nearly untouchable records...which will be the first to fall?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by steve B

Clipped off most of the quote as it's just there to keep who I'm replying to clear.


Interesting take on things. It's interesting how consistent Ryan was. My impression had been that he got better as a pitcher, while retaining most of his speed.

I'm also not really up on the new stats. Are they put together from the traditional stats? The traditional stuff has always seemed flawed to me. Wins are better if the team is good, and to some extent, so is ERA. A really good defense will prevent runs, an average one might make more errors keeping the runs from being "earned" and a horrible defense won't even get to the ball, leading to loads of runs, all of them earned.

My other impression of Ryan was that he was almost unhittable a big chunk of the time. (Like maybe 7 out of 9 innings at times) But the occasions where a lack of control got him in trouble, he might have backed off a bit and paid for it. (And the umpire having trouble with seeing the pitches well might have hurt the control) Or if for whatever reason the fastball just didn't move like it usually did, he would get hit and hit hard.
Not sure how to put it in numbers, but I've also long believed that power pitchers on bad teams overdo things out of a feeling that the safest path is strikeouts.

Stats wise, the comparisons of Carlton and Seaver in 72 and 71 are very interesting. Do the modern stats account for dh/no dh differences? Although I doubt the DH as it was in 73 would have made a huge difference.

Steve B

Steve, when I look at pitchers, one of the things I pay little to no attention to is win-loss record. It's one of the Triple Crown stats for pitchers, so it still merits discussion. But so many things go into winning a game, and a pitcher can only control so much of that decision. I look at Clayton Kershaw's last start. He went 7 2/3 innings, gave up 4 hits, 1 run, struck out 10, and walked nobody. But he got pulled after surrendering his fourth hit, a single, with two outs in the eighth inning. The guy that came in with a 2-1 lead promptly game up a triple, tying the game, and taking Kershaw out of contention for the decision. In the ninth, the Dodgers scored two, and won on a save conversion. The pitcher who gave up the tying run--getting one out in his appearance--got the win. Did he deserve it? Absolutely not. Kershaw did. But he got no run support.

Nolan Ryan, as I've mentioned, played on a lot of mediocre teams (and that's being kind). But so did a player like Walter Johnson. Johnson is remembered as one of the best to ever play the game, a true elite, because when his whole body of work is analyzed, he was absolutely dominant. When you look at his career, which predates the Cy Young Award--he won two MVP Awards. That's impressive. He had all the pitchers, and all the position players, competing for the one award. But it's his metrics that really show his dominance.

To address your questions about modern metrics. Yes, they are based off of the traditional metrics, but perhaps not in the way you'd think of. The two I look at mostly are WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched), and FIP (fielding independent pitching). I also look at ERA +, which considers a pitcher's ERA relative to the league average, with an adjustment made for the ballparks pitched in. Say two pitchers go through a season, and have an identical 3.00 ERA. One pitched his home games at an offense friendly ballpark. The other pitched in a ballpark that clearly favors a pitcher. ERA + looks at the league average ERA (9 * earned runs allowed in the league/ innings pitched), and then makes an adjustment for parks. A pitcher with a 3.00 ERA in a hitter friendly park has, in essence, performed better than a pitcher with the same ERA in a pitcher friendly park. Why? A fly ball hit in both parks--same distance--in the hitter friendly park, a 400 foot shot might be a home run, putting runs on the board. In a pitcher friendly park, that same hit might just be a deep out. The hitter friendly park provides a higher degree of difficulty for the pitcher, while the pitcher friendly park aids the pitcher in their performance. The room for error is greater. Thus, all other things being identical, the pitcher in the hitter friendly park would have a higher ERA +.

WHIP is a simple metric; it considers batters allowed to reach base via a walk or a hit. Somebody like Nolan Ryan was dominant with his speed, so he allowed fewer hits per 9 innings than any other pitcher. But, as I alluded to earlier, base runners are base runners. Part of the new line of thinking, offensively, looks at OBP, on base percentage, together with AVG, as being a better indicator of a hitters's greatness, than pure batting average alone. While a hit will further advance base runners (and drive them in), a walk counts the same as a single in terms of getting on base. WHIP is simple, but it gets right down to the heart of it. How many base runners does a pitcher really allow?

If a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base, and score a run, does it really matter if they get there by a single, or a walk? No. If the guy behind them in the lineup hits the ball out of the park, he scores a run.

Consider two hitters:

One is a .300 hitter with a .360 OBP.
The other is a .260 hitter with a .400 OBP.

Who is better? It really depends on their role. The old thinking was the guy with the higher average was the better hitter. And, for driving the ball, and advancing/scoring runners, I still think that's true. But for guys who get on base, and score, the table setters, the higher OBP really is indicative of their success as an offensive player. Of course, a .300 hitter with a .400 OBP trumps both. The best hitters have a high average and on base. Hitting safely is always best. It allows for extra bases to be taken. It allows for base runners to move more than one base. Plus, there's no telling when a fielder will flub picking up the ball, maybe resulting in extra bases for all the base runners. Hitting brings more to the table than a walk. But a really great hitter will take what a pitcher gives them. If the pitcher is avoiding the strike zone, not giving the hitter anything to really drive, a good hitter will not chase bad pitches, and take their base with a walk. That's plate discipline, and it's in short supply today.

