Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Cleanup

By Bill James

August 15, 2017

2018-40

Cleanup

Stuff I promised to do before I finished the series. . .

Some notable pitchers whose career won-lost records ARE a fair representation of their performance. The numbers on the left are the actual won-lost records; on the right are the deserved wins and losses.

First	Last	W	L	WPct	Wins	Losses	WPct
Johnny	Antonelli	126	110	.534	124	103	.545
Bronson	Arroyo	145	131	.525	142	136	.510
Pedro	Astacio	129	124	.510	133	121	.523
Stan	Bahnsen	146	149	.495	140	148	.485
Jesse	Barnes	152	150	.503	148	147	.502
Josh	Beckett	138	106	.566	136	105	.563
Tim	Belcher	146	140	.510	143	136	.512
Andy	Benes	155	139	.527	151	137	.525
Buddy	Black	121	116	.511	118	117	.504
Mike	Boddicker	134	116	.536	131	112	.540
Tiny	Bonham	103	72	.589	104	75	.581
Tommy	Bridges	194	138	.584	192	134	.590
Madison	Bumgarner	100	67	.599	97	68	.589
A.J.	Burnett	164	157	.511	168	153	.523
Ray	Caldwell	133	120	.526	134	120	.526
Kid	Carsey	116	138	.457	114	136	.455
Elton	Chamberlin	157	120	.567	158	125	.558
Larry	Cheney	116	100	.537	110	102	.517
Eddie	Cicotte	208	149	.583	207	157	.569
Watty	Clark	111	97	.534	109	93	.540
Reggie	Cleveland	105	106	.498	100	106	.485
Wilbur	Cooper	216	178	.548	219	179	.550
Stan	Coveleski	215	142	.602	209	145	.591
Johnny	Cueto	114	75	.603	116	77	.601
Bert	Cunningham	142	167	.460	144	162	.470
R.A.	Dickey	110	108	.505	113	108	.510
Larry	Dierker	139	123	.531	139	128	.521
Bill	Dietrich	108	128	.458	106	125	.460
Bill	Doak	169	157	.518	163	154	.515
Pat	Dobson	122	129	.486	120	121	.497
Doug	Drabek	155	134	.536	152	138	.526
Howard	Ehmke	166	166	.500	166	158	.511
Scott	Erickson	142	136	.511	137	134	.505
Duke	Esper	101	100	.502	95	100	.485
Red	Faber	254	213	.544	255	213	.545
Cy	Falkenberg	130	123	.514	131	126	.509
Alex	Fernandez	107	87	.552	112	89	.557
Ray	Fisher	100	94	.515	103	95	.520
Larry	French	197	171	.535	194	169	.535
Charlie	Getzien	145	139	.511	144	141	.505
Kid	Gleason	138	131	.513	135	133	.505
Steve	Gromek	123	108	.532	122	114	.517
Harvey	Haddix	136	113	.546	139	116	.544
WildBill	Hallahan	102	94	.520	102	99	.508
Dan	Haren	153	131	.539	154	131	.540
Guy	Hecker	173	146	.542	173	153	.531
Claude	Hendrix	144	117	.552	146	122	.544
Pat	Hentgen	131	112	.539	127	112	.529
Ray	Herbert	104	107	.493	106	108	.495
Ken	Hill	117	109	.518	119	107	.528
Charlie	Hough	216	216	.500	220	214	.507
Bill	Hutchison	184	163	.530	187	159	.540
SadSam	Jones	229	217	.513	225	221	.504
Addie	Joss	160	97	.623	159	104	.605
Scott	Kazmir	108	96	.529	105	94	.527
Alex	Kellner	101	112	.474	100	111	.475
Darryl	Kile	133	119	.528	131	119	.525
Ellis	Kinder	102	71	.590	100	69	.592
Silver	King	203	153	.570	208	151	.579
Johnny	Klippstein	101	118	.461	106	118	.474
Bob	Knepper	146	155	.485	147	163	.474
John	Lackey	176	135	.566	173	141	.552
Frank	Lary	128	116	.525	133	113	.541
