Graphs of 300-game winners

Following up the Halladay/300-win discussion, here are two age-based graphs of the 18 modern* 300-game winners: wins by seasonal age, and cumulative wins by age
.

  • The youngest debuts were 19: Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Early Wynn and Nolan Ryan. Johnson (12 GS, 5 wins) was the only one to win a game or start more than three times.
  • The oldest debuts were age 25: Eddie Plank, Lefty Grove and Phil Niekro.
  • Wynn missed his age-25 season while in the service. All were active from 26-35.
  • Mathewson was the youngest to reach 300, during his age-31 season (but probably before his 31st birthday). Walter Johnson was 32, Cy Young 34. Pete Alexander was 37; Greg Maddux and Steve Carlton, 38; Plank, 39; Warren Spahn, Tom Seaver and Roger Clemens, 40; Grove, Don Sutton and Tom Glavine, 41; Wynn, Gaylord Perry and Ryan, 43; Randy Johnson, 45; and Niekro, 46.
  • Matty was also the youngest retiree, at 35. He logged all but 12 of his 373 wins in 14 years from age 20-33, averaging almost 26 wins per year, including a 12-year run of at least 22 wins each year. Niekro was the only one active at age 47-48.
  • Most wins in his 20s: Mathewson, 263; W.Johnson, 249.
  • Most wins in his 30s: Young, 241; Spahn, 202.
  • Most wins in his 40s: Niekro, 141; Spahn & Young, 75.

 

As I mentioned in another comment, since Walter Johnson, no pitcher with more than 78 wins through age 25 has reached 300 wins. The closest were Bert Blyleven (287) and Robin Roberts (286).

__________

* “Modern” to me is since 1893, when the pitcher’s slab was moved back to 60′ 6″. Cy Young debuted in 1890, but since 439 of his 511 wins came in the modern era, I’ve included his first 3 years in the graphs.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

126 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bstar
12 years ago

Great looking graphs, John. Going by the first one, it looks like Halladay would get to 112 more wins sometime in his age 42 season. Even though wins are harder to come by than in the past due to fewer starts per year, I wouldn’t classify Roy Halladay as an “average 34-year-old Hall of Fame pitcher”. The guy’s still in his prime; we have yet to see any sort of decline. I just think he’s going to stay elite for at least another two years.

ajnrules
12 years ago

Man, when the mean number of wins is greater than 11 of the 18 modern 300-game winners, you know that’s a skew. Thanks, Cy Young.

And I’ll always consider Randy Johnson a 25-year-old debut player, even though it was his age-24 season. It was five days past his 25th birthday when he made his debut.

Anyways, I just can’t seem to shake this nagging feeling I get that Jamie Moyer will do well enough this season to convince teams to bring him back and give him 30 starts until he gets to 300.

Hartvig
Hartvig
12 years ago

At their current ages: Halladay is 34 games off the pace (188 vs 222), Sabathia is 24 games ahead of schedule (176 vs 152), Verlander is 6 games off the pace 107 vs 113) and King Felix is an impressive 26 games over where his 300 game winning counterparts were (85 vs 59). I think the clock is working against Halladay far more than the other 3- my guess is that unless he’s determined to hang on until no one will have him he’ll end up in the 250 to 260 range. If he keeps going until the fat lady… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
12 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Nice points, Hartvig. Of the four pitchers you mention, it seems like at least ONE should be a lock to get to 300. Still, I give CC the best shot. I mean, he and King Felix are about equally ahead of a 300-win-pace, only CC has about twice as many wins. And you’re probably close on Halladay, though I’m not even sure about him adding 90 wins at his age. Still, 250-280 wins is nothing to be ashamed of. That’s a Hall of Fame-type number. And with as strong as his peak his been, he’s pretty much a lock at… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

CC’s other big advantage is pitching for the Yankees. Felix is going to have a hard time piling up wins as long as he’s stuck on the Mariners. He’d likely have 5-10 more wins if he pitched on better teams. That being said, he’s nowhere near as unlucky as Matt Cain. Cain basically matches Felix in terms of games started and ERA+ but is way behind in wins (69) due to lack of run support.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Ed, that’s true, although when CC was King Felix’s age he wasn’t on the Yankees either. Who knows where Hernandez will be pitching in his late 20s and 30s. Might be Seattle (they are one of the richest organizations in the game), or he might opt for free agency and some other team. CC has a better chance than Halladay because of the age difference, although it really isn’t four years as I’ve seen written. It’s three years and a couple months. The whole concept of “age seasons” fixes one problem, but creates another. In NY, we hear that Jeter… Read more »

TrivialSteve
TrivialSteve
12 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

One of the things about Sabathia that makes him hard to predict is he’s kind of a physical freak. I guy his size should be breaking down about now, but he shows no signs. He doesn’t throw as hard as a lot of guys his size and he has a motion that doesn’t seem to overstrain him. He could be one of those guys that, playing on a good team like the NYY, could pile up 15 – 18 wins every year into his early 40’s. That would put him well over 300. Of course, the MacDonald’s Extra Value Meals… Read more »

Michael E Sullivan
Michael E Sullivan
12 years ago
Reply to  TrivialSteve

I think you are drawing way too many conclusions from CC’s size. Gaylord Perry wasn’t exactly a beanpole, and he pitched well into his 40s.

