Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Jim65

That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of a pitchers effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

Right not sure why cares about unearned runs, except some unearned runs are worth more than others..if your team should of gotten the third out after getting the first 2 men out..giving up 7 straight hits and all the runs unearned seems silly or at least getting the 'L" shouldnt be silly when you lost the game 7-2 because of all the hits. Stats arent perfect

I also think betting odds are very important as it factors into your teams total ability, if you start 10 games and your team was +180 in every start and another pitcher was -300 and the underdog pitcher's team only lost 1 more game due to large part because of their starting pitching, that underdog pitcher would rate higher to me even if 'lost' one more game.

Sort of like in foootball if a NFL team in a 17 game season was an UNDERDOG every single game and only won 3 games but covered the spread the other 14 times how can that coach get fired.. talk is cheap, put money where your mouth is..

[BobC]

I just love stupid comments like this saying absolutely nothing to prove anything.

"That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of pitcher effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

Exactly WTF does "that" mean. Once again, no evidence, logic, facts, proof, etc., and nothing to even show exactly what statements or comments they are supposedly referencing to or disagreeing with. And what exactly was it that was proven wrong? Just another typical, "I'm right, and you're wrong." argument by those that prove or say absolutely nothing.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

Very good illustration. I'm sure that Ryan had the mentality that he had to go for the strikeout, because he didn't have 'the Three B's behind him. Palmer had all the advantages.

I miss pitchers going deeper into games, but, because they no longer do, aces like Scherzer can toss a gem, only to get a ND or L.


Clearly Wins as an mark of the best starting pitchers has gone by the way-side. Felix Hernandez got his CY with a 13-12 season and DeGrom won his with 10 and 11 wins.

These changes in the way the Game is played have made all the additional statistics viable and necessary.


However, for an old-school guy like myself, they give me headaches like the exit velocities of ground-balls that get through the infield.

Launch Angle, Barrel Pct.; Spin Rate,

Think I'll go play some PONG and read a good book.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

I just love stupid comments like this saying absolutely nothing to prove anything.

"That is exactly why ERA is a better judge of pitcher effectiveness. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

Exactly WTF does "that" mean. Once again, no evidence, logic, facts, proof, etc., and nothing to even show exactly what statements or comments they are supposedly referencing to or disagreeing with. And what exactly was it that was proven wrong? Just another typical, "I'm right, and you're wrong." argument by those that prove or say absolutely nothing.

Bob, the sad part is you believe your incoherent ramblings to be actual arguments stating facts. If you read my post about 1988 and Joe Magrane and David Cone, you would see what I am talking about.

You talk about wins defining a pitchers effectiveness, then you talk about unearned runs?

You get defensive when people disagree with you. You ignore when others present evidence, then claim that they never presented evidence in the first place. Then you play the victim?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Bob, the sad part is you believe your incoherent ramblings to be actual arguments stating facts. If you read my post about 1988 and Joe Magrane and David Cone, you would see what I am talking about.

You talk about wins defining a pitchers effectiveness, then you talk about unearned runs?

You get defensive when people disagree with you. You ignore when others present evidence, then claim that they never presented evidence in the first place. Then you play the victim?

It's a much more pleasant place with his ramblings on your blocklist.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Bob, the sad part is you believe your incoherent ramblings to be actual arguments stating facts. If you read my post about 1988 and Joe Magrane and David Cone, you would see what I am talking about.

You talk about wins defining a pitchers effectiveness, then you talk about unearned runs?

You get defensive when people disagree with you. You ignore when others present evidence, then claim that they never presented evidence in the first place. Then you play the victim?

Gee-why does that sound so very familiar?



By the way, does anyone agree with me when I think unearned runs created by the pitcher's fielding errors should be listed as earned runs? Wouldn't that add more credence to saying how important the ERA stats is?


.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

By the way, does anyone agree with me when I think unearned runs created by the pitcher's fielding errors should be listed as earned runs? Wouldn't that add more credence to saying how important the ERA stats is?


.

