What does pitchers career batting avaerages have to do with anything? Where did that come from?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Actually, a baseball players performance is about as close to vacuum like than in any other sport. The defense behind a pitcher can make a difference in a pitcher's results, and THAT is actually a great topic with some more work to do. However, there isn't a lot other players can do when a pitcher is pitching to a batter. There isn't a lot other players can do when a batter is facing a pitch coming at him. There are no blockers or screens to help them, there are no other players to 'pass' to to help achieve success on the play. They are on their own.
Once the pitch is hit(or not hit), THEN other player's impact come into the mix on a batted ball, but 85% of the defensive work has already been done by the pitcher, with the rest being up to luck of where the ball is hit, and the ability of the fielders. This area of measuring pitcher contribution and isolating how much the fielders contribute is certainly a gray area. That 85% mark could be 75%, or 95%. That part we probably can never know.
The team's offensive performance makes a HUGE impact in the results of a pitcher's W/L record, but NOT the pitcher's actual performance, and is why using wins for a pitcher gives unreliable measurements. Wins for a pitcher are a stat too!! Wins for pitchers just happen to be a poor stat when it comes down to measuring the pitchers' performance or ability.
Wins for a teams' W/L record is also a stat, which is a very good one when measuring the performance of the TEAM!! Pitchers don't get wins, teams do.
****Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two. ****
Repeat that: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
So when pitchers are "paid to win", giving up one run in eight innings, goes a long way to winning and earning. If the team does not come away with a win, then that means other people on the team are not earning their salary 'to win'. The pitcher certainly earned his. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
Above is a link to an article on the history of determining wins for a pitcher. Wins for a pitcher are a stat, just like ERA is a stat, just like ERA+ is a stat, just like WHIP is a stat. Wins for a pitcher didn't exist at one time, and were transformed numerous times. Wins for a pitcher weren't even in a pitcher's mind for a good part of history. Wins for a pitcher just happen to be an unreliable useseless stat in measuring a pitcher's value.
For all the 'stat haters'....wins are a stat created after the fact, rehashed, and reshaped. Man made, lol. Some 'geek' of the time created them. Other 'geeks' reshaped them. Sound familiar?? They are just a poor precursor to better modern measurements. Simple.
Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Every player is paid to win the game for the team, and just like the article points out, "Fans and players of 1872, and even Spalding himself, would have likely been bewildered by the proposition that pitchers be credited with wins and losses. Actual wins—or so it would be argued into the twentieth century—could belong to any member of the team: the first baseman who got the game-winning hit or the center fielder who made a game-saving catch."
Comments such as "pitchers are paid to win" are ignorant. Every player is paid to win. Isolating a player's contribution to a team's win is the goal of statistical measurements. The good measurements isolate it well. Stats like 'wins' or RBI do not.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
I will give you determined or hard fought, but not a great season.
Yes, it was a great season. I will assume you are either joking or drunk (or both) because I can't think of any other reason why you would bring up his batting average.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Not to rain on your parade...but, as we all know, Bill James is the self made Statistical guru of baseball...just a few observations...
James created things like "Runs created"; "Range Factor"; "Similarity Scores"; and my all-time favorite, "Pythagorean Winning Percentage". All these are subjective creations of his with formulas and data to bolster his findings. He did all this while he was a very bored security guard...credit to him for his inventiveness I guess.
While, if you are into stats, I think there are far too many unknowns to really asses the validity of any ranking of players. I think there can possibly be a general ranking, but to purposefully put one ahead of another via statistical analysis is a bit of a stretch. How can you realistically account for lost years in military service, like Bob Feller and Warren Spahn for example...who, BTW, threw a no-hitter while in the service? Losing 3 or 4 precious years of youth and ability can't be summed up with a percentile or number. Do they get a 0.05% of "something" ? or 0.25 % of something else? Says who?
You can juggle or rejuggle your list, but with so many variables, what's the point? So, if I think Koufax was better than Palmer, so what? And, then you add "still climbing on James' list"...does this mean he is still creating a statistic to validate his personal viewpoint? After all, the data is in, perhaps it's just a matter of how you crunch the numbers. How can pitchers "continue to climb on James' list?
Interesting entry on player #78, Sam McDowell...your entry "I don't think James likes him"...therein lies the personal twist. There are several other comments you have in the sidelines about James' possible dislike of certain players. To eliminate Curt Schilling in a 100 pitcher list is obvious disdain for him....no Schilling, no 2004 Red Sox WS victory.
And, after MLB Rule 5.11 was enacted in 1973, allowing for the the DH, which, as we all know, the National League does not use. So, my point...how do you factor in the pitchers having pitched in the NL, vs those in the AL, who sat comfortably in the dugout while some aging high paid player gets to bat in his stead? Is there a built in stat for that 1973 change? If so, how exactly was it formulated. And, if a pitcher is traded from the AL to the NL, or vice versa, is there a stat for his stint in one or the other to validate Mr. James' list, or anyone elses?
So, while all the numbers may be enjoyable to ponder on a raw, rainy day, and number crunchers really enjoy this stuff, it's all just a bunch of numbers, no more, no less. Too many variables, personal and otherwise to make one list more valid than another. As for Mr. James, I'm sure he's doing quite well with his number crunching prowess...me? I'll pass.
And, though I haven't seen it, and a bit off topic, what percentile does Mr. James afford Ted Williams for his lost MLB time to serve his country as he did for all those years? And all the others who left in the prime of their playing years? Having been in a combat zone myself, I doubt any number, stat, or formula could properly account for that sacrifice.
@MCMLVTopps said:
Not to rain on your parade...but, as we all know, Bill James is the self made Statistical guru of baseball...just a few observations...
James created things like "Runs created"; "Range Factor"; "Similarity Scores"; and my all-time favorite, "Pythagorean Winning Percentage". All these are subjective creations of his with formulas and data to bolster his findings. He did all this while he was a very bored security guard...credit to him for his inventiveness I guess.
While, if you are into stats, I think there are far too many unknowns to really asses the validity of any ranking of players. I think there can possibly be a general ranking, but to purposefully put one ahead of another via statistical analysis is a bit of a stretch. How can you realistically account for lost years in military service, like Bob Feller and Warren Spahn for example...who, BTW, threw a no-hitter while in the service? Losing 3 or 4 precious years of youth and ability can't be summed up with a percentile or number. Do they get a 0.05% of "something" ? or 0.25 % of something else? Says who?
You can juggle or rejuggle your list, but with so many variables, what's the point? So, if I think Koufax was better than Palmer, so what? And, then you add "still climbing on James' list"...does this mean he is still creating a statistic to validate his personal viewpoint? After all, the data is in, perhaps it's just a matter of how you crunch the numbers. How can pitchers "continue to climb on James' list?
Interesting entry on player #78, Sam McDowell...your entry "I don't think James likes him"...therein lies the personal twist. There are several other comments you have in the sidelines about James' possible dislike of certain players. To eliminate Curt Schilling in a 100 pitcher list is obvious disdain for him....no Schilling, no 2004 Red Sox WS victory.
And, after MLB Rule 5.11 was enacted in 1973, allowing for the the DH, which, as we all know, the National League does not use. So, my point...how do you factor in the pitchers having pitched in the NL, vs those in the AL, who sat comfortably in the dugout while some aging high paid player gets to bat in his stead? Is there a built in stat for that 1973 change? If so, how exactly was it formulated. And, if a pitcher is traded from the AL to the NL, or vice versa, is there a stat for his stint in one or the other to validate Mr. James' list, or anyone elses?
So, while all the numbers may be enjoyable to ponder on a raw, rainy day, and number crunchers really enjoy this stuff, it's all just a bunch of numbers, no more, no less. Too many variables, personal and otherwise to make one list more valid than another. As for Mr. James, I'm sure he's doing quite well with his number crunching prowess...me? I'll pass.
And, though I haven't seen it, and a bit off topic, what percentile does Mr. James afford Ted Williams for his lost MLB time to serve his country as he did for all those years? And all the others who left in the prime of their playing years? Having been in a combat zone myself, I doubt any number, stat, or formula could properly account for that sacrifice.
THere aren't any unknowns in terms of run value of each offensive event, etc. Those are rock solid. Arguing against them is like arguing against today being Sunday. No point in discussing them.
It is the longevity, peak, etc..where the debates come in. Koufax vs Spahn is the highlight of that debate. THere may not be a good answer in determing who was better of the two. There is no question though that Koufax was better during his peak, but that Spahn had a better overall career due to sustained length. How you weigh the two is where it gets tricky.
You also have to weigh the Ken Phelps factor, or the Willie McCovey factor. They both sat vs. lefties, one to a great degree, and one to a degree more than other star players. Things like that have to be accounted for too.
The War Years? I'm with the people in the camp that the War years have to be accounted for. Ted Williams should indeed be viewed as a greater player since he got 'cheated', Spahn too(but not nearly to the same degree as Williams, because Spahn had not established the same baseline of talent in MLB that Williams did beforehand).
There are unansewered questions, but the dopes who spout about wins for pitchers...those questions have been asnwered to a very high degree.
HOWEVER:
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
@Justacommeman said:
What does pitchers career batting avaerages have to do with anything? Where did that come from?
m
It's like saying Tom Brady didn't rush for enough yards so the Pats lost.
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.
Clearly, established statistical data I think, can be used to evaluate the overall performance of pitchers, and all position players for that matter. It's when you start to line them up in a list of 100, one being "better than" the other as the list progresses. When in fact this is nothing more than a personal opinion by the author of his 1-100 best. The OP clearly has indicated a few dozen differences.Undoubtedly, some would add or delete players from this list, not necessarily because of performance, but maybe because of personal feelings for the their team. It's all personal opinion, no more, no less.
My issue was in using whatever formula was created to give credit, or not, to those players who may or may not have been adversely effected by certain situations...such as the war years, or the DH league, or being traded back and forth from AL to NL...the added rest vs not of the other team pitchers.