If he’s strong, and I believe he is, he can carry that size without breaking down any faster than smaller guys.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
12 years ago

Also see David Wells for the precedence of an, um, _large_ player pitching at a high level when he gets up there in age.
From age 40-42:
213 IP, 106 OPS+, 15-7
195 IP, 104 OPS+, 12-8
184 IP, 102 OPS+, 15-7

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Well, to be fair what the second graph is really saying is that Halladay is 34 games off the pace to win “an average amount of wins for a modern 300-game winner”, which is 344. It’s not saying he’s 34 wins off the pace to win 300. Considering Matthewson, W Johnson, and Cy Young had 369, 337, and 319 wins at age 34, the numbers are really being skewed by the guys who pitched before 1940. If we take off Eddie Plank, Pete Alexander, and Lefty Grove, there would be 12 pitchers since 1940+(Grove pitched til ’41) who have won… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Looking at the 12 1940+ modern pitchers to reach 300 wins, we can take the lowest man on the list, Early Wynn(L Grove pitched only til 41)at exactly 300 wins, and make him the middle point. So if we take the 11 guys in the same time period who came closest to 300, we have a group of 23 players with Wynn as the median. How did those players perform after the age of 34?: 300 wins+ group wins after age 34: 1. P Niekro 208 2. W Spahn 180 3. RJohnson 160 4. RClemens 141 5. G Perry 137… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Sorry to keep going on and on with this, but I keep finding interesting things to talk about. Surprisingly, the average wins for the 300 wins group at age 34 was 194, while the near miss group were at a 196 average for age 34(and that includes Moyer’s mere 89 wins by then). For arguments sake, we can essentially say that the top 23 winningest pitchers since 1940 all were very close to each other at the age of 34 as far as number of wins to that point. How these pitchers finished the last several years of their careers… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

No, you actually made some excellent points and if you pointed out the obvious, it was only because I missed it. That, plus the fact that Halladay is only signed with Philadelphia for 3 more years- at which point I think that the Phillies are going to find that they have a lot of very significantly aging and very expensive players plus very possibly some luxury tax issues to contend with- so he will have the opportunity to move to a more likely contender, make his chances quite a bit better than I previously believed.

Doug
Editor
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

bstar, Difficult to believe that 194 was the average for 300 game winners at age 34. In post 9 below, I have 75% of 300 game winners having won at least 202 games at age 34.

Looking at all pitchers who had won that many games at age 34, only 36% of them would end up winning 300 (see chart in post 11).

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Doug, I was only using the 12 most modern pitchers to win 300(post 1940), as mentioned in #18 and #7. That takes out the superhigh totals of Cy Young, Walter Johnson, etc. as mentioned in #7. I don’t think looking at guys who could get 35 wins a year and 50 starts per was the best way to look at Halladay’s chances. If you do include them, it makes his chances look slimmer. Also, including ALL pitchers to win a certain amount at a certain level, in my opinion, is not as useful as what I did, which is compare… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Doug, here’s the list:

1. Maddux 240
2. Seaver 235
3. Carlton 225
4. Sutton 217
5. Clemens 213
6. Glavine 208
7. N Ryan 189
8. E Wynn 184
9. Spahn 183
10. Perry 177
11. BigUnit 143
12. Niekro 110

Average: 193.7

Perhaps it’s Niekro’s stunningly low number that made the 194 look so off. He didn’t start 30+ games til age 29.

Doug
Doug
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Thanks for clarifying, bstar.

But, I think I agree with John @24. If you just look at 300 game winners who looked similar to Halladay at a certain age, then, yes, Halladay’s chances are going to look pretty good. 🙂

For the record, pitchers who were at 175-200 wins at age 34 and didn’t win 300 are these guys. Pretty good pitchers.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/shareit/w3bJR

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Doug, perhaps you didn’t see post #18, but I didn’t just look at guys who had won 300. I put Early Wynn at 300 and picked the next 11 guys who came closest to 300. Here’s that list again:

Here’s the other group
of near misses
wins after 34+
1. J Moyer 178
2. T John 134
3. J Kaat 89
4. Blyleven 75
5. Fergie J 71
5. MMussina 71
5. J Morris 71
8. B Gibson 61
9. RRoberts 52
10. JPalmer 27
11. BFeller 17

average wins after 34:

77

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

What I was doing was giving you a spread of those who made it to 300 and those who didn’t.(post 1940), with 300 being the middle value. So you’ve got the 23 pitchers closest to 300, with 11 on either side. We are arguing whether Halladay will make it to 300, he almost certainly will end up in that range. We are also talking about what percent chance he has to get there. No established connection to Halladay? He has 188 wins at 34, these two groups had 194 and 196. That makes them extremely comparable. Not using ALL pitchers… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Oh ok, I see, John. But your example was for 1 season. We’re comparing the first 2/3 of people’s careers, which I think makes it acceptable. No, if someone hits 40 HR by August, we dont’ know what he will do after that. But back when guys like A-Rod, Pujols, or especially Griffey got to 350 or 400 HR for a career quickly, are you saying you weren’t one of the hordes of people peering into the future to see how many they could hit for their career? Wouldn’t looking at what the Babe, Aaron, and Mays did after that… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

The question in my mind is this: who’s comparable to Halladay? He’s had an ERA+ of 150+ for each season from age 31-34. Since I’m not a P-I subscriber, I can’t say for sure, but that seems to be unprecedented. It certainly is for more recent times. Maddux and Brown did it three times each. Cone, Johnson, Clemens, and Gibson twice each. Obviously 3 of those guys continued to pile up wins post age 34 (though Clemens wins may have been “enhanced”) and 3 didn’t. Anyway, that seems to be the best comparison group for Halladay. But it’s too small… Read more »

Michael E Sullivan
Michael E Sullivan
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

yeah, john is right here, I think. Looking at everybody who had about the same number of wins as Halladay at 35 and seeing how many got to 300 is the right way to estimate his chances, and when you do that. When you do that, it looks like 12 out of about 60 made it, and another 12 got pretty close. So that would suggest his chances of hitting 300 are around 20% and his chances of making a decent run at it but not quite getting there are similar. If he’s better than the average pitcher in that… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Ed, through age 34, looking at the 12 modern Hall of Fame pitchers to reach 300 wins after 1940, only Clemens(149), Maddux(145), and Tom Seaver(139) had a better ERA+ than Halladay’s 138. I agree: it’s the pitchers who have more similar ERA+’s to Halladay that we need to be looking at for comps.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

John@33, that’s the crux of my whole point, to pick a group of comps who actually DO have a similar ERA+ to Halladay! Of my two groups, the 300-game winners have a (nonweighted) average of 125, while the near miss group was at 119.5. Halladay has the fourth best of these 23 overall at 138. If you include in a comp group, say, ALL the pitchers who won 188 at age 34, you’re including a lot of pitchers who didn’t pitch much longer in their career…..because they simply weren’t good enough to last much longer. IMHO, this gives an unfair… Read more »

Doug
Editor
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

bstar I get what you’re saying, but when you exclude certain people from your comparison because they were gassed (as indicated by events), but you don’t think Halladay is gassed – that is selection bias, cherry picking, or whatever you want to call it. In my list at comment #31, there are 40 pitchers who had 175-200 Wins at age 34 and did NOT make it to 300 wins (I have actually pruned that list to omit guys who had reached that level and retired before age 34). Contrast those 40 with the 4 who also had 175-200 wins at… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I think I’m mostly with Bstar on this one. Just looking at Doug’s list in #31 of pitchers who were at 175-200 wins at age 34 and didn’t win 300, I don’t see a lot of guys who are comparable to Halladay, and particularly not at age 34. I don’t want to go through the whole list but just a few examples. Dwight Gooden: Basically a monster year at age 20 but never did anything else close to it the rest of his career and was basically washed up at age 34. Frank Tanana: Last big year was at age… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Doug, I think it’s pretty obvious everyone in this argument is suffering from confirmation bias. I looked at your group of 175-200 last night, and their average ERA+(nonweighted) was 114 thru 34. My two groups averaged 122. Halladay is at 138. Which group is a better comp?

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Doug, I also picked my list at an attempt at a fairer look, not to cherry pick and improve Halladay’s chances. I thought the way it was being approached gave an unfair look at Doc’s chances to get 300.

Doug
Doug
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Fair points, Ed and bstar, about the comparison group would be better defined with more paramaters than just win total (i.e. ERA+, performance in most recent years, etc.).

My point is that, whatever criteria you use, that’s you group. You don’t then arbitrarily start pulling guys out of the group because this guy hurt his arm at 36, or that guy was a boozer, or whatever. Doing that is when you start down a slippery slope. 🙂

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Doug, I really don’t think I was doing that. Most of the guys that I excluded that you included didn’t approach 250 wins(I used everyone down to Gibson at 251) because they weren’t good enough to last that long, not because they were boozers or were injured.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Just circling back to this discussion. I think bstar’s contributions totally added to the thread, even recognizing some of the potential for bias. We have the aggregate numbers that John and others have presented so well, but I think others are trying to frame Halladay’s chances under something I’ll call velocity for lack of a better term. Not the speed of a pitch, but the speed at which someone like Halladay is approaching the target taking into account his current level of competence as a pitcher, and where does that level rank compared to his overall career. Is he at… Read more »

Doug
Editor
12 years ago

Here is statistical progression by age for the members of the 300 win club.