That and wild pitches.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA and ERA+ aren't necessarily good judges either. Jim Palmer led the AL in ERA in 1973 and beat out Nolan Ryan for the Cy Young by 16 points. His ERA was an AL best 2.49, Ryan's 2.87. Ryan set a MLB record with 383 Ks, Palmer struck out 158, 225 less than Ryan. That was 225 balls hit in play that his fielders turned into outs. The Orioles had the #1 defense in MLB, the Angels had one of the worst. The left side of the Orioles defense had 2 of the 5 greatest defensive players of all time. In CF a 8 time GG winner. At 2B a 4 time GG winner. Ryan had a FIP of 2.49, Palmer 3.38. Ryan even had a bWAR of 7.7 to Palmer's 6.3. Bert Blyleven also had a stronger case for best pitcher than the ERA leader.

Wins is an important stat. So is quality starts. The same for ERA, ERA+, GS, CG, IP, SHO, FIP, WHIP, K, K/9, K/W and even fWAR and bWAR in the context of all stats. There isn't one stat that is better or the best because taken out of context, it doesn't tell us enough.

Who else is in your top 5 with Brooks and Belanger?

[1952boyntoncollector]

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808


Give it up for Mr. Bundy! Pitched 5 innings...didnt appear in the 6th...yet his team scored a run so his 5 innnings and 4 earned gave him the W.

glad to see his team gets 6 innings of at bats, but the home pitcher would of only had 5 innings of at bats had he pitched 5 innings......

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 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.

right i have also argued that 1 inning closers dont below in the HOF except maybe rivera...there are tons of SPs that could of closed ....why does a closer get to the HOF with 1/7th of the pitching a starter gets..


i dont see career pitch hitters go into the HOF even though best at what they do for the position.

[packs]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808


Give it up for Mr. Bundy! Pitched 5 innings...didnt appear in the 6th...yet his team scored a run so his 5 innnings and 4 earned gave him the W.

glad to see his team gets 6 innings of at bats, but the home pitcher would of only had 5 innings of at bats had he pitched 5 innings......

Why would this not be the natural order of things? The visiting pitcher doesn't have to pitch the bottom half of the 9th if their team is losing after the top half either. You could make the same argument that the home team should be able to have a chance to pad their stats and get guys some more hits or home runs, etc.

The game is over after the top half of the 9th if the home team is winning because it wouldn't make sense for them to bat. It's not an advantage. It's practical.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

Why would this not be the natural order of things? The visiting pitcher doesn't have to pitch the bottom half of the 9th if their team is losing after the top half either. You could make the same argument that the home team should be able to have a chance to pad their stats and get guys some more hits or home runs, etc.

The game is over after the top half of the 9th if the home team is winning because it wouldn't make sense for them to bat. It's not an advantage. It's practical.

right but batters not hitting in the 9th is 1/9th of the total hitting.. plus only 3-5 hitters will get a chance to hit lose their chance , not all of them and if their team won then its likely the best hitters already had a good offensive day


pitchers who dont have to pitch in the 6th is impacting it at 1/6th which is a huge difference., plus zero need to hit in the bottom of 9th when up but always a need for pitching in the 6th so its not apples to apples...


it can be practical not to credit the pitcher with the Win as well ... he gets 6 offensive innings and the home pitcher only gets 5 innings...that a huge difference....afterall this thread talks a lot about how many 'wins' for HOF consideration


Also people were arguing with me on this issue not thinking you get a W in that situation because to them it was not believable as opposed to not being practical

[1952boyntoncollector]

I have made a few expressions that are used on the board like waterside property cards



Now if a Visting Pitcher gets a W due to his team only because his team got 1 more inning to hit versus the home pitcher.i am now calling those Ws, practical Wins.




So Mr. Bundy in this received received a practical W, i wonder who leads the league in practical wins, baseball reference needs get on this ASAP


https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs...ox,game=661808

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right i have also argued that 1 inning closers dont below in the HOF except maybe rivera...there are tons of SPs that could of closed ....why does a closer get to the HOF with 1/7th of the pitching a starter gets..


i dont see career pitch hitters go into the HOF even though best at what they do for the position.

People make this argument, but if a successful closer is just a failed starter, why doesn't EVERY team have a top of the line closer?

