Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[cgjackson222]

DeGrom surpassed the previous record of 1,517 strikeouts, held by Yu Darvish by striking out 12 in 5+2/3rds innings to reach 1,523 in his first 200 games.

DeGrom has averaged 10.7 Ks per 9 innings over his career, which is just behind Darvish, and just ahead of teammate Max Scherzer for 4th all-time.

Note that deGrom didn't even pitch in the majors until he was 26, and that Bob Feller, by contrast, pitched his 200th game while he was only 22.

In other news the Mets are 6.5 games up on the Braves having beat them 3 straight games! Let's go Mets!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

His WHIP was 0.55 last year when he got hurt. That is so absurd.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

DeGrom surpassed the previous record of 1,517 strikeouts, held by Yu Darvish by striking out 12 in 5+2/3rds innings to reach 1,523 in his first 200 games.

DeGrom has average 10.7 Ks per 9 innings over his career, which is just behind Darvish, and just ahead of teammate Max Scherzer for 4th all-time.

Note that deGrom didn't even pitch in the majors until he was 26, and that Bob Feller, by contrast, pitched his 200th game while he was only 22.

In other news the Mets are 6.5 games up on the Braves having beat them 3 straight games! Let's go Mets!!!

While I have to admit, the Mets sure showed they were the superior team this weekend,
they got ALL the lucky breaks (one ball bounced high off a rock in the infield, another off the base- and there were plenty of others in the previous games)
and ALL the close calls (via C.B. Buckner, the second worst umpire).

On radio, Joe Simpson stated, before Sunday's game, that if the Mets keep getting ALL the lucky breaks, they will cruise through the playoffs and win the World Series.


At least Dansby Swanson broke up the perfto DeGroom was working on. 98MPH four-seamer...thank goodness he had 'slowed down a bit' by then. Eyes Rolling Emoge.


Edwin Diaz is averaging 18.1 strikeouts per nine innings this year...I believe that would break the record either Chapman or Kimbrel set.


Q: Is Daniel Vogelbach the answer to the question, 'What is the most human being that can be poured into a baseball uniform?'



.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Q: Is Daniel Vogelbach the answer to the question, 'What is the most human being that can be poured into a baseball uniform?'

Another Met already answered that one. Big Bad Bartolo!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Another Met already answered that one. Big Bad Bartolo!

Big Bad Bartolo! Remember when he hit his first home run? That was fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVFsq9FQBlc

Or when he did this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfvCKA9RdH4

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Big Bad Bartolo! Remember when he hit his first home run? That was fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVFsq9FQBlc

Oh man, that was classic! Such a great call from Gary too.

[Rad_Hazard]

It's really great to see the Mets doing this well at this point in the season. I'll be at Mets vs Dodgers at the end of the month on my first NYC trip. Can't wait!

M-E-T-S METS METS METS!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Q: Is Daniel Vogelbach the answer to the question, 'What is the most human being that can be poured into a baseball uniform?'


.

He’s seriously close. Jumbo Brown was credited at 295 pounds (6’4). Colon 5’11, 285.

Cecil Fielder is credited as 230 on bbref, but I think 320 is closer at his peak. His son is listed as 5’11, 275. He had to be in club 300 for part of his career.

Eventually we’ll get a player acknowledged to be 300.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

He’s seriously close. Jumbo Brown was credited at 295 pounds (6’4). Colon 5’11, 285.

Cecil Fielder is credited as 230 on bbref, but I think 320 is closer at his peak. His son is listed as 5’11, 275. He had to be in club 300 for part of his career.

Eventually we’ll get a player acknowledged to be 300.

As soon as I break into the bigs we’ll get that player.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

As soon as I break into the bigs we’ll get that player.

I got a good laugh from this.

[Jim65]

Couple of Braves players talking about how the Mets had a lot of the lucky breaks go their way, and they did but not one mentioned the fact that they struck out 19 times and had 2 hits yesterday. Thats how the game was lost, not because Alonso's grounder hit 3rd base.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Another Met already answered that one. Big Bad Bartolo!

or Maybe Daniel Vogelbach is the Reincarnation of the Big Sexy

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

or Maybe Daniel Vogelbach is the Reincarnation of the Big Sexy

There is some resemblance...

