PDA

View Full Version : Number One starters


MRKARNO
11-25-2004, 11:39 AM
This thread was spurred out of the Garcia thread and many other general threads. We may have had this discussion before, but it's important to have it again.

What makes a number one starter? A lot of people say that Buehrle isn't a number one starter, but he's number one in our rotation, so doesnt that make him a number one? Or does the term imply the league average front of the rotation starter?

I think it means the top 30 starters in baseball over the course of a few years. Loaiza was not a number one because he was a one year wonder, but pitchers who are consistantly in the top 30 of however you want to rank 'em (VORP isn't a bad ranker) are number one pitchers, because it implies that more often than not, they would be the best pitcher if all teams could have one of the top 30. In his four years as a full time starter, Buehrle has been top 30 in VORP 3 years, hence according to my preferred ranking system, he's a number one starter. Garcia, who has been in the top 30 3 of his 6 years and the top 60 the other 3, but in 2001 was one of the top 3, is an iffy number one, bordering on a number two.

If when you reply to this message you could include some examples of who you think is and is not a number one, that would be great and could provide for some interesting discussion.

WinningUgly!
11-25-2004, 12:07 PM
I think a lot of people confuse "number one starter" with "ace".

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 12:27 PM
What makes a number one starter? A lot of people say that Buehrle isn't a number one starter, but he's number one in our rotation, so doesnt that make him a number one? Or does the term imply the league average front of the rotation starter?

Obviously, a number one starter is the best starter on your team. Beyond that it's an imaginary idea. I hate this idea of slotting pitchers independent of teams. "Third starter" is not a specific position you have to fill like "third base". You want five #1s, duh.

You can divide all the pitchers in MLB into five "quartiles" if you want to. Say you're a FOBP and you do it by "VORP". If you do that, then a "#1" starter is "anybody who pitched better than C. C. Sabathia last year", since Sabathia was about the 31st starting pitcher by "VORP". By the VORP/division method, the White Sox had 2 #1s (Buehrle and Garcia), two #3s (Garland and Loaiza), and a #5 (Contreras). By that measure, the Twins have 3 #1s, and several teams don't have one at all.

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 12:32 PM
A lot of people say that Buehrle isn't a number one starter, but he's number one in our rotation, so doesnt that make him a number one?
Buehrle is, by any reasonable metric, a #1. He would be the top starting pitcher on most MLB teams. So is Garcia, by the way. Garcia was the fifth best pitcher in the league last year, and Buehrle the 8th, by VORP. That is how much the Cell and negativity warp our perspective. Both would not only start for any team in the majors but be mainstays.

gosox41
11-25-2004, 01:09 PM
This thread was spurred out of the Garcia thread and many other general threads. We may have had this discussion before, but it's important to have it again.

What makes a number one starter? A lot of people say that Buehrle isn't a number one starter, but he's number one in our rotation, so doesnt that make him a number one? Or does the term imply the league average front of the rotation starter?

I think it means the top 30 starters in baseball over the course of a few years. Loaiza was not a number one because he was a one year wonder, but pitchers who are consistantly in the top 30 of however you want to rank 'em (VORP isn't a bad ranker) are number one pitchers, because it implies that more often than not, they would be the best pitcher if all teams could have one of the top 30. In his four years as a full time starter, Buehrle has been top 30 in VORP 3 years, hence according to my preferred ranking system, he's a number one starter. Garcia, who has been in the top 30 3 of his 6 years and the top 60 the other 3, but in 2001 was one of the top 3, is an iffy number one, bordering on a number two.

If when you reply to this message you could include some examples of who you think is and is not a number one, that would be great and could provide for some interesting discussion.
It's all in interpretation. To me a number one starter is a guy who can consistently win 18-20 games while eating a ton of innings. Obviously every team has a '#1 starter' but that's just a slot in the rotation. Someone needs to start Opening Day, but that doesn't make that pitcher great.

Ace is probably a better word to describe it.



