Three pitchers:
|
Pitcher A
|
A
|
Pitcher B
|
B
|
Pitcher C
|
C
|
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
|
22-9
|
2.40
|
13-20
|
3.90
|
14-15
|
3.00
|
|
7-12
|
3.27
|
16-13
|
3.22
|
13-12
|
4.30
|
|
23-11
|
2.09
|
15-14
|
3.56
|
11-17
|
3.73
|
|
22-13
|
2.51
|
20-7
|
3.13
|
14-12
|
3.46
|
|
20-11
|
2.91
|
23-10
|
2.64
|
20-10
|
2.79
|
|
21-12
|
2.46
|
16-13
|
2.84
|
14-15
|
3.41
|
|
10-6
|
3.30
|
18-11
|
3.62
|
18-12
|
3.62
|
|
16-10
|
3.98
|
24-9
|
2.34
|
11-13
|
3.40
|
|
141-84
|
2.76
|
145-97
|
3.15
|
115-106
|
3.46
|
These are concurrent seasons….when Pitcher A went 22-9, Pitcher B went 13-20, and Pitcher C went 14-15.
Looking at them individually...Pitcher A had five 20-win seasons. We could say that those were Cy Young seasons, years when he probably would’ve contended for the award. He did contend for that award: these guys are modern pitchers, players you know. I’m sure half of you know who Pitcher A is, just based on the wins and losses.
Pitcher B had three 20-win seasons and a 20-loss season. Over these eight seasons, Pitcher B is more up-and-down than Pitcher A. Both pitchers have comparable cumulative records over the eight seasons listed here, but Pitcher B had higher highs and lower lows.
(Just an aside: I would’ve liked to list strikeouts and innings pitched, but they wouldn’t fit on the table. And yes…we’ll get to the advanced metrics soon.)
Pitcher C…in the eight seasons listed above, Pitcher C never bested Pitcher A and B in wins. Sometimes he had more wins than one or the other, but he never won more games than both of the others. The same thing is true with Earned Run Average…Pitcher C never topped A and B in ERA. He had one 20-win season and an 18-win season: Pitcher C isn’t a bad pitcher, but by these measures, he’s not on par with pitchers A and B.
That was the belief at the time and that is the belief today: nobody really thinks Pitcher C is better than Pitchers A or B.
But…(wait for it)…what if he was?
Using baseballreference.com’s Wins Above Replacement (WAR):
|
Year
|
Pitcher A
|
Pitcher B
|
Pitcher C
|
|
1973
|
6.1
|
2.3
|
5.5
|
|
1974
|
1.2
|
4.5
|
3.8
|
|
1975
|
7.6
|
2.3
|
3.6
|
|
1976
|
6.4
|
3.7
|
4.6
|
|
1977
|
7.9
|
5.8
|
8.7
|
|
1978
|
6.1
|
2.8
|
5.4
|
|
1979
|
1.8
|
2.6
|
5.2
|
|
1980
|
1.7
|
9.4
|
5.5
|
|
Total
|
38.8
|
33.4
|
42.3
|
We’ve thrown in the years…1973 through 1980. A WAR higher than 5.0 suggests an All-Star Level season. Pitcher A had five All-Star level seasons. So did Pitcher C. Pitcher B had just two All-Star seasons.
Most significantly, Pitcher C has a higher cumulative WAR over these eight seasons. Additionally, Pitcher C is never the worst pitcher of the three…he leads the trio in WAR just twice, but he is never the worst of the group.
The worst player of the trio, according to WAR, is Pitcher B….the roller-coaster pitcher. Pitcher B had the best individual season (1980, WAR of 9.4), but he has the lowest cumulative WAR of the group.
Another metric: Fangraphs’ Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP), which measures the things a pitcher can control (walks, strikeouts, homers), while ignoring the things he can’t:
|
Year
|
Pitcher A
|
Pitcher B
|
Pitcher C
|
|
1973
|
3.38
|
3.52
|
2.82
|
|
1974
|
3.72
|
3.32
|
3.33
|
|
1975
|
2.96
|
3.55
|
3.16
|
|
1976
|
3.32
|
2.93
|
3.19
|
|
1977
|
3.47
|
3.47
|
3.03
|
|
1978
|
3.48
|
3.66
|
3.22
|
|
1979
|
3.70
|
3.45
|
3.62
|
|
1980
|
4.32
|
2.42
|
3.25
|
Here is where Pitcher A trips up: he leads the group in FIP just once, in 1975. He posts the worst FIP of the trio five times. By this metric, he is the worst of the group.
