Tom Glavine and the Hall

[SABR Matt]

What is so unbelievable about the assertion that pitchers accoutn for (on average) 54% of team defense and that that figure varies depending on how skilled the pitchers and fielders on a team are?

James asserted the figure was closer to 70% even without any ideas about DIPS in his head at the time (aside from the inate understanding that if a pitching staff is heavy on strikeouts, walks, and HRs (things the defense has no control over) that that staff is probably more responsible for the defensive success a/o failure than the fielders were)...I've modified the estimate down some, but I'm not talking about some massive change.

The only thing that's changed is how precisely I evaluate each player's impact on the defense.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Throw in Glavine's incredible durability/longevity/consistency into the stuff we agree he can control well, HR/9, BB rate, giving him a larger boost than you do for BABIP, extra base hits rate, double plays induced rate, LOB%, K rates and BAA with men on base and men in scoring position, and factoring a little bit less for the strenght of the Braves defense, and I feel I am fully justified putting Glavine in the top 40 all-time. Not to mention any factors that we haven't discovered yet. Given Glavine's success, I would tend to believe any unforseen factor would go in his favor.

How many of the 140 guys ahead of Glavine only threw 1,500 innings? 2,000? Only 2,500? To me, innings pitched is a huge stat, one that would cause Glavine to jump a ton of guys. Glavine will finish with around 4,500 innings, which is huge for this era.

[SABR Matt]

The BAA with RISP stuff is nonsense. Recent studies into "clutch" ability have found some very slight clutch ability in pitchers and hitters, but we're talking VERY slight. You can't make any assumptions about Glavine's ability to get out of jams by looking at his BAA with RISP. Pure nonsense.

And I'd love to see you attempt to defend why it is that Glavine should get more credit than I have given him for altering the BABIP...I didn't just invent these numbers out of nothing...I used the Braves' exact BABIP statistics...you could put any Brave in for Glavine and he'd allow 3 or 4 more hits per year than Glavine did assuming he was at least of major league quality skill.

[Baseball Guru]

His Hall case:
4 times ERA+ over 140.
5 20 games win seasons, 275 career wins at the beginning of 2006.
Never a SO guy, he made it up by awards.
9 all stars, 2 Cy Youngs, 1 WS MVP, 1 Sp. News P. of the Year.
In his Cy Young shares, he got 2 seconds, and 2 thirds.
He led in ERA+ once, and came Top 10 9 other times.
Led his L. in wins 5 times, and came Top 10 5 other times.
Led his L. in SHO once, and came in Top 10 9 other times.

Although I don't see him as a 1st Tier Hall pitcher, it wouldn't bother me if he got in. I predict his record will force his inclusion.

Well said!

Barring some type of injury he will win 300 so IMO there really wont be much of a debate... (at least among the HOF voters)

[The Big C]

The BAA with RISP stuff is nonsense. Recent studies into "clutch" ability have found some very slight clutch ability in pitchers and hitters, but we're talking VERY slight. You can't make any assumptions about Glavine's ability to get out of jams by looking at his BAA with RISP. Pure nonsense.

And I'd love to see you attempt to defend why it is that Glavine should get more credit than I have given him for altering the BABIP...I didn't just invent these numbers out of nothing...I used the Braves' exact BABIP statistics...you could put any Brave in for Glavine and he'd allow 3 or 4 more hits per year than Glavine did assuming he was at least of major league quality skill.

None of the numbers in this thread are fake, to my knowledge. But the numbers that mean seemingly loads to you mean next to nothing to me.

As far as the difference between 70% and 54%, that seems like quite alot to me.

[SABR Matt]

I'm not saying the difference isn't significant, I'm saying your little "why should we even bother to rate pitchers then" post was idiotic because 54% is still a lot of the defensive picture and on many teams it ranges as high as the 70s or 80s in percentage if they have great pitching and horrendous fielding like, for example the 2000-2003 era Yankees.

[digglahhh]

actually a full season is about 600 IPOuts, so 2000 would be 3+ full seasons. Once you get up over 1000 IPOuts, it's a significant enough sample that regression to the mean would be small.

I venture to guess that Tango would disagree with you on this one.

[SABR Matt]

I venture to guess that Tango would disagree with you on this one.

Well, there'd still be some regression, but the differences get small between the regression of a player with 2000 Outs and a player with 1000 (compared to a player with 500 and a player with 1000).

IOW...all of the pitchers after the 1000th Out or so (just estimating here) are being regressed by amounts close neough to each other than the order of the list is probably not going to change much.

It's those pitchers with only a few hundred outs that are likely to disappear from the top of my hit prevention list.

[538280]

None of the numbers in this thread are fake, to my knowledge. But the numbers that mean seemingly loads to you mean next to nothing to me.

As far as the difference between 70% and 54%, that seems like quite alot to me.

How could they possibly mean nothing to you? By saying that you are basically saying, "I don't understand what you're saying, but I know it's ludicrous anyway." Do you even know what BABIP is? Do you even know about DIPS theory? You're rejecting the whole arguement without even displaying any sort of understanding of what Matt is saying.

Go ahead and look at nothing but runs allowed stats and won lost records, you show no desire or inclination to learn on how to more accurately evaluate pitchers.

[SABR Matt]

I'll say this much.

I believe it to be possible that I'm underrating Glavine because not all of the elements of his game are covered in my current analysis. Mostly, if he prevented extra base hits at a rate higher than other Braves, I need to know that, because that's something I couldn't see with the data I had. NOTE...I said...more XBH prevented than other BRAVES...they've had good outfield defenses for a while now, so the XBH rates are going to be lower than normal for most Braves pitchers.

I just find it hard to believe I could have come up with a list of great pitchers that generally agrees with common wisdom based on a sound theory and been so radically far off on just one (or even a tiny handful of them) pitcher as to rate a "sure fire, why are we even having this debate!!!, first ballot HOFer!!" as a good but not great pitcher. If he's a HOF pitcher, I think he's a lot closer to the bubble than is commonly believed here.

[digglahhh]

Chris and Matt,

I really hate to sound like one of these guys but in this instance I have to ask one of those annoying questions that sound condesending.

Have either of you ever stood in a batter's box and had a pitcher throw you a "Major League fastball," even a lousy one, like mid 80's. Or have you ever seen a 12-6 curve from the first person batter's perspective? Have you ever hit against a guy who was able to throw both?

Now, I embrace elements of the DIPS theory, but I think it has really run amok here. The pitcher may not have much control over whether I hit a bleeder through the hole on the left side, or if I hit it an extra foot and a half to the right and the SS gobbles it up. But he certainly has a lot of control whether I hit a ball like that (that may become an out and may become a hit) or if I hit a rocket off the wall. A smart pitcher who executes well might even get me to hit that weak grounder on a pitch I might otherwise be able to smack into the gap, if he throws it at the right time, or disguises it well.

There is a sublte yet provocative distinction between saying that pitcher's don't control balls in play and saying that pitchers don't really field the balls in play.

[SABR Matt]

I haven't faced a major league pitcher obviously (and neither have you digglahhh), but I have stood in a batting cage and tried to hit with the speed set at 95 just for laughs (didn't even make contact once), so I understand that hitting is not easy.

But major league pitchers face (mostly) major league hitters, all of whom are so incredibly talented that they can hit a 95 mph fastball and a 75 mph curveball and can defend themselves if a pitcher is throwing them in the same AB so I fail to see the point of you asking that question.

DIPS theory breaks down when a pitcher is not of major league quality (because he's throwing things that are far more likely to get crushed, as you so rightly point out), but here we're not talking about a pitcher who is not of major league quality...we're talking about one that fits in very predictably with other pitchers for whom DIPS theory applies just fine.

[digglahhh]

I've hit against guys who played for D-I schools on baseball scholarships.

I've hit against guys who throw 84-87. I've seen pitches that look like they are going to hit you in the head break right over the outside corner. A few years ago I started playing, when I could, in a high quality recreational league. Many of the players were former college players, the league was predominantly Hispanic and there we numerous guys in the league that were former minor leaguers and guys came here from Latin America, brought by teams who quickly realized they weren't good enough and then just cut them.

My first game went like this. The first thing these guys do is throw you the heat, for a strike. That was okay, the first time I got up, I hit a soft liner to the second baseman, on the first pitch. The second time up, I lined it over the second baseman into right for a crisp single. That was the end of me seeing the fastball in a good spot, exclusively. I had his fastball timed, and if I knew it was coming, and where, I would have continued to hit the ball hard. But the next time I got up I struck out, I got a couple of breaking pitches that missed early, then I took a good fastball up in the count 2-0. 2-1, I fouled off a fastball and 2-2 he missed with another fastball, bad. I thought he would have the ball to throw me the deuce on 3-2. I was wrong, and fooled terribly, I took a comical swing for strike 3. My fourth and final time up that day, I saw a curve to start and I was looking for it, because he got me out last time and figured he would try to get ahead of me with the curve, since I hadn't really proved I could hit it yet. I was ahead of it though and ripped it about 5 feet foul down the 3B line. I struck out that time too, taking a fastball 1-2, when I though for sure he was going to try to get me to chase, I couldn't adjust. If I was expecting that fastball, I could have hammered it, it wasn't even a good one, and it had way too much plate. 1-4, and a hard hit foul liner, I considered the day a great success, considering I hadn't played highly competitive organized ball for a few years.

The point of this whole story is that the same pitches that a hitter can handle can perplex him if they are throw at the right time, if the pitcher can fool him. That's Glavine stength, teasing outside (and getting calls) then sneaking 87 mph fastballs inside.

Now you may say that the pitcher didn't control the fact that the liner I hit wasn't 5 feet to the right for a double, but he did prove that he had some sort of control over whether I hit the ball hard or not. Of course I have a lot of control over that too, but much of that control comes down to whether or not I can out-think that pitcher. If the pitcher wins the mental battle he will almost always win the physical one, though sometimes you'll get lucky anyway or his defense will let him down.

But that is the type of pitcher that Glavine is he wins the mental battle so often. If he had truly incredible "stuff" he would be nearly unhittable.

The defense has far more control over ERA than most people think, but I think pitchers have much more control than DIPS acknowledges, from a theoretical standpoint.

[SABR Matt]

I've hit against guys who played for D-I schools on baseball scholarships.

I've hit against guys who throw 84-87. I've seen pitches that look like they are going to hit you in the head break right over the outside corner. A few years ago I started playing, when I could, in a high quality recreational league. Many of the players were former college players, the league was predominantly Hispanic and there we numerous guys in the league that were former minor leaguers and guys came here from Latin America, brought by teams who quickly realized they weren't good enough and then just cut them.

My first game went like this. The first thing these guys do is throw you the heat, for a strike. That was okay, the first time I got up, I hit a soft liner to the second baseman, on the first pitch. The second time up, I lined it over the second baseman into right for a crisp single. That was the end of me seeing the fastball in a good spot, exclusively. I had his fastball timed, and if I knew it was coming, and where, I would have continued to hit the ball hard. But the next time I got up I struck out, I got a couple of breaking pitches that missed early, then I took a good fastball up in the count 2-0. 2-1, I fouled off a fastball and 2-2 he missed with another fastball, bad. I thought he would have the ball to throw me the deuce on 3-2. I was wrong, and fooled terribly, I took a comical swing for strike 3. My fourth and final time up that day, I saw a curve to start and I was looking for it, because he got me out last time and figured he would try to get ahead of me with the curve, since I hadn't really proved I could hit it yet. I was ahead of it though and ripped it about 5 feet foul down the 3B line. I struck out that time too, taking a fastball 1-2, when I though for sure he was going to try to get me to chase, I couldn't adjust. If I was expecting that fastball, I could have hammered it, it wasn't even a good one, and it had way too much plate. 1-4, and a hard hit foul liner, I considered the day a great success, considering I hadn't played highly competitive organized ball for a few years.

The point of this whole story is that the same pitches that a hitter can handle can perplex him if they are throw at the right time, if the pitcher can fool him. That's Glavine stength, teasing outside (and getting calls) then sneaking 87 mph fastballs inside.

Now you may say that the pitcher didn't control the fact that the liner I hit wasn't 5 feet to the right for a double, but he did prove that he had some sort of control over whether I hit the ball hard or not. Of course I have a lot of control over that too, but much of that control comes down to whether or not I can out-think that pitcher. If the pitcher wins the mental battle he will almost always win the physical one, though sometimes you'll get lucky anyway or his defense will let him down.

But that is the type of pitcher that Glavine is he wins the mental battle so often. If he had truly incredible "stuff" he would be nearly unhittable.

The defense has far more control over ERA than most people think, but I think pitchers have much more control than DIPS acknowledges, from a theoretical standpoint.

I don't think I disagree with this entirely digg. McCracken almost certainly made the classical statistical error of seeing no correlation and attributing a cause. That does not, however, change the fact that if Glavine were having an impact on balls in play, I would see it. I have enough information that I can guage whether a pitcher is having an impact on balls in play, and while I've been brow-beat with this notion that Glavine's strength was that he got bad contact, I don't see signs of that in his statistical record. Well, strike that...I see signs that he did better than most starting pitchers in this regard but I don't see signs that it mattered that much in his overall value.

Glavine got by with a lot of determination and good control, but all of his genius produced no more than 5 or 6 fewer hits per season than an average Braves pitcher would have allowed. The burden of proof rests with Glavine's many supporters to show me some evidence that Glavine was such a genius at winning the mental battle and getting bad contact that he earned his ERAs more than his fielders, and no one has done that in this thread.

I've made my case...I've shown you exactly the impact Glavine had on BABIP (he demonstrates unusual skill in this area as many of you have insisted...he's one of the best pitchers in the last twenty years at preventing in play hits, it doens't amount ot a hill of bedqans compared to the more important question of his three true outcomes.

I'm not saying pitchers have NO CONTROL...I'm saying the impact they do have on BABIP is tiny compared to the impact they have on the three true outcomes (and things like Balk, WP and HBP).

[SABR Matt]

It's not every person who will get called an idiot on their first post...just the ones who sound like condescending obnoxious holier than thou snobs and who have not read the thread before saying in their commentary that anyone claiming Glavine isn't a hall of famer doens't know much about baseball.

Whether you KNEW you were talking to me or not, you were addressing my position with contempt and disrespect.