Age…..Min…..25%…..Median..75%…..Max
24……0…….4…….37……85……158
25……0…….17……55……113…..184
26……2…….37……79……159…..214
27……6…….60……103…..205…..245
28……17……86……123…..221…..276
29……31……110…..148…..250…..297
30……54……129…..164…..277…..310
31……66……151…..179…..297…..329
32……81……167…..196…..305…..337
33……97……186…..213…..308…..361
34……110…..202…..230…..319…..369
35……130…..223…..247…..332…..373
36……145…..240…..260…..342…..379
37……162…..251…..277…..342…..405
38……178…..266…..292…..342…..423
39……197…..280…..306…..342…..436
40……218…..293…..309…..348…..457
41……233…..303…..324…..361…..478
42……240…..305…..327…..361…..497
43……257…..307…..327…..361…..504
44……268…..309…..327…..361…..511
45……284…..309…..327…..361…..511
>= 46…300…..311…..327…..361…..511

If I can, I’ll try to add a graph to the post. Here’s the graph.

Next step, I guess, is to find what proportion of pitchers who reached each level ended up over 300 wins.

Doug
Editor
12 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Here is the chart of probability of winning 300 games based on win achievement by age.

This approach yields some discouraging historical results for Halladay.
– 58 pitchers have won from 175 to 200 games as of their age 34 season
– Two (Halladay, Sabathia) of the 58 are active. Of the remaining 56, only 4 (7%) ended up winning 300 games

Paul E
Paul E
12 years ago

JA:
I don’t know what you’re waiting for, but where’s the age progression chart for the 500 home run club? 🙂

Mark in Sydney
Mark in Sydney
12 years ago

A little off-topic, but I really do find that WIN rankings are one of those dumb baseballs stats for pitchers. It gets assigned to an individual though there is little that a pitcher can do, once he is relieved (the modern practice) to influence the decision. It is a team stat applied to a pitcher. Thus, IMO, one of those stats that can quite happily sink into the mist of time. Like ERA. Now, were we to talk about CG Wins, and had a way of normalizing defense involvement, then we might start being onto something meaningful. But that is… Read more »

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  Mark in Sydney

I’m not sure what you mean by “normalizing defense involvement.” That’s what defense-independent stats, such as FIP, addresses. As for pitcher wins, my guess is you’re mostly preaching to the choir on this site when it comes to their value. Pitcher wins on a seasonal basis don’t say much, yet the more wins a pitcher accumulates over his career does start to indicate something, and by the time a pitcher gets up to 300 wins, he is most likely a HOFer, and any pitcher near 300 wins deserves the debate, even if they fall short like Tommy John and Jim… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Mark in Sydney

You’re pretty much correct about Wins by pitchers being relatively meaningless, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t fun as hell to project who will win how many, etc. I consider more of a “fun” stat in that sense; the relative meaningless of the stat has surprisingly already trickled down to Cy Young voters, who in recent years have voted Felix Hernandez and Tim Lincecum as Cy winners despite depressed wins totals. I disagree with you about ERA, especially ERA+. FIP is useful for looking at how a pitcher’s ERA in the coming year might go up or down, but… Read more »

Mark in Sydney
Mark in Sydney
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

No, bstar, I don’t think that fangraphs is more credible. And I think that your rant is spot on. I think, for me, this issue is that we are attempting to measure and quantify a single person’s impact (the pitcher) when there is no simple, or possibly complex, way of doing that. The pitcher doesn’t work in isolation and there isn’t an really accurate way, that I can see, of quantifying their personal contribution. Not that it doesn’t exist. Far from it. Something happens to a team when the ace gets up there. Perhaps easiest to see with the Yanks… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Mark in Sydney

I would totally agree that wins, or even ERA, aren’t that great of a measure of a relief pitcher’s years. One pitch that isn’t called for strike three, and the next goes out of the yard for a three-run homer, ruining a guy’s ERA for half a year. I do think, however, that when looking at a relief pitcher’s career, ERA+ is the best stat we have. It’s certainly not FIP. Some have suggested using a leverage index to inflate relievers’ contributions to the game. I’ve heard multiplying their WAR by 1.5 is a conservative estimate, and x2 is probably… Read more »

Michael E Sullivan
Michael E Sullivan
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I too would like to see this. I think I speak for a lot of baseball fans, when I say that I don’t think the best relievers are being used anywhere near as effectively as they could be in the now traditional closer role. Close the last inning as a normal thing? certainly. But never be brought in earlier in very high leverage situations as a fireman? Just silly, IMO. If you face a higher leverage situation than a typical closer entrance, sometime earlier, and you are not confident in your starter, *that* is when you should bring in your… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I don’t know about Bref on this one, but as far as Fangraphs WAR, that’s why Tyler Clippard led the major leagues last year in fWAR for relievers, because he had 88+ innings in 72 appearances last year(the 1.83 ERA helped out, too).

kds
kds
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Fangraphs does not figure pitching WAR before 1974. Seaver is ranked so low because we are missing an important part of his career, not because FIP is such a bad stat. Need to get your facts straight. This took me about 1 minute to check.

