04/26/24
February 22, 2005
Is Clemens The G.O.A.T.?: A new baseball blog gets up to speed with a terrific piece measuring pitchers across eras. Don't take it as a counter-point to what's going on in the more traditional coverage or anything.
I loves me baseball stats pages. /adds to bookmarks
posted by grum@work at 02:20 PM on February 22, 2005
Take the periods out of that first question, yerfatma. I couldn't resist the acronym: it makes me think of one of Bellichick's pre-Super Bowl press conferences where a young reporter asked Bill how he felt about being compared to "Lombardi and the goat." The puzzled look on Bill's face made it emminently clear the acronym needed explaining. I nearly wet the oversized BB-branded sweats I wore throughout the Pats' playoff run.
posted by yerfatma at 02:47 PM on February 22, 2005
I like the case he makes for Blyleven, who's continued underappreciation amazes me. Agreed, bigtime.
posted by chris2sy at 03:59 PM on February 22, 2005
That's plenty of information on your playoff clothing habits, yerfatma. Nice link, though!
posted by chicobangs at 04:28 PM on February 22, 2005
I for one and still not convinced that Bleyleven is a HOFer - I mean he lost just about as many games as he won, never won a Cy Young, and surpassed 20 wins, what, twice? That said, I am in agreement that being very good for as long he has puts him into a specific kind of greatness - but was he one fo the best of his generation? I just don't think he cuts the mustard.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:57 AM on February 23, 2005
But Weedy, looking at wins doesn't really show what a pitcher accomplished. And Cy Young awards are often handed out to the pitcher with the most wins. Look at the season Ben Sheets had last season: 237 IP, 2.70 ERA, 32 BB, and 264 SO. Those are absolutely sick numbers, but his record was 12-14. Big surprise, he played for the Brewers. I think if you stop looking at W-L and just put Blyleven's other numbers against other pitchers, he's not only one of the greatest of his generation, he's one of the better pitchers ever in the major leagues. Certainly HOF-worthy. As for Roger, I'm not going to try to defend him except to say he can flat-out pitch. Maybe he chokes in big games, maybe he screwed the Red Sox (even though the GM thought he was in decline), but for the past 2 decades he's been one of the elite guys on the mound. I don't think he deserved his CYA last year - Randy Johnson or Ben Sheets would have been better choices, but I guess Roger was the sentimental choice. Oh well. He'll retire someday, right?!
posted by rocketman at 08:35 AM on February 23, 2005
OK, now explain an RSAA to me? I guess that an RSAA is good but it is a stat that I have never heard of before.
posted by gspm at 10:10 AM on February 23, 2005
Runs Saved Above Average, which is a calculation of some base hitting rates/stats and compared to league averages. The claim for RSAA is that it can be used to compare players across different eras of the sport. The idea is that it measures ability above (or below) the average pitcher. It also penalizes players that try to extend their counting stats by hanging around too long. For example: Assume Pitcher A was at 287 wins and wanted to pitch for two more years to get to 300 wins. If he has (random number here) 390 RSAA for his career, then if he has two really bad years (but manages to collect 13 wins in the process), it's quite possible he'll have LESS than 390 RSAA at the end of his career. The equivalent hitting stat is Runs Created Above Average, and is handled the same way. For the record, RSAA/RCAA is better for historical/end-of-season comparisons than it is for making fantasy baseball predictions for the next season (beyond the "A is better than B last year, and has been for 2 years, I'll draft A ahead of B").
posted by grum@work at 10:49 AM on February 23, 2005
does the name of the stat suggest a simplified interpretation that if you had used an average pitcher instead of Roger Clemens in every game of his career that his teams would have surrendered 645 more runs? baseball stats. if games were faster paced would there be less numerical pontificating?
posted by gspm at 11:22 AM on February 23, 2005
does the name of the stat suggest a simplified interpretation that if you had used an average pitcher instead of Roger Clemens in every game of his career that his teams would have surrendered 645 more runs? That's the best way to look at it, but think of it by innings pitched instead of by games. Of course, an "average" pitcher might not have gotten that many innings in the same number of games because he may have been yanked sooner than Clemens (because he gave up more runs).
posted by grum@work at 11:41 AM on February 23, 2005
Essentially, yes (to the first question). grum, do you get the ATM reports?
posted by mbd1 at 11:43 AM on February 23, 2005
Rocketman - sorry, clearly you're asking me to do that thing that so many are now - which is reworking the way we consider good players via statistical analysis. And asking me to disregard wins and losses isn't something I'm ready to do yet. I believe Bleyleven was a great pitcher, but I struggle to see him in the Hall. He's like the anti-Catfish Hunter. And looking at wins has to mean something. It has to. I'm still old-fashioned I guess - wins, ERA (comparable to league average, Oppenents batting average (compared to league average), and walk/strikeout ratio (as well as Ks per nine) are all the best indicators of excellence. And I still think that Bleyleven comes up short. Judging by the Hall's attitude, I don't think I'm out on a limb here.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:46 AM on February 23, 2005
wins have an element of teamness to it that some of the mixed stats can reduce. i mean Jack Morris in game 7 of 1991 WS pitches 10 innings and his team wins 1-0, so hey, fully deserves that W. In the same game Smoltz was in for 7.1 innings, 6 hits, 4ks, 1 BB, 0 ER. on many days that is good enough to get a win, heck, i am sure any pitcher would take that game line in game 7 of the WS. but not getting the W wasn't his fault since his team just didn't score any runs. so i can see the value in looking beyond the W column to examine the performance of a pitcher.
posted by gspm at 12:45 PM on February 23, 2005
grum, do you get the ATM reports? I do. They are great for keeping me up to date about injuries/rumours/trades, plus they add a nice historical angle to the player's performance.
posted by grum@work at 12:51 PM on February 23, 2005
Yep. And when it lands in my inbox, I know it's time for lunch....
posted by mbd1 at 12:56 PM on February 23, 2005
gspm - yes I can appreciate it too, for the individual instances you indicate, but over the course of an entire career it becomes a great indicator of success or failure. Wins aren't arbitrary, and the pantheon of great pitchers throughout the history of the game all won. Steve Carlton played on some of the shittiest teams ever. He won. Byleven won too, but his winning percentage is a joke, his OBA isn't great, his ERA isn't great and he really only had one great season. Sure he struck out a ton of batters, but his k's per nine isn't that great either. His greatnss is his consistency and longevity, but for long stretches of his career he wasn't even the best pitcher on his team. He is the pitching equivalent of Fred McGriff.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:49 PM on February 23, 2005
Let's define our terms then: what's a "great" season? If you're an "old-school stats" guy, let's meet in the middle and look at ERA+ (a relative measure comparing a pitcher's ERA to that year's league-average ERA). By my count, Bert had at least 5 "great" seasons (here: an ERA+ of 140 or better), '73, '74, '77, '84 and '89.
posted by yerfatma at 05:12 PM on February 23, 2005
True. And that's 5 "great" seasons spanning, what, seventeen years? He may never have been the bestest reliever in the game for more than a year or so at a stretch, but he was easily in the top five for a decade and a half. He won plenty of games, especially for a reliever. I won't argue the stats too much (grum, yerfatma, that's you), but how many people below him on these various all-time lists are in? And you know? He was a good guy. I know that never ever matters, but maybe I'd like to think it should. And not in that nice-guys-finish-out-of-the-Hall kind of way.
posted by chicobangs at 06:13 PM on February 23, 2005
I like the case he makes for Blyleven, who's continued underappreciation amazes me. (Take the periods out of that first question, yerfatma. I wouldn't vote that four-year-old into a Hall of Mirrors.)