Bob

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 01:40 PM
It's all in interpretation. To me a number one starter is a guy who can consistently win 18-20 games while eating a ton of innings. Obviously every team has a '#1 starter' but that's just a slot in the rotation. Someone needs to start Opening Day, but that doesn't make that pitcher great.

So a #1 pitcher is, oh, Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson, Pedro...

Steep def.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2004, 01:43 PM
An 'ace' pitcher is the type of pitcher that opposing teams look at and think to themselves 'we're in deep s@#$ tonight.'

He's a pitcher that puts the fear of God in opposing hitters, who is a threat for at least 18 wins and over 200 innings and who has stayed healthy.

Lip

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 04:43 PM
An 'ace' pitcher is the type of pitcher that opposing teams look at and think to themselves 'we're in deep s@#$ tonight.'

He's a pitcher that puts the fear of God in opposing hitters, who is a threat for at least 18 wins and over 200 innings and who has stayed healthy.

Lip
"Wins" by a pitcher have a lot to do with the offense he receives.

Freddy Garcia was 9-4 in 103 innings in half a season with the White Sox, so he'd be a borderline number one by your standard. Opponents definitely feel they're in the kim chee when he's pitching. Give him adequate run support and he wins. 17-8 in 99, 18-6 in 01, 16-10 in 02... has posted 200+ innings in five of six years.

Buehrle's won 19, 16 twice and 14 in four seasons, and always pitched 221 or more innings. Again, nobody licks their chops and says, "Hey, dudes, that Buehrle scrub is on the mound tonight, lemme at him".

If we have anything to be thankful for about White Sox pitching, it's the top two starters are pretty damned good.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2004, 08:53 PM
They are....but they are a long way away from a Johnson, a Clemens, a Schilling ect.

Lip

gosox41
11-25-2004, 11:59 PM
So a #1 pitcher is, oh, Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson, Pedro...

Steep def.
Yep. A true # 1 is a an ace. Schilling, Johnson, Clemens all qualify as #1's. If a ranking is going to be put on pitchers, then I tihnk all those guys are/were the best in the biz. at their time and deserve that ranking. It's hard to put guys like Buehrle or Garcia in that category. They're both very good pitchers, but not what I'd consider a true #1.

Then again me and the Sox seem to have opposite definitions of what a 'fifth starter' should be.



Bob

MRKARNO
11-26-2004, 12:38 AM
Yep. A true # 1 is a an ace. Schilling, Johnson, Clemens all qualify as #1's. If a ranking is going to be put on pitchers, then I tihnk all those guys are/were the best in the biz. at their time and deserve that ranking. It's hard to put guys like Buehrle or Garcia in that category. They're both very good pitchers, but not what I'd consider a true #1.

I'm going to sharply dissagree with your assessment because I think the term "#1 pitcher" implies that on an average team, they would be the top of the rotation guy. Your standard is simply too stringent because there are no more than 10, closer to 5 pitchers that really fit your idea of a number one. Ace is not synonymous with number one starter as ace implies a special number one starter. To say that there can only be 5-10 number one starters is truly proposterous. Basically, if they're not going to get Hall of Fame consideration, they're not a number one starter? Sorry, I just refuse to buy into that definition. There is the concept of the "number one" slot, but then again, there is a standard for what every team should have in that slot. Shawn Estes isn't a number one no matter what terms you're talking in, but he was the best the Rox had to offer for most of the year. However, you can look to teams like Minny and Boston and you could not say that Radke or Pedro were number two pitchers, they both pitched like number ones last year.