[packs]

He'll be an interesting HOF case if he plays another season to reach 10. Chance he won't win 100 games but with 2 Cy Youngs, ERA Title, ROY, he was clearly dominant in a tough time to be dominant.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

what's the over under on career starts, 300, 325?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

what's the over under on career starts, 300, 325?

Ouch! I'd take the over on each of those, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Ouch! I'd take the over on each of those, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I mean Koufax only started 341, but the big difference is Koufax went out at the absolute pinnacle of his career. A Cy Young, 2nd in MVP and a 10 WAR and "thank you all I had a lovely time" He was 4 years younger than DeGrom is now (and already had those 300+ starts) when he pulled the plug. I wish DeGrom had been healthier, but I just can't make a HOF case for him. Yet.

[packs]

I agree. Hard to make a case based on statistics but he does have that "you had to see him play" mystique about him.

Non-sequitur but Yadi Molina is one of those "you had to see them" guys for me too. Nothing about his stats would tell you he's an all time great. But he most definitely is.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

I agree. Hard to make a case based on statistics but he does have that "you had to see him play" mystique about him.

Non-sequitur but Yadi Molina is one of those "you had to see them" guys for me too. Nothing about his stats would tell you he's an all time great. But he most definitely is.

Yady was a defensive whiz, but he only had two all star caliber offensive seasons. If you let him in then you have to consider Bob Boone, Jim Sundberg, Tony Peña, etc...

[packs]

You don't see Yadi as a lock? I would expect him to get in first ballot no doubt.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't see Yadi as a lock? I would expect him to get in first ballot no doubt.

Along with Corey Dickerson of course :P

Seriously though. the trend towards worrying what ballot people get in on, or what percentage of the vote they got, has definitely weakened, and rightfully so. If you' are a HOF'er you were the first year on the ballot so why artificially make someone wait? The list of guys who didn't make it on their first ballot is astonishing by today's standards*, and Mo Rivera would've been nowhere near 100% 20 years ago.

All that to say, I think Molina will inspire some spirited debate. The same guys who think making people wait is stupid are also the guys who like advanced stats, and Yady's 42 WAR would be one of the worst numbers ever enshrined. So Yeah I'd bet he DOESN'T make it first ballot.

*ignoring the early backlog guys, off the top of my head:

Jimmy Foxx
Joe DiMaggio
Yogi Berra
Hank Greenberg
Duke Snider
Mel Ott
Eddie Matthews

[packs]

In my mind you're talking about one of the most gifted catchers anyone has seen in a very long time. Glove first, maybe. But I think he's a HOFer.

[mrreality68]

Agree the only thing that will limit/stop Degrom’s potential is age and health. Started later than others in the majors and his health has been issues for years so the key is to stay healthy to play long enough to March hopefully into the HOF he has the stuff and his resume is looking great jobs needs to fill in a few more chapters to his career

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

DeGrom surpassed the previous record of 1,517 strikeouts, held by Yu Darvish by striking out 12 in 5+2/3rds innings to reach 1,523 in his first 200 games.

DeGrom has averaged 10.7 Ks per 9 innings over his career, which is just behind Darvish, and just ahead of teammate Max Scherzer for 4th all-time.

Note that deGrom didn't even pitch in the majors until he was 26, and that Bob Feller, by contrast, pitched his 200th game while he was only 22.

In other news the Mets are 6.5 games up on the Braves having beat them 3 straight games! Let's go Mets!!!

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.

[cgjackson222]

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.

I was thinking the same thing--that innings per start are way down. But as you mentioned, K's are way up.

If you look at the top pitchers all-time for K's per 9 innings, 18 of the top 25 are ACTIVE players. Hard to believe that Nolan Ryan is only 16 on the list, Koufax 21, and Feller all the way back at #320 on the list. Walter Johnson barely cracks the top 500.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

In my mind you're talking about one of the most gifted catchers anyone has seen in a very long time. Glove first, maybe. But I think he's a HOFer.

Is his glove at catcher better so much better than Vizquel's at shortstop?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'd be shocked if Molina doesn't get in on his first or second try DeGrom, I don't know, although his stats probably need to be assessed against new norms for what's considered a great season and by extension a career.

