COG Round 35 Results: Briefly, Palmer Looks Good to Voters

Palmer, Briefly

In a near-repeat of the 26-26 tie vote between Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan in the 1941 round, Jim Palmer barely edged Rose, 27 votes to 25, to become the 35th inductee into the High Heat Stats Circle of Greats.  More on Jim and the voting after the jump.

Among the 137 pitchers who had at least 100 starts in the majors in the 1970s, here are the best ERAs of that decade:

1. Jim Palmer 2.58
2. Tom Seaver 2.61
3. Bert Blyleven 2.88
4. Gaylord Perry 2.92
5. Frank Tanana 2.927

To use another traditional stat, here’s a list of the most regular season Wins by a pitcher in the 1970s:

1. Jim Palmer 186
2. Gaylord Perry 184
T3. Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton and Ferguson Jenkins 178

Using more advanced stats, Palmer falls no more than one slot on the list of greatest pitchers of the 1970s:

Best ERA+, 1970-1979 (min, 100 starts)
1. Tom Seaver 138
2. Jim Palmer 137
3. Bert Blyleven 130
4. Dennis Eckersley 128
5. John Candelaria 127

Best OPS+ Against, 1970-1979 (min. 100 starts)
1. Tom Seaver 72
2. Jim Palmer 77
3. Nolan Ryan 78
T4. Bert Blyleven, J.R. Richard, Andy Messersmith and Don Sutton 80

Palmer is, however just 5th among pitchers in pitching Wins Above Replacement (WAR) during the 1970s, according to baseball-reference, and just 9th in WAR according to Fangraphs.

Here’s another example of the same phenomenon.  There’s little doubt that the two greatest pitchers to pitch for the St. Louis Browns/Baltimore Orioles franchise have been Jim Palmer and Mike Mussina.  Take a look at some career stats for those two pitchers (these are career numbers, so they include Mussina’s years with the Yankees as well as with the Orioles):

J.Palmer 521 Starts, 268 Wins, 152 Losses, .658 Winning Pct., 125 ERA+, 82 OPS+Against
Mussina 536 Starts, 270 Wins, 153 Losses, .658 Winning Pct., 123 ERA+, 81 OPS+Against

These numbers make it look like Palmer was cloned to create Mussina.  But b-ref’s formula gives Mussina 82.7 career WAR while Palmer gets only 67.9.  Fangraphs is even more extreme, giving Mussina 82.3 career WAR but Palmer just 51.7.  Fangraphs ranks Palmer as only 75th in career pitching WAR since 1901, immediately after Jack Morris and Jerry Reuss and just before Camilo Pascual and Steve Rogers, while Mike Mussina, in contrast, is slotted just above Warren Spahn and Phil Niekro.

*****************************************

Palmer seemed to have a strong lead for almost the entire length of the balloting this round.  But Charlie Hustle never stopped running, gaining four votes on Palmer in the final hours of balloting to climb within a single vote of another tie as late as the last few minutes of the round.  Ultimately, Rose fell just one Palmer-to-Rose switched vote short of matching the 26-26 tie in the previous round.  That’s the same one-switched-vote margin by which Rose fell to Nolan Ryan in the runoff.

With a relatively weak group of newcomers to the eligibility list, several long-term holdovers were able to pile up votes and add to their store of guaranteed ballot eligibility.  John Smoltz, Edgar Martinez and Bobby Grich each appeared on more than 25% of the ballots, and thus expanded the number of rounds for which they are assured eligibility to receive Circle of Greats votes.  Edgar appeared on a higher percentage of ballots this round than he has in any previous round.

The final spreadsheet showing this round’s tally shows a few adjustments to reflect the effect of the parallel runoff balloting.  Votes for “Rose/Ryan” were re-characterized as votes for Pete Rose once Nolan Ryan won the runoff.  And votes for Ryan, although they show up in the spreadsheet, were not counted in the denominator used to calculate the percentage of ballots on which each player appeared.  So although 61 valid ballots were cast this round, the far bottom right number on the spreadsheet shows only 59, because six votes for Ryan (two full ballots worth) were not included in that calculation.

The full spreadsheet showing this round’s vote tally, after adjustments, is here: COG 1940 Round Part 1 Vote Tally..

The overall vote summary for all Circle of Greats voting rounds is here: COG Vote Summary , with a summary of the raw vote totals on Sheet 1 and a summary of the percentage totals on Sheet 2.

*****************************************

The Circle of Greats membership thus far (currently being displayed in order of major league regular season games played):
Rickey Henderson, 3,081 games
Cal Ripken, Jr., 3,001 games
Barry Bonds, 2,986 games
Robin Yount, 2,856 games
Reggie Jackson, 2,820 games
George Brett, 2,707 games
Paul Molitor, 2,683 games
Joe Morgan, 2,649 games
Ozzie Smith, 2,573 games
Tim Raines, 2,502 games
Carlton Fisk, 2,499 games
Rod Carew, 2,469 games
Wade Boggs, 2,440 games
Tony Gwynn, 2,440 games
Mike Schmidt, 2,404 games
Frank Thomas, 2,322 games
Gary Carter, 2,295 games
Alan Trammell, 2,293 games
Barry Larkin, 2,180 games
Johnny Bench, 2,158 games
Jeff Bagwell, 2,150 games
Larry Walker, 1,988 games
Mike Piazza, 1,912 games
Nolan Ryan, 807 games
Greg Maddux, 759 games
Steve Carlton, 745 games
Roger Clemens, 709 games
Tom Glavine, 709 games
Bert Blyleven, 699 games
Tom Seaver, 677 games
Fergie Jenkins, 665 games
Randy Johnson, 619 games
Jim Palmer, 576 games
Curt Schilling, 571 games
Mike Mussina, 537 games