One does wonder what numbers Williams would have put up without his military time, as well as many other players. But, outfielders are not the topic of the OP...just used as an example...however, Spahn, Feller and others do fall under this umbrella. When you start to toss in variables, the stats get cloudy...who can say what Spahn, Feller, Williams, or anyone else who served their country would have accomplished in MLB had that insidious crap never happened. You simply can't put a number on that time to compensate...all you do when you do that is to simply give some sympathetic, personal opinion number to extract a result.
Got no dog in this thing, in their day, in their moment, many of these men excelled and were acknowledged for what they did.
As for the Pats, they lost to a better team and certainly didn't play up to their potential...were they playing today, it might be a different story. I just didn't get the analogy. As a life-long Pats fan, once again, congrats to the Eagles.
@Justacommeman said:
What does pitchers career batting avaerages have to do with anything? Where did that come from?
m
It's like saying Tom Brady didn't rush for enough yards so the Pats lost.
Could it be "Brady did not catch enough passes thrown his way so the Pats lost?"
LOL, in this case, that may be!
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.
Regarding the "what if" scenarios, you can also apply that same concept to players of remarkable talent who suffered significant injuries in their playing career, too. In the end, we have only those numbers that were statistically compiled by which to evaluate.
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 also think that there is room for debate even among advanced statistical analysis, but the main point of this thread, for me, at least, is the fact that a pitcher's won-loss record is due in no small part to run support (or lack thereof) vs a pitcher's effectiveness.
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.
1) The use of relief specialists. Shorter starts. Generally pitchers are stronger though 6 then 8 or 9. Now the 6 inning start is more the norm. Back in the day pitching into the 9th was almost expected.
2) # 1& 2 starters used to start 43 games or so. Now their lucky if they start 34
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@MCMLVTopps said:
Not to rain on your parade...but, as we all know, Bill James is the self made Statistical guru of baseball...just a few observations...
I don't mean to rain on your really long parade of observations, but the list I'm referring to was the one James created in 2001, and that will address several of your comments. You seem to go back and forth on the key point, though, and that's the subjective element inherent in a ranking like this, and whether that subjective element is good or bad. James does give players credit for losing prime seasons for serving in the military, and I while have no objection to that I didn't do that in this list (but I have in others). James also has a flat out "subjective element" in his ranking that he does not disclose, and in some cases (Dick Allen, especially) that element is substantial. James clearly doesn't like some players and clearly likes others; there are other cases where it's not obviously the case, but I think it's the most likely explanation that it was the subjective factor that moved a player way up or way down his list.
The other key subjective element is the peak vs. career weighting. James weights those the way he thinks is best, I weight them differently. There is no right or wrong way to do that; anyone who doesn't care for how James did it or I did it is invited to create their own ranking with the weighting they think is correct.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Chill out Dallas...I only gave my opinion of your thread. Anyone can assign any weighting they want to anything, thus skewing, or not, the end result, which in this case is a list of pitchers, ranging from 1 - 100.
Somehow you seem to not get the point of SUBJECTIVITY, thus James' list, your list, or your granddaughter's list is simply a personal opinion when their personal subjectivity is added to produce a given result. I was also referencing your side notes, indicating a rather SUBJECTIVE analysis with comments you personally felt were pertinent.
I didn't read every post so I may have missed it, but I don't think steroid use was addressed in the equation, particularly in the case of Roger Clemens.
I'm not going to regurgitate all the info and stories out there about Clemens and steroid use. However, if a list factors in probable performance from lost time due to military service which of course is conjecture, then it should also factor in enhanced performance due to steroid use.
Especially for the latter part of Clemens' career which based on his body change, which had that "bulked up" on steroids look, in my opinion there is no doubt that Clemens was using steroids.
Certainly that's also the viewpoint of a number of Hall of Fame voters as based on stats, Clemens of course should have been a first ballot HOFer. Instead, Clemens has been denied entry, I think it's been six times.
@MCMLVTopps said:
Chill out Dallas...I only gave my opinion of your thread. Anyone can assign any weighting they want to anything, thus skewing, or not, the end result, which in this case is a list of pitchers, ranging from 1 - 100.
Somehow you seem to not get the point of SUBJECTIVITY, thus James' list, your list, or your granddaughter's list is simply a personal opinion when their personal subjectivity is added to produce a given result. I was also referencing your side notes, indicating a rather SUBJECTIVE analysis with comments you personally felt were pertinent.
I'm done.
You didn't read my post, did you? Here's the Reader's Digest version: it was all about SUBJECTIVITY; mine. James', and how it was "inherent" in any list like this. The only point I've made in this thread that I haven't acknowledged is SUBJECTIVE is that W/L records should be ignored; people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Well Dallas...you certainly have a very high opinion about your personal SUBJECTIVITY, and that others, who choose to use a differing viewpoint are ignorant. Who are you to insult those who differ from you? Maybe there are those of us who think some of your viewpoints should be ignored.
As mentioned ad nauseum by me...the entire list is personal opinion, no more, no less.
That you would leave out the Magnus Force data of Coors Field, scientifically proven to effect the flight of a pitched baseball at altitude, is a bit disturbing though. So, you just go on adjusting your little happy list, and I guess I'll just hang with the guys who like the W/L records and remain with the unwashed, and of course the ignorant.
Here's The Reader's Digest Version...it's called "having a difference of opinion"...get over it.
I'm not knowledgeable about all the technical data to rate players. I' just a fan who enjoys a good game and watching players whose skills are readily evident. If I were a GM and could chose between a pitcher GUARANTEED to win 20+ games next season or one GUARANTEED to have an ERA under 2.5 I would take the 20 game winner every time.
@Brick said:
I'm not knowledgeable about all the technical data to rate players. I' just a fan who enjoys a good game and watching players whose skills are readily evident. If I were a GM and could chose between a pitcher GUARANTEED to win 20+ games next season or one GUARANTEED to have an ERA under 2.5 I would take the 20 game winner every time.
The pitcher himself cannot guarantee 20 wins. He would need the proper offensive support to achieve 20 wins, in addition to pitching at least well enough too. If you are looking at it in retrospect, and take the 20 game winner AFTER it already occured, then YES, because that means the team did well to get those 20 wins, not just the pitcher. In that case, the smart GM knows the key factors in how that pitcher got to 20 wins.
No pitcher wins 20 games with run support of two runs or less. That is a fact. Jack Morris was 17wins and 109 losses with run support of two runs or less. If he was a 'winner', then he should have won those games. If HE was the reason he would win 20 games, then he would have a 20 game like winning percentage REGARDLESS OF THE RUN SUPPORT. Yet he was 17-109 with low run support.
You read all the info in the thread provided about run support...and you still don't get it?
You and a few others should probably read that article about wins. Every player is paid to win the game for the team, and just like the article points out, "Fans and players of 1872, and even Spalding himself, would have likely been bewildered by the proposition that pitchers be credited with wins and losses. Actual wins—or so it would be argued into the twentieth century—could belong to any member of the team: the first baseman who got the game-winning hit or the center fielder who made a game-saving catch."
Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Insulting each other is not a very intelligent way of debating.
I try not to lower myself to name calling. It really takes the fun out of these threads.
I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone I may have offended in the past.
As a follow up on Blyleven's 1973 run support; it may have been 4.2 (the league average), but the Twins scored 0-2 runs in 16 of his starts, they scored 3-5 runs in 10 games, 6 or more runs in 14, . 22 times he got 3 runs or less, only four times did the Twins score either 4 or 5 runs, 4.5 close to the league average. He was 4-0 in those games.
Looks to me like his team (for the most part) did not really give him average support, but scored a lot of runs (8-14) 6 times to inflate his run support.
He was 4-12 in those low support games with an ERA of 2.99. In games the Twins gave him average support, (3-5 runs) he was 5-4 with a 1.87 ERA! Of course he did well when he got 6 or more runs, going 11-1 with a 2.48 ERA.
Had the Twins scored 4.2 runs each time Bert pitched, he would have won 9 more games!
Had the Orioles scored 4.2 wins each game, Jim Palmer (Cy Young winner) would have only won 4 more games. His average run support that year was 4.68.
Catfish had a run support of 5.58 that year!
Won loss records can be VERY deceiving.
Have a great day everyone!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
I didn't read every post so I may have missed it, but I don't think steroid use was addressed in the equation, particularly in the case of Roger Clemens.
I'm not going to regurgitate all the info and stories out there about Clemens and steroid use. However, if a list factors in probable performance from lost time due to military service which of course is conjecture, then it should also factor in enhanced performance due to steroid use.
Especially for the latter part of Clemens' career which based on his body change, which had that "bulked up" on steroids look, in my opinion there is no doubt that Clemens was using steroids.
Certainly that's also the viewpoint of a number of Hall of Fame voters as based on stats, Clemens of course should have been a first ballot HOFer. Instead, Clemens has been denied entry, I think it's been six times.
Not really arguing your opinion, but to me there's a big difference between missing time because of military service or even injuries and unproven steroid use.
I do suspect Roger of using, but I don't think he was in any of the reports on use or tested positive. Yes, he was accused by his friend (?) who did test positive and his numbers do look quite suspicious, but I can't see lumping him in with the guys proven to have cheated.
I sometimes wonder about Kirby Puckett. Saw his entire career and he got really big. I mean he was VERY muscular! He did have some extra fat at the end of his playing days that made him look out of shape, but that guy had HUGE arms and shoulders.
Bagwell gets accused because he got big too.
Personally I think the guys that got caught should be banned from the HOF and have their records removed from the books.
You go down a slippery slope when you convict without proof.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
I didn't read every post so I may have missed it, but I don't think steroid use was addressed in the equation, particularly in the case of Roger Clemens.
I'm not going to regurgitate all the info and stories out there about Clemens and steroid use. However, if a list factors in probable performance from lost time due to military service which of course is conjecture, then it should also factor in enhanced performance due to steroid use.