Bill 1	Lee	169	157	.518	170	160	.514
Charlie	Leibrandt	140	119	.541	141	122	.536
Dutch	Leonard	139	112	.554	140	108	.564
Jon	Lester	146	84	.635	145	91	.614
Jon	Lieber	131	124	.514	133	123	.520
Tim	Lincecum	110	89	.553	108	89	.547
Kyle	Lohse	147	143	.507	147	151	.493
Mickey	Lolich	217	191	.532	221	194	.532
Jack	Lynch	110	105	.512	107	110	.493
Rube	Marquard	201	177	.532	199	177	.529
Rudy	May	152	156	.494	151	148	.504
Jim	McCormick	265	214	.553	266	214	.554
Lee	Meadows	188	180	.511	183	177	.508
Kevin	Millwood	169	152	.526	170	148	.534
Clarence	Mitchell	125	139	.473	120	134	.472
George	Mogridge	133	130	.506	134	124	.520
Bill	Monbouquette	114	112	.504	116	108	.518
Earl	Moore	162	154	.513	164	149	.524
Ed	Morris	171	122	.584	172	129	.571
Johnny	Morrison	103	80	.563	97	80	.548
Don	Mossi	101	80	.558	98	78	.557
Jaime	Navarro	116	126	.479	110	125	.467
Hideo	Nomo	123	109	.530	119	111	.517
Bob	Ojeda	115	98	.540	112	103	.520
Darren	Oliver	118	98	.546	118	104	.530
Claude	Osteen	196	195	.501	200	194	.507
Roy	Oswalt	163	102	.615	165	99	.624
Orval	Overall	108	72	.600	103	70	.594
Casey	Patten	105	128	.451	103	130	.442
Marty	Pattin	114	109	.511	119	113	.514
Carl	Pavano	108	107	.502	104	106	.495
Togie	Pittinger	115	113	.504	113	117	.490
Howie	Pollet	131	116	.530	133	109	.550
Bob	Purkey	129	115	.529	123	118	.512
Steve	Renko	134	146	.479	140	145	.490
Shane	Reynolds	114	96	.543	109	97	.530
Don	Robinson	109	106	.507	113	111	.503
Dick	Rudolph	121	108	.528	121	110	.523
Red	Ruffing	273	225	.548	276	225	.551
Dick	Ruthven	123	127	.492	117	124	.486
Jason	Schmidt	130	96	.575	130	102	.561
Jack	Scott	103	109	.486	102	107	.488
Mike	Scott	124	108	.534	123	113	.521
Bob	Shaw	108	98	.524	105	98	.519
Bryn	Smith	108	94	.535	106	99	.517
Harry	Staley	136	119	.533	133	122	.522
Lefty	Stewart	101	98	.508	105	94	.526
George	Suggs	101	91	.526	95	91	.510
Kevin	Tapani	143	125	.534	137	123	.527
Jack	Taylor	152	139	.522	152	143	.516
Jack B.	Taylor	120	117	.506	119	115	.507
Walt	Terrell	111	124	.472	107	120	.472
Bob	Tewksbury	110	102	.519	109	98	.528
Luis	Tiant	229	172	.571	225	173	.566
Dick	Tidrow	100	94	.515	100	99	.504
Jim	Tobin	105	112	.484	108	111	.493
Virgil	Trucks	177	135	.567	175	133	.569
Lefty	Tyler	127	116	.523	129	123	.511
Fernando	Valenzuela	173	153	.531	174	161	.518
Hippo	Vaughn	178	137	.565	176	133	.568
Bob	Veale	120	95	.558	125	95	.568
Justin	Verlander	173	106	.620	167	107	.609
Rube	Walberg	155	141	.524	162	143	.530
Jake	Westbrook	105	103	.505	100	105	.489
Doc	White	187	156	.545	187	156	.545
Ed	Whitson	126	123	.506	128	128	.500
Stan	Williams	109	94	.537	104	97	.517
Vic	Willis	249	205	.548	251	200	.557
Don	Wilson	104	92	.531	107	93	.535
Whit	Wyatt	106	95	.527	111	92	.546
Cy	Young	511	316	.618	509	319	.615
Geoff	Zahn	111	109	.505	110	102	.519
Carlos	Zambrano	132	91	.592	133	97	.579
Barry	Zito	165	143	.536	160	143	.528

