Pitcher Metrics. The No WAR Zone.

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
A preconceived notion I (and many others, I'll wager) think that Nolan Ryan was a great pitcher, but he'd never be an inner circle Hall of Famer because he lost almost as many games as he won.

Looking at career Quality Starts, however, gives me a new perspective...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_start#Career
He was a great pitcher, but the reason he isn't an inner circle HOFer isn't really because of his win-loss record. It's because his ERA numbers were good but not elite (more on this in a second), his WHIP numbers were decent (not great), and he never won a CYA and in fact in his incredibly long career only finished in the top 5 in CYA voting 5 times. Which, of course, is really good (most guys never sniff that level of performance), but not elite. You'd think at SOME point an inner circle HOFer would have won ONE major award at SOME point in his long, illustrious career. He's a no doubt hall of famer - like, no doubt whatsoever, and he was great, but he's not inner circle HOF material.

Now, back to what I said I'd return to. Here are his top 5 seasons by ERA+ (minimum 150 innings pitched):

1987: 142
1977: 141
1991: 140
1972: 128
1989: 124

In 1981 he pitched 149 innings with a 195 era+. So if you want to count that....fine. His career ERA+ was 112. Good, not great. Certainly not inner circle HOF level.

Compare that to other inner circle HOF elites (I'll leave off the guys in the dead ball era like Walter Johnson):

Grove: 217, 195, 185, 185, 175, career ERA+ of 148
Pedro: 291, 243, 219, 211, 202, career ERA+ of 154
Maddux: 271, 260, 189, 187, 170, career ERA+ of 132
Clemens*: 226, 222, 211, 176, 174, career ERA+ of 143
Koufax: 190, 186, 160, 159, 143, career ERA+ of 131
R. Johnson: 195, 193, 188, 184, 181, career ERA+ of 135

ETC.

*I know Clemens isn't even in the HOF, but obviously he's an inner circle HOF level player.

The point here is that Nolan Ryan struck out a ton of guys, pitched forever, but really wasn't elite at keeping other teams from scoring runs. Which is one reason why his W-L record, over the course of his career, wasn't as good as you think it ought to be. Now when he was ON...obviously there are few pitchers who were better. And he was ON a lot in his career. Just not enough to be an inner circle HOFer.

By the way....take another look at those Pedro numbers. Absolutely RIDICULOUS.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Nolan Ryan never met a batter he didn't either strike out or walk. His walk numbers are what eventually led him to have less than a GOAT career.
The most amazing thing about Ryan is that he was a cyborg. He threw SO MANY pitches (largely because of what you just pointed out) over such a long career, and it's incredible that (a) late in games he could still dial it up near 100, and (b) late in his CAREER, he was still throwing that hard.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The most amazing thing about Ryan is that he was a cyborg. He threw SO MANY pitches (largely because of what you just pointed out) over such a long career, and it's incredible that (a) late in games he could still dial it up near 100, and (b) late in his CAREER, he was still throwing that hard.
Yes he was absolutely a unique pitcher and a freak of nature. But at his core he was fundamentally flawed. The ONLY way he knew how to pitch was to throw 100 MPH on every pitch, and if he walked 7 guys in a game then he'll lose and lose his way.

The baseball equivalent of Brett Favre in many ways.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Thankfully we are at the point where we have an absurd amount of advanced stats/metrics that can be used to judge/critique a pitcher’s performance
I think we've reached a point where there are just too many stats to look at, advanced or not. It leads people to throw up their hands and just look for one number to boil everything down to, which is how we ended up with WAR.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It would be interesting to consider him as a candidate for the "if the fate of the planet hung on one baseball game, who would you want as your starting pitcher" question. Because clearly he had his struggles as you point out. But also....maybe more than anyone else in the history of the game, he had the potential to COMPLETELY shut you down. Dude threw 7 no-hitters, 12 one-hitters, 18 two-hitters, and had 61 career shutouts.
Well, if we're considering single seasons, do you take the 1981 Ryan or the 2000 Pedro to give you a better chance to completely shut you down?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I think we've reached a point where there are just too many stats to look at, advanced or not. It leads people to throw up their hands and just look for one number to boil everything down to, which is how we ended up with WAR.
To me, the three key pitching metrics I look at (and so often cite) are: ERA, WHIP, and K/9.

ERA: Because that's a measure of earned runs a pitcher allows per nine innings. Unearned runs all count too, but presumably those aren't the pitcher's fault. Though I have to say, if the pitcher himself makes an error that allows runs to score, those runs are unearned, even though they ARE the pitcher's fault. So it's not perfect, but it does help us understand a key component of a pitcher's performance.

WHIP: Because this is them keeping runners off (or allowing runners ON) base. I think this is hugely helpful in understanding how good a pitcher is. The better a pitcher is, the fewer runners he'll allow on base, in general.

K/9: Strikeouts aren't the most important thing, and a pop out to the first baseman is just as good as a strikeout. But K/9 gives us a sense of how dominant a pitcher is over hitters. If you can't touch this pitcher, he's owning you. The more Ks, the more he's owning you.