Especially for the latter part of Clemens' career which based on his body change, which had that "bulked up" on steroids look, in my opinion there is no doubt that Clemens was using steroids.
Certainly that's also the viewpoint of a number of Hall of Fame voters as based on stats, Clemens of course should have been a first ballot HOFer. Instead, Clemens has been denied entry, I think it's been six times.
Not really arguing your opinion, but to me there's a big difference between missing time because of military service or even injuries and unproven steroid use.
I do suspect Roger of using, but I don't think he was in any of the reports on use or tested positive. Yes, he was accused by his friend (?) who did test positive and his numbers do look quite suspicious, but I can't see lumping him in with the guys proven to have cheated.
I sometimes wonder about Kirby Puckett. Saw his entire career and he got really big. I mean he was VERY muscular! He did have some extra fat at the end of his playing days that made him look out of shape, but that guy had HUGE arms and shoulders.
Bagwell gets accused because he got big too.
Personally I think the guys that got caught should be banned from the HOF and have their records removed from the books.
You go down a slippery slope when you convict without proof.
Point taken. We all know the Roger Clemens story, and we all have our various opinions about it.
My point for this thread is that it depends on how the "list maker" wishes to weigh how important the steroid use was to any player's stats and performance, hence his position on any particular list...or any other player list such as an all time greatest hitters list.
There's been rumors floating around for decades that Babe Ruth used horse steroids. Who knows for sure? You've probably read "Ball Four" depicting what the Yankees at that time were doing...and what a number of other players were doing with using amphetamines.
Of course all this can be ignored if the list maker wishes to do that. I just think the steroid use was too important to ignore, but how do ya accurately reduce the player's stats to account for that? Well of course ya can't do it accurately but ya can do it subjectively which is a part of the fun of doing and analyzing these lists.
@JoeBanzai said:
Agreed. People will always try to find statistics to support their opinions.
I said support because many/most opinions cannot be proven.
Frankly, I think the "eye test" is best. Just watching a player for a number of years versus other players, can separate the real superstars from just the stars. Realizing that's not possible for the oldest players on the list.
So for any list such as this do ya want a top superstars on down list or a top stats on down list? Bill James seems to prefer a top stats on down list and that's fine, that's his prerogative... the Moneyball thing and all that.
I think someone here said that Drysdale was a better pitcher than Koufax. Likely Drysdale has the better overall lifetime stats, but even Don Drysdale wouldn't begin to say that he was better than Sandy Koufax.
For my taste, a top superstars on down is a more interesting list. For example, I would have Koufax at least in the top 5.
@stevek said:
I think someone here said that Drysdale was a better pitcher than Koufax. Likely Drysdale has the better overall lifetime stats, but even Don Drysdale wouldn't begin to say that he was better than Sandy Koufax.
For my taste, a top superstars on down is a more interesting list. For example, I would have Koufax at least in the top 5.
Year by year, here's a high level qualitative look at Drysdale and Koufax:
1955: Koufax pitched 40 good innings, Drysdale not yet in the majors
1956: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1957: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1958: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1959: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1960: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1961: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1962: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1963: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1964: Koufax a little better than Drysdale
1965: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1966: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1967: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1968: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1969: Drysdale bad in a short season, Koufax out of the league
So Koufax wins 3 seasons by a lot, 2 by a little; Drysdale wins 7 seasons by a lot, 3 by a little.
What creates the belief that Koufax was better than Drysdale - and note that I've ranked him much higher so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this belief - is that Koufax at his peak was much better than Drysdale at his peak. But from the Dodgers perspective, with the two having started their careers at essentially the same time, there wasn't much difference between them at all. That is, the Dodgers got about as many "extra" victories out of Drysdale as they did out of Koufax. And they wouldn't have gone to, let alone won, any World Series without both of them so that doesn't really differentiate them either.
My belief is that Drysdale was considerably better than most people give him credit for, mostly because late in his career he got overshadowed by Koufax. I also believe that Koufax wasn't as great as most people believe because his last four seasons when he was the ace of the team more or less erased the memory of his first eight seasons when Drysdale was the ace of the team.
Someone said you can get any result you want weighting the stats, but that's simply not true. What is true is that you can get different, reasonable, results by placing more or less value on what actually is subjective. The biggest item on the subjective list is peak vs. career value; weight peak value high enough and Mark Fidrych cracks the top 100, weight career value high enough and Tommy John cracks the top 40. I would feel silly calling Fidrych one of the best 100 pitchers of all time, and I would feel silly calling Tommy John one of the best 40 pitchers of all time, but "best" is not a statistical term, and neither belief is objectively wrong. But assuming that what would make me feel silly would make many of you feel the same way, I think there is a range of weights that we could probably agree on that woudl leave Fidrych out, but that would allow for either Drysdale or Koufax to be considered better than the other.
The other major subjective elements, most of which have been mentioned, are what to do with war years, with injuries, with time lost to segregation, and how to account for the difference in the quality of play over time. And with each of these there is again no single right or wrong weight, but a range of weights that most people could agree were reasonable. I would welcome it if someone else here would take the time to make their own Top 100 pitchers list, and explain how they took all of these factors into account. I also understand that I'm the only one here willing to waste days of my life creating these lists, though, so I welcome dissenting opinions about how I've chosen to weight them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@stevek said:
I think someone here said that Drysdale was a better pitcher than Koufax. Likely Drysdale has the better overall lifetime stats, but even Don Drysdale wouldn't begin to say that he was better than Sandy Koufax.
For my taste, a top superstars on down is a more interesting list. For example, I would have Koufax at least in the top 5.
Year by year, here's a high level qualitative look at Drysdale and Koufax:
1955: Koufax pitched 40 good innings, Drysdale not yet in the majors
1956: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1957: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1958: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1959: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1960: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1961: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1962: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1963: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1964: Koufax a little better than Drysdale
1965: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1966: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1967: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1968: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1969: Drysdale bad in a short season, Koufax out of the league
So Koufax wins 3 seasons by a lot, 2 by a little; Drysdale wins 7 seasons by a lot, 3 by a little.
What creates the belief that Koufax was better than Drysdale - and note that I've ranked him much higher so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this belief - is that Koufax at his peak was much better than Drysdale at his peak. But from the Dodgers perspective, with the two having started their careers at essentially the same time, there wasn't much difference between them at all. That is, the Dodgers got about as many "extra" victories out of Drysdale as they did out of Koufax. And they wouldn't have gone to, let alone won, any World Series without both of them so that doesn't really differentiate them either.
My belief is that Drysdale was considerably better than most people give him credit for, mostly because late in his career he got overshadowed by Koufax. I also believe that Koufax wasn't as great as most people believe because his last four seasons when he was the ace of the team more or less erased the memory of his first eight seasons when Drysdale was the ace of the team.
Someone said you can get any result you want weighting the stats, but that's simply not true. What is true is that you can get different, reasonable, results by placing more or less value on what actually is subjective. The biggest item on the subjective list is peak vs. career value; weight peak value high enough and Mark Fidrych cracks the top 100, weight career value high enough and Tommy John cracks the top 40. I would feel silly calling Fidrych one of the best 100 pitchers of all time, and I would feel silly calling Tommy John one of the best 40 pitchers of all time, but "best" is not a statistical term, and neither belief is objectively wrong. But assuming that what would make me feel silly would make many of you feel the same way, I think there is a range of weights that we could probably agree on that woudl leave Fidrych out, but that would allow for either Drysdale or Koufax to be considered better than the other.
The other major subjective elements, most of which have been mentioned, are what to do with war years, with injuries, with time lost to segregation, and how to account for the difference in the quality of play over time. And with each of these there is again no single right or wrong weight, but a range of weights that most people could agree were reasonable. I would welcome it if someone else here would take the time to make their own Top 100 pitchers list, and explain how they took all of these factors into account. I also understand that I'm the only one here willing to waste days of my life creating these lists, though, so I welcome dissenting opinions about how I've chosen to weight them.
Yes, you've got Koufax at 18 and Drysdale at 58.
Hey, Don Drysdale was a helluva good pitcher. Don't ever hiss off Don Drysdale, he'll throw one right at your head, and smile as you get up from nearly getting beamed to death - LOL
That being said, i agree with ya that Drysdale is in that 50 area all time, looking at the other pitchers.
A pitcher you've got way too low on your list is Steve Carlton. Carlton is a top 10 on my list. One of the best pitchers I've ever seen and I watched Steve pitch a lot on TV and live. Frankly, batters often looked downright confused trying to hit against Carlton and rightly so. One of the nastiest sliders in baseball history.
Years ago i worked with a guy, we become good friends at work, and he was a really good athlete, he played some semi-pro baseball, etc. He told me the story that one day he was invited to the Phillies ballpark, i forget exactly why, and he had the opportunity to bat against Carlton just in batting practice. He said, paraphrase, that Carlton was probably pitching at 50% capacity and toyed with him, he couldn't touch the baseball, just unhittable, he couldn't even foul one off.
Carlton's 1972 season was one of the most remarkable in modern baseball history for a pitcher, going 27-10 on a Phillies team that couldn't score runs if you spotted them 1st and 2nd base for every batter - LOL. The Phillies won 59 games that season so Carlton's 27 wins accounted for close to half the Phillies wins - Incredible.
@stevek said:
I think someone here said that Drysdale was a better pitcher than Koufax. Likely Drysdale has the better overall lifetime stats, but even Don Drysdale wouldn't begin to say that he was better than Sandy Koufax.
For my taste, a top superstars on down is a more interesting list. For example, I would have Koufax at least in the top 5.
Year by year, here's a high level qualitative look at Drysdale and Koufax:
1955: Koufax pitched 40 good innings, Drysdale not yet in the majors
1956: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1957: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1958: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1959: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1960: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1961: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1962: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1963: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1964: Koufax a little better than Drysdale
1965: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1966: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1967: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1968: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1969: Drysdale bad in a short season, Koufax out of the league
So Koufax wins 3 seasons by a lot, 2 by a little; Drysdale wins 7 seasons by a lot, 3 by a little.
