Monday, September 29, 2008
Part II: In Which Corporate Cargo Cults
Bruce & Batter Starting Pitchers
As I told you in Part I, I’d try to illuminate the second reason San Francisco Chronicle columnist Bruce Jenkins’ lovely feature (supporting his idea that pitchers should go the distance as pitchers in the 50s and 60s did) is a romantic fantasy that's eviscerated by the facts.
Just to remind you, I addressed briefly the more difficult to quantify reason, injuries, in Part I. Part II addresses the better and more reasonably measurable issue: in general, starters perform less well the 3rd and subsequent time through a line-up than they did the 1st two times. While we look at the stats of the great workhorse pitchers of the 50s and 60s with awe, not just for their complete game and innings-pitched numbers, we also have to be impressed with their overall quality compared to the league.But I’m going to illustrate here, using the very workhorses that Bruce Jenkins cited, that they were not the same pitcher in the 3rd and subsequent time through the opposition lineup as their overall stats indicate. In fact, you’ll see that more often than not, not only is the best reliever preventing more offense than the workhorse’s 3rd and subsequent time through, but the 2nd-best reliever is generally better at stopping offense, too.
#1 – Overall, starters aren’t as good the 3rd & subsequent time through the line-up as they are the 1st and 2nd time.
I’ll use two stats to illustrate this for you.
As a measure of performance, I’m using OPS (a stat that summarizes both the frequency batters get on base through hits or walks, combined with the frequency of power hits such as doubles and home runs they get) as a measure of what offense a pitcher yields. To compare RELATIVE performance in different situations (through the start and middle of a game versus the later-in-the-game times managers normally need to think about using a reliever to finish off the start’s efforts), I’m using TOPS+.
TOPS+ is the ratio of what the pitcher surrendered in specific situations relative to his overall performance. As an example, if a pitcher overall gave up an OPS of .759, but gave up an OPS of 626 the first time he faced a batter in a game, he’d have a TOPS+ of 94 when facing batters the 1st time (100 is the pitcher’s average performance, lower is better pitching performance, so a TOPS+ below 100 is better than his average).
So, to repeat from Part I…
Times Facing Opp. in Game (Major League Composite, 2008)
LOWER IS BETTER
Measure 1st time 2nd time 3rd+ time(s)
TOPS+ 94 104 113
OPS .726 .765 .800
In 2008 to date, in general, starters as a whole are less effective in a batter’s 2nd plate appearance than in the batter’s 1st, and less effective still in the batter’s 3rd and subsequent appearances against them in the game.
I won’t go into the reasons some advantage shifts to the batter as the game wears on – it’s a well-trodden area worth an essay of this length.
To reiterate, Starters IN GENERAL aren’t as good the 3rd & subsequent time through the line-up as they are the 1st and 2nd time.
#2 – Jenkins’ Workhorse heroes have roughly the same pattern of declining performance in 3rd and subsequent times through the line-up as less illustrious starters do.
So let’s look at Bruce Jenkins’ poster dudes for whom we have data (Baseball-Reference has the numbers going back to 1956). I’m omitting Bob Feller because his career ended too soon for Retrosheet's tracking data. Warren Spahn & Robin Roberts get an asterisk for having a significant portion (the entire first half) of their careers unfolding before the era that Retrosheet has tallied for by-appearance stats. Jim Kaat gets an asterisk because he worked almost 9% of his innings as a reliever, juicing his 1st-time-through-the-line-up numbers in a way that would punish Jenkins’ assertion unfairly.
WORKHORSES' Career TOPS+ (100= average for that pitchers; lower is better for the pitcher)
Pitcher 1st time 2nd time 3rd+ time(s) Marichal 78 100 119 Seaver 94 100 107 Ryan 100 93 107 Spahn* 87 96 116 Roberts* 92 94 113 Kaat* 94 97 111 2008 All Starters 94 104 113
The Great Workhorse pitchers Jenkins cited share, with one exception, the pattern that the entire pool of 2008 starting pitchers do: they are most effective the first time through the lineup. They are measurably, but not alarmingly, less effective the second time through, and significantly less effective the third and subsequent times through. The biggest visible difference between the Workhorses and the 2008 generic hoi polloi is the generic pitchers of 2008 lost more effectiveness in the second time through.
