Proxy for greatness?

.

Here’s something I’m chewing on in comparing pitchers cross-era:

IF it is so that a complete game pitcher occupies the roles of starter, middle reliever and closer -- none of whom we assume needs to be replaced -- then couldn’t innings pitched, almost alone (or seasoned with some expansion multiplier maybe), serve as a proxy for greatness?

.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Innings pitched, with a qualifier for quality, would be my definition of pitching greatness. That's why I use ERA+ and IP when rating pitchers. But neither alone means much -- they have to be used together.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Batman

.

Here’s something I’m chewing on in comparing pitchers cross-era:

IF it is so that a complete game pitcher occupies the roles of starter, middle reliever and closer -- none of whom we assume needs to be replaced -- then couldn’t innings pitched, almost alone (or seasoned with some expansion multiplier maybe), serve as a proxy for greatness?

.

No.

Innings pitched, standing alone without quality, means nothing to me.

If you give weight to innings pitched then you believe that there is value to merely pitching that inning. But, whatever value the team gets by having a pitcher merely pitch that inning is immediately negated (or was immedateily previous negated) by the fact that the value the opposition had by merely having a pitcher pitch an inning. Net impact: zero.

.


Raw question:

Couldn’t a value be granted a pitcher for an inning pitched compared to the non-existence of that inning on his record by his having been removed from the game?


An attempt to frame the question:

If Guy Gamer’s not good enough to pitch, then we observe he gets few, if any, innings to pitch.

If Gamer’s good enough to go six or seven, well, no-brainer -- he starts a lot. Otherwise he relieves, or bounces back and forth until it gets figured out. Meantime he gets innings until it gets figured out.

If Gamer’s good enough to go six or seven, AND he somehow demonstrates to guys who want to give him money that he ought to get a chance to do it another year, then he gets more innings until it gets figured out.

If Guy Gamer can pull this off for, say, ten years, then he’s racked up a lot of innings.

If Guy can pull this off for, say, fifteen years, then he’ll be awarded additional innings opportunities based solely on his reputation. The importance of his role (whether starter or reliever) decreases during this “award session.” This is when Guy will either puke or keep going. Guy gets latitude... and innings.

If Guy Gamer goes strong twenty years, having racked up mucho innings over that score, then, because he’s now a living legend, he kind of picks up a carte blanche along the way somewhere to keep going as long as he wants -- to the extent his pride or game (or it’s lack) can stand.

If Gamer does all this, and even quits before embarrassing himself too much, then wouldn’t he have amassed a lot of innings?
/


An attempt to rephrase the question:

If the Major Leagues is major, then wouldn’t threshold status -- rather than replacement or “norm” -- be a worthwhile measure of a guy’s MLB career?

My working premise is that the best -- maybe not the best of the best, but -- the best RIGHT NOW, are, and have always been, on the field.

.

[pwdennis]

from the Batman (where's Robin ?) :

"... An attempt to rephrase the question:

If the Major Leagues is major, then wouldn’t threshold status -- rather than replacement or “norm” -- be a worthwhile measure of a guy’s MLB career?

My working premise is that the best -- maybe not the best of the best, but -- the best RIGHT NOW, are, and have always been, on the field."

As it happens I agree with the entire premise of your post

No pitcher can pull off a con game for 2500 innings. A second rater may get away with it for a season or two, but ultimately, when a guy can't pitch effectively, he will wash out of the game or be restricted to a very limited role such as pitching only to left handed non-power hitting pinch hitters. If a pitcher lasts 4970.0 IP you can presuppose that not only was he a really fine pitcher but in fact, one of the immortals

[SmedIndy]

Bobo Newsom pitched 3,759 innings and while he was OK, he wasn't nearly an immortal or anything like it.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by Batman

.

Here’s something I’m chewing on in comparing pitchers cross-era:

IF it is so that a complete game pitcher occupies the roles of starter, middle reliever and closer -- none of whom we assume needs to be replaced -- then couldn’t innings pitched, almost alone (or seasoned with some expansion multiplier maybe), serve as a proxy for greatness?

.

Yes, there is some validity to using IP as a measure of greatness if you're looking at careers; There is almost none if you're looking at one season. Jeff Weaver was in the top five in IP in the AL in 2001. He most certainly was NOT one of the top 5 pitchers that season. Jeff Suppan was 7th in the AL in 2000. We was far from the 7th-best pitcher. It's all about the sample size. (Or maybe guys named Jeff should be discounted.)

[gyb13]

Originally Posted by pwdennis

No pitcher can pull off a con game for 2500 innings. A second rater may get away with it for a season or two, but ultimately, when a guy can't pitch effectively, he will wash out of the game or be restricted to a very limited role such as pitching only to left handed non-power hitting pinch hitters.

what about Jim Slaton or Bob Knepper?