What creates the belief that Koufax was better than Drysdale - and note that I've ranked him much higher so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this belief - is that Koufax at his peak was much better than Drysdale at his peak. But from the Dodgers perspective, with the two having started their careers at essentially the same time, there wasn't much difference between them at all. That is, the Dodgers got about as many "extra" victories out of Drysdale as they did out of Koufax. And they wouldn't have gone to, let alone won, any World Series without both of them so that doesn't really differentiate them either.
My belief is that Drysdale was considerably better than most people give him credit for, mostly because late in his career he got overshadowed by Koufax. I also believe that Koufax wasn't as great as most people believe because his last four seasons when he was the ace of the team more or less erased the memory of his first eight seasons when Drysdale was the ace of the team.
Someone said you can get any result you want weighting the stats, but that's simply not true. What is true is that you can get different, reasonable, results by placing more or less value on what actually is subjective. The biggest item on the subjective list is peak vs. career value; weight peak value high enough and Mark Fidrych cracks the top 100, weight career value high enough and Tommy John cracks the top 40. I would feel silly calling Fidrych one of the best 100 pitchers of all time, and I would feel silly calling Tommy John one of the best 40 pitchers of all time, but "best" is not a statistical term, and neither belief is objectively wrong. But assuming that what would make me feel silly would make many of you feel the same way, I think there is a range of weights that we could probably agree on that woudl leave Fidrych out, but that would allow for either Drysdale or Koufax to be considered better than the other.
The other major subjective elements, most of which have been mentioned, are what to do with war years, with injuries, with time lost to segregation, and how to account for the difference in the quality of play over time. And with each of these there is again no single right or wrong weight, but a range of weights that most people could agree were reasonable. I would welcome it if someone else here would take the time to make their own Top 100 pitchers list, and explain how they took all of these factors into account. I also understand that I'm the only one here willing to waste days of my life creating these lists, though, so I welcome dissenting opinions about how I've chosen to weight them.
Very interesting analysis and I tend to agree that Koufax ranks higher than Drysdale overall due to a better peak but that Drysdale's career, in its entirety, rivals the sum total of Koufax' career, the first half of which was rather pedestrian, all things considered. Koufax certainly gets a bump for his postseason performance, though Drysdale had two very nice World Series performances in '59 and '63, too.
Al, I don't think Dallas was insulting anyone personally or specifically here~at least I didn't take it that way. He simply made a statement of opinion based on extensive statistical and empirical evidence with regard to W/L records and their correlations with run support. I don't always agree with Dallas, but I don't think anyone can ever question his passion or his willingness to back up his opinion with data. After all, we are on a sports talk message board and sports is always going to trigger emotional responses, both pro and con.
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.
@MCMLVTopps said:
Hey Dallas...you found quite a bit of time to post your Koufax-Drysdale thing.
Perhaps your insulting comment "people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant.".
Perhaps an apology to those whom you may have offended could find a few seconds on your keyboard.
Perhaps you noticed that in the quite a bit of time I spent posting about Drysdale and Koufax I never mentioned wins or losses, which are the "those" I referred to in my earlier post that you quoted. So no, I'm not going to apologize for stating the truth earlier, and I'm not sure what it was in my Drysdale/Koufax post that made you think one was warranted. I have probably posted more about subjectivity in ranking baseball players than you have posted about baseball; for some reason you have chosen to pretend otherwise and gotten your panties in a twist about something that you incorrectly inferred from something that I never said. You want to talk about subjectivity in player analysis, I'm your man. You want to talk about wins and losses and I'm just going to make fun of you. If you can't see why those two are not the same thing, yeah, I'm going to make fun of you for that, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Let's not forget our great hobby and how the public "ranks" the pitchers. I would say on a rough average that Sandy Koufax baseball cards are worth around 10 times more than Don Drysdale baseball cards. That's a meaningful correlation because they were rookies just a few years apart in the 1950's.
Of course we all know that there can be factors other than player performance that go into the value of baseball cards, such as age of the card, short prints, etc. Of course then there would need to be some sort of subjectivity in that as well for example 1950's baseball cards in general being more valuable than say 1980's baseball cards, etc. It would be tough to accurately do, but it would still be an interesting list in my opinion.
So it might be interesting, subjectively rated say on the average value of the Topps series for the rookie year, to have a list of top 100 most valuable rookie cards of pitchers and see how it matches up with these top 100 lists of Dallasactuary and Bill James. Maybe there already is a pitcher's rookie card list such as this somewhere?
Agree or disagree with the list rankings, I've always enjoyed viewing lists such as these, and ya gotta give hats off to Dallasactuary for the time and effort, and skill, put into his list.
Even though he screwed up on the ranking of Steve Carlton.
@Coinstartled said:
So Tabe...was he great that season?
Yes. Nolan Ryan was great in 1987. A 2.76 ERA during a juiced ball season? Over a quarter of a run better than anyone else? Yes, he was great.
Looked up a few prominent NL pitchers of the era that came to mind and checked their career batting averages in that league.
Orel Hershiser .202
Greg Maddux .171
John Smoltz .160
David Cone .155
Nolan Ryan .107
Not a lot is asked of pitchers at the plate, but in the NL, they still do of course generally have 2, maybe three at bats in a quality start. Had Ryan hit a Maddox like .171 rather than a paltry .62 as he did in 1987, that translates to about 8 more hits, maybe a couple of runs and maybe a 9-15 or even a 10 and 14 season rather than the 8-16 season he recorded.
I don't even know what to do with this line of "reasoning".
Also, hitting .62 would be really, really good - that's a .620, after all.
Yes. Nolan Ryan was great in 1987. A 2.76 ERA during a juiced ball season? Over a quarter of a run better than anyone else? Yes, he was great.
» show previous quotes
I don't even know what to do with this line of "reasoning".
Also, hitting .62 would be really, really good - that's a .620, after all.
First of all, thank you for pointing out my decimal error. Hopefully those reading the post will not be mislead into thinking that Nolan Ryan batted .620 in 1987. If he had, his record would have exceeded the putrid 8 and 16 that he posted for the year.
Ranking pitchers by ERA alone is fine if that is one's criteria, but I disagree. I don't believe that Tom Brady would claim that he had a great Super Bowl, even though he passed for a record number of yards. He lost the game.
I also believe that is misleading to ignore the offensive performance of a pitcher when he is playing in the National League (AL pitchers that bat in relatively few inter league games I can give a pass to). This is particularly so when defending Ryan's so called great 1987 season and blaming poor run production by his team as the excuse for a losing record.
Not only was his .062 BA less than anemic, one wonders how many times he was pinch hit late...where with a .150 or so average, he may have been left in to pitch another inning or two.
"You didn't read my post, did you? Here's the Reader's Digest version: it was all about SUBJECTIVITY; mine. James', and how it was "inherent" in any list like this. The only point I've made in this thread that I haven't acknowledged is SUBJECTIVE is that W/L records should be ignored; people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant."
The above is what YOU wrote on Feb 18 at 8:27PM...look above if you don't believe me. And, I don't think that can be interpreted as "making fun" of anyone, that's just you acting like a jerk and lashing out at anyone that might possibly disagree with you.
"So no, I'm not going to apologize for stating the truth earlier..." So, in your book, it's again, ok to insult people who disagree with you and you believe you can disparage them at your whim. Heaven forbid someone on the boards could possible not see your viewpoint, therefore they must be insulted.
I have probably posted more about subjectivity in ranking baseball players than you have posted about baseball; for some reason you have chosen to pretend otherwise and gotten your panties in a twist about something that you incorrectly inferred from something that I never said. Calling those who use W/L records is ignorant...THAT'S WHAT YOU wrote.
Wow, now comes the ego about your posting prowess and how you've "out posted me"...really? That is lower than childish at best and beneath your intelligence. You're lashing out with this comment as well as the panties thing. A more mature person would have challenged my posts with some semblance of logic and maturity...apparently you lack this trait. A very simple and mild mea culpa would have put all this to rest, but no, you decide to toss another log on the fire by denying what you wrote. So, you can continue to think you're the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and the most knowledgeable of anything statistical, but when in comes to choosing words to make posts, you're coming up a bit short...got no panties to twist, but BUT, I PROMISE YOU, when you drift outside the lines of decency and can't put on you big boy pants and take the high road, I'll call you on it every time.
Tim
"After all, we are on a sports talk message board and sports is always going to trigger emotional responses, both pro and con."
You make my point perfectly. These boards should be about discussion, not who can pee the furthest off the deck. While I clearly acknowledge that Dallas is a brilliant and passionate person in terms of baseball and his love for number crunching, I draw the line at trashing (directly, or indirectly) at those who would disagree with his analysis by his posting a comment calling them "ignorant". It's one thing to critique a post, but not the poster. Its called respect, or lack thereof.
Of course I'll be waiting with great anticipation of how the Magnus Force at Coors Field effects the list and how the pitchers who played their were weighted. ...NOT.
I'm kinda done here, I've taken up enough space from an otherwise nice debate over pitchers. As for Dallas, I think everyone has the picture.
whine whine whine whine whine cry a little then whine whine whine whine whine whine oops time to cry again back to whine whine whine whine whine whine lather rinse repeat
Trust me, I understand your position. Everyone understands your position. Of the hundred things that you don't understand about what I've said in this thread, or any other thread, all you need to do is ask me to explain it to you and I'll gladly do that. You seem to understand my statement that using wins and losses to evaluate a pitcher is ignorant, and for some reason it makes you cry like a little beeyotch; I can't help you with that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Do you have any idea how incredibly childish you appear? Why don't you take a deep breath and let all this go?
