Hello again, HHS readers! We’ve done our big award in the NL – the MVP. We’ve seen the AL Cy Young. And we’ve even voted on our minor awards (rookie and manager) in both leagues. It’s time for a trip back to the senior circuit and to pick the league’s best pitcher!
In the NL, we started with a blistering first half by a West Coast pitcher finally having a breakthrough year. After playing only partial seasons for the last four years (including sitting out 2015 entirely), Hyun-Jin Ryu paced the NL with a 2.32 ERA and 179 ERA+. He gave up 2 or fewer earned runs in each of his first FIFTEEN starts, a run yielding a 9-1 record and 1.27 ERA. Ryu cooled off a bit in the second half (how could he not?), but nevertheless was effective enough to merit strong consideration for this year’s award.
The opposite was true for Cardinal Jack Flaherty, who allowed a total of only 7 earned runs over his final 12 appearances, compiling a 0.77 ERA in 82 IP for August and September. Flaherty’s pitching genius helped the Cards to a division crown, overtaking the Cubs and holding off the streaking Brewers (you knew I’d get in a reference somehow!). Flaherty’s full-season 0.968 WHIP was also tops in the league.
The Nationals posted three strong contenders: Max Scherzer (243 strikeouts in only 172 innings!); Stephen Strasburg (league-best 18-6 record); and Patrick Corbin (141 ERA+). The former two are certainly deserving of consideration as the league’s top pitcher, while the latter was really only the third-best pitcher on his team (but this was certainly the team to be on for that accolade!).
Speaking of teammates, Ryu’s teammate Walker Buehler also deserves more than a mention, following up last year’s 3rd place RoY season (behind phenoms Ronald Acuna Jr. and Juan Soto) with another solid campaign, posting a league-best .778 winning percentage (14-4), and third best marks for FIP (3.01) and SO/BB (5.81).
Mike Soroka of Atlanta (169 ERA+, second in NL), Sonny Gray of Cincinnati (.196 batting average against, second in NL), and maybe even perennial candidate Clayton Kershaw (nothing spectacular, but solid numbers across the board) are others who may merit some down-ballot consideration.
But the big question is whether last year’s winner, Jacob deGrom, can pull off the repeat. Finishing 11-8 with a league best 255 strikeouts and second ranked ERA (2.43), FIP (2.67) and WHIP (0.971), deGrom again pitched splendidly for the struggling Mets. Will his effectiveness again be enough to overcome an underwhelming W-L record? That’s for you (and also the actual Cy Young voters) to decide!
Rules: Vote by making a comment below and numbering your choices with 1 being the MOST preferred candidate, and 5 being your LEAST preferred candidate of your five choices. Your ballots will be EXACTLY five places, just as the BBWAA does. You must vote for 5 players. Scoring will be 7-4-3-2-1, just as the BBWAA does. You are not required to vote in all elections; only vote in the ones you would like to vote in. You may make vote changes, if the discussion so moves you. If you change your vote, please do so in a new comment, not as a reply to your original comment (it’s a lot easier to find new comments than replies to old ones). Please don’t vote strategically; we’re trying to get the best result, not to manipulate the vote totals based on what others have done. Voting will remain open about one week. When players are tied, tiebreakers go as follows: first tiebreaker is number of ballots on which players were named; second tiebreaker is highest placement on a ballot; third tiebreaker is the first player to be named (as this usually only happens when a bunch of players are tied for last). Results will be posted when balloting closes.
Let’s give this a full week, given the holiday: Monday, 12/2, 11:59:59 PM as a deadline.
While he likely will not be a major threat in the CYA vote, it would be remiss to not acknowledge Sonny Gray’s bona fides for Comeback Player of the Year. His future couldn’t have been brighter after the 2015 season, after 10+ WAR in fewer than 500 IP to start a career that was then just heading into its peak. Few would have predicted what came next: three “wilderness” years totaling 92 ERA+ and less than 3 WAR. But, a move to the NL (a great pickup by the Reds for next to nothing) has revived the old Sonny Gray as he posted a career best 5.6 WAR and 158 ERA+ in 2019.
For context, Gray is one of 77 expansion era pitchers with 10+ WAR for ages 23-25 and 400+ IP for ages 26-28. Of that group of 77, Gray’s 2.8 WAR in the latter period is the 5th lowest total, and the lowest since Richard Dotson compiled 1.9 WAR in 1985-87. Most comparable pitcher might be Bill Singer, with 11.8 WAR for age 23-25 (Gray had 10.1 WAR), but only 0.6 WAR for age 26-28. Like Gray, Singer switched leagues for his age 29 season and rebounded with a 5.9 WAR season for the 1973 Angels, but only 0.7 WAR in almost 600 IP, all in the AL, for the rest of his career.
I’d be interested in a treatment of all CYA leaders, in, say, the last 30 years that backs out, say, their worst 3 starts.
Maybe let’s start with the 2019 season and the players mentioned here. Here are their W-L and ERA overall, and minus their three worst starts as measured by game score (in parentheses).