You already saw the exception is Nolan Ryan. While he’s still less effective the 3rd+ time through, he’s actually better the 2nd time through. The difference is wholly in allowing fewer walks the 2nd time through. Another factor that makes Ryan an interesting outlier.
BTW, I scanned through these numbers for all the starters who led their league in complete games at least twice from 1950 through 1969, and the ones who had at least half their career stats in 1956 or later matched the pattern shown as normal in the chart above. There were no more outliers.
OKAY… so even The Great Workhorses are lesser pitchers the 3rd+ time through the line-up, but (Bruce and his BITGODS are asking now) ¿Surely a great pitcher’s relatively weaker effort still trumps a reliever’s normal effort, yes?
On to…
#3 – How do relievers’ efforts (in general) compare to starters efforts the 3rd+ time through the line-up (in general)
Here’s the 2008 data for all major league starters’ 3rd+ time through compared to all relievers’ efforts.
LOWER IS BETTER
Avg OBA SLG OPS
All 2008 Starters 3+ .283 .347 .454 .800
All 2008 relievers .254 .333 .397 .730
In the general case, relievers as used in 2008 were more effective than starters-in-their-3rd+ - time through the lineup.
As far as the datums are concerned, the BITGODs are wrong. They would say, though, “Well, that’s because these 2008 starters are babied; if they were like they guys Back In The Good Old Days, their performance would exceed that of their relievers. Which brings us to …
#4 - What’s the difference between a Great Workhorse pitcher’s 3rd+ time through compared to the relievers who came in to give them succor?
To answer this question, we need to use a different method, because there’s no data I can grab that would summarize all the data for relievers who were used in significant innings to relieve Great Workhorse starters over the Workhorses’ entire careers.
To see if there’s a trend, I’m going to take the “most average” season I can find for each of Jenkins’ Workhorses, and compare their seasonal marks for 3rd+ time through the line-up against the relievers who could have come in to take over. If the starter’s less-effective 3rd+ time through are still more effective than the relievers who worked with them that season, it’s an argument the manager frittered away an advantage. But if the reliever’s mark is better than the starter’s less-effective 3rd+ time through, it’s an argument
Here’s Marichal’s impressive career line:
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+ 1960 22 SFG NL 6 2 11 11 6 2.66 3.50 132 1.07 1961 23 SFG NL 13 10 29 27 9 3.89 3.83 98 1.24 1962 24 SFG NL 18 11 37 36 18 3.36 3.78 113 1.23 1963 25 SFG NL 25 8 41 40 18 2.41 3.19 132 0.99 1964 26 SFG NL 21 8 33 33 22 2.48 3.57 144 1.08 1965 27 SFG NL 22 13 39 37 24 2.13 3.61 169 0.91 1966 28 SFG NL 25 6 37 36 25 2.23 3.71 167 0.85 1967 29 SFG NL 14 10 26 26 18 2.76 3.34 121 1.17 1968 30 SFG NL 26 9 38 38 30 2.43 2.99 123 1.04 1969 31 SFG NL 21 11 37 36 27 2.10 3.53 168 0.99 1970 32 SFG NL 12 10 34 33 14 4.12 4.01 97 1.30 1971 33 SFG NL 18 11 37 37 18 2.94 3.44 117 1.07 1972 34 SFG NL 6 16 25 24 6 3.71 3.53 95 1.34 1973 35 SFG NL 11 15 34 32 9 3.82 3.85 101 1.29 1974 36 BOS AL 5 1 11 9 0 4.87 3.88 80 1.30 1975 37 LAD NL 0 1 2 2 0 13.50 3.42 25 2.66 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+ 16 Yr WL% .631 243 142 471 457 244 2.89 3.55 123 1.10 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+ 162 Game Avg 17 10 34 33 17 2.89 3.55 123 1.10
His Career ERA+ average was 123 (ERA 23% better than the league average). If you look, you’ll notice that in 1968 Marichal had and ERA+ of 123, the exact same as his career composite. 1967 is pretty close; we can look at that, too.
