I Wanna Hold Johan
Posted: August 27th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 81 Comments »
I go back and forth on the whole concept of the quality start. On the one hand, I want to despise the Q-Start for all the same reasons that old-time pitchers and angry announcers despise it, because there’s something unsavory about taking what has always been viewed as, at best, an “OK†performance — six innings, three runs, for crying out loud — and renaming it a “Quality†performance.
This reminds me of the brilliant Albert Brooks rant about the devil in “Broadcast News†— “He will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny bit.†You see it all over the place now, just the slightest exaggeration of language — a 10-foot putt to win the Masters is “courageous,†a five-run rally in the ninth is “unbelievable,†a man in black not falling off the cliff after the rope is cut is “inconceivable,†a 150-yard rushing day is “superhuman,†a 32-year-old outfielder with a troubled past is worth $12 million per, an Adam Sandler movie is “funny†and so on.
There just seems something mind-bending about calling a “6 1/3 inning, 8 hits, 3 runs, all earned, 4 walks, 2 strikeouts†performance a “quality start.†There was a time, not too long ago, when a whole bunch of those performances like that would get you sent down to the minor leagues. Quality, as they say, ain’t what it used to be.
Well, that’s that’s one feeling about it. The other, though, is that the world changes. And you cannot judge pitchers by 1973. Starting pitching has changed* for lots of reasons, because of pitch counts, because of smaller strike zones, because of pitching specialization, because of strength training, because of thin-handled bats, because of video study, because of hitter-friendly ballparks, because of health concerns, because of large long-term contracts, because of steroid use, because of countless others things. And the truth is, in today’s baseball world, where the length of an average start is between 5 2/3 and 6 innings, a pitcher who throws a quality start really is more or less doing his job.
*I went back to look at the average length of starts over the last 50 years, and I have to admit that I’m a little bit surprised — I thought starters in the 1950s and ‘60s and especially ‘70s would average more than 7 innings per start, maybe eight innings per start. I mean there were 645 complete games in the AL in 1978, and 1/10th of that — 64 — in 2007. So I thought the difference would be really dramatic. But far as I can tell — and it’s certainly possible I’m misreading the numbers — the average start topped out at 6 2/3 in 1971 and is now almost 6 innings. That doesn’t seem like a big difference.
Here are a few of the highlight years:
1956: 6.41 innings per start.
1963: 6.50 innings per start.
1968: 6.66 innings per start.
1971: 6.60 innings per start.
1977: 6.30 innings per start.
1980: 6.33 innings per start.
1985: 6.22 innings per start.
1990: 6.06 innings per start.
1995: 5.90 innings per start.
1998: 6.06 innings per start.
2001: 5.92 innings per start.
2004: 5.86 innings per start.
2008: 5.85 innings per start.
Anyway, the role of the starting pitcher has changed to the point where just in the last week, Royals manager Trey Hillman pulled Gil Meche after retiring 17 batters in a row. It wasn’t that he pulled him though, it was that when asked about it he said: “It’s a no-brainer for me.â€* Apparently this was because Meche had thrown 104 pitches or something.
*I’ve never understood the expression “no-brainer.†I mean, I think pulling Meche after retiring 17 in a row is a no-brainer too, but I don’t think Trey means the same thing.
Anyway, in this new world, where starting pitchers, on average, do not throw a pitch in the seventh, there has to be a more nuanced way to measure them. The poll question asks everyone to name the N.L. Cy Young Award winner as of right now — and you can see that Brandon Webb is running away, Tim Lincecum is second, Edinson Volquez is third and Johan Santana fourth. It makes sense. Here are the basic pitching numbers of the Top 4 candidates, in their current order:
Brandon Webb: 19-5, 2.96 ERA.
Tim Lincecum: 14-3, 2.48 ERA
Edinson Volquez: 15-5, 2.80 ERA
Johan Santana: 12-7, 2.64 ERA.*
*Anyway, this was the “current” order when I wrote this post. I look now and C.C. Sabathia has made a huge charge, which I think is great, he’s having a very Rick Sutcliffe kind of year. And I see that Ryan Dempster is in there too — must be those Cubbies fans coming over from SI.com. Welcome! I’m not rewriting the rest of this blog, though, so Volquez and Santana will still be featured.
So, as you see, even though Webb has the highest ERA of the four, even though Lincecum has the most strikeouts, even though Santana has been the most dominant of late … that’s the order. Why? Well, it probably goes down to wins. Even though most of us are of the opinion that wins are a flawed statistic — and become more flawed all the time — we cannot help but be swayed by them. It’s in our baseball DNA. Webb is bleepin’ 19-5! He might win 23 games!
But, honestly, we need to break out of this thought. Wins were a lousy way to judge pitchers 30 years ago. But these days, with SO few pitchers finishing games (Webb has three complete games and one shutout all year — and even that puts him among the leaders in both categories), wins are even more pointless. A starter has always needed run support to get victories. But now he also needs two or three innings of good relief (Webb averages about 6 2/3 per start, excellent in today’s environment but that still leaves 2 1/3 for the pen). And he doesn’t just need the pen to hold the victory, he also needs the bullpen to make sure the game doesn’t EVER get tied. A pitcher also needs a manager who will stick with him through late inning jams. A pitcher also needs an offense that will keep hitting even with the lead. And so on.