Ryu………….14-5/2.32, 14-2/1.38 (19, 19, 23)
Flaherty……11-8/2.75, 11-6/2.38 (22, 23, 32)
Scherzer…..11-7/2.92, 10-5/2.49 (29, 45, 48)
Strasburg…18-6/3.32, 18-4/2.58 (15, 25, 29)
Corbin……..14-7/3.25, 14-5/2.56 (10, 30, 31)
Buehler……14-4/3.26, 13-4/2.56 (18, 28, 32)
Soroka……..13-4/2.68, 13-3/2.21 (29, 34, 40)
Gray…………11-8/2.87, 11-7/2.58 (34, 35, 37)
Kershaw…..16-5/3.03, 16-3/2.66 (39, 41, 43)
deGrom……11-8/2.43, 11-5/1.79 (24, 26, 36)
Thanks, Doug. Random question for HHS commenters: What seems more impactful to you: The pitcher who doesn’t have many complete blow-ups, but a higher peak in non-blow up games, or the one who more consistently keeps you in it?
Mike L
If the guys on the list make, on average, 32 starts, why not throw out three mulligans? While it hasn’t been suggested to eliminate a “worst 15 games” for the everyday eight guys, those same everyday eight don’t have the “pressure” to perform that starting pitchers do. If even a cleanup hitter goes 0-4 with 4K’s, there are 7 or 8 guys in the lineup to pick him up. Who picks up a struggling starting pitcher who defecates the bed and leaves his team down 5-0 after three innings?
Ryu, I believe, was coming off an injury or disabled list stint when he got “blowed-up”:
1) Strasburg
2) deGrom
3) Ryu
4) Soroka
5) Kershaw
This exercise would be a lot easier if someone would step up and pitch 250+ innings and win 20 games
Agreed on the 250+ IP and 20W. My friend the economist uses the term “Marginal Utility” and I suppose it’s a good one for this type of analysis. Instinctively, we know that in most games, the guy who, in the 4th inning, scores the seventh run or the starting pitcher who gives it up probably (not always) didn’t commit that much of WPA event. The marginal utility of the seventh run is relatively low, akin to points in basketball “garbage time”. Then, you probably need to bore down even more: The Dodgers won their division by 21 games. Ryu had two back to back horrible starts (August 23 and 29), and one can wonder how relevant they really were. Anyway, I have to go back to work, but I wonder whether Marginal Utility does or should play any role.
In a similar vein, I would say that the answer to the question of whether consistency or variance is more valuable, at a team level, depends on this question: how good is your offense? If your offense is very good, consistency, it seems to me, has more value. If your offense is BAD, the only way for you to win is with an excellent start in which you limit opponent runs. Overall, I would say that the latter is worth more, in a similar way that I would say that I would say a player who had 8, -1, and 8 WAR over three years was more valuable than a player who went 5-5-5, but it is somewhat a matter of personal preference.
Interesting point, Doom. I wonder how many 8,-1, 8 WAR players there have been (excepting for an injury-shortened year). Norm Cash had that crazy 9.2 BWAR 1961 season sandwiched between a 2.9 and a 3.7 and Willie Davis’ 1964 season (8.3) was between a 2.7 and a 2.6.
Haven’t found a sequence as stark as 8, -1, 8, but there have been a few along those lines, albeit less pronounced.
– Roger Clemens (1992-94) 8.7, 2.6, 6.0* and (1994-96) 6.0*, 1.9, 7.7 (*1994 would be higher absent strike)
– Mark Langston (1991-93) 7.3, 3.3, 8.5
– Bert Blyleven (1987-89) 4.4, -0.7, 6.0
– Bret Saberhagen (1985-87) 7.1, 2.0, 8.0 and (1987-89) 8.0, 3.8, 9.7
– Vida Blue (1978-80), 5.8, -0.9, 5.0
– Catfish Hunter (1972-74) 5.7, 1.8, 6.9
– Gaylord Perry (1970-72) 7.6, 2.3, 10.8
– Christy Mathewson (1905-07) 8.9, 2.2, 7.7
– Cy Young (1905-07) 7.3, 2.0, 7.3
Will be others as I was checking likely pitchers more or less randomly.
Incidentally, Justin Verlander has joined Cy Young as the only pitchers to post 4 straight 6 WAR seasons aged 33-36. Young added two more seasons to that streak.
Doug,
Funny thing – I would have thought Vida Blue’s 1971-’72-’73 seasons would have been more likely to make your list. He had an incredible 1971 season where everyone was captivated by his performance and another 20 win season in 1973. But, I believe he held out in 1972 and went 6-10. He won 4 of those by pitching shutouts!! His failure to play the entire season in 1972 kept the White Sox in contention till the last week of September and, quite possibly, resurrected the franchise and kept baseball on the South Side till this day
I wasn’t thinking that there actually was such a player, but someone who came to mind (among non-pitchers) was Dale Murphy, 1980-82: 6.6, 1.7, 6.1 (of course ’81 was a strike year, but Murphy ranks as barely above-average via WAR, irrespective of the strike).
Another, though not the quality of player we’re generally talking about, is George Scott, 1967-69: 4.4, -2.8, 2.3. Scott is truly illustrative of the theory here, though: 1.3 WAR over each of three seasons does almost nothing for you. But seasons of 4.4 and (to a lesser extent) 2.3 WAR actually help a team. And while -2.8 WAR really hurts that one season, the positives of the other seasons more than balance that out.
