[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's interesting that both the new record (deGrom) and the former record holder (Darvish) are modern players. Sure, K's are way up, but IP are way down...clearly the later isn't enough to counteract the former.

That is a result of how the modern game is played, and is a more or less useless record as it discriminates greatly against earlier pitchers who were expected to pitch the entire game and win the games for their teams. Nowadays, starting pitchers are not much more than role players, who are only expected to go 5-6 innings, and/or often be held to strict pitch counts. Both Darvish and DeGrom have had injury issues, and had they been pitchers back during the times of Bob Feller or Walter Johnson, they likely wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long as they have today, and would have been out of the majors for health and other issues. I pick Feller and Johnson for comparison as they were both considered the major fire balling strikeout pitchers during their primes. Both of them pitched in their 200th game during their fifth seasons I believe, and both had over 1,000 Ks in those first 200 games. Meanwhile, DeGrom is pitching in his ninth season before finally hitting his 200th game, and Darvish was also in his ninth season (not counting 2015 when he missed the entire season) before pitching in his 200th game as well.

Feller and Johnson knew they had to pace themselves so as to be able to finish the games, and therefore get the win for their teams. DeGrom and Darvish could go all out from the start because they knew they were never really expected to finish the games they started. I would have loved to see Johnson and Feller blow the doors off the likes of Darvish and Degrom, as far as strikeouts, if they knew they only had to get through 5-6 innings of every game they started before turning things over to a bullpen. Basically, nothing more than coddling the starting pitchers to be able to get them to pitch at their lights out max for a short period of each game, and then get them out of there so they'd still be able to throw come the next game. And even with all that coddling, Darvish and DeGrom still couldn't hold a candle to the durability and perseverance of Feller and Johnson. It has often been said that the greatest sports ability of all is availability. And Johnson and Feller had that in spades. DeGrom and Darvish.........not even close!!!

Here's maybe another way to look at these pitchers that I don't believe advanced stats take into consideration because they want to downplay wins to make their modern pitchers look so much better than the older era pitchers. Degrom has exactly 200 games he's pitched in the majors so far, and a won-loss record of 78-53 (for a .595 win pct.). That means he's had decisions in 131 games (78 + 53). Take and divide that by the number of games he's pitched in and you get 131/200 = 65.5% of the games he's pitched in that resulted in a decision for him, winning or losing the game. That means 34.5% of the time DeGrom didn't really end up affecting the decision. Now Darvish has a current won-loss record of 89-72 (for a .553 win pct.) over the 233 games he's pitched in so far in his career. So the percentage of games he's actually been involved in the final decision is (89 + 72) / 233 = 69.0%, just a little better than DeGrom. Now let's look at Feller and Johnson.

Bob Feller had a career won-loss record of 266-162 (for a .621 win pct.), while appearing in 570 games. But here's a catch. Unlike DeGrom and Darvish who have never appeared as a reliever in a game, Feller only started 484 of those 570 games he appeared in, meaning he acted as a reliever in 86 games. I can't easily determine how many of those relief games Feller pitched in ended up counting as a win or loss decision for him. So to give the maximum benefit of the doubt to Darvish and DeGrom, I'll only deduct the 22 saves Feller had in his career from the 570 total games he pitched in, and assume he had a meaningful chance for a decision in all those other games he appeared in in relief. So in Rapid Robert's case, (266 + 162) / (570 - 22) = 78.1%. And that percentage is purposely on the low side because I'm counting games Feller relieved in that he likely had no chance to affect the outcome of the game, against him. And I'll also note that his .621 career win pct. is low because of the almost four years of pitching in his prime he missed while in the service during WW II. If you take the full three years before he left for the war, plus the full two years after he got back, his win pct. over those five seasons was .674. So assuming he'd be doing the same during the almost four seasons he missed in the middle of those five years, more than likely his career win pct. would be even higher, along with him easily having over 300 wins and 3,000 KOs. And probably that 78.1% decision pct. being higher as well as the same pct. during those five seasons around his WW II service was at 87.4%.

As for Walter Johnson, his career won-loss record was 417-279 (for a .599 win pct.), while appearing in 802 games. But like Feller, Walter also appeared as a reliever in a number of games as he only started 666 games during his career. So he had 136 relief appearances, 50 more than Feller. And again like Feller, I can't easily determine if those relief appearances factored into any of the won-loss decisions on Johnson's career record. So as I did with Feller, we'll deduct the number of saves that Johnson had in his career (which was 34) from his total games pitched, and use that as the total basis against which we figure if he ended up deciding the games and getting the decision, or not, in games that he pitched in. So, in Johnson's case, we have (417 + 279) / (802 - 34) = 90.6%. And because I'm including all the relief appearances that didn't just result in a save, that pct. should probably end up being higher as well.

So not only did Feller and Johnson pitch longer and in more innings than it looks like DeGrom and Darvish ever will, they were also a lot more effective in the determination of the final outcomes of the games they pitched in, and had better win percentages as well. And if neither DeGrom or Darvish had the luck and some stud relievers backing them up, my guess is their win percentages wouldn't be as great as they are. Meanwhile Feller and Johnson were much more responsible for finishing their own games and being more responsible for their winning success, and the wins they got for their teams.

The strikeouts by DeGrom and Darvish likely wouldn't be there if they had to pitch like Feller and Johnson, and with their injury and health histories, it wouldn't surprise me if it then became a crap shoot if either of them would have even made it to 200 games pitched in the majors anyway, before possibly succumbing to career ending injuries or being cut for ineffectiveness because they couldn't keep up what they were doing for the entire games they pitched in. They both have the advantage of modern pitcher coddling, advanced medical care and recovery techniques and therapy, among other things. Feller and Johnson were just studs!!!

And for the statistician jerks who still think Hyun Jin-Ryu is a so much better pitcher than Warren Spahn, go run the same numbers. Spahn is the all-time winningest lefty pitcher in history, and he effectively lasted and pitched long enough in games to where he was responsible for a decision in 84.2% of the games he pitched in over his career. And that is with Spahn pitching in 85 games as a reliever during his career, with 28 career saves, so chances are that percentage should be even higher. Ryu's effective percentage of games where he principally determined the outcome of was only 68.9%. But at least he had 1 relief appearance in his career so far, for which he also got a save, unlike either DeGrom and Darvish. And though Darvish is already in his ninth season, he only has 75 wins to date, and never had more than 14 wins in a single season. In Spahn's career, he equaled or bested that same 14 win seasonal total 17 times. You tell me which pitcher is better, and if you were a GM, who would you rather have on your team!!!

Maybe the way they coddle and play these pitchers today the wins don't mean as much, but when it comes to who is or is not a great pitcher, the only thing that ever really matters (or should) to the fans and the teams is, who won. And if all these new, modern pitchers are so effing great, how come so very few, if any, of them look like they could ever hold a candle to the all-time greats from years past? They don't seem to have the durability, availability, and stamina to make sure their teams win. These numbers I presented help to show how older pitchers like Spahn, Feller, and Johnson actually did factor more into the wins and losses of their teams than modern pitchers ever do, and as a result should actually make those wins a more important factor, at least in the case of older era pitchers. Advanced stats don't always tell the entire, true story. And this record by DeGrom is as meaningless as they come. I'd much rather if he were on my team that he quit pushing for the strikeouts and getting pulled early from games due to pitch counts and the number of innings being pitched, and finish the games and account for more decisions and wins. If he's so good. I want him pitching, not relying on the relief staff as often as not to finish and win the games for him.