FarWestChicago
11-26-2004, 12:47 AM
Yep. A true # 1 is a an ace. Schilling, Johnson, Clemens all qualify as #1's. If a ranking is going to be put on pitchers, then I tihnk all those guys are/were the best in the biz. at their time and deserve that ranking. It's hard to put guys like Buehrle or Garcia in that category. They're both very good pitchers, but not what I'd consider a true #1.Aren't you a Stathead? How would you "define" a #1? Or could you provide a list of your #1's? I'm all confused now. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

SoxFan76
11-26-2004, 12:53 AM
This is an intriguing topic. I think we put too much emphasis on an "ace", when in fact, a legitimate "number 1 starter" doesn't have to be named Johnson, Schilling, or Pedro. I consider Buerhle a legitimate no. 1. Same for Freddy. They give you a VERY good chance of winning a ballgame every fifth day. That is my definition of a no. 1 starter. Jonny boy and Contreras don't give you that security, if you will. You don't know what to expect out of those 2.

gosox41
11-26-2004, 10:01 AM
Aren't you a Stathead? How would you "define" a #1? Or could you provide a list of your #1's? I'm all confused now. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Maybe I should restate it to be a 'true #1 pitcher'. It's a guy who can flat out dominate, where teams know their facing him and think it's going to be a rough night. He's got to be consistent night after night. He pitches a ton of innings. He's the guy who if you asked the question: 'It's game 7 of the World Series and out of any major league pitcher in all of MLB who would you want to start for you?'

There's been more then you think, but not too many. They are, after all, the best.

I'll try to do some research and get back to you on who I consider a 'true #1 pitcher.'


Bob

johnny_mostil
11-26-2004, 10:33 AM
This is an intriguing topic. I think we put too much emphasis on an "ace", when in fact, a legitimate "number 1 starter" doesn't have to be named Johnson, Schilling, or Pedro. I consider Buerhle a legitimate no. 1. Same for Freddy. They give you a VERY good chance of winning a ballgame every fifth day. That is my definition of a no. 1 starter. Jonny boy and Contreras don't give you that security, if you will. You don't know what to expect out of those 2.
Garland? You can expect he'll get six innings in (30 out of 33 starts) and give the team a decent chance to win if they score five runs. Be careful with ERAs; Garland's 10-runs allowed on that weird night June 9 added 0.4 to his ERA, and I'm not sure how much of that was Garland and how much was the wind.

fquaye149
11-26-2004, 10:39 AM
are you crazy? a number one starter is "the one who if you could have any pitcher in baseball, he would be it"?

don't get me wrong, that PLAYER would certainly be a number one starter.

but what about, say, Ben Sheets, Mark Mulder, Jake Peavey, Kevin Millwood, Tom Glavine, Al Leiter?

They're not number one starters?

Couldn't we agree that a number one starter is a pitcher who is in the top 20 percent of starting pitchers, or at the very LEAST would be the best pitcher if placed on most teams in baseball.

The following teams would have all the players mentioned above, plus Buehrle and Garcia in the number one spots:

Indians, Royals, Rangers, Mariners, Angels, Giants, Rockies, Dodgers, Expos(nat'ls), Pirates, Cardinals, Reds, Blue Jays, Orioles, Devil Rays, Marlins....and probably a few I missed...

For instance, Yankees, perhaps, and Diamondbacks if they didn't happen to have a hall of famer on their staff...

Anyway...to say there's only 5 or so number one starters in the game is ridiculous.

I happen to think, of all the woes the white sox have (and there are many) we happen to have two number one pitchers...

although apparently, from most of these answers, in order to be a #1, you have to be a future hall of famer or at least a cy young candidate every year.

gosox41
11-26-2004, 11:28 AM
are you crazy? a number one starter is "the one who if you could have any pitcher in baseball, he would be it"?

don't get me wrong, that PLAYER would certainly be a number one starter.

but what about, say, Ben Sheets, Mark Mulder, Jake Peavey, Kevin Millwood, Tom Glavine, Al Leiter?

They're not number one starters?

Couldn't we agree that a number one starter is a pitcher who is in the top 20 percent of starting pitchers, or at the very LEAST would be the best pitcher if placed on most teams in baseball.