Roy Campanella, a famous #OddYear player (like Doug’s mention of Saberhagen) is another of extremes, particularly 1953-55: 7.0, -0.1, 5.2. I have to say that a stretch like that seems to me superior to a stretch of 4.1, 4.0, 4.0, for example.
Just another few quick ones, none of which is as extreme as the hypothetical I dreamt up, but which might nonetheless serve as interesting examples:
Yaz, 1968-70: 10.5, 5.5, 9.5
Willie McCovey, 1963-65: 6.5, -0.1, 5.9
Al Kaline, 1959-1961: 6.0, 2.5, 8.4
Randy Johnson, 2002-2004: 10.7, 1.6, 8.4
(The Johnson one was injury-related, so I’m not sure how acceptable Mike would find that example)
DOOM, DOUG,
Per Doom…and not to pick on Doom: “Roy Campanella, a famous #OddYear player (like Doug’s mention of Saberhagen) is another of extremes, particularly 1953-55: 7.0, -0.1, 5.2. I have to say that a stretch like that seems to me superior to a stretch of 4.1, 4.0, 4.0, for example.”
Most of this group has been adamant about Lou Whitaker being a Circle of Greats / Hall of Fame “gottabe” and I believe the basis of that thinking has always been his consistency. IIRC, without researching it, it seems that he had an awful lot more 4-5WAR seasons than he did, if any at all, 7+WAR seasons and, he did it forever. Interestingly enough, in the example above, the Dodgers failed to win the NL pennant in 1954 when Campanella slumped so horribly. Here’s a breakdown of how they finished in the standings:
1953 +13 won pennant; lost WS
1954 -5 Giants won pennant and WS
1955 +13.5 won pennant and WS
Looks like Roy cost them a pennant in 1954 with his -0.1 WAR and they might have won the pennant in 1953 and 1955 with a replacement level player at catcher? I dunno…if he goes 4.0 across the board, perhaps they win in 1954 as well? Probably doesn’t win a single MVP award with 4.0 WAR, either
Jackie Robinson lost 4.2 WAR from ’53 to ’54.
Carl Furillo, 2.0.
Junior Gilliam, 1.1.
Duke Snider, 1.0.
Carl Erskine, 1.4.
Collectively, they lost 13.8 hitting/fielding WAR, and 3.6 pitching WAR. Hard to put that all on Campy, isn’t it? The Dodgers collectively underperformed ’53 and ’55 in ’54. Besides, they still won 92 games, and Willie Mays was having an absolutely crazy season that was worth more – and this is true – than the ENTIRE Dodgers’ pitching staff (10.6-9.1). It just wasn’t in the cards for ’54.
Also, here’s the thing: most teams don’t win pennants. You can’t EXPECT a pennant, even with a great team. Dodgers, Yankees, and Twins all won 100+ this year, and combined for zero pennants. So a season that “costs” you a pennant is really… well, it’s not very much. But a season that EARNS you a pennant, now THAT is a remarkable thing. Campy didn’t choose which years to have his teammates having their peak seasons and valley seasons. Redistribute a lot of that team WAR, you can give them 3 pennants or 1. They actually won 2, because of that distribution, but that’s a accident of history. A player having a great year gives you something rare and special.
To win 81 games, you need a bunch of 2.0 WAR guys, right? Average players, average team. But there’s no such thing in history as a team with 15 guys with 2.0 WAR – it just doesn’t happen. To win 95 games, you need a bunch of 3.0-WAR players. But there’s no such thing as 15 guys at that level, either. To get there, you absolutely need BIG performances from a small number of players. If winning championships is the point, you NEED big seasons. That means that, relative to consistency, a guy with BIG peaks and DEEP valleys contributes more to your chances of winning, over the long-term, than Whitakers do. (FYI, while many voters at this site supported Whitaker for the COG, I never once voted for him. Clear HOF player; short of the COG standard, in my opinion.)
No one is suggesting there aren’t going to be drawbacks to the players with big peaks and valleys; of course there will be ’54 Dodgers situations. (For me personally, look at the 2011-’14 Brewers: they legitimately may have had the best position player in the NL in each of those four seasons: Braun, Braun, Gomez, and LuCroy, respectively; had Braun, Gomez, and LuCroy peaked in the same year, we’d’ve won 100+ games and hopefully a pennant. Unfortunately for the Crew, that’s not how it went.) The overall effect, though, is that you can’t win without big, individual player-seasons. So if winning championships is important, then big seasons are important; if big seasons are important, then if you have your choice between two 60-WAR players, all other things being equal (meaning off-the-field stuff, teammate, etc.), you’re probably more likely to win if you have the guy with less consistency, even if that feels counter-intuitive. I think the math supports that hypothesis, anyway. Bill James did a study about it once, I think in The Politics of Glory, but I don’t own the book and the logic of the conclusion is strong enough to stand on its own, I think. I don’t remember the parameters, anyway. But yeah, that’s what my response would be.
Great exposition, Doom. Makes sense.
