David Cone’s Perfect Game in 1999
Use a phrase once, it is an article. Use it twice, it’s a series.
Last time, I asked the brilliant commentariat to discuss the late Thurman Munson. wWAR (my system of weighted wins above replacement, based on WAR figures from Baseball-Rederence) placed Munson squarely on the Hall of Fame borderline—without giving him any extra credit at all for how he may have finished his career. Today, I give you another player that wWAR sees as Hall-worthy. In fact, this pitcher clears the hurdle by a substantial margin. I was, to be honest, a little surprised.
It’s David Cone.
- Cone’s 58.2 pitching WAR ranks 50th all time. That’s really impressive. Borderline Hall stuff. But his 35.6 Wins Above Average (WAA) ranks even better—40th all time.
- Of the 39 pitchers ahead of him in WAA, nine—Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Roy Halladay, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz—aren’t even eligible for induction yet (Clemens and Schilling will be on the next ballot, though).
- The only eligible pitchers ahead of him who are not in the Hall of Fame are Jim McCormick, Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel, and Bret Saberhagen. (You can expect to see some of those names in future “Let’s Talk About” articles.)
- This tells us that Cone may not have lasted long (which explains his relatively low career totals), but when he pitched, he dominated.
- Cone doesn’t have 200 wins. Now, I subscribe to the school of “pitcher wins are horseshit”, but you still seem to need them to get into the Hall (unless you “earn” a ton of saves, which are made from an even lower grade of horseshit).
- (Non-Closer) Hall of Fame pitchers with fewer than 200 wins (who were inducted as a player): Dizzy Dean (150), Addie Joss (160), John Montgomery Ward (164, but was primarily a shortstop), Sandy Koufax (165), Lefty Gomez (189), Rube Waddell (195), Ed Walsh (195), Dennis Eckersley (197, but also a closer), Dazzy Vance (197), and Jack Chesbro (198).
- A dollar says that’s more than you thought.
- Among pitchers within 250 IP of Cone on either side (2649 to 3149 IP), Pedro Martinez and Roy Halladay own the best WAR. But in between 55 and 65 WAR, we see Stan Coveleski, Vance, Walsh, Cone, Al Spalding, Waddell, and Hal Newhouser. So, that’s Cone and six Hall of Famers.
- Cone won a Cy Young Award, but since it was in the strike-shortened 1994, nobody seems to remember it.
- He is 22nd all time in strikeouts. He led the league twice, led in K/9 three times, and fanned 200 six times (with 190+ another three times).
- In 21 postseason games (18 starts), he went 8-3 with a 3.80 ERA. His World Series numbers are 2-0 with a 2.12 ERA in six games (five starts). He earned five World Series rings.
- Cone was a 5-time All Star and threw a perfect game.
- In his only year of eligibility, he received 3.9% of the Hall of Fame vote. Other first year candidates were Rickey Henderson and Mark Grace (who received 4.1%).
Does David Cone deserve to be in a Hall of Fame that features Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Bob Gibson, Hal Newhouser, and Gaylord Perry? Maybe not. But the truth is, the Hall of Fame also includes Gomez, Waddell, Walsh, Chesbro, Vance, Red Ruffing, Eppa Rixey, Burleigh Grimes, Waite Hoyt, Chief Bender, Herb Pennock, Bob Lemon, Rube Marquard, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers… Cone was better than all of them.
What do you think of David Cone?
Who’s this Waite character? John Waite? The Babys had a couple good songs, but no way he should be in the Hall. 🙂
#commahumor
Ha, fixed. Thanks. 🙂
Just looking at Waite Hoyt. Wow, no way he gets put in the Hall of Fame if he has a career like his nowadays. Funny how the standards have changed, particularly for pitchers.
Waite Hoyt was also famous as a Reds broadcaster for telling
stories during a rain delay.
As Babe Ruth’s teammate he had some great ones.
This may have been a factor in how he made the HOF
in 1969.