The following teams would have all the players mentioned above, plus Buehrle and Garcia in the number one spots:

Indians, Royals, Rangers, Mariners, Angels, Giants, Rockies, Dodgers, Expos(nat'ls), Pirates, Cardinals, Reds, Blue Jays, Orioles, Devil Rays, Marlins....and probably a few I missed...

For instance, Yankees, perhaps, and Diamondbacks if they didn't happen to have a hall of famer on their staff...

Anyway...to say there's only 5 or so number one starters in the game is ridiculous.

I happen to think, of all the woes the white sox have (and there are many) we happen to have two number one pitchers...

although apparently, from most of these answers, in order to be a #1, you have to be a future hall of famer or at least a cy young candidate every year.
I can agree to that, but what do you call the 5 or so best starters in baseball? Being in the top 20% is very good. But there needs to be a category above that IMHO. I think guys like Schilling and Johnson are a step above Buerhle and Garcia.


Bob

johnny_mostil
11-26-2004, 11:45 AM
I can agree to that, but what do you call the 5 or so best starters in baseball? Being in the top 20% is very good. But there needs to be a category above that IMHO. I think guys like Schilling and Johnson are a step above Buerhle and Garcia.

There is. "Hall Of Fame Pitcher".

FarWestChicago
11-26-2004, 12:00 PM
I'll try to do some research and get back to you on who I consider a 'true #1 pitcher.'I'd like to see that list. It should be interesting.

gosox41
11-26-2004, 12:58 PM
There is. "Hall Of Fame Pitcher".

Maybe so. This is getting down to pickiness about defintions.

I can make an argument an arguemnt that all HOF pitchers were #1 starters. But can I assume all #1 starters are in the HOF?

So are they really number 1 type pitchers. Yes, guys like Buehrle and Garcia are very good, I'm not goin to debate that at all. While these '#1' pitchers were active, they weren't in the HOF, they were just considered to be the best, #1 starters.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on an exact definition. But I see your point about some of the other guys around baseball taht can be called '#1 starters' But #1 to me means being the best of the best.


Bob

Paulwny
11-26-2004, 02:16 PM
An 'ace' pitcher is the type of pitcher that opposing teams look at and think to themselves 'we're in deep s@#$ tonight.'

He's a pitcher that puts the fear of God in opposing hitters, who is a threat for at least 18 wins and over 200 innings and who has stayed healthy.

LipAgree,
The opposing team looks at the series and expects to lose to the ace, hoping to defeat the other starters. It is the mental part of the game that an ace bings. Batters don't feel comfortable in the box and don't expect to be successful.
Even though the ace isn't on his game he still finds a way to get batters out and keeps his team in the game. How often do you hear about aces, "he didn't have his best stuff but he still won" ?

gosox41
11-27-2004, 06:56 PM
I'd like to see that list. It should be interesting.I put together a list of 20 pitchers. And due to lack of time I looked at 5 stats: H/9, HR/9, BB/9, SO/9 and WHIP. For some players I looked at their careers as well as the years they were considered dominant.

Perhaps one of the things I learned is that there is not a huge difference between Buehrle/Garcia and some of the top pitchers in the game. But there is a difference. I picked pitchers based on players mentioned in this thread as well as other active pitchers that have been mentioned. I also picked historical pitchers that came to mind right away. I only had time for these 20. For certain pitchers I looked at their careers as well as the seasons that they were considered dominant (ie see Koufax)

One other way to look at things is to take a bottom up approach. Meaning how would you rank the stats for a fifth, fourth third, etc. starter. There is a point where you would have to draw a line. For example, take WHIP. If you use a career WHIP of 0-1.2 to be among the top, what falls as second or third tier. Should 1.2-1.3 be a # 2 starter, 1.3-1.4 for a # 3, etc.?

