Jacob deGrom most Ks in first 200 games

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Yes. Hence why I contextualized "in the current sense" as the job is markedly different.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes. Hence why I contextualized "in the current sense" as the job is markedly different.

They just closed a bigger opening, or something like that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe in the future, as has been speculated already by some here although they may have been facetious, we will have an opener instead of a starter -- a guy whose job is to pitch the first inning.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They just closed a bigger opening, or something like that.

I think the old relievers produced much, much more value to their teams, just as old starters did. Marshall hurled more innings than any starter does today. It's hard to produce true value on par with the older guys when they are allowed to throw so little these days. Marshall, Gossage, Lyle, none of them were middle relievers in any real sense.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe in the future, as has been speculated already by some here although they may have been facetious, we will have an opener instead of a starter -- a guy whose job is to pitch the first inning.

I would think the long term path is that no pitcher will throw more than 3 innings at most, because the data suggests effectiveness recedes every time a hitter sees the same pitcher again that day. I don't doubt that this is true and that the new ways are more objectively efficient to producing wins in context than the old ways, but it's not as fun, personally.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would think the long term path is that no pitcher will throw more than 3 innings at most, because the data suggests effectiveness recedes every time a hitter sees the same pitcher again that day. I don't doubt that this is true and that the new ways are more objectively efficient to producing wins in context than the old ways, but it's not as fun, personally.

But isn't that offset by the fact that your starter is a better pitcher than the journeyman who replaces him? I admit not to knowing the data, but I can't believe it would pay to yank Pedro Martinez in the 4th in factor of some fungible castoff.

[packs]

You'd have to expand rosters too. I believe there's a limit of 13 pitchers right now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But isn't that offset by the fact that your starter is a better pitcher than the journeyman who replaces him? I admit not to knowing the data, but I can't believe it would pay to yank Pedro Martinez in the 4th in factor of some fungible castoff.

Yes, and no. Most relievers are failed starters, yet they produce better ERA's than most starting pitchers largely because of this factor; they present a change to the batter that requires adjustment, can go all out, and don't have to think about anything but throwing to just a handful of guys. Even the best pitchers in baseball are allowed to throw less and less innings every single year. Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier and earlier for an assortment of journeyman, specialists, and context-depending relievers that excel in certain situations.

Of course, things are a little different if you're looking at a guy like Pedro whose a generational talent and possibly the most dominant pitcher of all time. The very best might get to go twice through the order, but the trend of the last 70 years of decreasing pitching time and using more pitchers for this reason seems to me almost inevitable that it will eventually reach its ultimate logical conclusion. My money is on that rosters will keep expanding, and the data analytics will only take over the remaining bits of the game it hasn't already.

[packs]

I would think part of the reason less pitchers threw 200 innings last year is due in some part to the shortened season the year before, no?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I would think part of the reason less pitchers threw 200 innings last year is due in some part to the shortened season the year before, no?

I don't see how 2020 being short would reduce the ability of starters to throw 200 innings the next year.

It's somewhat irrelevant to the point - starting pitcher innings are going down, down, down and have for a century, because of this realization.

[packs]

You don't see why having limited innings the year before would impact the next season? Doesn't that happen all the time after an injury? A pitcher's innings are limited? Wouldn't you do the same thing for a pitcher who didn't throw much if you didn't want them to burn out?

A developing pitcher with no prior MLB experience who made the opening day roster in 2021 would have not pitched professionally at all in 2020.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't see why having limited innings the year before would impact the next season? Doesn't that happen all the time after an injury? A pitcher's innings are limited? Wouldn't you do the same thing for a pitcher who didn't throw much if you didn't want them to burn out?

A developing pitcher with no prior MLB experience who made the opening day roster in 2021 would have not pitched professionally at all in 2020.

There is already a long off season. Not sure why the prior season is relevant.

[packs]

I guess because every other year you've been stretched over a full season and in 2020 you weren't. There was no minor league baseball in 2020 either.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't see why having limited innings the year before would impact the next season? Doesn't that happen all the time after an injury? A pitcher's innings are limited? Wouldn't you do the same thing for a pitcher who didn't throw much if you didn't want them to burn out?

