How Great Was Lefty Grove?

[Chadwick]

I'm curious. Anyone have Lefty Grove outside their top 10 all-time pitchers?

[bluesky5]

ERA became an official statistic in the early teens (1912 NL, 1913 AL), even before RBI (1920). The Sunday stats and the annual guides listed pitchers in order of ERA (or alphabetically), not Wins. So ERA, while it doesn't predate Wins, has been held as important for more than a century.

I mean it was obvious, even to those Primitives before 1950, that Wins had a significant dependence on your team's strength. Most of the baseball world thought that ERA was a better measure of how well a guy pitched.

Other pitching stats that have long had importance include WL Pct, strikeouts, and shutouts.

Great points Freakshow. The historical importance of wins to writers, fans and most importantly people in the game has been greatly exaggerated and or misrepresented. Typically with the Welch CYA and Jack Morris leading the 80s in wins (as part of his HoF case) as examples.

[Los Bravos]

So now we're deducting points from Spahn because he didn't have to face his own team? Jesus, what a man gotta do?

I tried to engage him on that about a month ago (a couple of pages back in the thread), mostly to no avail.

[Freakshow]

We also have to consider that for roughly 100 years in MLB, wins were by far the most important statistic. In the past 30 or so years, pitchers pitch to ERA, and other much more sophisticated and valid/reliable metrics.

When Spahn et. all pitched, they probably didn't even know their ERA.

And the further back you go, the more irrelevant all others measures of pitcher greatness was.

Wins were literally all that mattered- or were measured- before the 1950's.

We have to evaluate pitchers and hitters and fielders based on what they were motivated to accomplish, as much as we evaluate them using the advanced metrics which didn't even exist during their respective eras.

ERA became an official statistic in the early teens (1912 NL, 1913 AL), even before RBI (1920). The Sunday stats and the annual guides listed pitchers in order of ERA (or alphabetically), not Wins. So ERA, while it doesn't predate Wins, has been held as important for more than a century.

I mean it was obvious, even to those Primitives before 1950, that Wins had a significant dependence on your team's strength. Most of the baseball world thought that ERA was a better measure of how well a guy pitched.

Other pitching stats that have long had importance include WL Pct, strikeouts, and shutouts.

[ol' aches and pains]

It helps a bit when you never face the two best lineups in baseball (in an 8 team league) for a decade.

To wit: The Braves were .540 without Spahn, 1950-1959. The Phillies were .475 without Robin Roberts those same years.

So now we're deducting points from Spahn because he didn't have to face his own team? Jesus, what a man gotta do?

[Floyd Gondolli]

That Warren Spahn was so overrated. All he did was win.

It helps a bit when you never face the two best lineups in baseball (in an 8 team league) for a decade.

To wit: The Braves were .540 without Spahn, 1950-1959. The Phillies were .475 without Robin Roberts those same years.

[ol' aches and pains]

Agree, it was that way at one time all that mattered were wins.
What we now use are better tools in evaluating pitchers.
Only 4 pitchers in modern times had more complete games.
I just think wins in this case a pitcher with such a long career and 363 wins should factor in evaluating him.
I say use the tools we have but Spahn's numbers in the above are rare in the game over a long career and have to be considered in evaluating him.

That Warren Spahn was so overrated. All he did was win.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

We also have to consider that for roughly 100 years in MLB, wins were by far the most important statistic. In the past 30 or so years, pitchers pitch to ERA, and other much more sophisticated and valid/reliable metrics.

When Spahn et. all pitched, they probably didn't even know their ERA.

And the further back you go, the more irrelevant all others measures of pitcher greatness was.

Wins were literally all that mattered- or were measured- before the 1950's.

We have to evaluate pitchers and hitters and fielders based on what they were motivated to accomplish, as much as we evaluate them using the advanced metrics which didn't even exist during their respective eras.

Agree, it was that way at one time all that mattered were wins.
What we now use are better tools in evaluating pitchers.
Only 4 pitchers in modern times had more complete games.
I just think wins in this case a pitcher with such a long career and 363 wins should factor in evaluating him.
I say use the tools we have but Spahn's numbers in the above are rare in the game over a long career and have to be considered in evaluating him.

[Los Bravos]

Or a biopic with Scott Glenn playing him. Might be a little late for that now but it would've rocked in the '80's.

[GoslinFan]

We need a nice documentary of Grove.

[Floyd Gondolli]

Exactly, not a problem with analytics a valuable tool in recent years in the game.
But some seem to really downplay pitching wins, especially in a case where the pitcher had 363 wins.
Spare me the pitcher's park stuff, strong teams, yes they play a part. But this guy won 363 games. There have been other pitchers maybe in better pitcher's parks and strong teams but who lasted long enough to gain all those 20 game seasons, long career........................longevity counts.

We also have to consider that for roughly 100 years in MLB, wins were by far the most important statistic. In the past 30 or so years, pitchers pitch to ERA, and other much more sophisticated and valid/reliable metrics.

When Spahn et. all pitched, they probably didn't even know their ERA.

And the further back you go, the more irrelevant all others measures of pitcher greatness was.

Wins were literally all that mattered- or were measured- before the 1950's.

We have to evaluate pitchers and hitters and fielders based on what they were motivated to accomplish, as much as we evaluate them using the advanced metrics which didn't even exist during their respective eras.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Wins are what they are. The analytics crowd has perpetuated the myth that wins were/are overvalued but that’s not true. If you’re just skimming box scores on google you see who the winning pitcher is and the score and you have a pretty damn good idea how the starter did without having to read his stats. Everyone - including “traditionalists” (a b.s. term by the way) - knows that the less long starters go the less telling the stat. The idea that wins were the be all end all is simply not true. They haven’t been since the deadball era. More important than today, yes, but not to an unjust degree considering the complete game rate and/or innings pitched totals until 2010 or so.



I think it was by Maury Allen and the cover was done in like a watercolor painting. I couldn’t find it.

Exactly, not a problem with analytics a valuable tool in recent years in the game.
But some seem to really downplay pitching wins, especially in a case where the pitcher had 363 wins.
Spare me the pitcher's park stuff, strong teams, yes they play a part. But this guy won 363 games. There have been other pitchers maybe in better pitcher's parks and strong teams but who lasted long enough to gain all those 20 game seasons, long career........................longevity counts.

[bluesky5]

Exactly. Put it this way, some other great and very good pitchers pitched careers in pitcher's parks, pitched in Spahn's era, same conditions, era before and after him and the only modern day pitcher with more than his 363 , Walter Johnson with 411 and Mathewson and Alexander with 373. In later years 350 + Clemens and Maddux close.

Not saying on wins alone that moves Spahn that far up the list. All of the above are over him Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander, Clemens, Maddux and some others.
We've heard it before by some, wins do not tell the whole story, agreed. But how many won 350 plus.

Don't care to hear those who pitched their whole career or almost their whole career in the pre 1900, a whole different game mostly hitting dirty beat up ball left in the game as long as the cover remained on it. Pitchers had it all their way, including trick deliveries.
Staying in the game long enough to have all those 20 win seasons and win 363, on this board doesn't seem to mean much.

Wins are what they are. The analytics crowd has perpetuated the myth that wins were/are overvalued but that’s not true. If you’re just skimming box scores on google you see who the winning pitcher is and the score and you have a pretty damn good idea how the starter did without having to read his stats. Everyone - including “traditionalists” (a b.s. term by the way) - knows that the less long starters go the less telling the stat. The idea that wins were the be all end all is simply not true. They haven’t been since the deadball era. More important than today, yes, but not to an unjust degree considering the complete game rate and/or innings pitched totals until 2010 or so.

Is it the one by Robert Creamer? That's a good one, from what little I can remember.

I think it was by Maury Allen and the cover was done in like a watercolor painting. I couldn’t find it.

[bluesky5]

Double post...

[ol' aches and pains]

Wow didn’t know that. I think I have a Stengel bio lying around I never read. I’ll check it out.

Is it the one by Robert Creamer? That's a good one, from what little I can remember.