Others have other ideas on what metrics matter most. For me, these are very easy to understand, they're given right there in baseball-reference.com so they're easy to look up, and they do tell key parts of the story of a pitcher's performance. For me anyway.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Well, if we're considering single seasons, do you take the 1981 Ryan or the 2000 Pedro to give you a better chance to completely shut you down?
Single seasons....1999 and 2000 Pedro was as good as it gets in the history of the sport. I'm just talking about any singular game.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Single seasons....1999 and 2000 Pedro was as good as it gets in the history of the sport. I'm just talking about any singular game.
But what's the sample we're randomly drawing from? Randomly pluck one game out of one of Ryan's best seasons? I think you might have a case for a couple Ryan seasons as giving you good odds to get that CG shutout. But also a chance you'll get an absolute stinker and the world's fate is decided unpleasantly. Pluck one game out of all of Ryan's seasons? I suspect that ratio goes down quite a ways. And what are we looking for anyway - CG shutouts? 9 innings of 1 run ball? 7 innings of 0 run ball?

TLDR: something happening a lot is not the same as it being likely to happen often.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
But what's the sample we're randomly drawing from? Randomly pluck one game out of one of Ryan's best seasons? I think you might have a case for a couple Ryan seasons as giving you good odds to get that CG shutout. But also a chance you'll get an absolute stinker and the world's fate is decided unpleasantly. Pluck one game out of all of Ryan's seasons? I suspect that ratio goes down quite a ways. And what are we looking for anyway - CG shutouts? 9 innings of 1 run ball? 7 innings of 0 run ball?

TLDR: something happening a lot is not the same as it being likely to happen often.
This discussion isn't meant to be taken that seriously. I mean...it's just for fun.

For the record: Ryan's 61 shutouts dwarfs Pedro's 17, but over many more starts.

Ryan: 61 shutouts in 773 starts = one shutout every 12.7 starts
Pedro: 17 shutouts in 409 starts = one shutout every 24.1 starts

So when Ryan toed the rubber for the first pitch of the game, he was twice as likely as Pedro to throw a shutout. BUT he was also more likely to throw a stinker. But here's the thing: even Pedro's great games were far more likely to leave the game in the hands of relievers, who may OR MAY NOT finish the deal. Ryan was way more often his own "closer", as it were.

This isn't an argument for Ryan being a better pitcher or anything absurd like that - I'm fully on record as saying that at everyone's best, nobody was better than Pedro. But for ONE GAME....Nolan Ryan had a great chance at absolutely shutting you down, compared with a lot of other guys. Of course you run the risk of him blowing up too.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
This discussion isn't meant to be taken that seriously. I mean...it's just for fun.

For the record: Ryan's 61 shutouts dwarfs Pedro's 17, but over many more starts.

Ryan: 61 shutouts in 773 starts = one shutout every 12.7 starts
Pedro: 17 shutouts in 409 starts = one shutout every 24.1 starts

So when Ryan toed the rubber for the first pitch of the game, he was twice as likely as Pedro to throw a shutout. BUT he was also more likely to throw a stinker. But here's the thing: even Pedro's great games were far more likely to leave the game in the hands of relievers, who may OR MAY NOT finish the deal. Ryan was way more often his own "closer", as it were.

This isn't an argument for Ryan being a better pitcher or anything absurd like that - I'm fully on record as saying that at everyone's best, nobody was better than Pedro. But for ONE GAME....Nolan Ryan had a great chance at absolutely shutting you down, compared with a lot of other guys. Of course you run the risk of him blowing up too.
Pedro pitched in far more difficult conditions than Ryan ever did.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
Pedro pitched in far more difficult conditions than Ryan ever did.
And that’s even understating it a little. Pedro pitched in literally the most hostile pitching environment in the history of the sport if we’re excluding pre-1900 years.
 

greenmountains

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 24, 2023
48
Which is why Pedro's ERA+ numbers are absolutely INSANE, especially compared to Ryan's.
But isn't that exactly what ERA + captures? The pitchers performance vs the rest of the league. Not being a wise guy.

If you said you can only look at three metrics for pitcher performance, mine would be ERA +, WHIP and K/BB ratio.

As advanced metrics move forward, do we also need to be looking at Innings per Start - IS (or Batters Faced (BF), or Times Thru the Order (TTO) with so much discussion about the third time through the order)?

The amazing thing about Ryan's ERA + is that the bottom two of his top 6 years were 17 years apart. Wow - That's remarkable.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
To me, the three key pitching metrics I look at (and so often cite) are: ERA, WHIP, and K/9.
I generally look at those, too. But this discussion started because all of those can be blown up by getting your lunch handed to you in just one game. Sometimes the counting stats tell you a little more about how often a pitcher gave the team a chance to win. Over larger samples it should even out, but if you're looking in June at someone who has an ERA of 4.5, they may have given up 10 runs in one inning on opening day and have done pretty well since.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
But isn't that exactly what ERA + captures? The pitchers performance vs the rest of the league. Not being a wise guy.
If you said you can only look at three metrics for pitcher performance, mine would be ERA +, WHIP and K/BB ratio.

As advanced metrics move forward, do we also need to be looking at Innings per Start - IS (or Batters Faced (BF), or Times Thru the Order (TTO) with so much discussion about the third time through the order)?

The amazing thing about Ryan's ERA + is that the bottom two of his top 6 years were 17 years apart. Wow - That's remarkable.
Yes, I totally meant to include ERA+ in my list of stats. In my book The Forgotten Game, it's a key stat that I refer to when having this discussion. I just accidentally left it off here. My bad.

One metric I have long said I wish we'd invent (and I'm not smart enough to do it) is to measure some sort of consistency. For example, even if the final ERA ends up the same for two pitchers, they can arrive at that place very differently. Imagine one guy is tremendously good and consistent but once in a great while he absolutely blows up (like 1.1 ip, 9 er kind of blowup). But other than those rare blowups, the guy is terrific. Then another guy is good sometimes, meh sometimes, lousy sometimes, and on the whole, is just kind of a meh pitcher. But his era ends up in the same place as the first guy. I'd rather have the first guy and take the mostly very good performances with the rare blowup over the second guy who is really just kind of meh.

We need a stat that measures THAT somehow.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,234
Ryan was unique. He led the league in K's, K's per 9 and WHIP at 43. (203 IP in 30 starts). And had the lowest BB/9 of his career that year. And repeated the WHIP and K's/9 the next year. (30 fewer innings).
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,234
One metric I have long said I wish we'd invent (and I'm not smart enough to do it) is to measure some sort of consistency. For example, even if the final ERA ends up the same for two pitchers, they can arrive at that place very differently. Imagine one guy is tremendously good and consistent but once in a great while he absolutely blows up (like 1.1 ip, 9 er kind of blowup). But other than those rare blowups, the guy is terrific. Then another guy is good sometimes, meh sometimes, lousy sometimes, and on the whole, is just kind of a meh pitcher. But his era ends up in the same place as the first guy. I'd rather have the first guy and take the mostly very good performances with the rare blowup over the second guy who is really just kind of meh.

We need a stat that measures THAT somehow.
I've wondered about similar things for hitters. 2 guys end up at the same place for BA/OBP/SLG in vastly different ways of consistency.

For a starting pitcher, though, with a more definitive number of appearances, would a separate stat that discards some very small number of blowups help capture some sort of consistency? Or ERM (median) instead of average?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
If you said you can only look at three metrics for pitcher performance, mine would be ERA +, WHIP and K/BB ratio.



Yes, I totally meant to include ERA+ in my list of stats. In my book The Forgotten Game, it's a key stat that I refer to when having this discussion. I just accidentally left it off here. My bad.

One metric I have long said I wish we'd invent (and I'm not smart enough to do it) is to measure some sort of consistency. For example, even if the final ERA ends up the same for two pitchers, they can arrive at that place very differently. Imagine one guy is tremendously good and consistent but once in a great while he absolutely blows up (like 1.1 ip, 9 er kind of blowup). But other than those rare blowups, the guy is terrific. Then another guy is good sometimes, meh sometimes, lousy sometimes, and on the whole, is just kind of a meh pitcher. But his era ends up in the same place as the first guy. I'd rather have the first guy and take the mostly very good performances with the rare blowup over the second guy who is really just kind of meh.

We need a stat that measures THAT somehow.
Couldn’t you use something like standard deviation for that? Calculate ERA for each start then go from there. It wouldn’t weight short starts properly, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about that, because if a pitcher only goes 3-4 innings it is much more likely that it’s because he sucked and not due to injury. You could also do this with game score but that metric has its own flaws.
 
Mar 30, 2023
177
He makes a couple good starts and suddenly the Sox were wrong to not give him a shot to start? Kind of a small sample size to be definitive about, isn't it? The Phillies didn't sign him to start either. He was moved into the rotation to fill in for an injury.

Strahm's starts:

4 innings, 0 runs @ NYY
5 innings, 0 runs vs MIA
2.2 innings, 3 runs @ CIN
5.1 innings, 3 runs vs COL
5.1 innings, 0 runs vs SEA
3.1 innings, 4 runs @ LAD

And now he's back in the bullpen because a) he's over halfway to his total innings from last year and more importantly, b) Ranger Suarez is back from the IL. Chances are good that if another need arises for the Phils, Strahm isn't going to be able to give them many more starts. I fail to see why this is any kind of indictment of Bloom. Strahm at 2/$15M is a bit rich for a reliever who didn't show them much last year.




Note I didn't just say the Sox weren't going to pay him, I said they were correct to not pay him. Last year would have been a disaster for that contract. Great for him that he's turned himself around so far this season, but I still don't think he was a good bet for a five year deal. They got better value out of that ~$15M signing Wacha and Hill last year, and despite the polar opposite starts so far, it remains to be seen which pitcher will be the better value for this year, ERod or Kluber.
Sure, the Phillies didn't sign him specifically to start. But he always held himself out as a starter and made it clear that he wanted to return to that role. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Phillies told him that he'd be on their starting depth chart and be given a chance to start if the need arises. It's reasonable to assume that, because that's exactly what happened. And even as he's been moved back to the bullpen, the Phillies have made it clear that will be given further chances to start in the future because, again, he's pretty much been more consistently effective than several other options, including options on the Sox. The Red Sox had a guy capable of putting up good starts on their roster and an exclusive window to sign him. Now that they didn't and the starting pitching has been disastrous, it seems fair to look at that, particularly in light of the fact that people are always looking at the Rays doing similar things with unheralded pitchers like Strahm and saying "why can't we figure out how to do that?"

As for Kluber against ERod, you can't possibly be serious that Kluber is "going to be a better value", can you?

ERod missed half the year last year for a totally unforeseeable, non-pitching related reason. He is 7 years younger than Corey Kluber. He has thrown close to 200 more innings than Kluber over the last 4 years, even accounting for missing 2020 with a non-pitching injury. And over that span, Kluber put up an ERA+ of 88 compared to Rodriguez's 115+. The Red Sox would be a better team today if they signed Eduardo Rodriguez instead of Corey Kluber.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Couldn’t you use something like standard deviation for that? Calculate ERA for each start then go from there. It wouldn’t weight short starts properly, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about that, because if a pitcher only goes 3-4 innings it is much more likely that it’s because he sucked and not due to injury. You could also do this with game score but that metric has its own flaws.
Yes you probably could. So for example, take Nolan Ryan's 1972 season (2.28 ERA) and compare it to Pedro's 2002 season (2.26 ERA).

Ryan's ERA standard deviation was 6.017, while Pedro's was 4.112, indicating that Pedro was much more consistent than Ryan was.

Ryan (39 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 13 (33.3%)
- 1 run allowed: 8 (20.5%)
- 2 runs allowed: 7 (17.9%)
- 3 runs allowed: 2 (5.1%)
- 4 runs allowed: 5 (12.8%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 4 (10.3%)

So if we consider 3 or fewer ER allowed to be a "good" or "great" start, then Ryan had 30 out of 39 games (76.9%). About 3/4. And thus he had 9 out of 39 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (23.1%).

Pedro (30 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 11 (36.7%)
- 1 run allowed: 6 (20.0%)
- 2 runs allowed: 3 (10.0%)
- 3 runs allowed: 5 (16.7%)
- 4 runs allowed: 4 (13.3%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 1 (3.3%)

Pedro then had a "good" or "great" start in 25 out of 30 games (83.3%). 5 out of every 6. And thus he had 5 out of 30 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (16.7%).

Pedro's ERA that year was killed by his very first start: 3 ip, 7 er. Take that away and his season ERA was 1.97.


And if we take 3 runs as "decent" and have 0-2 runs as "good" or "great", and anything more than 3 as "bad" or "terrible", here's how it breaks down:

Ryan
- Good/Great: 28 out of 39 (71.8%)
- Decent: 2 out of 39 (5.1%)
- Bad/Terrible: 9 out of 39 (23.1%)

Pedro
- Good/Great: 20 out of 30 (66.7%)
- Decent: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)
- Bad/Terrible: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)

So Ryan gave you more good/great games but also more bad/terrible games, while Pedro was just more consistently decent or good/great.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I just think that for non-stats people, standard deviation is mystical. So how can we turn standard deviation into a more easy-to-read-and-understand metric?
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
I prefer predictive statistics & #s to ones that are focused on what has already happened, but there are really only 2 things that matter for a pitcher in terms of what did they just do:

1) How few runs they allowed per inning.
2) How many innings they pitched.

There are a few different ways you can calculate & weigh these things, but for the sake of this discussion, I came up with something I'll call RUMP: Runs Under Mediocre Pitcher. It will be calculated by taking how many runs a mediocre pitcher would have allowed in the # of innings pitched (which will be defined as league average + 0.50), and subtracting the # of earned runs the pitcher actually allowed in the innings they actually pitched.

As a side note - I don't really think how the pitcher gets there matters too much - if a pitcher gives a team a 70% chance of winning 80% of the time & 0% chance of winning 20% of the time, they're no better or worse than a pitcher who gives you a 56% chance of winning every time.

Back to RUMP...

So far this year MLB teams have pitched 9,366 innings & allowed 4,509 earned runs, for a collective ERA of 4.33. As such, the RUMP ERA is currently 4.83 (which is very similar to the Red Sox ERA of 4.84).

Sadly, the Red Sox 4 leaders in IP are all over the RUMP # (Houck, Sale, Kluber, Pivetta), so they all are providing negative RUMP at this time.

So for this season, the Red Sox RUMP leaders look like this...

Red Sox Pitcher IP ERA RUMP ERA ER RER RUMP
Josh Winckowski
23.00​
1.57​
4.82​
4​
12.32​
8.32​
John Schreiber
16.67​
2.16​
4.82​
4​
8.93​
4.93​
Kenley Jansen
10.67​
0.84​
4.82​
1​
5.71​
4.71​
Kutter Crawford
25.67​
3.51​
4.82​
10​
13.75​
3.75​
Brennan Bernardino
8.33​
1.08​
4.82​
1​
4.46​
3.46​
Chris Martin
10.00​
1.80​
4.82​
2​
5.36​
3.36​
Zack Kelly
7.33​
3.68​
4.82​
3​
3.93​
0.93​
Nick Pivetta
30.67​
4.99​
4.82​
17​
16.42​
-0.58​
Zack Litell
1.00​
18.00​
4.82​
2​
0.54​
-1.46​
Brayan Bello
17.33​
5.71​
4.82​
11​
9.28​
-1.72​
Tanner Houck
37.67​
5.26​
4.82​
22​
20.17​
-1.83​
Richard Bleier
15.00​
6.00​
4.82​
10​
8.03​
-1.97​
Garrett Whitlock
16.00​
6.19​
4.82​
11​
8.57​
-2.43​
Kaleb Ort
12.33​
7.30​
4.82​
10​
6.61​
-3.39​
Ryan Brasier
16.67​
7.56​
4.82​
14​
8.93​
-5.07​
Corey Kluber
34.33​
6.29​
4.82​
24​
18.39​
-5.61​
Chris Sale
35.33​
6.37​
4.82​
25​
18.92​
-6.08​
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
814
(B)Austin Texas
I just think that for non-stats people, standard deviation is mystical. So how can we turn standard deviation into a more easy-to-read-and-understand metric?
Hopefully teams are using Standard Deviation or something similar to understand pitchers' and hitters' ups and downs. We've been using it in manufacturing (I work in semiconductors) for dozens and dozens of years (stats use in manufacturing caught fire in the 80s and I was fortunate enough to be at Motorola during their halcyon 6σ days). I agree, BayJo, that standard deviation is too esoteric for the common fan.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
He was a great pitcher, but the reason he isn't an inner circle HOFer isn't really because of his win-loss record. It's because his ERA numbers were good but not elite (more on this in a second), his WHIP numbers were decent (not great), and he never won a CYA and in fact in his incredibly long career only finished in the top 5 in CYA voting 5 times. Which, of course, is really good (most guys never sniff that level of performance), but not elite. You'd think at SOME point an inner circle HOFer would have won ONE major award at SOME point in his long, illustrious career. He's a no doubt hall of famer - like, no doubt whatsoever, and he was great, but he's not inner circle HOF material.

Now, back to what I said I'd return to. Here are his top 5 seasons by ERA+ (minimum 150 innings pitched):

1987: 142
1977: 141
1991: 140
1972: 128
1989: 124

In 1981 he pitched 149 innings with a 195 era+. So if you want to count that....fine. His career ERA+ was 112. Good, not great. Certainly not inner circle HOF level.

Compare that to other inner circle HOF elites (I'll leave off the guys in the dead ball era like Walter Johnson):

Grove: 217, 195, 185, 185, 175, career ERA+ of 148
Pedro: 291, 243, 219, 211, 202, career ERA+ of 154
Maddux: 271, 260, 189, 187, 170, career ERA+ of 132
Clemens*: 226, 222, 211, 176, 174, career ERA+ of 143
Koufax: 190, 186, 160, 159, 143, career ERA+ of 131
R. Johnson: 195, 193, 188, 184, 181, career ERA+ of 135

ETC.

*I know Clemens isn't even in the HOF, but obviously he's an inner circle HOF level player.

The point here is that Nolan Ryan struck out a ton of guys, pitched forever, but really wasn't elite at keeping other teams from scoring runs. Which is one reason why his W-L record, over the course of his career, wasn't as good as you think it ought to be. Now when he was ON...obviously there are few pitchers who were better. And he was ON a lot in his career. Just not enough to be an inner circle HOFer.

By the way....take another look at those Pedro numbers. Absolutely RIDICULOUS.
Pedro Martinez gets substantially LESS credit than he should because he pitched in the highest offensive era of all time.

His raw traditional stats like ERA are very good, but his stats for his era are out of this world. He had several of the best seasons ever, back to back to back, in the best division in the best era for offense of all time.

He was unbelievable. Not that anybody here needs convincing.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Pedro's *career* ERA+ is miles better than any individual season Nolan Ryan had except for Ryan's one season where he pitched 149 innings.
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
425
Pedro Martinez gets substantially LESS credit than he should because he pitched in the highest offensive era of all time.

His raw traditional stats like ERA are very good, but his stats for his era are out of this world. He had several of the best seasons ever, back to back to back, in the best division in the best era for offense of all time.

He was unbelievable. Not that anybody here needs convincing.
These numbers highlight his absolute dominance in 1999-2000:

1999 AL ERA: Pedro 2.07, 2nd place: Cone 3.44, 10th place: Hernandez (NYY) 4.12

2000 AL ERA: Pedro 1.74, 2nd place: Clemens 3.70, 10th place: Finley 4.17

He was simply that much better than everyone else....
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
In '22 the League ERA was 3.96. This is a useful link for looking at players compared to MLB as a whole...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml

(turns out I didn't need to calculate this year's MLB ERA, but at least I did it correctly)

I was going to do the '22 Red Sox next, but I have to get some other stuff done, so just going to check out a few historical seasons & see how they stack up & do past Red Sox seasons later...