So, while yes, Webb’s 19 victories are impressive and unique in today’s time, the truth is that’s probably more a testament to his bullpen and the way his team has played on days he’s pitches.
One way to see how lucky a pitcher has been is to look at his no decisions and losses — see how many quality starts he has among those. We’ll call those “unlucky starts.†Webb has just three unlucky starts. On May 21, he gave up three runs in seven innings and took the loss. On July 13, he gave up two runs in seven for a no decision. And on July 20, he gave up one run in eight innings for a no-decision. So that makes him 0-1 with a 2.34 ERA in his three unlucky starts. That means Webb has really squeezed out about as many victories as he can out of this year.
As a contrast, Edinson Volquez has five unlucky starts. He is 0-1 with a 2.61 ERA in those five stars.
Tim Lincecum, meanwhile, has eight unlucky starts. In those eight games, he is 0-1 with a 1.87 ERA.
And finally to Johan Santana*, probably the unluckiest pitcher of all. He has had ELEVEN unlucky starts — that is, to remind you, eleven Q-Starts where he has either lost or gotten a no decision. in those 11 starts, he is 0-4 with a 1.97 ERA.
*And it should be noted here that Santana has been a monster the last month or so. You might recall that before the season began, I wrote that Santana would have a Pedro like year, a dominating year (and he would throw the Mets first no-hitter). Well, the last month or so he has been exactly what I expected from the start — since July 22nd, he’s 4-0 with a 1.52 ERA with two complete games (one of those a three-hit shutout) and the league hits .204/.246/.311 off him. The guy’s incredible.
So, for fun, we could just play with their winning won-loss, take away the losses where they threw quality starts and add no-decision quality starts to the win total.
Totally fake won-loss record:
Webb: 22-4
Lincecum: 21-2
Volquez: 19-4
Santana: 19-3
OK, that really makes no sense. Ignore that. There might be a good way to turn all of this into a good statistic — that’s why I have you fine readers, you can take a crack at it — but forgetting all that, I think you can see that Lincecum and Santana, while they do not have the victories, are probably pitching as well as Webb, maybe even better.
So, with win-loss clearly not being a good way to judge pitchers these days, how can we do it? Well, it seems to me that we need to find a good way to use and expand on quality starts. I’ve got a starting point here … let’s try breaking down quality starts into four categories.
Non-quality starts (-1 point): Less than six innings or more than three runs.
Quality starts (1 point): Six or seven innings, three runs.
Quality plus starts (1.5 points): Eight innings, three runs OR Six or seven innings, one or two runs.
Excellent start (2 points): Complete game, three runs or less OR Six plus innings of shutout ball.
This is not ideal at all. It gives a pitcher negative point for, say, five shutout innings. But this is just a starting point.
Brandon Webb, 25.5 points.
Non-quality starts: 7
Quality starts: 4
Quality-plus starts: 11
Excellent starts: 6
Edinson Volquez: 19 points
Non quality starts: 8
Quality starts: 3
Quality-plus starts: 12
Excellent starts: 3
Tim Lincecum: 26 points
Non quality starts: 6
Quality starts: 5
Quality-plus starts: 10
Excellent starts: 6
Johan Santana: 24.5 points.
Non quality starts: 6
Quality starts: 6
Quality plus starts: 11
Excellent starts: 4
OK, so … I don’t know what this shows. I suspect this is a lousy way to judge pitchers too. We’llall come up with something. In the meantime, I think the Cy Young voting should be closer than it is. I think Webb’s pitching great, but Lincecum is even better, and Santana might be the best of them all by the time the season ends.
Loading ...
I’m a biased Giants fan, so I’m going to say that any method that results in Tim Lincecum coming out on top is definitely the correct one.
Maybe we should use game score as the quality start indicator. A score of 70 or 75 gets a pitchers a QS.
You had me at Albert Brooks’ rant in “Broadcast News”.
Love that movie!
ESPN had a fantasy writer put something up about this awhile back…
http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=3501720
i dont know how great it is, since it ignores 6 shutout innings, etc.
Also, whats wrong with some of the advanced stats from hardball times, etc.?
1. Second the nomination for game scores. They’re awesome.
2. I’ve read a couple of times that starters, particularly end-of-rotation starters, from earlier in baseball were more likely to be pulled very early in games. For that reason, the median start length would probably represent a normal workload, or the workload “expected” from the starter, a little better.
I’m a Yankees fan, and my vote goes for Tim Lincecum, with Johan Santana a close second.
Are you going to look at the AL leaders also? By my count, Cliff Lee has four unlucky starts, all of which were no-decisions. By your method, that makes him 23-2 (!). Mike Mussina also has four unlucky starts: one loss and three no-decisions, making him 19-6. A.J. Burnett also has four (I’m seeing a pattern): three losses and one no-decision. That makes him 17-6. And lastly, Roy Halladay has five (So much for the pattern): four losses and one no-decision. He’s now 17-5.
So, the final results:
Cliff Lee 23-2 2.43
A.J. Burnett 17-6 4.58
Roy Halladay 17-5 2.69
Mike Mussina 19-6 3.45
I think I’d have to rank them in the following order:
1. Lee
2. Halladay
3. Mussina
4. Burnett.
Thoughts?