He’s pretty impressive, even at 9% worse relative to his overall 1968 average, he’s yielding an OPS of only .613 in what is admittedly a pitcher’s year. How about the bullpen behind him? The two relievers with the most use were Frank Linzy & Joe Gibbon. Here are the equivalent lines for their relief work to compare w/the starter's:
1968 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+----- Marichal 3rd+ 37 561 530 41 130 13 3 10 19 .245 .275 .338 .613 Linzy 57 340 304 38 63 9 3 1 25 .207 .265 .266 .532 Gibbon 29 154 128 12 30 2 0 3 17 .234 .331 .320 .651
So Linzy is clearly better than Marichal. And Gibbon, the second-best reliever is about as good, though not quite. Herman Franks, one of the fathers of modern bullpen usage, wisely noticed Linzy was better than Marichal the 3rd time through the line-up and that Gibbon, his second best, was about a good, if you could absorb Gibbon's higher walk rate.
Franks, btw, also had a swing man he used as a reliever in 15 games, Bobby Bolin. Here’s the fireballer’s 1968 line:I Split G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+---- Bolin 15 155 143 9 30 7 1 2 10 .210 .261 .315 .576
Bolin was their long relief guy (15 games, 155 plate appearances, meaning he was facing about 10 batters per relief appearance). His OPS at .576 was better than Marichal’s .613 in Juan’s 3rd+ time through the line-up, too.
In 1967, Marichal had his next-closest to average year (OPS of 121, a little less great than his career 123). Here’s Marichal’s line in 1967 the 3rd+ time through the line-up, as well as stats for the closer, Linzy, and a couple of other available relievers that year:
1967 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS ------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Marichal 3rd+ 26 343 317 40 88 6 1 8 19 .278 .320 .379 .699 Linzy 57 378 332 21 67 2 1 4 34 .202 .273 .250 .523 McDaniel 38 249 226 25 55 7 2 4 17 .243 .300 .345 .645 Bolin 22 192 162 16 38 4 0 2 25 .235 .337 .296 .633 Gibbon 18 141 121 13 24 6 1 1 15 .198 .292 .289 .581
Another year of performance for Marichal close to his career average , and another year that Linzy (and at least one other reliever) was good enough to be his equal at the end of a game. While the team also had some relievers who underperformed Marichal’s 3rd+ time through performance, Marichal’s teams didn’t have to suffer when they relieved for him. Relieving Marichal helped his overall performance AND his team’s performance.
TOM SEAVER
Here’s Tom Terrific’s career
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 1967 22 NYM NL 16 13 35 34 18 2.76 3.38 122 1.20 1968 23 NYM NL 16 12 36 35 14 2.20 3.02 137 0.98 1969 24 NYM NL 25 7 36 35 18 2.21 3.63 165 1.03 1970 25 NYM NL 18 12 37 36 19 2.82 4.01 142 1.07 1971 26 NYM NL 20 10 36 35 21 1.76 3.40 193 0.94 1972 27 NYM NL 21 12 35 35 13 2.92 3.35 115 1.11 1973 28 NYM NL 19 10 36 36 18 2.08 3.63 175 0.97 1974 29 NYM NL 11 11 32 32 12 3.20 3.59 112 1.16 1975 30 NYM NL 22 9 36 36 15 2.38 3.45 145 1.08 1976 31 NYM NL 14 11 35 34 13 2.59 3.30 127 1.06 1977 32 TOT NL 21 6 33 33 19 2.58 3.87 150 1.01 1978 33 CIN NL 16 14 36 36 8 2.88 3.58 124 1.18 1979 34 CIN NL 16 6 32 32 9 3.14 3.78 120 1.15 1980 35 CIN NL 10 8 26 26 5 3.64 3.61 99 1.18 1981 36 CIN NL 14 2 23 23 6 2.54 3.56 140 1.11 1982 37 CIN NL 5 13 21 21 0 5.50 3.68 67 1.61 1983 38 NYM NL 9 14 34 34 5 3.55 3.64 103 1.24 1984 39 CHW AL 15 11 34 33 10 3.95 4.16 105 1.17 1985 40 CHW AL 16 11 35 33 6 3.17 4.32 136 1.22 1986 41 TOT AL 7 13 28 28 2 4.03 4.25 106 1.33 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 20 Yr WL% .603 311 205 656 647 231 2.86 3.64 127 1.12 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 162 Game Avg 16 10 34 33 12 2.86 3.64 127 1.12
Seaver’s career ERA+ is 127 and the seasons he finished closest to that were 1976 (127) and 1978 (124). Here’s his breathtaking line for 3rd time through in 1976, with parallel lines for some of the relievers Mets manager Joe Frazier had in the bullpen: Skip Lockwood, Bob Apodaca & Daffy Sanders.
