A week ago, when I was ticking off the ways in which baseball experts used to assure us that baseball players could be expected to perform better at some times than others, I overlooked one of the big ones: Hot streaks and slumps.
If a starting pitcher has been pitching well in his recent starts, is he more likely to pitch well today? It is hard to believe that he isn’t, isn’t it? If a pitcher has pitched shutout baseball in three of his last four starts, don’t you have to believe that he’s more likely to pitch well than if he’s been getting beat up?
A pitcher being “hot” is a little different than a hitter being hot. A hitter being hot. . .what is that? Self-confidence? Karma? Extra batting practice? A new titanium necklace? A pitcher can be hot or cold for meaningful and apparent reasons—minor injuries, arm fatigue, a new pitch that’s working for him, that the league hasn’t figured out yet.
I have done three new studies to try to figure out whether a “hot” starting pitcher is more likely to pitch well, in his next start, than a pitcher who has not been pitching well. In the first of those studies, what we will call the Bob Gibson Study, I studied the performance of “hot” pitchers versus the performance of equally good pitchers who were not hot. In the second study, which we will call the A. J. Burnett/Josh Beckett study, I studied the question of whether there was any tendency for good games and bad games to form clusters.
I. The Bob Gibson Study
I took all pitchers from the years 1960 to 1969, and divided them into two groups, twice. The first division was among pitchers as to the quality of the season’s performance. I ranked all pitchers by the Season’s Score, and then divided them into eight groups with (essentially) equal numbers of games started in each group. There were 31,730 Games Started in major league baseball from 1960 to 1969, so that’s about 4,000 starts in each group.
Then I divided the 4,000 starts in each set into eight groups, separated by how “hot” the pitcher was coming into the game.
The highest quality pitchers, coming into the game red hot, would be group AA. The highest quality pitchers, coming into the game having been pitching very badly, would be group AH.
The lowest quality pitchers, coming into the game having been pitching very badly, would be group HH. The lowest quality pitchers, coming into the game pitching very well, would be group HA.
There were 64 groups of starting pitchers, with about 500 starts in each group.
This is coloratura, but you may be wondering who is an “A” quality starting pitcher, who is a “B”, etc. The Season Score is based on the pitcher’s Wins, Losses, Innings Pitched, ERA, Strikeouts and Walks, and also on Saves if there are any. Here is a chart of randomly selected “A”, “B”, “C”, pitchers, etc., which should give you a sense of what kind of pitcher we are dealing with in each group.
|
|
First
|
Last
|
Year
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
A
|
Denny
|
McLain
|
1968
|
41
|
336
|
31
|
6
|
.838
|
280
|
63
|
1.96
|
Jim
|
Kaat
|
1966
|
41
|
305
|
25
|
13
|
.658
|
205
|
55
|
2.75
|
Tom
|
Seaver
|
1968
|
36
|
278
|
16
|
12
|
.571
|
205
|
48
|
2.20
|
Vern
|
Law
|
1960
|
35
|
272
|
20
|
9
|
.690
|
120
|
40
|
3.08
|
Steve
|
Barber
|
1963
|
39
|
259
|
20
|
13
|
.606
|
180
|
92
|
2.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
1960
|
41
|
269
|
15
|
14
|
.517
|
246
|
72
|
2.84
|
Don
|
Mossi
|
1961
|
35
|
240
|
15
|
7
|
.682
|
137
|
47
|
2.96
|
Mickey
|
Lolich
|
1965
|
43
|
244
|
15
|
9
|
.625
|
226
|
72
|
3.43
|
Larry
|
Jackson
|
1963
|
37
|
275
|
14
|
18
|
.438
|
153
|
54
|
2.55
|
Lew
|
Burdette
|
1961
|
40
|
272
|
18
|
11
|
.621
|
92
|
33
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C
|
Dave
|
McNally
|
1965
|
35
|
199
|
11
|
6
|
.647
|
116
|
73
|
2.85
|
Fred
|
Newman
|
1964
|
32
|
190
|
13
|
10
|
.565
|
83
|
39
|
2.75
|
Ray
|
Sadecki
|
1968
|
38
|
254
|
12
|
18
|
.400
|
206
|
70
|
2.91
|
Hank
|
Aguirre
|
1965
|
32
|
208
|
14
|
10
|
.583
|
141
|
60
|
3.59
|
Bill
|
Stafford
|
1962
|
35
|
213
|
14
|
9
|
.609
|
109
|
77
|