Dave V.
Dave V.
12 years ago

Maybe now that Andy Pettitte is making a comeback, he can get into the 300 win club…he’s at 240, so just 60 more to go. I kid, as I don’t think he will get to 300…but talk about a surprising story with him coming back!

Dr. Remulak
Dr. Remulak
12 years ago
Reply to  Dave V.

Pettitte’s a crafty lefty. If he gives the Yankees five or six decent years, he can hit 300. If Moyer can pitch into his mid-40s, why not Andy? I hear Posada and Bernie are mulling a comeback as well.

Mike L
Mike L
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Like Chip Hilton (except you guys are too young) When he hurt one arm he threw out base-runners from the outfield with his other. And he could throw a knuckler as well (gave Soapy, his catcher, fits)

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

But I think this misses the year-to-year consistency. Again, Halladay’s been above 150 for four straight years. Not many people do that and a lot fewer do it in their 30s. Just looking at Walter Johnson, here are his season-by-season ERA+ for ages 29-34 (the years you included above). 120, 216, 217, 119, 117, 130. I just don’t see that as being the same as being above 150 four straight years, even if it averages out the same.

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I didn’t say it predicts a brighter future. Just that it’s a factor that should be considered when selecting comps on which to base that prediction.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

John, the one thing Halladay’s last four years suggests is that he is at his career peak and may not be done. All the more reason to be bullish about his immediate future.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I would disagree with you, only in that while the total value may be about the same over a period of years, a full season pitching on the level of a 200+ ERA+ is much more valuable in helping a team win the pennant (rather, first in their division), and flags are forever.

Bill James wrote this much better, but that’s the best I can do now.

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

Well yes, but we’re not talking about helping a team win pennants. We’re talking about getting to 300 wins.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Hmmm….consistency vs. volatility. There was a great article on fangraphs about this same subject, about whether having consistent players or up/down ones helped you win more. I’ll anyone who wants to read it draw their own conclusions:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/does-consistent-play-help-a-team-win/

Ed, I don’t get Play Index either, possibly because my job situation is exactly the same as yours right now!

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Might explain why we’re two of the top posters! 🙂

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I’m mortally embarrassed about my post total. It’s like, “Brian, shut the hell up.” I’ve never been this loquacious in my life. Hopefully I’m not viewed as an accumulator but more of a peak value poster. :-):-)

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

John: I see your columns are not aligned which sometimes occurs in my posts. I think the key for aligned columns is to try to have the same number of characters for each entry in a given column. For instance instead of “Player” type in “Name of Player”, 14 characters including spaces. Then ERA+, IP and Age will shift to the right 8 spaces. For the names of the pitchers you could add middle names or initials or you could abbreviate some names or add nicknames such as Big Ed Walsh but try to have them as close to 14… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
12 years ago

#50/Ed,

I’m OK, you’re OK. Yes, you are correct that we are discussing chances for 300 wins, but John in #42 did refer to which type of pitcher was more valuable.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

Lawrence, I wish I could find that old Bill James article also.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

The article – I think it involved comparing Steve Carlton with Don Sutton, two pitchers with amazingly similar career W-L and ERA records, but obviously Carlton had a much better peak than Sutton. James found that Carlton indeed helped his teams more in winning pennants (or divisions) than Sutton.

I think he had a tool called “Pennants Added” to measure this.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

The fangraphs link I mentioned above looked at both offense and pitching and termed up/down players as “volatile”. It came to the same conclusion, especially for pitching. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near as eloquently written as anything by Bill James, but that kinda goes without saying.

bstar
12 years ago

And I get “putting the cart before the horse” now, too. Perhaps train wreck was a bit strong. FWIW, I don’t think any of the names you just listed should be used as comps for Halladay. You’re treating him now like a four-year wonder. Looking after 1940, his age 28-34 ERA+ of 152 is tied for third best ever in that time period. Pedro is better than Halladay quality-wise but should not be part of this discussion because injuries hampered his career throughout, suppressing his wins totals.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I wasn’t disagreeing about the quality of Pedro’s pitching at all. He’s far better than Halladay ever will be, no discussion. The age period comes from my original study where I wanted to exclude guys who were able to win 35 games a year and appear in 50+ games per season. I felt that these different-era guys and their high wins totals(Young, Mathewson, Alexander,etc.) were tainting the study by making Halladay’s chances worse than they actually are. The usage of pitchers had pretty much changed by the time of Early Wynn and Warren Spahn, as far as 300-game winners go.… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

John – I would argue that people like Grove, Hubbell, and Bunning should not be used as comps. Too much has changed in the way pitchers are used, pitcher conditioning, medical information/surgeries, etc. Personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable using anyone pre-1970.