These are the 50 top pitchers of all time in terms of deserved career winning percentages, minimum 100 career wins:

						Deserved
Rank	First	Last	W	L	WPct	Wins	Losses	WPct
1	Clayton	Kershaw	126	60	.677	145	61	.704
2	Pedro	Martinez	219	100	.687	231	97	.703
3	Roger	Clemens	354	184	.658	381	186	.672
4	Lefty	Grove	300	141	.680	298	157	.655
5	Johan	Santana	139	78	.641	154	84	.647

6	Randy	Johnson	303	166	.646	310	169	.647
7	Curt	Schilling	216	146	.597	243	135	.644
8	Roy	Halladay	203	105	.659	206	117	.637
9	Walter	Johnson	417	279	.599	428	244	.637
10	Sandy	Koufax	165	87	.655	167	98	.631

11	Roy	Oswalt	163	102	.615	165	99	.624
12	Greg	Maddux	355	227	.610	360	219	.622
13	Kid	Nichols	361	208	.634	354	215	.622
14	Joe	Wood	116	57	.671	101	61	.621
15	Ed	Walsh	195	126	.607	208	127	.621

16	Bret	Saberhagen	167	117	.588	181	112	.617
17	Noodles	Hahn	130	94	.580	141	88	.617
18	John	Smoltz	213	155	.579	247	154	.617
19	Christy	Mathewson	373	188	.665	332	207	.616
20	Adam	Wainwright	134	76	.638	128	80	.616

21	Cy	Young	511	316	.618	509	319	.615
22	Max	Scherzer	125	69	.644	123	77	.615
23	Jon	Lester	146	84	.635	145	91	.614
24	Mike	Mussina	270	153	.638	253	160	.614
25	Harry	Brecheen	133	92	.591	134	85	.613

26	Cole	Hamels	136	96	.586	160	101	.613
27	Bob	Gibson	251	174	.591	271	171	.613
28	Pete	Alexander	373	208	.642	362	230	.612
29	3 Finger	Brown	239	129	.649	219	139	.611
30	Tom	Seaver	311	205	.603	333	213	.610

31	Justin	Verlander	173	106	.620	167	107	.609
32	Rube	Waddell	193	143	.574	203	131	.609
33	Hal	Newhouser	207	150	.580	209	136	.607
34	Dizzy	Dean	150	83	.644	138	89	.606
35	Spud	Chandler	109	43	.717	104	68	.606

36	Addie	Joss	160	97	.623	159	104	.605
37	David	Price	121	65	.651	118	78	.603
38	Dazzy	Vance	197	140	.585	206	136	.602
39	Zack	Greinke	155	100	.608	159	105	.602
40	Johnny	Cueto	114	75	.603	116	77	.601

41	Kevin	Brown	211	144	.594	225	149	.601
42	Lefty	Gomez	189	102	.649	173	116	.600
43	Kevin	Appier	169	137	.552	179	120	.599
44	Felix	Hernandez	154	109	.586	170	114	.599
45	Whitey	Ford	236	106	.690	216	145	.597

46	Babe	Adams	194	140	.581	203	137	.596
47	Cliff	Lee	143	91	.611	151	102	.596
48	Ron	Guidry	170	91	.651	163	111	.596
49	Jose	Rijo	116	91	.560	128	87	.595
50	Max	Lanier	108	82	.568	111	75	.595

