Baseball is usually about 70% skill and 30% luck. So where is the most amount of luck that a player can't control? I think it's run support for the starting pitcher. They go out there and pitch, but they have almost (or none in the AL) no control over the amount of runs their teams score for them. It has nothing to do with how they pitch. Luck comes in on who they face, how their team hits, if anyone in their lineup is injured, and how lucky the batters happen to be (do bloopers fall? line drives? etc.). They can give up one run and still lose, and with the importance of win-loss records, it makes a guy with a 3.40 ERA seem to be a bad pitcher because he has a 6-10 record (*Who is it?). Anyway, here's a list of "Criminally Abused Pitchers" and "Undeservedly Blessed Pitchers".
Criminally Abused Pitchers
Chris Volstad (FLA) - 6 starts, 4-2, 3.03 ERA, 2.70 RS
John Lannan (WAS) - 23 starts, 6-11, 3.40 ERA, 2.86 RS *
Greg Smith (OAK) - 23 starts, 5-11, 3.92 ERA, 3.01 RS
Matt Cain (SFG) - 25 starts, 7-9, 3.67 ERA, 3.33 RS
Jake Peavy (SD)- 20 starts, 8-8, 2.86 ERA, 3.67 RS
These guys have pitched well, but their win-loss records don't reflect it (except for Volstad's which could be better if the Marlins would hit with him on the mound). Peavy's numbers are Cy Young quality except for the W-L. Now, I understand why Neyer gets so angry over wins and losses. Maybe one day, the Cy Young will be chosen by who is actually the best pitcher, not that Webb and Lee are undeserving.
Undeservedly Blessed Pitchers
Kyle Kendrick (PHI) - 24 starts, 10-6, 4.74 ERA, 7.15 RS
Vicente Padilla (TEX) - 23 starts, 12-6, 4.86 ERA, 6.36 RS
Livan Hernandez (COL/MIN) - 24 starts, 10-9, 5.94 ERA, 6.20 RS
Mike Pelfrey (NYM) - 23 starts, 10-8, 4.11 ERA, 6.20 RS
Bronson Arroyo (CIN) - 25 starts, 10-9, 5.44 ERA, 6.03 RS
Roy Oswalt (HOU) - 23 starts, 10-8, 4.52 ERA, 5.54 RS
These are just a few, and there are other pitchers with better run support. The thing is some of those actually have good ERA's. This time, the win-loss record covers up how bad most of these pitchers have been. Oswalt has been terrible. Hernandez is abominable, and the Rockies still took a chance on him. Who wants to guess someone in the front office said, "But he's a winner." I can't even believe Padilla has 12 wins. It things like this that get front offices into trouble when they give out big contracts.
It makes me wonder about the 300 win plateau to get into the Hall of Fame. Should that be the criteria? With what we know about wins, isn't ERA and WHIP more of an indication of a pitcher's worth (okay, we can argue about ERA+)? They include luck but not as much as wins. Where would the ERA plataeu be? The problem becomes longevity. Wins, to some extent, indicate longevity. Yet, should longevity be a factor in Hall voting? If you pitch really well for a few years but get injured, should that influence a decision? If he's that good, shouldn't he get in?
Chris Volstad (FLA) - 6 starts, 4-2, 3.03 ERA, 2.70 RS
John Lannan (WAS) - 23 starts, 6-11, 3.40 ERA, 2.86 RS *
Greg Smith (OAK) - 23 starts, 5-11, 3.92 ERA, 3.01 RS
Matt Cain (SFG) - 25 starts, 7-9, 3.67 ERA, 3.33 RS
Jake Peavy (SD)- 20 starts, 8-8, 2.86 ERA, 3.67 RS
These guys have pitched well, but their win-loss records don't reflect it (except for Volstad's which could be better if the Marlins would hit with him on the mound). Peavy's numbers are Cy Young quality except for the W-L. Now, I understand why Neyer gets so angry over wins and losses. Maybe one day, the Cy Young will be chosen by who is actually the best pitcher, not that Webb and Lee are undeserving.
Undeservedly Blessed Pitchers
Kyle Kendrick (PHI) - 24 starts, 10-6, 4.74 ERA, 7.15 RS
Vicente Padilla (TEX) - 23 starts, 12-6, 4.86 ERA, 6.36 RS
Livan Hernandez (COL/MIN) - 24 starts, 10-9, 5.94 ERA, 6.20 RS
Mike Pelfrey (NYM) - 23 starts, 10-8, 4.11 ERA, 6.20 RS
Bronson Arroyo (CIN) - 25 starts, 10-9, 5.44 ERA, 6.03 RS
Roy Oswalt (HOU) - 23 starts, 10-8, 4.52 ERA, 5.54 RS
These are just a few, and there are other pitchers with better run support. The thing is some of those actually have good ERA's. This time, the win-loss record covers up how bad most of these pitchers have been. Oswalt has been terrible. Hernandez is abominable, and the Rockies still took a chance on him. Who wants to guess someone in the front office said, "But he's a winner." I can't even believe Padilla has 12 wins. It things like this that get front offices into trouble when they give out big contracts.
It makes me wonder about the 300 win plateau to get into the Hall of Fame. Should that be the criteria? With what we know about wins, isn't ERA and WHIP more of an indication of a pitcher's worth (okay, we can argue about ERA+)? They include luck but not as much as wins. Where would the ERA plataeu be? The problem becomes longevity. Wins, to some extent, indicate longevity. Yet, should longevity be a factor in Hall voting? If you pitch really well for a few years but get injured, should that influence a decision? If he's that good, shouldn't he get in?
No comments:
Post a Comment