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

John – the 1970 cutoff was obviously a bit arbitrary. In response to your 3 points:

1) I was talking about careers not individual seasons.

2) I disagree. If you look at the careers leaderboards for wins, innings pitched and batters faced, they’re primarily populated with pitchers from the dead ball era and pitchers whose careers started about post 1965/1970.

3) I’d rather have fewer true comps than more “less true” comps.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Ed, that 1965 cutoff point led me to take a look at the all-time wins list. I used ~1940 as the cutoff point earlier because Warren Spahn, Bob Feller, Robin Roberts etc. started to look like they were approximately starting the same number of games as pitchers do post 1965(for these three pitchers, 38-42 seemed to be the max number of starts per year). So I took a look at how many pitchers between 40-65 made the all-time wins list and indeed there were but a few. Looking at the all-time wins list, we have 46 pitchers with 250+ wins.… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Bstar – I think if you go back even a little earlier, you’ll find the same thing. Obviously some careers were affected by the wars, but I don’t think too many or by too much.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

John, just for clarity what is your actual time frame for the dead-ball era?

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

No, John, I wasn’t questioning anything. Just familiarizing and reinforcing what I thought the era was you were talking about. It’s not a field of expertise of mine. Thanx for reply.

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

You’re right John. I was being a bit loose in my language. I should have said something like “the leadersboards for IP, batters faced and Wins are dominated by pitchers whose careers started in the deadball era or earlier and pitchers whose careers started post 1965/70 (approximately).” Anyway, it doesn’t change the basic point that, in general, careers have been a lot longer for pitchers post 65/70 than for pitchers from roughly 1920-1965.

bstar
12 years ago

John, I sense contentiousness forming here and one of the best things about this site is that that kind of stuff rarely goes on, so this will be my final post on this subject. Here is the reason I did what I did, because you invited me to. I give you the last few sentences of your “Age Takes No Halladay” article: “Finally, I ran Halladay’s numbers through the Bill James Career Assessment Tool. It came up with a 17% of winning 300, roughly 1 in 6. My gut tells me it’s a little better, but not more than 30%.… Read more »

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I came back into this thread late, but read through all your notes. If it means anything, I didn’t see anything on either side that seemed contentious. Just the opposite. Good discussion on both sides, leading to my last note above.

It is kind of funny. Most of us would agree that pitcher wins are overrated, but we’ll debate the topic endlessly. : -)

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Thanx, Mike, I think my sense of possible contentious feelings was more of a “heat check” to see if I had stepped over any bounds by going to battle with John and Doug. That comes from a sense of me being relatively new to the site and not wanting to overtake too many discussions with an astounding number of posts in a short time. I was really just making sure of things is all; it was a noble pursuit.

bstar
12 years ago

No worries, John. What I was sensing was coming from both of us, not just you; I felt like things might devolve from that point. Oh, I had a blast, too. I couldn’t even follow the basketball games on. It’s all good.

Ken Akerman
12 years ago

On pg. 519 of the book The Bill James Handbook 2012, Bill James lists the chances of active pitchers reaching 300 wins. He predicts that it is likely that two pitchers now active will reach 300 wins. One of them will either be Roy Halladay or CC Sabathia, who each have about a 50% chance of reaching 300 wins (49% and 48% to be exact), and the other one will be somebody else. Among the other pitchers, the one most likely to reach 300 wins is Justin Verlander, with a 31% probability, followed by Cliff Lee with a 24% probability… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

John – I found a couple things of interest. I’m not familiar with Mike Lynch but he most know Bill James as he states “Then Bill reminded me that the formula was never meant to be used with pitchers: “I have never applied the Favorite Toy to pitchers, and I would say absolutely that you can’t.”” http://seamheads.com/2011/12/12/2012-milestones-and-beyond-runs-scored/ Then there’s this from Bill James online. John Dewan, in discussing the projections from James states “The key to the formula is the pitcher’s momentum (wins in recent seasons) matched up with his win total thus far in his career.” James briefly joins… Read more »

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I was about to post the Bill James Online link, but see Ed beat me to it. I got tied up reading through the posts seeing if it provided any clarity to what changes James made to his own calculations, but sadly it did not. I was happy to see Tangotiger posting in the thread, and even happier when I saw Bill James showed up for a second, hoping the two would get into a dicussion, but James came and went. What I don’t know, and perhaps Ken Akerman does since he seems to have the recent edition of the… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Tango, despite his brilliance, has a knack for not making sense. He pops up occasionally on fangraphs out of the blue, and often his comments don’t seem germane to the discussion, but instead involve some tangent that he and only he is on.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

He is pretty clear on his own site when he controls the conversation, but much less clear when he occasionally parachute in on other sites.

One aspect of Bill James I always appreciated is his writing skills, not that we get to see it much anymore. He is substantially better than the majority, if not all the sabermetric types. That made his work much more accessible to a wider audience, helping to create and advance the whole field. He could incorporate humor, often biting, when required, but he also understood that many times less equals more.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Just a guess, John, but even though CC has managed to maintain a similar pace to Halladay, it’s pretty obvious who the superior pitcher is. While CC’s streak of wins is very impressive, Halladay has just come off 6 straight top 5 Cy Young finishes in a row. That feat has only been matched once in MLB history, with Greg Maddux hurling 7 straight top 5’s in 1992-98. So we’re talking about a guy in Halladay who has more momentum, quite frankly, than just about anybody in MLB history at ANY point, let alone his age of 34. Doc has… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Good points. I count CC’s time w/ Milwaukee as one of the greatest partial seasons in recent memory, perhaps only surpassed by the Big Unit with Houston in ’98: 10-1 in 11 starts with 4 shutouts, a 1.28 ERA, and a ridiculous 322 ERA+. Rick Sutcliffe going 16-1 for the ’84 Cubs was a lot of fun, too, although I believe he came over in May of that year.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

We can probably add Kevin Brown into this mix. AL: 102-86, 3.93, 5.4 K/9 NL: 109-58, 2.60, 7.9 K/9 In fairness, there were other things we have to take into account with players like Halladay and Johnson. Both were traded just as they entered what seemed to be their peak. Halladay had two straigt seasons of OPS+’s in the 150s before being traded to Philly. Johnson spent the early part of his career trying to master his command. Look at what he did his last two full seasons in the AL in ’95 and ’97. (Back injury in ’96). Sick… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

One other thought I had about Halladay in the AL East vs CC there also. CC doesn’t have to pitch against the Yankees; instead he gets the Blue Jays. CC is 1-8 all-time against the Yankees; Halladay is 18-7. CC against the Jays is 12-3.

Also consider how good those Yankee and Red Sox teams were that Halladay was facing. Counting the ’98,’99, and ’00 Yankees and the ’04 and ’07 Red Sox, that’s five World Champions Halladay had to pitch against in his own division. CC has yet to have to face one in the AL East.

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

That’s an interesting point Bstar. Does ERA+ take into account quality of competition? I suspect not. If it doesn’t, then Halladay’s ERA+ may actually be “suppressed” since he had to pitch so many times against the Yankees and Red Sox, two of the better offenses in the AL. He’s probably faced them more than any other pitcher in recent times. Even with his two years in the NL, 21% of Halladay’s innings have come against the Yankees and the Red Sox. On the other hand, CCs two biggest opponents have been the Royals and the Twins (followed closely by the… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I don’t know about the WAR thing either, Ed. Beating the Yankees was Halladay’s strong suit, as he’s gone 18-7 with a 2.89 ERA, 7 CG, and 3 shutouts against them. He’s also 20-4 vs. the Orioles with a 2.98 ERA. His Kryptonite seem(ed) to be the Red Sox, as Doc is only 14-15 all-time with a 4.39 ERA Boston. It looks pretty obvious the Jays did a lot of “saving” Halladay for Boston and New York, as he compiled 26% more innings vs. NYY/Bos than vs. TB/Balt. Interestingly, the Phils have NOT used Halladay in the NL East this… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Bstar – I checked and WAR is adjusted for level of competition among other things. I’m 99.9% sure that ERA+ isn’t.

Interestingly, the Yankees were Sabathia’s kryptonite. In 9 career starts, he’s gone 1-8 with a 6.16 ERA. Good thing he signed with them so he no longer has to face them!

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

What I found even more implausible was Dan Haren having a 19% chance of 300 wins. Huh? He’s 31 years old, only has 107 career wins, and has never won more than 16 games in a single season. I’m not even sure he was a 19% chance at 200 wins, let alone 300.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Niekro had only won 110 games by age 34, and Randy Johnson had 143 by that age also. So it can be done. But Niekro’s longevity and Johnson’s phenomenal 35-38 phase of 4 straight Cy Youngs don’t seem like things Dan Haren’s skillset is capable of, at least not now. He’d have to morph into something considerably better than he currently is, and I just don’t see it either, Ed. Other than now having Albert Pujols helping to create runs for him and his impeccable health the last seven straight years, I just don’t think he’s gonna be the “come… Read more »

Ed
Ed
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Yeah but those two guys are extreme outliers who have nothing in common with Haren. Actually they have little in common with other pitchers period. Niekro was a knuckleballer which allowed him to last longer than most pitchers. Johnson was a 6’10 freak of nature.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  Ed