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS
----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+-----
Seaver 3rd+ 34 438 401 37 88 14 2 8 32 .219 .280 .324 .604
Lockwood 56 375 333 31 62 6 2 6 34 .186 .265 .270 .535
Apodaca 40 292 251 20 51 14 0 1 25 .203 .280 .271 .551
Sanders 34 202 180 16 42 8 0 4 15 .233 .291 .344 .636
The most- and second most effective relievers were more effective than Seaver, and the third most effective was definitely not as good, but no slouch either.
How about 1978?
Here is Seaver the 3rd+ time and his relievers that year. Doug Bair was the fireman Reds' manager Sparky Anderson used to close games. Manny Sarmiento was used as the next-best reliever, Tom “The Scottish Skeptic” Hume was a swing man, and Pedro Borbon, Sr., was the mop-up pitcher, meant to absorb punishment when the team got blown out early.
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS
+-----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+-----+
Seaver 3rd+ 35 405 362 34 89 18 4 12 34 .246 .308 .417 .725
Bair 70 416 369 23 87 8 2 6 38 .236 .305 .317 .622
Borbon 62 418 372 56 102 23 1 6 27 .274 .324 .390 .713
Sarmiento 59 443 386 56 92 15 3 14 43 .238 .311 .402 .713
Hume 19 135 124 11 31 3 2 2 8 .250 .293 .355 .648
All of them, even the mop-up gent, equaled Seaver’s 3rd+ time effectiveness. In average Seaver years, relieving Seaver wasn’t hurting his team’s chances of winning games.
WARREN SPAHN
Half of Spahn’s career is outside the range of Retrosheet’s detailed stats, so we’re going to miss the season that’s the closest match to his career average (1954), but we still get to look at 1959, a close, but slightly better ERA+ season.
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+ 1942 21 BSN NL 0 0 4 2 1 5.74 3.31 58 2.29 1946 25 BSN NL 8 5 24 16 8 2.94 3.45 117 1.13 1947 26 BSN NL 21 10 40 35 22 2.33 3.90 168 1.13 1948 27 BSN NL 15 12 36 35 16 3.71 3.84 103 1.22 1949 28 BSN NL 21 14 38 38 25 3.07 3.80 124 1.22 1950 29 BSN NL 21 17 41 39 25 3.16 3.85 122 1.22 1951 30 BSN NL 22 14 39 36 26 2.98 3.68 123 1.24 1952 31 BSN NL 14 19 40 35 19 2.98 3.62 121 1.15 1953 32 MLN NL 23 7 35 32 24 2.10 3.94 188 1.05 1954 33 MLN NL 21 12 39 34 23 3.14 3.75 119 1.22 1955 34 MLN NL 17 14 39 32 16 3.26 3.76 115 1.27 1956 35 MLN NL 20 11 39 35 20 2.78 3.47 125 1.07 1957 36 MLN NL 21 11 39 35 18 2.69 3.49 130 1.17 1958 37 MLN NL 22 11 38 36 23 3.07 3.52 114 1.14 1959 38 MLN NL 21 15 40 36 21 2.96 3.55 120 1.20 1960 39 MLN NL 21 10 40 33 18 3.50 3.42 98 1.22 1961 40 MLN NL 21 13 38 34 21 3.02 3.71 123 1.14 1962 41 MLN NL 18 14 34 34 22 3.04 3.78 124 1.12 1963 42 MLN NL 23 7 33 33 22 2.60 3.22 124 1.11 1964 43 MLN NL 6 13 38 25 4 5.29 3.54 67 1.47 1965 44 TOT NL 7 16 36 30 8 4.01 3.54 88 1.34 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+---- 21 Yr WL% .597 363 245 750 665 382 3.09 3.65 118 1.19 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+----+---- 162 Game Avg 17 11 36 31 18 3.09 3.65 118 1.19
You know the drill by now.