The reason I used the stats I used was two-fold. First, because they were already computated and I have limited time. If one would like to do more research, I'd love to read it. Second, because I think pitching comes down to one simple concept: not allowing runs. The easiest way to prevent that is to let fewer runners on base. The lower the number of walks and hits the better the pitcher. One big way to keep runners off base is to strike them out. That way there is a very limited chance of having that hitter reach base. Too many other things (incliding luck) can factor in pitchers who let hitters hit the ball. So K's are important. It also prevents runners on base from being sacrificed.

I then ranked each player based on my own subjective list. If someone wants to debate rankings or weight them feel free. I just weighed each category equally because a dominant pitcher should be able to do it all. Here are those rankings (NOTE: There are other great pitchers that I simple left out due to lack of time. If I had time Id go through some HOF pitchers as well as some lower level pitchers like Helling or Rusch. I am aware it is a rather crude study but it is useful. I just analyzed stats of what I considered relevant to figuring out a #1 type pitcher. If I had more time I can narrow the research by using more players as well as using more stats. Also, if anyone wants the numbers I used I'll post them):



H/9
7 or less- 5pts
7.1-7.99 4
8.1-8.99 3
9.1-9.99 2
10+ 1



HR/9
.5 or less- 5
.5-.99 4
1.0-1.5 3
1.5-2 2
2+ 1



BB/9
less then 2 5
2-2.5 4
2.6-3 3
3.1-3.5 2
3.6+ 1



SO/9
10+ 5
9-9.99 4
8-8.99 3
7-7.99 2
less then 7 1



WHIP
0-1.1 5
1.11-1.2 4
1.21-1.3 3
1.31-1.40 2
1.41+ 1





Player totals-MAX total-25 Points

Koufax 4 seasons-- 22
Johnson- 22
Sheets-2004only 22
Koufax-career 21
Clemens- 21
Gooden-7seasons 20
Schmidt-2004 20
Schilling-7 seas 19
Schilling career 19
Maddux 19
Gibson 18
Buerhle 17
Drysdale 17
Spahn 16
Hudson 16
Gooden-career 15
Colon 15
Sheets=career 15
Freddy Garcia 14
Galvine 14
Schmidt-career 14
Leiter 13
Garland 11
Ortiz 10




I look forward to the feedback.


Bob

FarWestChicago
11-28-2004, 01:08 AM
Perhaps one of the things I learned is that there is not a huge difference between Buehrle/Garcia and some of the top pitchers in the game. But there is a difference. I picked pitchers based on players mentioned in this thread as well as other active pitchers that have been mentioned. I also picked historical pitchers that came to mind right away. I only had time for these 20. For certain pitchers I looked at their careers as well as the seasons that they were considered dominant (ie see Koufax)I was a little young for Koufax. But, I was old enough to see Bob Gibson at his peak. I've always thought he was the baddest assed pitcher I ever saw. There wasn't as much baseball on TV back then and you would see him just mowing teams down in the World Series. And he looked mean. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I guess the stats don't back it up. But he was a big reason they lowered the pitching mound. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif

StockdaleForVeep
11-28-2004, 03:37 AM
If when you reply to this message you could include some examples of who you think is and is not a number one, that would be great and could provide for some interesting discussion.
Is the answer Jesus?

http://www.rosicrucians.org/salon/buddy/buddy.jpg
"I throw a miracle changeup"

gosox41
11-28-2004, 10:03 AM
I was a little young for Koufax. But, I was old enough to see Bob Gibson at his peak. I've always thought he was the baddest assed pitcher I ever saw. There wasn't as much baseball on TV back then and you would see him just mowing teams down in the World Series. And he looked mean. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I guess the stats don't back it up. But he was a big reason they lowered the pitching mound. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gifI was also surprised by Gibson's numbers. I didn't break down his stats for a few seasons like I did Gooden's, but it would be interesting to see what they were. He did have a long career of consistency relativ eto the average pitcher. Most pitchers had 7 seasons that made them. Some (like Koufax and Gooden) had less.

One other thing that surprised me was how bad Russ Ortiz is for his career. I threw him in there because he's been mentioned as a possible target by the Sox. He has a career 1.4 WHIP and averages 4.4 W/9. Considering he only averages 5.6 K/9 I can see why he is overhyped.



