Tom Glavine and the Hall

[Bothrops Atrox]

I used to like Glavine, the more I look into his career the more I think SABR Matt might be right about him being a creation of his circumstances. I wish more people would realize the ERA stats really are only slightly better to evaluate pitchers than the triple crown stats are for hitters. I haven't completely incorporated DIPS into my pitcher lists because of lack of resources, but I'll be trying to do so soon.

BTW, does anyone know how BP's DERA is calculated? Matt says that Glavine was helped tremendously by his defense and environment, I think that's probably true, but DERA sees Glavine's NRA not getting much help from defense. Does anyone really know exactly how that's calculated?

Noooooooo! Don't move to the dark side!

[Bothrops Atrox]

I posted this recently, and will again.

If you look at all of the ways a pitcher can keep guys from scoring, it shouldn't be suprising why Glavine has a career ERA+ of 121, with 13 years over 118, 9 years over 130, and 5 years over 140.

Nobody had ever told me how a pitcher can have so much random luck on his side that he can post 13 near 120 ERA+'s out of 16 years (unless he has the '82 Cards defense behind him for every game.)

And yes, I understand the flaws of ERA+, so spare me the speech. Every stat has its flaws, and ERA+ does help to get a picture of how well a pitcher kept teams from scoring. I am not saying it is the perfect stat!
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Strikout rate: Very average, I'll give you that. I'll even give you slightly below average. Certainly not horrible.

Walk rate: Very good most of his career, with a few mediocre seasons (and a poor 2001) thrown in. Overall, he has a better BB rate than about 70% of other pitchers.

Homerun rate: His 6.9 HR/9 ratio during the steroid era (playing half of his career in the "Launching pad") is one of the best rates of all times. The ability to prevent homeruns is the most effective way to prevent runs from scoring.


Even if these were the only three that mattered, Glavine being average at one, above average at another and outstanding at the third, his success should not be shocking.

But of course these aren't the only three...


Doubles / triples rate: not suprisingly, along with his great HR rate comes the very good extrabase hit rates. This is why Glavine's career slugging% against is lower than such WHIP masters like Schilling and Mussina.

BIB BAA: Most pithers do have a season to season correlation for batting average against for balls in play over the course of their careers. Glavine's is very good, with only a few seasons being exceptions. Well above league average for his career.

LOB% : there is a very high correlation for pitchers and the % of runners they leave stranded. Glavine has been way above league average every year for 17 years. Breaking it down, his K rates and BAA rates are better with men on, and even better with runners in scoring position. Amazing that the same people who back McCracken based on correlations won't back up this correlation statistic.


DP% : for something else that is suppose to be random, there is also a high correlation for pitchers getting batters to hit into double plays season to season. Glavine is one of the best all-time (more than Maddux who is much more of a groundball pitcher with more innings) Did I mention the McCraccken hypocrisy?

Secondary bases: Glavine is well above average preventing hit batsmen, wild pitches, and balks. These little things most don't think about can add up to 10-20 extra bases and several extra runs a year.

Holding runners: Glavine is also above average in this category. Despite having Lopez and Piazza catching for him most of his career, he hasn't allowed a ton of stolen bases.


Defense: Glavine would have several Gold Gloves if not for his teamate.

Throw in his longevity, (620 games started) and durability, (4,000 innings pitched, 13 times top 10), offense (4 silver luggers), counting stats, (soon to be 300 wins, 5 20-win seasons, 121 ERA+, .609 winn.%) awards, (2 Cy Youngs, WS MVP) and he should be considered a lock.

I have already mentioned his poor bullpen support (6th worst since 1963, "Banking on the Bullpen" BP report, 2004) and mediocre 102 run support (below average for Hall of Famers) earlier in a recent thread. His defensive support (NERA .06 ponts less than DERA) is good, but not great (Palmer, Ford, etc.) It is also less than Gibson, Plank, Carlton, Jenkins, and a slew of other pitchers. Where is the evidence that the Braves' range factors were so great? Lemke had no range, Belliard was average, Pendleton had good range, but botched lots of balls, Gant sucked, Justice was alright, Nixon was good, Chipper is below average, McGriff was average, A. Jones was superb, Klesko was horrible, Galaraga was average during his last few seasons. I never remember the Braves defense being spectacular, just good.

The only reasonable explanation that anybody could give for Glavine not deserving election is if somebody truly believes a pitcher only has control over K's and walks. If somebody doesn't believe this, they must realy hate the Braves, or Glavine for the labor mess, or just have a fetish for flamethrowers.

