Greatest Left Handed Pitcher of All Time Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't think you can penalize a guy for being tall. 
1/16/2015 9:38 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
I would think height would be wrapped up into the "talent/ability" package; IE it may be a factor impacting how good the pitcher is, which impacts how good his ERA and ERA+ are.  He doesn't control it, but it's still impacting his pitching ability.
1/16/2015 12:19 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 1/15/2015 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Pitcher A -- ERA of 2.50, ERA+ of 200..............Pitcher B -- ERA of 2.00, ERA+ of 200     bad_luck, do you consider these pitchers to be equivalent (assuming the same IP, etc)?
I don't know, probably. That's the point of ERA+. It takes into account the fact that it may be easier/harder to have a lower ERA at different times throughout history.

For example, a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA in 2006 had a significantly better season than a pitcher with a 2.50 ERA in 1908, assuming equal IP, etc.
1/16/2015 12:36 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):
I would think height would be wrapped up into the "talent/ability" package; IE it may be a factor impacting how good the pitcher is, which impacts how good his ERA and ERA+ are.  He doesn't control it, but it's still impacting his pitching ability.
Yep. Similar to velocity, control, mechanics, etc. Height is part of why pitcher A is or isn't as good as pitcher B.
1/16/2015 12:37 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2015 8:27:00 PM (view original):
The ML average ERA increased nearly 50% from the mid-60s to the mid-00s.  Part of that is attributable to the advent of the DH; I'm sure I could look up the NL stats (you can get year by year league ERAs at Fangraphs easily), but let's assume it's 40%.  Or even 30%.  It doesn't matter.  I don't think the ERA of a pitcher with an ERA around 2 increases by that same margin.  I do believe that a guy with an ERA of 3 translates, on average, to roughly 4.3, or whatever it is.  But I don't think 2 goes to 2.8.  I think it goes to more like 2.4 or 2.5.  If you're pitching that well, guys are mostly not going to hit you, regardless of the league environment in which you're pitching.
This is really interesting. I'm trying to think of a way to examine this. I don't know if there is one, though.
1/16/2015 12:38 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
I don't think you really can do it reliably, since there's very little meaningful sample.  I just ran a quick analysis and since 1950 there appears to be about a 12 point higher league-leader ERA+ average in league-seasons with league ERA's above 4 than below 4.  It's more pronounced in the NL, but the sample size of seasons above 4 is small for the NL.  Not sure if it's statistically significant.
1/16/2015 1:08 PM
examinerebb
Posts: 428 (0)
Hall of Famer
161 20 56
Rookie
It's perfectly logical, especially if you examine the inverse.  How much lower, realistically, could Kershaw's numbers from the last two seasons have been in the late 60s?  Or peak Pedro?  Could they have been significantly MORE untouchable?  Untouchable is just untouchable.
1/16/2015 2:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I've only been half-*** following/reading this because BL is blocked and dahs is soooo long-winded but aren't you really just talking about a bell curve wrt ERA?

A few at the top, a few at the bottom, most in the middle.    And, if that's the case, wouldn't it be simple enough to put the qualified pitchers' ERA on a bell curve to determine which pitcher had the better season.    That way, a 1.82 when average ERA is 4, can be compared to 2.35 when average ERA is 4.40.    If one of the curves is pushed more to the front or back, you could get an idea of which was better.    My guess is you'd find they're pretty similar and figuring out the "best" can't be done.

1/16/2015 3:22 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by examinerebb on 1/16/2015 2:55:00 PM (view original):
It's perfectly logical, especially if you examine the inverse.  How much lower, realistically, could Kershaw's numbers from the last two seasons have been in the late 60s?  Or peak Pedro?  Could they have been significantly MORE untouchable?  Untouchable is just untouchable.
Peak Pedro is an example of why we need ERA+. His ERA in 2000 was 1.74. There have been 82 individual seasons where a pitcher had a 1.74 ERA or lower and more than 180 IP.

Basically, if you ranked those 82 seasons by regular ERA, Pedro comes in at #81, just ahead of 1964 Koufax.

If you adjust for average, though, you get a significantly different view of Pedro's 2000 season. Instead of a good season somewhere in the top 100 all time, you see that it is arguably the greatest single season performance in the history of baseball. Had he pitched in the early 1900's, 2000 Pedro is probably allowing less than 20 earned runs over his 217 IP.



1/16/2015 4:24 PM (edited)
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
It's ambiguous whether that's true, but the game was so fundamentally different prior to 1920 that I think it's ridiculous to include seasons prior to that, or project how a modern pitcher would have performed.  On the post-deadball list Pedro is 12th, and the only season not in shouting range is '68 Gibson.
1/16/2015 5:01 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
But we have to compare somehow, right? It's unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but if you want to say ,"X is the greatest pitcher of all time," you don't want to just dismiss Walter Johnson because the majority of his career (and all but one of his really good seasons) were prior to 1920.

Obviously we don't know for a fact that Pedro would have allowed less runs in 1908 vs 2000, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.
1/16/2015 5:08 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
You seem to be dismissing Walter Johnson out of hand anyway.  If you think Pedro would have allowed less than 20 runs in the deadball era, you have him with an ERA substantially below WJ's best seasons, way under 1.  Under .8.  Look how many HR Pedro gave up in 2000.  It's quite a lot for an elite pitching season - 17.  Maybe those aren't HRs in the 1900s, but most of them are still doubles or triples.  And with the dedication to driving in all the baserunners with smallball, a lot of those guys would have scored, presumably at least 6 or 7.  And SOME of the other guys who got on would have scored.  Pedro was pitching well, but obviously he was giving up some hard contact.  At least 17 times.  I bet it was more.  This is exactly why I don't think you can just translate using ERA+ to try to come up with an equivalent ERA for a different season on the far ends of the spectrum.  It just becomes absurd, and if you think about it very long, I don't think you honestly believe Pedro would have put up an ERA in the neighborhood of 0.75 if he pitched in 1908.
1/16/2015 5:27 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I'm not dismissing Walter Johnson, I gave him as an example.

Maybe instead of trying to translate ERA+ to ERA, we look at it like a measure of distance. Which is what I think it's meant to do. In terms of earned runs allowed, 1913 Walter Johnson was 159% better than average. We don't have to try to figure out if he would have given up more than 9 homeruns in 1960 or 2000. We don't have to speculate on what his ERA+ scales to in terms of 1995 ERA. We just know that he was 159% better than average.
1/16/2015 5:40 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
And 17 HR allowed isn't really that many. There have been 370 ERA qualified seasons with an ERA+ of 150 or better. About a third of them (92) allowed 17 or more HR.

127 allowed 15 or more.
1/16/2015 5:46 PM (edited)
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 138 12 18
All Star
Posted by bad_luck on 1/16/2015 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 1/15/2015 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Pitcher A -- ERA of 2.50, ERA+ of 200..............Pitcher B -- ERA of 2.00, ERA+ of 200     bad_luck, do you consider these pitchers to be equivalent (assuming the same IP, etc)?
I don't know, probably. That's the point of ERA+. It takes into account the fact that it may be easier/harder to have a lower ERA at different times throughout history.

For example, a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA in 2006 had a significantly better season than a pitcher with a 2.50 ERA in 1908, assuming equal IP, etc.
The 1908 pitcher would have a slightly lower ERA#.
1/16/2015 5:48 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6|7 Next ▸
Greatest Left Handed Pitcher of All Time Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.