I suspect your id is in high blower and you just can't help yourself. Your insecure need to trash those with a differing viewpoint is simply self-destructive, to the point of total embarrassment, no matter the cost. All this over a list of baseball players, of whom you have a very distinct opinion...and there's the rub, we all have opinions, nobody trashed yours, but, you chose to get unhinged over a stat that, in the scheme of life means NADA.
Your post is really beneath you, with the zings and zangs of nonsense, that you seem to think emboldens your position, or lessens mine. You have simply made yourself appear to be more foolish than before you hit your latest "Post Comment".
Its not insulting to say people who place high values on W/L records are ignorant. That is better than calling them stupid.
Maybe they are just stubborn, because with the wealth of information available, sprinkled with a little logic...shows W/L records border on utterly useless.
Heck, just read that article I linked, and at least get a little history on 'wins'...because some fans think of a win 'credited' to a pitcher as the same value as the pitcher himself being responsible for the actual win in the standings.
A pitcher win is a stat....jus a very bad one. Much like the save stat that was created in the 70's, being a nearly useless one that fans hang onto.
Had the creator of the modern win or modern save given different criteria, then it would be looked at completely differently.
Ideally, they would have given criteria for a win that closely resembled the pitchers actual impact on the game, instead of the stat of a win that was team dependent and not even good at measuring the effectiveness of a pitcher...afterall a pitcher can give up seven runs in five innings and still get a win. While another pitcher can give up one run in nine innings and lose, and somewhere some dope would actually think the pitcher who was credited with the win...was better.
Also like the game winning RBI stat, which was out on the back of some cards, lol.
Your post is really beneath you, with the zings and zangs of nonsense, that you seem to think emboldens your position, or lessens mine.
You're reading far too much into this than you should. I'm just making fun of you because it makes me laugh when you overreact. Truth be told, I don't even know what your position is; I don't think you've actually stated one. Anyone who states a position and defends it with relevant facts is safely in the zero zings and zangs zone; everybody else, not so much.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
...after all a pitcher can give up seven runs in five innings and still get a win. While another pitcher can give up one run in nine innings and lose, and somewhere some dope would actually think the pitcher who was credited with the win...was better.
It may be the pitcher giving up seven runs in five innings could win a game. But he's not gonna win many doing that. The pitcher giving up one run in nine innings may lose one, but not many doing that. HOF voters who would automatically enshrine 300 game winners are not idiots. Win-loss records may not be an end all to how good someone was but it is not irrelevant.
@Brick said:
Win-loss records may not be an end all to how good someone was but it is not irrelevant.
That depends. If you have absolutely nothing else to look at, sure, having a W/L record is better than nothing. But, if you have ERA+, and innings pitched, and WHIP, and WPA, and WAR, and run support and a hundred other stats - and through the miracle of baseball-reference, you always do - then W/L records are totally irrelevant. Check that, an irrelevant stat wouldn't affect your opinion of a pitcher one way or the other. But, for example, if you think Jack Morris was a better pitcher than Wilbur Wood, or Luis TIant, or Jerry Koosman. or JIm Kaat, or 50 other pitchers not in the HOF, then it's probably because you saw Morris' W/L record and it fooled you into thinking he was much better than he actually was. A W/L record can't possibly make your evaluation of a pitcher better than it otherwise would have been, but it can definitely make it worse. So W/L records aren't irrelevant, they're worse than irrelevant.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
...after all a pitcher can give up seven runs in five innings and still get a win. While another pitcher can give up one run in nine innings and lose, and somewhere some dope would actually think the pitcher who was credited with the win...was better.
It may be the pitcher giving up seven runs in five innings could win a game. But he's not gonna win many doing that. The pitcher giving up one run in nine innings may lose one, but not many doing that. HOF voters who would automatically enshrine 300 game winners are not idiots. Win-loss records may not be an end all to how good someone was but it is not irrelevant.
Jack Morris was the beneficiary of many cheap wins...as a direct result from being the beneficiary of superb run support nearly every year he pitched. So yes, it 'may' even out, but in some cases it does not. Only an idiot could look past those facts and then look at his W/L record and attribute that W/L record solely to Morris. Yet, there are idiots who do that....even guys who played in MLB.
@Brick said:
Sorry. I can see your opinion and it is not without merit but I think I will remain and side with the ignorant on this one.
There are a lot of people who can't grasp it, until they are directly affected by it. I will assume you cannot pitch anymore, otherwise I would offer you a challenge where I pitch for one team, and you pitch for the other team, and whichever one of us gets a win, collectors $10,000 from the other......except I get to select your teammates and my teammates....then we would see how fast you yell "unfair".
Or maybe we can do a contest that isn't quite as physical, like bowling or golf. For each frame, we bowl the first ball...and then I select a different person for each frame to bowl your second ball...and then I do the same for my team. Whichever one of us 'wins' gets $10,000. This way, we are doing the lion's share of the bowling compared to everyone else on our team, much like a pitcher.
Its possible you can bowl enough strikes to render your teammates nearly useless, and I be bad enough to not allow my team to get enough strikes to overcome you....so. Lets do it.
Same for golf, we each hit the first two balls of each hole(first three on par fives), and then I select a different person for each hole to finish the subsequent shots until it is in the hole, I do the same for me....whomever wins collects $10,000 from the other.
If you don't like any of those challenges, select one that teammates can be included, and I will work it out for you.
Then maybe you could understand team dependent measurements, and how faulty they are in judging your or my skill. Unless you are willing to agree to those contests, you already believe that your stance is on the wrong side of stupid.
I think the bottom line might be, would you rather play great and lose or play good and win.
It's not about being unable to "grasp" statistical evidence at all, it's not about being on the "wrong side of stupid" either.
I went 3 for 4 in a baseball game once hitting every ball right on the button in every at bat, but lined out to end the game with men on base. My coach said "good game Joey" my response was "not good enough".
Another time I bowled an average game but finished with three straight strikes to eliminate the other team.
I felt better after the bowling than the baseball.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
What does pitchers career batting avaerages have to do with anything? Where did that come from?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Actually, a baseball players performance is about as close to vacuum like than in any other sport. The defense behind a pitcher can make a difference in a pitcher's results, and THAT is actually a great topic with some more work to do. However, there isn't a lot other players can do when a pitcher is pitching to a batter. There isn't a lot other players can do when a batter is facing a pitch coming at him. There are no blockers or screens to help them, there are no other players to 'pass' to to help achieve success on the play. They are on their own.
Once the pitch is hit(or not hit), THEN other player's impact come into the mix on a batted ball, but 85% of the defensive work has already been done by the pitcher, with the rest being up to luck of where the ball is hit, and the ability of the fielders. This area of measuring pitcher contribution and isolating how much the fielders contribute is certainly a gray area. That 85% mark could be 75%, or 95%. That part we probably can never know.
The team's offensive performance makes a HUGE impact in the results of a pitcher's W/L record, but NOT the pitcher's actual performance, and is why using wins for a pitcher gives unreliable measurements. Wins for a pitcher are a stat too!! Wins for pitchers just happen to be a poor stat when it comes down to measuring the pitchers' performance or ability.
Wins for a teams' W/L record is also a stat, which is a very good one when measuring the performance of the TEAM!! Pitchers don't get wins, teams do.
****Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two. ****
Repeat that: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
So when pitchers are "paid to win", giving up one run in eight innings, goes a long way to winning and earning. If the team does not come away with a win, then that means other people on the team are not earning their salary 'to win'. The pitcher certainly earned his. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
http://sabr.org/research/origin-modern-pitching-win
Above is a link to an article on the history of determining wins for a pitcher. Wins for a pitcher are a stat, just like ERA is a stat, just like ERA+ is a stat, just like WHIP is a stat. Wins for a pitcher didn't exist at one time, and were transformed numerous times. Wins for a pitcher weren't even in a pitcher's mind for a good part of history. Wins for a pitcher just happen to be an unreliable useseless stat in measuring a pitcher's value.
For all the 'stat haters'....wins are a stat created after the fact, rehashed, and reshaped. Man made, lol. Some 'geek' of the time created them. Other 'geeks' reshaped them. Sound familiar?? They are just a poor precursor to better modern measurements. Simple.
Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Every player is paid to win the game for the team, and just like the article points out, "Fans and players of 1872, and even Spalding himself, would have likely been bewildered by the proposition that pitchers be credited with wins and losses. Actual wins—or so it would be argued into the twentieth century—could belong to any member of the team: the first baseman who got the game-winning hit or the center fielder who made a game-saving catch."
Comments such as "pitchers are paid to win" are ignorant. Every player is paid to win. Isolating a player's contribution to a team's win is the goal of statistical measurements. The good measurements isolate it well. Stats like 'wins' or RBI do not.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
I will give you determined or hard fought, but not a great season.
Yes, it was a great season. I will assume you are either joking or drunk (or both) because I can't think of any other reason why you would bring up his batting average.
Not to rain on your parade...but, as we all know, Bill James is the self made Statistical guru of baseball...just a few observations...
James created things like "Runs created"; "Range Factor"; "Similarity Scores"; and my all-time favorite, "Pythagorean Winning Percentage". All these are subjective creations of his with formulas and data to bolster his findings. He did all this while he was a very bored security guard...credit to him for his inventiveness I guess.
While, if you are into stats, I think there are far too many unknowns to really asses the validity of any ranking of players. I think there can possibly be a general ranking, but to purposefully put one ahead of another via statistical analysis is a bit of a stretch. How can you realistically account for lost years in military service, like Bob Feller and Warren Spahn for example...who, BTW, threw a no-hitter while in the service? Losing 3 or 4 precious years of youth and ability can't be summed up with a percentile or number. Do they get a 0.05% of "something" ? or 0.25 % of something else? Says who?
You can juggle or rejuggle your list, but with so many variables, what's the point? So, if I think Koufax was better than Palmer, so what? And, then you add "still climbing on James' list"...does this mean he is still creating a statistic to validate his personal viewpoint? After all, the data is in, perhaps it's just a matter of how you crunch the numbers. How can pitchers "continue to climb on James' list?
