baseball question-- strikeouts

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In Cy Young voting why is a high strikeout total used as a key mark of success? This can be compared to another standard criterion, ERA, where a low ERA clearly identifies success. If your ERA is low enough, it shouldn't matter if your struck out no one. And if your ERA is 7.50, it's not offset by 300 strikeouts.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I think ERA and Wins-Losses are they key factors, and strikeouts are the third, but least important of the three. Strikeouts shouldn't matter that much, except maybe as a tie-breaker.

One of my favorite baseball quotes is by Tom Seaver: "I'm not paid to strike guys out. I'm paid to get guys out, sometimes by striking them out." (Probably not exactly what he said, but it's close enough.)

So, I think Tom Seaver would agree with us.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Sabathia this year made exactly this adjustment which is what allowed him to win the Cy; in previous seasons, he was trying to strike everyone out, but in trying to make those perfect pitches, he ended up walking a lot of batters and it drove his pitch count high and he wasn't able to go deep into games (see his playoff appearances this year for this phenomenon). During the regular season this year, he figured out it was OK to give up contact as long as it wasn't solid contact and getting guys out in 2 pitches is better then getting a 6 pitch strikeout.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

It can be tough to pick THE most important stat in determining which pitcher had the best season.

Wins/Losses can be deceiving if you have a high-powered (or Low-powered) offense behind you. You could pitch every game 9 innings and give up 1 run and get the loss. Likewise, give up 8 runs and get the win. W/L isn't the best indicator of individual performance.

Likewise, a low ERA might be a factor of having an all-star defense behind you that makes plays that a normal defense wouldn't make. Also, your home-field park can increase/decrease your ERA.

Strikeout stat can definately be overrated, but you won't need a defense behind you if you strike the batter out (much like Satchel Paige, hee hee). And it can be an indicator of how much you are fooling the batters, or overpowering them.

Sabathia was helped (IMO) by pitching so many innings this year, showing he's a workhorse yet still kept his ERA down.

Its a team sport - who needs individual honors!?
Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

K's are a "sexy" stat, kind of like HRs. I'd use ERA and opponent batting average as the main measuring sticks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Strikeouts are a glamour stats, they have no more production than a pop out. I feel it is the most overrated stat in baseball. Yea they are fun to watch but the results are the same as a pop up, one out no one advances.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

i think by showing/having a lot of strikouts can be an argument that the pitcher has good command and if the batter were to actually hit the ball the fielders would hopefully get him out. could probably argue that the strike to ball ratio does the same thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I have wondered about this too, and often felt that strikeouts were a wildly overrated stat (as Nolan Ryan, I believe, was a wildly overrated pitcher).

But Bill James and other baseball analysts have demonstrated pretty convincingly that a young pitcher's K/IP rate is THE best single predicter of his ability to pitch effectively in the major leagues over a period of time. Which, by the way, puts the career of Mark Fidrych in a different light-- all the statistical predicters suggest that the Bird would not have had a long career in any case since even in his first year, he wasn't striking anybody out (97 in 250 innings). He still had a great season, though.

I remember James claiming that there wasn't a single pitcher in MLB history whose strikeout rate was below a certain level in his third season who went on to have a long effective career. Sorry I can't remember more specifics-- it's probably in the Historical Abstract. So I concluded that there's got to be something in the evaluative power of the strikeout. I still don't think it should count for as much as the Win total, winning PCT, and ERA.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"as Nolan Ryan, I believe, was a wildly overrated pitcher"

Prepare for thread hijacking!

He threw 7 no nos...

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

<<Prepare for thread hijacking!

He threw 7 no nos...>>

And also managed to be rewarded with 292 career losses, third only to Cy Young himself and Pud Galvin...basically no pitchers in the modern era of the game.

Strikeouts are a glamour stat...their one bid advantage is that it puts the onus of the out completely on the pitcher, without any context on fielding ability (other than the catcher's ability to not drop the third strike if first base is unoccupied). Although we hear a lot about ground ball pitchers, etc. -- if a batter isn't able to make contact or put the ball in play, it is highly irrelevant.