Pitcher B posted the worst FIP of the trio four times (there was a tie for the worst FIP in 1977).
As for Pitcher C….Pitcher C never posted the worst FIP. He led the trio in FIP three times, and was second the other five seasons.
Well…we’ve gone on as long as I can sustain this. It’s time for the (not so big) reveal:
Pitcher A is Jim Palmer. Palmer won three Cy Young Awards (all during the seasons listed above). He was elected to the Hall of Fame as soon as he was eligible.
Pitcher B is Steve Carlton, who won four Cy Young Awards (two during the seasons listed above). He was elected to the Hall of Fame as soon as he was eligible.
Pitcher C is Rick Reuschel, who never won a Cy Young, and received exactly two votes from the 473 writers who casts ballots for the Hall of Fame.
The Success of Blyleven
Bert Blyleven was going to make it. The Hall of Fame, I mean. There was too much to ignore: 287 wins, 3701 strikeouts, 60 shutouts….sooner or later he would’ve gotten his plaque.
That said, it is fair to say that Bert Blyleven’s election to the Hall of Fame was significantly aided by a) the persuasive writings of Rich Leader at Baseball Analysts, and other contributors in the baseball blogosphere, and b) a) the increased acceptance of non-traditional metrics for evaluating players. Blyleven’s election to the Hall of Fame is a success: it means we’re gaining ground.
Bill, in one of his article about this year’s Hall of Fame ballot, clarifies that we still have a long way to go:
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come."
He’s right. Blyleven does not prove that sabermetrics have gained general acceptance. Blyleven was elected on the basis of those statistics I listed above: 287 wins, 3701 strikeouts, 60 shutouts. Those aren’t new statistics…Blyleven does well by advanced metrics, too, but his lifetime WAR or ERA+ or Win Shares will not be mentioned on his Cooperstown plaque.
So: what pitcher’s election to the Hall of Fame would signify that sabermetrics have won general acceptance? What pitcher best represents the divide between traditional statistics and our newer, fancier ones? Who is going to be the new test-case, the new Blyleven?
I think Rick Reuschel is a good choice.
The (Great) Reuschel
Rick Reuschel wasn’t famous until he was too old for it to matter.
It’s a truth in baseball that you are remembered most for what you did as a young player. Jim Rice was a star at a young age, so people remember him as a star. People talk about the ‘Gold Dust Twins’ and that broken bat on the checked swing and the MVP in 1978. He is referenced in the stories of Andre Dubus and is a member of the Hall of Fame. He was a star as a young player, and people remember him that way.
It’s true in baseball and it’s true in life: you never get a second chance on that first impression. Jim Rice’s first impression was very good.
Dwight Evans played on the same team as Rice, over the same seasons, and Dwight Evans has very comparable numbers. But Dwight Evans wasn’t a great player until he was older…as a young player he was an all-field, no-hit guy. His peak was every bit as good as Rice’s, but it happened later, after his reputation was established.
Ozzie Smith is another one… no one ever really noticed how good of a hitter he became, because he was all-glove, no-hit at the beginning. No one ever wrote about Ozzie Smith, the hitter. Well…almost no one did.
Rafael Palmeiro…Raffy was a Mark Grace-type hitter early in his career, and then he started hitting scads of homeruns in 1993. Only eleven hitters in history have hit more homeruns than Palmeiro, but no one ever thought of his as a homerun hitter. It’s tough to change that first impression.
Rick Reuschel had an up-and-down career. He reached the major leagues in 1972, as a 23-yaer old pitcher. He did very well as a rookie: 2.93 ERA in 129 innings pitched. He didn’t blow batters away: his strikeout ratio was 6.0 per nine innings, but he didn’t walk too many guys either.
The Cubs won 85 games in 1972, finishing in second place. They were a good team…but they were an old team. They had the oldest batters in the league by a wide margin (the average age of a hitter was 29.9 years old), and their pitchers average age was second to the Dodgers.
Well, age caught up with them. The Cubs fell to fifth place in 1973, and then all the way to the cellar in 1974. The team would not get above .500 until 1984.
For most of those dark days, Reuschel was the most valuable player on the team. He followed his rookie year with a full season of work, posting a terrific 3.00 ERA and a record of 14-15. He followed that year with seasonal records of 13-12, 11-17, and 14-12. Those are not great records, but Reuschel led the team in Wins Above Replacement.
Rick Reuschel won 20 games in 1977, for a Cubs team that surprised everyone by contending through the summer. It was a great year, but a lot of pitchers were winning 20 games in those seasons, so it didn’t stand out as boldly as it might have in later years. Reuschel finished third in the Cy Young vote, which went to Steve Carlton.