I “third” the suggestion to use game scores in your determination. I only recently discovered them, and I love them already.
By the way, nice headline.
I voted Webb because I thought the poll asked who I thought would win, rather than who I thought should win. Difference being that I had to anticipate how the BBWA would vote. They love 20 game winners. Webb’s a slam for the Cy Young. If I could choose, though, I’d want Lincecum to win it.
What about in the AL? Halladay or Lee. If someone votes for KRod they should have their votes taken away.
is the headline a play on the beatles song? please say yes !
Between Lee and Halladay:
Quality Start %:
Lee: 77%
Halladay: 67%
Average Game Score:
Lee: 60.8
Halladay: 61.4
fangraphs Pitcher WPA:
Lee: 5.77
Halladay: 3.95
Needless to say, it’s really, really close between these two.
The correct answer is Tim Lincecum.
I’m a Jays fan, so I’m admittedly biased in favor of Halladay, but his edge in complete games is what I think earns him the Cy Young.
A few more stats:
OPS Against:
Lee: .613
Halladay: .617
WARP3:
Lee: 11.3
Halladay: 9.5
Component ERA:
Lee: 2.51
Halladay: 2.61
DIPS (Defense Independent ERA):
Lee: 2.76
Halladay: 3.08
As an added note, Lee’s opponent’s BABIP is .285 and Halladay’s is .272, so both of these guys are having amazing seasons and neither one is getting particularly “hit lucky.” These two are the only ones who should receive Cy Young votes. Duchscherer got injured and doesn’t have the innings to compete, same with Dice-K, and K-Rod’s CYA candidacy is a joke.
One problem with Game Score is that it doesn’t really care about innings. I mean, obviously this isn’t fully true, since you get points for getting outs, but if you pitch two perfect innings with 4 Ks, that’s a Game Score of 60, but would anyone consider a two inning start to be an above average start, no matter how good those two innings were?
I would just go with a runs saved type of stat, but for individual starts make it simpler. Assume the average pitcher has an era of 4.50.
The score for a start will be the number of innings pitched divided by two, minus the number of runs he gives up:
6 IP, 3 ER = 0
9 IP, 0 ER = 4.5
Partial innings make it a little less clean. But even if we just rounded to the nearest whole number of innings, it would be a better stat than the quality start.
Thanks, Joe. I’ve been crying about the 2002 AL Cy Young voting since it happened, for this exact reason.
Barry Zito (who won): 23-5, 2.75 ERA
Pedro Martinez (second): 20-4, 2.26 ERA
Pedro also struck out 57 more in 30 fewer innings (I realize the innings may have hurt him a bit, but still). Pedro: 0.92 WHIP, Zito 1.12 WHIP.
I’ve heard pitching wins called the worst statistic in baseball, and I probably agree. I think they should be disregarded completely when judging a pitcher’s performance. Maybe a formula like this (and this is very rough):
(total outs recorded + strikeouts) – (hits + walks + earned runs) = total value
For the NL guys right now, it would go:
Lincecum 473
Webb 449
Santana 442
Dempster 412
Volquez 372
This probably overvalues strikeouts, and there are a whole slew of other things that could be thrown in there (hit batsmen, home runs allowed, ground balls/fly balls, etc.). And you could argue all about how fielding and ballparks and everything else affects the pitcher’s performance. But I think it tells you as simply as possible how well a pitcher is doing what he is trying to do.
Oh, and for the record.
2002
Pedro 603
Zito 540
I gotta go with WPA. It is the most straightforward description of a pitcher’s contribution to his team. No predictive value, it just tells you in a fairly easy way what has happened.
The top six pitchers in WPA are Lee, Lincecum, Halladay, Sabathia, Webb, Santana, in that order. That’s a pretty accurate assessment of the best pitchers this year.
To nitpick on a minor point of the column… I have a friend who’s a Mets fan and before the season I told him that no matter what the hype, don’t believe that Johan is on the same level of Pedro in his prime.
1997 .184 .250 .277 11.4 K/9 4.6 K/BB era+ 219
1999 .205 .248 .288 13.2 K/9 8.5 K/BB era+ 243
2000 .167 .213 .259 11.9 K/9 8.9 K/BB era+ 291
2001 .199 .253 .274 12.6 K/9 6.5 K/BB era+ 189
2002 .198 .254 .309 10.8 K/9 6 K/BB era+ 202
All of these are full seasons, in more offense intensive leagues, that approximate or exceed Johan’s unbelievable month. Johan only has one season in his career when his era+ would crack Pedro’s top 8, and none that would make his top 5. I’m not sure why there has been such an eagerness to equate the two. Johan is a great pitcher, one of the handful of elite pitchers of his time, but Pedro was one of the handful of elite pitchers in history.
It seems to me that the thing you are floundering for is expected wins, or some variation thereof – assigning a number to a pitching line which is independent of the runs scored by your teammates or allowed by your bullpen.
In fact, one might easily run this idea in reverse, to create a floating definition of Quality Start. If at the era in which it was originally defined, a quality start represented 3:2 or better odds of winning, and so in today’s era you tweak the IP or the runs allowed to keep the odds constant.