[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.

[Mike D.]

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

+1

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I'm not sure anyone is using this to say that newer pitchers are better than those from yesteryear...it's really more of a "tidbit" or "trivia" than a "stat".

That being said, any time "pitcher wins" are made to prove a point, my eyes glaze over. As a starting pitcher you can "win" 9-8 or "lose" 1-0". Pretty useless stat in my opinion.

Then you've missed some of the other threads on here talking about pitcher comparisons. To many of the modern statistician types, it seems most all older era players can't hold a candle to the modern era athletes, and how today they are all bigger, stronger, faster, etc. But I think that has a lot more to do with context of the times and eras, advances in medicine, nutrition, and technology, and maybe most importantly of all, money. The older era players didn't become rich playing baseball, and a majority would even often need off season jobs to get by. So they didn't go crazy with year-round training and push themselves beyond normal human activities to excel in their sports. Plus, teams didn't invest tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in players, nor offer them guaranteed contracts, like they do today, which pushes modern teams to pamper and restrict modern pitcher's activities so they don't injure or burn themselves out. And because of the financial rewards today's athletes can reap, many people now identify gifted children and push/prompt/steer them to intense and involved training programs early on so they have advantages and focuses in more prolonged and specific training than older era ballplayers ever had, or particularly needed.

And when you say your eyes glaze over when people talk about wins being important, it makes my eyes glaze over listening to people like you saying that they don't. You are most likely from a younger generation, not a baby boomer. So tell me honestly, when you buy a ticket to a game, or turn on the radio or TV to listen/watch your team play, do you root for them to lose or win? And if you root for them to win, please explain to me then how wins don't matter???

And I know baseball is an intricate and involved team game with a myriad of intricate things that can impact and effect a game's outcome, and are generally not ever decided by one single player or person. But think about it, of all the players in a ballgame, which one(s) arguably has the most influence and probably the greatest chance of being the ultimate deciding factor in a game's outcome.....a team's pitcher! Or more precisely, a team's starting pitcher, as they more often than not throw more pitches and go more innings in the games than any other pitcher. Hitters only get 3-4-5 at bats per game, on average. Fielders only get involved the few times in a game the ball is hit/thrown to them. But pitchers start and initiate every single play in the game when they start their windup and send the ball towards home plate. And obviously a pitcher does not control anywhere near all the factors that can significantly influence the ultimate outcome of a game, but the longer that starting pitcher stays in the game, and the more pitches they end up throwing, the more likely they will eventually have some significant impact on deciding a game, and as a result of that, whether or not they win.

I was merely pointing out how great older pitchers like Feller, Johnson, and Spahn have an obvious higher percentage of their games they pitched where it resulted in a won-loss decision for them, which to me is indicative of them having had a greater impact on more of their game's outcomes. And since they more often than not would win, that would mean those wins were also more likely or not because they had been the ones pitching in them till as late as possible in those games. Or are you still going to argue they got a lot of those wins more because they were lucky and won a bunch of games 9-8, instead of pitching and winning a lot of 1-0 shutouts? You do know you can see from their ERAs they didn't likely pitch in and win a lot of 9-8 games, right?

For modern pitchers like Darvish and DeGrom, they don't pitch as often, or as deep into games, as pitchers did in older generations. So I agree, they are less involved and likely to be the deciding factor in games they pitch in today. But that is not always the case for older generation pitchers. Put it another way, if wins are really so unimportant in regard to pitchers, that would leave it to all the other factors and players in a game being more responsible for the team's wins. So how do you then explain pitchers like Johnson, Feller, and Spahn generally having better overall winning percentages than the teams they pitched for? It can't be all luck, can it?

And that is the point. Certain pitchers just have that "It" factor where they somehow consistently win more games than other pitchers. And they aren't all strike out artists, or all throw 95+ MPH, or have superior fielding or hitting teams behind them. They just somehow get their teams wins. But despite all the well-meaning intentions and designs of advanced statistics, they still have no way to effectively measure and quantify that "It" factor that allows certain pitchers to succeed over others when it comes to racking up victories. But instead of acknowledging the inherent limitations of such statistics, especially when it comes to the cross-generational comparability of many advanced statistics in regard to pitchers, statisticians look at how they game is played today, and simply declare wins for pitchers don't really mean anything. That takes away and unfairly punishes and discounts the abilities of pitchers from older eras who went out there and just kept winning games.