Guys who can do the job and do it for an extended period of time are actually pretty rare. Rivera, Hoffman, Wagner, etc.

It's kind of like people who argue against DH's being in the Hall of Fame. The DH has been around longer than I have, and I'm not exactly young. Even closers...if you think about the original "firemen" like Gossage and Fingers, you're talking primes in the late 70's/early 80's 40+ years ago. Even when you started to see more "one-inning" closers was 30+ years ago.

The game evolves...if we're only going to put 300 game winners in the Hall, we're done putting in pitchers. Just like if you're going to put every 400 HR hitter in there, ya gonna have to build a new wing to the hall.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

People make this argument, but if a successful closer is just a failed starter, why doesn't EVERY team have a top of the line closer?

Guys who can do the job and do it for an extended period of time are actually pretty rare. Rivera, Hoffman, Wagner, etc.

It's kind of like people who argue against DH's being in the Hall of Fame. The DH has been around longer than I have, and I'm not exactly young. Even closers...if you think about the original "firemen" like Gossage and Fingers, you're talking primes in the late 70's/early 80's 40+ years ago. Even when you started to see more "one-inning" closers was 30+ years ago.

The game evolves...if we're only going to put 300 game winners in the Hall, we're done putting in pitchers. Just like if you're going to put every 400 HR hitter in there, ya gonna have to build a new wing to the hall.

Smoltz would of been an HOF closer , but how many closers would be HOF starting pitchers and at what ratio

There are a TON of number 2 pitchers on teams that would be all star closers.

many closers only have 2 pitches..its real hard to go through a lineup 3 times with that stuff even if both pitches are great..

[packs]

Most teams have a hard time finding reliable closers so if there was some number 2 starter on the team who could finish games with their eyes closed, they would be.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

Most teams have a hard time finding reliable closers so if there was some number 2 starter on the team who could finish games with their eyes closed, they would be.

I disagree. A #2 starter (or any quality starter) is more valuable than the best reliever. If a pitcher can give me 200 quality innings over the course of a season how is the guy who gives me 60 such innings more valuable? Runs don't care when they're scored. Your closer doesn't do you much good if you never have the lead!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

Most teams have a hard time finding reliable closers so if there was some number 2 starter on the team who could finish games with their eyes closed, they would be.

disagree, you need a number 2 starter to win playoff series ....no team would take a solid number 2 starter and make them in a closer...now if the closer could be a number 2 pitcher they would convert them..im sure if you look at the salaries and value of money that will show you as well.. i have seen washed up starting pitchers ie. Jose Mesa et al. who become decent closers but never seen a washed up closer become a number 2 starter for a number of years or at least much much much more rare...

remember lots of number 2 starters go to the HOF or are at least argued...i would say andy petitte would be a number 2 starter for instance..

[packs]

I'm not saying the number 2 should close, I'm questioning whether he could.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not saying the number 2 should close, I'm questioning whether he could.

of course they could...not many failed closers are number 2 starters versus failed number 3-5 pitchers leading their team in saves for a year or so or more


Look at Tom Gordon, when he tailed off he became a closer... It can be argued Mariano Rivera was a failed Starter.

Wilie Hernandez failed starter....

i dont see Eric Gagne lighting it up as a starting pitcher....

in fact usually when you fail a closer you could fund yourself without any job......you always hear about bad closers giving up tons of runs in non save situations but squeak by on save situations..so when the saves stop coming sometimes they out of league in a year or so....if fail as a starter you can always be a reliever even if not a closer..


Its not like kimbrel will becaome a starter if he loses his closer job, its more likely he out of the league in a few years if that happens for example...

if walker bueler comes back next year, i bet he would be a better closer than half the closers out there if dodgers decide to switch him

[packs]

I think you're discounting what closers do and how difficult it is to be an elite closer for a long period of time. There are very few closers with any kind of longevity.

I don't support what you're saying about failed starters either. So what if a guy started out as one thing in pro ball and became another? Why is that discounted? What are you looking to take away? Mariano Rivera was a shortstop when he got signed. Jorge Posada was a second baseman when he started his career in the minors.

[Mike D.]

Yes, two different positions, with two different skill sets.

