To trace this argument back to its earliest recess in my memory, I remember in the fall of 1969, arguing with Tony Bandle in the kitchen at Stephenson Hall. We were arguing about the relative merits of Juan Marichal versus Bob Gibson, and Tony was from St. Louis, so you can guess where he stood on this. Marichal, I pointed out, had won more games than Gibson in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. Over the eight years Marichal had won 24 games more than Gibson, and had lost eleven fewer.
“Yeah,” said Tony, “but I’ve heard that Marichal picks up a lot of wins by beating up on the Mets for all those years and the Astros, the bad teams. Gibson’s record is better against the good teams.”
“Bullshit,” I argued eloquently.
“Bullshit yourself,” Tony replied with annoyance. Tony was a very level-headed guy, thank God. He was as big as I am, which is to say he was a big guy, but he was much, much more athletic than I was, and he could have pounded me into gyro meat. I remember one time I threw a coke can at him and hit him in the forehead, opening up a circle of blood between his hairline and his eyebrows. I apologized, of course, and Tony shrugged it off. Another time I launched a campaign to have somebody else replace him as the Hall’s athletic chairman; our friendship survived that, too. But now he was annoyed. This was Bob Gibson we were talking about.
The question we are researching here, 41 years later, is the extent to which a pitcher exploits weak competition, versus the extent to which he steps up against the strongest teams in the league. This question came up recently in “Hey, Bill”:
|
Hey, Bill, In your Statistics section on this site, you ask/wonder, what a pitcher's record is against "weak sisters" vs "quality" teams. . . How deep do you go with this? ...a quality team could be a QT one year and a WS another. . .what parameters describe "weak" team and "quality" team? I once worked out Don Drysdale's record against contenders in years when the Dodgers contended or won. Strictly arbitrarily, I defined contender as finishing the season 6 games or less out of first place. Drysdale was under .500 vs those teams, and in a pretty good sample because it often covered several teams in one season. (He was 49-48 or something like that, and on that basis I questioned his HOF credentials.) I still have the work on that. Do you think 6 games too lenient or not lenient enough? Your item in the stat section brought the DD work to mind.
Asked by: Kev
Answered: April 16, 2010
Thanks. It would pretty easy, in the modern world, to do some larger studies along this line.
|
|
I realize now, reviewing my answer, that I didn’t actually answer his question; sorry about that. Anyway, my son Isaac created for me a series of spreadsheets which have all of the game lines for every game in the Retrosheet data, going back to 1952. I realized that I could use that data to analyze this question very thoroughly.
OK, here’s what I did. I started by listing all of the teams in each decade by their winning percentage. I divided these into four groups:
A Teams were the top 25% of teams in each decade,
B Teams were the second 25%,
C Teams were the third 25%, and
D Teams were the bottom 25%.
A Teams, in general, had winning percentages over .555,
B Teams generally had winning percentages of .500 to .555,
C Teams generally had winning percentages of .445 to .500, and
D Teams generally had winning percentages under .445.
But the specific percentages shifted a little bit from decade to decade.
I then ran the data for every pitcher since 1952. My study includes only starts, not relief appearances, and it includes only the data that is in the Retrosheet files from 1952 through 2009. Also—full disclosure—I had to throw a few pitchers overboard because my data couldn’t distinguish between them. I think there were three sets of pitchers who weren’t distinguishable—two Bobby Jones, two or three Bob Millers, and one other one. I took the time to sort out the Kevin Browns, because one of them is an important pitcher, and I didn’t confuse the two Bob Gibsons or anything like that.
So let me get to a little bit of the data. This is the career data for Don Drysdale:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
92
|
657.2
|
31
|
33
|
.484
|
457
|
141
|
3.37
|
A
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
158
|
1102.0
|
64
|
67
|
.489
|
828
|
306
|
3.32
|
B
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
107
|
730.1
|
46
|
36
|
.561
|
490
|
176
|
3.01
|
C
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
106
|
836.2
|
61
|
23
|
.726
|
635
|
193
|
2.04
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
250
|
1759.2
|
95
|
100
|
.487
|
1285
|
447
|
3.34
|
Good
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
213
|
1567.0
|
107
|
59
|
.645
|
1125
|
369
|
2.49
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
463
|
3326.2
|
202
|
159
|
.560
|
2410
|
816
|
2.94
|
Total
|
Don Drysdale had 465 career starts; we have 463 of them, so Retrosheet may be missing a couple of Drysdale’s games; either that, or I mixed something up. Anyway, in the data that I have, Drysdale was 31-33 against “A” quality teams and 64-67 against “B” quality teams, whereas he was 61-23 with a 2.04 ERA against the bottom-of-the-league type of teams. Kev had him at 49-48 against contending teams, so that’s reasonably consistent with our study.
Can we conclude, then, that Drysdale was a “bully”, so to speak, beating up on the league’s weakest teams, but struggling to hold his own against the other strong teams?
