Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Waite Hoyt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hoyt by PCA:
    Code:
    Yr	Lg	Off	Def	Pit	O-M	D-M	P-M	Wins
    1927	AL	-0.08	0.42	6.96	-0.9	0.6	10.5	7.30
    1923	AL	-0.35	0.53	6.43	-1.3	0.8	9.7	6.61
    1934	NL	-0.49	0.07	6.53	-1.4	0.0	10.4	6.11
    1921	AL	-0.30	0.15	5.91	-1.3	0.0	7.8	5.76
    1928	AL	0.00	0.14	5.45	-0.7	0.0	7.2	5.59
    1922	AL	-0.19	0.44	4.15	-1.0	0.7	4.7	4.40
    1926	AL	-0.27	0.09	4.52	-1.1	0.0	6.0	4.34
    1925	AL	0.44	0.14	3.08	0.3	0.0	2.7	3.66
    1924	AL	-0.56	0.17	3.62	-1.7	0.1	3.7	3.23
    1937	NL	-0.86	0.14	3.73	-2.2	0.1	4.7	3.01
    1929	AL	-0.11	-0.02	2.73	-0.8	-0.2	2.7	2.60
    1936	NL	-0.17	0.07	2.39	-0.6	0.0	3.2	2.29
    1935	NL	0.06	0.16	1.93	-0.2	0.2	1.6	2.15
    1919	AL	-0.33	0.04	2.42	-0.9	0.0	3.4	2.13
    1933	NL	-0.08	0.07	1.83	-0.4	0.0	2.0	1.82
    1920	AL	-0.38	0.11	1.92	-1.0	0.1	2.1	1.65
    1932	NL	-0.61	0.18	1.58	-1.5	0.2	1.4	1.15
    111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
      111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.
      But he does have something that they don't, a stellar World Series record. Clemens and Maddux have great numbers but neither is on par with Hoyt's. Keep in mind that at one point he had established something like 13 different World Series pitching records. Had he been a hitter, one could dismiss those with, "So what? He established those during the first part of the Liveball era". As a pitcher, I would say we can only count that in his favor... "He established those during the first part of the Liveball era!" His post season pitching is really what gives him H.O.F. credibility. He's sort of like the Claude Lemieux of baseball. If he ever retires, Lemieux will after a while eventually get into the Hockey Hall of Fame. People will look at his regular season numbers and be unimpressed. What will get him in, though, are his regular season numbers and his Playoff numbers taken together.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hoyt's post-season record came against a series of teams from the National League who made the world series on the strenght of their defense and pitching and NOT on the strength of their offense. Literally, the OPS+ of those teams, in order:

        1921 NYG: 104
        1922 NYG: 101
        1923 NYG: 104
        1926 STL: 101
        1927 PIT: 101
        1928 STL: 101
        1931 PHA: 102

        All slightly above average hitting teams with well above average defenses.

        The NL in the 20s was also well weaker in terms of league quality than the AL and the representatives in the WS reflect this...a whole series of very marginal playoff teams with pretty darned marginal records.

        It's important to keep in mind that those post-season pitching performances from Hoyt didn't come against the level of competition that guys like Clemens and Maddux' records.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
          Hoyt's post-season record came against a series of teams from the National League who made the world series on the strenght of their defense and pitching and NOT on the strength of their offense. Literally, the OPS+ of those teams, in order:

          1921 NYG: 104
          1922 NYG: 101
          1923 NYG: 104
          1926 STL: 101
          1927 PIT: 101
          1928 STL: 101
          1931 PHA: 102

          All slightly above average hitting teams with well above average defenses.

          The NL in the 20s was also well weaker in terms of league quality than the AL and the representatives in the WS reflect this...a whole series of very marginal playoff teams with pretty darned marginal records.

          It's important to keep in mind that those post-season pitching performances from Hoyt didn't come against the level of competition that guys like Clemens and Maddux' records.
          You're painting a false picture of Hoyt and the Yankees facing weaker teams based solely on OPS+. How can I say this is "false"? Because the superior Yankees teams lost the first two of those years to the Giants.

          Let's look at those 1921 Giants for example. This is the squad that Hoyt completely obliterated and pitched 27 innings against without yielding single earned run:

          Over the course of the regular season they had a team batting average of .298. In the World Series, that average dropped way down to .269. One might jump to the conclusion, that, therefore, the Yankees were much stronger than the National League competition that the Giants batters faced on a regular basis. However, let's take Hoyt's numbers out of the mix. Suddenly you have the Giants squad hitting .335 against the American League champs. A squad that Hoyt annihilated.

          It also sounds good on paper to say that the Giants were a weak hitting team until you start naming their lineup. A lineup with George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, George Burns,and Irish Meusel wasn't exactly a bunch of pushovers. If I were an opposing pitcher, I'd be a lot more intimidated by that lineup than the 1997 Marlins or 1995 White Sox that Clemens faced. If you take the anomaly/monster/super-human entity that was called "Ruth" out of the Yankees lineup and replace him with virtually anyone else in the American League, the two teams have quite similar batting numbers over the course of the season. One might even, dare I say it, label the Giants as the superior hitting squad. Ruth single-handedly skews all the stats.

          As far as the two leagues go, even with Ruth, the A.L. clubbed a grand total of 17 more homeruns than the National League that year and had a .003 higher batting average. Ruth manages to skew the entire A.L. up an extra point in batting average all by himself. Not to mention , that if you take his round trippers out of the equation, I'm not so sure that the league still looks all that superior in the hitting department?

          Hoyt did all his post season damage against two semi-dynasties (the Giants and Cardinals of the 1920s) and the great '27 Pirates team. I'd hardly say that these were weak teams.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by The Commissioner View Post
            Too cool. That's a nice touch leaving the baseball.
            The balls were there when I got there, so I did not leave them. Someone else did that. I left them as they were.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dgarza View Post
              The balls were there when I got there, so I did not leave them. Someone else did that. I left them as they were.
              In a way, that's even cooler. It's nice to know that you're not the only one paying homage to the man by honoring his grave site with a visit.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Commissioner View Post
                You're painting a false picture of Hoyt and the Yankees facing weaker teams based solely on OPS+. How can I say this is "false"? Because the superior Yankees teams lost the first two of those years to the Giants.

                Let's look at those 1921 Giants for example. This is the squad that Hoyt completely obliterated and pitched 27 innings against without yielding single earned run:

                Over the course of the regular season they had a team batting average of .298. In the World Series, that average dropped way down to .269. One might jump to the conclusion, that, therefore, the Yankees were much stronger than the National League competition that the Giants batters faced on a regular basis. However, let's take Hoyt's numbers out of the mix. Suddenly you have the Giants squad hitting .335 against the American League champs. A squad that Hoyt annihilated.

                It also sounds good on paper to say that the Giants were a weak hitting team until you start naming their lineup. A lineup with George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, George Burns,and Irish Meusel wasn't exactly a bunch of pushovers. If I were an opposing pitcher, I'd be a lot more intimidated by that lineup than the 1997 Marlins or 1995 White Sox that Clemens faced. If you take the anomaly/monster/super-human entity that was called "Ruth" out of the Yankees lineup and replace him with virtually anyone else in the American League, the two teams have quite similar batting numbers over the course of the season. One might even, dare I say it, label the Giants as the superior hitting squad. Ruth single-handedly skews all the stats.

                As far as the two leagues go, even with Ruth, the A.L. clubbed a grand total of 17 more homeruns than the National League that year and had a .003 higher batting average. Ruth manages to skew the entire A.L. up an extra point in batting average all by himself. Not to mention , that if you take his round trippers out of the equation, I'm not so sure that the league still looks all that superior in the hitting department?

                Hoyt did all his post season damage against two semi-dynasties (the Giants and Cardinals of the 1920s) and the great '27 Pirates team. I'd hardly say that these were weak teams.
                The totals don't lie, Commish...these Giants teams didn't beat the Yankees primarily by clubbing the snot out of the baseball...the '21 line-up was basically 7 solid above average bats and one hole (plus the pitchers of course)...a good solid line-up but we're not talking about a juggernaut line-up...and those world series games went:

                3-0 Yanks
                3-0 Yanks
                13-5 Giants, but 8 of those runs came in one horrible 8th inning melt-down primarily sparked by two of the Yankees' scrub pitchers
                4-2 Giants
                3-1 Yanks
                8-5 Giants (they seemed to have their way with Shawkey)
                2-1 Giants
                1-0 Giants and the run was unearned

                0, 0, 13*, 4, 1, 8, 2, 1...that's not a team winning games by outslugging the slugging Yankees.

                You need to look at how these teams got the wins they did...the Giants were a defensively gifted squad...Kelly, Frisch and Bancroft comprised one of the best defensive infields in the game at that time.

                That said, it's fair to say OPS+ misses some value since they were also an aggressive club on the bases and their OPS+ doesn't suggest they should have been scoring 840 runs...so they were perhaps more of an offensive club in '21 than I'm giving their credit for. But their high BA and even higher net OPS probably owes more to the hitter's haven they called home.

                In '22 the same story applies...on the surface the offense looks impressive but adjust out the huge advantage their park gave them and they're an average (but well balanced) offense that manufactured runs on the basepaths.

                They won that world series 3-2, 3-3 (T), 3-0, 4-3, and 5-3. That's a defensively gifted team beating an offensively gifted team. That's not a team that should scare Hoyt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
                  111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.

                  Do you EVER consider post season stats towards a player's HOF candidacy? Or are you of the modern stats guys theory that it was just a coincidence that he happened to be great in those 83.2 innings?

                  You can't do much better than Hoyt did in the world series. The other poster was a little off, he actually had a 1.83 ERA in 83.2 WS innings. W-L record was just 6-4 in 11 starts thanks to 11 unearned runs allowed. He pretty much singlehandedly kepot the Yankees in the 1921 WS, allowing no earned runs with 2 unearned runs in 27 innings against McGraw's Men that year.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.

                    And I also think it's very important to recognize what the context is with any statistic...Hoyt's 1.83 ERA in the post-season is certainly a nice stretch of innings, but Jeff Weaver dominated the Tigers in 2006...does that mean Jeff Weaver is clutch? Yankees fans would argue that he was ANTI-clutch given how badly he handled NYC. Yes...I do think 82 innings is a small sample...too small to draw significant conclusions. Post-season performance should be counted within the regular season tallies and will be added to the regular season analysis on my next pass at PCA...but that's all it is to me...a game between two good teams (luckily my methods account for strength of schedule).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
                      I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.
                      Not exactly.

                      Have you ever been involved in any way (player, coach, manager, umpire) in a post season or tounament or any other kind of "big" game?

                      Anyone who has will tell you that those games are not just like any other "game of baseball."

                      Not only the pressure involved and not only the magnitude of the games, but I'm sure you realize that teams play those games differently. They don't "rest" players, they don't bring lesser pitchers into the game, they don't take a look at a new player, etc....every team plays their optimum lineup and only uses their best pitchers in the series, barring starnge circumstances, like blowouts, or long extra inning games etc...

                      If you don't think that emotions can affect players (and managers and umpires), you probably never watched Ankiel pitch near the end. You probably never watched Mackey Sasser try to throw the ball back to the pitcher near the end.

                      Sometimes players choke. It happens. Sometimes certain players can step it up a notch in big games. It happens.

                      90% of this game is half mental.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I believe emotions can affect the players, but rarely do to a statistically significant magnitude at the big league level. If you are a choker, you don't make it to the big leagues because you won't handle the pressure well at lower levels...pressure on you to perform to get your chance. There are high profile examples of players suddenly losing their ability (Ankiel is a good one, Knoblauch is another) and beocming emotional basket cases. But for 99.9+% of the guys who play this game in the big leagues, the emotions them all nearly evenly.

                        Incidentally, Waite Hoyt's post-season success does not hold up well under statistical scrutiny. Not only are the teams he faced not particularly dynamic offensively, but when you break down his post-season line, it's not all that much more impressive than his regular season line from the standpoint of a defense independent context. His K/BB improved, he was pitching a little bit better, but it looks to me like the unearned runs he gave up would make up some of the difference between his ERA in those particular seasons and his ERA in the post-season. His RA in regular season games in his 7 post-season appearances: 4.05. His RA in the post-season: 3.01. The change in K/BB pretty much completely explains the difference in RA. He pitched a bit better in the post-season...but we're not talking about the kind of change that should get more weight than the bulk of his regular season career.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
                          I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.
                          So you are saying that when a team's closer comes out with a one run lead in the 9th inning of game 7 of the world series, that inning he is trying to pitch is of no more importance than an inning he may pitch with a 7-0 lead in a game in July when his manager is just using him for an inning because he hasn't pitched in 6 days?

                          Let me ask you. Do you weigh any of a closer's innings as being more significant than the innings of a mop up guy in the bullpen? And if you do think that a closer's innings could be more significant at times, why wouldn't some full games be more significant than some other full games?

                          Forget about the actual PCA system. Just in your own mind, do you give someone like Schilling or Beckett any extra credit for being great in the post season? If Schilling is a borderline hall of famer does his post season record influence whether or not you would vote for him?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            In small ways, yes, the post-season performances do matter to me. But Waite Hoyt is not a small ways off from the HOF...he's a long ways off.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SABR Matt View Post
                              In small ways, yes, the post-season performances do matter to me. But Waite Hoyt is not a small ways off from the HOF...he's a long ways off.
                              I agree he's not a hall of famer, but I can't agree that "a baseball game is a baseball game."

                              Sure, fans and reporters and broadcasters severely overdo this stuff about "clutch" players and all that, but the so called "big" games are BIG.

                              You can't tell me that a game at the end of the 1947 regular season when Washington is trying out some rookie pitcher and Ted Williams gets three extra base hits off him is the same as the final game of the 1948 season between the Indians and the Red Sox.

                              I'm not saying that you should weigh that game more in your system. I'm saying that when voting for hall of famers that their numbers in "big" games means something. If you MUST reduce everything to a number perhaps you could incorporate some sort of post season bonus syatem into your hall of fame marker points, maybe a range from -10 to +10 based on their post season numbers. If you are going to consider things like great PCL seasons why not great world series numbers?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I never disagreed with that. When I say "a game is a game" I don't mean I think it's unimportant to examine the context...I mean it matters a lot less (the post-season stuff) than some people seem to think it does...the only way you can defend Jack Morris or Waite Hoyt for the HOF is if you value his post-season performances as much as you value the entire rest of his career combined...there's just no good case to be made that Morris is a HOFer otherwise. Things like that annoy me.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X