Nobody says "most shortstops could play second base, so there shouldn't be any second basemen in the hall of fame."

Or maybe they do, but those people are probably kinda nuts.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, two different positions, with two different skill sets.

Nobody says "most shortstops could play second base, so there shouldn't be any second basemen in the hall of fame."

Or maybe they do, but those people are probably kinda nuts.

well like the NBA with Center/Forward , players are starting to play multiple postions more in the MLB

but closer and starting pitcher is not the same as 2nd and SS. Plus defense really isnt factored into it unless the player is on the extreme extreme end good or bad, if they hit 600 home runs i dont think defense matters at all etc.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you're discounting what closers do and how difficult it is to be an elite closer for a long period of time. There are very few closers with any kind of longevity.

I don't support what you're saying about failed starters either. So what if a guy started out as one thing in pro ball and became another? Why is that discounted? What are you looking to take away? Mariano Rivera was a shortstop when he got signed. Jorge Posada was a second baseman when he started his career in the minors.

you keep moving the goal posts....we are talking about pitching..yeah all great players that were pitching in the major leagues may of been hitters at one time as they were elite athletes growing up..so waht.. Heck there is a DH now so its just about pitching and dont need to bring up the fact about them being hitters.

So show me all of these guys that used to close that are now good Starting pitchers ..i can name you a LOT of good closers that were failed starters.......yeah may be hard for pitchers who werent good enough to start to fulfill a job as closer and those are hard to find.....agree its hard to find a closer from that pool of talent.....i argue its not that hard to find a closer from the 25th-40th best Starting pitcher in mlb..which i would assume is about a 2nd starter on most teams...

Can probably run down the list of number 2 starters and the closer on their team and given a choice of closer, we would rather have the SP be the closer ...Pablo Lopez would be better than whoever the marlins use to close for example.....

you also forget a starting pitcher who may have to hold back some velocity and some pitches for the 2nd and 3rd time through the lineup doesnt have to worry about that when pitching 1 inning.......2 and 3 run leads are still 'saves', it doesnt matter how much a team is up, a starting pitcher still needs great stats to be considered an all star....Wins arent enough as has been discussed at length..

[Snapolit1]

DeGrom has 2 BB in his first 5 starts back and 46 strikeouts.

Mets taking it easy with 6 inning starts. Fine with me. Let him go nine in the World Series.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

DeGrom has 2 BB in his first 5 starts back and 46 strikeouts.

Mets taking it easy with 6 inning starts. Fine with me. Let him go nine in the World Series.

He is amazing and they are smart for ramping him up to ensure he stays healthy for the WS run. Him and Scherzer make the METS dangerous in the playoffs him they are both healthy against any team

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

He is amazing and they are smart for ramping him up to ensure he stays healthy for the WS run. Him and Scherzer make the METS dangerous in the playoffs him they are both healthy against any team

i think he would be HOF closer and could pitch 1/6 of the innings as he would have as a starting pitcher and extend career by years to get the good totals for HOF that he likely wont get as a SP

im sure the current Mets closer who is an all star and likely top 1 or 2 closer this year would be able to match Degrom's Starting pitching stats since closing is as hard as starting pitching

[packs]

Is it harder to be tall or fast?

[Peter_Spaeth]

46 K, 2 -- yeah, 2 -- BB so far.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Make that 55K, 3 BB. LOL.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Make that 55K, 3 BB. LOL.

When healthy hard to argue anyone is better.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Make that 55K, 3 BB. LOL.

Simply amazing and again no run support but he gets the win

His stat line is looking amazing and each game he does this his contract money keeps going up

If he stays healthy they will be tough in playoffs

[cgjackson222]

After last night's game vs. the Pirates, deGrom's WHIP (walks and hits per innings pitchted) is .55, which equals his total for last year.

I realize both years were shortened because of injury, but the best WHIP ever for a full season was Pedro Martinez in 2000, when his WHIP was .7373

So deGrom's WHIP this year and last year is 25% lower than the best WHIP ever for a full season.

Note that #2 on baseball reference's list is of best single season WHIP years is Kent Maeda with a WHIP of .75 in 2000 when he only pitched 66 innings.
deGrom pitched 92 innings last year when his WHIP was only .55, so I am not sure why that isn't showing up as #1 on the all-time list.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

After last night's game vs. the Pirates, deGrom's WHIP (walks and hits per innings pitchted) is .55, which equals his total for last year.

I realize both years were shortened because of injury, but the best WHIP ever for a full season was Pedro Martinez in 2000, when his WHIP was .7373

So deGrom's WHIP this year and last year is 25% lower than the best WHIP ever for a full season.

Note that #2 on baseball reference's list is of best single season WHIP years is Kent Maeda with a WHIP of .75 in 2000 when he only pitched 66 innings.
deGrom pitched 92 innings last year when his WHIP was only .55, so I am not sure why that isn't showing up as #1 on the all-time list.

2020 is different because of the shortened season. I believe you need 1 inning pitched for every game of the season, so 162 in a regular season and 60 in 2020.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

2020 is different because of the shortened season. I believe you need 1 inning pitched for every game of the season, so 162 in a regular season and 60 in 2020.

That makes sense. Thanks

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

make that 55k, 3 bb. Lol.

63k, 4 bb. 0.55 WHIP.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

63k, 4 bb. 0.55 WHIP.

When healthy simply amazing

[cgjackson222]

Nugget from tonight's broadcast: deGrom now has 39 consecutive starts allowing 3 runs or less.

This ties Jim Scott's record from 118 years ago.

[Peter_Spaeth]

73K, 4 bb. LOL Unimaginable.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

73K, 4 bb. LOL Unimaginable.

Agreed he has been simply amazing

Now if the Mets can hit and if he stays healthy they will be a dangerous team

[Peter_Spaeth]

86 k, 4 bb.

[Shoeless Moe]

Thank God he is out of that cesspool New York.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Thank God he is out of that cesspool New York.

The Rangers, though? Didn't see that coming

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

The Rangers, though? Didn't see that coming

Yah I thought he was gonna land with the Braves, closer to his home in Florida. Although these guys nowadays have 2-3 homes, so just grab the dough.

hopefully he'll stay healthy now that he'll get some fresh air in Texas.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

The Rangers, though? Didn't see that coming

Not the best place for him to land but it will enhance their team. However, I have no issue with him leaving the MET’s 5 years for a 34 year old that started 38 times in last 3 years is a problem. No matter how good when healthy.
Best skills of a player is Availability

[D. Bergin]

I don't see this turning out well for the Rangers. He will look spectacular at times, but he's not exactly a workhorse. I think the Rangers will be lucky to get him at a rate of $2 million per start, throughout the life of his contract.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I don't see this turning out well for the Rangers. He will look spectacular at times, but he's not exactly a workhorse. I think the Rangers will be lucky to get him at a rate of $2 million per start, throughout the life of his contract.

Yeah, $2M per start is not great value. And that's assuming he starts 15 games a year (his high water mark for starts over the last 3 years) during the next 5 years.

I love deGrom, but its hard to see him getting back to a consistent level of play.

Hopefully the Mets can go out and get some talent with the money they are saving. I'm not sure Verlander, who turns 40 in February is the what they need. Would be great to get some young talent to go along with veterans like Scherzer.

[1952boyntoncollector]

There is something to be said about non super fireballers who can give you 25 B level starts....its almost like you super super stars you should start them in 2h of year so yo have them for the playoff run since more teams make the playoffs now theres a margin for error..

its almost a waste of time to win 110 games when injury chances to starters is 50% higher or whatever versus winning 90 games with your best 2 pitchers available....again there is a much higher margin of error to make the playoffs ...that a great amount of B level starters with a good hitting lineup will get you into the dance...

B Level Starters like Mikolas type level...

[packs]

Strange decision for Texas and stranger decision for deGrom. Who was the last big pitcher to sign with Texas and be good? I would have thought he’d be trying to sure up his HOF case. Lots of free agents have gone to Texas to die out.

[mrreality68]

Met's Replace Degrom with Verlander 2 years $86 Million plus a potential vesting for a 3rd.
A lot for an older player but should be worth it and the risk is less with a short term deal