I don't think strikeouts are necessarily indicative of anything, as control is a huge, huge component. One only needs to consider Steve Dalkowski to end that argument right there. The best strikeout pitcher of all time...but absolutely could not hack it due to control issues. In my mind, strikeouts are probably more important for relievers and closers -- and the K/9IP is a good stat to look at their relative dominance, as there are not too many closers, by definition, who are put on the mound regularly if they cannot consistently get people out.

~m

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Giving up 3 runs a game over 25 years should get you better then a .519 winning percentage unless you're on some really crappy teams. You can't fault him for that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

<<Re: baseball question-- strikeouts November 16 2007, 11:32 AM

Giving up 3 runs a game over 25 years should get you better then a .519 winning percentage unless you're on some really crappy teams. You can't fault him for that. >>

Matt -- you do realize that Nolan Ryan's Adjusted ERA + basically ranks him at tied for 287th all-time, which puts him behind such legendary hurlers such as Darold Knowles, Bill Hoffer, Joe Dobson and Wilson Alvarez.

Going to be hard to persuade me too much on this one!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Marc - if there's no convincing you, I won't waste my time. I will however point out that arguing for the use of career losses as a critical metric and arguing for the use of ERA+ as a critical metric is inconsistent. See Cy Young.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

baseball-reference.com:

1972 Angels
teams record = 75-80
nolan ryans record = 19-16 2.28 ERA

1973 Angels
teams record = 79-83
nolan ryans record = 21-16 2.87 ERA

1974 Angels
teams record = 68-94
nolan ryans record = 22-16 2.89 ERA

1975 Angels
teams record = 72-89
nolan ryans record = 14-12 3.45 ERA

1976 Angels
teams record = 76-86
nolan ryans record = 17-18 3.36 ERA

1977 Angels
teams record = 74-88
nolan ryans record = 19-16 2.77 ERA

Angels finished between 4th and 6th all those years, with losing records. Nolan had a winning record all six of those years, 4 times with 19+ wins!!! He sucks.

In 1987 with Houston, Nolan Ryan had a 8-16 record, 2.76 ERA (led the league), was 40 years old, pitched over 200 innings, led the league in Hits/9IP and Ks/9IP and strikeouts (270).

My points = 1) Wins can be a misleading stat and 2) Ryan isn't overrated

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I would compare strikeouts to speed in the NFL. There's no question speed is an essential part of being a good wide receiver, but they don't judge the best wide receiver in the NFL by timing the 50 yard dash. The best receiver is judge by practical production (yards, yards per catch, touchdowns). Jerry Rice and Steve Largent weren't the fastest receivers, and Renaldo Nehimiah and Willie Gault (really fast guys) were never the best receivers. Having said that, you still scout high school, college and pro players by timing their sprints.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

I think Ryan is a legit Hall of Famer but also overrated. How else can his getting the most votes among pitchers for the all-century team be explained?

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Rob,

Thanks for the great stats! You also forgot to mention that in 5 of those 6 years his ERA was lower than the league ERA and in 1977 his ERA was a full run lower.

Ryan was an awesome pitcher to watch. He'll be remembered for his no-hitters, K's and wildness (BB).

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

another semantics discussion:

Technically, over-rated could connote a player being rated as best all time when they are really 2nd best, since you've rated them higher then what they were supposed to be. Colloquially, in our context, over-rated is taken to mean that he's just an average HOF and not one of the best pitchers of all time. Arguments of best pitcher vs. 3rd best pitcher don't really qualify for the traditional use of over-rated.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Strikeouts are not an overrated stat, just maybe not the best stat determining the Cy Young Award.

I think a strikeout is just as good as a pop out, but only if the fielder catches it. A fielder could drop a pop fly. So, to be on the safe side, I would take a strikeout over a pop fly. Of course, the catcher could drop the third strike, but the batter is less likely to be safe at first compared to a dropped fly ball (which should always result in first base if the batter is not Juan Gonzalez).

This reminds me of the old saying -- "a walk is as good as a hit". I don't think so. A hit increases your batting average. A hit ball can also be missed, or result in a throwing error, leading to extra bases. For the same reasons, a walk might be as good as a passed ball on strike three, but not always.