3.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D
|
Jim
|
Merritt
|
1968
|
38
|
238
|
12
|
16
|
.429
|
181
|
52
|
3.25
|
Jim
|
Coates
|
1961
|
43
|
141
|
11
|
5
|
.688
|
80
|
53
|
3.45
|
Joe
|
Niekro
|
1967
|
36
|
170
|
10
|
7
|
.588
|
77
|
32
|
3.34
|
Al
|
Downing
|
1965
|
35
|
212
|
12
|
14
|
.462
|
179
|
105
|
3.40
|
Dick
|
Ellsworth
|
1964
|
37
|
257
|
14
|
18
|
.438
|
148
|
71
|
3.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E
|
Chris
|
Short
|
1962
|
47
|
142
|
11
|
9
|
.550
|
91
|
56
|
3.42
|
Ken
|
Johnson
|
1964
|
35
|
218
|
11
|
16
|
.407
|
117
|
44
|
3.63
|
Frank
|
Baumann
|
1962
|
40
|
120
|
7
|
6
|
.538
|
55
|
36
|
3.38
|
Ray
|
Sadecki
|
1963
|
36
|
193
|
10
|
10
|
.500
|
136
|
78
|
4.10
|
Wade
|
Blasingame
|
1964
|
28
|
117
|
9
|
5
|
.643
|
70
|
51
|
4.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F
|
Cal
|
Koonce
|
1965
|
38
|
173
|
7
|
9
|
.438
|
88
|
52
|
3.69
|
Ray
|
Washburn
|
1965
|
28
|
119
|
9
|
11
|
.450
|
67
|
28
|
3.63
|
Tom
|
Murphy
|
1969
|
36
|
216
|
10
|
16
|
.385
|
100
|
69
|
4.21
|
Ernie
|
Broglio
|
1964
|
29
|
170
|
7
|
12
|
.368
|
82
|
56
|
3.82
|
Eli
|
Grba
|
1962
|
40
|
176
|
8
|
9
|
.471
|
90
|
75
|
4.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G
|
Barry
|
Latman
|
1966
|
31
|
103
|
2
|
7
|
.222
|
74
|
35
|
2.71
|
Bill
|
Monbouquette
|
1966
|
30
|
103
|
7
|
8
|
.467
|
61
|
22
|
4.72
|
Jim
|
Shellenback
|
1969
|
38
|
102
|
4
|
7
|
.364
|
57
|
52
|
3.88
|
Lew Jr.
|
Krausse
|
1967
|
48
|
160
|
7
|
17
|
.292
|
96
|
67
|
4.28
|
Jack
|
Fisher
|
1962
|
32
|
152
|
7
|
9
|
.438
|
81
|
56
|
5.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
Arnold
|
Earley
|
1963
|
53
|
116
|
3
|
7
|
.300
|
97
|
43
|
4.73
|
Marcelino
|
Lopez
|
1967
|
8
|
27
|
1
|
2
|
.333
|
21
|
19
|
4.72
|
Larry
|
Miller
|
1965
|
28
|
57
|
1
|
4
|
.200
|
36
|
25
|
5.05
|
Jack
|
Kralick
|
1965
|
30
|
86
|
5
|
11
|
.313
|
34
|
21
|
4.92
|
Mike
|
Marshall
|
1969
|
20
|
88
|
3
|
10
|
.231
|
47
|
35
|
5.13
|
To determine how “Hot” a pitcher was coming into the game, I used a method which is conceptually simple, but which will entangle us in an undesirable number of details. It was based on Game Scores. Game Scores are a method that “score” each start by a starting pitcher essentially on a zero-to-one-hundred scale. To convert this into a “Hot Pitcher Scale”, each pitcher’s score after each game (and thus, heading into his next start) was 20% of his score from his last start, plus 80% of whatever his score was prior to his last start.
For illustration, Bob Gibson, heading into his start of June 6, 1968, had a “Heat Index” of 69.4, which means that he had been pitching very, very well, indeed up to that time. On June 6 he pitched a 3-hit shutout, Game Score of 84, which increased his Heat Index to 72.3--.80 times 69.4, plus .20 times 84. On June 11 he pitched a 5-hit shutout, striking out 4, for a Game Score of 79, increasing his Heat Index to 73.6. On June 15 he pitched a 4-hit shutout, striking out 13 batters and walking no one, for a Game Score of 92. This increased his Heat Index to 77.3 On June 20 he pitched a 5-hit shutout, striking out 6, Game Score of 82. This increased his Heat Index to 78.3 On June 26 he pitched a 4-hit shutout, striking out 7, Game Score of 86. This increased his Heat Index to 79.3.
On July 1, 1968, he pitched a complete game, but gave up 9 hits and a run, for a Game Score of “just” 67. This knocked his Heat Index down to 77.2, but he followed that up on July 6 with a 6-hit shutout, striking out 9, Game Score of 80, which pushed him back up to 77.8. His Game Scores in his next four starts were 85, 86, 82 and 80 (four complete games in there, with a total of two runs allowed), which pushed his Heat Index up to 80.7.
On August 4 he pitched his worst games in months. He pitched 11 innings and struck out ten batters, but he did give up 5 runs, 4 of them earned, Game Score of 62. This cut his Heat index down to 77.0. Then, however, he began to rebuild it, pitching two more shutouts in his next three starts, Game Scores of 84, 71 and 92, which put him at 79.9.