Bob

MRKARNO
11-28-2004, 11:46 AM
I was also surprised by Gibson's numbers. I didn't break down his stats for a few seasons like I did Gooden's, but it would be interesting to see what they were. He did have a long career of consistency relativ eto the average pitcher. Most pitchers had 7 seasons that made them. Some (like Koufax and Gooden) had less.

The thing about GIbson is that while he was really good and his 1968 season has not been matched in modern times (and won't be), his career era of 2.91 to the league average ERA of 3.70 during his career isn't extremely special, while it is good. The best way to see how good a pitcher was based on statistics regardless of what year he's playing in is to compare his ERA with the league average ERA. Here are a few other pitchers on your list career ERA vs league ERA differences in percentage terms

(1-(career ERA/ league ERA)) The higher the number, the better.

Koufax .2397
Gooden .0930
Johnson .3070
Schilling .2350
Clemens .2886
Pedro .4018
Spahn .1534
Drysdale .1737
Maddux .2874
Cy Young .2735

Buehrle .1966
Garcia .1225

This methodology might be biased a bit towards present day pitchers...or they might be that much better.

Paulwny
11-28-2004, 12:33 PM
The thing about GIbson is that while he was really good and his 1968 season has not been matched in modern times (and won't be), his career era of 2.91 to the league average ERA of 3.70 during his career isn't extremely special, while it is good. The best way to see how good a pitcher was based on statistics regardless of what year he's playing in is to compare his ERA with the league average ERA. Here are a few other pitchers on your list career ERA vs league ERA differences in percentage terms

(1-(career ERA/ league ERA)) The higher the number, the better.

Koufax .2397
Gooden .0930
Johnson .3070
Schilling .2350
Clemens .2886
Pedro .4018
Spahn .1534
Drysdale .1737
Maddux .2874
Cy Young .2735

Buehrle .1966
Garcia .1225

This methodology might be biased a bit towards present day pitchers...or they might be that much better.One thing that may skew Gibson's era is his complete games per season, it's huge. Gibson was one of those guys who was expected to finish what he started. I didn't look up any specific data but, if Gibson gave up the majority of runs in the last 3 innings he can't be compared to today's pitchers who are on pitch counts. This maybe why the data tends toward the present day pitcher being better than those before "the closer" and pitch counts.

gosox41
11-28-2004, 12:38 PM
One thing that may skew Gibson's era is his complete games per season, it's huge. Gibson was one of those guys who was expected to finish what he started. I didn't look up any specific data but, if Gibson gave up the majority or runs in the last 3 innings he can't be compared to today's pitchers who are on pitch counts. This maybe why the data tends toward the present day pitcher being better, then those before "the closer" and pitch counts.
Interesting point. Also, I know there are studies that have been done the last couple of years that show how a pitcher pitched in his next outing after throwing 120+ pitches in a start or 2. Some definitely wore down.

It'd be interesting to see if Gibson had any trends of pitch count. Maybe he'd throw a 130+ pitches in a couple outings and dominate but in his next 1 or 2 he'd only get 90 and get knocked arund..

Wish I had the time to examine this more. If pitchers 30-40 years ago had the conditioning/rehab knowledge that they do today, would their careers have been longer? Would they have had more endurance?

It is fascinating.


Bob

batmanZoSo
11-28-2004, 01:02 PM
This thread was spurred out of the Garcia thread and many other general threads. We may have had this discussion before, but it's important to have it again.

What makes a number one starter? A lot of people say that Buehrle isn't a number one starter, but he's number one in our rotation, so doesnt that make him a number one? Or does the term imply the league average front of the rotation starter?