The impression of Reuschel was this: a pretty good pitcher, an innings-eater who can be good (20 wins in 1977, 18 in 1979), or bad (17 losses in 1975, 15 losses in 1978).
Aesthetically, there was little that Reuschel added to that impression. He did not have the blazing fastball and the cocky show-‘em attitude of Ryan. He wasn’t handsome like Palmer or Seaver…he looked like a bowler; he looked like he belonged in a bowling league. He wasn’t an interesting interview. He liked crosswords. He was a reader.
Reuschel followed his big 20-win season with a 14-15 record in 1978. He won 18 games in 1979 and then he fell off the radar. Arm injuries led to Reuschel bouncing around for much of the early 1980’s. He was dropped by the Cubs mid-way through 1981, and signed with the Yankees, going 8-11 between the two teams. He then missed all of 1982 with rotator cuff surgery. Most people didn’t think he’d come back.
He did come back, resigning with the Cubs in 1983. Reuschel made four starts for the Young Bears, going 1-1 with an ERA a bit under 4.00. The next year he started and relieved: 92 inning pitched and an abysmal 5.17 ERA. The Cubs went to the postseason in 1984, but he didn’t go with them: he was left off the roster. It was widely believed that his career was finished.
A free agent, Reuschel signed with a Pittsburgh Pirates team that had gone 75-87 in 1984. The Pirates went from bad to really, catastrophically bad, posting a 57-104 record on the season. Reuschel was the solitary bright spot on the team, posting a stunning 14-8 record with a 2.27 ERA.
Reuschel was selected as the Comeback Player of the Year, and it wasn’t a particularly close vote. Then he went 9-16 the following year and had to give it back.
The last chapter of Reuschel’s career happened in San Francisco…it was the last chapter and it was the brightest. After a career spent on very lousy teams, Reuschel thrived with the talent-rich Giants, posting back-to-back records of 19-11 and 17-9 in 1988 and 1989, and helping the Giants make it to the Earthquake World Series of 1989.
One highlight of his San Francisco years was Reuschel’s selection as the starter of the 1989 All-Star Game. He was forty years old then, and the third-oldest player in baseball. Going against script, the first two batters for the American League (Bo Jackson and Wade Boggs) homered off Reuschel Unfazed, the sinkerball pitcher induced groundballs from the next four batters he faced.
Reuschel retired with a career record of 214-191. That’s a fine career, but does not seem like a Hall-of-Fame career. Joe Niekro had a career record of 220-203. Jerry Koosman was 222-209…the common perception is that Reuschel was like those guys: a good, solid pitcher, who had a long career. He was never thought of as one of the great pitchers….he never won a Cy Young or led the league in ERA or strikeouts. His star wasn’t as bright as the stars of Seaver or Palmer or Carlton or Ryan or Jenkins, never mind Catfish Hunter or J.R. Richards or Ron Guidry.
But…in his prime, Reuschel was every bit as good as those players. The contexts around him blurred that reality, but it is absolutely true.
Does My Insurance Cover (Context) Lenses?
Let me give you the most remarkable fact about Rick Reuschel that I found: during his twelve years as a member of the Chicago Cubs, Reuschel allowed 0.5 home runs per nine innings pitched.
0.5.
Just putting that into perspective: Francisco Liriano had the lowest homerun ratio in the majors last year, at 0.4. He did this while making half his starts in a ballpark that saw 30% fewer homeruns than the major league average. And: Liriano posted his ratio during a year of declining offenses.
Rick Reuschel, pitching half his games in one of the two best hitters’ park in the National League, posted the same homerun ratio as Liriano posted in 2010…except Reuschel did it for twelve seasons.
Here are the park effects for Wrigley, 1972-1984:
|
Year
|
Pitching Park Effects
|
|
1972
|
113
|
|
1973
|
108
|
|
1974
|
103
|
|
1975
|
104
|
|
1976
|
111
|
|
1977
|
114
|
|
1978
|
110
|
|
1979
|
112
|
|
1980
|
109
|
|
1981
|
106
|
|
1982
|
102
|
|
1984
|
108
|
If we were to classify pitchers by their approach to hitters, Reuschel would perhaps belong in the Tim Hudson family: he didn’t have a great fastball, so he focused on upsetting a hitters timing. He once said that the harder a batter swung, the slower he’d throw. He was a groundball pitcher who a) didn’t walk batters, and b) did not give up homeruns.
