Continuing the countdown, picking up the next 10 in the rankings (31-40)
#40-Cliff Lee
Best category: K/BB Ratio (14th with 3.93)
Worst category: Games Started (135th with 324)
and
#39-Roy Oswalt
Best category: ERA+ (17th with 127)
Worst category: Games Started (115th with 341)
I decided to review Oswalt and Lee together. They may not immediately strike you as candidates to be linked together, but they did end up back-to-back in the methodology, and they do share a common bond, if you think back about 10 years (more on that later). And, actually, although Lee was left-handed and Oswalt was right-handed, they did have some other similarities in their careers:
· They both appear high up on each other's top 10 Similarity Score comp list.
· Oswalt began his MLB career in 2001 and ended it after the 2013 season, a total of 13 seasons. Lee also pitched a total of 13 seasons, both beginning and ending his MLB career just 1 year after Oswalt's time frame.
· They both exhibited excellent command of the strike zone, as Lee posted a K/9 of 7.6 and a BB/9 of 2.1, while Oswalt's figures were 7.4 and 1.9, respectively.
· As a result of that prior bullet point, Lee and Oswalt both rank pretty high among the all-time Strikeout-to-Walk ratio leaders, with Lee's 3.9 ranking 18th, and Oswalt's 3.6 ranking 31st. And, if you eliminate relief pitchers, pitchers still active, and pre-1901 pitchers, Lee jumps to #5 on the list, and Oswalt would be #11.
· Both Lee and Oswalt did pretty well in Cy Young voting. Lee won one and had 2 other top-5 finishes. Oswalt never won one, but he did have 5 top-five finishes.
And, to circle back to the "common bond" mentioned earlier, for a brief moment they were teammates, as they were both in the starting rotation for the 2011 Philadelphia Phillies in what was being billed at the time as perhaps the greatest starting pitcher quartet ever assembled. So, I wanted to revisit that rotation and explore the topic a bit further.
Do you remember how big a story that Phillies' rotation was? From 2007 through 2010, The Phillies had a great run that included 4 straight NL East titles, 2 World Series appearances, and 1 World Series championship. Here's how the quartet came to be:
Cole Hamels, who we already reviewed at #42 on the list, was the one who had been with the team the longest, debuting in 2006.
The Phillies traded for Lee in on July 29, 2009 from Cleveland, and he pitched well for the Phillies down the stretch and had a strong postseason.
After the 2009 season, Lee was included in a 3-team deal and landed with the Mariners, with Roy Halladay joining the Phillies from Toronto.
Then, on the same date that the Phillies had traded for Lee a year earlier, the Phillies completed a deal with Houston for Oswalt on July 29, 2010, and he pitched very well for the Phillies down the stretch of that season.
Finally, on December 15, 2010,Lee returned to the Phillies, signing as a free agent. The quartet was in place.
It was a big story. The consensus quickly developed that the Phillies had assembled perhaps the greatest starting pitcher quartet in the history of the game. Hamels was just 27 years old, while the others were in the 32 to 34 age range. All seemed to be at or near the top of their games.
At the time, it seemed like a reasonable assessment, especially gauging by the quality of the "weakest" member of the quartet. And who would that be? Hamels, maybe? If Hamels is your #4 starter, you have a helluva rotation. Most teams would be thrilled to have any of the 4 as their #1 starter, let alone #4.
So it was shaping up as perhaps the greatest quartet ever assembled. Who might be other challengers to that title?
The 1990's era Braves had a distinctly better big-3 (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz) for several years, but their best #4 starter in that era would have been, depending on the year, Steve Avery, Denny Neagle, or Kevin Millwood, all of whom were fine pitchers but none of whom was quite at the level of the Phillies' starters.
The 1966 Dodgers top 4 starters included 3 Hall of Famers (Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, and Don Sutton) and a 4th starter (Claude Osteen) who had a very good career as well. All 4 had terrific careers (Osteen is often overlooked, but he was quite good), so that quartet is a strong contender. Those 4 started 154 of the 162 games for the Dodges that year. However, Sutton was in his rookie season (age 21), so he was not yet as established as the 4 Phillies starters.
The 1965 Giants had 3 all-time greats in Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, and Warren Spahn. However, only Marichal was really in his prime, as Perry was only 26 years old with only 16 career wins in his ledger, and Spahn, although he did make 11 pretty decent starts for the team, was 44 years old and in his final season. So, that trio was pretty strong from a career standpoint, but not at that particular point in time.
How about the early 1900's Philadelphia Athletics teams? For a few years, they had a Hall of Fame trio of Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell, and Chief Bender. Jack Coombs was also another pitcher with a good MLB career who overlapped some with the others. But, they never really had all 4 in their prime at the same time.