But a walk is as good as being hit by a pitch. It is also as good as catcher's interference.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

The Big Train sat alone in the 3000K club for thirty (or was it fifty) years, when one day the door swung open and Bob Gibson entered. And it was good. Shortly thereafter the floodgates opened. And what was once an indicator of dominance became a triviality.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I have to laugh at the statement "Wins can be a misleading stat" -- we've also seen that said in this thread about ERA and strikeouts--

what's left???

Two thoughts:

1. Winning PCT (Ryan's is .526)
No doubt someone is already typing the words "Winning PCT can be a misleading stat!"
I agree over one or two years, it can-- but over a 20-year career, I figure it's gotta even out.


2. the stat "Wins Above Team" --

Try this on: http://www.homerunweb.com/sabermetrics.html

No doubt it will not convince diehard Ryan-lovers, but at least it ought to quash the false claim that Ryan played for bad teams his whole career. The webpage shows that if you subtract Ryan's decisions from the overall W-L record of his teams, you get a team PCT of .503. That's right, guys, Ryan played for WINNING teams (barely, anyway).

And he is way below most HOF pitchers in this key stat, Wins Above Team.

Ryan was 14 wins above team for his career

Grove was 52 WAT, Johnson 96.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

And Johnson played you worse teams than Ryan and still managed over 400 wins, just think how many wins he would have had if he was on a good team. To me Johnson is the GREATEST pitcher of all time.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think there's little argument that Nolan Ryan was a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. It's just that he got extra attention from the fans and press as he stuck out so many people. He was a glamour pitcher.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I think this is a great board.

I'm with David on this one. I think that he is a great pitcher, one of the better of my generation of growing up, and no doubt a Hall of Famer. That said, I think people look at the no-hitters and strikeouts and tend to ascribe a lot more value to them than they're worth. Very dominating...at times, but he never won the Cy Young award.

In one seven-year period of time, Nolan led the leads in walks six times. If anything, that just shows me Nolan was consistently inconsistent (e.g. he would either walk them or strike them out).

Rob, there are always ways to take data and manipulate to make your point. I'll just take your example and fill it in with my data

1987 Astros
teams record = 76-86
nolan ryans record = 8-16 2.76 ERA

1985 Astros
teams record = 83-79
nolan ryans record = 10-12 3.80 ERA

1971 Mets
teams record = 83-79
nolan ryans record = 10-14 3.97 ERA

1978 Angels
teams record = 87-75
nolan ryans record = 10-13 3.72 ERA

1980 Astros
teams record = 93-70
nolan ryans record = 11-10 3.35 ERA

Really less of an issue as to whether or not Nolan is a great pitcher. I think we all concede his is, and I think he is a strong Hall of Famer, definitely a first balloter, one of the stronger pitchers in the Hall of Fame. But I would not say that he is one of the Top 10 - 20 pitchers of all time.

Marc

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I recall a game Ryan pitched (hope my memory is right here) where he recorded a 10 inning complete game with 10 walks and 19 strikeouts. I believe he threw about 250 pitches.

And yet he still managed to throw hard for 27 years. I bet he threw more pitches than anyone in history, even Cy Young.

If anything, he was a physical phenomenon.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

Ryan allowed fewest hits per 9 innings of any pitcher - ever.
Ryan Opponents' batting avg. is lowest of any pitcher - ever.

Remember folks, to get a strikeout, you have to throw strikes. Consider perhaps a strike/ball ratio instead of a strikeout/walk ratio. Ryan had better control than most give him credit.

Ryan broke into the league...just AFTER they lowered the pitchers mound. How many fewer ho-hitters would Koufax have had with a lowered mound (rumor the Dodgers toyed with raising mound).........and how many more no-hitters would Ryan have if he pitched with a raised mound - 10? 12? maybe even more? - he has record for most one-hitters.