I don’t agree that WPA is quite as straightforward as JOEL suggests, as you must first consider whether the Cy Young should reward pitching performance or pitching value. Lincecum may be doing well in the latter without doing well in the former (E(W) currently has him 8th, behind Billingsley – that ain’t shabby, but it also ain’t tops in the NL).
Whenever old cranks rant against Quality Starts they focus on 6 innings and 3 runs. But that’s the worst possible QS. Most are much better. What’s the worst possible Win? There’s no limit, besides 5 IP. I don’t have the numbers handy but pitchers’ peripherals in Quality Starts are consistently way better than their numbers in Wins.
It’s not perfect, but then again it’s not Wins.
I just wanna know, how did you decide that a five-run rally in the ninth is contemporaneous with “unbelievable,†rather than a four or six-run?
If Milwaukee wins their division, then Sabathia deserves the Cy. He hasn’t had a bad start in the NL yet. He is singlehandedly pitching Milwaukee into the postseason with a win every 5 games. If they can split the other 4 and go 2-2, then they are a .600 ballclub. That’s why staff aces are important and Sabathia is the biggest ace of them all since he was acquired.
I took the same “project the winner,” and another reason Webb will win this season is that he was a close second last year. He was fabulous last year two and the long scoreless innings streak but couldn’t quite overcome Peavy. So he came into the season with the sentimental support to win it this year. And the win totals are eye-popping. So since the writers want to give it to him, and he has the most wins, he will win in a landslide.
I’m probably biased as a Giants fan but Tim Lincecum got my vote. Just imagine if the Giants didn’t suck (I often do), or how about Lincecum’s record after a Giants loss, its phenomenal. Webb will probably win the Cy Young but I have a feeling this could be the first of several dominating seasons for Lincecum that will put him up there as an all-time great.
On a different note FULHAM WON at the weekend. They beat Arsenal 1-0 at home last Saturday evening.
Full match report here
http://www.premierleague.com/page/MatchReports/0,,12306~43736,00.html
I managed to catch the first half live at the pub and it looked like Fulham fully deserved their win. Sure Arsenal were not playing to their best but Fulham took full advantage of that.
The goal came from a well worked corner by Fulham although William Gallas (Arsenal defender) should never have let Hangeland in front of him to score.
What I like most about this result is that it really could count come the end of the season*. Most relegation threatened clubs struggle to get points off the big clubs so this is a good early season booster.
*Thats what I love about football, every game counts. Fulham beating Arsenal is huge it could help save Fulham from relegation or it could cost Arsenal qualification for the Champions League. I mean if the Royals beat the Yankees in a game it doesn’t really mean much, its 1 game out of 162 but here we are only talking 1 out of 38. Plus in football the lesser team is far less likely to win than in baseball.
Fulham don’t play for two weeks now due to International fixtures. Their next game is at home to Bolton on Sat 13 Sep. A tough game but one they should be looking to win especially since it is at home.
I would consider fielding independent pitching (FIP) into the equation somehow. This completely takes the defense out of the equation and factors only BB, K and HR. Here are the NL leaders in this category:
Lincecum: 2.61
Haren: 2.85
Webb: 2.98
Given that he also leads in WPA, your point system and fake W-L record (percentagewise), I’d say he has to be the winner without question.
I voted for Lincecum. You should throw Bill Gullickson’s 1991 season into the mix when he won 20 games with a high era and see how many votes he gets. LaMarr Hoyt’s 1983 Cy was a classic example of that. I think he had an era over 3.60 back when that was very mediocre.
Webb and Santana’s stats are really really close if you take a good look at them. Basically interchangeable if you throw out the W-L record. Neutralize the stats and Webb comes out ahead even in ERA because Shea is one of the better pitcher’s parks in baseball.
With that being said, Lincecum has been significantly better by both of them.
Also Joe, while I’m commenting on pitching… I’d like to take an opportunity to point out that so far, as I predicted, Joe Blanton has been far from the disaster you thought he was going to be.
They have won 5 of his 7 starts and he’s managed to accumulate a 4.03 during his time in Philly. Granted his WHIP sucks but he’s only allowed 1 homer in 4 starts in Philly.
Re: John
“he” being Lincecum
Lincecum can’t win. Our boys smacked him around a little and they make double-A call-ups look cy-worthy. So he’s got that goin’ for him – which ain’t good.
In Ball Four, Jim Bouton totals up his outing by calling each appearance great/good/terrible/whatever. I don’t remember the labels he used. But I thought it was a great idea. The fact is, no matter how great or poorly a guy pitches, he can only win or lose one game at a time. I like quality starts as a stat because it simply puts a check mark next to the game, or no check mark.
Game scores are a nice stat, too. Statisticians in other professions like median over mean as the measure of “average.” Median income is much more relevant, for example, than mean income. Median home price. Etc. I’d prefer median game score to mean game score (which is what we mean when we say “average” most of the time). When a guy throws a stinker or two, that’s not as relevant to me as what a typical outing from him would be. Unfortunately, I don’t see median stats often.
I’m not sure what my point was. Sorry about this disjointed post.
I voted Tim Lincecum.