The 1954 Indians had a very famous rotation, led by Hall of Famers Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, and Bob Feller, although Feller was 35 at the time and not quite the pitcher he had been previously. Feller was more of the 5th starter that year. Mike Garcia did not have a Hall of Fame career, but he had a very good one (career rWAR of around 30), and wasn't too far off the quality of the Phillies' quartet. Art Houtteman was the other primary Cleveland starter in '54, but wasn't at the same level. And, actually, I shouldn't limit it to 1954.....the quartet of Lemon, Wynn, Feller, and Garcia was pretty much intact, more or less, from 1949-1954. 1954 is the year everyone remembers, but they were a standout quartet for a number of years, and in terms of staying power, they've got to rate right up there.
Others? The mid-to-late 1980's Mets had some excellent rotations that included various combinations of Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling, Bobby Ojeda, Sid Fernandez, and David Cone. No Hall of Famers, although Gooden and Cone aren't far off of that standard, and the other 3 were very good.
The 1971 Baltimore Orioles famously had four 20-game winners in Jim Palmer, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, and Pat Dobson, although Dobson wasn't at the level of any of the Phillies's starters. That quartet matched the feat of the 1920 White Sox (Eddie Cicotte, Lefty Williams, Red Faber, and DIckie Kerr), but only Cicotte and Faber had careers on the level of the Phillies' foursome.
The Moneyball era A's of the early 2000's had a strong trio of Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, and Mark Mulder for a little while, but Mulder ended up with a short career, and ultimately I would say only Hudson reached the career level of any of the Phillies' quartet.
One quartet that doesn't get a lot of attention is the late 1910's Red Sox group (in particular, the 1918 World Series champion squad) of Carl Mays, Sad Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, and Bullet Joe Bush, all of whom were in their mid-20's at the time. Those 4 all had good careers, with career rWAR's ranging from 36 to 51, but maybe part of their problem is one of identity and confusion. After all, in baseball history there have been 2 different notable Sam Jones pitchers and 2 different Dutch Leonard pitchers, and it can be confusing keeping them all straight. None of the 4 are Hall of Famers, but Herb Pennock is, although he was in the military in 1918, and really didn't start making a name for himself until the following season. Also, they had some young guy named Babe Ruth in the rotation.
Another one from that same general era would be the early 1910's Giants rotation of Christy Mathewson, Rube Marquard, Red Ames, and Hooks Wiltse, in particular the 1911 pennant winner. Mathewson and Marquard are in the Hall, and all 4 had good careers.
Another one that gets a bit overlooked in terms of assembling a rotation with great career value is the early 2000's New York Yankees rotation (especially 2003) of Roger Clemens, David Wells, Mike Mussina, and Andy Pettitte, with Jeff Weaver who had a decent career as well although not on the same level as the others, holding the 5th slot. If you go a year earlier, we could use Orlando Hernandez. Of the 4 primary starters, Wells had the lowest career rWAR with 53, and all 4 had well over 200 career wins. Mussina is in the hall, Clemens obviously was Hall of Fame material, and Pettitte might make it someday (although he's spinning his wheels right now on the BBWAA ballot). Wells wasn't a Hall of Fame pitcher, but he was quite good as well. So, I would say that, if you're simply adding up career WAR, this one might take the cake, although Clemens and Wells were both 40 years old in 2003.
I'm sure there are others I'm missing, so please submit any suggestions in the comments section. Ultimately, I think the Braves and the Indians are the ones that, from a multi-year standpoint, stand out to me.
Circling back to the Phillies.....
I think the quartet of Halladay, Oswalt, Lee, and Hamels, certainly was a legitimate contender to be as impressive a quartet, based on the combination of quality, experience, and point in their careers, as any in history. The baseball world braced itself in anticipation.
But, as you probably know, the "greatest rotation ever assembled" was fleeting, indeed. The 2011 Phillies did have a great regular season, winning 102 games and winning the NL East by 13 games over the Braves. Halladay, Lee, and Hamels all had outstanding seasons and placed 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively in the Cy Young award balloting. Oswalt was a bit of a disappointment at 9-10, 3.69 in only 23 starts, but was still a quality pitcher. However, they were rudely dismissed in the NLDS by the 90-72 Cardinals (who went on to win the World Series), and that was it. The next year, Oswalt left as a free agent, Halladay had a down year, and the Phillies dropped to 81-81, followed by a 73-89 performance the year after.
I think that is one of the enduring traits of baseball. We were set up to witness greatness, at least on paper, but ultimately, the moment was over almost before it began, and we moved on to the next "big story".
#38-Catfish Hunter
Best category: All Star Games (6th with 8), Cy Young Points (20th with 30)
Worst category: WAR/200 IP (155th with 2.37)
Other than Jack Morris, I would say Hunter is probably the most polarizing Hall of Fame pitcher I have in my 1970-present dataset, and maybe ever. He wasn't a particularly controversial selection at the time of his induction, as he debuted with over 50% of the vote and was inducted by his third appearance on the ballot in 1987. I would say it's been more after the fact that Hunter has become more scrutinized and criticized as being a lesser pitcher than he was considered during his career.