Doom,
“…hard to put it on Campy?” No, not dificult at all. He dropped 7.1 WAR off an MVP season. They gave him credit for being the MVP the year before when the Dodgers blew away the rest of the NL. They finished 5 games behind NYG, he dropped 7 WAR, Not hard to blame him at all. In retrospect, to play THAT poorly, he HAD to be injured
Whitaker? I don’t even believe him to be a Hall of Famer and I don’t believe he was, during the course of his career, the best player on his own team. I never voted for him, as far as I can recall, into the CoG
As far as pennants, nowadays with the playoffs, even an 8+WAR player is no guarantor of a pennant. But, yes, an 8 WAR player will certainly help your team win 95 games. From 1900-1968, that frequently meant a pennant. I don’t believe, however, that you want the player with less consistency. What you want is a player with a long consistent peak – you know, a 145+ OPS for many years. I think James may have been indicating that the guy with the better peak was superior to the guy that played 2500 career games at a lesser level – you know, the “accumulators”. Kind of like Dick Allen was superior to Tony Perez,,,,,but, to that point of less consistency, Allen may have cost the 1975 Phillies a pennant by hitting .233 with little power after averaging > 175 OPS+ the prior three years in Chicago.
Totally different question but, in retrospect, was Campanella REALLY the M V P in 1955? or 1953?
Doom, you said:
“That means that, relative to consistency, a guy with BIG peaks and DEEP valleys contributes more to your chances of winning, over the long-term, than Whitakers do.”
I do agree that if you isolate it that far, that’s a sound sentence. But I think it overlooks and undervalues the contribution that someone like a Whitaker makes. Extending your idea, if you were constructing a roster, would you rather have two players that consistently get 2-3 WAR plus one high-variance guy, or one player that gets 4-6 WAR and two high-variance guys? I haven’t run numbers or anything, but I do think the latter is possibly better in the long term, because it allows for the possibility of hitting on both variable guys at the same time and having a spectacular season, or it spreads out the risk so that it’s more likely that one of them is having a great season at any given time. And you can depend on having a good season because of the high baseline consistent guy. So I think it works both ways, and having one less slot of uncertainty in your roster adds a value that’s often overlooked because it’s less spectacular. (Not that I’m saying you think that, I know you have a strong understanding of value through advanced stats, but I’m just a fan of the overlooked, boring consistent guy so I felt compelled to speak up on his behalf).
To Doom’s point, a check of pennant winning teams (excepting 1981) shows that only two did not have at least one 4 WAR batter: the 1995 Braves (short season) and the 1932 Cubs. Different story with pitchers, as 50 pennant winners (22%) did not have a 4 WAR pitcher, the 2018 Dodgers being the most recent.
The 1995 Braves didn’t have a 4.0-WAR player, but 1.) there were only 12 such players in the NL, an unusually low number; 2.) David Justice was tied for 14th with 3.8 WAR; and 3.) they had the #1, #3, and #9 pitcher in the NL, which sort of makes up for it.
As for 1932, the Cubs sort of prove the rule. The 1932 National League may have been the most middling league of all-time. In an 8-team league, 7th place belonged to a team that went 72-82… nearly .500! The Cubs were a bit fortunate relative to their Pythagorean record (actually won 90; Pythagoras has them at 86). Lon Warneke was their best player, 6.9 pitching WAR. No one else on the same was over 3.5. But outside of Warneke, they were basically the definition of an average-to-above-average team: four pitchers at 1.9-2.6 WAR; nine position players at 1.4-3.5 WAR. Very, very tough to win a pennant with a team like that; you basically need ALL things to break your way. In other words, you need players having high-value seasons.
Doom, Doug, Bells
So, agreed, teams need players with high value seasons in order to win pennants. But, generally speaking, you’re really stating that you need players with “talent” …and, by “talent” we mean the exceptional player since, who else but a really talented player will pull off an 7+ WAR season? However, in the example originally given, really talented players don’t go 7 WAR, 2 WAR, 7 WAR in consecutive seasons, barring injury of course. Campanella appears to be the exception…
When you think about it, in order to pull off a 7-8 WAR season, a player would HAVE to be in his prime. And, generally speaking, a player capable of 7-8 WAR is going to have a longer prime that a 2-4 WAR player (or certainly a more productive prime in terms of accumulated WAR). In order to falter to, say, a 2 WAR season, that kind of talented player would have to be injured. I just don’t think that over the last 120 years, we’re going to come up with many players beyond Roy Campanella who fell apart mid-career like that.
What’s really interesting, based on these conclusions, is that there are teams out there right now, who lack a single player capable of an 7 WAR season and, therefore, “got no shot” at even a divisional title.
I looked at the Big Red Machine:
1975 (108-54). Highest pitching WAR 3.1 (Don Gullett)
1976 (102-60), highest pitching WAR 3.6 (Pat Zachry)
So, I’ve been thinking WAY too much about this, specifically the “there’s no such thing as 15 guys at 2.0 WAR” part. So warning, this is going to be long. I want to take a quick look at the teams who had the most number of players at certain WAR cut-offs – most with 10+, most with 9+, etc. It’s easy to start, because there’s only one team with more than one player of 10+ WAR.
11+ WAR or more: 2 (# of teams, 1: 1927 Yankees (Gehrig, Ruth))
10+ WAR or more: 2 (# of teams, 1: 1927 Yankees(Gehrig, Ruth))
9+ WAR or more: 2 (# of teams, 5: 1927, 1928, 1930 Yankees (all Gehrig, Ruth), 1906 Cleveland Naps (Lajoie, Terry Turner), 1996 Seattle Mariners (Griffey Jr, A-Rod)). I’ll have more to say about the 1906 Naps later. The 1927 Yankees don’t need much explanation, nor does the 1928 squad. The 1930 Yankees finished in 3rd because the cast behind Ruth and Gehrig wasn’t as strong as it had been. The 1996 Mariners had a fantastic duo with most of the same dramatis personae from the 1995 team, except that Randy Johnson got injured and only pitched 61 innings. They underplayed their pythag by 3 games and ended up losing the AL West by 5.
8+ WAR or more: 2 (# of teams, 14: the five above plus 2004 Cardinals (Pujols, Rolen), 1980 Royals (Brett, WIllie Wilson), 1973 and 1972 Reds (72: Bench and Morgan; 73: Rose and Morgan), 1969 A’s (Sal Bando, Reggie), 1961 Detroit Tigers (Cash, Kaline), 1959 Milwaukee Braves (Aaron, Mathews), 1931 Yankees (Gehrig, Ruth) and 1912 A’s (Baker, Collins). More on the 1961 Tigers and the 2004 Cardinals later. The 72 and 73 Reds were obviously very good teams, on the verge of being great teams. The 1980 Royals were a very good team who lost in the WS. The 1969 A’s were bested by a better Twins team for the AL West in the first year of the ALCS and NLCS – they needed more pitching. The 1931 Yankees were good and lost to a 107 win Athletics juggernaut. Actually, the A’s had a Pythag of 97-55, and the Yankees were at 100-53. But the A’s overplayed their pythag by 10, the Yankees underplayed by 6, and Philly won in a cakewalk by 13.5 games. The 1912 A’s were an off-year for the first Athletic dynasty – Bender and Plank weren’t as good as in 1911 and they finished in 2nd. The Braves of this era were sort of infamous underachievers – the 1959 team underplayed their Pythag by three, and were a better team on paper than the quite weak pennant winning Dodgers. In fact, I think Bill James called the 1959 Dodgers one of the weakest pennant winning teams ever.
7+ WAR or more: 3 (# of teams, 3: 2004 Cardinals (Edmonds, Pujols, Rolen), 1961 Tigers (Cash, Colavito, Kaline) and 1929 Yankees (Gehrig, Lazzeri, Ruth)) Well every Yankee team has to show up at some point, right? Ruth and Gehrig weren’t as dominant in 1929, but Lazzeri had a great season. Didn’t matter, since the A’s truly were a much better team that season, 13 games better by Pythag. The 2004 Cardinals, who showed up earlier, add in Edmonds at 7 WAR. This was a fantastic team that became a footnote because the 2004 Sox of Destiny were not going to be denied. The 1961 Tigers were a legitimately great team – no shame in losing to the 109 win Yankees. By Pythag, the Yankees were 5 games better. It’s an expansion year, which can lead to some goofy individual results, like Cash’s all-time great fluke season, but a team with a core like Kaline, Colavito and Cash would have been expected to win the pennant most seasons.
6+ WAR or more: 4 (# of teams, 1: 1927 Yankees (Combs, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Ruth)) Boring, I know. There’s a lot of interesting teams with 3 players at 6 or more WAR, but too many to cover here – there’s 29 of them. I’ll only cover one because it pertains to a team I skipped above: the 1904 Naps had 3 with 6+ WAR – Lajoie, Bill Bradley and Elmer Flick. The 1906 team also qualifies, with Lajoie, Flick and Terry Turner. Why weren’t these teams more successful? Well, both teams actually deserved to win or at least tie for the pennant by their Pythag record – they were both an identical 9 wins worse than Pythagoras says they should have been. Does that say something about Lajoie as a manager? Of course, the Naps of this era were consistently pretty good – the 1908 team just missed making the WS in one of the great all-time pennant races.
5+ WAR or more: 5 (# of teams, 3: 1976 Yankees (Munson, Nettles, Randolph, Rivers, Roy White), 1972 A’s (Bando, Campaneris, Mike Epstein, Reggie, Joe Rudi), 1939 Yankees (Dickey, DiMaggio, Joe Gordon, Red Rolfe, George Selkirk)). No surprise to see the 1939 Yankees here – they’re on the short list of best teams ever. The 1976 Yankees were a very good team, played up to their Pythag of 97 wins, but just got stomped by an even better team, the Big Red Machine. The 1972 A’s had a Pythag of 97-58, underplayed by 4 games, but still won the AL West, the ALCS and the WS (with both of those going to the limit). Again, their WS opponents, the 1972 Reds, showed up earlier as a team with two players with 8+ WAR.