Those stats underrate the ton of weak ground balls Webb gets. He’s dominant in a different way, and relies on his defense much more – his style supresses homers, but he looks worse because he doesn’t strikie out as many as Santana and Lincecum.
Even so, Lincecum may be just a bit better this year, but it’s close enough that a bad start or two in Setember could change things.
*I went back to look at the average length of starts over the last 50 years, and I have to admit that I’m a little bit surprised — I thought starters in the 1950s and ‘60s and especially ‘70s would average more than 7 innings per start, maybe eight innings per start. I mean there were 645 complete games in the AL in 1978, and 1/10th of that — 64 — in 2007. So I thought the difference would be really dramatic. But far as I can tell — and it’s certainly possible I’m misreading the numbers — the average start topped out at 6 2/3 in 1971 and is now almost 6 innings. That doesn’t seem like a big difference.
Don’t misunderstand, because I thought it would be bigger, too. Still, do note that it’s gone from 17 outs on average to slightly under 15, about an 11.7% drop.
Imagine if batting average (with all of its acknowledged flaws) went through a similar drop, so that, instead of .263, its current level, it fell to .232. This would be considered the worst dead ball era in history! Pitching mounds would be moved to 6 inches BELOW the field.
I know that it seems small, but a game is only 24-27 outs. Two outs is a significant bit of it.
Best I can come up with is “Brandon, you’re a fine hurl(er)”
I wonder how much of this drop we can attribute to the modern emphasis on velocity? Halladay seems to be more situational about how he approaches a batter, i.e., whether he’s pitching to contact, or going for a strikeout. I think the strikeout, even though it’s the surest way to get someone out, also makes you throw more pitches, and with counts being used indiscriminately, that makes for shorter outings.
Joe, I think a problem with your “advanced quality” stat is the significant gap between “Quality +” and “excellent” – namely, that starts longer than 7 innings but short of a complete game, in which the pitcher only gives up one or two runs, are not really accounted for. I.e., a start in which a pitcher goes 8 2/3 innings, allowing one run, is worth less than 6 ip of shutout ball. But to work more things in could make the metric excessively complicated.
A comment on the AL Cy race: I, like most of the people who have posted on this blog, see the race as being between Lee and Halladay (although the Angels trifecta of starters is pretty solid). As a Blue Jays fan, as much as it pains me to admit it, Lee should win at this point – the gap in ERA+ between Lee and Hallday is huge. However, one point in Hallday’s favour is his huge edge in IP. I know innings is a really crude stat – who wants 8 innings of Jose Lima, right? – but the fact is that at this point Halladay has pitched almost 30 innings more than Lee. That’s one more inning per start, which is a pretty dramatic difference. That being said, I really hope Lee gets lit up in his last few starts,so that Halladay will get his second Cy, to make up for the one he should have won in 2005. Seriously, look at the numbers…Halladay pitched about half a season, I know, but he was the dominant pitcher in the league (ERA+ 30 points higher than the eventual league leader among starters) and he lead the league in complete games despite not pitching the second half of the season. Considering how lousy the actual winner (Colon) was that year, well, I think Halladay deserved it despite his shortened season. But then again, I’m biased.
Joe- thanks for the Princess Bride reference. It was very funny. Can’t you just hear Vizzini with that little lisp: ‘inconceivable’.
TZA- nice Caddyshack reference. Good work.
Bellylard- good point about Webb. That’s reflected in “xFIP,” which adjusts FIP to include the number of HR a pitcher would be expected to allow given the number of fly balls he gives up. Webb leads in that, over Haren, then Derek Lowe (eh? But, also an extreme GB pitcher), then Lincecum.
Not sure if this works:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&league_filter%5B0%5D=2&orderBy=xFip&direction=ASC&page=1
Also a good point about pitch counts. Santana has always been kind of babied even relative to the current trend, but watching him with the Twins, it would always seem like he could be throwing the best game humanly possible and still have thrown 90 pitches through five because of all the strikeouts. I would guess that strikeout pitchers have more two-strike foul balls, too.
Sabby, you’re right that Colon didn’t deserve his Cy Young award, but it should have gone to Santana.
I suspect, as Eric J suggests, that the reason the average innings per start wasn’t higher 30-40 years ago was that there was a much greater tendency to pull the starter in the first three innings if he was getting hit hard. Though I haven’t analyzed the data, I suspect if you looked at the distribution of innings pitched per start you’d see something a lot more bimodal than now — many more 1-3 inning starts, and many more 7-9 inning starts.
This really hit me when I was reading the (excellent, by the way) book _Clemente_. Stories of the starting pitcher giving up three runs in the first and getting pulled after going only 2/3 of an inning, or getting pulled in the middle of the second inning after giving up a few runs and having a couple of men on base.
I have a feeling that there’s a whole article in there on the changing role of the bullpen and the changing composition of pitching staffs, top to bottom (not just the changing role of the closer that many people talk about). It seems to me that before the 80s, a pitching staff was basically four starters and 5 or 6 other guys. The other guys would come in at any time when the pitcher was in trouble, and would be expected to pitch until they got into trouble. And the managers seemed less likely to let a starting pitcher “pitch through trouble” — if they struggled early, they got pulled.
Of course, I have no statistical data to back this up.