A lot of this has to do with the evolution of information, tools, and standards. By way of example, in Bill James' first Historical Abstract (1986), he had Hunter #18 among right handed starting pitchers (he ranked left handers and right handers separately in the pitchers' section) in peak value and #21 in career value. So, even including left handers, you could conclude that Bill had him as maybe a top 25-30 pitcher at that time.
By the 2001 Historical Abstract publication, Hunter was down to #43 among right handed starting pitchers (Bill didn't separate them by right vs. left, and he had relievers mixed in with the starters in the rankings, but that's where he came out if you just count up the right handed starters). Now, there were starters like Clemens and Maddux that were new to the 2001 rankings, but mostly it was a matter of sliding Hunter down (or, sliding others up) based on the development of new information.
If you go by other popular methods, it's even worse for Catfish. In the JAWS rankings, Hunter is #123 among right handed starting pitchers (right behind Jack Morris), and #170 overall among all starting pitchers. The only Hall of Fame starting pitchers ranked lower via that methodology are Lefty Gomez, Candy Cummings (a different type of Hall of Fame case), Rube Marquad, and Jesse Haines. Those 4 are also the only Hall of Fame starting pitchers with career rWARs less than Hunter's mark of 40.9. The only Hall of Famer with a lower ERA+ than Hunter's 104 is Marquard, with 103.
So, I would say that for those who tend to leverage more modern analytics, Hunter comes off as a overrated pitcher and one of the lower-ranked Hall of Fame pitchers. So, am I overrating him here? Perhaps. My methodology isn't limited to just "value". It rewards other things.
However, I do think Hunter has some things in his favor. His 4 or 5 year peak is quite good, and he was one of the more highly regarded pitchers in the game at that time. About 70% of his 36.3 career pitching WAR is concentrated in the 1971-1975 period, in which he averaged about 5.0 WAR per season. His average season over that span was 22-10, 294 IP, a 2.65 ERA, and 127 ERA+. That's a quality pitcher, and he was undoubtedly the lead dog on the A's staff (Vida Blue was good too, and Ken Holtzman was a solid #3, but Hunter was the clear leader of that staff). Of the A's stars on those teams, I'd put Reggie Jackson and Sal Bando as the 2 most important/best players, with Catfish as #3, with strong support from Bert Campaneris, Joe Rudi, Gene Tenace, Rollie Fingers, Bill North, Blue, and Holtzman.
Hunter had great impact on the A's postseason success. During the A's run of 3 straight World Series titles from 1972-1974, Catfish started 11 postseason games (relieved in 2 others) and went 6-1 with a 2.24 ERA. The A's went 8-3 in those games. In his 2 relief appearances, Catfish also picked up a win and a save. He was a big part of those title teams.
In part because he got an early start (debuting by age 18), Hunter is one of only 3 pitchers (excluding pre-1900 pitchers) to reach 200 pitcher wins through his age 30 season. Here's the leader board for that (with Mathewson and Johnson way ahead of the pack):
|
Player
|
W
|
From
|
To
|
Age
|
|
Christy Mathewson
|
289
|
1901
|
1911
|
20-30
|
|
Walter Johnson
|
277
|
1907
|
1918
|
19-30
|
|
Catfish Hunter
|
201
|
1965
|
1976
|
19-30
|
|
George Mullin
|
196
|
1902
|
1911
|
21-30
|
|
Charles Bender
|
193
|
1903
|
1914
|
19-30
|
|
Bob Feller
|
192
|
1936
|
1949
|
17-30
|
|
Hal Newhouser
|
191
|
1939
|
1951
|
18-30
|
|
Don Drysdale
|
190
|
1956
|
1967
|
19-30
|
|
Wes Ferrell
|
190
|
1927
|
1938
|
19-30
|
|
Pete Alexander
|
190
|
1911
|
1917
|
24-30
|
What hurts Hunter, of course, is that he has virtually no post-30 value, and he called it quits after age 33.
So, a lot is true of Hunter. He got a lot of help from both his home park and his team's defensive prowess, no question about it. When you adjust for everything, he takes a hit.
But for a while there, taking everything into account, he was a significant pitching presence. In Cy Young voting from 1972-1975, he finished 4-3-1-2, respectively. From 1971-1975, he had more pitcher wins and a higher winning percentage than anyone in baseball. Yes, those are influenced by team, but they still count for something.
Over that particular time span, taking everything into consideration, I would put Tom Seaver #1 but I would put Jim Palmer, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, and Catfish Hunter in the next tier (honorable mention to Wilbur Wood for the incredible innings workload over that span).