So forgive me for being totally skeptical when I hear people saying that wins don't really matter for pitchers. Last I looked, the Cy Young Award given to the best pitchers in each league every year is named after the winningest pitcher of all time. And the awards are usually given to pitchers that have close to, if not the most, wins every season. And I've never heard of a Cy Young winner with a losing record, can you name me one? And generally the "Ace" of each team's pitching staff is the pitcher with the most wins. And even in today's modern game, when it comes to contracts and paydays, it seems the pitchers with the most wins or best winning records almost always get re-signed, or get to play the free agent lottery, and end up with the most money of all the other pitchers out there.

But wins don't mean much of anything and are pretty useless, aren't they?

[JollyElm]

This is where the tidal wave of stats ruins the enjoyment of the game for me. Born in Queens, I was an absolute Mets fanatic from the moment I took my first breath, and that zealotry continues unaffected to this day. My only care with regards to deGrom (love that lower case first letter) is that he stays healthy for the rest of the season and helps bring that trophy back home!!! I hope to heck he makes it to the Hall of Fame one day, but the goal is to win the championship in 2022. Everything else is just pointless debate, as there is no right answer at this point no matter how many acronymed stats you throw around. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. We're watching him right now, just like we did with Seaver and Doc Gooden. Those guys were the topics of these same types of debates during their great careers, and both won championships for us. However, only one ended up in Cooperstown.

I don't give a flying fig what his WAR is. We watch him play right in front of us, so no (yawn) 'advanced' stats are necessary. He's a crazy good pitcher who risks injury anytime he moves his arm (knock on wood), unfortunately. We Metties fans know this and just hope he has some good karma headed his way (and the team scores some frickin' runs for him!!!).

LGM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant over.

[Mike D.]

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

[Mike D.]

Total aside on Cy Young...I always found it interesting that for most all-time major league records, they start counting in the 20th century with the formation of the American League.

But not with Young. Maybe it's because 500+ wins is such a cool number. Maybe it's because he had so many wins BEFORE 1900, and that his career was split fairly well between the two centuries, and it was the NL so not like he got them in a semi-major league... but it feels a bit inconsistent.

Again, not trying to take anything away from a clearly great pitcher, or question the good old days any, but it's odd.

Young won 266 games from 1890-1899, and 245 from 1900-1911.

[G1911]

I’m not a big fan of pitcher wins as a stat for modern players. I think it had some value when pitchers were expected to hurl 9 innings.

The problem with DeGrom isn’t that he has 78 wins, it’s that he is 78-53 and his record reflects his tiny career. He is not incredibly unlucky with wins, he’s 34 and has pitched less than 1,300 innings. Even with pitchers seeming to barely throw anymore, his innings count is far, far below his pears. I think it unlikely he ends up in the Hall. He’d have to pitch well beyond when most all pitchers are out of the league.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I said pitcher wins don't matter, as a stat. Of course wins matter.

Whether a pitcher wins a game or not has as much to do with how many runs his team scores as it does how he pitches. Sure, winning more than you lose is a good sign, but it doesn't really tell you much.

And man, it's been a while since someone inferred I'm young. I needed that today.

Mike,

You're probably younger then me so, good for you. LOL

But now I'm lost. You had originally said that wins is pretty much a useless stat, but then you're now saying you agree wins are important. How can something so important, also be useless at the exact same time? It makes no sense at all. Wins, and the number of them a pitcher has, are in and of themselves a statistic. Please explain to me how you separate the two, as I do not get it.

I can sort of understand given today's modern game, and how pitchers rarely complete the games they start anymore and often get pulled early, that wins to modern pitchers may not be all that important, and less indicative of their worth as a pitcher because of their roles as specialists. But to my thinking, when you go back to the times of pitchers like Spahn, Feller, and Johnson, those guys were expected to start and complete every game they took the mound for, and those wins they had were the direct result of their prowess and success as pitchers. Those wins, that statistic they had, showed how good and important they were to their teams and their fans.