Enjoy…
http://www.redreporter.com/2011/6/30/2253053/the-best-of-waite-hoyt-in-the-rain-personality-records-1963-i
When I click the link, I get a threatening anti piracy warning from our betters at the department of injustice and the ipr center.
Any way to get it by the censors? Love to hear it.
I ain’t missin’ you at all!
No matter what my friends say.
This is all very well and good Adam, but where’s “Let’s Talk About Jody Reed”?
Rather amazingly, I already managed to do that already. http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/08/the-hall-of-clearly-above-replacement-but-not-quite-average/
Gah, I read that, and even looked up the stuff about the contract! Me no so good with the names.
Great analysis, Adam. I think there are two ways to look at Hall cases like Cone’s. The first, which I prefer, is to consider recent players in terms relatively consistent with Hall voting history, only ignoring the absolute worst Hall of Famers as comps. If we do this, we have to induct Cone, along with Brown and Reuschel and probably Saberhagen and Frank Tanana. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it gives us a big hall.
The second is to acknowledge that Hall standards were essentially reset after the candidacies of guys who played in the ’30s were determined. Throw out everyone who peaked between, say, ’25 and ’45, and I wonder if Cone’s still above the new borderline. He wasn’t Seaver or Carlton and he wasn’t quite Blyleven, so we don’t have a great modern comp.
If Schilling and Mussina get in, the Veterans Committee will take a long look at Cone someday, as they should.
Oh my, how Jack Morris is going to throw this off completely.
Right. The last time we had an active Hall of Fame starting pitcher was Nolan Ryan. That was 1993.
Granted, we’ve had a hell of a group of starters who are not yet eligible yet. I think the longevity of their careers is why we’ve had this gap, though some of it is stricter standards. I mean, if they played in the 1930s, guys like Cone, Brown, and Saberhagen would be in, no question.
All very good points. So, with my Hall of wWAR, we don’t have the burden of keeping the Hall of Fame’s mistakes. And still, Cone ranks VERY highly. It’s that peak. It was quite nice.
I do happen to believe that Brown, Reuschel, and Luis Tiant definitely belong. As far as Cone, Saberhagen, and Dave Stieb… I would like to see them in the Hall, but they aren’t “priorities” like the other three. Then there’s Kevin Appier, Urban Shocker, Wes Ferrell, Chuck Finley, Tommy John, Orel Hershiser, Frank Tanana, and others… they’re more borderline, but I wouldn’t mind seeing t heir inductions at all.
Some, like Ferrell and Bob Caruthers (who rates more in the Cone/Saberhagen crew, but I left out 19th century pitchers here) are pet cases that I push for more than others. I’m prone to subjective feelings, too.
When you mentioned Bob Caruthers it got me thinking about a couple of other pre-modern pitchers who should have gotten in. Bobby Mathews (297 wins and just a few shy of 300) and Tony Mullane (Come on! He was ambidextrous! The hall could use someone like that).
But to get back to Cone, I always felt that Cone was a close case for the Hall of Fame. It is a coin flip from where I am. I will say that there is a certain Mets fan that I know who would love to see one of his favorite pitchers of all-time go in.
I REALLY have to disagree with you, in particular about Matthews. Even in the year in which he garnered the most black ink he was at BEST the fourth best pitcher in the league and possibly no better than seventh. And that was in a 13 team league where there were fewer than a score of pitchers anywhere near pitching enough innings to be considered having met the threshold for pitching a full season.
Pitchers WAR totals were grossly inflated in the 1870’s & early 80’s because of many factors- most notably that 90% of the innings pitched for the entire league was divided among a dozen or so pitchers. Even in 1883- when Matthews was enjoying a brief career resurgence- his 4.2 WAR for the season is up against a 19.5 for Tim Keefe. Of the top 100 single-season WAR leaders at least half of them are pitchers from before 1890 and in the top 25 it’s over 80%.
The best you can say for Mathews is that you MIGHT be able to make the argument that he’s as deserving as Rube Marquard or Jesse Haines. Mullane’s case is a little better than Mathews but not a whole lot.