One other thing.....I've seen Bill mention several times over the years that he has always thought of Hunter, Robin Roberts, and Ferguson Jenkins as a very tight "family" - lots of innings, good control, good K/BB ratios, but gave up a fair number of homers.
Is there anyone else in that group from more recent vintage? I did a query looking for 3000+ innings pitched, HR/9 IP rates around 1.0, BB/9 between 1.7 and 2.5, and K/9 between 4.5 and 6.5 (those limits were based on being sure that I included all 3 of the pitchers). Understandin the caveat that norms for rate stats change over time, this would bring in 2 other pitchers (David Wells and Mark Buehrle) into that general family, assuming new members are permitted to the circle:
|
Player
|
IP
|
HR/9
|
BB/9
|
SO/9
|
W
|
L
|
ERA
|
ERA+
|
|
Robin Roberts
|
4,688.2
|
0.97
|
1.73
|
4.52
|
286
|
245
|
3.41
|
113
|
|
Fergie Jenkins
|
4,500.2
|
0.97
|
1.99
|
6.38
|
284
|
226
|
3.34
|
115
|
|
Catfish Hunter
|
3,449.1
|
0.98
|
2.49
|
5.25
|
224
|
166
|
3.26
|
104
|
|
Mark Buehrle
|
3,283.1
|
0.99
|
2.01
|
5.13
|
214
|
160
|
3.81
|
117
|
|
David Wells
|
3,439.0
|
1.07
|
1.88
|
5.76
|
239
|
157
|
4.13
|
108
|
Wells and Buehrle have higher ERA's than the others, but in context their ERA+'s are consistent with the group. However, they are both left-handed, so maybe they're not part of the immediate family.....maybe they're more like the oddball cousins.....
#37-Orel Hershiser
Best category: Ranks 20th in Cy Young (30), also 33rd in WAR7 with 40.1 and 34th in WAA with 29.4
Worst category: K/BB Ratio (143rd with 2.0)
About a year and a half ago, I wrote an article taking a look at an alternate universe in which today's Cy Young voting standards were applied to prior years. The basis of this alternative universe was in applying Tom Tango's formula for predicting current Cy Young Awards results, a formula which has proven to be uncannily accurate most of the time.
The basic formula is Cy Young Points = ​(IP/2 - ER) + SO/10 + W (there’s another version he developed that would extend to relievers as well, but for the most part, the overwhelming majority of true Cy Young Award contenders at this point are starters). It captures the 4 key attributes that appear to be fundamental in voter evaluation of starting pitchers:
- Workload (Innings)
- Run prevention (Earned Runs)
- Ability to make batters miss (Strikeouts)
- Contributing to team victories (Wins)
Applying the formula to the past, this is how the National League Cy Young Awards during the decade of the 1980's might have turned out if today's standards were applied (the green lines indicate that the award would go to a different pitcher than the one who actually won it):
|
Year
|
Actual Winner
|
Would Now Finish
|
Winner by Today's Standards
|
|
1980
|
Steve Carlton
|
1st
|
Steve Carlton
|
|
1981
|
Fernando Valenzuela
|
2nd
|
Steve Carlton
|
|
1982
|
Steve Carlton
|
2nd
|
Steve Rogers
|
|
1983
|
John Denny
|
2nd
|
Mario Soto
|
|
1984
|
Rick Sutcliffe
|
10th
|
Dwight Gooden
|
|
1985
|
Dwight Gooden
|
1st
|
Dwight Gooden
|
|
1986
|
Mike Scott
|
1st
|
Mike Scott
|
|
1987
|
Steve Bedrosian
|
x
|
Orel Hershiser
|
|
1988
|
Orel Hershiser
|
1st
|
Orel Hershiser
|
|
1989
|
Mark Davis
|
x
|
Orel Hershiser
|
Hershiser took home an award in 1988 for his outstanding 23-8, 2.26 performance that year, but this formula implies that in both ’87 and ’89 Hershiser could have won as well, which would have made him not just a 3-time winner, but 3 in a row.
It’s easy to see why he didn’t win either of those seasons – his record in ’87 was 16-16 with a 3.06 ERA, and in ’89 he was 15-15, despite an excellent 2.31 ERA. In that era, it was very unlikely that a pitcher with a .500 W-L record (or anything close to that) would win the award. It is also worth noting that, from 1987 to 1989, Hershiser was 2nd, 1st, and 1st, respectively, in NL pitcher WAR.
Despite the two mediocre W-L records, Hershiser actually did place pretty high in the balloting both years – he finished 4th in 1987 (getting 2 first place votes), and 4th again in 1989 (picking up 1 first place vote, and finishing 2nd in the NL in ERA). It’s not difficult to see a re-vote going in his favor, especially using today’s standards, and it also seems unlikely that a closer such as Bedrosian or Davis would have won in today's world.