Top 5 all-time players not necessarily in order:
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Nolan Ryan
Sandy Koufax
Satchel Paige
Take all the big hitters you want, Ruth, Teddy, Cobb - top pitching beats top hitting. I will start picking hitters with my 6th choice.

steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

I'd say Nolan EASILY makes the top 20 for best pitching CAREERS - probably top 5. Sure, you could come up with 20 pitchers you'd rather have for ONE game, but career-wise there aren't many better pitchers. Many started falling off as they got older, or had career ending injuries, or just didn't perform for more than 10 seasons. How many have pitched so sucessfully for as long as he has? Satchel Paige? Anyone else?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Nolan Ryan benefitted from his home ballparks far more than the average pitcher. Playing in Angels Stadium and the Astrodome for the bulk of his career his road ERA was very nearly a full run higher than his home ERA. That's a greater disparity than even Sandy Koufax whose home park advantage has been well documented.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Yes, we probably should give Nolan credit for four or five more no-hitters, and while we're at it we could throw in another 50-75 wins too-- after all, that mound was lowered just before he came in. And we all know what a hitters' paradise the AL in the 1970s was-- In fact, they loved all the slugging so much that they added the DH to get even more!

C'mon guys, Ryan's career (1966-1993) was for the most part a highly favorable era for pitchers. And as Howard mentioned, he played in excellent pitchers' parks most of the time.

Sure, you can create a distorted comparison by looking at Koufax, but Koufax is an almost unique case. He became a great pitcher at the same moment his team moved into maybe the most extreme pitchers' park in ML history (first years of Dodger Stadium)-- but he was also 54-19 on the road between 1962-66, so you can't blame it all on the stadium.

For every Koufax there are several pitchers whose stats -- especially ERA-- are hurt by the era they played in, especially between 1920-1940. I consider a bunch of those guys --some of them not in the HOF-- greater pitchers than Ryan.

And I see Lefty Grove as by far the greatest pitcher since 1920, for that reason. In an extreme hitters era, he led the league in ERA 9 times in 14 seasons (1926-1939) and went 276-116 with a cumulative era of 2.87 during those seasons. How can anybody claim Ryan's outstrips a record like that??

Sure, Ryan is a HOFer without doubt. It just seems to me with that amazing arm and longevity, he seriously underutilized his talent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Tim - I don't think anyone is arguing here (although they may disagree) that Ryan was or wasn't better then Grove. The argument is whether Ryan is over-rated and put now in concrete terms, whether he is one of the top 20 pitchers of all-time. Saying Lefty Grove was better doesn't add to the debate, unless of course, you believe that Grove was the 20th best pitcher of all-time.

[Archive]

Posted By: ItsOnlyGil

The moderator of this board exercises his tyrannical powers very infrequently because of the respect that contributors usually show one another. You may disagree with another poster's opinions, but please keep the insults to a minimum.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That statement was put in there by the previous moderators. IS there some statement you want to make or do you just enjoy cutting and pasting the forum rules? BTW, I absolutely agree with the statement......I can't tell you how many times I get asked to lock or delete threads and I rarely do....and except for 2 certain threads don't remember deleting any others this year.....that were done by anyone but anonymous trolls (which I will try to ban immediately)....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

what ARE (or should be) the main factors in determining Cy Young?

In my opinion, ERA should be the #1 factor heads and shoulders above the other factors. But still playing a role, in the following order IMO, are:

2) Innings pitched (the more innings pitched, the more likely you helped your team and saved your bullpen etc)
3) Opponent Avg and OBP
4) Wins
5) Strikeouts
6) Other stuff, like CGs, fielding?, # of walks, etc.

I wanted to put Strikeouts above wins, but couldn't

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

hard to say...it sounds like you are almost biasing your answer against relievers --- and there have been numerous times that Closers have won the Cy Young award, most of the time, deservedly so.

I think if you adjust ERA (for park factors, etc.) it is a fine starting metric. I also think that fielding should play a stronger role in the award. For example, Greg Maddux has won numerous Gold Gloves and Cy Young Awards. But if you use ERA only as your primary starting point, you are almost implicitly biasing against someone like Maddux who would give up more (unearned) runs as a consequence of his crappy fielding.