Interesting entry on player #78, Sam McDowell...your entry "I don't think James likes him"...therein lies the personal twist. There are several other comments you have in the sidelines about James' possible dislike of certain players. To eliminate Curt Schilling in a 100 pitcher list is obvious disdain for him....no Schilling, no 2004 Red Sox WS victory.
And, after MLB Rule 5.11 was enacted in 1973, allowing for the the DH, which, as we all know, the National League does not use. So, my point...how do you factor in the pitchers having pitched in the NL, vs those in the AL, who sat comfortably in the dugout while some aging high paid player gets to bat in his stead? Is there a built in stat for that 1973 change? If so, how exactly was it formulated. And, if a pitcher is traded from the AL to the NL, or vice versa, is there a stat for his stint in one or the other to validate Mr. James' list, or anyone elses?
So, while all the numbers may be enjoyable to ponder on a raw, rainy day, and number crunchers really enjoy this stuff, it's all just a bunch of numbers, no more, no less. Too many variables, personal and otherwise to make one list more valid than another. As for Mr. James, I'm sure he's doing quite well with his number crunching prowess...me? I'll pass.
And, though I haven't seen it, and a bit off topic, what percentile does Mr. James afford Ted Williams for his lost MLB time to serve his country as he did for all those years? And all the others who left in the prime of their playing years? Having been in a combat zone myself, I doubt any number, stat, or formula could properly account for that sacrifice.
THere aren't any unknowns in terms of run value of each offensive event, etc. Those are rock solid. Arguing against them is like arguing against today being Sunday. No point in discussing them.
It is the longevity, peak, etc..where the debates come in. Koufax vs Spahn is the highlight of that debate. THere may not be a good answer in determing who was better of the two. There is no question though that Koufax was better during his peak, but that Spahn had a better overall career due to sustained length. How you weigh the two is where it gets tricky.
You also have to weigh the Ken Phelps factor, or the Willie McCovey factor. They both sat vs. lefties, one to a great degree, and one to a degree more than other star players. Things like that have to be accounted for too.
The War Years? I'm with the people in the camp that the War years have to be accounted for. Ted Williams should indeed be viewed as a greater player since he got 'cheated', Spahn too(but not nearly to the same degree as Williams, because Spahn had not established the same baseline of talent in MLB that Williams did beforehand).
There are unansewered questions, but the dopes who spout about wins for pitchers...those questions have been asnwered to a very high degree.
HOWEVER:
The funny thing is that when valid and reliable stats are used to show the actual ability of a pitcher, then people come on here and start lambasting the use of statistics in measuring players....and then in the next paragraph they use a stat to measure the pitcher...(wins). I always find that quite funny.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Repeat: Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
It's like saying Tom Brady didn't rush for enough yards so the Pats lost.
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.
Don't ever allow grote15 to do a Top 100 Catchers list.
His bias towards one major league catcher who I think played for the New York Mets, would be incalculable.
Could it be "Brady did not catch enough passes thrown his way so the Pats lost?"
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Clearly, established statistical data I think, can be used to evaluate the overall performance of pitchers, and all position players for that matter. It's when you start to line them up in a list of 100, one being "better than" the other as the list progresses. When in fact this is nothing more than a personal opinion by the author of his 1-100 best. The OP clearly has indicated a few dozen differences.Undoubtedly, some would add or delete players from this list, not necessarily because of performance, but maybe because of personal feelings for the their team. It's all personal opinion, no more, no less.
My issue was in using whatever formula was created to give credit, or not, to those players who may or may not have been adversely effected by certain situations...such as the war years, or the DH league, or being traded back and forth from AL to NL...the added rest vs not of the other team pitchers.
One does wonder what numbers Williams would have put up without his military time, as well as many other players. But, outfielders are not the topic of the OP...just used as an example...however, Spahn, Feller and others do fall under this umbrella. When you start to toss in variables, the stats get cloudy...who can say what Spahn, Feller, Williams, or anyone else who served their country would have accomplished in MLB had that insidious crap never happened. You simply can't put a number on that time to compensate...all you do when you do that is to simply give some sympathetic, personal opinion number to extract a result.
Got no dog in this thing, in their day, in their moment, many of these men excelled and were acknowledged for what they did.
As for the Pats, they lost to a better team and certainly didn't play up to their potential...were they playing today, it might be a different story. I just didn't get the analogy. As a life-long Pats fan, once again, congrats to the Eagles.
LOL, in this case, that may be!
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.
Regarding the "what if" scenarios, you can also apply that same concept to players of remarkable talent who suffered significant injuries in their playing career, too. In the end, we have only those numbers that were statistically compiled by which to evaluate.
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 also think that there is room for debate even among advanced statistical analysis, but the main point of this thread, for me, at least, is the fact that a pitcher's won-loss record is due in no small part to run support (or lack thereof) vs a pitcher's effectiveness.
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.
other factors skew W/L records and ERA’s as well
1) The use of relief specialists. Shorter starts. Generally pitchers are stronger though 6 then 8 or 9. Now the 6 inning start is more the norm. Back in the day pitching into the 9th was almost expected.
2) # 1& 2 starters used to start 43 games or so. Now their lucky if they start 34
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I don't mean to rain on your really long parade of observations, but the list I'm referring to was the one James created in 2001, and that will address several of your comments. You seem to go back and forth on the key point, though, and that's the subjective element inherent in a ranking like this, and whether that subjective element is good or bad. James does give players credit for losing prime seasons for serving in the military, and I while have no objection to that I didn't do that in this list (but I have in others). James also has a flat out "subjective element" in his ranking that he does not disclose, and in some cases (Dick Allen, especially) that element is substantial. James clearly doesn't like some players and clearly likes others; there are other cases where it's not obviously the case, but I think it's the most likely explanation that it was the subjective factor that moved a player way up or way down his list.
The other key subjective element is the peak vs. career weighting. James weights those the way he thinks is best, I weight them differently. There is no right or wrong way to do that; anyone who doesn't care for how James did it or I did it is invited to create their own ranking with the weighting they think is correct.
Chill out Dallas...I only gave my opinion of your thread. Anyone can assign any weighting they want to anything, thus skewing, or not, the end result, which in this case is a list of pitchers, ranging from 1 - 100.
Somehow you seem to not get the point of SUBJECTIVITY, thus James' list, your list, or your granddaughter's list is simply a personal opinion when their personal subjectivity is added to produce a given result. I was also referencing your side notes, indicating a rather SUBJECTIVE analysis with comments you personally felt were pertinent.
I'm done.
I didn't read every post so I may have missed it, but I don't think steroid use was addressed in the equation, particularly in the case of Roger Clemens.
I'm not going to regurgitate all the info and stories out there about Clemens and steroid use. However, if a list factors in probable performance from lost time due to military service which of course is conjecture, then it should also factor in enhanced performance due to steroid use.
Especially for the latter part of Clemens' career which based on his body change, which had that "bulked up" on steroids look, in my opinion there is no doubt that Clemens was using steroids.
Certainly that's also the viewpoint of a number of Hall of Fame voters as based on stats, Clemens of course should have been a first ballot HOFer. Instead, Clemens has been denied entry, I think it's been six times.
You didn't read my post, did you? Here's the Reader's Digest version: it was all about SUBJECTIVITY; mine. James', and how it was "inherent" in any list like this. The only point I've made in this thread that I haven't acknowledged is SUBJECTIVE is that W/L records should be ignored; people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant.
Well Dallas...you certainly have a very high opinion about your personal SUBJECTIVITY, and that others, who choose to use a differing viewpoint are ignorant. Who are you to insult those who differ from you? Maybe there are those of us who think some of your viewpoints should be ignored.
As mentioned ad nauseum by me...the entire list is personal opinion, no more, no less.
That you would leave out the Magnus Force data of Coors Field, scientifically proven to effect the flight of a pitched baseball at altitude, is a bit disturbing though.
So, you just go on adjusting your little happy list, and I guess I'll just hang with the guys who like the W/L records and remain with the unwashed, and of course the ignorant.
Here's The Reader's Digest Version...it's called "having a difference of opinion"...get over it.
I'm not knowledgeable about all the technical data to rate players. I' just a fan who enjoys a good game and watching players whose skills are readily evident. If I were a GM and could chose between a pitcher GUARANTEED to win 20+ games next season or one GUARANTEED to have an ERA under 2.5 I would take the 20 game winner every time.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
The pitcher himself cannot guarantee 20 wins. He would need the proper offensive support to achieve 20 wins, in addition to pitching at least well enough too. If you are looking at it in retrospect, and take the 20 game winner AFTER it already occured, then YES, because that means the team did well to get those 20 wins, not just the pitcher. In that case, the smart GM knows the key factors in how that pitcher got to 20 wins.
No pitcher wins 20 games with run support of two runs or less. That is a fact. Jack Morris was 17wins and 109 losses with run support of two runs or less. If he was a 'winner', then he should have won those games. If HE was the reason he would win 20 games, then he would have a 20 game like winning percentage REGARDLESS OF THE RUN SUPPORT. Yet he was 17-109 with low run support.
You read all the info in the thread provided about run support...and you still don't get it?
You and a few others should probably read that article about wins. Every player is paid to win the game for the team, and just like the article points out, "Fans and players of 1872, and even Spalding himself, would have likely been bewildered by the proposition that pitchers be credited with wins and losses. Actual wins—or so it would be argued into the twentieth century—could belong to any member of the team: the first baseman who got the game-winning hit or the center fielder who made a game-saving catch."
Pitcher wins are a stat attempting to isolate a player's performance, they are not wins themselves, so please don't confuse the two.
Insulting each other is not a very intelligent way of debating.
I try not to lower myself to name calling. It really takes the fun out of these threads.
I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone I may have offended in the past.