  Figures for active pitchers through 2016. 22 of the top 50 are now in the Hall of Fame. Nine of the other 28 are active pitchers. Almost all of those nine, if not all of them, will finish their careers with lower deserved winning percentages than they have through

COMMENTS (20 Comments, most recent shown first)

Brock Hanke
Koufax came up a couple of times here, so I thought I'd post something I noticed a while ago: From 1962-1966, whether or not the Dodgers won the pennant correlates exactly with whether or not Sandy Koufax was healthy all year. 62, the Giants just caught them. 63, he was healthy. 64, the Cardinals posted the exact same W/L as they had in 63, but Koufax was not healthy. 65-66, he was. Then he retired, and the Cardinals won two.
2:04 PM Aug 23rd

MWeddell
Of course, the three guys listed ahead of Lefty Grove in this article with better career winning percentages based on deserved wins and losses are more recent than when the first Historical Baseball Abstract was published in the 1980s.
2:33 PM Aug 22nd

garywmaloney
Another major bump not listed --

Smoltz at #18 - +34W / -1L -- wonder if his switch to relief in mid-career affected this study especially. 34 wins better than you thought he was? Wow
9:51 AM Aug 22nd

garywmaloney
Amend previous comment --

Grove takes a hit in terms of W-L%, but not significant. Bill's first Abstract argued Grove as the #1 pitcher in history; here he sits at #4.

9:48 AM Aug 22nd

garywmaloney
Let's look at the impact of Bill's calculations on individual pitchers, starting with the top 11:

Kershaw is 19 wins better than his actual W-L, which is pretty incredible.
Pedro, +12 -- even better than you thought he was.
Clemens, +27 -- big bump, but very long career
Grove, -2 wins / +16 losses -- a significant hit
Santana, +15W / +6L --
R. Johnson, +7W
Schilling, +27 wins / -11 losses -- a yooge bump.
Halladay, +3W / +12 losses -- not a plus
W. Johnson, +11 wins / -35 losses -- even better for Bill's #1 pitcher (as ranked in his 2001 book)
Koufax, +2W / +11 Losses -- dock his W-L % but he's still #10 on this list
Oswalt, +2W/-3L - no big change, but look where he ranks in history

Others with major changes include:

Saberhagen at #16 -- +14W / -5L in a short career, and look where he ranks in history
Mathewson at #19 -- -41W / +19L, takes huge hit
Mussina at #24 -- -17W / +7L, most unhelpful given the HoF debate, but he still ranks very high in history
Hamels at #26 -- +24W / -5L in a relatively short career, wow
Gibson at #27 -- +20W / -3L, really nice to see his reg-season quality recognized
Ford at #45 -- -20W / +39L, eeek, he loses nearly 100 pts. in W-L% -- this is where you wonder if Stengel's extreme leveraging of Whitey against good AL teams cost him in this analysis.

These are all great pitchers, but the fact Schilling, Santana, Oswalt, Saberhagen and Smoltz rate this high speaks volumes.

9:44 AM Aug 22nd

garywmaloney
I bow to tangotiger generally on his immense knowledge and fruitful research.

My point would be -- the Hall has honored some with short and short-ish careers, Koufax a case in point. It is shocking how close to Koufax's career numbers some have come.

They have interesting cases, but neither Santana nor Oswalt made the impact on pennant races and the baseball culture of Sandy. Schilling, on the other hand, DID have that kind of impact, and this study only boosts the sabermetric case for him.

I was just noting -- wow, Oswalt shows high again in a BJ study. That can make a difference in appreciating a man's career. My personal opinion is that Bill's advocacy for Craig Biggio in the New Historical Abstract (2001) went a long way to boosting his chances for the Hall, and the appreciation he received throughout the 2000s. Hey everyone, Bill was saying -- this guy really is special, and here's why.
6:48 AM Aug 22nd

tangotiger
Gary: if you only look at the percentage, Oswalt and Santana get the benefit of not having the volume of down years.