In my mind Cone is right on the line for getting into the Hall and I honestly am not certain of how I would vote in his case. Probably yes but there are a dozen pitchers or more who are either better or equally well qualified that are not in so he wouldn’t be at the top of my list either.
Wow–that is really something I had never really looked at before–that is, how pitcher’s WAR was pretty strange in the 1870’s. In 1875 for example, there were 118 wins available to split up (Note that some of the 13 teams played as few as 13 or 14 games, while others player 60-70).
The top 10 pitchers in terms of WAR had 100.6 of the available wins. Matthews was 5th on the list with 10.8. Spaulding had 15.1. (according to BBR).
In the last 10 years or so, there have only been a handful of pitchers to have a WAR of over 8 for a season, and I think only one or two over 10.
Some other really odd/interesting stats from back in that day.
Re this:
>>>I REALLY have to disagree with you, in particular about Matthews. Even in the year in which he garnered the most black ink <<<
Funny, most of the black ink was for stuff you don't want to lead the league in: Hits, earned runs, wild pitches, for examples. HA HA. This is too funny–now way this Matthews guy belongs in the HOF.
True that Cone led a league twice in strikeouts — but he led MLB 3 straight years, 1990-92. In ’92, Smoltz edged Cone by one for the NL crown, 215-214, but Coney added 47 with Toronto, to finish with 20 more Ks than any other pitcher.
Cone won a Cy Young Award, but since it was in the strike-shortened 1994, nobody seems to remember it.
The middle clause in this sentence could read “but since it was in KC”, and it would still be true. 🙂
I might come back by saying people seem to remember Bret Saberhagen’s, but the Royals were actually good then.
The first one they remember in 1985, not so much the second one in 1989, but the Royals were actually good in both 1989 (2nd best record in AL in the regular season, no wild card though) and 1994.
In 1989, had the Royals not stupidly traded Cone away two years before, their pitching staff would have been stacked. The A’s were extremely good that year, though, so not sure it would have mattered.
Adam,
Since you always commented on my BPP posts, I’ll gladly comment on yours here.
This is off the topic of Cone specifically, but I’ve been working on a theory lately (I may have mentioned it once on BPP) that there’s somewhat of a HOF benchmark at 3,000 IP and a 120 ERA+ (or slightly more innings, less ERA+ and vice versa). Guys on the right side of the Hall borderline like Ted Lyons just barely reach my threshold, and guys just outside the Hall like Billy Pierce just miss it. Kevin Brown is the only pitcher I can find who reached those numbers but isn’t in Cooperstown. Cone threw about 2,900 innings with a 121 ERA+, putting him right on the line. Obviously you don’t judge an entire HOF candidacy on two pretty basic stats, but that does give you a picture, and it seems to be somewhat of an accidental existing threshold for HOF induction.
Hey Alex, thanks for the comment.
You’re right, the only pitchers eligible for the Hall who meet both criteria and are not in are Kevin Brown and 19th century hurlers Will White and Sliver King, two of the weirder careers in history (short careers with ridiculous peaks). Both have ERA+ of 121, so they just make it. Eddie Cicotte also fits the criteria. But of course, he’s not eligible.
A lot of the pitchers we’re talking about here fit the 120, but not the 3000. 5 of them have 50+ WAR:
David Cone – 121 ERA+, 2899 IP, 58.2 WAR
Bret Saberhagen – 126 ERA+, 2563 IP, 56.0 WAR
Dave Stieb – 122 ERA+, 2895 IP, 53.5 WAR
Kevin Appier – 121 ERA+, 2595 IP, 51.9 WAR
Urban Shocker – 124 ERA+, 2682 IP, 50.9 WAR
And my two pet cases referenced earlier:
Bob Caruthers – 122 ERA+, 2829 IP, 40.1 WAR (added 18.6 WAR as a hitter)
Wes Ferrell – 116 ERA+, 2623 IP, 45.1 WAR (added 12.1 WAR as a hitter)
(So, my pet cases have something in common…)
For completeness, here are some guys with more than 3000 IP and less than 120 ERA+:
Jim McCormick – 118 ERA+, 4275 IP, 72.2 WAR
Bobby Mathews – 104 ERA+, 4956 IP, 65.6 WAR
Rick Reuschel – 114 ERA+, 3548 IP, 64.6 WAR
Luis Tiant – 114 ERA+, 3486 IP, 61.8 WAR
Tommy Bond – 115 ERA+, 3629 IP, 60.8 WAR
I think if you’re going to make a list of the dozen best pitchers not in the Hall of Fame, this is a very good start.