I think it means the top 30 starters in baseball over the course of a few years. Loaiza was not a number one because he was a one year wonder, but pitchers who are consistantly in the top 30 of however you want to rank 'em (VORP isn't a bad ranker) are number one pitchers, because it implies that more often than not, they would be the best pitcher if all teams could have one of the top 30. In his four years as a full time starter, Buehrle has been top 30 in VORP 3 years, hence according to my preferred ranking system, he's a number one starter. Garcia, who has been in the top 30 3 of his 6 years and the top 60 the other 3, but in 2001 was one of the top 3, is an iffy number one, bordering on a number two.

If when you reply to this message you could include some examples of who you think is and is not a number one, that would be great and could provide for some interesting discussion.
In my opinion a number one starter is any starter who's maybe in the top 5-10% of all the pitchers in his league. And I think Buehrle is certainly that. Or someone who could come in and be the number one on at least half the teams. Buehrle would be number one on anyone in our division except for the Twins.

FarWestChicago
11-28-2004, 01:35 PM
It is fascinating.If you have time, run a quick crunch on Lefty Grove (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/grovele01.shtml). He had a pretty good run. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

fquaye149
11-28-2004, 05:29 PM
This methodology might be biased a bit towards present day pitchers...or they might be that much better.
another way to look at it is that in today's expansion era there is a dilution of starting pitching talent dragging the average down (or up...as it were) to the extent where the excellent pitchers distinguish themselves from the pack all the more

gosox41
11-30-2004, 01:28 PM
If you have time, run a quick crunch on Lefty Grove (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/grovele01.shtml). He had a pretty good run. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Left had a great run. His career stats rank with 21 points, putting him in CLemens and Koufax category. If you take his 8 seasons from age 26-33 when he was regularly pithing 200+ innings (in fact 1936 of his career 3542 IP were pitched in those years though he played ball for 17), he ranks a 22 which puts him up there with RJ's career numbers and Koufax's dominant seasons. He just did it twice as long as Koufax.



Bob

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2004, 01:44 PM
I was a little young for Koufax. But, I was old enough to see Bob Gibson at his peak. I've always thought he was the baddest assed pitcher I ever saw. There wasn't as much baseball on TV back then and you would see him just mowing teams down in the World Series. And he looked mean. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I guess the stats don't back it up. But he was a big reason they lowered the pitching mound. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gifYou need to be very careful comparing pitchers from different eras. From 1962 to 1968 the strike zone was much larger than it is today. And the mound was lowered after the 1968 season. In 1968 the MLB-wide ERA was below 3.0. The NL BA was down to .243 and the AL BA was .230. Carl Yastremski was the only AL hitter with a BA above .300.

Also factor in that the DH has added about 0.3-0.4 runs to ERA's.

gosox41
11-30-2004, 02:50 PM
You need to be very careful comparing pitchers from different eras. From 1962 to 1968 the strike zone was much larger than it is today. And the mound was lowered after the 1968 season. In 1968 the MLB-wide ERA was below 3.0. The NL BA was down to .243 and the AL BA was .230. Carl Yastremski was the only AL hitter with a BA above .300.

Also factor in that the DH has added about 0.3-0.4 runs to ERA's.
Agreed. I mentioned this when I first did my little stufy. But there are also factors such as conditioning and inreased medical technology that could easlily make today's pitcher healthier and strongerin a much quicker time period. Most pitchers from a different era had jobs in the off season, didn't stress conditining and pitched through a lot of 'sore' arms.

It's probably impossible to quantify the excess variables like DH, smaller ballparks, better equipment, and medical technology but it would be an interesting comaprison if someone can figure out how to do it.


Bob

FarWestChicago
11-30-2004, 10:51 PM
Left had a great run. His career stats rank with 21 points, putting him in CLemens and Koufax category. If you take his 8 seasons from age 26-33 when he was regularly pithing 200+ innings (in fact 1936 of his career 3542 IP were pitched in those years though he played ball for 17), he ranks a 22 which puts him up there with RJ's career numbers and Koufax's dominant seasons. He just did it twice as long as Koufax.



BobThanks, Bob. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif