Lefty, Mad Dog & Rocket Rule

[Xanadu Dragon]

From Lee's CD:

NW--Neutral wins. It's a projection for how many wins the pitcher would have if he was given average run support, considering the amount of decisions (W+L) he had.

NL--Neutral losses. Same as NW, but for losses.

I ran a sort which was very interesting:

Number of seasons with
NEUTRAL WINS >= 15 and
NEUTRAL LOSSES < 10

Only 8 pitchers have done it 5 or more times!

Here's the list (those more than 1 year only):

T1 Lefty Grove 9
T1 Greg Maddux 9
3 Roger Clemens 8
T4 Mike Mussina 5
T4 Carl Hubbell 5
T4 Three Finger Brown 5
T4 Whitey Ford 5
T4 Randy Johnson 5
T9 Tom Glavine 4
T9 David Cone 4
T9 Dave Stieb 4
T9 Mike Marshall 4
T9 Walter Johnson 4
T9 Kevin Brown 4
T9 Pedro Martinez 4
T9 Addie Joss 4
T17 Bert Blyleven 3
T17 Dazzy Vance 3
T17 Ron Guidry 3
T17 Bob Shaw 3
T17 Jimmy Key 3
T17 Mel Parnell 3
T17 Stan Coveleski 3
T17 Eddie Cicotte 3
T17 Chief Bender 3
T17 Ted Lyons 3
T17 Red Ruffing 3
T17 Hal Newhouser 3
T17 Wilbur Wood 3
T17 Grover C Alexander 3
T17 Kevin Appier 3
T17 Russ Ford 3
T17 Lefty Gomez 3
T17 Tom Seaver 3
T17 Jose Rijo 3
T17 Jon Matlack 3
T17 Tommy Bridges 3
T17 Bob Gibson 3
T17 Sandy Koufax 3
T40 Charles Nagy 2
T40 Ray Kremer 2
T40 Joe Horlen 2
T40 Rick Reuschel 2
T40 Chuck Finley 2
T40 Joe Wood 2
T40 Joe Dobson 2
T40 Christy Mathewson 2
T40 Dutch Leonard 2
T40 Kenny Rogers 2
T40 Ken Hill 2
T40 Don Sutton 2
T40 Juan Marichal 2
T40 Dick Radatz 2
T40 Lon Warneke 2
T40 Luis Tiant 2
T40 Dennis Martinez 2
T40 Mike Hampton 2
T40 Dean Chance 2
T40 Curt Schilling 2
T40 Dwight Gooden 2
T40 Mike Morgan 2
T40 Darryl Kile 2
T40 Harry Brecheen 2
T40 Jim Maloney 2
T40 Ned Garvin 2
T40 Cy Young 2
T40 Ed Reulbach 2
T40 Orel Hershiser 2
T40 Johnny Podres 2
T40 Hoyt Wilhelm 2
T40 Billy Pierce 2
T40 Andy Messersmith 2
T40 Tiny Bonham 2
T40 Steve Carlton 2
T40 Howie Pollet 2
T40 Babe Adams 2
T40 Frank Viola 2
T40 Urban Shocker 2
T40 Spud Chandler 2
T40 Steve Rogers 2
T40 Don Drysdale 2
T40 Jack Pfiester 2
T40 Jack Powell 2
T40 Jack Quinn 2
T40 Tex Hughson 2
T40 Gary Peters 2
T40 Jesse Tannehill 2
T40 Herb Score 2
T40 Rube Waddell 2
T40 Milt Pappas 2
T40 Al Leiter 2
T40 Warren Spahn 2
T40 Goose Gossage 2
T40 Steve Blass 2
T40 Bret Saberhagen 2
T40 Frank Tanana 2
T40 Sam Leever 2
T40 Sam McDowell 2
T40 Frank Sullivan 2
T40 Jim Bunning 2
T40 Virgil Trucks 2
T40 Howie Camnitz 2
T40 Sherry Smith 2

[Duque]

I'd say Mussina, and, possibly Maddux, is a good bet to move up that list.

Just me, or are Mussina and Hubbell two of the more underrated pitchers in history?

[Baudib]

Interesting, but of course, all of these searches have their limits.
This obviously favors recent pitchers; pitchers in Mathewson's day would typically get 35 or more decisions. I'll take Grover Alexander's 33-12 season over anything Mike Mussina has done.

I think Mussina's overrated.

[BuzzBuzzard]

There is something about NW and NL that I just don't buy into. I can't quite articulate it just yet, but I am not convinced it tells us any meaningful. What if statements just make me uncomfortable. Having said that, if i have said anything at all, what does the above list mean? Does it completely level the playing field for comparing pitchers? I am having a hard time cozying up to it.

[SmedIndy]

It takes any luck or run support out of the question.

It doesn't measure intangibles, or "the will to win", which is bogus, really, though idiot sportswriters and Joe Morgan and Rob Dibble claim its true.

Basically, it allows good pitchers on bad teams to be compared fairly using W/L to pitchers on good teams.

[KCBOOMER]

Isn't it great when you can just discredit someone else by calling them an "idiot" and the only criteria is that they disagree with you.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Duque
Just me, or are Mussina and Hubbell two of the more underrated pitchers in history?

I would agree.

Originally posted by Baudib
I think Mussina's overrated.

Why?

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Isn't it great when you can just discredit someone else by calling them an "idiot" and the only criteria is that they disagree with you.

Well, sorry if IDIOT is not a correct term, but there was a lot of hubub about how much better Clemens was than Mussina in 2001 because of the W/L record, (I recall distinctly Gerry Fraley in Baseball America stating that Mussina didn't know how to win) and Morgan goes on saying Nolan Ryan didn't pitch well in 1987 because he went 8-16, ERA and run support be damned.

That is idiotic. You make enough statements like that, I think you qualify as an idiot.

[Duque]

I think what Smed means is that, while Joe Morgan and Rob Dibble may be intelligent, thoughtful people (well, okay, maybe Morgan), their ideas are idiotic.

I remember Dibble saying on the Dan Patrick show he'd rather have Andy Pettitte pitching a Game 7 than Randy Johnson - simply because of Pettitte's postseason W/L record.

[sweaver]

I remember Dibble on the Reds...he sounded about that smart then too.

He was great to have in the bullpen, when he had his control. Guy could throw a fastball through a wall.

These guys are employed because they were players, and represent a player's point of view. I don't have much use for Dibble's opinions, and Morgan says intelligent, insightful things about 50% of the time, and strange, unsupportable things the other 50%.

Like this one.

[KCBOOMER]

I can easily show an example of a guy with a good ERA (say 3.33) with so so run support (say 4.0 a game) finishing with a record of 8-16 and being able to say he didn't pitch well. When a guy in close games always manages to give up one more run than the other guy 16 times (all 5-4 say) while pitching 8 shutouts for victories (all 4-0) you can argue he didn't pitch well. This particularly applies to "well" if you mean winning games when you have a chance.

This analogy may not apply to the season you refer to but it does state my case.

Name calling is not necessary at any time. Showing why someone's idea is weak/bogus is fine.

[SmedIndy]

I guess my contempt for most of the guys who babble on TV or in print shows. I've tendeded to use the term "idiot sportswriters" pretty generically, as I've found many are resistant to any new way of thinking, thought or idea and go back to the holy grail of batting average, RBI, wins, and "clutch" performance.

It wasn't personal, just generic. And I have been a sportswriter before for high school games and am friendly with some in Indianapolis.:topic: :warn:

Sorry for the diversion.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I can easily show an example of a guy with a good ERA (say 3.33) with so so run support (say 4.0 a game) finishing with a record of 8-16 and being able to say he didn't pitch well. When a guy in close games always manages to give up one more run than the other guy 16 times (all 5-4 say) while pitching 8 shutouts for victories (all 4-0) you can argue he didn't pitch well. This particularly applies to "well" if you mean winning games when you have a chance.

This analogy may not apply to the season you refer to but it does state my case.



I would say that your analogy needs careful scrutiny as well. Of the 5-4 losses, how many runs were given up by the 'pen after the pitcher left.

If a guy pitches 9, gives up 4 hits and 3 walks, and leaves with 2 on and 2 out ahead 4-2, and the reliever gives up a jack to some Steve Jeltzian hitter, that's bad luck and not indicative of the quality game he pitched.

[Baudib]

I think the problem I have with this stat is it tends to ignore context. Expected won-lost records do have some value, and I've used them as well, but I am always suspicious of numbers that tend to simplify things into one neat little package.

As I pointed out before somewhere else...a guy who gives up 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, runs in five starts is better than someone who gives up 0, 6, 0, 6, 0. How deep you pitch into games has an enormous impact on your won-lost record that can't be measured by this stat. If you have a guy who pitches into the eighth and ninth inning of tie games a lot, that guy is going to get more losses than a guy who is taken out after the sixth.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon


Why?

Mussina's a great pitcher, but I don't think there's any way that he was as valuable as Clemens to the Yankees last year.

Mussina pitched some brilliant games, he had more GREAT games than Clemens, but he also got hammered three or four times, effectively taking the Yankees out of the game by the fourth inning, which Clemens did not do once last year. A lot of Clemens' runs allowed were given up after he had a big lead; when people talk about run support, they never mention the fact that you are going to pitch differently with a 10-run lead than when it's 2-0. If you ever get a chance, look at some of the linescores from Bob Gibson's 1968 season, and read some of the game reports. There's no doubt in my mind that the guy would not have put up a 1.12 ERA if his team was scoring six runs a game.

Mussina is not a team guy. He's not someone who will sacrifice himself for the good of the team. When Davey Johnson was in Baltimore and wanted to go to a four-man rotation for a few weeks to try to win the AL East, Mussina balked. In Game 7 of the World Series, you saw Randy Johnson out there pitching despite no rest, it was Game 7 after all. Mussina, however, told Torre he wasn't available.