Flattop- Amen to that. There was no rational argument for anyone other than Santana in 2005. If he’s on the borderline for the HOF as his career winds down 12 years from now, it’s going to really hurt that his resume can’t say “three consecutive Cy Young Awards.”
I think bigger issues than the innings pitched per start between now and ye olden tymes are (1) they should’ve been paying attention to pitches, not innings; (2) they more frequently used something like a four-man rotation (almost never a strict one, but the best pitchers went out there on three days rest a lot more often); and (3) they relied more heavily on one or two ace relievers.
So then, if you had a good starter go 6, you could (a) use him again in four days if you liked the matchup coming up then and (b) bring in a stud reliever to pitch two or three innings. Neither of those things happen today–even if that starter goes only five innings, he’s done for 5 days or even 6, and good RPs are rarely used for more than an inning, leaving the worst or second-worst pitcher on your roster to struggle through the 6th and maybe even the 7th.
So: keep pitchers to strict pitch counts per game–not 100 for every pitcher, that’s idiotic, but figure out what’s likely to work for the individual pitcher and do it–but then be willing to throw them on three days’ rest now and then, especially when it’s the difference between your ace anchoring an important series or missing it entirely. And let your closer go two–on rare occasions even three–in tight games. Best of both worlds.
In response to Bill and Old Flattop, I concur that in 2005, if Halladay was not a viable candidate due to the injury – which is fair, because who knows, maybe he would have had a really lousy August – then Santana should have won the award, as he was clearly the best pitcher in the league. At least after the middle of July.
I wonder if one of the reasons starting pitchers used to stay in the game is because the relievers were so much worse than they are now. In the Gold Mine, Bill James has a piece about the best bullpens of all time, and they’re all recent.
If your choice, as a manager is (a) to stick with a tiring starter and hope for the best or (b) to switch to a guy who you’re pretty sure is going to blow it, you’ll probably choose (a). Not necessary because it’s the right thing to do, but because the media will blame the starter and not you for losing the game if it doesn’t work out.
As a huge Twins fan, I just want to remind everyone that we have to wait until the year is over before deciding who wins. Johan always goes on an incredible tear this time of year. During his Cy Young seasons, I’d circle every date he was pitching and find some way to watch or tape the game. He would provide the most incredible pitching performances I’ve ever seen. I know other pitchers have gone on similar tears, but being able to see it every fifth day was just unreal. I’m glad that Mets fans are getting the opportunity to see what we were able to see for all those years.
I told a National League fan at the All-Star break that Johan was still going to win the Cy Young. He thought I was crazy, but if he closes the season like he usually does, he’s got an awfully good shot at it.
anyone able to find the median # of innings pitched for the different periods?
You know VORP is a pretty good way to judge a pitcher.
1. Lincecum – 62.4
2. Santana – 54
3. Webb – 49.6
10. Volquez – 40
Honestly WPA isn’t even the best way to judge a pitcher because that’s dependent on the state of the game, and if the pitcher’s team isn’t scoring for him then he’s not adding much to WPA.
Take this game:
http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2008-08-27&team=Rays&dh=0&season=2008
Purcey struck out 11, walking none, but allowed a homerun.
Garze struck out 5, walked 3, and actually allowed more hits, but because they were distributed such that he didn’t allow any runs, he receives DOUBLE the WPA that David Purcey did, even though it’s arguable that he pitched the lesser game here.
I understand the stats you are using and agree with you that there is a better way to evaluate players beyond the old-time stats. However, the economics of baseball are still based on the old-time stats. Guy who wins 15 games per year will be paid better than the guy who wins 12 games per year regardless of other stats.
Sabby: You are greatly exaggerating the IP difference between Halladay and Lee.
Halladay pitched 2 1/3 innings of relief in one game, and he also has one more start than Lee. When you work it out, Lee averages about 7.13 IP per start, and Halladay averages about 7.46 IP per start, so on average he gets one more out per start.
Eric Seidman has a whole chapter on this concept that he boils down to a stat in his book Bridging the Statistical Gap. Seems like it might make a good basis for debate here.
I think we should ask the Six Fingered Man who’s best and let his opinion decide the issue…
Joe, you are an insanely great writer who makes me laugh and think with every column and blog post, but I implore you to dredge up an editor for the blog. A blog does not mean you are allowed to suddenly assault the English language.
For example:
“You see if all over the place now…” The word ‘it’ feels you don’t like it.
“Well, that’s that’s one feeling about it.” You’re repetitive. You’re repetitive.
“There just seems something just a mind-bending.” That’s just, just, just, I don’t know what.
“Webb has has just three unlucky starts.” You’re repetitive. You’re repetitive.
“Eleven Q-Starts where has either lost or gotten a no decision.” There’s a ‘he’ just waiting to be included.
I’m sure you will just dismiss me as a nit-picker, but your columns are polished and your blog is a mess and it’s so unnecessary.
Joe, you bum, where is the new “Lefty,” Cole Hammels?!?!?!?!
Chris C., it’s as unnecessary as correcting blogs, and adding commas in your sentences.
Dangit Chris C.! Ain’t we got enough to contend with here?!
As of this comment’s writing, Linecum is listed as having the highest VORP of all NL pitchers (62.4), as he did when I voted for him earlier. Santana is iat 54. Webb at 49.6.