This is why 2*W - L works pretty well.
7:41 PM Aug 20th

MarisFan61
Steve: I think Blyleven sort of did.

The way it could work for some of those pitchers is how I think it did work for Blyleven: Sabermetric writing and jawboning made more and more people think (realize?) that the guy was better than they'd thought.
1:57 PM Aug 20th

steve161
Gary, it might well make a case, but I don't think anybody has ever been elected to the Hall based on what he should have done or might have done.
12:57 PM Aug 20th

garywmaloney
Seems to me this list makes a very strong case for Schilling and Oswalt in the Hall of Fame -- and Bill's Big Game (reg-season) study a few years ago was a huge sloppy wet sabermetric kiss for Oswalt as well. Halladay is already going, IMO.

Further, Sabes rates very high (2 Cy Youngs, remember), and you hve to admit, Sanatana looks solid (#5 all-time in deserved Win%?!). Wainwright and Lester appear doubtful, however.
11:52 AM Aug 20th

MarisFan61
Answering the last part of 337's last post: "How?"

Because to many of us, "mass" doesn't count nearly as much as you imply it to count, and it might count hardly at all. Many of us go much more on simply what level of greatness the player ever established, how good of a player he was in his period of highest greatness.

When we were kids, the meaning of this was obvious. We went out to play ball, and we knew how good everybody was. "Mass" had nothing to do with it, except to the extent that you needed to see some mass to see how good anybody was -- although for kids, usually a game or two is all that's needed. Obviously it's different with adults and with major league players. But it's the same principle: if a player establishes a level of play, that's how good he is. You could argue, isn't that meaningless? Why, then, wouldn't just a couple of games do it, or maybe even just 1 game? -- in which case thousands of players would be "great"? Because it doesn't. That's not what anybody is talking about. I'm talking about an established level.

Perceptions can differ on how long it needs to be, in order to be "established." Nobody would say Karl Spooner established it with 2 games; very few people would say Fred Lynn established it with 1 or 2 seasons, although maybe some would, and would say therefore that he's one of the greatest players of all time.

But almost all serious fans from Koufax's time would say that Koufax's run was easily sufficient to establish that level of greatness for "how good he was" -- how good he had become -- and that this was what he was. If you insist on including he rest of his career in a calculation of his possible greatness, well, that's your opinion on how to do it, and most sabermetricians believe that some version of this is what's needed. But just realize that that's an opinion, not a determination, and that it includes stuff that many if not most observers, including intelligent ones :-) .....regard as irrelevant to the question.

For us of this other kind of view, just talk about what level of play was ever established by the player. Yes, that leaves the question of what constitutes "establishing." But having more years of 'greatness' doesn't necessarily affect the assessment, unless it's more years of the same or equal greatness.
3:03 AM Aug 19th

MWeddell
Tangotiger:

We're never going to completely align Sandy Koufax' traditional reputation with the value that sabermetricians typically see him as posting.

However, trying to see it from the other side, is there an argument that due to the volume of IP in Koufax' good years and that he played on a team that was in pennant contention during those years, perhaps Koufax had a disproportionately positive impact on pennant races? Metrics like WAR and career deserved W-L of course aren't designed to capture that type of value.

-- Michael
4:32 PM Aug 17th

KaiserD2
smbaker:

First of all, if any of the Gen X pitchers we are discussing had Tommy John surgery, it's news to me.

But gong forward: the improvements in conditioning, etc., would affect just about everyone. What we are looking at are the most outstanding pitchers in the history of baseball. Although Bill and I used different statistical methods, we were looking for the same thing: the pitchers who were far, far superior to their contemporaries. The point is that Gen X produced far more pitchers who were much, much better than their contemporaries than any other generation. And critically, the subsequent Millennial generation is not doing nearly as well in that regard. Both of us are measuring each pitcher against his league average. For some reason Gen X had more guys who exceeded their league averages by such a large margin. I think I know what the reason must have been.
2:37 PM Aug 17th

smbakeresq
PEDs must have contributed a great deal to these Gen X performances. Unfortunately, we can't claim that all those Gen X pitchers must have used them and we will never be certain who did and who didn't.