What would Hershiser’s Hall of Fame case look like now if he had won 3 in a row? Add that to his consecutive scoreless innings streak thing and an outstanding postseason record (he won 3 different post-season MVP awards), and I think would give Hershiser a pretty solid case.
#36-Chris Sale
Best category: Ranks 1st in K/BB ratio (5.37), 4th in WAR/200 IP (5.59) and 6th in ERA+ (140)
Worst category: Games started (20th with 232)
Similar to deGrom, Sale's ranking, since he's in mid-career, is a compromise, and an unstable one at that. Sale does really well on rate metrics such as ERA+, WAR per 200 IP, and K/BB ratio, but not so well on the categories that reward longevity and total career. I subjectively adjusted him down some since he's in mid career, but even with that I may still have him slightly overrated. If his career is truly over (he hasn't pitched since 2019 as he's trying to recover from Tommy John surgery), I would probably have to drop him some more, but he's been very impressive so far.
Sale has the highest strikeout-to-walk ratio of any pitcher in history at 5.37. Some of that, of course, is due not just to being in mid-career (and therefore hasn't experienced a decline phase that would normally pull down his rate stats) but also to context, as strikeout rates continue to rise with each passing year, which in turn has led to K/BB ratios generally pushing higher and higher. Even so, Sale's mark is impressive indeed.
Sale had one of the best extended Cy Young Award runs that I've seen for anyone who never won. Beginning in 2012 and running through 2018, Sale had Cy Young finishes of 6,5,3,4,5,2,4, respectively. I wonder how many pitchers have had a 7-year run similar to that? It reminds me a little of David Ortiz's 5-year run in MVP balloting from 2003-2007, where he was top 5 every year but didn't ever win one.
Sale is listed as 6'6", 183 lbs, and is nicknamed "The Condor" as well as "Stickman". Is Sale the greatest tall/skinny pitcher ever? He's got to be up there.
I did a query for pitchers 6'5" or taller and less than 200 lbs, although, to be honest, I'm a little skeptical when it comes to many of the height/weight (especially the weight) figures listed on baseball-reference.com. After all, Wilbur Wood is listed at 180 lbs., and Mickey Lolich is 170 lbs., both of which may have been accurate in a prior life. In any case, here are the top 10, by rWAR:
         
|
Player
|
WAR
|
Ht
(in)
|
Wt
(lbs)
|
W
|
L
|
IP
|
ERA
|
ERA+
|
From
|
To
|
|
Don Drysdale
|
61.4
|
77
|
190
|
209
|
166
|
3,432.0
|
2.95
|
121
|
1956
|
1969
|
|
Chris Sale
|
45.6
|
78
|
183
|
109
|
73
|
1,629.2
|
3.03
|
140
|
2010
|
2019
|
|
Sam McDowell
|
43.1
|
77
|
190
|
141
|
134
|
2,492.1
|
3.17
|
112
|
1961
|
1975
|
|
Jason Schmidt
|
31.7
|
77
|
185
|
130
|
96
|
1,996.1
|
3.96
|
110
|
1995
|
2009
|
|
Scott Sanderson
|
29.4
|
77
|
195
|
163
|
143
|
2,561.2
|
3.84
|
102
|
1978
|
1996
|
|
Jack McDowell
|
27.8
|
77
|
180
|
127
|
87
|
1,889.0
|
3.85
|
111
|
1987
|
1999
|
|
Ewell Blackwell
|
27.1
|
78
|
195
|
82
|
78
|
1,321.0
|
3.3
|
120
|
1942
|
1955
|
|
Carl Weilman
|
24.8
|
77
|
187
|
84
|
93
|
1,521.0
|
2.67
|
112
|
1912
|
1920
|
|
Cy Falkenberg
|
22.6
|
77
|
180
|
130
|
123
|
2,275.0
|
2.68
|
107
|
1903
|
1917
|
|
Mike Witt
|
21.6
|
79
|
185
|
117
|
116
|
2,108.1
|
3.83
|
105
|
1981
|
1993
|
It's funny...I don't remember Jason Schmidt, Scott Sanderson, or Sam McDowell looking particularly skinny, but what do I know? Blackwell certainly fits the bill, that's for sure.
#35-Rick Reuschel
Best category: WAR (17th with 69.5), WAA (21st with 39.1) and Games Started (21st with 529)
Worst category: W-L% (149th with .528)
Speaking of weights....Reuschel is listed at 215 pounds on baseball-reference.com. Maybe that's accurate, but I gotta believe that, especially in his late-career Giants' years, he was significantly over that. He wasn't called "Big Daddy" for nothing.....
