David Wells or Jesse Orosco?

[Wolf Hopper]

This is in the spirit of all those Player A or Player B polls we've had recently. It also ties into the debate around IP value, etc.

Use career stats only thru 2002 - forget this year. This allows for the debate to be "baseball history."

Who has had the better career, assuming their career ended at the close of last year, David Wells or Jesse Orosco, and why?

[Wolf Hopper]

For those interested in some numbers, thru, again, 2002:

                                 G      RSAA      IP       ERA    BR/9 IP    SO/BB   
    Jesse Orosco               1187      125   1261.1     3.04    11.45     2.05   
    David Wells                 526      125   2613.1     4.05    11.49     2.93   

[nyy26wc]

I'll do the ultimate fence sitting--

If my team needed a reliever, I'll take Orosco. If my team needed a starter, I'll take Wells.

So, I'm going to go with unsure.

But, if I absolutely, postively had to choose one of them, I'll take Orosco. I'll bet his salaries over the years were less than Wells's, so if I take him, I'll have more money left over to spend on the rest of the team.

[RedSeat]

Orosco was probably a better reliever than Wells was a starter, but starting pitching is more valuable than relief pitching.

I don't know how much better a reliver has to be (If a starter is "X good", then a reliever needs to be "X+Y good" to be more valuable?) but in this case, in my opinion, Orosco is not THAT much better at relieving than Wells is at starting.

Short answer, they both saved 125 runs. Wells has twice the IP so he gets my nod.

[SmedIndy]

I'd say Wells - more innings and probably more quality innings. Orosco's recent LOOGYNESS detracts from his value.

[Wolf Hopper]

On the "more innings" replies - could you not make the case that Orosco's brief time in a game often came at a spot where the game could be won or lost and therefore his 1/3 to 1 IP per game is just as important as the 1st 6 IP of a game where there's not as much pressure?

I'm not claiming this to be true - just raising the point.

[sweaver]

Equal RSAAs. Very interesting.

I'll ponder this for a while.

[SmedIndy]

There's always pressure to get men out. Orosco, now doubt, has pitched in share of blowouts too.

[Jim Rice]

I'm agreeing with Lee and going with Orosco. The cost factor Lee mentioned is a valid consideration, one that almost certainly favors Orosco to a large degree. Couple that with greater dependability in his job than Wells demonstrated in his, and I give Orosco the nod.

By dependability I mean this: Orosco was expected to perform a certain role - early in his career as a closer, later as a lefty relief specialist. He fulfilled that role with startling consistency. Throwing out the '94 strike year, Orosco regularly pitched about 60 games every year for 18 straight years. In all but four of those, he exceed the league ERA+ average by at least 11%. He was only below average twice, '87 and '99 - when he was 42 years old!! He returned from injuries and semi-retirement in 2000 to be reasonably effective for two more years before the wheels finally appeared to come off this season. In Orosco, you always knew exactly what you were getting. You could plan around him.

Wells doesn't bring much of that at all. He hasn't been either that consistent or effective. He's only managed 8 seasons with at least 30 starts (if we give him an extra start in the shortened '95 season) and in half of those he was very average - within 5% of the league ERA+ mark. He missed significant time to injury in '92, '94, '98, and '01 and has regularly been a question mark with a bad back for the last five years. Wells coupled his physical question marks with a series of personality issues that he dragged from town to town as well. Orosco, by all accounts, is just about the least controversial figure you can possibly have on your team. He's managed to pitch more games than anyone in history in near-anonymity.

I give Orosco the edge. Dependability - of cost, character and performance - means something.

[KCBOOMER]

I went with Wells. While the argument for Orsoco being "cheaper" has merit he does take up a roster slot and someone has to pitch the innings he doesn't. Thus you have to have two Orosco's to equal Wells innings which means a second salary to do the same pitching. With Wells you could have another position player instead giving you more bench flexibility.

[pathogan]

...reiterating, if I nneded a starter...surprised the #'s are this close,actually, with all the Wells talk...

[pwdennis]

Orosco - mostly on the basis on his consistancy

[JamesI]

Orosco. But this may be because Wells is on my short list of least favorite players...

[GGC]

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

On the "more innings" replies - could you not make the case that Orosco's brief time in a game often came at a spot where the game could be won or lost and therefore his 1/3 to 1 IP per game is just as important as the 1st 6 IP of a game where there's not as much pressure?

I'm not claiming this to be true - just raising the point.

I've seen a few studies on relief innings. Some situations are obviously more important than others (late and close, for example.) Someone called Tangotiger introduced a concept called "leveraged index" for relievers. Here's the link to one of his articles: http://www.baseballprimer.com/articl...-12-16_0.shtml

According to this workbook, Orosco's Leveraged Index was just under 1.5 up to 1990. This means every 500 batters Orosco faced was the equivalent of an average pitcher facing 740 batters:

http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8KRYP2J...erLI_74_90.csv

So, by that measure, Orosco still hasn't had nearly the impact that Wells has had over the course of his career. I'm also not a fan of the LOOGY. If you ask me, it's a waste of a roster spot.

Having said all that, I'd probably still throw a dart when it comes to choosing between these two grizzled portsiders. I just hope that it doesn't get lodged in one of their arms .

[gyb13]

Originally Posted by GGC

Someone called Tangotiger

that's funny


i generally agree with lee's reasoning here...though boomer also has a very good point in that someone had to fill those innings....i'm not sure the salary would come into play - i think twice orosco's salary would still be lower than wells'.