Year Pitcher IP ERA RUMP ERA ER RER RUMP
1901​
Cy Young
371.67​
1.62​
3.99​
67​
164.77​
97.77​
1913​
Walter Johnson
346.00​
1.14​
3.57​
44​
137.25​
93.25​
1985​
Dwight Gooden
276.67​
1.53​
4.39​
47​
134.95​
87.95​
2000​
Pedro Martinez
217.00​
1.74​
5.26​
42​
126.82​
84.82​
1997​
Roger Clemens
264.00​
2.05​
4.88​
60​
143.15​
83.15​
1966​
Sandy Koufax
323.00​
1.73​
4.02​
62​
144.27​
82.27​
1968​
Bob Gibson
304.67​
1.12​
3.48​
38​
117.80​
79.80​
1995​
Greg Maddux
209.67​
1.63​
4.95​
38​
115.32​
77.32​
1972​
Steve Carlton
346.33​
1.97​
3.76​
76​
144.69​
68.69​
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
Hmm, in the previous eras with different rules for each league, should probably go by ERA by league for historical comparison (even if Interleague play started in '97)...

Year Pitcher IP ERA RUMP ERA ER RER RUMP
1901​
Cy Young
371.67​
1.62​
4.16​
67​
171.79​
104.79​
2000​
Pedro Martinez
217.00​
1.74​
5.41​
42​
130.44​
88.44​
1997​
Roger Clemens
264.00​
2.05​
5.06​
60​
148.43​
88.43​
1913​
Walter Johnson
346.00​
1.14​
3.43​
44​
131.86​
87.86​
1966​
Sandy Koufax
323.00​
1.73​
4.11​
62​
147.50​
85.50​
1968​
Bob Gibson
304.67​
1.12​
3.49​
38​
118.14​
80.14​
1985​
Dwight Gooden
276.67​
1.53​
4.09​
47​
125.73​
78.73​
1972​
Steve Carlton
346.33​
1.97​
3.95​
76​
152.00​
76.00​
1995​
Greg Maddux
209.67​
1.63​
4.68​
38​
109.03​
71.03​
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
I prefer predictive statistics & #s to ones that are focused on what has already happened, but there are really only 2 things that matter for a pitcher in terms of what did they just do:

1) How few runs they allowed per inning.
2) How many innings they pitched.

There are a few different ways you can calculate & weigh these things, but for the sake of this discussion, I came up with something I'll call RUMP: Runs Under Mediocre Pitcher. It will be calculated by taking how many runs a mediocre pitcher would have allowed in the # of innings pitched (which will be defined as league average + 0.50), and subtracting the # of earned runs the pitcher actually allowed in the innings they actually pitched.
This is really good. I always felt that pitching needs better counting/cumulative stats that don't have the letters W-A-R in their name.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
This is really good. I always felt that pitching needs better counting/cumulative stats that don't have the letters W-A-R in their name.
I think it's not bad for what is basically a 2 # stat (ER + IP). If one overlaid park effects on it, I think it gets even better, but I'm not about to even try that.

Here are what I believe to be the league leaders for '22:

Pitcher IP ERA RUMP ERA ER RER RUMP
Sandy Alcantra
228.67​
2.28​
4.46​
58​
113.32​
55.32​
Justin Verlander
175.00​
1.75​
4.46​
34​
86.72​
52.72​
Alek Manoah
196.67​
2.24​
4.46​
49​
97.46​
48.46​
Dylan Cease
184.00​
2.20​
4.46​
45​
91.18​
46.18​
Julio Urias
175.00​
2.16​
4.46​
42​
86.72​
44.72​
Max Fried
185.33​
2.48​
4.46​
51​
91.84​
40.84​
Shohei Ohtani
166.00​
2.33​
4.46​
43​
82.26​
39.26​
Zac Gallen
184.00​
2.54​
4.46​
52​
91.18​
39.18​
Tyler Anderson
178.67​
2.57​
4.46​
51​
88.54​
37.54​
Framber Valdez
201.33​
2.82​
4.46​
63​
99.77​
36.77​
Nestor Cortes
158.33​
2.44​
4.46​
43​
78.46​
35.46​
Shane McClanahan
166.33​
2.54​
4.46​
47​
82.43​
35.43​
Shane Bieber
200.00​
2.88​
4.46​
64​
99.11​
35.11​
Max Scherzer
145.33​
2.29​
4.46​
37​
72.02​
35.02​
Martin Perez
196.33​
2.89​
4.46​
63​
97.29​
34.29​


& this should be the top 10 relievers in '22...

Relief Pitcher IP ERA RUMP ERA ER RER RUMP
Emmanuel Clase
72.67​
1.36​
4.46​
11​
36.01​
25.01​
Evan Phillips
63.00​
1.14​
4.46​
8​
31.22​
23.22​
Ryan Helsley
64.67​
1.25​
4.46​
9​
32.05​
23.05​
Anthony Bass
70.33​
1.54​
4.46​
12​
34.85​
22.85​
Brock Burke
82.33​
1.97​
4.46​
18​
40.80​
22.80​
Edwin Diaz
62.00​
1.31​
4.46​
9​
30.72​
21.72​
Jason Adam
63.33​
1.56​
4.46​
11​
31.39​
20.39​
Ryne Stanek
54.67​
1.15​
4.46​
7​
27.09​
20.09​
Cionel Perez
57.67​
1.40​
4.46​
9​
28.58​
19.58​
Jhoan Duran
67.67​
1.86​
4.46​
14​
33.53​
19.53​
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
So far in those back tests I don't think any of that seems too out of line with how I would want to rank those players based on their seasons. I'll run the '22 Sox or whatever else people might be interested in later.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
Let's see how it compares to bWAR for '22 (RUMP in parens)

1.Alcantara • MIA7.8 (1)
2.Cease • CHW6.4 (4)
3.Ohtani • LAA6.2 (7)
4.Manoah • TOR6.0 (3)
5.Nola • PHI5.9 (not top 15)
6.Fried • ATL5.9 (6)
7.Verlander • HOU5.7 (2)
8.Rodón • SFG5.4 (not top 15)
9.Gallen • ARI5.3 (8)
10.Scherzer • NYM5.2 (14)

The fact that #5 Urias & #9 Anderson are the 2 highest absences & are both Dodgers leads me to believe, without actually researching it, that bWAR basically does what I did, factors IP slightly higher than RUMP does, & overlays park effects.

Rendering my stat pretty useless in a same-year comparison lol
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
Let's see how it compares to bWAR for '22 (RUMP in parens)

1.Alcantara • MIA7.8 (1)
2.Cease • CHW6.4 (4)
3.Ohtani • LAA6.2 (7)
4.Manoah • TOR6.0 (3)
5.Nola • PHI5.9 (not top 15)
6.Fried • ATL5.9 (6)
7.Verlander • HOU5.7 (2)
8.Rodón • SFG5.4 (not top 15)
9.Gallen • ARI5.3 (8)
10.Scherzer • NYM5.2 (14)

The fact that #5 Urias & #9 Anderson are the 2 highest absences & are both Dodgers leads me to believe, without actually researching it, that bWAR basically does what I did, factors IP slightly higher than RUMP does, & overlays park effects.

Rendering my stat pretty useless in a same-year comparison lol
Might be better to split between average ERA for starters vs. average ERA for relievers.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Nolan Ryan never met a batter he didn't either strike out or walk. His walk numbers are what eventually led him to have less than a GOAT career.
In my little league coaching days I used to give a speech where I would convince kids not to worry about moments of failure. My two big examples were how Babe Ruth struck out 1300 times and led the league in Ks several times, and how Nolan Ryan holds the walks record. Happens to the best, literally.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,756
In my little league coaching days I used to give a speech where I would convince kids not to worry about moments of failure. My two big examples were how Babe Ruth struck out 1300 times and led the league in Ks several times, and how Nolan Ryan holds the walks record. Happens to the best, literally.
Sadly, all the kids responded, "Who's Babe Ruth?" "Who's Nolan Ryan?"
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Yes you probably could. So for example, take Nolan Ryan's 1972 season (2.28 ERA) and compare it to Pedro's 2002 season (2.26 ERA).

Ryan's ERA standard deviation was 6.017, while Pedro's was 4.112, indicating that Pedro was much more consistent than Ryan was.

Ryan (39 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 13 (33.3%)
- 1 run allowed: 8 (20.5%)
- 2 runs allowed: 7 (17.9%)
- 3 runs allowed: 2 (5.1%)
- 4 runs allowed: 5 (12.8%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 4 (10.3%)

So if we consider 3 or fewer ER allowed to be a "good" or "great" start, then Ryan had 30 out of 39 games (76.9%). About 3/4. And thus he had 9 out of 39 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (23.1%).

Pedro (30 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 11 (36.7%)
- 1 run allowed: 6 (20.0%)
- 2 runs allowed: 3 (10.0%)
- 3 runs allowed: 5 (16.7%)
- 4 runs allowed: 4 (13.3%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 1 (3.3%)

Pedro then had a "good" or "great" start in 25 out of 30 games (83.3%). 5 out of every 6. And thus he had 5 out of 30 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (16.7%).

Pedro's ERA that year was killed by his very first start: 3 ip, 7 er. Take that away and his season ERA was 1.97.


And if we take 3 runs as "decent" and have 0-2 runs as "good" or "great", and anything more than 3 as "bad" or "terrible", here's how it breaks down:

Ryan
- Good/Great: 28 out of 39 (71.8%)
- Decent: 2 out of 39 (5.1%)
- Bad/Terrible: 9 out of 39 (23.1%)

Pedro
- Good/Great: 20 out of 30 (66.7%)
- Decent: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)
- Bad/Terrible: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)

So Ryan gave you more good/great games but also more bad/terrible games, while Pedro was just more consistently decent or good/great.
Ryan deserves a bit of a bump here though, by his volume. He kept the ball out of the hands of Rickey Clark for nine extra games, and with 20 complete games he minimized the roles of Lloyd Allen, Eddie Fisher and Steve Barber. I have no idea who any of these people are except Barber. Obviously WAR is supposed to capture this impact, though his 6.2 bWAR seems a bit light for a 2.49 FIP across 284 innings (he would max out at 332 a couple years later).
 

greenmountains

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 24, 2023
48
Yes you probably could. So for example, take Nolan Ryan's 1972 season (2.28 ERA) and compare it to Pedro's 2002 season (2.26 ERA).