As a follow up on Blyleven's 1973 run support; it may have been 4.2 (the league average), but the Twins scored 0-2 runs in 16 of his starts, they scored 3-5 runs in 10 games, 6 or more runs in 14, . 22 times he got 3 runs or less, only four times did the Twins score either 4 or 5 runs, 4.5 close to the league average. He was 4-0 in those games.
Looks to me like his team (for the most part) did not really give him average support, but scored a lot of runs (8-14) 6 times to inflate his run support.
He was 4-12 in those low support games with an ERA of 2.99. In games the Twins gave him average support, (3-5 runs) he was 5-4 with a 1.87 ERA! Of course he did well when he got 6 or more runs, going 11-1 with a 2.48 ERA.
Had the Twins scored 4.2 runs each time Bert pitched, he would have won 9 more games!
Had the Orioles scored 4.2 wins each game, Jim Palmer (Cy Young winner) would have only won 4 more games. His average run support that year was 4.68.
Catfish had a run support of 5.58 that year!
Won loss records can be VERY deceiving.
Have a great day everyone!
Not really arguing your opinion, but to me there's a big difference between missing time because of military service or even injuries and unproven steroid use.
I do suspect Roger of using, but I don't think he was in any of the reports on use or tested positive. Yes, he was accused by his friend (?) who did test positive and his numbers do look quite suspicious, but I can't see lumping him in with the guys proven to have cheated.
I sometimes wonder about Kirby Puckett. Saw his entire career and he got really big. I mean he was VERY muscular! He did have some extra fat at the end of his playing days that made him look out of shape, but that guy had HUGE arms and shoulders.
Bagwell gets accused because he got big too.
Personally I think the guys that got caught should be banned from the HOF and have their records removed from the books.
You go down a slippery slope when you convict without proof.
Point taken. We all know the Roger Clemens story, and we all have our various opinions about it.
My point for this thread is that it depends on how the "list maker" wishes to weigh how important the steroid use was to any player's stats and performance, hence his position on any particular list...or any other player list such as an all time greatest hitters list.
There's been rumors floating around for decades that Babe Ruth used horse steroids. Who knows for sure? You've probably read "Ball Four" depicting what the Yankees at that time were doing...and what a number of other players were doing with using amphetamines.
Of course all this can be ignored if the list maker wishes to do that. I just think the steroid use was too important to ignore, but how do ya accurately reduce the player's stats to account for that? Well of course ya can't do it accurately but ya can do it subjectively which is a part of the fun of doing and analyzing these lists.
Agreed. People will always try to find statistics to support their opinions.
I said support because many/most opinions cannot be proven.
Frankly, I think the "eye test" is best. Just watching a player for a number of years versus other players, can separate the real superstars from just the stars. Realizing that's not possible for the oldest players on the list.
So for any list such as this do ya want a top superstars on down list or a top stats on down list? Bill James seems to prefer a top stats on down list and that's fine, that's his prerogative... the Moneyball thing and all that.
I think someone here said that Drysdale was a better pitcher than Koufax. Likely Drysdale has the better overall lifetime stats, but even Don Drysdale wouldn't begin to say that he was better than Sandy Koufax.
For my taste, a top superstars on down is a more interesting list. For example, I would have Koufax at least in the top 5.
stevek being and back and posting again is one of the worst things I've seen in years.
An opinion is by definition just that...an opinion.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Year by year, here's a high level qualitative look at Drysdale and Koufax:
1955: Koufax pitched 40 good innings, Drysdale not yet in the majors
1956: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1957: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1958: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1959: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1960: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1961: Drysdale a little better than Koufax
1962: Drysdale much better than Koufax
1963: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1964: Koufax a little better than Drysdale
1965: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1966: Koufax much better than Drysdale
1967: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1968: Drysdale very good, Koufax out of the league
1969: Drysdale bad in a short season, Koufax out of the league
So Koufax wins 3 seasons by a lot, 2 by a little; Drysdale wins 7 seasons by a lot, 3 by a little.
What creates the belief that Koufax was better than Drysdale - and note that I've ranked him much higher so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this belief - is that Koufax at his peak was much better than Drysdale at his peak. But from the Dodgers perspective, with the two having started their careers at essentially the same time, there wasn't much difference between them at all. That is, the Dodgers got about as many "extra" victories out of Drysdale as they did out of Koufax. And they wouldn't have gone to, let alone won, any World Series without both of them so that doesn't really differentiate them either.
My belief is that Drysdale was considerably better than most people give him credit for, mostly because late in his career he got overshadowed by Koufax. I also believe that Koufax wasn't as great as most people believe because his last four seasons when he was the ace of the team more or less erased the memory of his first eight seasons when Drysdale was the ace of the team.
Someone said you can get any result you want weighting the stats, but that's simply not true. What is true is that you can get different, reasonable, results by placing more or less value on what actually is subjective. The biggest item on the subjective list is peak vs. career value; weight peak value high enough and Mark Fidrych cracks the top 100, weight career value high enough and Tommy John cracks the top 40. I would feel silly calling Fidrych one of the best 100 pitchers of all time, and I would feel silly calling Tommy John one of the best 40 pitchers of all time, but "best" is not a statistical term, and neither belief is objectively wrong. But assuming that what would make me feel silly would make many of you feel the same way, I think there is a range of weights that we could probably agree on that woudl leave Fidrych out, but that would allow for either Drysdale or Koufax to be considered better than the other.
The other major subjective elements, most of which have been mentioned, are what to do with war years, with injuries, with time lost to segregation, and how to account for the difference in the quality of play over time. And with each of these there is again no single right or wrong weight, but a range of weights that most people could agree were reasonable. I would welcome it if someone else here would take the time to make their own Top 100 pitchers list, and explain how they took all of these factors into account. I also understand that I'm the only one here willing to waste days of my life creating these lists, though, so I welcome dissenting opinions about how I've chosen to weight them.
Yes, you've got Koufax at 18 and Drysdale at 58.
Hey, Don Drysdale was a helluva good pitcher. Don't ever hiss off Don Drysdale, he'll throw one right at your head, and smile as you get up from nearly getting beamed to death - LOL
That being said, i agree with ya that Drysdale is in that 50 area all time, looking at the other pitchers.
A pitcher you've got way too low on your list is Steve Carlton. Carlton is a top 10 on my list. One of the best pitchers I've ever seen and I watched Steve pitch a lot on TV and live. Frankly, batters often looked downright confused trying to hit against Carlton and rightly so. One of the nastiest sliders in baseball history.
Years ago i worked with a guy, we become good friends at work, and he was a really good athlete, he played some semi-pro baseball, etc. He told me the story that one day he was invited to the Phillies ballpark, i forget exactly why, and he had the opportunity to bat against Carlton just in batting practice. He said, paraphrase, that Carlton was probably pitching at 50% capacity and toyed with him, he couldn't touch the baseball, just unhittable, he couldn't even foul one off.
Carlton's 1972 season was one of the most remarkable in modern baseball history for a pitcher, going 27-10 on a Phillies team that couldn't score runs if you spotted them 1st and 2nd base for every batter - LOL. The Phillies won 59 games that season so Carlton's 27 wins accounted for close to half the Phillies wins - Incredible.
Hey Dallas...you found quite a bit of time to post your Koufax-Drysdale thing.
Perhaps your insulting comment "people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant.".
Perhaps an apology to those whom you may have offended could find a few seconds on your keyboard.
Very interesting analysis and I tend to agree that Koufax ranks higher than Drysdale overall due to a better peak but that Drysdale's career, in its entirety, rivals the sum total of Koufax' career, the first half of which was rather pedestrian, all things considered. Koufax certainly gets a bump for his postseason performance, though Drysdale had two very nice World Series performances in '59 and '63, too.
Al, I don't think Dallas was insulting anyone personally or specifically here~at least I didn't take it that way. He simply made a statement of opinion based on extensive statistical and empirical evidence with regard to W/L records and their correlations with run support. I don't always agree with Dallas, but I don't think anyone can ever question his passion or his willingness to back up his opinion with data. After all, we are on a sports talk message board and sports is always going to trigger emotional responses, both pro and con.
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.
Perhaps you noticed that in the quite a bit of time I spent posting about Drysdale and Koufax I never mentioned wins or losses, which are the "those" I referred to in my earlier post that you quoted. So no, I'm not going to apologize for stating the truth earlier, and I'm not sure what it was in my Drysdale/Koufax post that made you think one was warranted. I have probably posted more about subjectivity in ranking baseball players than you have posted about baseball; for some reason you have chosen to pretend otherwise and gotten your panties in a twist about something that you incorrectly inferred from something that I never said. You want to talk about subjectivity in player analysis, I'm your man. You want to talk about wins and losses and I'm just going to make fun of you. If you can't see why those two are not the same thing, yeah, I'm going to make fun of you for that, too.
Let's not forget our great hobby and how the public "ranks" the pitchers. I would say on a rough average that Sandy Koufax baseball cards are worth around 10 times more than Don Drysdale baseball cards. That's a meaningful correlation because they were rookies just a few years apart in the 1950's.
Of course we all know that there can be factors other than player performance that go into the value of baseball cards, such as age of the card, short prints, etc. Of course then there would need to be some sort of subjectivity in that as well for example 1950's baseball cards in general being more valuable than say 1980's baseball cards, etc. It would be tough to accurately do, but it would still be an interesting list in my opinion.
So it might be interesting, subjectively rated say on the average value of the Topps series for the rookie year, to have a list of top 100 most valuable rookie cards of pitchers and see how it matches up with these top 100 lists of Dallasactuary and Bill James. Maybe there already is a pitcher's rookie card list such as this somewhere?
Agree or disagree with the list rankings, I've always enjoyed viewing lists such as these, and ya gotta give hats off to Dallasactuary for the time and effort, and skill, put into his list.
Even though he screwed up on the ranking of Steve Carlton.