And that is the problem. Those that believe so much in these advanced stats throw out the statement that wins for pitchers is not important as sort of an all-encompassing statement that is generally perceived as covering all pitchers, from all eras. And to me. that is very clearly not the case when it comes to older generation pitchers. And that perception, along with other modern biases in advanced pitcher stats, is then used by some to further downplay the importance and ability of older generation pitchers. To the point where some will try to tell you old school pitchers aren't even good enough to hold the jockstrap of someone like Hyun Jin-Ryu. And every time I hear something like that, I just start ROFLMFAO.

[Jim65]

Pitcher wins are important, they are just not a fair judge of a pitchers effectiveness, they usually have more to do with run support. Is a pitcher who wins a 9-8 game better than a pitcher who loses a 1-0 game?


In 1987 Nolan Ryan lead the NL in ERA but finished 8-16, lack of run support

In 1968 Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA but lost 9 games, lack of run support .

In 1988 Joe Magrane lead the majors with 2.18 ERA but finished 5-9, David Cone was 2nd with 2.22 ERA but finished 20-3. Was Cone better or was it run support?

For old time pitchers, in 1910 Ed Walsh lead the league with a 1.27 ERA but finished 18-20. Was Walsh bad or was it lack of run support?

[packs]

Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with a 13-12 record. Jacob DeGrom was 11-8 the year he won his second. He was 10-9 for his first.

I really don't think anyone cares about wins anymore. Julio Urias was the MLB's only 20 game winner last year. He finished 7th in Cy Young voting.

And for the purists; there IS in fact a Cy Young winner with a losing record. Eric Gagne was 2-3 the year he won the Cy Young.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

If they were in the right role and were used enough, I could see someone like Garrett Whitlock or Devin Williams winning at some point.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How far are we from the day some middle reliever wins?

If they're dominant enough, I don't see why not.

He didn't really come close to winning it, but Mariano did finish 3rd in the Cy Young voting in 1996, the year before he became the Yankees closer.

Another interesting tidbit looking at Mariano's record. The year he came in 2nd place for the Cy Young as a closer in 2005, the award was won by Bartolo Colon, who happened to win 21 games for the Angels. Johan Santana finished 3rd while pitching more innings then Colon, and having a superior season in just about every other way. In today's climate he likely wins the Cy Young going away.

He should arguably have 3 Cy Young awards in his pocket...along with a pitching triple crown, a Gold Glove, 3 ERA titles, 3 Strikeout Titles, 4 WHIP titles, and a whole bunch of other bolded black ink marks on his baseball reference page. Many, many more then Degrom.

Santana pitched about 800 innings more then Degrom has at this point, and his career was deemed too short apparently, by the HOF voters. Santana was kicked off the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

I mention this because Santana seems the closest comparison career wise to me regarding Degraom, even though they had different paths to get where they got to during their careers.

Both electric, both great pitchers, and both will eventually be thought of more highly then many pitchers who will get into or are already in the HOF.

[packs]

What do you consider Sparky Lyle to be? I mean, sure, he saved 26 games the year he won the Cy Young, but he also pitched in 72 games total, starting none, and threw 137 innings. Obviously he was being used in a hybrid role and while I can't tell from looking at baseball Reference, I would bet a lot of those saves were of the three inning variety.

Same goes for Mike Marshall. He started zero games, had 21 saves, but he appeared in 106 games and threw over 200 innings the year he won. That's not a middle reliever?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you consider Sparky Lyle to be? I mean, sure, he saved 26 games the year he won the Cy Young, but he also pitched in 72 games total, starting none, and threw 137 innings. Obviously he was being used in a hybrid role and while I can't tell from looking at baseball Reference, I would bet a lot of those saves were of the three inning variety.

Same goes for Mike Marshall. He started zero games, had 21 saves, but he appeared in 106 games and threw over 200 innings the year he won. That's not a middle reliever?

Mike Marshall’s 21 saves led the entire league. The #2 guy had only 15. Lyle was 2nd in the league in saves. It was a different time and relievers were used very differently, but Marshall is pretty clearly more comparable to the closer role, as was Lyle.