A pitcher like Reuschel relies on defense: one of the reasons that Reuschel is so underrated is because he had the misfortune of playing his prime years for the Chicago Cubs. I mentioned earlier that they were an old team…well; the Cubs were also a terrible defensive team. Defensive Efficiency measures the percentage of balls in play that a team converts to outs. Here’s where the Cubs ranked in terms of defensive efficiency during Reuschel’s years in Wrigley:
|
Year
|
Cubs Ranking, Def. Eff.
|
|
1973
|
Last
|
|
1974
|
Last
|
|
1975
|
Last
|
|
1976
|
9th
|
|
1977
|
9th
|
|
1978
|
10th
|
|
1979
|
Last
|
|
1980
|
Last
|
|
1981
|
Last
|
|
1982
|
8th
|
|
1983
|
11th
|
|
1984
|
10th
|
This was a twelve-team league...for most of his career, Reuschel pitched in front of the worst defense in baseball. Even when they weren’t the worst, they were nearly the worst: they finished a lofty 9th in 1976, but that was just one-one-thousandth away from last place. In 1978 they finished 10th, but they were .002 away from the bottom of the pile.
So Reuschel, a great contact pitcher, had the misfortune to spend his peak years a) in one of the best hitters’ parks in baseball, b) in front of the worst defense in the league, and c) on a loser team that couldn’t win games for him.
Should Rick Reuschel be in the Hall of Fame?
Reuschel, during his career, tallied a career pitching WAR of 66.3, which ranks him 30th among major league pitchers. Here’s a snapshot of his listing, along with the guys just ahead and behind him:
|
Rank
|
Name
|
Career Pitching WAR
|
|
28
|
Curt Schilling
|
69.7
|
|
29
|
Tom Glavine
|
67
|
|
30
|
Rick Reuschel
|
66.3
|
|
31
|
Bob Feller
|
66
|
|
32
|
Don Drysdale
|
65.7
|
Bob Feller and Don Drysdale are in the Hall of Fame, and very few people would argue that they shouldn’t be there. Glavine and Schilling will both make the Hall someday, and they will also be deserving candidates.
Reuschel, according to Pitching WAR, is right with ‘em. He ranks ahead of Hubbell and Marichal and Bunning and Dazzy Vance and Hal Newhouser and Sandy Koufax.
I don’t think that Reuschel is better than any of those players…but right now he’s not in the discussion. He should be.
Looking at career Fielding Independent Pitching (minimum of 3000 innings pitched):
|
Rank
|
Name
|
Career FIP
|
|
t-38
|
Randy Johnson
|
3.19
|
|
t-38
|
Bert Blyleven
|
3.19
|
|
40
|
Mickey Lolich
|
3.2p
|
|
t-41
|
Jim Bunning
|
3.22
|
|
t-41
|
Rick Reuschel
|
3.22
|
|
43
|
Curt Schilling
|
3.23
|
|
44
|
Don Sutton
|
3.24
|
Reuschel ranks tied for 41st all-time, with Hall of Famer Jim Bunning. Again, Curt Schilling comes up as a comparable.
I should say that Reuschel does not do well according to Win Shares. At the start of this article, I listed the 1973-1980 seasons of Palmer, Carlton, and Reuschel, showing their W-L records, ERA, WAR, and FIP. Here are the Win Shares tallies for the three men:
|
Year
|
Palmer
|
Carlton
|
Reuschel
|
|
1973
|
27.7
|
14.2
|
19.6
|
|
1974
|
9.0
|
22.3
|
11.6
|
|
1975
|
31.3
|
14.2
|
14.3
|
|
1976
|
27.3
|
17.8
|
19.2
|
|
1977
|
28.7
|
26.4
|
26.1
|
|
1978
|
26.6
|
20.1
|
18.2
|
|
1979
|
11.6
|
18.1
|
17.0
|
|
1980
|
11.9
|
28.6
|
15.2
|
|
174.1
|
161.7
|
141.2
|
Palmer, the winner of three Cy Young awards, comes out well ahead of Reuschel, as does Steve Carlton. I don’t have the Win Shares/Loss Shares data for the three men, but I suspect that Reuschel would not do as well as Carlton and Palmer.
I don’t know if Reuschel is a Hall of Famer. Measured by the old standards, by wins and losses and earned run average and Cy Young Awards and 20-win seasons, Big Daddy isn’t a Hall of Famer. But he does do surprisingly well when measured by some of the newer metrics. If those metrics start to make headway into the general public, we’ll be hearing a lot more about Rick Reuschel.
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Wellington, New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com. He would like to pass along his thoughts and best wishes to the city of Christchurch.