Steve from Cleve: Sir, you are correct; I did factor in Halladay’s relief appearance – which I will note gives him a HUGE lead in the Cy Young “holds” race over Lee, 1-0 – but I did not factor in the fact that Lee has one fewer start. My mistake.
It’s really hard to group the starts into categories like that. What’s better? A nine inning, 4 earned run start or a 5 inning, 2 earned run start? Well, simply by ERA, the 5/2 inning start is a lot better. But if I had to choose between those two starts, I’d take the 9/4 one each and every time.
I like the idea of game score, but that statistic is still too geared toward the outcome of the game. For instance, it penalizes the pitcher for unearned runs. It also devalues strikeouts, which only result in 1 point, while hits (something over which the pitcher has much less controll) takes away 2. I’d suggest the following point system, which is based more on the pitcher’s control over each stat rather than the stat’s impact on the game:
out = 3
strikeout = 2
single allowed = -1
walk = -2
double/triple allowed = -2
earned run = -2
homerun = -3
Here are the top 10 pitchers for this year based on that system:
1. Tim Lincecum 539
2. Roy Halladay 533
3. CC Sabathia 516
4. Cliff Lee 472
5. Dan Haren 468
6. Brandon Webb 449
7. Ervin Santana 441
8. Johan Santana 432
9. Cole Hamels 431
10. Ryan Dempster 396
FEWER than six innings Joe. Not less. FEWER…
I originally voted for Webb, but after reading a few more articles on this, I think Tim takes it. I mean the guy is pitching for the Giants and he is still able to have that great W/L record. That should be worth something
joe, thanks for one of the best blog titles ever, and the princess bride reference. and i didn’t even notice that you’re already hooked up to si.com. nicely done.
What I really like about Santana is that everyone at the start of the season was wringing their hands and all the mets fans were calling him a HUGE disappointment (showing off their tremendous knowledge) and several rational people were saying “He always starts slow.”
And lo and behold, the monster Johan is appearing again.
Still, I’d have to go with Lincecum. Webb is a great pitcher, and has the very nice W/L record, but Lincecum just makes hitters look silly.
Actually, I suspect that one of the reasons that the innings per start numbers aren’t higher for the ’50s and ’60s is that there was no DH in the AL back then, meaning more pitchers were pulled for a pinch hitter. If anyone can find the AL vs. NL innings per start data, it might give us a decent idea of how much an effect this has on how long pitchers stay in the game.
Where do you find the stats for this? I’d love to see how many QS losses or NDs some other pitchers have had (Rich Harden, Matt Cain, etc)
Joe,
Good piece of your usual comprehensive stat-call.
But I must say your poll makes no sense without Cliff Lee.
Santana included, the list of Dice-K, Lackey, and the unluckiest of all — Mr. Peavy in the 80% left-on-base category should earn them some attention in the “Cy Young” rating.
These guys can get batters out anytime, from or not the stretch, bases full or none on base.
Yours,
D in Taipei, Taiwan
Chris C. you go to all the trouble to point out what are basically just typos and miss the glaring error, referring to Webb’s win total as “impressive and unique”, when Cliff Lee has the same number of wins, thus making it, by definition, not unique.
Dorasaga, Cliff Lee is not eligible for the NL Cy Young award.
@Rich I
I am also impressed with Mussina’s season. I thought he was toast in April and May. Hell, I’ve been waiting for a collapse for a couple of years – especially being a Boston man – but the guy just keeps grinding. He’s starting to remind me more and more of a another magician named Maddux.
I also voted for who I thought the BWAA would give the award to, but I voted for C.C. as the dark horse candidate. If he is able to maintain his dominance and the D-Backs tank as they seem destined to do (come on Rockies!!), then I think there’s a possibility Sabathia takes home the Cy.
Paul and “Steve from Cleve”,I am so glad I’m not alone in my disbelief at the praise K-Rod has received this year. I’ve watched close to every Angels game this year and just seeing Frankie standing anywhere near a mound makes me nervous. Yes, he has some excellent stuff but he is absolutely all over the place with it. Without even getting into the futility of the idea of a “closer” and saves in general, his year is really not all it’s cracked up to be.
First of all, he’s had a lucky year playing for the luckiest team in baseball. The Angels are currently outperforming their Pythagorean by eight (or is it sixteen?) games, which is ridiculous. You give someone 55 save opportunities he better have saved at least close to 50. None of K-Rod’s saves have been for more than an inning’s work. He has 55 save opportunities and has thrown in 6 non-save situations and yet has only thrown 55 1/3 innings on the year.
Of his 50 saves so far, six have come from less than an inning’s work*. A large majority of his stats this year are the worst of his career including: K/9, K/BB, BB/9, WHIP and OBA (I can’t find the stat for it but his Ball to Strike ratio must be atrocious. Every freaking hitter goes to a three ball count, I swear). They’re not really significantly worse than his past numbers, but they’re not even close to the numbers that Mariano Rivera or Joakim Soria are putting up this year.
*In fact, he came into a game a few weeks ago against the Orioles with a two run lead and a runner on first, only needing to ONE OUT to the record another “tap-in save”, and he blew it.