I've often felt that Bert Blyleven has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the analytics movement in terms of supporting his Hall of Fame case. To many, Blyleven was simply a compiler who pitched forever but wasn't much more than a .500 pitcher, a pitcher who almost never was named an All-Star and who got very little Cy Young Award support throughout his career. Eventually, with some growing support and campaigns on his behalf after a slow start on the Hall of Fame ballot, Blyleven was inducted on his 14th try. In many ways, I think Reuschel is sort of a "Blyleven-light", although that's probably the only time you'll hear me use the phrase "light" in reference to Reuschel.
Much like Blyleven did with the Twins, Reuschel toiled for many years with a mediocre Chicago Cubs team. Prior to his age 38 season, the only time Reuschel played on a team that made the postseason was in the 1981 strike season, when he was picked up mid-year by the Yankees. Except for Reuschel's rookie season of 1972, the next 9 Cubs teams all experience records of.500 or below. Like Blyleven, Reuschel didn't make many All Star teams or get much support in Cy Young Award voting.
I don't mean to compare Reuschel directly to Blyleven. Blyleven pitched 40% more innings than Reuschel did, and his career rWAR was also close to 40% higher. Blyleven also eventually was a contributor to 2 different World Series champions (1979 Pirates and 1987 Twins), while Reuschel had a very poor postseason record. Because of all of those factors, they're not the same, and Blyleven had much more career value, and is much higher on the rankings. But Reuschel was of that same general genre, a pitcher who was thought of as not much more than a .500 pitcher, but whose W-L record and his perceived value was undermined by the quality of the teams he pitched for, and who is surely more highly thought of by those who leverage more recent analytic approaches vs. those who depend solely on more traditional stats.
#34-Andy Pettitte
Best category: W-L % (20th with .626), Games Started (24th with 521)
Worst category: K/BB ratio (88th with 2.37)
Pettitte rates pretty well across the board. His "worst" category, K/BB ratio, is a still-pretty-decent 2.4 to 1. Pettitte's perceived worst category among baseball fans is probably his relatively high ERA of 3.85, which, if he were ever to be elected to the Hall of Fame, would be the second highest figure of any inductee (Jack Morris, 3.90 - it used to be Red Ruffing with 3.80). But, even that is misleading, as Pettitte pitched in a high-run context. Pettitte's ERA+ of 117 is quite good, and would be better than 21 Hall of Famers, including some prominent members including Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Nolan Ryan, Jim Bunning, and Fergie Jenkins. Pettitte was pretty reliable in that regard, as he only had 1 season (2008) in which he had an ERA+ less than a league average figure of 100 in that category.
Part of this review is that I try to ask myself, when I see the candidate, what do I think of? When I see Pettitte's name, my mind instantly goes to "postseason". Pettitte is all over the all-time postseason leader boards, particularly in the "bulk" categories. Of course, a lot of that is due to:
a) pitching primarily for the Yankees, and
b) pitching in the era of postseasons with multiple playoff series.
In all, Pettitte's teams made the postseason 14 times in his 18 year career, covering 32 series over that time frame, including 8 World Series appearances. He's the all-time postseason leader in Games Started (44), Innings Pitched (276.2), and Wins (19), and in all 3 cases, no one is particularly close.
In terms of postseason performance, the thing that strikes me about Pettitte is that, to paraphrase football coach Dennis Green, "he is who we thought he was". Pettitte's postseason stats up and down the line in categories like W-L %, ERA, WHIP, Hits/9, K/9, BB/9 are very close to what they were in the regular season. And, I'm assuming that was just fine with the Yankees. They didn't need him to be a postseason stud. He just needed to be himself, and the team would be just fine. And they were.
Does Pettitte have a shot at the Hall of Fame? He seems to be stuck in neutral at the moment, generating vote totals of roughly 10%, 11%, and 14%, respectively in his first 3 years on the ballot. The steroids issue hovers over his case, although my sense is that with Pettitte it's more of a question of whether or not his career was Hall of Fame-level more so than steroids keeping him out. I mean, I'm sure it doesn't help him, but I'm not really sure how much it's hurting him either. I don't get a sense of the same level of vitriol surrounding Pettitte vs. some of the other candidates with a steroid connection. He has a good Hall of Fame case on the merits, but not an overwhelming one. He'll be an interesting one to track over the next several years.
#33-Tommy John
Best category: Games Started (7th with 700)
Worst category: K/BB ratio (175th with 1.78)
In the 2001 New Historical Abstract, Bill talked about the concept of pitcher "families" as a way of organizing them. He referred to a Tommy John "family" that might include Eppa Rixey and Eddie Plank, for example. Also, he talked about a larger Warren Spahn Group ("Easy Motion Left Handers") that could potentially include the likes of Tom Glavine, Eddie Plank, Jess Tannehill, WIlbur Cooper, Jim Kaat, Eppa Rixey, Mickey Lolich, and, yes, even Tommy John.
So, what comes to mind when you hear the name Tommy John (other than surgery and underwear)? If you're like me, chances are you think of one or more of the following characteristics or phrases associated with John and others of his "type:
· Crafty left-hander
· Lots of ground balls and double plays
· Low Strikeouts
· Good control
· Few home runs yielded
· Keeps running game in check
I wanted to explore who might be considered in the family from a metric point of view. Understanding that league contexts and standards change over time in these categories, I submitted a query using the following criteria (with the general goal being that John is kind of in the middle of these ranges):
· Threw left handed
· Minimum of 1,500 innings pitched
· Strikeouts per 9 innings between 3.5 and 5.0
· Walks per 9 innings between 2.0 and 3.0
· Home runs per 9 innings pitched between 0.5 and 0.8
I then further refined by looking at GIDP (Ground into Double Play) rates, stolen bases allowed per 9 innings, and caught stealing % rates, and then compared the pitchers across all the categories. I then eliminated a few pitchers (Rick Honeycutt, Bobby Shantz, and Wilbur Wood) on the basis that fewer than 50% of their appearances were as a starting pitcher.
Below is what I came up with for a potential Tommy John extended family of 16 pitchers, separating them into 4 tiers of 4 pitchers each. Understanding that it's hard to have tight fits for a player that hit on all cylinders/categories, I see the A's as the closest overall fits, followed by the B's, and so on. See what you think:
|
Group
|
Player
|
SO/9 IP
|
BB/9 IP
|
HR/9 IP
|
GIDP/9 IP
|
SB/9 IP
|
CS %
|
|
Head of Family
|
Tommy John
|
4.3
|
2.4
|
0.6
|
1.15
|
0.46
|
39.1%
|
|
A
|
Jerry Reuss
|
4.7
|
2.8
|
0.6
|
0.92
|
0.46
|
41.8%
|
|
A
|
Mike Flanagan
|
4.8
|
2.9
|
0.8
|
0.98
|
0.47
|
40.1%
|
|
A
|
Jim Kaat
|
4.9
|
2.2
|
0.8
|
0.92
|
0.33
|
34.1%
|
|
A
|
Mike Caldwell
|
3.5
|
2.2
|
0.8
|
1.10
|
0.36
|
41.4%
|
|
B
|
Dave Roberts
|
4.1
|
2.6
|
0.7
|
0.89
|
0.47
|
34.5%
|
|
B
|
Curt Simmons
|
4.6
|
2.9
|
0.7
|
0.72
|
0.33
|
39.2%
|
|
B
|
Paul Splittorff
|
3.7
|
2.8
|
0.7
|
0.97
|
0.62
|
34.2%
|
|
B
|
Dick Ellsworth
|
4.8
|
2.5
|
0.8
|
1.03
|
0.28
|
46.5%
|
|
C
|
Warren Spahn
|
4.4
|
2.5
|
0.7
|
0.72
|
0.16
|
46.0%
|
|
C
|
John Tudor
|
5.0
|
2.4
|
0.8
|
0.69
|
0.51
|
43.3%
|
|
C
|
Claude Osteen
|
4.2
|
2.4
|
0.6
|
1.02
|
0.20
|
59.1%
|
|
C
|
Dave McNally
|
5.0
|
2.7
|
0.8
|
0.92
|
0.26
|
51.3%
|
|
D
|
Bob Knepper
|
4.9
|
2.9
|
0.8
|
0.87
|
0.78
|
31.9%
|
|
D
|
Charlie Leibrandt
|
4.4
|
2.6
|
0.7
|
0.70
|
0.87
|
28.9%
|
|
D
|
Zane Smith
|
4.7
|
2.7
|
0.6
|
1.23
|
1.00
|
24.4%
|
|
D
|
Harry Brecheen
|
4.3
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
0.59
|
0.15
|
53.0%
|
Spahn may strike you as "too good" for this group, and he shouldn't be in anyone else's family (he should be the head of his own), but I wasn't really trying to control for quality.....I was more interested in the categories.
I suppose it's worthy of note that Kaat was not only one of the ones who Bill alluded to in the Historical Abstract general family listing, but he is also John's #1 comp on his Similarity Score listing. Kaat and John both remain as viable Veterans Committee Hall of Fame candidates.
#32-Ron Guidry
Best category: W-L % (8th with .651) and Cy Young points (20th with 30)
Worst category: Games started (137th with 323)
and
#31-Dwight Gooden
Best category: W-L% (16th with .634) and Cy Young points (20th with 30)
Worst category: K/BB ratio (81st with 2.40) and ERA+ (81st with 111)
Similar to how I opened this group with a dual review of Lee and Oswalt, I'm wrapping up this portion of the rankings by taking Gooden and Guidry together. Unlike Lee and Oswalt, Gooden and Guidry were never team mates, although they did have some overlap pitching in New York for the Mets and Yankees, respectively, for 5 seasons (1984-1988).
Gooden and Guidry have some general similarities. Here is how they compare over several key categories that factor in to my methodology:
|
Name
|
WAR
|
WAR7
|
All Stars
|
W
|
L
|
W-L%
|
ERA
|
ERA+
|
Games Started
|
K/BB
|
WAR / 200 IP
|
WAA
|
CY Young Awards
|
CY Young Top 5 Finishes
|
|
Gooden
|
52.9
|
38.9
|
4
|
194
|
112
|
.634
|
3.51
|
111
|
410
|
2.40
|
3.78
|
28.8
|
1
|
4
|
|
Guidry
|
47.8
|
38.0
|
4
|
170
|
91
|
.651
|
3.29
|
119
|
323
|
2.81
|
4.00
|
26.3
|
1
|
4
|
Gooden's career ended up being a little longer, but I think they're really close. Gooden comes out with 52.2 points in my system, Guidry with 52.0.
Ultimately, though, I tied their profiles together because they share a common bond of what I like to call Epic Pitching Seasons. What is an Epic Pitching Season? Let me offer up 2 definitions: a "classic" definition, and then a more "modern" one.
From a "classic" perspective, I think of an Epic Pitching Season with 2 simple criteria:
1) 23 or more wins
2) ERA under 2.00
That's it. That's my classic definition. To me, Epic Pitching Seasons also have the characteristic of being memorable in terms of the actual stats. For as long as I continue to have a functioning brain, I will always remember 1985 Gooden's 24-4, 1.53 performance and 1978 Guidry's 25-3, 1.74 mark. Those exact numbers are embedded in my memory.
As far as the thresholds, a sub-2.00 ERA probably pretty simple and clear-cut, with a distinct cutoff. A 1.97 ERA sounds a whole lot better (and is more memorable) than a 2.03.
But why 23 wins, as opposed to a more rounded number like 20? Because that's the level at which wins have become pretty rate (but not nonexistent) in the last half-century or so.
Here's a quick table of the number of times a pitcher has earned 23 or more wins in a season since the expansion season of 1961:
|
Wins
|
Frequency
|
Pitchers in Group
|
|
31
|
1
|
McLain
|
|
30
|
0
|
None
|
|
29
|
0
|
None
|
|
28
|
0
|
None
|
|
27
|
3
|
Koufax, Carlton, Welch
|
|
26
|
2
|
Koufax, Marichal
|
|
25
|
12
|
Marichal (2), Koufax, Ford, Drysdale, Kaat, Seaver, Lolich, Hunter, Jenkins, Guidry, Stone
|
|
24
|
22
|
Wood (2), Sanford, Ford, L. Jackson, Cloninger, McLain, Cuellar, McNally, J. Perry, G. Perry, Blue, Jenkins, Bryant, Carlton, Hoyt, Gooden, Clemens, Viola, Smoltz, R. Johnson, Verlander
|
|
23
|
22
|
Carlton (2), Lary, Purkey, Terry, Maloney, Spahn, Drysdale, Cuellar, Gibson, G. Perry, P. Niekro, Coleman, Hunter, Palmer, Flanagan, Hershiser, D. Jackson, Saberhagen, P. Martinez, Schilling, Zito
|
|
22
|
40
|
39 different pitchers
|
|
21
|
68
|
54 different pitchers
|
|
20
|
124
|
104 pitchers
|
20 wins has been way too common in my book, as has 21, and even 22. Each step up on the ladder eliminates about half of the prior level's frequency. So, I went with 23.
Excluding pre-1900, there have been 66 instances of pitchers with 23 wins and sub-2.00 ERA. They were pretty common early on in history during the periods when starting pitchers carried heavy workloads, especially in the1900s and 1910s. Walter Johnson had 8 such seasons, Christy Mathewson had 6, Mordecai Brown and Pete Alexander had 4 each.
After that they started getting more rare as pitching and hitting norms evolved. As runs per game started to increase, they became more rare, occurring only twice in the 1920's, and Carl Hubbell had the only such season in the 1930's. Hal Newhouser did it back-to-back in the mid-1940's as World War II was winding down.
After that, there was a drought until the 1960's (Sandy Koufax twice in the mid-60's and Denny McLain in 1968) when various factors started shifting the balance of power back in favor of the pitcher.
Here's the full chart by decade:
|
Decade
|
Frequency of 23 Win, sub 2.00 ERA
|
|
1900s
|
26
|
|
1910s
|
27
|
|
1920s
|
2
|
|
1930s
|
1
|
|
1940s
|
2
|
|
1960s
|
3
|
|
1970s
|
4
|
|
1980s
|
1
|
|
Total
|
66
|