On August 24 he struck out 15 batters but gave up 6 runs, Game Score 70, which cut him back down to 77.9. On August 28, however, he pitched a 4-hit shutout, striking out 14 batters, Game Score 90. This pushed him up to 80.3 On September 2 he pitched a ten-inning, 4-hit shutout, Game Score 89. This put him at 82.1.
This frankly incredible run of games—12 shutouts in 19 starts—made Gibson at that moment, heading into his next start, the hottest pitcher of the 1960s, and probably one of the hottest pitchers in the history of baseball. But the 1960s were a pitching-dominated era in which pitchers completed games, and there were many hot streaks by pitchers in the 1960s which were comparable to this—none equal, but many close. The hottest starting pitchers of the 1960s, not making redundant mentions of Gibson or other pitchers on the same streak, were:
1. Bob Gibson, September 6, 1968
|
82.1
|
2. Juan Marichal, May 31, 1966
|
81.1
|
3. Luis Tiant, July 7, 1968
|
80.9
|
4. Larry Dierker, September 17, 1969
|
79.3
|
5. Gaylord Perry, September 15, 1967
|
79.3
|
6. Sandy Koufax, July 12, 1962
|
78.5
|
7. Sandy Koufax, August 18, 1965
|
77.4
|
8. Ray Culp, September 29, 1968
|
77.3
|
9. Don Drysdale, June 8, 1968
|
76.8
|
10. Sandy Koufax, June 14, 1966
|
73.5
|
The dates given are their highest scores entering a game, thus their highest scores AFTER the previous game. The coldest pitchers of the 1960s were:
1. Lew Burdette, July 30, 1965
|
28.7
|
2. Galen Cisco, September 21, 1962
|
30.6
|
3. Craig Anderson, August 7, 1962
|
31.7
|
The ugly and annoying details of this system have to do with the start of a player’s career, or the start of a season. I started each pitcher out at 50.00 each season if
a) he made his first start of the season before May 1, and
b) had made a start in the previous season.
If he had no major league starts the previous season, or if he made his first start of the season on May 1 or later, then he started the season at 40.00. Trust me, there is research that justifies the distinction, and it doesn’t really matter after about eight starts; the “starting point” disappears pretty quickly, taking a 20% hit in each start.
Also, to avoid getting non-representative scores for early-season, 1960, I included 1959 data into the study for the purpose of establishing the “Heat Indexes”, although I did not include the games played in 1959 in the study for purposes of output data.
Anyway, at the conclusion of this I had 64 groups of pitchers, coded AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, BA, BB. . ..HE, HF, HG, HH. AA was high-quality pitchers who came into the game hot; HH was low-quality pitchers who came into the game pitching badly, even by their own standards. We had about 500 starts in each group of games. The essential question was whether and to what extent pitchers would pitch better, relative to the quality of their overall performance, when they were “hot” than when they were “cold”.
They did not pitch better. The extent to which they pitched better was “zero”, or, actually, negative.
The top-end pitchers (the “A” quality pitchers) actually did pitch better when they were “hot” than when they were “cold”. This group of pitchers made 486 starts when they were “hot” (Group AA), of which they won 260, lost 150 (.634 percentage), struck out 3,133 batters, walked only 893, and posted a 2.35 ERA. When they were “cold” (Group AH), they made 506 starts, struck out only 2,557, walked 998 and posted a 2.63 ERA, although they did post an even better won-lost record when “cold” (AH) than when “hot” (AA). They were 285-112 (.718) when they came into the outing cold.
This chart gives their average Game Score, by group:
Code 1
|
Code 2
|
GS
|
G Score Average
|
A
|
A
|
485
|
64.46
|
A
|
B
|
499
|
62.09
|
A
|
C
|
446
|
60.01
|
A
|
D
|
500
|
61.70
|
A
|
E
|
500
|
62.81
|
A
|
F
|
510
|
61.70
|
A
|
G
|
522
|
60.09
|
A
|
H
|
506
|
60.58
|
As you can see, their Game Scores were higher when they were “hot”.
This, however, was the exception within the study. In all other groups, the pitchers pitched better when they came into the start “cold” than when they came in “hot”.
There is a “natural” or “grouping” effect that would explain this phenomenon. By grouping pitchers based on their end-of-season stats, we put them on a fixed-point course. If they had pitched well in the past, they had to pitch less well in the future in order to reach their fixed point by the end of the season, and vice versa.
I knew that this would occur, but it was my judgment that this effect was would be small enough that the tendency of hot pitchers to continue to pitch well—the tendency of starts to cluster—could fairly easily shine through it if that effect was of any significance. Maybe I was right about that; maybe I was wrong. In any case it didn’t. Consistently, the pitchers in each group pitched better when they came into the game “cold” than when they came into the game “hot”.
(The aberration in Group A could be explained by the fact that this was an open-ended group, a group with a fixed bottom but an open top, so that the difference between the top and bottom pitchers in the group was larger than in any of the other groups.)
II. The Josh Beckett/ A J Burnett Study
Josh Beckett and A. J. Burnett were teammates and starred together on the Florida Marlins years ago, and for the last several years have pitched for rival teams in the American League East. They have similar career records and had somewhat similar seasons in 2009, Beckett going 17-6 with a 3.86 ERA, Burnett going 13-9 with a 4.04 ERA.