I think Win Percentage compared to Team Win Percentage is a pretty good metric, too. For example, this would hugely highlight the dominance that some pitchers have had over time. Steve Carlton's 1972 season is an excellent example of this. A phenomenal winning percentage on an absolutely horrific team.

I also really like WHIP as a metric, and it covers a lot of things, like OBP, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

I don't think extra credit should be given for a pitcher's fielding ability in Cy Young voting. If Maddux truly is a great fielder than the runs he saves himself should already show up in his ERA and possibly his win totals. In effect he already gets credit for his fielding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

So Howard, how would you rank the statistical categories to determine a pitcher's worthiness for the Cy Young award?

On another note, another stat I'm not a fan of the is the "Save" stat. I mean, it can be the bottom of the 9th, a closer comes in with a 3 run lead, faces the opposing teams' 7 thru 9 hitters to get 3 outs, and gets a save. I mean, with a 3 run lead and no one on base and facing the worst hitters on the team, he didn't really save anything.

If the starting pitcher gets in a jamb in the 8th inning, has a 1 run lead with 2 guys on, and the opposing team's best hitter at bad, and a reliver comes in and closes them down, THAT is saving the game!

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

<<I don't think extra credit should be given for a pitcher's fielding ability in Cy Young voting. If Maddux truly is a great fielder than the runs he saves himself should already show up in his ERA and possibly his win totals. In effect he already gets credit for his fielding.>>

I guess we don't agree on extra credit and what it means. If a pitcher commits a dozen or two errors over the course of a season, any runs that result from those errors are, by definition, unearned and will not impact his ERA.

Marc

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

I really don't know, Rob. I kind of like that there are no rigid guidelines because I enjoy the discussions when there is a controversial award choice. I guess I would give the most weight to ERA and the factors that led to it (park, team defense, opponents).

I agree with you about the save stat and the blown save stat is even worse. A middle reliever can enter the game in the seventh w/no chance of a save because he obviously will not finish the game. However, if he enters w/a man on third and no outs he gets a blown save if the runner scores.

Good arguments on all sides, folks....keep it up!

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Marc S., I agree w/you to an extent. Yes, errors will not affect the ERA. I didn't think of that. However, a lot of plays that good fielding pitchers make would not be scored as errors if the play is not made. These plays do improve the ERA. Also, unearned runs contribute to losses so the pitchers wins and losses could easily be affected.

Howard

BTW, a "dozen or two" errors seems like an awful lot for a pitcher. Does anyone know what the record is since the inception of the Cy Young Award in 1956? How about the all-time record?

Edited to spell "errors" correctly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

I saw Steve Dalkowski pitch. Scarier to face than Ryne Duren. According to one web site, he had a lifetime won-loss record of 46-80 and an ERA of 5.59 in nine minor league seasons, striking out 1396... and walking 1354... in 995 innings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Ivey

Personal stats such as K's don't bother me much. In fact, I'm impressed, though it may not always be best for the team if the pitcher is such motivated, with the pitch count being elevated, and pitchers getting overly aggressive in the strike zone.

Now I have to go off topic. If you want a stat that needs debunking it's the sack statistic in football. It hurts the team. Defensive linemen - you know the type of ego (Gastineau etc.), over-committing at the line of scrimmage, always looking for the glorious sack, and getting burned inside on the run.

I didn't mean to divert. My point is that individual statistics should be scrutinized in team sports, so I applaud this thread. Didn't Marris ask Houk if he could try bunting as his record season was ending? There's a team player.

Did it hurt the Orioles to play Ripken as long as they did? Aw, who cares. I'm a Yanks fan and I'm rambling.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Was Steve's Top 5 list from this very same thread:

"Top 5 all-time players not necessarily in order:
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Nolan Ryan
Sandy Koufax
Satchel Paige"

That's what got me going-- the idea that a .526 pitcher could be anywhere near these other guys is just crazy to me, no matter how many no-hitters or strikeouts he has.

I wouldn't put Koufax that high either, due to lack of longevity. Johnson, Young, Grove (and as much as I hate to admit it, Clemens) I see as way beyond anybody else since 1900.