Yes. Nolan Ryan was great in 1987. A 2.76 ERA during a juiced ball season? Over a quarter of a run better than anyone else? Yes, he was great.
I don't even know what to do with this line of "reasoning".
Also, hitting .62 would be really, really good - that's a .620, after all.
@Tabe said:
» show previous quotes
Yes. Nolan Ryan was great in 1987. A 2.76 ERA during a juiced ball season? Over a quarter of a run better than anyone else? Yes, he was great.
» show previous quotes
I don't even know what to do with this line of "reasoning".
Also, hitting .62 would be really, really good - that's a .620, after all.
First of all, thank you for pointing out my decimal error. Hopefully those reading the post will not be mislead into thinking that Nolan Ryan batted .620 in 1987. If he had, his record would have exceeded the putrid 8 and 16 that he posted for the year.
Ranking pitchers by ERA alone is fine if that is one's criteria, but I disagree. I don't believe that Tom Brady would claim that he had a great Super Bowl, even though he passed for a record number of yards. He lost the game.
I also believe that is misleading to ignore the offensive performance of a pitcher when he is playing in the National League (AL pitchers that bat in relatively few inter league games I can give a pass to). This is particularly so when defending Ryan's so called great 1987 season and blaming poor run production by his team as the excuse for a losing record.
Not only was his .062 BA less than anemic, one wonders how many times he was pinch hit late...where with a .150 or so average, he may have been left in to pitch another inning or two.
Dallas...
"You didn't read my post, did you? Here's the Reader's Digest version: it was all about SUBJECTIVITY; mine. James', and how it was "inherent" in any list like this. The only point I've made in this thread that I haven't acknowledged is SUBJECTIVE is that W/L records should be ignored; people who place value on those aren't being SUBJECTIVE, they're just being ignorant."
The above is what YOU wrote on Feb 18 at 8:27PM...look above if you don't believe me. And, I don't think that can be interpreted as "making fun" of anyone, that's just you acting like a jerk and lashing out at anyone that might possibly disagree with you.
"So no, I'm not going to apologize for stating the truth earlier..." So, in your book, it's again, ok to insult people who disagree with you and you believe you can disparage them at your whim. Heaven forbid someone on the boards could possible not see your viewpoint, therefore they must be insulted.
I have probably posted more about subjectivity in ranking baseball players than you have posted about baseball; for some reason you have chosen to pretend otherwise and gotten your panties in a twist about something that you incorrectly inferred from something that I never said. Calling those who use W/L records is ignorant...THAT'S WHAT YOU wrote.
Wow, now comes the ego about your posting prowess and how you've "out posted me"...really? That is lower than childish at best and beneath your intelligence. You're lashing out with this comment as well as the panties thing. A more mature person would have challenged my posts with some semblance of logic and maturity...apparently you lack this trait. A very simple and mild mea culpa would have put all this to rest, but no, you decide to toss another log on the fire by denying what you wrote. So, you can continue to think you're the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and the most knowledgeable of anything statistical, but when in comes to choosing words to make posts, you're coming up a bit short...got no panties to twist, but BUT, I PROMISE YOU, when you drift outside the lines of decency and can't put on you big boy pants and take the high road, I'll call you on it every time.
Tim
"After all, we are on a sports talk message board and sports is always going to trigger emotional responses, both pro and con."
You make my point perfectly. These boards should be about discussion, not who can pee the furthest off the deck. While I clearly acknowledge that Dallas is a brilliant and passionate person in terms of baseball and his love for number crunching, I draw the line at trashing (directly, or indirectly) at those who would disagree with his analysis by his posting a comment calling them "ignorant". It's one thing to critique a post, but not the poster. Its called respect, or lack thereof.
Of course I'll be waiting with great anticipation of how the Magnus Force at Coors Field effects the list and how the pitchers who played their were weighted.
...NOT.
I'm kinda done here, I've taken up enough space from an otherwise nice debate over pitchers. As for Dallas, I think everyone has the picture.
Where's the Top 100 Hitters list?
That one's even more fun.
As long as there's a good number of Phillies in the top 25, I'll agree with it.
Trust me, I understand your position. Everyone understands your position. Of the hundred things that you don't understand about what I've said in this thread, or any other thread, all you need to do is ask me to explain it to you and I'll gladly do that. You seem to understand my statement that using wins and losses to evaluate a pitcher is ignorant, and for some reason it makes you cry like a little beeyotch; I can't help you with that.
Dallas...
Do you have any idea how incredibly childish you appear? Why don't you take a deep breath and let all this go?
I suspect your id is in high blower and you just can't help yourself. Your insecure need to trash those with a differing viewpoint is simply self-destructive, to the point of total embarrassment, no matter the cost. All this over a list of baseball players, of whom you have a very distinct opinion...and there's the rub, we all have opinions, nobody trashed yours, but, you chose to get unhinged over a stat that, in the scheme of life means NADA.
Your post is really beneath you, with the zings and zangs of nonsense, that you seem to think emboldens your position, or lessens mine. You have simply made yourself appear to be more foolish than before you hit your latest "Post Comment".
Even though batting average is a poor stat....I will take anyone hitting .620
Its not insulting to say people who place high values on W/L records are ignorant. That is better than calling them stupid.
Maybe they are just stubborn, because with the wealth of information available, sprinkled with a little logic...shows W/L records border on utterly useless.
Heck, just read that article I linked, and at least get a little history on 'wins'...because some fans think of a win 'credited' to a pitcher as the same value as the pitcher himself being responsible for the actual win in the standings.
A pitcher win is a stat....jus a very bad one. Much like the save stat that was created in the 70's, being a nearly useless one that fans hang onto.
Had the creator of the modern win or modern save given different criteria, then it would be looked at completely differently.
Ideally, they would have given criteria for a win that closely resembled the pitchers actual impact on the game, instead of the stat of a win that was team dependent and not even good at measuring the effectiveness of a pitcher...afterall a pitcher can give up seven runs in five innings and still get a win. While another pitcher can give up one run in nine innings and lose, and somewhere some dope would actually think the pitcher who was credited with the win...was better.
Also like the game winning RBI stat, which was out on the back of some cards, lol.
I remember on these boards that some people would always say:
"I only need to go by the stats on the back of the baseball card to know how good a player was."
I felt bad for the people that collected Old Judge cards.
You're reading far too much into this than you should. I'm just making fun of you because it makes me laugh when you overreact. Truth be told, I don't even know what your position is; I don't think you've actually stated one. Anyone who states a position and defends it with relevant facts is safely in the zero zings and zangs zone; everybody else, not so much.
...after all a pitcher can give up seven runs in five innings and still get a win. While another pitcher can give up one run in nine innings and lose, and somewhere some dope would actually think the pitcher who was credited with the win...was better.
It may be the pitcher giving up seven runs in five innings could win a game. But he's not gonna win many doing that. The pitcher giving up one run in nine innings may lose one, but not many doing that. HOF voters who would automatically enshrine 300 game winners are not idiots. Win-loss records may not be an end all to how good someone was but it is not irrelevant.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
That depends. If you have absolutely nothing else to look at, sure, having a W/L record is better than nothing. But, if you have ERA+, and innings pitched, and WHIP, and WPA, and WAR, and run support and a hundred other stats - and through the miracle of baseball-reference, you always do - then W/L records are totally irrelevant. Check that, an irrelevant stat wouldn't affect your opinion of a pitcher one way or the other. But, for example, if you think Jack Morris was a better pitcher than Wilbur Wood, or Luis TIant, or Jerry Koosman. or JIm Kaat, or 50 other pitchers not in the HOF, then it's probably because you saw Morris' W/L record and it fooled you into thinking he was much better than he actually was. A W/L record can't possibly make your evaluation of a pitcher better than it otherwise would have been, but it can definitely make it worse. So W/L records aren't irrelevant, they're worse than irrelevant.
Sorry. I can see your opinion and it is not without merit but I think I will remain and side with the ignorant on this one.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Jack Morris was the beneficiary of many cheap wins...as a direct result from being the beneficiary of superb run support nearly every year he pitched. So yes, it 'may' even out, but in some cases it does not. Only an idiot could look past those facts and then look at his W/L record and attribute that W/L record solely to Morris. Yet, there are idiots who do that....even guys who played in MLB.
There are a lot of people who can't grasp it, until they are directly affected by it. I will assume you cannot pitch anymore, otherwise I would offer you a challenge where I pitch for one team, and you pitch for the other team, and whichever one of us gets a win, collectors $10,000 from the other......except I get to select your teammates and my teammates....then we would see how fast you yell "unfair".
Or maybe we can do a contest that isn't quite as physical, like bowling or golf. For each frame, we bowl the first ball...and then I select a different person for each frame to bowl your second ball...and then I do the same for my team. Whichever one of us 'wins' gets $10,000. This way, we are doing the lion's share of the bowling compared to everyone else on our team, much like a pitcher.
Its possible you can bowl enough strikes to render your teammates nearly useless, and I be bad enough to not allow my team to get enough strikes to overcome you....so. Lets do it.
Same for golf, we each hit the first two balls of each hole(first three on par fives), and then I select a different person for each hole to finish the subsequent shots until it is in the hole, I do the same for me....whomever wins collects $10,000 from the other.
If you don't like any of those challenges, select one that teammates can be included, and I will work it out for you.
Then maybe you could understand team dependent measurements, and how faulty they are in judging your or my skill. Unless you are willing to agree to those contests, you already believe that your stance is on the wrong side of stupid.
I think the bottom line might be, would you rather play great and lose or play good and win.
It's not about being unable to "grasp" statistical evidence at all, it's not about being on the "wrong side of stupid" either.
I went 3 for 4 in a baseball game once hitting every ball right on the button in every at bat, but lined out to end the game with men on base. My coach said "good game Joey" my response was "not good enough".
Another time I bowled an average game but finished with three straight strikes to eliminate the other team.
I felt better after the bowling than the baseball.