Their seasons, however, were very different in this respect: that Beckett was obviously streaky during the 2009 season, while Burnett was up and down. This chart gives the Game Scores for Beckett and Burnett start by start, underlined in red for hot or blue for cold:
A. J. BURNETT
|
|
|
|
33 Starts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
76
|
50
|
19
|
49
|
54
|
44
|
55
|
41
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
28
|
73
|
62
|
82
|
62
|
49
|
44
|
60
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
77
|
45
|
61
|
17
|
65
|
22
|
65
|
41
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
66
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSH BECKETT
|
|
|
|
32 Starts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
43
|
47
|
14
|
21
|
44
|
50
|
61
|
74
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
76
|
29
|
84
|
71
|
48
|
57
|
88
|
58
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68
|
74
|
68
|
25
|
37
|
41
|
49
|
55
|
58
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you subtract the value of each Josh Beckett start from the value (Game Score) of the previous start, you get a total of 473. If you do the same for Burnett, you get a total of 786.
We can extend that measurement another step. If you subtract the Game Score for every Josh Beckett start from the Game Score for every other Josh Beckett start, you have 496 possible comparisons, which average 21.44. But if you subtract only the consecutive starts, you get a lower figure, 15.26. The second figure is lower because each start tends to be like the start before it.
If you do the same for Burnett, you get an average of 19.66 for all matches, but 24.56 for the consecutive-game matches. The consecutive-game average is higher because Burnett tended to follow a good start with a bad start.
Beckett’s games formed clusters. Burnett’s did not. If starting pitchers in fact have any tendency to get “hot” and “cold”—as Beckett did—then their “consecutive game” average will be lower than their “random match” average (understanding that we are not actually dealing with randomly matched games, but with the average for all games that could be randomly matched.)
If there is no tendency for pitchers to be hot or cold, then the averages will be the same.
I figured these averages for all starting pitchers for the years 2000 to 2009. Let’s deal only with the pitchers who made 25 or more starts, since that’s complicated enough. The streakiest starting pitcher of those ten years was Dan Haren in 2007, with the A’s. Haren finished the season 15-9 with a 3.07 ERA. Through his first 14 starts, Haren posted a 1.58 ERA. For his last 20 starts, his ERA was 4.22. A hot period; a cold period. These were the ten “streakiest” pitchers of the last decade, in single seasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Consecutive
|
Random
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game
|
Match
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starts
|
Average
|
Average
|
Ratio
|
1
|
2007
|
Dan
|
Haren
|
34
|
8.2
|
14.0
|
.582
|
2
|
2004
|
Johan
|
Santana
|
34
|
11.9
|
19.2
|
.620
|
3
|
2004
|
Paul
|
Wilson
|
29
|
14.4
|
21.0
|
.686
|
4
|
2003
|
Mark
|
Mulder
|
26
|
15.2
|
22.1
|
.690
|
5
|
2003
|
Matt
|
Morris
|
27
|
15.0
|
21.0
|
.711
|
6
|
2009
|
Josh
|
Beckett
|
32
|
15.3
|
21.4
|
.712
|
7
|
2003
|
Livan
|
Hernandez
|
33
|
12.5
|
17.2
|
.727
|
8
|
2002
|
Paul
|
Wilson
|
30
|
13.7
|
18.7
|
.730
|
9
|
2007
|
Sergio
|
Mitre
|
27
|
13.7
|
18.7
|
.732
|
10
|
2009
|
Kevin
|
Millwood
|
31
|
12.2
|
16.3
|
.749
|
While these were the ten “most inconsistent” or “least streaky” pitchers:
|
|
|
|
|
Consecutive
|
Random
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game
|
Match
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starts
|
Average
|
Average
|
Ratio
|
1
|
2002
|
Vicente
|
Padilla
|
32
|
24.6
|
19.0
|
1.29
|
2
|
2004
|
Matt
|
Morris
|
32
|
27.0
|
21.2
|
1.27
|
3
|
2005
|
Kevin
|
Millwood
|
30
|
17.9
|
14.2
|
1.26
|
4
|
2004
|
Curt
|
Schilling
|
32
|
23.7
|
18.9
|
1.25
|
5
|
2009
|
A.J.
|
Burnett
|
33
|
24.6
|
19.7
|
1.25
|
6
|
2005
|
Tomo
|
Ohka
|
29
|
22.4
|
18.0
|
1.25
|
7
|
2005
|
Jamey
|
Wright
|
27
|
27.3
|
23.0
|
1.24
|
8
|
2006
|
Aaron
|
Cook
|
32
|
21.0
|
16.9
|
1.24
|
9
|
2002
|
Danys
|
Baez
|
26
|
18.8
|
15.2
|
1.23
|
10
|
2006
|
Clay
|
Hensley
|
29
|
21.2
|
17.2
|
1.23
|
If the pitchers’ Game Scores have any tendency to form clusters, this method will result in a ratio less than 1.000. If there is no such tendency, this method will result in a figure higher than 1.000 as often as a figure lower than 1.000, and the overall figure will be 1.000.