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

One thing that struck me about this years ballot was the 2 votes that Gene Alley got. If you look at some of the other shortstops of his era- several of whom have been on the ballots over the past few years- he stacks up pretty well at his peak. He was better defensively than Fregosi, Petrocelli or Campaneris. He was better offensively than Belanger. As the “total package” he stacks up pretty well against any of them except for Petrocelli’s monster ’69 season. But he only did that for 4 years which is even fewer than Fregosi & Petrocelli… Read more »

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago

Palmer’s low WAR relative to his ERA+ is curious. It looks like much of his success in run prevention is being credited to Mark Belanger and, in the early ’70s, to his CoG competitor, Bobby Grich.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

… which makes perfect sense given those players behind him. Now, whether Palmer adjusted his tactics to take advantage of those defenders or not, I couldn’t say. Perhaps he did. But either way, if you could choose to trade places with any pitcher in history, you’d DEFINITELY want the gig Palmer had: good offense, other great starters, and one of history’s great defenses behind you. It’s pretty much ideal.

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

I guess I see the other side of the coin here: Palmer’s ERA+ is quite misleading.

If you add back the defensive runs saved by the defense playing behind Palmer, all of a sudden his run prevention skills look very similar to Nolan Ryan’s. Here’s what Palmer/Ryan’s RA9’s would be if they pitched in front of perfectly average defenses:

Jim Palmer: 3.18 RA9 + (+0.33) RA9def = 3.51 adjustedRA9
Nolan Ryan: 3.64 RA9 + (-0.06) RA9def = 3.58 adjustedRA9

Brendan Bingham
Brendan Bingham
10 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

Palmer’s WAR totals also set up an interesting comparison with Bert Blyleven. In Palmer’s three Cy Young Award seasons (’73, ’75 and ’76), he had, respectively, 6.3, 8.4 and 6.6 WAR. In the same three seasons, Blyleven put up 9.9, 6.1 and 6.6 WAR, yet his best finish in the CYA voting was 7th in ’73.

bells
bells
10 years ago

It interests me that Palmer has gotten so much support in the CoG relative to his rating with advanced metrics – it seems like people still have a memory of the aura of a player, for lack of a better term, which ties into some intangible ‘greatness’. I’m glad to see that we don’t fall prey to the one-sided, robotic ranking of players that the non-sabermetric crowd like to hold up as a bogeyman. This becomes interesting as we go back to evaluate players from well before my time (born in 1980), because I mostly have stats to evaluate them,… Read more »

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

Maybe as a young kid but once he got going he was a competitor. Palmer was starting games at 19 please remember. I think those types of issues are common with kids, literally still children, playing regularly in professional baseball. Greinke had a similar criticism early on, haven’t heard that in a few years though. Also, WAR could care less about the post season, Palmer gets royally shafted by that. His post season Resume is exquisite and extensive. 15 starts, 8 and 3 with a 2.61 ERA over 124.1 IP and multiple rings. He pitched a shutout in the ’66… Read more »

RJ
RJ
10 years ago
Reply to  mosc

Why do you think Palmer gets shafted by WAR not taking into account the postseason? Palmer’s best regular season by WAR was 1975, where he accrued 8.4 WAR across 38 starts. Let’s say Palmer’s postseason oeuvre represents the crème de la crème of his pitching performance, a la 1975. Fifteen starts at this level would then equate to something like an additional 3.3 WAR, or less than 0.2 extra WAR a year spread across his career. Of course, this potentially underestimates Palmer’s postseason performance as the games were of far higher leverage, against the very best opposition in the most… Read more »

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

We do a little compensation for leverage already with relief pitchers. I think post season is a similar proposition. Adding rounds also makes it easier to accumulate significant value (a la Pettitte, Jeter, etc). A leverage index on the situational odds of winning the world series based on standings, score, and remaining innings would help but would too extremely weight something. A guy hitting a game 7 walkoff in the world series would dominate. That said, we could calculate something to help move us in that direction. Post season statistical analysis (or a lack thereof) is an obvious failing of… Read more »

RJ
RJ
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

@12 mosc: I feel like you are missing quite how insignificant post season statistics are when you lump them in with regular season numbers, and how subjective any attempts at weighting them would be. Do you know what acknowledged all-time postseason great Carlos Beltran’s OPS is when you include his postseason career? 0.861, up from 0.854. And that’s from a guy who has had the unusual privilege of playing in 10 postseason series and been absurdly good in them. To tinker with the formula for WAR so that postseason success has a distinguishable impact on career WAR you would have… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

It’s a stretch to say WAR is a failure because it doesn’t include the postseason.

What other baseball statistics include both regular and postseason performance? I honestly can’t think of one.

Is every other baseball stat also a failure?

bells
bells
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

@$12 mosc: yeah, I think I more or less agree with what you’re saying. Namely, that WAR is a decent enough reference point, but there need to be some intangibles left up for debate. Whether that’s post-season performance, personal valuation of career vs. peak, some kind of personal interpretation of ‘clutch’ or ‘team player’, or giving credit for lost time due to injury or military service, that’s the great void. I think we would all agree that an 80 WAR player is on a different level than a 60 WAR player, so it’s a useful reference point, but there is… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

I don’t know about Weaver but has anyone given any thought as to the influence that Ray Miller may have had on all this? No small number of people give Dave Duncan or Leo Mazzone a lot of credit for developing pitchers and bringing out their full potential and most of their teams are pretty well known for having above average to even great defenses. Could the pitching coach have something to do with making the defense behind the pitcher appear better than they are by getting the pitcher to take better advantage of the defense?