Glavine is so lucky, I guess, he should move to Vegas like Maddux when he retires.

[538280]

Chris,

EVERY player is a creation of his circumstances!!! To say that Glavine was fortunate to have played with great teams with great defenses, strikes me as rather odd. We have no idea how Glavine would have pitched for inferior teams and inferior defenses. You just CAN'T assume he would have been a mediocre pitcher.

Yes we can. We have data where we can try to find out how good a pitcher is, taking the circumstances he plays under out of the evaluation. He didn't contribute much as a pitcher, he relied on the park he played in and the defense behind him. The "pitching" numbers he posts are a result of the park he pitches in being perfect for his style and the defense behind him. Based on that, the most reasonable conclusion to arrive at is that Glavine was just an okay pitcher being made look great by his circumstances. It's the same type situation as the 1920s and 1930s player's batting averages, it's just harder to realize the facts.

Let's assume for argument's sake that Glavine was helped by his teams and defenses. So what? Glavine still had to pitch those games and he still had to win those games. Did it ever occur to you that Glavine was one of the major reasons the Braves were so successful? You are attributing Glavine's success to his team but you attribute none of the Braves success to Glavine and that is completely unfair. And it doesn't matter what Win Shares, PCA, DIPS, DERA, etc., say about Glavine. HoF voters don't give a crap about those metrics. They will look at Glavine's 5-6 20-win seaons, two Cy Youngs, World Series MVP, etc. and vote accordingly.

The major reason Glavine was sucessful was the team and defense behind him. Glavine was doing very little himself to drive the Braves to victory. Glavine was a competent pitcher, and he was able to do well in the circumstances he was given. Outside of those circumstances he's nothing special.

I understand Glavine will make the HOF, and I'm not extremely upset about that. His credentials that people look at are very impressive. The main point of this is to look at the way we evaluate pitchers, and ask ourselves if it's truly valid. I don't see how it really is.

I no longer trust pitching win shares at all. They're based almost entirely on runs allowed, and a little bit on won-lost records. They also make no era adjustment, the result is that we can't directly compare deadball pitchers to modern pitchers. I like Win Shares for position players, for pitchers they're close to useless IMO.

[Bothrops Atrox]

How again were the Braves' defenses that much better than the rest of the league? What evidence do you have?

Remember, Glavine's DNERA is only .06 points higher than his NERA.

Glavine also pitched a majority of his career in Fulton, a hitters' park. If he played in St.Louis or L.A, his HR per 9 ratio would be even better than they are. Even Turner Field was pretty neutral. Shea is a pitcher's park, but he has only been there 3+ seasons.

[ElHalo]

I wish more people would realize the ERA stats really are only slightly better to evaluate pitchers than the triple crown stats are for hitters.

That's not true. There are a lot of things about a pitcher that the ERA stat misses, while triple crown stats basically perfectly encompass a hitter's skill.

[SABR Matt]

OK...this statement:

"most pitchers do have a correlation from year to year in their BABIP" is only true because most pitchers' BABIP hovers around average most of the time and most pitchers pitch in front of the same or similar defenses for periods of several years before changing environments. The BABIP is not particularly predictive, and Glavine's BABIP is the product of Braves defenses that have biased very strongly toward aiding a pitcher...especially a pitcher like Glavine...

Many posters have made comments about the "Braves Effect" which seems to take mediocre pitchers and make them great (Burkett, Avery, etc)...the same things that made those mediocre pitchers look good while they were Braves...make Glavine look good. It's not Leo Mazzone necessarily...it's where these guys play and who's behind them (Andruw Jones is the best defensive player in major league history, for example...Brian Jordan is among the best right fielders in major league history...they've had a string of good fielding RF/LF/1B and several good second basemen and shortstops too). I'm not making this stuff up, guys...there's a strong PATTERN of mediocre pitchers hitting Atlanta and taking off like crazy in the ERA stats...go through and look at all the third and fourth starters they've had miraculously overperforming expectations while they were Braves.

Guys like Maddux don't depend on circumstances as much (no HRs against him....no walks against him solid K rates despite not being overwhelming) as guys like Glavine...Maddux is a great pitcher on his own merits...Glavine is not.

[SABR Matt]

That's not true. There are a lot of things about a pitcher that the ERA stat misses, while triple crown stats basically perfectly encompass a hitter's skill.

LOL!!!

EH...you are really something else...

[ElHalo]

Tom Glavine? A 1.30 WHIP and 5.35 K/9? Color me unimpressed. When will people realize that all of the Braves pitchers of the last fifteen years are 15% talent and 85% their environment?