That’s a brilliant observation, Alex, and I think the less than 3000 IP and 200 wins is why Cone was never looked at by the writers as a serious Hall of Fame candidate. I’m not saying I entirely agree with that; I’m just trying to explain the rationale of the voters.
Nice work Adam. I would definitely have no problem with David being in the Hall. He had a relatively short (but very productive) career with a lot of great moments.
Regarding Wins and the HOF – the point about Nolan Ryan being the latest active hall of fame pitcher in 1993 is sobering. It seems like over the last 20 years the WIN has become more important for the HOF at the same time it has became harder to compile a lot of Wins and the Stat itself has lost a lot of luster. The fact that a pitcher like Cone could be 1 and done in the voting shows that someone without a lot of Wins has be ignored.
A few notes about Cone:
1) How could he possibly get less votes than Mark Grace????
2) At first I was surprised he “only” had 5 WS starts. But I forgot he only pitched to 1 batter in 2000 (a loooong flyout by Mike Piazza) and the 1998 & 1999 WS were sweeps. I recall an interview with Joe Torre where we said he liked having Cone pitch Game 3 of the World Series because it was so pivotal. It worked in 1996 when his start got the Yanks back into it after being down 2 games to 0.
Also, I think David is a very entertaining announcer for the Yankee Games the last few seasons. He doesn’t do a lot of them, but when he is in the booth he is full of good stories and analysis (player perspective of everything from clowning around in the dugout to being on the mound in the World Series). Also, he is a real proponent of SABRmetrics. I have heard him discuss WHIP, WAR, and BABip on numerous occasions.
I think I still owe you a serious comment. I love the case you’ve made for Cone. It’s ridiculous that he was so quickly dismissed by HOF voters. But, better than Ed Walsh? I don’t know.
I almost posted that this morning, Dan. Big Ed just has a sic amount of black ink for such a short career. And Cone can’t touch Ed’s career 145 ERA+, either, although a short career can certainly help maintain a high mark on that metric. Walsh is also the career raw ERA leader at 1.82 (in other words, he was the ERA leader for the deadball era).
Love this article. I endorsed Cone for the HOF many times over on the old Baseball Reference blog. It is a shame he received so little support from the HOF voters.
I think, amongst other things, one thing that caused him to be so easily dismissed is the perception that he was a “hired gun”. He went from the Mets, to the Royals, to the Blue Jays, to the Yankees within the first decade of his career. Not having an identifiable team (in the mind of some voters) probably doesn’t help him. As you also mentioned, Adam, the strike year in 1994 hurts his case. Cone would have a tremendous shot at 20+ wins (which HOF voters have loved) that season if not for the strike. And the 1995 season was shortened as well…Cone had 18 wins that year. So baseball’s labor issues probably cost Cone two 20-win seasons, which would give him four such seasons overall. As Cone finished with 194 wins, it’s reasonable to think he also gets to at least 200 or more wins in his career as well. On a seasonal level, Cone was usually of the best pitchers in MLB each season. I wish I had some of the prior data I posted about Cone but overall, he definitely should be in the Hall of Fame IMO.
Something about WAR and WAA for pitchers is really difficult for me and Cone is an example of why. So, it’s difficult for me to agree that Cone belongs in based on WAR and WAA.