I Split G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+----- Spahn 3rd+ 34 490 458 45 126 22 2 7 22 .275 .309 .378 .687 McMahon 60 356 310 26 81 10 2 5 37 .261 .338 .355 .693 Rush 22 202 187 12 41 6 2 2 11 .219 .265 .305 .570 Jay 15 119 102 14 23 3 0 3 13 .225 .322 .343 .665
BTW: Spahn’s 1959 performance was better the 2nd time through the lineup than the 1st time through, though he still decayed the 3rd+ time through.
Manager Fred Haney used his #6, #5, #4 and even his #3 starters in relief more often than most, in part because his #1 and #2 (Burdette and Spahn) started so often.
The marquee closer on this team was Don “Man on a White Horse” McMahon, and his OPS is a tad less good than Spahn’s, certainly not a big shear-off. Bob “I’m Just Lookin’ For Some” Rush and Joey Jay, both of whom got a decent number of starts, were somewhat better in relief than Spahn the 3rd time through.
In 1954, the Braves had three relievers with ERAs lower than Spahn’s but without the stats to support it, and given the unreliability of using ERA as a way to measure reliever effectiveness, we can’t draw any conclusions for that year.
Given the data we have for the second half of Spahn’s career, there’s no support for the idea that the Braves needed Spahn to pitch complete games if they wanted to win the games he appeared in.
NOLAN RYAN
Here’s the career of the most distinctive outlier in Jenkins’ pile.
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 1966 19 NYM NL 0 1 2 1 0 15.00 3.61 24 2.66 1968 21 NYM NL 6 9 21 18 3 3.09 3.02 98 1.25 1969 22 NYM NL 6 3 25 10 2 3.53 3.63 103 1.26 1970 23 NYM NL 7 11 27 19 5 3.42 4.01 117 1.39 1971 24 NYM NL 10 14 30 26 3 3.97 3.40 86 1.58 1972 25 CAL AL 19 16 39 39 20 2.28 2.92 128 1.13 1973 26 CAL AL 21 16 41 39 26 2.87 3.52 122 1.22 1974 27 CAL AL 22 16 42 41 26 2.89 3.41 118 1.27 1975 28 CAL AL 14 12 28 28 10 3.45 3.52 102 1.43 1976 29 CAL AL 17 18 39 39 21 3.36 3.31 99 1.32 1977 30 CAL AL 19 16 37 37 22 2.77 3.91 141 1.34 1978 31 CAL AL 10 13 31 31 14 3.72 3.63 98 1.41 1979 32 CAL AL 16 14 34 34 17 3.60 4.06 113 1.27 1980 33 HOU NL 11 10 35 35 4 3.35 3.28 98 1.29 1981 34 HOU NL 11 5 21 21 5 1.69 3.28 194 1.12 1982 35 HOU NL 16 12 35 35 10 3.16 3.32 105 1.21 1983 36 HOU NL 14 9 29 29 5 2.98 3.38 114 1.19 1984 37 HOU NL 12 11 30 30 5 3.04 3.31 109 1.15 1985 38 HOU NL 10 12 35 35 4 3.80 3.45 91 1.29 1986 39 HOU NL 12 8 30 30 1 3.34 3.58 107 1.12 1987 40 HOU NL 8 16 34 34 0 2.76 3.92 142 1.13 1988 41 HOU NL 12 11 33 33 4 3.52 3.32 94 1.24 1989 42 TEX AL 16 10 32 32 6 3.20 3.97 124 1.08 1990 43 TEX AL 13 9 30 30 5 3.44 3.96 115 1.03 1991 44 TEX AL 12 6 27 27 2 2.91 4.06 139 1.00 1992 45 TEX AL 5 9 27 27 2 3.72 3.83 103 1.31 1993 46 TEX AL 5 5 13 13 0 4.88 4.16 85 1.41 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 27 Yr WL% .526 324 292 807 773 222 3.19 3.56 111 1.24 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 162 Game Avg 13 12 34 33 9 3.19 3.56 111 1.24
The seasons closest to his career averages are 1979 and 1984.
