
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>Evans wasn't a great hitter during Rice's prime, I agree. I was talking career wise.
Evans did have excellent years form age 35-39. OPS+ 133
Age 30-34 OPS+ 133 Age 25-29 OPS+ 126 Age 20-24 OPS+ 110
Not too much of a change, except for when he was very young.
He had his second best year at age 35.
If you look at age 36-39 his OPS+ 126...so not quite the jump compared to his previous ten.
Career wise, Evans OPS+ was 127, Rice 128...but Evans did it in 1,500 MORE plate appearances. >>
All those additional plate appearances also support the case of Evans being a better overall player than Rice as he was still an above average player till age 37 whereas Rice was essentially finished at age 33.
And even with all those additional veteran ABs, Evans put up a better OBP% (.370 vs .352 for Rice) and a virtually identical OPS+ (128 vs 127). He was also a MUCH better fielder, too (8 GGs vs 0 for Rice).
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 believe there is statistical evidence that an unprotected hitter gets walked more often but also strikes out slightly more too. What we don't see is a noticeable change in the outcome of balls put into play between a protected and an unprotected hitter.
That article states that the hitters in front of you are the ones providing 'the protection'...basically by getting on base more. If you believe that article, then why on earth would you be making that stuff up about Boggs?
I didn't study all the methodology, but hitters tend to indeed hit better with men on base, however, most of that is due to sacrifice flies not counting as outs toward their batting line.
When you apply sacrifice flies as outs to the batting average, and SLG%, then they really don't hit better with men on base. I'm not sure if that guy accounted for that.
In his results, it ended up being a result of one run per year.
Pitching wins is an example of stats that gets way overrated. I'll give an example. There's a pitcher that pitched from 1948-1961 that had a won-lost record of 129-157. Now, the average guy looks at this and determines that this pitcher is a mediocre guy at best. He pitched his entire career for the St. Louis Browns, Detroit Tigers, and Kansas City Athletics. He NEVER pitched on a single team that finished in the upper half of the standings. Not once. Yet, looking at wins alone would tell you that this guy was a loser. Everywhere he went he lost.
But, let's flesh it out a bit. It's Ned Garver. He was runner up for the MVP in 1951 to Yogi Berra by winning 20 games on a team that only won 52 games total. But, honestly, he was a MUCH better pitcher in 1950, when he had a 13-18 record. He LED THE AMERICAN LEAGUE IN WAR FOR PITCHERS IN 1950 & 1951. In 1950 he led the AL in WAR, Complete Games, and Adjusted ERA. He finished 13-18. Eight times he had 198+ innings pitched in a season and four times he was in the AL's top ten for Adjusted ERA.
Now, let me compare Garver to one of his contemporaries, Vic Raschi. Now, Raschi only pitched ten years instead of Garver's 14, but their careers overlap quite a bit. Their ERA's are nearly identical. But, in pretty much every other category, Garver is WAY ahead. Even his adjusted ERA is 7 points higher than Raschi, and that's not even counting the fact that Garver pitched more years that Raschi. Raschi's career record is 132-66. He won six World Series, got MVP votes five times and for many years was getting votes on the Hall of Fame ballot. Allie Reynolds also doesn't match Garver's stats either, but he has a lifetime record of 182-107.
So, does this mean that Garver would be a Hall of Famer if he had been a Yankee? Nope. But, I would make a fair guess that if he had been a Yankee his record would be somewhere in the neighborhood of Raschi and Reynolds. He'd have 5-7 World Series rings and would have gotten a lot of HOF support. As it is, those of you that don't study baseball of the 40's and 50's had to go look up his record to see what I am talking about. Skin has mentioned Catfish Hunter as a recipient of Hall of Fame induction based upon the fact that he pitched for the right teams at the right times. Look at the All-Time WAR list for pitchers. Find Catfish Hunter. Look at all of the names above him. One of them will be Ned Garver. Oh, and Garver beats him in JAWS too. I say, that if you take Catfish Hunter and in 1965 he gets traded to the Houston Astros and then pitches with them, the Padres, and the Rangers for his entire career before retiring, he'd be just another guy.
Comments
<< <i>I am a serious baseball fan, and lineup protection is real. But then again, I also believe in climate change. :-) >>
What evidence do you have to that lineup protection exists? I'm with you on climate change.
http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/12/31/3817948/a-distorted-realitys-now-a-necessity-does-lineup-protection-exist
<< <i>That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
It's hard to imagine a ten time all star with ony 150 wins-unles he spent a lot of his career as a reliever. Anyway, you just look at the entire body of work and decide. >>
That's because no such pitcher exists. There's never been a pitcher with a 4.12 ERA and 150+ wins.