For example, Cone’s best WAR year according to BBR was 1993 with KC. Okay, even if we don’t consider his 11-14 W/L record, that seems far from his best year, other than in innings pitched. Compared to the rest of Cone’s seasons, his ERA and ERA+ stats were just about in the middle. His SO/9 was on the low side compared to the rest of his seasons.
It’s really hard for me to believe that his 1993 season was better than 1988 when he had more K’s, a lower ERA, higher SO/9, and higher ERA+.
All that said–I think there is a very strong case for Cone based on traditional stats and accomplishments. Cy Young Award, 22nd all time K’s (more than Koufax, Grove, Plamer and many other HOF’s), All Star, two time 20 game winner, ERA, etc.
I think he should be in.
That’s awesome—someone who thinks Cone belongs, but not necessarily for WAR and WAA.
Let me see if I can help.
1993 was a weird year for Cone. He was 11-14, but he also threw a career high in innings. His ERA+ was 138, which was actually the second highest among his 200 IP seasons. So, perhaps it’s not a big surprise that his WAR was that high.
If you notice, it is actually his third highest WAA, which shows that quite a bit of his WAR was from pitching so much.
Now in 1988, Cone came close in innings and had a better ERA+:
1993: 254 IP, 138 ERA+, 6.9 WAR, 4.8 WAA
1988: 231 IP, 145 ERA+, 5.3 WAR, 3.5 WAA
What gives there?
Well, it turns out in 1988 Cone faced the easiest competition of his career. 1993 was in fact the worst pitcher setting he threw in during his career while 1988 was the best. Perhaps WAR digs more into that than ERA+. 1988 also was the weakest opposition he faced in his career, so I bet that is part of it, too.
Yes, thanks. I just spent 2 hours with a spread sheet and punching in numbers–clearly WAR and WAA are heavily dependent on statistical predictions of what the teams the pitcher did face would have scored against an average pitcher. Or as you pointed out, the level of the competition a pitcher faced. As determined by analyzing the statistics and predicting what an average pitcher would have done in terms of runs allowed, given the same defense and same ballparks.
My biggest concern is that some of the data that all these stats start with are subject to some subjective judgments. BRR RA9def is based on Total Zone’s ratings (pre 2003) Some of those numbers are based on estimates.
“For most games, I have information on which fielder makes each out, and the batted ball type. Without information on the hits, I have to make an estimate.”
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/total_zone.shtml
I know when you start to put numbers into complex formulas, being off a small fraction can change the outcomes quite a bit.
But I really don’t know much about this stuff.
Thanks.
Joseph, it’s natural to wonder how Cone’s ’93 rates above his ’88. But in ’88, Cone was in the NL (no DH) and in a park that was extremely favorable to pitchers that year. In ’93, he was in the DH league, in a hitter’s park.
In ’88, Cone had a 1.29 ERA and .180 BA at home, 3.19 and .245 away.
In ’93, Cone had a 4.05 ERA and .247 BA at home, 2.62 and .198 away.
There was also a chronological change in context. In 1988, the MLB scoring average was 4.14 R/G; the NL average was 3.88. By ’93, the MLB average was up to 4.60, and the AL was at 4.71.
And the value of Cone’s extra 23 IP in ’93 was *slightly* enhanced by a small drop in a typical starter’s IP in that span. In ’88, Cone’s 231 IP ranked 25th in MLB; that same total in ’93 would have ranked 18th.
I’m not saying that proves the WAR analysis is “right”; I’m just saying there are a number of things that chip away at what at first seems a better 1988.
In 2011, his 6th year of eligibility, Cone made it into the Hall of Merit. I’m not so sure he’s that much better than El Tiante, who remains on the outside with the 41st highest WAR for pitchers. I know Tiant pitched 600 more innings and Cone had a higher winning percentage and some of the other stats favor him, but really, he should at least have made it in before Cone.
When I saw Cone undefeated in the WS, took a double-take. He sure struggled in the ’92 series (8 walks in 10 IP) but somehow escaped unscathed.
Those Toronto teams were ridiculous hitting outfits. Their pitchers had a lot of leeway with that kind of run support. (The ’93 outfit was probably stronger.)
At the Backhand Shelf blog, someone posted a picture of Eric Lindros taking batting practice with the Jays – he had been an excellent high school hitter – and I wondered what would have happened if he’d been drafted by the Jays and wound up playing as a 19-year old in 1992, facing off against fellow two-sport draftee Tom Glavine in the WS. (Lindros would have replaced Kelly Gruber at third base.) I doubt Lindros would have been as accomplished as Bryce Harper at such a young age, though he was fantastic from his rookie year in the NHL.
Just wanted to mention how crucial for Toronto Cone’s acquisition was in ’92. Not so much in terms of how he pitched–he did pitch well; solid in seven starts, also good in two rounds of playoffs–but as one of those sending-a-message moves for a team that had a history of near-misses up to that point. When the Jays got him in late August that season, it felt seismic: “Wow–they’re really serious about winning this.” (They gave up Kent for him, but it took Kent a couple of teams and a few years to find his way, and obviously they had Alomar at the time anyway.)
I never look at a player’s hall qualifications against the bottom. That would be as absurd to me as saying he didn’t pitch like Walter Johnson so he doesn’t belong. I look squarely at the middle. Above average for a HOF-er means he should be voted in. If he can’t reach those standards, then he would lower the already suspect standards of the hall. Compared to your average HOF pitcher, Cone is substantially below. Munson may have had some extenuating circumstances, but I don’t buy it for Cone. Not that I would vote for Munson anyway.
Cone is above average for a HOFer in some stats: W-L%; K’s; ERA+; and SO/9. I have no idea if there’s more, but probably.
What seems very silly to me is to hold pitchers to the standards of the game that were established during the time of our great-great-grandfathers. A pitcher would not be permitted to pitch 300 or more innings today.
Who is your average Hall of Famer? When compared to the current Hall of Fame, I think Cone has got to be at least average.
There’s a difference between “average Hall of Famer” and “above average for a HOF-er.” In the context of looking “squarely at the middle,” however, that appears to be a reference to the mean, no?
At any rate, one does not need to compare Cone against the bottom to make the case.
Cone would have the 27th best W/L percentage out of (I think) 67 HOF pitchers not counting Ruth. The average W/L for a HOF pitcher is .588, according to BBR.
Mean for WAR seems to be about 58. Cone has about 58. Average for WAR is about 64. Cone is right there around the middle.
Average SO’s for a HOF pitcher is about 2025. The mean seems to be about 1800. Cone has 2668. Well above both.
You mentioned Johnson, and I think there is an interesting comparison you can make. Cone pitched 2886 innings and 58 WAR. From 1910 through 1917, some of Johnson’s most consistently good years, he accumulated about 61 WAR in 2811 innings. David Cone was no Walter Johnson, but in terms of WAR, he came pretty close for a few years.
By the way, I was using hyperbole in that last sentence. I know it’s not literally true.
Great piece, Adam. My problem is with some of the comps you mentioned. Koufax started his career in the integrated era, and had a short career with a great peak, like Cone. However, for me the game has changed too much to compare Cone to someone like Chesbro or Vance.
Koufax didn’t have longevity, thus like Cone his career numbers fall short. However for a seven year span from 1960-1966 Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball. He had the highest WAR (45.7)topping the 2nd place finisher, Marichal by 7 wins (7.1). During that span Koufax also led the majors in ERA+ (147) and OPS+ against (61), both by wide margins.
Koufax is in because for a short period of time he was the best pitcher in baseball, and for some the best pitcher they had ever seen. Was Cone ever the best pitcher in baseball for an extended period of time? I don’t think he was
Cone was great, he is borderline for sure and definitely deserved better than falling off the ballot his first year on it. Cone’s a just miss for me because his peak was not quite enough to make up for his relatively short career.
Pingback: High Heat Stats » Let’s Talk About Curt Schilling