1979 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+-----+ Ryan 3rd+ PA 29 359 303 32 61 11 1 6 47 .201 .311 .304 .615 Clear 52 481 398 48 87 8 1 6 68 .219 .333 .289 .622 La Roche 52 373 328 52 104 15 1 12 32 .317 .375 .479 .854 Barlow 35 378 338 54 106 13 4 8 30 .314 .373 .447 .820
The best reliever of the bunch was the closer, Mark Clear. He’s not quite as good as Ryan. I’ve shown the most-used arms out of the ‘pen; there are others, but they are worse.
In 1984, Ryan reversed the normal pattern, with his performance improving each time through the line-up.
1984 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+-----+ Ryan 3rd+ PA 24 240 220 21 44 4 3 4 16 .200 .255 .300 .555 Dawley 60 402 351 24 82 13 4 5 35 .234 .298 .336 .635 DiPino 57 329 285 32 74 9 0 3 36 .260 .343 .323 .665 Smith 53 304 280 22 60 6 3 5 20 .214 .268 .311 .579 LaCoss 21 170 146 16 35 5 1 1 20 .240 .331 .308 .640
Again in 1984, Ryan was just plain better in his 3rd time through than any reliever you might send in for him. Not that this group is bad…they’re a pretty good group (and it wasn’t just playing half their games in the Astrodome that built their stats). They’re just not as good as Ryan the 3rd time through.
This is the case Bruce Jenkins has been waiting for – where the Great Workhorse is actually better at the end of the game than anyone in the bullpen even when they’re fresh.
ROBIN ROBERTS
Like Spahn, we don’t have Retrosheet data for the first half of Roberts’ most excellent career:
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 1948 21 PHI NL 7 9 20 20 9 3.19 3.95 124 1.42 1949 22 PHI NL 15 15 43 31 11 3.69 3.96 107 1.34 1950 23 PHI NL 20 11 40 39 21 3.02 4.06 135 1.18 1951 24 PHI NL 21 15 44 39 22 3.03 3.84 127 1.10 1952 25 PHI NL 28 7 39 37 30 2.59 3.66 141 1.02 1953 26 PHI NL 23 16 44 41 33 2.75 4.20 152 1.11 1954 27 PHI NL 23 15 45 38 29 2.97 4.03 136 1.02 1955 28 PHI NL 23 14 41 38 26 3.28 3.96 121 1.13 1956 29 PHI NL 19 18 43 37 22 4.45 3.73 84 1.23 1957 30 PHI NL 10 22 39 32 14 4.07 3.80 93 1.15 1958 31 PHI NL 17 14 35 34 21 3.24 3.95 122 1.19 1959 32 PHI NL 15 17 35 35 19 4.27 4.10 96 1.17 1960 33 PHI NL 12 16 35 33 13 4.02 3.88 96 1.22 1961 34 PHI NL 1 10 26 18 2 5.85 4.07 70 1.51 1962 35 BAL AL 10 9 27 25 6 2.78 3.69 133 1.13 1963 36 BAL AL 14 13 35 35 9 3.33 3.45 104 1.07 1964 37 BAL AL 13 7 31 31 8 2.91 3.59 123 1.25 1965 38 TOT 10 9 30 25 8 2.78 3.43 123 1.05 1966 39 TOT NL 5 8 24 21 2 4.82 3.51 73 1.44 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 19 Yr WL% .539 286 245 676 609 305 3.41 3.86 113 1.17 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 162 Game Avg 15 12 35 32 16 3.41 3.86 113 1.17
You’ll notice that for the first time, we don’t have a tidy single season to use as an exemplar for his career. In 1957-59, he was close in several ways, not in ERA+, but fairly close in baserunners per inning (WHIP in the table). Of those three years, Roberts’ strongest relative 3rd+ time through was 1957 (better performance than the 2nd time through), and 1958 has the weakest bullpen, so I’ll show them both. In both, Turk Farrell had the linchpin role and Jim Hearn and others backed him up.