I believe there is statistical evidence that an unprotected hitter gets walked more often but also strikes out slightly more too. What we don't see is a noticeable change in the outcome of balls put into play between a protected and an unprotected hitter.
I think you can extrapolate that if a batter is getting walked more some of his counting stats will decrease (HR, RBI) and that might look like he's having a down year. On the flip side though, that batter will be on base more, make fewer outs, and score more often.
<< <i>
<< <i>That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
It's hard to imagine a ten time all star with ony 150 wins-unles he spent a lot of his career as a reliever. Anyway, you just look at the entire body of work and decide. >>
That's because no such pitcher exists. There's never been a pitcher with a 4.12 ERA and 150+ wins. >>
Jack Morris tried his best to be the first.
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>Evans wasn't a great hitter during Rice's prime, I agree. I was talking career wise.
Evans did have excellent years form age 35-39. OPS+ 133
Age 30-34 OPS+ 133
Age 25-29 OPS+ 126
Age 20-24 OPS+ 110
Not too much of a change, except for when he was very young.
He had his second best year at age 35.
If you look at age 36-39 his OPS+ 126...so not quite the jump compared to his previous ten.
Career wise, Evans OPS+ was 127, Rice 128...but Evans did it in 1,500 MORE plate appearances. >>
All those additional plate appearances also support the case of Evans being a better overall player than Rice as he was still an above average player till age 37 whereas Rice was essentially finished at age 33.
And even with all those additional veteran ABs, Evans put up a better OBP% (.370 vs .352 for Rice) and a virtually identical OPS+ (128 vs 127). He was also a MUCH better fielder, too (8 GGs vs 0 for Rice).
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 believe there is statistical evidence that an unprotected hitter gets walked more often but also strikes out slightly more too. What we don't see is a noticeable change in the outcome of balls put into play between a protected and an unprotected hitter.
That is correct.
<< <i>Link to article >>
That article states that the hitters in front of you are the ones providing 'the protection'...basically by getting on base more. If you believe that article, then why on earth would you be making that stuff up about Boggs?
I didn't study all the methodology, but hitters tend to indeed hit better with men on base, however, most of that is due to sacrifice flies not counting as outs toward their batting line.
When you apply sacrifice flies as outs to the batting average, and SLG%, then they really don't hit better with men on base. I'm not sure if that guy accounted for that.
In his results, it ended up being a result of one run per year.
But, let's flesh it out a bit. It's Ned Garver. He was runner up for the MVP in 1951 to Yogi Berra by winning 20 games on a team that only won 52 games total. But, honestly, he was a MUCH better pitcher in 1950, when he had a 13-18 record. He LED THE AMERICAN LEAGUE IN WAR FOR PITCHERS IN 1950 & 1951. In 1950 he led the AL in WAR, Complete Games, and Adjusted ERA. He finished 13-18. Eight times he had 198+ innings pitched in a season and four times he was in the AL's top ten for Adjusted ERA.
Now, let me compare Garver to one of his contemporaries, Vic Raschi. Now, Raschi only pitched ten years instead of Garver's 14, but their careers overlap quite a bit. Their ERA's are nearly identical. But, in pretty much every other category, Garver is WAY ahead. Even his adjusted ERA is 7 points higher than Raschi, and that's not even counting the fact that Garver pitched more years that Raschi. Raschi's career record is 132-66. He won six World Series, got MVP votes five times and for many years was getting votes on the Hall of Fame ballot. Allie Reynolds also doesn't match Garver's stats either, but he has a lifetime record of 182-107.
So, does this mean that Garver would be a Hall of Famer if he had been a Yankee? Nope. But, I would make a fair guess that if he had been a Yankee his record would be somewhere in the neighborhood of Raschi and Reynolds. He'd have 5-7 World Series rings and would have gotten a lot of HOF support. As it is, those of you that don't study baseball of the 40's and 50's had to go look up his record to see what I am talking about. Skin has mentioned Catfish Hunter as a recipient of Hall of Fame induction based upon the fact that he pitched for the right teams at the right times. Look at the All-Time WAR list for pitchers. Find Catfish Hunter. Look at all of the names above him. One of them will be Ned Garver. Oh, and Garver beats him in JAWS too. I say, that if you take Catfish Hunter and in 1965 he gets traded to the Houston Astros and then pitches with them, the Padres, and the Rangers for his entire career before retiring, he'd be just another guy.