4+ WAR or more: 6 (# of teams, 12: 1931 Yankees (Ben Chapman, Combs, Dickey, Gehrig, Lyn Lary, Ruth), 1936 Yankees (Crosetti, Dickey, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Red Rolfe, George Selkirk), 1939 Yankees (Dickey, DIMaggio, Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, Rolfe, Selkirk), 1953 Dodgers (Campanella, Furillo, Hodges, Reese, Robinson, Snider), 1969 Orioles (Belanger, Blair, Don Buford, Boog Powell, Brooskie, Frank Robinson), 1974 A’s (Bando, Campaneris, Reggie, Bill North, Joe Rudi, Gene Tenace), 1976 Yankees (Chambliss, Munson, Nettles, Randolph, Rivers, White), 1976 Reds (Bench, Concepcion, Foster, Griffey, Morgan, Rose), 1978 Brewers (Bando, Hisle, Lezcano, Don Money, Oglivie, Yount), 2002 Angels (Garret Anderson, Eckstein, Erstad, Glaus, Kennedy, Salmon), 2003 Braves (Furcal, Marcus Giles, Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones, Javy Lopez, Sheffield), 2005 Indians (Belliard, Crisp, Hafner, Victor Martinez, Peralta, Sizemore). Now we get into some interesting teams. So the Yankees show up again, of course – the newcomer here is the 1936 team, a fantastic team that won the WS. The 1953 Dodgers were a great team, probably even better than the Boys of Summer – they just lost to the Yankees in the WS. The 1969 Orioles are famous for good reason – 109 wins, 110-52 Pythag record, and of course upset by the Miracle Mets. The 1976 Yankees just popped up – they added Chris Chambliss to the previous fivesome. The 1976 Reds are the Big Red Machine – it’s not much of a spoiler to say they’re going to show up again. The 1974 threepeat A’s weren’t exactly dominant, but their Pythag record was 97-65. They only had one great pitcher in Catfish Hunter. The 2002 Angels are famous for winning a WS without any superstars (and no Hall of Famers, either) – they’re exactly who you’d expect to show up on a list of winning teams with multiple guys playing at a very good but not great level. The 1978 Brewers show up later as a team with 9 guys having 2+ WAR and 8 players having 3+ WAR. Almost all of their regulars played well, besides Buck Martinez, but back-up catcher Charlie Moore had 1.3 WAR. Due to shuffling positions and some injuries, all 9 of the players with 2+ WAR had at least 448 PA, with all but Cooper having 500+ PA. They only had two good pitchers, Mike Caldwell and Lary Sorenson. The 2003 Braves were a great team (101-61, Pythag of 96-66) during Atlanta’s reign of AL East dominance that lost to the Cubs in the NLDS. The pitching staff was no longer as dominant as in the 90’s, and the lineup didn’t have much depth beyond the listed 6. I could probably say way too much about the 2005 Indians – they were absolutely a playoff quality team who let it slip away the last week, including an embarrassing three game sweep at the hands of what was basically the White Sox’s Triple A roster.
3+ WAR or more: 9 (# of teams, 1: 1973 Orioles (Baylor, Belanger, Blair, Al Bumbry, Rich Coggins, Grich, Merv Rettenmund, Brooksie, Earl Williams)
I will list the 4 teams who had 8 players as well: 2009 Angels (Abreu, Erick Aybar, Chone Figgins, Torri Hunter, Maicer Izturis, Howie Kendrick, Kendrys Morales, Juan Rivera), 2001 Mariners (David Bell, Bret Boone, Mike Cameron, Carlos Guillen, Edgar, Mark McLemore, Olerud, Ichiro), 1975 Reds (Bench, Concepcion, Foster, Geronimo, Griffey, Morgan, Perez, Rose), 1931 Yankees (Chapman, Combs, Dickey, Gehrig, Lary, Lazzeri, Ruth, Joe Sewell). Not many surprises – the most famous 8 man line-up ever, the 116 win 2001 Mariners who famously did so after losing both A-Rod and Griffey Jr, and the 1931 Yankees yet again. The 2009 Angels aren’t quite as famous, but they were a very solid team that lost the ALCS to the Yankees. The 1973 Orioles were a tremendous team, especially on defense, with a Pythag record of 102-60 but lost in 5 to Oakland in the ALCS. 22 teams had 7 players with 3 or more WAR – of note to me is the 2004 Indians (Belliard, Blake, Ben Broussard, Crisp, Hafner, Martinez, Vizquel), who finished under .500. This is probably the cut-off where you need a couple great players (or a great pitching staff) and not just a critical mass of good players. The highest WAR on the 04 Indians was Hafner with 5.0, so they didn’t have any superstars, they only had two very good pitchers, and their defense was below average.
2+ WAR or more: 10 (# of teams, 3: 1955 Dodgers (Sandy Amoros, Campanella, Carl Furillo, Jim Gilliams, Don Hoak, Gil Hodges, Don Newcombe, Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider), 1973 Orioles (Baylor, Belanger, Blair, Al Bumbry, Rich Coggins, Grich, Boog Powell, Merv Rettenmund, Brooksie, Earl Williams), and the 2001 Mariners (David Bell, Bret Boone, Carlos Guillen, Stan Javier, Edgar, Mark McLemore, Olerud, Ichiro, Dan Wilson). So, another three that aren’t a surprise. You’ve got the Boys of Summer (who get a rare pitcher to qualify purely on his position player WAR), the 1973 Orioles from above add Boog Powell, and the 2001 Mariners add Dan Wilson and Stan Javier. I won’t go over all 7 teams that had 9 players with 2+ WAR, but I’ll note the most interesting to me, which is the 1993 Yankees (Boggs, Mike Gallego, Pat Kelly, Jim Leyritz, Don Mattingly, Paul O’Neill, Mike Stanley, Danny Tartabull, Bernie Williams). (The other 6 are the 2018 Dodgers, 2011 Rays, 2009 Angels, 1978 Brewers, 1975 Red Sox and 1974 Dodgers)
1+ WAR or more: 13 (# of teams, 1: 1976 Mets (Bruce Boisclair, Wayne Garrett, Jerry Grote, Bud Harrelson, Ron Hodges, Dave Kingman, Ed Kranepool, Felix Millan, John Milner, Mike Phillips, Roy Staiger, John Stearns, Joe Torre)
This is where we would expect the concept to break down. Having 13 guys with 1+ WAR probably means injuries, simply to get enough playing time for 13 guys to get that much WAR. The 8 teams with 12 players with 1+ WAR are an interesting mix of great and mediocre: the 2019 Astros, 2019 Twins, 2009 Indians, 2002 White Sox, 1989 Yankees, 1986 Giants, 1977 Phillies, 1902 Pirates.
Cursed, I’m worried about you…..
It’s alright, this exercise only took away from time that would have been spent on meaningless things like my job…
CC – Thanks for all the research. Three teams I want to highlight.
First, the 1996 Mariners. Griffey and A-Rod were outstanding, yes. But their best hitter was actually Edgar Martinez, with a 167 OPS+. He managed only 139 games, though, and the replacement level for a DH is quite high. So he doesn’t get there, but he could’ve
As a homer, since I basically ALWAYS have to talk Brew Crew, the 1978 Brewers are sneakily a really impressive team, the first of the successful decade Milwaukee had from 1978-1987. Unfortunately for the Brewers, the 1978 AL East was kind of a famous division. Had Milwaukee been in the West, they’d have had made the ALCS. Alas, instead, it was the Royals who went on to play the Bucky Effin’ Dent Yankees. The endpoint of that decade – the 1987 team that famously started 12-0 – was ALSO a third-place team in the AL East, and ALSO had a better record than the West champs: the eventual World Series champion Twins. Fun fact about my family: my wife is a Twins fan, and she was born the same day the Twins won the ’87 Series. Anyway, what I WANTED to say about the ’78 Brewers is that the pattern of underwhelming starting pitching has been with the Brewers since. We’ve never been able to shake that. 2008, with half-a-season of CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets as a #2, was our only good pitching staff. literally ever. Best pitcher in Brewers history is either Sheets or Teddy Higuera, who were both good-peak-no-longevity pitchers. Higuera, the career WAR leader for the franchise, is 281st all-time in WAR. That is… not good. It’s the reason why we can’t ever seem to get over the hump, though. So I wait… and I wait… and I wait. One day, I tell myself, we’ll have a starting rotation that will help the absolute MASHERS our franchise has been able to produce. So far, all Brewers fans have waited in vain. That’s maybe a touch melodramatic. It also happens to be true.
Finally, the 2005 Indians, your home turf. I could talk about (former Brewer) Ronnie Belliard all day… but the real reason I want to mention them is Grady Sizemore. 2005-2008, he was an absolute BEAST. 20-20 all four years (and 30-30 once), a + defender, man. He was just fun to watch. Too bad that went the way it did. I remember having a conversation right before the 2010 season with a friend. Shin-Soo Choo had just broken out the previous year, and Sizemore was coming off injury. I was sure this was going to be a LEGENDARY outfield. Choo kept raking… Sizemore fell off the face of the earth. Those two guys are the SAME AGE. If you put together a best-season career for the two of them (essentially, if you give Choo Sizemore’s age-21 through age-25), you get a guy who produced 1.9 WAR just last season, with 55.6 career WAR and a borderline Hall of Fame case. It’s an enormous bummer that those two didn’t work out together the way I imagined. But then, you didn’t get your nickname by having things work out in Cleveland, now did you?
I s’pose I’ll just get my vote out of the way early:
1. Jacob deGrom – I had deGrom second in my rankings until sometime in the last month of the season. That blistering final stretch put him in first for me.
2. Max Scherzer – Scherzer was, in my opinion, the second-most effective pitcher in baseball last year, when health. I have him deserving of a .745 winning percentage, second only to Gerrit Cole. Scherzer’s problem this year was just health, otherwise I’d have had him first. Unfortunately for Scherzer, deGrom threw 32 innings more than he did, and with as effective as deGrom was, that’s just too big a difference to overcome.
3. Stephen Strasburg – If I included postseason, I’d have had him first. A great season in which he finally lived up to all the Nats had hoped he’d be. If he, like Scherzer, has a better 30s than his 20s, we’re seeing a legendary all-timer beginning to emerge. (Of course, that almost certainly won’t happen… but it’d be pretty cool.)
4. Hyun-Jin Ryu – Like all shooting stars, if you burn too hot, you burn out fast. A top-notch season, though, and I hope he can do it again next year. He’s fun to watch, and that Dodger staff is ridiculously loaded.
5. Jack Flaherty – Flaherty was in a three-way race with Patrick Corbin and Mike Soroka for the fifth and final spot on my ballot. Corbin was the weakest by ERA, strongest by FIP; Flaherty the inverse, Soroka in the middle. Ultimately, I decided to use unearned runs as my tiebreak. Did you realize Flaherty was actually charge with 60 of the 62 runs he allowed? Soroka was close (52/56), but Corbin had a boatload of unearned runs (73/81). That tips the scales to Flaherty, and might actually put him a spot higher, but that math is significantly more complicated and I don’t want to do it. (Actually, it’s not that the math is complicated; it’s that it would complicate my big spreadsheet of pitcher stats by a lot, and I don’t want to do that. So I’m just going to stick with ballparking it here.)
I feel really bad about Soroka and Corbin; they had really god seasons. Mention has already been made of Sonny Gray. Walker Buehler is another what was very, very good. But the biggest regret I have is that there’s no place for Zack Greinke anywhere due to changing leagues midseason. I have him as the fifth-most valuable pitcher in baseball this season, behind only deGrom among NL players. Alas, there’s no space for a league-switcher, so he’s honorable mention to me.
Doom
Regarding your point about better pitching squads versus better scoring squads, per pythagoras, you’re correct.
Teams that, on average, score 5 runs and give up 4, win 98 games. But, teams that give up only 2 runs and score only 3, would win about 112. This might be a better explanation of the dead ball squads winning so many games (1903-1909 Pirates; 1906-1910 Cubs; 1905-1913 Giants) and appearing so dominant than mere “superior” talent itself? Maybe pitching really was 90% of the game at one time 🙁
Doug, for what it’s worth, I just found three replies to my comments in my spam box in Gmail. Not sure if it’s a WordPress problem, or a HHS one.
I’ll see if I can figure out what’s happening. Usually, pingbacks are blocked by the site.
Just had another one go to spam.
Are the replies from HHS, or another address?
Email me directly and I’ll send you the diagnostic.
1. DeGrom (easy choice for me)
2. Ryu
3. Flaherty
4. Soroka
5. Strasburg
I’m not seeing as many votes in this race, and I’m thinking people DO want to chime in, they are probably just too busy with the holiday weekend. So let’s extend a little more. Let’s say Wednesday night, 11:59:59. Thanks!
1. de Grom
2. Flaherty
3. Scherzer
4. Soroka
5. Ryu
A reminder that you can find Richard Chester on twitter at @rchester2. Anyone else here?
1. DeGrom
2. Ryu
3. Flaherty
4. Soroka
5. Scherzer
Just a reminder: we’re keeping voting open for another couple days (until Wednesday night). We’ve had 7 or 8 voters in each round so far, so people who haven’t voted yet are more than welcome to come do so! Please feel free to put out a vote, if you’d like! Thanks.
My vote.
1. DeGrom – his season pales only in comparison to his 2018 campaign, not when compared to any of his challengers. One blemish was SB up from 15 to 24 (Mets as a team were up, but only from 134 to 139).
2. Ryu – had a rough 3 weeks, inflating his ERA, in late Aug/early Sep, but was lights out otherwise, posting the best ratio for “high quality” (6 IP, 2 ER) starts at 21 of 29 (DeGrom was 22 of 32). Despite lower strikeout totals, his ultra-low walk rate gave him a SO/BB trailing only Sherzer, and his BABip was on par with DeGrom and Strasburg.
3. Strasburg – Would have ranked him ahead of Ryu due to his higher starts and innings, but was victimized by HR (24 allowed vs. 17 for Ryu) which drove up his ERA. Also, high quality starts were only average (17 of 33).
4. Scherzer – Highest strikeout and SO/BB rates, albeit over reduced starts and innings. But, despite all the K’s, his SLG, OPS, OPS+ and, especially, BABip were the highest of the contenders. So, when he wasn’t blowing the hitters away, they were making decent contact, perhaps evidenced by only average high quality starts (14 of 27).
5. Flaherty – Might have ranked him higher had he been very good all season, instead of only being good for half the season and untouchable for the other half. Best BA and BABip against of the contenders. High quality starts were average (17 of 33, but only 4 of those in first half).
Results! As always, it’s player, vote points (first-place votes). Here you go:
1. Jacob deGrom, 39 (6)
2. Hyun-Jin Ryu, 18
3. Stephen Strasburg, 14 (1)
4. Jack Flaherty, 12
5. Max Scherzer, 10
6. Mike Soroka, 8
7. Clayton Kershaw, 1
A dominant win for deGrom. Only he and Ryu were named on all seven ballots, and deGrom was first on all but one (on which he finished second). Flaherty actually appeared on more ballots than Strasburg, but Stras had a first-place vote that pushed him ahead. Only four voters named Mike Soroka, and all four had him in 4th place. That doesn’t mean anything, but I think it’s kind of weird. I also think it’s kind of fun that Kershaw got a vote.
As for a consensus ballot, Doug and I had the top 5 on our ballots, and only Doug nailed the top three in order, so I think it’s safe to say that Doug’s ballot would be the one we could most easily (collectively) agree upon.
One election left. I hope you’ve already seen the other post and are working on your vote!