1957 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+----- Roberts 3rd+ 30 371 346 53 89 15 3 17 17 .257 .291 .465 .757 Farrell 52 353 305 29 74 7 4 2 36 .243 .324 .311 .635 RJ Miller 31 235 215 17 56 9 4 4 14 .260 .302 .395 .697 Hearn 32 217 202 22 50 10 1 5 11 .248 .290 .381 .671 Morehead 33 221 194 26 53 15 3 1 19 .273 .338 .397 .735 1958 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+----- Roberts 3rd+ 32 458 429 47 120 20 4 17 20 .280 .310 .464 .774 Farrell 54 401 345 41 84 13 5 7 40 .243 .320 .371 .691 Hearn 38 302 269 43 80 10 6 6 26 .297 .357 .446 .803 Meyer 32 248 217 17 47 4 2 2 25 .217 .299 .281 .580
In 1957, manager Mayo Smith had plenty of effective bullpen options to go to for Roberts. In 1958, Smith and successor Eddie Sawyer had a couple of more effective choices (and some scary implode-o-rama Human Hand Grenades).
As with Spahn, given the data for the second half of Roberts’ career, there’s no support for the idea that the Phillies needed Roberts to pitch complete games if they wanted to win the games he appeared in.
JIM KAAT
Here’s Kaat’s marathon career
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 1959 20 WSH AL 0 2 3 2 0 12.60 3.94 31 2.20 1960 21 WSH AL 1 5 13 9 0 5.58 3.95 71 1.58 1961 22 MIN AL 9 17 36 29 8 3.90 4.27 109 1.34 1962 23 MIN AL 18 14 39 35 16 3.14 4.09 130 1.18 1963 24 MIN AL 10 10 31 27 7 4.19 3.67 88 1.30 1964 25 MIN AL 17 11 36 34 13 3.22 3.59 111 1.19 1965 26 MIN AL 18 11 45 42 7 2.83 3.56 126 1.24 1966 27 MIN AL 25 13 41 41 19 2.75 3.61 131 1.07 1967 28 MIN AL 16 13 42 38 13 3.04 3.46 114 1.18 1968 29 MIN AL 14 12 30 29 9 2.94 3.13 106 1.11 1969 30 MIN AL 14 13 40 32 10 3.49 3.70 106 1.34 1970 31 MIN AL 14 10 45 34 4 3.56 3.79 107 1.31 1971 32 MIN AL 13 14 39 38 15 3.32 3.54 107 1.23 1972 33 MIN AL 10 2 15 15 5 2.06 3.22 156 1.00 1973 34 TOT AL 15 13 36 35 10 4.37 3.98 91 1.30 1974 35 CHW AL 21 13 42 39 15 2.92 3.77 129 1.17 1975 36 CHW AL 20 14 43 41 12 3.11 3.90 125 1.31 1976 37 PHI NL 12 14 38 35 7 3.48 3.58 103 1.19 1977 38 PHI NL 6 11 35 27 2 5.39 4.03 75 1.56 1978 39 PHI NL 8 5 26 24 2 4.10 3.58 87 1.29 1979 40 TOT 3 3 43 2 0 3.92 4.03 103 1.38 1980 41 TOT 8 8 53 14 6 3.94 3.72 94 1.37 1981 42 STL NL 6 6 41 1 0 3.40 3.56 105 1.45 1982 43 STL NL 5 3 62 2 0 4.08 3.64 89 1.36 1983 44 STL NL 0 0 24 0 0 3.89 3.64 93 1.67 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 25 Yr WL% .544 283 237 898 625 180 3.45 3.71 107 1.25 +--------------+---+---+---+---+---++-----+-----+----+---- 162 Game Avg 12 10 40 27 8 3.45 3.71 107 1.25
There are five years that are close enough for (inhuman) hand grenades or horseshoes. I’m going to use 1970 and 1971 to exemplify seasons that are close to “average” for Kitty’s kareer.