You know, I could be wrong though. Maybe saves aren’t useless and don’t completely depend on the luck of the draw. Maybe K-Rod really is an amazing closer and will go on to have a long, illustrious career like Bobby Thigpen… Oh, wait.
A Good (or Bad) SAT Analogy:
Wins : Useless Starter Stat : : Saves : Useless Reliever Stat
PS: I’ve been going through you’re archives and I noticed that you never did the OF version of the ATG fielding award for last season. I realize it’s a little late to do it now, so what site can I get that info from?
Aaron L,
There are actually reasons to penalize pitchers for unearned runs, mostly because certain types of pitchers tend to give up more of them:
1) Knuckleballers throw a ton of passed balls, which lead to unearned runs.
2) Bad pitchers, as a group, tend to give up more unearned runs than good pitchers; ignoring this understates the value of good pitchers.
3) Ground ball pitchers tend to give up more unearned runs than flyball pitchers.
Also, I’ve read that “runs allowed per 9″ (or RA) is more consistent from year-to-year than ERA, which would suggest that it’s a better measure of pitching talent.
@Chris C.
I’m sure Joe didn’t mean to offend your literary sensibilities but last time I checked this brilliant blog was ah… FREE? And carefree and who cares if there’s some duplications and errors… This is exactly the kind of comment that’s gonna get Joe to wise up and start charging us. Let the gift horse be. No need to inspect his gums.
i like the idea of wins as a baseball statistic.. but what if instead of only pitchers receiving it, all players have the possibility of getting one?
devise a metric, similar to win shares maybe, that takes into account each player’s performance for the game, with weighted numbers given to the obviously more important positions such as pitchers, etc.
say adam wainright gives up 13 runs in 4 1/3 innings, but albert pujols hits 4/4 with 3 home runs, 9 rbis and 4 runs and the cardinals magically win 14-13. after adding up all the stats, pujols ends up with the win.
you could do the opposite to create a new loss statistic.
Joe,
That’s a great leaning action shot of you on SI.com. Makes me wonder whether they sent a photographer to Bejing to get a shot of you for the website.
I like the article but I feel it’s a bit misguided. I mean, why do we even need a one-size fits all statistic for pitchers? There’s a hundred things that go into whether a team wins or loses that have nothing to do with the pitcher’s performance.
I mean, nobody’s saying there should be one “quality game” stat for position players. We have all manner of well-researched statistics that can tell us about how a pitcher performed. Putting those statistics into context and deciding from that who was best should be the hardest part of a sportswriter’s job, not just going by wins.
I just don’t see why writers insist on extolling the virtues of a “team” statistics like wins — as they love to point out — for an award that is entirely individual.
Pitchers teams win about 2/3 (67% ) of quality starts. It’s not too bad.
I prefer the Win Probability Added method of evaluating players. An explanation of this statistic is available in the Glossary on the Fangraphs site. By this measure, Lincecum has clearly been superior. Lincecum: 4.71 Webb: 3.37: Santana: 3.04 Volquez: 2.52
How could the name of Storm Davis not come up in this discussion? The year after his best W/L season (1989), our Royals signed him, and he performed largely as one might expect from his 1989 season- the ERA (4.36), not the W/L record (19-7). This is the most glaring example of a mediocre pitcher lucking into a ridiculously good W/L record without having the ERA to back it up. I remember being very disappointed when KC signed him, and at the time, I was 19 years old and had never heard of Sabermetrics!
I appreciate your work on this, Joe, but I think I’m going to go with my old favorite, Adjusted ERA+.
1) Lincecum -176
2) Webb – 153
3) Santana – 152
4) Dempster – 152
5) Volquez – 148
Lincecum gets my vote, not that I have one.
Oh, I finally figured out this headline. And doing so compels me to issue this reminder: It’s pronounced Yo-hahn. Not Yo-han, like they constantly say on ESPN…
Great column. What I do think we need is a “quality-save” statistic; I am getting sick and tired of reading these lines:
Boston 8 Kansas City 5 (S) Pabelbon
Anaheim 3 Detroit 0 (S) Rodriguez
Protecting a 3 run lead in the 9th is not a Save!
Okay, Lincecum has outpitched Webb. And yeah, wins are very dependent on team, and the Cy Young Award is not the MVP, so team position shouldn’t matter much.
But look at the Diamondback’s team record. Pull Webb’s 19-7 (even after losing today). Without Webb’s decisions, the D’Backs are in 3rd place instead of half a game out of first. If you do the same for the Giants, they are in 5th place instead of 4th.
That means there has been more pressure on Webb all season long. And more than that in other ways: he’s the ace of a first place team, the guy expected to break the losing streaks. I think it’s harder to excel when there’s more pressure.
I first did this analysis a week and a half ago in response to some doof insisting Sabathia was the CYA winner. The thing is, in Sutcliffe’s year the only 20 game winner was also a 15 game loser (IIRC) and not atop the ERA leader boards, and league wide nobody had nearly as good a season as Lincecum or Webb. I still give the nod to Webb. But one or two more losses, and the D’Backs missing the playoffs, and I’d pick Lincecum. Hmm, I wonder if Chad Billingsley actually deserves some consideration after outpitching Webb today?