A developing pitcher with no prior MLB experience who made the opening day roster in 2021 would have not pitched professionally at all in 2020.

No, no I don’t. What does recuperating from an injury have to do with it? Nobody got hurt and needed to rehab. It’s the same as every season, they take time off, come to spring training, and then play 162 games. What does a short season the year before do with it? How does that stop them from pitching a few more innings? This makes no sense.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

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/

lot easier to blow a 2 or 3 inning save than a one inning save. I'm no mathematician, but probably two to three times easier...

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

No, no I don’t. What does recuperating from an injury have to do with it? Nobody got hurt and needed to rehab. It’s the same as every season, they take time off, come to spring training, and then play 162 games. What does a short season the year before do with it? How does that stop them from pitching a few more innings? This makes no sense.

They didn't play 162 games in 2020. Pitchers who might be used to throwing 200 innings threw a third of that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

lot easier to blow a 2 or 3 inning save than a one inning save. I'm no mathematician, but probably two to three times easier...

I bet that isn't true. Among other things, it's more likely YOUR team would score in two innings than in one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

They didn't play 162 games in 2020. Pitchers who might be used to throwing 200 innings threw a third of that.

But by the time the new season begins it's in the ancient past.

[packs]

Double post

[packs]

What do you mean? It was a break unlike any other outside of a strike shortened season. It had never happened before so I don't know why you're saying it's routine.

[G1911]

Okay, let’s pretend a short season, which has happened several times before and did not result in pitchers being unable to throw a full season, just magically eliminated the ability of starters to hurl in 2021. We’ll just assume this is true, with no evidence.

What does it matter? Are you contesting the trend of pitcher innings decreasing over time?

Even if, again without any evidence or reason, you are correct, it doesn’t even matter.

[packs]

I'm saying you might start to see inning totals tick back up to 200 now that it's a full two years removed from the shortened season, which also started late and had an abbreviated spring training.

I guess you would just say it's a reflection of the times or something, maybe that it was just a coincidence, but 2021 was the first time pitchers led the league in innings pitched with counts under 200 since the 1994 strike season. You would say 2020 had nothing to do with that. I think it did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You could just as easily argue a pitcher throwing a shortened season would be more rejuvenated and less worn down for the next. I am just not seeing this, I guess.

[packs]

Do you have some abnormality to point to? Robbie Ray's 193 innings pitched to lead the AL is the lowest league leader total since 1994. The only other time a pitcher led the league while pitching under 200 innings was 1981, another strike season.

A pitcher has led their league in innings pitched while throwing less than 200 innings three times in modern history. Twice, it was during a strike shortened season. Once, it followed a pandemic shortened season. It was an abnormal thing to happen during a full season of baseball. I might be connecting dots that I can't prove are there, but it's an observation I made because it was unusual.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you have some abnormality to point to? Robbie Ray's 193 innings pitched to lead the AL is the lowest league leader total since 1994. The only other time a pitcher led the league while pitching under 200 innings was 1981, another strike season.

A pitcher has led their league in innings pitched while throwing less than 200 innings three times in modern history. Twice, it was during a strike shortened season. Once, it followed a pandemic shortened season. It was an abnormal thing to happen during a full season of baseball. I might be connecting dots that I can't prove are there, but it's an observation I made because it was unusual.

It's an interesting observation I will grant you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Verlander missed nearly all of 2021 but is on pace to throw close to 200 innings this year, FWIW.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by G1911

What does it matter? Are you contesting the trend of pitcher innings decreasing over time?

^

[packs]

Robbie Ray led the league in starts too. The entire league pitched less. I would say it's because the entire league pitched the least amount of games in the history of any one season the year before. You are free to draw another conclusion.

[G1911]

That it happened in a non strike season for the first time is NOT evidence it happened because it followed a short season. Nor is this single data point evidence that the reduction in SP innings is escalating faster than it was previously to back up my point.

It could support either contest here, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the point.

[packs]

Evidence? Maybe not. But it is a fact.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Evidence? Maybe not. But it is a fact.

So you know it’s evidence of nothing. See #77.

[packs]

Nah

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Nah

Exactly, like always.