In 1970, manager Bill Rigney had a great bullpen. And it shows in the way he used the durable Kaat – allowing him to go the distance only four times. In 1971, Rigney’s bullpen ace, Ron Perranowski turned into a blancmange, the much of the ‘pen was shaky, and Kitty went the complete game 15 times.
1970 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS +-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---++-----+-----+-----+----- Kaat 3rd+ 32 279 251 36 83 9 2 13 20 .331 .379 .538 .917 Perranowski 67 471 417 38 108 6 3 7 42 .259 .325 .338 .664 S. Williams 68 456 408 34 85 11 2 8 32 .208 .271 .304 .575 T. Hall 41 317 275 27 47 8 5 6 36 .171 .268 .302 .570 Zepp 23 136 130 10 28 4 1 3 5 .215 .243 .331 .573
1971 G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB I BA OBP SLG OPS +-+-----------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---+------+-----+-----+-----+ Kaat 3rd+ 35 409 386 40 104 18 2 8 14 .269 .297 .389 .686 S. Williams 55 381 318 43 72 13 2 5 45 .226 .336 .327 .663 T. Hall 37 257 217 19 40 7 1 4 35 .184 .295 .281 .576 Perranowski 47 290 241 49 76 7 4 4 31 .315 .396 .427 .824
Even in the wobbly 1971 bullpen, the second-most effective reliever was an improvement over Kaat’s 3rd+ trip through opponents’ line-ups.
NOTE: If anyone wants to crawl through Kaat’s other close-to-Kaat-average seasons and see if there are counter-examples where he’s better than the second-best reliever, feel free to do it and let me know what you find.
Kaat, interesting informant to intelligent sportswriters everywhere, is yet another one of Jenkins’ Workhorses who undermine The BITGOD Prescription for which he campaigns.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
There are no measurements or statistics that support the idea that getting pitchers to go the distance more will help their teams or the quality of their own performances. Even ignoring the possibility of injuries or wear-ünd-tear(no mean oversight), teams with ordinary bullpens don’t risk losing more games than they would by letting their better pitchers-who-are-not-the-reincarnation-of-Nolan-Ryan pitch a gaggle of CGs.
Most pitchers who are relievers are not as good as most pitchers who are starters, and certainly the average reliever is far inferior to the top-ranked starts. BUT that doesn’t mean a decent reliever won’t outperform in his first handful of batters compared to a Great Workhorse in the latter’s 3rd+ time through the line-up.
I’m not suggesting that no young starter will ever again be an outlier in the direction of Nolan Ryan. It might turn out that Tim Lincecum (who was better his third time through the lineup than the second time through both this year and last) is the next possible one. But you can’t turn someone into Nolan Ryan by wishing or by running most young starters through a protocol that will turn most of them into the Steaming Rubble of a Brandon Duckworth career.
The BITGOD Prescription is a patent medicine, a intoxicating tonic for the nostalgic. Love it if you will, but stop pretending it’s a prescription that will make teams more successful. There’s just not evidence to support it.
free website counter