Ryan's ERA standard deviation was 6.017, while Pedro's was 4.112, indicating that Pedro was much more consistent than Ryan was.

Ryan (39 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 13 (33.3%)
- 1 run allowed: 8 (20.5%)
- 2 runs allowed: 7 (17.9%)
- 3 runs allowed: 2 (5.1%)
- 4 runs allowed: 5 (12.8%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 4 (10.3%)

So if we consider 3 or fewer ER allowed to be a "good" or "great" start, then Ryan had 30 out of 39 games (76.9%). About 3/4. And thus he had 9 out of 39 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (23.1%).

Pedro (30 g)
- 0 runs allowed: 11 (36.7%)
- 1 run allowed: 6 (20.0%)
- 2 runs allowed: 3 (10.0%)
- 3 runs allowed: 5 (16.7%)
- 4 runs allowed: 4 (13.3%)
- 5+ runs allowed: 1 (3.3%)

Pedro then had a "good" or "great" start in 25 out of 30 games (83.3%). 5 out of every 6. And thus he had 5 out of 30 games that were "bad" or "terrible" (16.7%).

Pedro's ERA that year was killed by his very first start: 3 ip, 7 er. Take that away and his season ERA was 1.97.


And if we take 3 runs as "decent" and have 0-2 runs as "good" or "great", and anything more than 3 as "bad" or "terrible", here's how it breaks down:

Ryan
- Good/Great: 28 out of 39 (71.8%)
- Decent: 2 out of 39 (5.1%)
- Bad/Terrible: 9 out of 39 (23.1%)

Pedro
- Good/Great: 20 out of 30 (66.7%)
- Decent: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)
- Bad/Terrible: 5 out of 30 (16.7%)

So Ryan gave you more good/great games but also more bad/terrible games, while Pedro was just more consistently decent or good/great.
It's amazing how hard it is to compare different times. In 1972 Ryan made 39 starts (30% more than Pedro) with 284 innings. He averaged 7 1/3 innings per outing. Pedro pitched 199 innings and averaged 6 2/3 innings per start. Ryan averaged 10.4 strikes per nine inning and 20 complete games compared to Pedro's 10.8 per nine and 2 complete games.

In 1973 Ryan followed up with 326 innings in 41 starts (7.95 innings per) averaging 10.6 K's per nine with 26 complete games. And in 1974, it was 332 innings in 42 start (7.9 innings per), an average of a "dismal" 9.9 K's per nine with 26 complete games. He was bound to be more tired and worn out. From 1972 to 1974, pitching every fourth day, 59% (72 of his 122) of his starts were complete games. Imagine if he was told, "Nolan, you only need to go 7 innings".

Over Ryan's 27 year career, he averaged 33 starts and 10 complete games with 7.0 innings per start. Over Pedro's 18 year career, he averaged 31 starts and 4 complete games at 7.0 innings per start. Both averages are likely skewed given the tail ends of their careers.

I'm not suggesting Ryan was the better pitcher....but HOLY SH*T, he threw hard and went hard every 4th day. With his walk totals, total pitches thrown is astronomical. He was given the ball and completed the game. No one was looking at opponent batting average / OPS the 3rd time through the order, protecting the pitcher's innings pitched, or trying to minimize the number of high stress situations.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
It was a different game back in 1973. Yes, Ryan had 326 IP. But 7 other pitchers had more than 300 IP that year in the AL alone.

And yes he led the league in IP in 1974. And again, 7 other pitchers cracked 300 IP, and Ryan only led the league by 4 IP.

He wasn't some sort of crazy outlier back then. His real outlying power was being incredibly durable for an incredibly long period of time. But in any particular year he wasn't some godlike dominant pitcher unlike no other. He was a very good pitcher much like many other guys.

Now compare that to Pedro leading the league in ERA at 1.74 and the next closest guy having a 3.70.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
One game to save the world, give me Bob Gibson over Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson over Pedro Martinez. It still blows my mind that while so many big money FA deals end up fizzling, Johnson signed a big four year deal with ARI and proceeded to win the next four Cy Youngs.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,607
South Dartmouth, MA
Sadly, all the kids responded, "Who's Babe Ruth?" "Who's Nolan Ryan?"
download.jpg
One game to save the world, give me Bob Gibson over Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson over Pedro Martinez. It still blows my mind that while so many big money FA deals end up fizzling, Johnson signed a big four year deal with ARI and proceeded to win the next four Cy Youngs.
It would be a borderline incomprehensible achievement at any age, but winning those four in a row starting at age 35 makes it even more absurd IMO