Clemens, on the other hand, demanded the ball on short rest when the Yankees were playing a doubleheader. The bullpen was in tatters and the kid they brought up to pitch looked like a deer in headlights. Clemens didn't have anything that day, but he gave his team serviceable innings and gave them a chance to win, which they did. No one gave him any credit for this, because, you know, the game hurt his ERA.

[Xanadu Dragon]

I see you points Baudib.

Not sure I would attribute to a lack of talent 'tho. More so, perhaps heart.

[mainsr]

Ohmygod, I can't believe I missed a chance at this thread during my protracted absence.

(BTW - SmedIndy - I may be the only person in the forum who knows where "Arf, she said" comes from)

Lemme take these one at a time.

Mussina pitched some brilliant games, he had more GREAT games than Clemens, but he also got hammered three or four times, effectively taking the Yankees out of the game by the fourth inning, which Clemens did not do once last year.

Let's define a bad start as a game in which the pitcher allowed 4 or more runs in the first 4 innings, giving the opponent the lead.
Bad starts for Mussina:
April 21: 4 IP, 6 H, 6 R, 4 ER, 1 BB - Loss
June 5: 5 IP, 9 H, 6 R, 6 ER, 1 BB - Loss
July 12: 2 IP, 10H, 8 R, 8 ER, 9 BB - Loss
August 2: 4 IP, 9 H, 8 R, 8 ER, 1 BB - Loss
Sept. 21: 6 IP, 8 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 1 BB - no decision

Bad starts for Clemens:
April 19: 6 IP, 8 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 3 BB - no decision
May 4: 5.2 IP, 9 H, 5 R, 4 ER, 1 BB - no decision
May 20: 7 IP, 6H, 6 R, 5 ER, 5 BB - Loss
October 5: 5 IP, 5 H, 5 R, 4 ER, 3 BB - Loss

You're right; Clemens didn't do it once; he did it four times.

In Game 7 of the World Series, you saw Randy Johnson out there pitching despite no rest, it was Game 7 after all. Mussina, however, told Torre he wasn't available.

Well, I can't really comment about that, having not seen the WS. But if the guy's arm was shot, why should he have pitched?

Clemens, on the other hand, demanded the ball on short rest when the Yankees were playing a doubleheader. The bullpen was in tatters and the kid they brought up to pitch looked like a deer in headlights. Clemens didn't have anything that day, but he gave his team serviceable innings and gave them a chance to win, which they did. No one gave him any credit for this, because, you know, the game hurt his ERA.

This one intrigued me. The Yankees played one DH all year - July 18. Yes, Clemens pitched the first game on just three days' rest. Yes, he didn't pitch all that well - 5.2 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 3 K. But the Yankees won anyway. The bullpen was hardly in tatters - this was only a week after the All-Star Break. The day before, Stanton pitched 1, Witasick 2, Choate 1, and Rivera 1 in a 12-inning Yankee win. On the 16th, it was another extra-inning game, but only Stanton (who got the W) pitched more than an inning. On the 15th, the Yankees lost, but Wohlers faced 4 batters and Choate 5. So the Yankees hardly went into the game with their bullpen in tatters. (In the second game, Lilly did indeed pitch a lousy game.)
Moose pitched the day before the Yankees' twinbill, pitched well, but got no decision. His one game on four days' rest was the last day of the season: 4 IP, 1 H, 0 ER, 0 BB.

I am unconvinced of Clemens' superiority, but you make some good points. Maybe I was wrong saying the Mussina should've gotten the Cy. Maybe it should have been Garcia.

I have no quarrel with the basic premise of this thread - that Clemens is one of the top pitchers of all time.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by mainsr
BTW - SmedIndy - I may be the only person in the forum who knows where "Arf, she said" comes from

Sounds like you both had the same prom date. :stinker:

[SmedIndy]

XD - I am going to go into a petulant frenzy now.....

And on topic, "heart" is not a valid argument. You can't will your team to score another run, well, not unless you were Hayden Sidd Finch.

[mainsr]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon


Sounds like you both had the same prom date. :stinker:

No. We have the same taste in music. (Right, Smed? I can't believe that line's in wide usage.)

[SmedIndy]

Well, I have a broad and varied taste, anything from the Beach Boys and Beatles to Slayer and Sepultura, but there are some artists I'm really passionate about.

(PS - On a YCDTOSA CD, his band does a stunning parody of Atlanta Braves broadcasts, imitating Skip Caray and Pete Van Wieren)

(PPS - Billy was a mountain, Ethel was a tree looking over his shoulder).

[Skip]

Originally posted by sweaver
Morgan says intelligent, insightful things about 50% of the time, and strange, unsupportable things the other 50%.
I cant believe I missed this the first time through. Morgan is one of my favorite guys in the booth, but several times a game he says something just plain stupid, unsupportable, goofy, whatthe hellishetalkingabout, .... Maddening. McCarver is similar, just better on the high end, worse on the low end.

[sweaver]

My point exactly, except I would say Morgan is better than McCarver at this point.