[packs]

Closer role in the sense that he got saves and finished games but clearly not solely responsible for doing that. He pitched in over 100 games and threw 200 innings but only recorded 21 saves.

This SABR article has some interesting information on Marshall's season as well. It notes that under modern rules Marshall would have been credited with 30 saves that season, and that he only converted 64 percent of his save opportunities, which would be pretty poor for an out and out closer.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/mike-marshall/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you consider Sparky Lyle to be? I mean, sure, he saved 26 games the year he won the Cy Young, but he also pitched in 72 games total, starting none, and threw 137 innings. Obviously he was being used in a hybrid role and while I can't tell from looking at baseball Reference, I would bet a lot of those saves were of the three inning variety.

Same goes for Mike Marshall. He started zero games, had 21 saves, but he appeared in 106 games and threw over 200 innings the year he won. That's not a middle reliever?

I consider Lyle, like Gossage, a closer in an era when closers often went a couple of innings or occasionally longer. A middle reliever, in my view, is someone brought in with no expectation that he finish the game, typically in the 3rd to 6th inning?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

If they're dominant enough, I don't see why not.

He didn't really come close to winning it, but Mariano did finish 3rd in the Cy Young voting in 1996, the year before he became the Yankees closer.

Another interesting tidbit looking at Mariano's record. The year he came in 2nd place for the Cy Young as a closer in 2005, the award was won by Bartolo Colon, who happened to win 21 games for the Angels. Johan Santana finished 3rd while pitching more innings then Colon, and having a superior season in just about every other way. In today's climate he likely wins the Cy Young going away.

He should arguably have 3 Cy Young awards in his pocket...along with a pitching triple crown, a Gold Glove, 3 ERA titles, 3 Strikeout Titles, 4 WHIP titles, and a whole bunch of other bolded black ink marks on his baseball reference page. Many, many more then Degrom.

Santana pitched about 800 innings more then Degrom has at this point, and his career was deemed too short apparently, by the HOF voters. Santana was kicked off the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

I mention this because Santana seems the closest comparison career wise to me regarding Degraom, even though they had different paths to get where they got to during their careers.

Both electric, both great pitchers, and both will eventually be thought of more highly then many pitchers who will get into or are already in the HOF.

For all Koufax's supposed unmatched stretch of dominance, his WAR7 isn't much above Santana's. But the more interesting thing is that there are … wait for it … 57 pitchers ahead of Koufax in WAR7.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Closer role in the sense that he got saves and finished games but clearly not solely responsible for doing that. He pitched in over 100 games and threw 200 innings but only recorded 21 saves.

This SABR article has some interesting information on Marshall's season as well. It notes that under modern rules Marshall would have been credited with 30 saves that season, and that he only converted 64 percent of his save opportunities, which would be pretty poor for an out and out closer.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/mike-marshall/

If your argument was that closers did not exist back then, you might have a point. To argue that closers in the current sense did not exist back then, and therefore Marshall and Lyle were middle relievers, is illogical.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For all Koufax's supposed unmatched stretch of dominance, his WAR7 isn't much above Santana's. But the more interesting thing is that there are … wait for it … 57 pitchers ahead of Koufax in WAR7.

We already settled this. Koufax and Ryu are the GOAT lefties.

[packs]

What I'm saying is that he finished games and got saves but he was clearly not solely a closer. I can't tell how many innings he would pitch or when looking at Baseball Reference but the SABR article illustrates he was not very good at getting saves when he had the opportunity. It seems like he was much better in other capacities, which is what I'm trying to point out. I don't think he won the Cy Young that year because he led the league in saves.

I think he won the Cy Young because of his volume usage, which is not something you associate with closers and you will never see a closer throw 200 innings or appear in 100 plus games. You WILL see a middle relief pitcher appear in a huge number of games and throw a large amount of innings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If your argument was that closers did not exist back then, you might have a point. To argue that closers in the current sense did not exist back then, and therefore Marshall and Lyle were middle relievers, is illogical.

Weren't Lyle and Gossage considered closers AT THE TIME? Or is that an after the fact gloss?