[packs]

What is there to say? I don't even know why you're so miffed. You made a post in which you said this:

"Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier..."

To which I suggested that perhaps a shortened season in which pitchers threw a third of their usual innings may have played a part in their brief outings the following year.

That upset you for your own reasons.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What is there to say? I don't even know why you're so miffed. You made a post in which you said this:

"Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier..."

To which I suggested that perhaps a shortened season in which pitchers threw a third of their usual innings may have played a part in their brief outings the following year.

That upset you for your own reasons.

It’s not upsetting, there’s just no evidence for the contention, you acknowledge that, and it has nothing to do with the thesis: pitcher innings keep declining as it is recognized that facing the same batter gives the batter an advantage with each subsequent appearance. I have no idea what this digression is supposed to show since you don’t even argue it’s evidence of your original implication.

[packs]

What evidence could I have? I'm not in the dugout am I? I'm not removing pitchers from games.

I suggested something and then told you why I was making that suggestion.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What evidence could I have? I'm not in the dugout am I? I'm not removing pitchers from games.

I suggested something and then told you why I was making that suggestion.

Okay. So how is this belief you have, with no evidence, relevant to the thesis?

[packs]

You made a post in which you said this:

"Only 4 pitchers reached 200 innings, because even the best are less effective with every round through the batting order, and they are pulled earlier..."

To which I suggested that perhaps a shortened season in which pitchers threw a third of their usual innings may have played a part in their brief outings the following year.

[G1911]

I give up.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet that isn't true. Among other things, it's more likely YOUR team would score in two innings than in one.

Told you I'm no mathematician

[packs]

Some other observations about pitching statistics leading up to a down year in 2021. I'm going to stick to the American League only since Robbie Ray was the object of my discussion:

Strike Out Leaders:
2018: 290 K's Verlander
2019: 326 K's Cole
2021:248 K's Ray
2022: Cole is the current leader with 178 - final TBD

ERA leaders:
2018: 1.89 Snell
2019: 2.50 Cole
2021: 2.84 Ray
2022: Verlander is the current leader at 1.73 - final TBD

ERA+ leaders:
2018: 217 Snell
2019: 185 Cole
2021: 157 Ray
2022: Verlander is the current leader at 224 - final TBD

All this to say that AL pitching took a downturn during 2021. It doesn't prove why, but again, personally, I think that short season had something to do with it. I don't disagree that pitchers are pitching less innings. I think they were pitching with some rust too. Two years removed from the shortened season and quality seems to be improving.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Told you I'm no mathematician

Scott, I think you may be right, because you can blow a save and then get a no decision if you exit when the score is tied, or even blow a save and then get a win. And the odds of a lead change increase as you pitch mor innings. Maybe

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

I think team wins are importantthat's the name of the game. But the "pitchers win" stat isn't very telling by itself, since a win is a team stat.

I'm not trying to use it to belittle pitchers from prior eras by saying pitcher wins isn't a good stat. It was an only "OK" stat back then in that it tended to correlate if you played on a decent team (if you pitched well, you won more games). Today they throw fewer innings, (and I know nobody would use the way the game has evolved to belittle modern pitchers). But either way, pitcher wins aren't a great stat.

A few folks posted examples of pitchers who pitched well but didn't get a lot of wins. The other side of that is you can pitch 9 innings, and lose 1-0. You get a loss. Same pitcher can follow up that start by giving up 8 runs in 5 innings, but if the bullpen shuts down the other team and your team scores 9, you "win".

In that situation, how can a "pitcher win" be considered any kind of reliable indicator of how good a pitcher is?

Unless you believe in the "Jack Morris, pitching to the score" crap that his HOF advocates used to talk about, a better measure is the things a pitcher can actually control.

So, things like ERA, WHIP, K's, HRs, are better indicators. Some of the advanced stats like FIP try to take away the defense playing behind a pitcher (another thing he can't control).

And the thing is, if you're looking at modern stats of pitchers from other eras, they fare really well, as it's measuring these things.

For example, the top two pitchers all time by WAR happen to ALSO be the top two pitchers by pitcher wins (Young and Johnson). But they got the wins because they were great, they weren't great because they won a lot of games. If Young had played for a terrible team and won 300 games instead of 500 (with everything else staying the same, stat-wise), it wouldn't have meant he was a worse pitcher.

Anyway, that's my thinking on it.

[Snapolit1]

If you look at the body of work DeGrom has put up the last few years, wins aside because the Mets have not supported him to a staggering degree, he is the single most dominant force probably since Koufax. I mean he comes back this year in his second start and nearly throws 6 perfect innings, striking out 12 of 17 batters he faced. And presumably not up to 100% strength. Crazy.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If you look at the body of work DeGrom has put up the last few years, wins aside because the Mets have not supported him to a staggering degree, he is the single most dominant force probably since Koufax. I mean he comes back this year in his second start and nearly throws 6 perfect innings, striking out 12 of 17 batters he faced. And presumably not up to 100% strength. Crazy.

it is amazing how few games he has 'won' considering how good he is...

jose fernandez won like 17 of 19 games at home at some point on terrible marlins teams......even last place teams on the days their stud pitcher is pitching are considered playoff teams for that day.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I think team wins are importantthat's the name of the game. But the "pitchers win" stat isn't very telling by itself, since a win is a team stat.

I'm not trying to use it to belittle pitchers from prior eras by saying pitcher wins isn't a good stat. It was an only "OK" stat back then in that it tended to correlate if you played on a decent team (if you pitched well, you won more games). Today they throw fewer innings, (and I know nobody would use the way the game has evolved to belittle modern pitchers). But either way, pitcher wins aren't a great stat.

A few folks posted examples of pitchers who pitched well but didn't get a lot of wins. The other side of that is you can pitch 9 innings, and lose 1-0. You get a loss. Same pitcher can follow up that start by giving up 8 runs in 5 innings, but if the bullpen shuts down the other team and your team scores 9, you "win".

In that situation, how can a "pitcher win" be considered any kind of reliable indicator of how good a pitcher is?

Unless you believe in the "Jack Morris, pitching to the score" crap that his HOF advocates used to talk about, a better measure is the things a pitcher can actually control.

So, things like ERA, WHIP, K's, HRs, are better indicators. Some of the advanced stats like FIP try to take away the defense playing behind a pitcher (another thing he can't control).

And the thing is, if you're looking at modern stats of pitchers from other eras, they fare really well, as it's measuring these things.

For example, the top two pitchers all time by WAR happen to ALSO be the top two pitchers by pitcher wins (Young and Johnson). But they got the wins because they were great, they weren't great because they won a lot of games. If Young had played for a terrible team and won 300 games instead of 500 (with everything else staying the same, stat-wise), it wouldn't have meant he was a worse pitcher.

Anyway, that's my thinking on it.

Mike,

I understand where you are coming from a little better, and do not disagree with your thinking. The thing is, there is no, one player that is totally responsible for a team winning or losing. It is a team game as you say. But an MLB pitcher is very much akin to an NFL quarterback, in that every single regular play in football starts with the ball in the quarterback's hands. Just like every single play in baseball starts with the ball in the pitcher's hands. And pretty much everything that happens then is a result of what the pitcher/quarterback does. And both are team games, and just like baseball, a quarterback does not have control over his defense, other players on the offense, special teams, and so on. But I've never heard anyone ever say that wins aren't an important stat for quarterbacks to show how good they are. Why is that, and why aren't both positions, pitcher and quarterback, apparently afforded similar responsibility and credit for team wins?

I think DeGrom is a great pitcher.......when he's healthy. But the problem is he isn't always healthy. And that's with him having the advantage of all the medical and technological advances and such that we have today. Were he to have been born and come to the majors back in the day of say Walter Johnson or Bob Feller, I seriously wonder if Degrom even makes it to a major league roster, or if he does, that he stays very long. Without the medical advances of today, he'd be asked and fully expected to pitch complete games, and as often and as long as other pitchers of that day. He gets by now primarily because of the limitations placed on his innings pitched, and pitches thrown. Used like that back then, and seeing how he can break down physically today, it seems pretty obvious to me that he would likely get injured from throwing like he does, and be quickly abandoned. A manager such as Connie Mack likely wouldn't keep someone like him on a roster back then if he couldn't rely on Degrom and he couldn't pitch deep into games, and pitch a lot of innings, without often coming up hurt or lame. Maybe some manager would keep him on a roster to fill in as a reliever for when his starting pitchers did tire later on in some games, but that may be it. And if he was used that way, and never really got a chance to win games, you probably wouldn't think or care much about him at all today.

Now take a Walter Johnson or Bob Feller and move them into today's game, where they didn't have to, and weren't expected to, pitch complete games and throw so many innings. Both of them could open up and not have to worry about pacing themselves so they could throw all those pitches and innings that they did. So how good would those two possibly be in today's game if they could go all out when they pitched? Scary to think how good those two guys were, and then realize that they probably paced themselves so they weren't pitching their best on every single pitch in every single game. Now let them pitch fewer innings, but go all out every single pitch. They had both exhibited phenomenal arm strength and durability in their long careers, so being able to pitch even harder over the fewer innings that would be asked of them doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think of a great pitcher as one that would do well and likely excel and help his team to win games, more than lose them. And that a truly great, all-time pitcher, would have success pretty much regardless of what period they were pitching in, at least since the modern era began around the beginning of the prior century. And in looking at pitchers like Darvish and Degrom, and then Johnson and Feller, I've got to say that I think Johnson and Feller would have a much better and realistic chance of also being successful and star/HOF caliber pitchers in today's game than Degrom and Darvish would ever have if they were trying to pitch back in Feller and Johnson's day.

Once again, the only thing that really, truly matters in a baseball game is if your team wins. And the greatest pitchers had/have that intangible "it" ability or trait, that no statistician can really measure or quantify with any of their advanced stats, to help their team to win. The only stat you can really look at to show or prove a certain pitcher had that "it" factor, is their wins. Period!!! Statisticians can try to call it luck, or try to give credit to other players on the team, or the opposing team's lousy offense or defense, or whatever, but then how do they truly explain why it is that only a certain select few pitchers always seem to be the same ones winning more games than everyone else, year after year after year? They can't, so they simply downplay wins and now try to convince everyone that wins never really mattered.

As Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!"

And along with that is another famous, anonymous quote, and universal truth, "The greatest ability is availability!"

Those two statements never have, and never will change or become irrelevant. And nothing any advanced statistician can say or do will ever prove them otherwise!

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many wins do you think Verlander would have this year if he was pitching for a last place team?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Wins do seem to go to pitchers who can pitch into the 7th inning more than just the 5th....may not apply to Degrom but you cant just say a pitcher has no control of their wins......there are a few things they can do... a few years ago they could hit and bunt as well instead of just K every time.

also a factor to consider is home starts versus the road.

road pitcher Starts, the pitcher always has the advantage for a Win because his lineup gets 3 more outs to get a a win versus the home pitcher as long as he completes the inning...if visting pitches 6 innings, his team gets 7 innings of at bats, while the home pitcher if pitches 6 innings only gets 6 offensive innings for his team to bat. I never thought that was fair statistically but amazing when you see these long home winning streaks....yeah home teams win more than away teams but i would gather getting the W is much more equal..

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Wins do seem to go to pitchers who can pitch into the 7th inning more than just the 5th....may not apply to Degrom but you cant just say a pitcher has no control of their wins......there are a few things they can do... a few years ago they could hit and bunt as well instead of just K every time.

also a factor to consider is home starts versus the road.

road pitcher Starts, the pitcher always has the advantage for a Win because his lineup gets 3 more outs to get a a win versus the home pitcher as long as he completes the inning...if visting pitches 6 innings, his team gets 7 innings of at bats, while the home pitcher if pitches 6 innings only gets 6 offensive innings for his team to bat. I never thought that was fair statistically but amazing when you see these long home winning streaks....yeah home teams win more than away teams but i would gather getting the W is much more equal..

[cgjackson222]

yeah, this a real headscratcher. A pitcher on the road, if pulled after his 6th inning, has pitched 18 outs and his team has batted 18 outs before the next pitcher enters the game. Not sure how this is an advantage, or as you said

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

his team gets 7 innings of at bats..