I don’t see it either. A better comparision (although still far from perfect) for Haren would be Andy Pettitte, who though his age-30 season had 128 wins and a 118 ERA+, compared to Haren, who sits 21 wins behind Pettitte with 107 wins and a 119 ERA+. By age 34, Pettitte was at 186 wins and a 119 ERA+. He is now attempting to resume his career after a year off during his age-40 season with 240 career wins, and a 117 ERA+ Haren and Pettitte seem good compares when looking at ERA+, with some key differences. One is handedness,… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

Good comp for Haren. It seems weird to me that Andy Pettitte might miss an entire year and half of another spring training and then comeback and pitch another five years. Wouldn’t that be kind of unprecedented? I’ll be rooting for him, FWIW. I think you hit the nail on the head about Haren’s chances. Only a phenomenally consistent next six or seven years is going to give him a chance. But if the Angels continue to spend in the offseason like they did this year, maybe they can become an perennially offense-elite team like the Yanks. Still seems unlikely.

bstar
12 years ago

Thanks for injecting some new life in this discussion, Ken. It seems like James is pretty optimistic about both CC and Halladays’ chances for 300. You mentioned Randy Johnson and his late charge for 300 wins. Consider also the case of Phil Niekro, who, by age 34, had by far the lowest number of wins(110) of any modern pitcher to reach 300(Randy had 143 by then). Niekro really turned it on after 34, posting 123 wins from ages 35-41, the 4th highest total in major league history. After that, Niekro cemented his place in history with three more 16+ win… Read more »

ajnrules
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I think Niekro’s dramatic increase in workload between 1977-79 (his age 38-40 seasons) really gave him a boost toward 300. Between 1968 and 1976 he was chugging along at 30-39 starts a year, and then in the next three seasons he started 43, 42, and 44 game respectively. And he was pretty good in those three years, completing around half of his starts and putting up an ERA+ of 123. His record was actually under .500 during that stretch at 56-58, but his 56 wins represented almost 30% of the total wins for those abysmal Braves teams of the late… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
12 years ago

Looking at Andy Pettitte’s stats
(300 wins when he is 48, having retired and un-retired a few more times?)

And I noticed that Jon Lester is currently #2 all time in winning percentage (>1893).
And he is #1 among pitchers not named Spurgeon.
And he is there having only placed higher than 9th in the league one time (4th).

957 innings is small.sample.size, yes, but I was surprised to see him so high.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/win_loss_perc_career.shtml

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

I believe both Pedro and Guidry sat above a .700 winning percentage through most of their careers, up until about 33 o4 34, before sinking below Whitey Ford. It’s the last few years that cause damage, so Lester has the damage years to come! B-R has Spalding as the career W/% leader, but I was raised for so many year with the Baseball Encylopedia that had Ford at the top. They didn’t recognize the pre-1900 pitchers. No one will be touching Spalding’s nearly .800 winning percentage. Spalding went 54-5 in 1875. His ghost laughs at Justin Verlander’s 24-5 in 2011.… Read more »

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

One reason Pedro is still so high, though, is because he pitched very few of his “damage years”, as you call it. Have him pitch til 40 like others of his quality(OK, only perhaps a few had his quality) and he won’t be near the top 10. He might have ended up near Roger Clemens or something like that.

bstar
12 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I was bummed that nobody gave him a shot (was it last year?) when he declared that he wanted to give it another try. It seems the market for 35+ guys at any position just isn’t there right now, or maybe it’s always been that way.

MikeD
MikeD
12 years ago
Reply to  bstar

bstar, I think Pedro would have been given a shot if he was willing to come in, pitch some games in the minors, to see what he had left. Same thing this year. He probably would have received an invite to Spring Training, but he’d have to basically pitch his way on to a team, and perhaps he dosen’t feel comfortable doing that. He’d really have to want to come back and his actions suggest the passion isn’t there.

DC Universe online cheat

I think this is one of the most important info for me. And i
am glad reading your article. But want to remark on few general things,
The web site style is wonderful, the articles is really nice : D.
Good job, cheers

GG Empire Hack
11 years ago

In Mecca, the Quraysh were saying: ‘Muhammed and his companions have violated the sacred month; they have shed blood in it,
and taken booty, and captured prisoners. Others you can build just by obtaining all of
their components but the way the shop is laid out, using a branching flow chart, can
sometimes make it difficult to discern exactly what items you still need
on the fly. There is a point-based system outside
of the game to which you can change your avatar’s outfit, bowling ball, and
other styles.

MapleStory Hack 2013
11 years ago

This piece of writing will help the internet people for building up
new website or even a weblog from start to end.

club penguin free membership generator

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation
but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand.
It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
I’m looking forward for your next post, I will try
to get the hang of it!

Free minecraft premium Accounts

Today, I went to the beach front with my children.
I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said
“You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She placed the shell to her ear and screamed.
There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had
to tell someone!

dailyviralworld
10 years ago

My brother recommended I might like this website. He was
totally right. This post actually made my day.
You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!