But FIP is really my favorite metric for assessing pitchers. You mentioned that a pitcher has no control as to the fielders behind them, and how good at fielding the ball they will be. Exactly! FIP, as a metric, measures what a pitcher, alone, can control. How many strikeouts do they get? And, how good are they at preventing walks, home runs, and hit batters?

Right now, Clayton Kershaw and Jake Arrieta have the same ERA in the National League, 1.56. But which of those two pitchers is truly better? Compare their WHIP.

Arrieta 0.893
Kershaw 0.646

And their FIP

Arrieta 2.72
Kershaw 1.50

Kershaw is clearly the better pitcher. WHIP shows that Kershaw allows fewer walks and hits per 9 innings than Arrieta. It's base runners that get a pitcher in trouble. But, the defense behind a pitcher will influence this metric somewhat. A pitcher with a great defense behind them is more likely to allow fewer hits than an equally great pitcher with an average or below-average defense.

But, again, FIP looks at things a pitcher alone can control. The glove men behind him are pretty much excluded from the equation (save for the occasional inside the park home run. And, of course, a good catcher can frame pitchers, and maybe influence strikeout rate). But, for the most part, strikeouts are pretty much the pitcher alone. Walks, same thing. Hit batters, same thing. Home runs? If the ball sails out of the park, the pitcher got roughed up. The defense just watched the ball sail out of the park. So, yes, while FIP is made up of the old statistics, home runs, walks, hit batters....it's the why and how those numbers are coupled that make the metric such a great tool.

Arrieta's record benefits from playing on clearly the best team in the Majors, right now. The Cubs are 36-15. Kershaw's Dodgers are 28-26. But Kershaw is more responsible for those wins. How much so? His control is pretty incredible. He's 7-1 on a .500 team. I imagine he'd be pretty close to undefeated, maybe at 9-0, or 10-0, if he had the Cubs run support behind him. He's had one poor start in 11.

Kershaw, right now, is on one of the great six year runs in the modern era. Three Cy Youngs (and number four if he keeps pitching at anywhere near this same level). But within that six year period, his three year run from 2014-2016 is even better.

Between 2014 and 2016, Clayton Kershaw's numbers are staggering. He's 44-11 with a 1.90 ERA; He has thrown 517 2/3 innings, striking out 645 batters, walking only 78. His ERA + over this span is 190. His WHIP is 0.833, and most telling of all, his FIP is an eye popping 1.84. His strikeout to walk ratio is the best I've ever seen, 8.27 over 500 innings.

Kershaw has basically taken the team on his back. He is more responsible for winning his games than any pitcher I can remember. He's not even allowing 6 base runners per 9 innings this season. He doesn't give free bases. His 105 strikeout to 5 walk ratio to start the season is the best in baseball's modern era. It is, simply, unprecedented.

[steve B]

Thanks for the explanation of the new style stats. Sure does look like they take the old stats that are actually useful and combine them in a meaningful way.

And seen that way, it matches pretty well with my impressions of Ryan. There'd be like 6 innings of almost everyone looking silly, maybe a walk here and there, then a walk, maybe someone gets hit, he tries to use a curve for some reason and it hangs leading to a 3 run homer. Maybe trouble after, maybe not. Next inning batters were back to ineffective flailing and blank stares. But of course, he's given up 3-5 runs on some walks and handful of hits and a homer or two. End of the day, just like the new stats say, it's all just hits and runs.

Steve B

[brass_rat]

I just wanted to say thanks to all those that posted in this thread. It was a very enjoyable read.

Cheers,
Steve

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by steve B

Thanks for the explanation of the new style stats. Sure does look like they take the old stats that are actually useful and combine them in a meaningful way.

And seen that way, it matches pretty well with my impressions of Ryan. There'd be like 6 innings of almost everyone looking silly, maybe a walk here and there, then a walk, maybe someone gets hit, he tries to use a curve for some reason and it hangs leading to a 3 run homer. Maybe trouble after, maybe not. Next inning batters were back to ineffective flailing and blank stares. But of course, he's given up 3-5 runs on some walks and handful of hits and a homer or two. End of the day, just like the new stats say, it's all just hits and runs.

Steve B

Another note about Ryan: He had a warrior mentality when on the mound. Which is best represented by the fact that on his very last pitch, he gave up a record-breaking twelve grand-slam homer and tore up his elbow doing it...everyone knew he wouldn't go out any other way.

This was a mind set that frequently lost him games - several duels with Michael Jack Schmidt decided games either by a strikeout or by a homerun...that's just the way he was.

Jim Palmer has always been praised for NEVER giving up a grand slam, but I often wonder how many times he left games with the bases loaded...


.