OK, we come then to the question: Is there, in general, any tendency for Game Scores to form clusters?
None whatsoever.
Well, OK, we can’t say that it is zero. There may be some very small tendency for games to form clusters. In the decade as a whole the average for comparisons of consecutive starts, based on a total of 45,588 observations, was 18.79. The average for randomly matched starts by the same pitcher, based on a total of 581,121 observations, was 18.92. The overall ratio isn’t 1.000; it’s 0.993.
Among pitchers with 25 starts or more, the observed effect was even smaller than that. There were 983 pitchers in the years 2000 to 2009 who made 25 or more starts. 488 of them had “clustering ratios” less than 1.00, indicating some streakiness. 495 had clustering ratios higher than 1.00. For these pitchers, the overall ratio was not 1-.993, but 1-.9992. Whether this difference is statistically significant would not seem to matter since, even if it is statistically significant—which I doubt—the difference is so small that it could still easily be explained by some “loading” factor such as ERAs being higher in mid-summer.
III. The Matched Set Study
My third study compared pitchers with identical or near-identical year-to-date records, but one of whom came into the start hotter than the other. For example, John Maine after his start of September 5, 2007, was 14-9. Roy Oswalt, after his start of September 6, 2008, was also 14-9. Maine had made 28 starts; Oswalt had made 28 starts. Maine had an ERA of 3.80; Oswalt, 3.72. Maine had 146 strikeouts; Oswalt had 144. There records were, for all practical purposes, the same.
However, Oswalt was at that moment red hot. In his last eleven starts, he was 8-1, and had cut his ERA during that stretch from 4.77 to 3.72. In his last start (the September 6 start) he had pitched a 1-hit shutout. In the start prior to that, he had pitched 8 and a third innings of shutout baseball. In the start before that, he had given up one run in 7 innings. Two starts before that, he had pitched 8 innings of one-hit, shutout baseball, striking out ten. He was sizzling.
Maine was not. In his September 5 start he had given up 9 hits and 6 runs in four and a third innings. Two starts prior he had given up 6 runs in five and a third innings. Over his last eleven starts he was 4-5, and his ERA had gone up from 2.71 to 3.80. He was struggling. His overall record was the same as Oswalt’s, but his recent performance was very different.
From the years 2000 to 2009, I identified 504 “matched sets” like this in which two starting pitchers had nearly-identical records, but one was hot and the other was not. Details:
In order to be considered a set, the pitchers had to have exactly the same won-lost records—same wins, same losses.
The difference between them in ERA had to be no greater than 20 points (actually, no greater than 0.205).
The difference between them in game started could be no greater than two.
The difference between them in strikeouts could be no greater than 10% (actually, 10% of the higher figure. If one pitcher had 180 strikeouts and the other had 163, that would qualify because the difference is less than 10% of the higher figure.)
Also, the starts had to occur at the same time of the season, with a difference of no greater than 10 as the “team game number” for the season. (In other words, I didn’t want to compare a pitcher from September with a pitcher with an identical record in July, since this might introduce other issues into the comparison.)
I didn’t use any comparisons in which pitchers had made fewer than ten starts.
I figured how “hot” each pitcher was in the same way as the earlier study, except that I started everybody off at 50.00, rather than starting some guys off at 40.00 as in the previous study. (Since every pitcher was at least ten starts into the season, the initial starting point is no longer of much relevance. If I had started pitchers off at 75.00, I’d have gotten basically the same results.) To qualify for the study, one of the matched-set pitchers had to have a “Hot Score” at least seven points higher than the other one, going into his next start.
Also, a pitcher couldn’t be matched against himself in the same year. . .in other words, Roy Oswalt as of September 6, 2008, couldn’t be matched against Roy Oswalt as of September 1, 2008. Pitchers could, however, be matched against themselves in a different season, if they had near-identical records in different seasons, but were “hot” in one season and “not hot” in another. This did happen numerous times—that pitchers wound up matched against themselves in other seasons. For example:
Randy Johnson as of September 5, 2000, had made 30 starts with a won-lost record of 17-6, 2.45 ERA, 299 strikeouts.
Randy Johnson as of September 7, 2001, had also made 30 starts with the same won-lost record (17-6), same ERA (2.45), but 320 strikeouts. But he was ten degrees hotter at that time in 2001 than he was in 2000.
Greg Maddux as of September 7, 2001, was 17-8, 30 starts, 2.93 ERA, 162 strikeouts.
Greg Maddux as of September 13, 2000, was 17-8, 32 starts, 3.00 ERA, 168 strikeouts. But he was eight degrees hotter in 2001 than he was in 2000.
Russ Ortiz, as of August 14, 2001, had made 25 starts and was 13-6, 3.46 ERA, 116 strikeouts.