[538280]

Lordy..I'm agreeing with EH...I don't know what to do here...this is a first...

You may agree on Glavine, but that comment applies to Maddux as well....

EH, triple crown stats perfectly encompass hitter's ability.....I know you're being at least semi-sarcastic...

[ElHalo]

Lordy..I'm agreeing with EH...I don't know what to do here...this is a first...

Take heart; you're not totally agreeing with me. I believe that the same exact thing is true, only to a slightly lesser extent, about Greg Maddux.

[Bothrops Atrox]

But guys like Avery also had some very bad years with the Braves (95, 96). Were the Braves defenses worse those years? What about guys like Millwood who have seasons just as good away from Atlanta? Jason Schmidt improved drasticaly when he left Atlanta. Jason Marquis has gone to a better defense and gotten worse as a pitcher. Denny Neagle had ERA's just about as good in Pittsburgh (top 2 of 3). I guess in 2000, Beckett's 94 ERA+ was caused by Atlanta's defense behind him taking every day off.
Mike Hampton had far superior ERA's in Houston than Atlanta. Or was that just Coors field hangover?


Charlie Leibrandt's 3 best ERA+ seasons were with KC, not Atlanta. Kent Mercker and Mike Stanton had some of their best seasons out of Atlanta too. Most of Stanton's best were with NY or Boston.

Odalis Perez' best ERA's are outside of Atlanta. Alan Embree's 4 of 5 best ERA's were not in Atlanta.

Glavine's era+ in New York as a 37-40 year-old pitcher is over 115, not much off his 121 career average.

Shouldn't a pitcher with more "stuff" than Glavine playing on the Braves during the same years kill him in ERA+? Shouldn't Smoltz have an ERA+ around 140 for his career with that dynamic, shut-em-down Braves defense? I mean, Smoltz' ERA+ is 4 points higher, but that is in 1200 fewer innings.

[538280]

How again were the Braves' defenses that much better than the rest of the league? What evidence do you have?

Remember, Glavine's DNERA is only .06 points higher than his NERA.

I'm skeptical of DERA, I don't really know how it's calculated, so I don't use it as anything more than a thumbnail sketch. If I'm correct, I don't think DERA makes an adjustment for how much a player relies on his defense, and Glavine relied on his defense a ton, and was a fly ball pitcher, those flies going right to Andruw in CF. It is true, like Matt says, that tons of mediocre pitchers have gone to Atlanta and all of the sudden become stars. The same effect applies to Glavine, the only difference is that he has played just about his whole career in Atlanta, so we don't get to see the mediocrity in other places. He did go somewhere else in New York, and then he had a huge pitcher's park to save him.

[ElHalo]

EH, triple crown stats perfectly encompass hitter's ability.....I know you're being at least semi-sarcastic...

Of course I am. I don't completely discount everything outside of contact hitting.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Where did all of the vocal Glavine supporters go? I am getting triple-teamed here.

[538280]

But guys like Avery also had some very bad years with the Braves (95, 96). Were the Braves defenses worse those years? What about guys like Millwood who have seasons just as good away from Atlanta? Jason Schmidt improved drasticaly when he left Atlanta. Jason Marquis has gone to a better defense and gotten worse as a pitcher. Denny Neagle had ERA's just about as good in Pittsburgh (top 2 of 3). I guess in 2000, Beckett's 94 ERA+ was caused by Atlanta's defense behind him taking every day off.
Mike Hampton had far superior ERA's in Houston than Atlanta. Or was that just Coors field hangover?

Charlie Leibrandt's 3 best ERA+ seasons were with KC, not Atlanta. Kent Mercker and Mike Stanton had some of their best seasons out of Atlanta too. Most of Stanton's best were with NY or Boston.

Odalis Perez' best ERA's are outside of Atlanta. Alan Embree's 4 of 5 best ERA's were not in Atlanta.

Glavine's era+ in New York as a 37-40 year-old pitcher is over 115, not much off his 121 career average.

Shouldn't a pitcher with more "stuff" than Glavine playing on the Braves during the same years kill him in ERA+? Shouldn't Smoltz have an ERA+ around 140 for his career with that dynamic, shut-em-down Braves defense?

The difference is that Glavine was the kind of pitcher who relied on his defense a ton, and thus he himself wasn't really contributing to victory all that much, the same is true of all those other pitchers. What the Atlanta defense did was make that pitcher look like a superstar on a consistent basis. Sure, those other guys will do well in Atlanta and have a few good years elsewhere, but when a guy like that sticks around he's having those great years every year. That's Glavine.