Well. . .not really. Drysdale was 31-33 with a 3.37 ERA against “A” quality competition, but let’s look at some other guys’ records against the top 25%. I’ll highlight the Hall of Famers on this list, and the guys who aren’t highlighted are good pitchers, too:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
92
|
657.2
|
31
|
33
|
.484
|
457
|
141
|
3.37
|
Dennis
|
Eckersley
|
100
|
676.0
|
38
|
41
|
.481
|
475
|
166
|
4.33
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
151
|
931.0
|
50
|
54
|
.481
|
560
|
260
|
4.61
|
Ferguson
|
Jenkins
|
143
|
987.1
|
59
|
64
|
.480
|
660
|
244
|
3.84
|
Bob
|
Lemon
|
53
|
361.1
|
22
|
24
|
.478
|
132
|
159
|
3.91
|
Tim
|
Hudson
|
80
|
524.1
|
27
|
30
|
.474
|
339
|
181
|
3.97
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
96
|
737.2
|
41
|
46
|
.471
|
593
|
254
|
3.33
|
Steve
|
Carlton
|
133
|
932.1
|
48
|
54
|
.471
|
784
|
382
|
3.69
|
Mark
|
Buehrle
|
90
|
574.2
|
31
|
36
|
.463
|
362
|
152
|
4.35
|
Dennis
|
Martinez
|
166
|
1111.2
|
61
|
71
|
.462
|
622
|
352
|
3.65
|
Jim
|
Kaat
|
141
|
880.0
|
48
|
56
|
.462
|
469
|
227
|
4.07
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
127
|
877.2
|
48
|
57
|
.457
|
559
|
376
|
4.50
|
Bert
|
Blyleven
|
187
|
1356.2
|
70
|
84
|
.455
|
1037
|
366
|
3.56
|
Don
|
Sutton
|
172
|
1125.0
|
55
|
66
|
.455
|
778
|
301
|
3.79
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
138
|
998.0
|
50
|
60
|
.455
|
775
|
319
|
3.27
|
Luis
|
Tiant
|
130
|
878.1
|
45
|
54
|
.455
|
583
|
262
|
3.83
|
Catfish
|
Hunter
|
114
|
772.0
|
41
|
50
|
.451
|
461
|
248
|
3.80
|
Dave
|
Stieb
|
105
|
726.1
|
35
|
43
|
.449
|
375
|
269
|
3.40
|
Frank
|
Viola
|
117
|
768.0
|
39
|
48
|
.448
|
504
|
253
|
4.15
|
Mike
|
Scott
|
80
|
489.2
|
26
|
32
|
.448
|
318
|
145
|
3.86
|
Steve
|
Rogers
|
103
|
733.1
|
37
|
46
|
.446
|
451
|
232
|
3.60
|
Vida
|
Blue
|
131
|
849.1
|
45
|
56
|
.446
|
509
|
300
|
3.80
|
Phil
|
Niekro
|
183
|
1320.2
|
64
|
80
|
.444
|
818
|
507
|
3.44
|
Dave
|
Stewart
|
69
|
452.1
|
24
|
30
|
.444
|
327
|
201
|
4.32
|
Chris
|
Carpenter
|
58
|
349.0
|
16
|
20
|
.444
|
242
|
142
|
5.16
|
Jerry
|
Koosman
|
128
|
888.2
|
47
|
59
|
.443
|
567
|
285
|
3.71
|
Orel
|
Hershiser
|
104
|
661.2
|
31
|
39
|
.443
|
440
|
232
|
3.99
|
Curt
|
Simmons
|
98
|
684.2
|
34
|
43
|
.442
|
337
|
207
|
3.48
|
Ken
|
Holtzman
|
72
|
446.2
|
26
|
33
|
.441
|
241
|
163
|
4.57
|
Robin
|
Roberts
|
129
|
955.0
|
49
|
63
|
.437
|
439
|
166
|
3.79
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
99
|
643.2
|
33
|
43
|
.434
|
288
|
220
|
3.87
|
Billy
|
Pierce
|
105
|
721.1
|
37
|
50
|
.425
|
464
|
227
|
3.53
|
Mickey
|
Lolich
|
114
|
812.1
|
39
|
53
|
.424
|
609
|
244
|
3.37
|
Frank
|
Tanana
|
168
|
1075.2
|
53
|
73
|
.421
|
704
|
341
|
3.90
|
Camilo
|
Pascual
|
101
|
636.2
|
32
|
46
|
.410
|
468
|
251
|
4.23
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
94
|
630.0
|
32
|
46
|
.410
|
386
|
251
|
4.29
|
Gaylord
|
Perry
|
179
|
1290.1
|
59
|
85
|
.410
|
823
|
339
|
3.52
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
77
|
538.2
|
27
|
40
|
.403
|
246
|
141
|
3.79
|
Nolan
|
Ryan
|
208
|
1421.2
|
66
|
98
|
.402
|
1499
|
700
|
3.18
|
Lew
|
Burdette
|
68
|
447.0
|
21
|
32
|
.396
|
172
|
122
|
4.35
|
Sam
|
McDowell
|
89
|
583.0
|
26
|
42
|
.382
|
544
|
284
|
3.95
|
Bob
|
Friend
|
110
|
729.0
|
32
|
52
|
.381
|
342
|
184
|
3.84
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
67
|
425.1
|
18
|
30
|
.375
|
321
|
146
|
4.17
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
65
|
399.2
|
20
|
34
|
.370
|
247
|
140
|
4.82
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
32
|
185.0
|
6
|
18
|
.250
|
131
|
57
|
4.28
|
Don
|
Larsen
|
39
|
243.2
|
6
|
21
|
.222
|
117
|
119
|
4.06
|
Herb
|
Score
|
28
|
155.2
|
4
|
14
|
.222
|
127
|
108
|
3.99
|
In having a losing record against the very best opponents, Don Drysdale has lots of really, really good company.
There were 702 pitchers in my study who made 100 or more starts. Among those 702 pitchers, Drysdale ranks fifth in his overall effectiveness against the weakest teams, fifth out of 702. That’s really good.
But Drysdale also ranks 54th among the 702 pitchers in his effectiveness against the strongest teams. That’s pretty good, too. A 31-33 record against “A” quality competition, over the course of a career, is borderline outstanding.
We’ll deal at the end of the article with some of the pitchers whose records against “A” competition were even better than Drysdale’s, but in any case Drysdale was a little bit of a bully, in the sense that he gained more against weak competition than did the average pitcher. Drysdale gained much more against weak competition than did Koufax, for example.
How do we measure the extent to which each pitcher dominated inferior competition? I looked at six factors relative to that issue, which were:
1) The percentage of the pitcher’s wins that came over “D” quality competition,
2) The difference in the pitcher’s winning percentage versus “A & B” teams and his winning percentage versus “C & D” teams,
3) The difference in the pitcher’s ERA versus “A & B” teams and his ERA versus “C & D” teams,
4) The difference in the pitcher’s overall effectiveness RANK (1 to 702) versus “A & B” teams and his overall effectiveness rank versus “C & D” teams,
5) The difference in the pitcher’s overall effectiveness rank (1 to 702) versus “A” teams compared to his overall effectiveness rank versus all teams, and
6) The player’s career win total versus “A & B” teams compared to his career wins versus “C & D” teams.
I made up an index of these six indicators, which I called the “Bully Factor”; a high Bully Factor indicates that the pitcher pitched much better against weak competition than against strong competition—much better, or in some cases much more. Later, I’ll list the pitchers at the top and bottom of the chart, but first, let’s look at the guys with the most “normal” data, the guys in the center of the chart.
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
85
|
536.2
|
26
|
36
|
.419
|
241
|
208
|
4.28
|
A
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
66
|
420.0
|
27
|
25
|
.519
|
231
|
162
|
3.88
|
B
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
78
|
494.2
|
29
|
28
|
.509
|
272
|
218
|
4.13
|
C
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
71
|
475.0
|
36
|
15
|
.706
|
249
|
187
|
3.39
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
151
|
956.2
|
53
|
61
|
.465
|
472
|
370
|
4.10
|
Good
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
149
|
969.2
|
65
|
43
|
.602
|
521
|
405
|
3.77
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
Petry
|
300
|
1926.1
|
118
|
104
|
.532
|
993
|
775
|
3.93
|
Total
|
Petry was 36-15 against “D” opponents, 26-36 against “A” opponents. However, he was better against “B” opponents than “C”, and overall, his data shows a normal improvement against weaker teams, neither more nor less. Jamie Moyer:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
151
|
931.0
|
50
|
54
|
.481
|
560
|
260
|
4.61
|
A
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
144
|
862.0
|
59
|
51
|
.536
|
501
|
263
|
4.46
|
B
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
159
|
1009.1
|
70
|
42
|
.625
|
601
|
274
|
3.90
|
C
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
155
|
979.2
|
72
|
45
|
.615
|
592
|
269
|
4.01
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
295
|
1793.0
|
109
|
105
|
.509
|
1061
|
523
|
4.54
|
Good
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
314
|
1989.0
|
142
|
87
|
.620
|
1193
|
543
|
3.95
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie
|
Moyer
|
609
|
3782.0
|
251
|
192
|
.567
|
2254
|
1066
|
4.23
|
Total
|
Again, a normal improvement against weaker teams. If we figure that an average pitcher should have a .450 winning percentage against “Good” teams and a .550 winning percentage against “Weak” teams, Moyer is .059 better-than-average against good teams, and .070 better-than-average against weak teams, with a corresponding improvement in his ERA. A normal improvement. Tom Seaver:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
138
|
998.0
|
50
|
60
|
.455
|
775
|
319
|
3.27
|
A
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
168
|
1242.2
|
80
|
52
|
.606
|
892
|
347
|
2.76
|
B
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
193
|
1393.2
|
85
|
65
|
.567
|
1042
|
411
|
3.01
|
C
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
148
|
1142.0
|
95
|
26
|
.785
|
925
|
310
|
2.42
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
306
|
2240.2
|
130
|
112
|
.537
|
1667
|
666
|
2.99
|
Good
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
341
|
2535.2
|
180
|
91
|
.664
|
1967
|
721
|
2.74
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
647
|
4776.1
|
310
|
203
|
.604
|
3634
|
1387
|
2.86
|
Total
|
And Mike Mussina:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
141
|
923.2
|
57
|
52
|
.523
|
702
|
247
|
4.11
|
A
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
126
|
845.0
|
65
|
33
|
.663
|
700
|
178
|
3.58
|
B
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
108
|
722.1
|
59
|
25
|
.702
|
564
|
152
|
3.36
|
C
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
161
|
1068.0
|
89
|
43
|
.674
|
846
|
208
|
3.61
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
267
|
1768.2
|
122
|
85
|
.589
|
1402
|
425
|
3.86
|
Good
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
269
|
1790.1
|
148
|
68
|
.685
|
1410
|
360
|
3.51
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
536
|
3559.0
|
270
|
153
|
.638
|
2812
|
785
|
3.68
|
Total
|
That’s what normal, “central tendency” data looks like. Don Drysdale was a little bit of a bully, just a little bit. These guys all had Bully Factors around .500; Drysdale was at .614. That’s not really a noteworthy number; it just means he picked up a little bit more than average against weaker competition. But he was no Jack Morris.
Jack Morris, of course, is famous for his post-season performances, and one might suppose, based on that, that Morris was always at his best against quality opposition. In fact, among major pitchers, Morris is the most notable “bully” of the last 50 years:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
127
|
877.2
|
48
|
57
|
.457
|
559
|
376
|
4.50
|
A
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
125
|
864.1
|
44
|
57
|
.436
|
592
|
321
|
4.14
|
B
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
142
|
1025.2
|
77
|
39
|
.664
|
670
|
346
|
3.64
|
C
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
133
|
978.2
|
82
|
29
|
.739
|
622
|
313
|
3.42
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
252
|
1742.0
|
92
|
114
|
.447
|
1151
|
697
|
4.32
|
Good
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
275
|
2004.1
|
159
|
68
|
.700
|
1292
|
659
|
3.53
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
527
|
3746.1
|
251
|
182
|
.580
|
2443
|
1356
|
3.90
|
Total
|
Twenty-two games under .500 against first-division teams but 91 games over .500 against second-division opponents, Morris has a Bully Factor of .937. The only big-name pitcher who has a higher one is Early Wynn:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
94
|
630.0
|
32
|
46
|
.410
|
386
|
251
|
4.29
|
A
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
81
|
594.2
|
36
|
35
|
.507
|
355
|
228
|
3.62
|
B
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
74
|
518.0
|
34
|
23
|
.596
|
340
|
230
|
2.92
|
C
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
109
|
810.2
|
70
|
19
|
.787
|
480
|
309
|
2.96
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
175
|
1224.2
|
68
|
81
|
.456
|
741
|
479
|
3.96
|
Good
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
183
|
1328.2
|
104
|
42
|
.712
|
820
|
539
|
2.95
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
358
|
2553.1
|
172
|
123
|
.583
|
1561
|
1018
|
3.43
|
Total
|
70-19 against the weakest opponents; that is really taking care of business. Of course, we’re missing almost half of Wynn’s career starts, and. . .that matters. In fact, many of the pitchers from that generation, for whom we are missing their early-career data but have their late-career data. . .many of them have high or very high Bully Factors. Like Johnny Antonelli:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
45
|
278.0
|
13
|
22
|
.371
|
146
|
91
|
3.88
|
A
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
51
|
341.1
|
15
|
27
|
.357
|
204
|
114
|
3.61
|
B
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
87
|
621.1
|
46
|
25
|
.648
|
353
|
201
|
2.82
|
C
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
43
|
277.0
|
20
|
12
|
.625
|
162
|
103
|
3.05
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
96
|
619.1
|
28
|
49
|
.364
|
350
|
205
|
3.73
|
Good
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
130
|
898.1
|
66
|
37
|
.641
|
515
|
304
|
2.90
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny
|
Antonelli
|
226
|
1517.2
|
94
|
86
|
.522
|
865
|
509
|
3.24
|
Total
|
And even Warren Spahn:
Last
|
First
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
77
|
538.2
|
27
|
40
|
.403
|
246
|
141
|
3.79
|
A
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
125
|
968.2
|
64
|
49
|
.566
|
441
|
247
|
3.22
|
B
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
132
|
1034.1
|
79
|
37
|
.681
|
474
|
257
|
2.86
|
C
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
91
|
695.2
|
57
|
20
|
.740
|
373
|
169
|
2.81
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
202
|
1507.1
|
91
|
89
|
.506
|
687
|
388
|
3.43
|
Good
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
223
|
1730.0
|
136
|
57
|
.705
|
847
|
426
|
2.84
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
425
|
3237.1
|
227
|
146
|
.609
|
1534
|
814
|
3.11
|
Total
|
Spahn’s Bully Factor based on the data we have was .716, which is a little bit high, not really high like Jack Morris, Early Wynn and Johnny Antonelli. Johnny Antonelli, for those of you who don’t live in the past, was kind of like Warren Spahn, only he didn’t last; he had about a six- or seven-year period where he was on the same level as Warren Spahn, only Spahn stayed on that level for seventeen years.
Anyway, we are missing the “early career” data for Wynn, Antonelli and Spahn, and this may be quite significant, because there may be a syndrome wherein pitchers of that quality are effective against high-quality opposition early in their careers, and then not so much later in their careers:
a) Jim Bunning in the 1950s, when he was young, was 12-7 against “A” quality opponents, with a 3.37 ERA. From 1960 on he was 32-38 against A quality opposition.
b) Don Drysdale in the 1950s was 7-1 with a 2.51 ERA against A quality opponents. From 1960 on he was 24-32 against them.
c) Steve Blass in the 1960s was 12-9 with a 3.05 ERA against A quality opponents. From 1970 on he was 4-8 against them, with an ERA near 4.00.
d) Joaquin Andujar in the 1970s—when he was really not a top-flight pitcher, although he had a great arm—was 13-10 against A quality opponents. In the 1980s, when he was a top-rank pitcher, he was 25-28 against them, with a higher ERA.
d) Rich Gale in the late 1970s, as a young pitcher, was 8-4 against top-quality competition. From 1980 on he was 5-14 against them.
e) Ron Guidry in the 1970s was 17-7 against A quality opponents. From 1980 on he was 22-22 against them.
f) Jack Morris in the 1970s was 8-2 against A quality opponents, 3.25 ERA. From 1980 on he was 40-55 against A quality opposition.
g) Rick Rhoden in the 1970s was 8-3 with a 3.09 ERA against A opposition. From 1980 on he was 34-30 with a 4.04 ERA against them.
h) Dwight Gooden in the 1980s was 24-8 with a 2.44 ERA against A quality opposition—one hell of a record, given that these are games against the best teams in the league. From 1990 on he was 19-20 against A quality opponents, with an ERA well over 4.00.
i) Roger Clemens in the 1980s was 19-11 with a 2.94 ERA against A quality opponents. From 1990 on he was 41-48 against A quality opposition.
I’m not saying that it is absolutely true that young, very talented power pitchers, working with a little extra adrenaline, are able to stuff the highest quality opponents, whereas later in their careers they are less able to do this. I am not saying that is true; I am saying there is enough reason to believe that that might be true that, in looking at the “end of career” data for pitchers like Early Wynn, Warren Spahn and Johnny Antonelli, we should remember that we may be missing the data for their best seasons against high-quality opposition. It’s possible.
Of course, it is also possible that we’re not really measuring anything here, other than the skill levels of the pitchers and some random events and some scheduling discrepancies. That could be. Let me make my best argument that there’s something real going on here: Whitey Ford and Bob Turley.
Whitey Ford and Bob Turley were teammates from 1955 to 1962—two-thirds of Turley’s career. These are their records against “D” quality opponents:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Bob
|
Turley
|
77
|
539.2
|
43
|
11
|
.796
|
413
|
326
|
3.02
|
D
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
118
|
864.2
|
75
|
20
|
.789
|
553
|
305
|
2.70
|
D
|
Not much difference, right? Turley’s Winning Percentage is a little bit better; Ford’s ERA is a little bit better. But these are their records against “A” quality opponents:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Bob
|
Turley
|
51
|
327.0
|
11
|
30
|
.268
|
245
|
213
|
4.21
|
A
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
107
|
729.2
|
51
|
29
|
.637
|
456
|
238
|
2.55
|
A
|
This does not appear to be a random difference. At this point I should caution us all that the fact that the difference is not random does not mean that it indicates exactly what it might superficially seem to indicate. Ford had a better career ERA against “A” opponents than against “D” opponents. One reason for this is that the “A” opponents for him, in the 1960s, were very often the Chicago White Sox, who played in an extremely low-run environment. In those days the home team had custody of the baseballs until they were given to the umpires before the game. It is alleged that the White Sox used to store their baseballs in a freezer so that the balls would be dead, which would maximize the White Sox ability to win by manufacturing runs, and minimize their inability to hit home runs. I don’t think this is just a story; my belief is that that’s actually true. I believe, subject to correction, that the policy of delivering the baseballs to the home team, rather than the umpires, was changed because the American League realized that the White Sox were in fact doing this.
Anyway, there could be factors in the data that cause Ford to excel against superior opponents and Turley to struggle, other than actual differences between Ford and Turley. But. . .there’s something going on there.
In 1963, as Turley moved on, the Yankees came up with Al Downing, who looked in 1963 like he might be on the level of Koufax, and in 1964 they came up with Mel Stottlemyre, who was a sinker ball pitcher who became the Yankees ace during the Horace Clarke years and the Bobby Murcer years; homage to Rob Neyer there, Neyer’s been “naming” team eras. In 1963 Downing, essentially a rookie, was 13-5 with 171 strikeouts in 176 innings, 2.56 ERA; in 1964 Stottlemyre, truly a rookie, was 9-3 with a 2.06 ERA. These are their career records against different qualities of opposition:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Al
|
Downing
|
141
|
899.2
|
36
|
56
|
.391
|
632
|
378
|
3.53
|
Good
|
Al
|
Downing
|
176
|
1189.2
|
80
|
46
|
.635
|
863
|
466
|
2.98
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mel
|
Stottlemyre
|
181
|
1358.0
|
81
|
72
|
.529
|
594
|
420
|
3.04
|
Good
|
Mel
|
Stottlemyre
|
175
|
1296.2
|
83
|
66
|
.557
|
661
|
384
|
2.88
|
Weak
|
Against “C” and “D” opponents, Downing was as good as Stottlemyre. Against “A” and “B” opponents, Stottlemyre was far better than Downing.
Another matched set for you: Gary Bell and Jim Perry. In the 1950s the Cleveland Indians had a legendary pitching machine. For most of the 1950s the Indians would literally put an outstanding starting pitcher on the mound every day of the season, and they seemed to be able to produce these at will, until Herb Score got hurt. In 1958, while the image of the powerhouse Indians’ pitching continued to linger, the Indians came up with Gary Bell, who was 12-10 as a rookie, then went 16-11 in his second season. In 1959 they came up with Jim Perry, who was 12-10 as a rookie, then went 18-10 in his second season.
At the time, Bell and Perry (and Mudcat Grant) were looked upon as the young lions of the Indians new pitching dynasty. (You will notice that I didn’t say “young chiefs” or “young braves”. I want props for that.) But it didn’t work out for them. Bell, after going 16-11 in 1959, went 9-10 in 1960, 12-16 in 1961. Still believing that Bell had outstanding stuff, the Indians shuffled Bell into the bullpen, not even a key role in the bullpen, but making him a spot starter and garbage man reliever. He worked in that role for several years while the Indians trotted out more outstanding young arms (Sam McDowell, Luis Tiant, Tommy John, Sonny Siebert, Steve Hargan), becoming known now as the organization that produced outstanding pitching prospects but didn’t have any idea what to do with them. In 1966, after four years wandering in the desert, Bell finally got back in the rotation, going 14-15 in 254 innings, but with a good ERA and a good strikeout to walk ratio (194-79). Traded to the Red Sox in early 1967, Bell went 12-8 for the Red Sox in 1967, helping them to the pennant, and had another pretty good season as a starter in 1968.
Perry’s biography has strong parallels. After his 18-10 season in 1960 he dropped to 10-17 in 1961 and 12-12 in 1962. The Indians traded him to the Twins and the Twins buried him in their bullpen, making him a spot starter and garbage man reliever for several years, although he started more in those years than Bell did. After several years in that role he finally got back into the rotation in 1969. He went 20-6 in 1969, helping the Twins to the division championship, and then went 24-12 in 1970, winning the Cy Young Award.
But while their career paths are similar, and one can see in the data that both were “spotted” against weaker opponents, Bell is one of the most extreme “bullies” in our data, whereas Perry had little tendency to dominate inferior opposition:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
99
|
643.2
|
33
|
43
|
.434
|
288
|
220
|
3.87
|
A
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
103
|
691.1
|
48
|
38
|
.558
|
269
|
199
|
3.40
|
B
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
114
|
754.0
|
49
|
44
|
.527
|
368
|
219
|
3.39
|
C
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
131
|
867.0
|
60
|
38
|
.612
|
427
|
244
|
3.28
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
202
|
1335.0
|
81
|
81
|
.500
|
557
|
419
|
3.63
|
Good
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
245
|
1621.0
|
109
|
82
|
.571
|
795
|
463
|
3.33
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
Perry
|
447
|
2956.0
|
190
|
163
|
.538
|
1352
|
882
|
3.46
|
Total
|
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
54
|
303.0
|
9
|
30
|
.231
|
192
|
150
|
5.11
|
A
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
43
|
280.1
|
11
|
23
|
.324
|
172
|
117
|
3.82
|
B
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
74
|
489.2
|
30
|
29
|
.508
|
327
|
200
|
4.01
|
C
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
61
|
438.1
|
36
|
13
|
.735
|
286
|
144
|
2.77
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
97
|
583.1
|
20
|
53
|
.274
|
364
|
267
|
4.49
|
Good
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
135
|
928.0
|
66
|
42
|
.611
|
613
|
344
|
3.42
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
232
|
1511.1
|
86
|
95
|
.475
|
977
|
611
|
3.84
|
Total
|
Perry’s winning percentage is 71 points better against second-division teams than first-division teams; Bell’s is 337 points better. I will bow out of that debate now; I will leave it to other researchers to determine whether something real is being measured here—and, if so, what it is.
The Braves Three Aces
Another question I have been asked related to this deals with the three great pitchers for the Braves in the 1990s, Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Maddux and Glavine were 300-game winners, but Smoltz—who was also a Hall of Famer, in my view—was the best of the three in post-season play. “Do you think that’s because of the kind of pitcher he was?” I have been asked. “With more of a power mix? Glavine was a lefty with good control and a sinker, a change, Maddux had fantastic control, great change and cutter, but Smoltz had the four-pitch mix and the high fastball.”
But actually, while all of the three had normal, mid-range Bully Factors, Tom Glavine actually had the best won-lost record of the three (although the highest ERA) against “A” quality competition in regular season, an outstanding 66-49 W and L:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
152
|
978.1
|
66
|
49
|
.574
|
567
|
362
|
3.90
|
A
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
200
|
1268.1
|
77
|
64
|
.546
|
703
|
456
|
3.79
|
B
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
185
|
1220.1
|
93
|
46
|
.669
|
730
|
394
|
3.27
|
C
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
145
|
946.1
|
69
|
44
|
.611
|
607
|
288
|
3.16
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
352
|
2246.2
|
143
|
113
|
.559
|
1270
|
818
|
3.84
|
Good
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
330
|
2166.2
|
162
|
90
|
.643
|
1337
|
682
|
3.22
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
682
|
4413.1
|
305
|
203
|
.600
|
2607
|
1500
|
3.54
|
Total
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
|
|
|
Bully Factor:
|
|
.428
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
159
|
1032.0
|
67
|
63
|
.515
|
669
|
226
|
3.85
|
A
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
200
|
1337.2
|
87
|
66
|
.569
|
813
|
284
|
3.20
|
B
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
196
|
1324.2
|
102
|
54
|
.654
|
920
|
269
|
2.96
|
C
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
185
|
1306.2
|
99
|
43
|
.697
|
964
|
216
|
2.73
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
359
|
2369.2
|
154
|
129
|
.544
|
1482
|
510
|
3.49
|
Good
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
381
|
2631.1
|
201
|
97
|
.674
|
1884
|
485
|
2.85
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
740
|
5001.0
|
355
|
226
|
.611
|
3366
|
995
|
3.15
|
Total
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
|
|
|
Bully Factor:
|
|
.568
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
89
|
592.1
|
34
|
34
|
.500
|
503
|
189
|
3.66
|
A
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
143
|
960.1
|
59
|
48
|
.551
|
866
|
289
|
3.45
|
B
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
137
|
917.0
|
56
|
45
|
.554
|
775
|
278
|
3.44
|
C
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
112
|
742.0
|
60
|
22
|
.732
|
660
|
204
|
3.09
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
232
|
1552.2
|
93
|
82
|
.531
|
1369
|
478
|
3.53
|
Good
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
249
|
1659.0
|
116
|
67
|
.634
|
1435
|
482
|
3.28
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
481
|
3211.2
|
209
|
149
|
.584
|
2804
|
960
|
3.40
|
Total
|
John
|
Smoltz
|
|
|
|
Bully Factor:
|
|
.421
|
|
The Leader Lists
These are the pitchers with the highest and lowest “Bully Factors” in our data:
First
|
Last
|
Highest
|
|
|
First
|
Last
|
Lowest
|
|
Mike
|
Norris
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.496
|
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.470
|
Rob
|
Bell
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.351
|
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.451
|
Virgil
|
Trucks
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.298
|
|
Ken
|
McBride
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.423
|
Gary
|
Bell
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.298
|
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.419
|
Ken
|
Kravec
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.286
|
|
Victor
|
Zambrano
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.413
|
Eric
|
Show
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.271
|
|
John
|
Dopson
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.288
|
Mickey
|
McDermott
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.230
|
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.275
|
Bob
|
Turley
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.210
|
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.263
|
John
|
Buzhardt
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.206
|
|
Melido
|
Perez
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.246
|
Tom
|
Brewer
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.200
|
|
Francisco
|
Cordova
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.239
|
I realize that I haven’t shown you any of the data for pitchers with the lowest Bully Factors, so let me begin:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
39
|
260.0
|
12
|
20
|
.375
|
114
|
46
|
4.19
|
A
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
30
|
204.1
|
14
|
12
|
.538
|
70
|
40
|
2.91
|
B
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
30
|
176.1
|
7
|
17
|
.292
|
79
|
43
|
5.21
|
C
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
7
|
44.0
|
4
|
2
|
.667
|
22
|
10
|
3.68
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
69
|
464.1
|
26
|
32
|
.448
|
184
|
86
|
3.62
|
Good
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
37
|
220.1
|
11
|
19
|
.367
|
101
|
53
|
4.90
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren
|
Hacker
|
106
|
684.2
|
37
|
51
|
.420
|
285
|
139
|
4.04
|
Total
|
Warren Hacker was a 1950s pitcher with the Chicago Cubs. The Cubs were the weak sister of the National League at that time (the Cubs and the Pirates), and, as Hacker didn’t get to pitch against his own team, this left him with more opportunities to pitch against the better teams. Also, this is the era in which Retrosheet has some games but doesn’t have others, and, as it is likely that Retrosheet has more of the games of the better teams, it is likely that we are missing more games which the Cubs played some other wastrel than games when they played the good teams. The odd result is that we have Hacker making 39 starts against “A” opponents and only 7 against “D” opponents, which is a striking thing, but. . .not sure what we can do with it. Let’s do Ed Halicki, who is second on the list:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
45
|
284.2
|
15
|
19
|
.441
|
189
|
78
|
3.54
|
A
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
42
|
288.1
|
18
|
14
|
.562
|
201
|
89
|
2.65
|
B
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
34
|
224.2
|
9
|
17
|
.346
|
150
|
69
|
3.20
|
C
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
36
|
204.0
|
12
|
15
|
.444
|
125
|
67
|
5.07
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
87
|
573.0
|
33
|
33
|
.500
|
390
|
167
|
3.09
|
Good
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
70
|
428.2
|
21
|
32
|
.396
|
275
|
136
|
4.09
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed
|
Halicki
|
157
|
1001.2
|
54
|
65
|
.454
|
665
|
303
|
3.52
|
Total
|
Halicki is more interesting. Halicki pitched better, against good teams, than. . .well, better than Steve McCatty, Mike McCormick, Jack McDowell, Sam McDowell, Denny McLain and Dave McNally, sticking to the “Mc” part of the list and the best pitchers in that era. He pitched better against good teams than 96% of the pitchers in our data. Not many of the Hall of Famers had a 3.09 ERA against first-division opponents. Halicki just did not take care of business against bad teams. Three active pitchers have shown the same tendency:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
44
|
245.1
|
14
|
14
|
.500
|
246
|
122
|
3.45
|
A
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
36
|
219.0
|
16
|
12
|
.571
|
229
|
83
|
3.12
|
B
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
41
|
249.1
|
18
|
9
|
.667
|
264
|
98
|
3.32
|
C
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
29
|
153.2
|
9
|
11
|
.450
|
157
|
86
|
6.27
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
80
|
464.1
|
30
|
26
|
.536
|
475
|
205
|
3.30
|
Good
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
70
|
403.0
|
27
|
20
|
.574
|
421
|
184
|
4.44
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
Kazmir
|
150
|
867.1
|
57
|
46
|
.553
|
896
|
389
|
3.83
|
Total
|
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
29
|
178.2
|
13
|
10
|
.565
|
106
|
61
|
4.63
|
A
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
65
|
405.1
|
26
|
20
|
.565
|
224
|
149
|
3.75
|
B
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
68
|
410.1
|
27
|
27
|
.500
|
227
|
169
|
4.98
|
C
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
69
|
404.0
|
26
|
26
|
.500
|
249
|
159
|
4.37
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
94
|
584.0
|
39
|
30
|
.565
|
330
|
210
|
4.02
|
Good
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
137
|
814.1
|
53
|
53
|
.500
|
476
|
328
|
4.67
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
231
|
1398.1
|
92
|
83
|
.526
|
806
|
538
|
4.40
|
Total
|
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
39
|
247.0
|
12
|
16
|
.429
|
124
|
76
|
3.90
|
A
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
21
|
129.2
|
7
|
8
|
.467
|
58
|
43
|
4.93
|
B
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
17
|
100.0
|
2
|
13
|
.133
|
52
|
32
|
6.57
|
C
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
29
|
191.1
|
6
|
12
|
.333
|
96
|
45
|
3.72
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
60
|
376.2
|
19
|
24
|
.442
|
182
|
119
|
4.25
|
Good
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
46
|
291.1
|
8
|
25
|
.242
|
148
|
77
|
4.70
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan
|
Franklin
|
106
|
668.0
|
27
|
49
|
.355
|
330
|
196
|
4.45
|
Total
|
This is data as a starting pitcher only; I don’t know what Franklin’s splits are as a reliever. But you know, now that it comes up, I remember that, when he was starting for the Mariners, we’d see Franklin on the schedule and kind of pencil that one in as a game we ought to win, but then he’d beat us. How does a guy go 12-16 with a 3.90 ERA against the best teams in the league, but then go 8-25 with a 4.70 ERA against the second division?
But Franklin made 106 starts in his career, and maybe it’s not enough for everything to even out. When you have a list of 702 players and you rank them one through 702, what will almost always happen is that those who barely have enough playing time to qualify for the list will dominate the top and bottom of the chart. That’s what happens here; most of our “extreme” pitchers are guys who had short careers. This is a list of the most extreme Bully Factors for pitchers with 250 or more starts:
First
|
Last
|
Highest
|
|
|
First
|
Last
|
Lowest
|
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.113
|
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.172
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.074
|
|
Bob
|
Knepper
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.073
|
Greg
|
Swindell
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.024
|
|
Rick
|
Mahler
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.056
|
Early
|
Wynn
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.020
|
|
Bob
|
Purkey
|
Bully Factor:
|
-.033
|
Chris
|
Carpenter
|
Bully Factor:
|
1.010
|
|
Buddy
|
Black
|
Bully Factor:
|
.005
|
Andy
|
Messersmith
|
Bully Factor:
|
.972
|
|
Ed
|
Whitson
|
Bully Factor:
|
.011
|
Geoff
|
Zahn
|
Bully Factor:
|
.969
|
|
Tom
|
Browning
|
Bully Factor:
|
.052
|
Russ
|
Ortiz
|
Bully Factor:
|
.956
|
|
Frank
|
Lary
|
Bully Factor:
|
.059
|
Jack
|
Morris
|
Bully Factor:
|
.937
|
|
Mike
|
Krukow
|
Bully Factor:
|
.065
|
Dock
|
Ellis
|
Bully Factor:
|
.896
|
|
Pat
|
Dobson
|
Bully Factor:
|
.077
|
Bruce
|
Hurst
|
Bully Factor:
|
.892
|
|
John
|
Smiley
|
Bully Factor:
|
.090
|
Al
|
Downing
|
Bully Factor:
|
.869
|
|
Danny
|
Darwin
|
Bully Factor:
|
.119
|
A few splits:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
65
|
399.2
|
20
|
34
|
.370
|
247
|
140
|
4.82
|
A
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
54
|
372.1
|
26
|
16
|
.619
|
244
|
92
|
3.48
|
B
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
73
|
548.0
|
40
|
23
|
.635
|
392
|
145
|
2.69
|
C
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
72
|
528.1
|
42
|
16
|
.724
|
363
|
162
|
2.96
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
119
|
772.0
|
46
|
50
|
.479
|
491
|
232
|
4.17
|
Good
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
145
|
1076.1
|
82
|
39
|
.678
|
755
|
307
|
2.83
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
264
|
1848.1
|
128
|
89
|
.590
|
1246
|
539
|
3.39
|
Total
|
You may remember that in 1968 McLain won 31 games, but was not notably effective against the Cardinals in the World Series, and ceded his spot as the Tigers’ #1 pitcher to Mickey Lolich. Lolich had a very low Bully Factor (.375), and a career ERA of 3.37 in 114 starts against “A” quality opponents. Sabathia, without comment:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
67
|
425.1
|
18
|
30
|
.375
|
321
|
146
|
4.17
|
A
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
63
|
411.1
|
27
|
22
|
.551
|
373
|
137
|
3.92
|
B
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
57
|
370.2
|
30
|
15
|
.667
|
312
|
126
|
3.86
|
C
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
101
|
682.0
|
61
|
14
|
.813
|
584
|
181
|
2.97
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
130
|
836.2
|
45
|
52
|
.464
|
694
|
283
|
4.04
|
Good
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
158
|
1052.2
|
91
|
29
|
.758
|
896
|
307
|
3.28
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
288
|
1889.1
|
136
|
81
|
.627
|
1590
|
590
|
3.62
|
Total
|
And Rick Wise:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
106
|
702.1
|
41
|
41
|
.500
|
351
|
200
|
3.49
|
A
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
129
|
884.2
|
52
|
51
|
.505
|
451
|
204
|
3.48
|
B
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
123
|
770.0
|
39
|
54
|
.419
|
390
|
204
|
4.30
|
C
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
97
|
652.2
|
47
|
34
|
.580
|
383
|
163
|
3.53
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
235
|
1587.0
|
93
|
92
|
.503
|
802
|
404
|
3.48
|
Good
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
220
|
1422.2
|
86
|
88
|
.494
|
773
|
367
|
3.95
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
Wise
|
455
|
3009.2
|
179
|
180
|
.499
|
1575
|
771
|
3.70
|
Total
|
In a long career, Rick Wise pitched better against good teams than weak teams—an ERA half a run better, with 1400 innings each way. Frank Lary, who is also on our list of pitchers who pitched well against good teams, was actually most famous, while active, for his ability to beat the Yankees, so he was actually known for this tendency.
I tried to study the question of whether there was any type of pitcher who tended to have a high or low Bully Factor. I thought that pitchers who have good stuff but marginal control (like Bob Turley) might tend to dominate poor teams, but struggle against good ones. The data doesn’t really show that. I looked at whether power pitchers or control pitchers do well against strong opposition, or left-handers. I didn’t really find anything. The only thing is that good pitchers do have a slightly higher Bully Factors than lower-quality pitchers, but that’s probably a natural effect from magnifying their advantage against weaker teams, or stating it on a larger scale. Certain knuckleball pitchers (Charlie Hough and Tim Wakefield) have very high Bully Factors, but others (Phil Niekro and Tom Candiotti) have very low ones. There are no obvious patterns.
The Dominators
OK, let us get to one of the really big questions. Who are the best pitchers ever against top quality competition?
Probably the best guy ever. …best guy in the data. ..is Bret Saberhagen. Saberhagen, Sandy Koufax, Whitey Ford:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
85
|
562.1
|
39
|
18
|
.684
|
390
|
104
|
3.15
|
A
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
94
|
619.1
|
34
|
37
|
.479
|
425
|
130
|
4.08
|
B
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
97
|
667.1
|
47
|
28
|
.627
|
412
|
110
|
2.99
|
C
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
95
|
642.2
|
42
|
31
|
.575
|
454
|
109
|
3.21
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
179
|
1181.2
|
73
|
55
|
.570
|
815
|
234
|
3.64
|
Good
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
192
|
1310.0
|
89
|
59
|
.601
|
866
|
219
|
3.10
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bret
|
Saberhagen
|
371
|
2491.2
|
162
|
114
|
.587
|
1681
|
453
|
3.36
|
Total
|
Saberhagen’s 39-18 record is the best we have against “A” quality competition. The other guys’ ERAs are a little better, but that’s probably a context thing. Sandy Koufax in the 1960s was totally dominant against all levels of competition--30-13 with a 2.46 ERA against “A” quality competitors from 1960 to 1966. I would guess that it might be even better than that if we focused on the period 1963-1966:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
62
|
445.2
|
33
|
16
|
.673
|
412
|
130
|
2.56
|
A
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
90
|
615.2
|
39
|
28
|
.582
|
631
|
200
|
2.92
|
B
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
71
|
452.0
|
30
|
20
|
.600
|
447
|
182
|
3.35
|
C
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
91
|
689.0
|
57
|
21
|
.731
|
784
|
229
|
2.19
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
152
|
1061.1
|
72
|
44
|
.621
|
1043
|
330
|
2.77
|
Good
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
162
|
1141.0
|
87
|
41
|
.680
|
1231
|
411
|
2.65
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
314
|
2202.1
|
159
|
85
|
.652
|
2274
|
741
|
2.71
|
Total
|
Whitey Ford had a career ERA of 2.74, but in the data we have it is 2.72—2.72 against good teams, 2.72 against second-division teams:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
107
|
729.2
|
51
|
29
|
.637
|
456
|
238
|
2.55
|
A
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
92
|
637.0
|
37
|
29
|
.561
|
363
|
221
|
2.91
|
B
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
108
|
711.0
|
54
|
21
|
.720
|
440
|
210
|
2.75
|
C
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
118
|
864.2
|
75
|
20
|
.789
|
553
|
305
|
2.70
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
199
|
1366.2
|
88
|
58
|
.603
|
819
|
459
|
2.72
|
Good
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
226
|
1575.2
|
129
|
41
|
.759
|
993
|
515
|
2.72
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
425
|
2942.1
|
217
|
99
|
.687
|
1812
|
974
|
2.72
|
Total
|
Ford, Koufax and Saberhagen stand out as the pitchers who excelled against championship-quality opposition. Zack Greinke, on the mound in a Royals uniform, reminds us all of Bret Saberhagen—but Greinke hasn’t done it against the best teams:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
32
|
185.0
|
6
|
18
|
.250
|
131
|
57
|
4.28
|
A
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
38
|
236.0
|
13
|
15
|
.464
|
207
|
67
|
3.55
|
B
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
36
|
218.2
|
13
|
14
|
.481
|
187
|
51
|
4.28
|
C
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
30
|
188.2
|
13
|
5
|
.722
|
165
|
32
|
2.81
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
70
|
421.0
|
19
|
33
|
.365
|
338
|
124
|
3.87
|
Good
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
66
|
407.1
|
26
|
19
|
.578
|
352
|
83
|
3.60
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zack
|
Greinke
|
136
|
828.1
|
45
|
52
|
.464
|
690
|
207
|
3.74
|
Total
|
Fun Stats
Fun Stats are off-balance numbers that result from not-very-good pitchers pitching against good teams, or outstanding pitchers pitching against bad teams. Justin Verlander against “D” quality competition:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Justin
|
Verlander
|
33
|
215.2
|
21
|
2
|
.913
|
203
|
72
|
2.55
|
D
|
And here’s a few others:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Johan
|
Santana
|
75
|
500.0
|
47
|
12
|
.797
|
523
|
124
|
2.93
|
D
|
Roy
|
Halladay
|
78
|
554.2
|
50
|
13
|
.794
|
383
|
96
|
3.03
|
D
|
Roger
|
Clemens
|
194
|
1357.0
|
118
|
31
|
.792
|
1317
|
392
|
2.62
|
D
|
Jim
|
Palmer
|
143
|
1098.0
|
94
|
25
|
.790
|
618
|
361
|
2.30
|
D
|
Mike
|
Norris
|
39
|
274.1
|
22
|
6
|
.786
|
153
|
114
|
2.30
|
D
|
Rich
|
Harden
|
33
|
200.1
|
18
|
5
|
.783
|
205
|
75
|
2.61
|
D
|
Virgil
|
Trucks
|
44
|
336.2
|
28
|
8
|
.778
|
177
|
111
|
2.54
|
D
|
Steve
|
Busby
|
35
|
248.1
|
21
|
6
|
.778
|
169
|
91
|
3.30
|
D
|
And, on the other end:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Russ
|
Kemmerer
|
34
|
183.0
|
3
|
21
|
.125
|
91
|
88
|
5.90
|
A
|
Dave
|
Freisleben
|
36
|
203.2
|
3
|
20
|
.130
|
101
|
101
|
4.82
|
A
|
Joe
|
Decker
|
18
|
85.1
|
2
|
13
|
.133
|
57
|
58
|
8.12
|
A
|
Skip
|
Lockwood
|
26
|
157.1
|
3
|
18
|
.143
|
92
|
73
|
3.83
|
A
|
Bryan
|
Rekar
|
33
|
183.2
|
3
|
18
|
.143
|
109
|
59
|
6.17
|
A
|
Ian
|
Snell
|
19
|
98.1
|
2
|
10
|
.167
|
86
|
51
|
6.13
|
A
|
Shawn
|
Boskie
|
33
|
177.1
|
4
|
20
|
.167
|
82
|
62
|
6.09
|
A
|
Moe
|
Drabowsky
|
29
|
158.0
|
4
|
18
|
.182
|
97
|
81
|
5.58
|
A
|
Bruce
|
Chen
|
34
|
181.0
|
4
|
17
|
.190
|
134
|
72
|
5.07
|
A
|
Paul
|
Wilson
|
42
|
254.0
|
5
|
21
|
.192
|
175
|
109
|
5.78
|
A
|
Mike
|
Smithson
|
58
|
323.1
|
7
|
29
|
.194
|
170
|
101
|
5.96
|
A
|
Jeff
|
Fassero
|
44
|
267.2
|
7
|
28
|
.200
|
225
|
118
|
5.28
|
A
|
Here is a link to a spreadsheet with the full list of the pitchers with 100 or more starts, so you can download that and do with it what you will.
And finally, we circle back to the question of Bob Gibson versus Juan Marichal. It turns out I was right; it was bullshit to say that Marichal fattened up on weak opponents, while Gibson was better against the best teams. In fact, Gibson was more of a Bully than was Marichal:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
96
|
737.2
|
41
|
46
|
.471
|
593
|
254
|
3.33
|
A
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
147
|
1142.0
|
63
|
61
|
.508
|
911
|
405
|
3.24
|
B
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
105
|
852.1
|
60
|
27
|
.690
|
689
|
252
|
2.34
|
C
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
134
|
1064.1
|
81
|
36
|
.692
|
851
|
366
|
2.62
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
243
|
1879.2
|
104
|
107
|
.493
|
1504
|
659
|
3.28
|
Good
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
239
|
1916.2
|
141
|
63
|
.691
|
1540
|
618
|
2.50
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
482
|
3796.1
|
245
|
170
|
.590
|
3044
|
1277
|
2.88
|
Total
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
|
|
|
|
Bully Factor:
|
.667
|
|
Gibson’s Bully Factor was well above average. Marichal’s was well below average. Gibson’s winning percentages against different qualities of opponents descend from .692 against the weakest opponents to .471 against the best. Marichal goes from .667 to .576:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
Pct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
Group
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
100
|
747.2
|
49
|
36
|
.576
|
497
|
133
|
2.84
|
A
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
126
|
961.0
|
66
|
39
|
.629
|
617
|
225
|
3.17
|
B
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
116
|
892.1
|
59
|
33
|
.641
|
582
|
181
|
2.89
|
C
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
115
|
875.1
|
64
|
32
|
.667
|
588
|
162
|
2.63
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
226
|
1708.2
|
115
|
75
|
.605
|
1114
|
358
|
3.03
|
Good
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
231
|
1767.2
|
123
|
65
|
.654
|
1170
|
343
|
2.76
|
Weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
457
|
3476.1
|
238
|
140
|
.630
|
2284
|
701
|
2.89
|
Total
|
Juan
|
Marichal
|
|
|
|
|
Bully Factor:
|
.373
|
|
Marichal was more effective against first-division opponents than was Gibson—or almost anybody else; he was one of the most effective pitchers against first-division teams in our data. Gibson was less effective against contenders, but made up some of the difference against the weaker teams. Ah, if only I knew where Tony Bandle was today.