Russ Ortiz as of August 15, 2004, had made 25 starts and was 13-6, 3.31 ERA, 124 strikeouts. But Ortiz was nine degrees hotter in 2004 than he was in 2001.
I should explain also that these records are the pitchers’ records as starting pitchers. A handful of these pitchers may also have made a relief appearance or two, creating some small differences in ERA or occasionally even a win or a loss. Anyway, here are 38 more randomly selected matches:
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
19
|
2001
|
Matt
|
Morris
|
31
|
197.7
|
20
|
7
|
.741
|
161
|
47
|
3.10
|
Hot
|
9
|
12
|
2008
|
Brandon
|
Webb
|
31
|
205.7
|
20
|
7
|
.741
|
168
|
59
|
3.28
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
23
|
2000
|
Greg
|
Maddux
|
34
|
244.3
|
19
|
8
|
.704
|
183
|
40
|
2.91
|
Hot
|
9
|
24
|
2002
|
Roy
|
Oswalt
|
33
|
229.0
|
19
|
8
|
.704
|
202
|
61
|
2.95
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
17
|
2005
|
Cliff
|
Lee
|
30
|
187.3
|
17
|
4
|
.810
|
136
|
49
|
3.75
|
Hot
|
9
|
10
|
2004
|
Mark
|
Mulder
|
29
|
210.0
|
17
|
4
|
.810
|
131
|
76
|
3.90
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
17
|
2004
|
Roy
|
Oswalt
|
32
|
216.3
|
17
|
9
|
.654
|
189
|
57
|
3.49
|
Hot
|
9
|
30
|
2001
|
Tim
|
Hudson
|
34
|
229.0
|
17
|
9
|
.654
|
175
|
70
|
3.42
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
25
|
2001
|
Wade
|
Miller
|
30
|
200.0
|
16
|
8
|
.667
|
168
|
70
|
3.56
|
Hot
|
9
|
15
|
2002
|
Matt
|
Morris
|
30
|
197.3
|
16
|
8
|
.667
|
163
|
62
|
3.42
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
27
|
2005
|
Tim
|
Wakefield
|
32
|
220.3
|
16
|
11
|
.593
|
150
|
68
|
3.96
|
Hot
|
9
|
24
|
2000
|
Livan
|
Hernandez
|
32
|
232.0
|
16
|
11
|
.593
|
162
|
71
|
3.84
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
17
|
2001
|
Robert
|
Person
|
30
|
190.3
|
15
|
6
|
.714
|
168
|
74
|
4.02
|
Hot
|
9
|
14
|
2009
|
Jered
|
Weaver
|
30
|
194.0
|
15
|
6
|
.714
|
164
|
61
|
3.85
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
21
|
2008
|
Bronson
|
Arroyo
|
33
|
193.0
|
15
|
11
|
.577
|
158
|
66
|
4.66
|
Hot
|
9
|
28
|
2001
|
Ryan
|
Dempster
|
33
|
210.7
|
15
|
11
|
.577
|
170
|
106
|
4.66
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
28
|
2004
|
Pedro
|
Martinez
|
27
|
180.7
|
14
|
5
|
.737
|
188
|
46
|
3.69
|
Hot
|
9
|
2
|
2009
|
Josh
|
Beckett
|
27
|
181.3
|
14
|
5
|
.737
|
172
|
48
|
3.87
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
15
|
2006
|
Bronson
|
Arroyo
|
32
|
221.3
|
14
|
9
|
.609
|
172
|
55
|
3.17
|
Hot
|
9
|
18
|
2008
|
Cole
|
Hamels
|
32
|
220.3
|
14
|
9
|
.609
|
189
|
52
|
3.10
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
26
|
2006
|
Justin
|
Verlander
|
20
|
130.3
|
13
|
4
|
.765
|
88
|
36
|
2.69
|
Hot
|
7
|
18
|
2002
|
Bartolo
|
Colon
|
20
|
146.3
|
13
|
4
|
.765
|
91
|
43
|
2.64
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
22
|
2001
|
Javier
|
Vazquez
|
28
|
193.7
|
13
|
11
|
.542
|
183
|
41
|
3.76
|
Hot
|
8
|
28
|
2007
|
Daisuke
|
Matsuzaka
|
27
|
176.3
|
13
|
11
|
.542
|
174
|
66
|
3.88
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
3
|
2009
|
Matt
|
Cain
|
22
|
148.0
|
12
|
3
|
.800
|
117
|
54
|
2.25
|
Hot
|
7
|
26
|
2007
|
Dan
|
Haren
|
22
|
149.0
|
12
|
3
|
.800
|
118
|
39
|
2.42
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
27
|
2004
|
Derek
|
Lowe
|
26
|
151.7
|
12
|
10
|
.545
|
85
|
58
|
5.22
|
Hot
|
8
|
21
|
2001
|
Mike
|
Hampton
|
26
|
164.3
|
12
|
10
|
.545
|
91
|
66
|
5.26
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
19
|
2001
|
Freddy
|
Garcia
|
20
|
135.3
|
11
|
2
|
.846
|
79
|
45
|
3.46
|
Hot
|
7
|
9
|
2006
|
Tom
|
Glavine
|
19
|
119.0
|
11
|
2
|
.846
|
82
|
36
|
3.48
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
15
|
2006
|
Curt
|
Schilling
|
20
|
134.3
|
11
|
3
|
.786
|
124
|
16
|
3.42
|
Hot
|
7
|
15
|
2006
|
Mike
|
Mussina
|
20
|
128.3
|
11
|
3
|
.786
|
113
|
24
|
3.30
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
8
|
2006
|
Livan
|
Hernandez
|
30
|
189.0
|
11
|
12
|
.478
|
115
|
65
|
5.10
|
Hot
|
9
|
3
|
2003
|
Jason
|
Jennings
|
30
|
170.3
|
11
|
12
|
.478
|
113
|
84
|
5.13
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
29
|
2009
|
Roy
|
Halladay
|
15
|
109.0
|
10
|
2
|
.833
|
95
|
14
|
2.56
|
Hot
|
6
|
24
|
2004
|
Roger
|
Clemens
|
15
|
95.7
|
10
|
2
|
.833
|
101
|
38
|
2.73
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
30
|
2000
|
Darren
|
Dreifort
|
26
|
154.7
|
10
|
7
|
.588
|
132
|
69
|
4.36
|
Hot
|
9
|
1
|
2000
|
Randy
|
Wolf
|
27
|
174.3
|
10
|
7
|
.588
|
136
|
70
|
4.34
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
11
|
2004
|
Sidney
|
Ponson
|
29
|
189.7
|
10
|
14
|
.417
|
103
|
60
|
5.31
|
Hot
|
9
|
15
|
2006
|
Ramon
|
Ortiz
|
30
|
178.3
|
10
|
14
|
.417
|
97
|
62
|
5.30
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
19
|
2002
|
Kyle
|
Lohse
|
20
|
110.7
|
9
|
5
|
.643
|
71
|
43
|
4.80
|
Hot
|
7
|
23
|
2004
|
Esteban
|
Loaiza
|
20
|
133.7
|
9
|
5
|
.643
|
78
|
43
|
4.85
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
3
|
2008
|
Barry
|
Zito
|
28
|
153.7
|
9
|
16
|
.360
|
98
|
89
|
5.45
|
Hot
|
9
|
3
|
2004
|
Darrell
|
May
|
27
|
160.3
|
9
|
16
|
.360
|
97
|
49
|
5.61
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
5
|
26
|
2001
|
Curt
|
Schilling
|
11
|
84.3
|
8
|
1
|
.889
|
93
|
11
|
2.77
|
Hot
|
5
|
26
|
2002
|
Randy
|
Johnson
|
11
|
79.0
|
8
|
1
|
.889
|
100
|
22
|
2.73
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
6
|
2004
|
Mike
|
Maroth
|
23
|
149.7
|
8
|
7
|
.533
|
70
|
43
|
4.45
|
Hot
|
8
|
5
|
2007
|
Jason
|
Marquis
|
23
|
133.3
|
8
|
7
|
.533
|
73
|
55
|
4.39
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
19
|
2001
|
Albie
|
Lopez
|
30
|
183.7
|
8
|
18
|
.308
|
118
|
70
|
5.10
|
Hot
|
9
|
27
|
2001
|
Bobby J.
|
Jones
|
32
|
192.3
|
8
|
18
|
.308
|
113
|
35
|
5.05
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
22
|
2001
|
C.C.
|
Sabathia
|
14
|
76.0
|
7
|
2
|
.778
|
55
|
37
|
4.38
|
Hot
|
6
|
10
|
2008
|
Chien-Ming
|
Wang
|
14
|
90.0
|
7
|
2
|
.778
|
51
|
35
|
4.30
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
15
|
2007
|
Derek
|
Lowe
|
15
|
102.3
|
7
|
6
|
.538
|
72
|
31
|
3.08
|
Hot
|
6
|
19
|
2002
|
Al
|
Leiter
|
15
|
93.7
|
7
|
6
|
.538
|
74
|
28
|
3.07
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
19
|
2000
|
Steve
|
Parris
|
25
|
145.0
|
7
|
14
|
.333
|
86
|
50
|
4.78
|
Hot
|
8
|
23
|
2005
|
Brett
|
Tomko
|
24
|
145.7
|
7
|
14
|
.333
|
84
|
48
|
4.94
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
5
|
30
|
2007
|
Chris
|
Young
|
11
|
67.0
|
6
|
3
|
.667
|
60
|
26
|
2.42
|
Hot
|
5
|
29
|
2001
|
Kevin
|
Brown
|
10
|
65.7
|
6
|
3
|
.667
|
64
|
17
|
2.60
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
31
|
2001
|
Glendon
|
Rusch
|
22
|
119.3
|
6
|
6
|
.500
|
101
|
29
|
4.60
|
Hot
|
7
|
30
|
2005
|
Jose
|
Contreras
|
21
|
125.7
|
6
|
6
|
.500
|
92
|
56
|
4.58
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
8
|
2008
|
Joe
|
Blanton
|
24
|
149.0
|
6
|
12
|
.333
|
76
|
43
|
4.71
|
Hot
|
8
|
10
|
2005
|
Brian
|
Lawrence
|
24
|
150.0
|
6
|
12
|
.333
|
79
|
38
|
4.80
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
29
|
2003
|
Darrell
|
May
|
20
|
127.7
|
5
|
5
|
.500
|
65
|
34
|
3.81
|
Hot
|
8
|
4
|
2007
|
Sergio
|
Mitre
|
20
|
117.7
|
5
|
5
|
.500
|
67
|
26
|
3.67
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
3
|
2000
|
Kenny
|
Rogers
|
11
|
78.7
|
5
|
5
|
.500
|
32
|
17
|
4.00
|
Hot
|
5
|
30
|
2003
|
Jeff
|
Suppan
|
11
|
67.0
|
5
|
5
|
.500
|
35
|
18
|
4.03
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
8
|
22
|
2006
|
Jeff
|
Weaver
|
24
|
131.0
|
5
|
13
|
.278
|
83
|
35
|
6.11
|
Hot
|
8
|
22
|
2000
|
Masato
|
Yoshii
|
25
|
147.3
|
5
|
13
|
.278
|
78
|
44
|
5.99
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
5
|
2001
|
Jarrod
|
Washburn
|
10
|
64.7
|
4
|
4
|
.500
|
39
|
26
|
4.45
|
Hot
|
5
|
27
|
2005
|
Tim
|
Wakefield
|
10
|
62.3
|
4
|
4
|
.500
|
39
|
30
|
4.48
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
7
|
8
|
2005
|
Nate
|
Robertson
|
17
|
102.0
|
3
|
7
|
.300
|
59
|
38
|
3.35
|
Hot
|
7
|
3
|
2002
|
Chris
|
Reitsma
|
17
|
94.0
|
3
|
7
|
.300
|
55
|
32
|
3.45
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
9
|
14
|
2008
|
Jeremy
|
Sowers
|
20
|
109.0
|
3
|
8
|
.273
|
60
|
34
|
5.70
|
Hot
|
9
|
6
|
2000
|
John
|
Snyder
|
20
|
110.7
|
3
|
8
|
.273
|
61
|
69
|
5.86
|
Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month
|
Day
|
Year
|
First
|
Last
|
GS
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
SO
|
BB
|
ERA
|
|
6
|
12
|
2000
|
Frank
|
Castillo
|
12
|
65.0
|
2
|
5
|
.286
|
50
|
34
|
4.71
|
Hot
|
6
|
9
|
2002
|
Shawn
|
Estes
|
12
|
69.0
|
2
|
5
|
.286
|
52
|
35
|
4.83
|
Not
|
Obviously, Jeremy Sowers in mid-September, 2008, wasn’t too hot, or he wouldn’t have been 3-8 with a 5.70 ERA, but he was hotter than Snyder. Sowers’ ERA on July 19, 2008 was 6.44. Snyder’s ERA had been 4.76 on July 8, but it had gone up to 5.86. You get my point. One was hotter than the other.
You may be wondering whether the 504 qualifying matches that I found are all there are. The answer to that is “no”; you could find 2,000 matches from the years 2000 to 2009 as good as these, if you worked at it hard enough. In this study, each group of 504 pitchers had an aggregate won-lost record of 4637-3779, and each group had an aggregate ERA of 4.12.
Anyway, I then looked at how these pitchers performed in their next start, and also compared their final season stats.
In this study the pitchers who were “hot” did out-perform the pitchers who were not hot in their next starts, and over the balance of the season—not by a huge amount, but they did outperform them. The “hot” pitchers, in their 504 “next starts”, had a won-lost record of 199-175, an ERA of 4.28, and an average Game Score of 50.62.
The “cold” pitchers, in their 504 next starts, had a won-lost record of 177-177, an ERA of 4.74, and an average Game Score of 47.94.
At season’s end the “hot” pitchers had an average season score of 119.1. The pitchers who were “cold” had an average season score of 112.8.
Of course, I should point out. . ..I never know whether to point out things that any intelligent person could see for himself. I always feel like I’m insulting your intelligence when I point out things like this, but when I don’t point them out, somebody always explains it to me as if I was the idiot who didn’t get it.
I should point out that this difference, even assuming it to be statistically significant, is not necessarily evidence of a “hot streak/cold streak” phenomenon. Players’ levels of ability do change over time. The ten best pitchers in baseball today are not the same ten guys that you would have listed five years ago. It may be that, when you measure equal performers but split according to recent performances, some of the pitchers who have pitched well recently have actually improved, while others have actually declined.
In any case, suppose that you are going to a ballgame tomorrow, and both starting pitchers are 11-7 with ERAs of 3.45, but one of them is hot and the other is cold. Is the one who is “hot” more likely to win the game?
Yes.