[KCBOOMER]

Inone of Bill James books he said one of the easiest ways to determine the quality of a fielder's ability at a key position (in this case he was talking about shortsop) was the number of games he played at that position. His argument which is difficult to refute is that no manager is going to tolerate a poor defender at a key position for long. Mike Piazza might be the exception to this idea but the argument is sound.

I think the same thing can be applied to innings pitched since 1900 (thus we only deal with the modern era). If you picked 5000 IP's as your benchmark you would find that only eight pitchers hit this mark and all eight of them are in the HoF.

If you take a look at the guys who pitch 4000-5000 innings you find 16 guys and 12 HoFers. The four guys who didn't/haven't made it are Blyleven, John, Kaat, and Tanana. Not exactly stiffs.

Even if you dip down to 3500-4000 innings you get 26 guys and 11 HoFers. This group is certainly less stellar than the above group and two or three of the HoFers are shaky, but only one has a negative ERA against the league (its a whopping -0.01) and all but one of then have positive neutral win-loss records. Joe Niekro misses by one game. This means that on this list there are a number of average performers who lasted quite a while but no bums.

Anyway it is reasonably demonstrated that at 4000+ innings you are almost certainly looking at a stud. Even at 3500 you have a pretty good group. You can haggle all you want about the definition of "greatness".

[nyy26wc]

Mediocre players get entrenched in the major leagues and teams continue to give them chance after chance.

.

Re. Slaton & Knepper -- Good question. On a quick lookup I was surprised at what I found:

            W- L    SV    G   CG  ShO   IP    IP/G
Slaton    151-158   14   496  86   22  2,684  5.41
Knepper   146-155    1   445  78   30  2,708  6.09

Note the CGs and shutouts. Slaton had a seven-year run of 200+ IP seasons with a high a 293 (!) in 1976 in which he finished 14-15 for the Brewers. Knepper also had seven 200+ IP seasons, broken over two clumps of three and four years, while leading the league in shutouts twice.

Huh! I’d say each had his day, and it was worthwhile -- for a while.

Slaton’s and Knepper’s IP totals is interesting in that they’re just a chunk above a couple of pretty fair relievers:

            W- L    SV    G   CG  ShO   IP    IP/G
Wilhelm   143-122  227 1,070  20    5  2,254  2.11
McDaniel  141-119  172   987  18    2  2,139  2.17

All four had comparable win totals, but the pairs’ save differences is vast (and somehow mitigating?). If starters are more valuable than relievers, then, on a career basis, could the above four guys’ stat lines perhaps sketch some kind of crossover line -- that is, the point where a valuable reliever muscles his way north for a piece of the glory normally lionized by starters?

.

[SmedIndy]

There's no crossover line - Wilhelm and McDaniel were good - Slaton and Knepper just average at best. Most anyone can see the relievers consistently gave more value even if they pitched less innings than the starter.

Excellent starters are always more valuable than ace relievers, but ace relievers are more valuable than most of the chattel starting in big league games.

[sweaver]

IP is an indicator of quality, just as games and at bats are. They are not, however, the BEST indicator of quality.

The argument on its face is valid. Better pitchers will have a tendency to pitch more innings. However, one would go too far to simply rank pitchers in order of quality by ranking them according to innings. That gives you this list:

1. Cy Young+ 7354.70 R
2. Pud Galvin+ 6003.30 R
3. Walter Johnson+ 5914.70 R
4. Phil Niekro+ 5404.30 R
5. Nolan Ryan+ 5386.00 R
6. Gaylord Perry+ 5350.30 R
7. Don Sutton+ 5282.30 R
8. Warren Spahn+ 5243.70 L
9. Steve Carlton+ 5217.30 L
10. Pete Alexander+ 5190.00 R
11. Kid Nichols+ 5056.30 R
12. Tim Keefe+ 5047.70 R
13. Bert Blyleven 4970.00 R
14. Bobby Mathews 4956.30 R
15. Mickey Welch+ 4802.00 R
16. Tom Seaver+ 4782.70 R
17. Christy Mathewson+ 4780.70 R
18. Tommy John 4710.30 L
19. Robin Roberts+ 4688.70 R
20. Early Wynn+ 4564.00 R

Certainly, a list of quality pitchers. But it does not include Lefty Grove or Roger Clemens, who I would think belong on a list of the top 20 pitchers of all time.

List from baseball-reference.com, + indicates a Hall of Fame member.

[sweaver]

Originally Posted by Batman

.
If the Major Leagues is major, then wouldn’t threshold status -- rather than replacement or “norm” -- be a worthwhile measure of a guy’s MLB career?

This is the viewpoint of Win Shares, which measures "from zero." As opposed to WARP, which measures from replacement, and RCAA and RSAA, or TPR, which measure from average.

[huskerdru]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Mediocre players get entrenched in the major leagues and teams continue to give them chance after chance.

That's right! Because they're proven veterans