From Mr. Kaiser.

While that statement clearly is true, I wonder how much is just due to general improvement in conditioning and surgical procedures, especially Tommy John procedures. To see how people did before and after TJ procedures would be something, it changed the sport.

I think in all sports there used to be an advantage to be had just by being in better shape and condition then your competition. I think that possibility is almost gone now, although it exists. I don't think it would be possible to study it though as the evidence would exist everywhere as opposed to something that can be distilled.
10:21 AM Aug 17th

smbakeresq
Its amazing to me that as great as Pedro and Johnson looked in the stats they actually better. Its difficult to be obviously great and still under-represented.

I was a Pedro game in Baltimore where he hit every number on the gun between 95 and 71 and never hit the same number twice in row. Every Baltimore batter was sure he could hit something but never did.

I saw a Unit game in the same stadium, every batter just looked overmatched in on-deck circle.

Great work.
9:14 AM Aug 17th

tangotiger
The interesting thing about Doc and Schilling and RJ and just about everyone ahead of Koufax is that they have both more decision AND a higher deserved win% than Koufax. This means to put Koufax ahead of any of them, you have to somehow discount his down years more than everyone else's down years and/or pump up his post-season to a large extent.
8:31 AM Aug 17th

BrewersTT
@jemanji, recent pitchers have not gone through a decline phase like most of the retired pitchers did. Therefore they are artificially high on the list, for now.
10:00 PM Aug 16th

tangotiger
Pedro PLUS Kershaw just a hair ahead of Clemens.
8:17 AM Aug 16th

jemanji
Dear Sir, Thanks a million as always. Yours very truly, Another Satisfied Customer

The list appears top-heavy with recent SP's. If so, any comment on that?

8:19 PM Aug 15th

KaiserD2
Two comments on this very interesting list of pitchers with the best deserved career winning percentages.

My forthcoming book breaks down players by generation, using guidelines developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe in their books. Of the 20 top pitchers on Bill's list, 11--more than half--come from Generation X, born from 1961 through 1981. Of the other 9, 1 is a Millennial (Kershaw); 4 are from the Missionary Generation (b. 1863-1883) (Mathewson, Walsh, Nichols, Hahn); 3 are from the Lost Generation (b. 1884-1902--Johnson, Wood, Grove); 1, Koufax, is from the Silent generation (b. 1925-1942); and 1, Kershaw, as noted, is a Millennial. Not one of the top 20 pitchers is from the GI generation (b. 1903-24) or Bill's and my own Boom generation (b.1943-60.) (By the way, anyone with questions about these boundaries might want to email me at KaiserD2@gmail.com.)

This picture is very similar to the one I developed counting seasons over 4 WAA. The most dominant group of pitchers in baseball history, relative to their league, came from Gen X, and by a very large margin. Pitching was least important as a determinant of winning from the 1920s through the mid-1980s, because there were so few outstanding pitchers. The question, "How did the Gen X pitchers do it?", is obviously a very good question, especially since there will obviously be no comparable group of dominant Millennial pitchers. (At this point only Scherzer looks like he might crack the top 20.) The answer is equally obvious. PEDs must have contributed a great deal to these Gen X performances. Unfortunately, we can't claim that all those Gen X pitchers must have used them and we will never be certain who did and who didn't. But pitching has never played a bigger role in determining who won the pennant than in the 1990s and early 2000s, and this enabled a couple of teams to build long-running dynasties.

My other comment is that based on my data I can't understand how Wes Ferrell could not be on this list. I hope Bill can answer this question.

David Kaiser

8:12 AM Aug 15th

Cleanup

COMMENTS (20 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: