Most underrated pitchers

[torez77]

Since we've been debating several underrated pitchers other than Waddell in the Waddell thread, it seems appropriate there should be a thread that sums up ALL of the pitchers we here at BBF feel are underrated.

Here is a list of the pitchers that so far have been expressed as underrated in the other thread:

Rube Waddell
Addie Joss
Ed Walsh
Mordecai Brown
Robin Roberts
Fergie Jenkins
Dazzy Vance
Kid Nichols
Eddie Plank
Smokey Joe Wood

Any others?

[BoSox Rule]

Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Torez, Mordecai and Nichols finished pretty high on Fever's pitchers poll didn't they?
------------------------

Herb Pennock

Joe McGinnity

Stan Coveleskie

[Bothrops Atrox]

Kid Nichols
Carl Hubbell
Tim Keefe
Charles Radbourn
John Clarkson
Joe McGinnity
Red Faber
Mordecai Brown
Rube Waddell
Stan Coveleski
Clark Griffith
Tony Mullane
Carl Mays
Bert Blyleven
Billy Pierce
Sam Leever
Tom Glavine
Ed Reulbach
Tommy Bridges
Lon Warneke
Deacon Phillippe
Jimmy Key
Cy Young, who loads of people continue to place outside of their top 5.

[csh19792001]

Cy Young, who loads of people continue to place outside of their top 5.

That is a laugh, isn't it? I wish everyone could appreciate Young as much as I do. The biography has helped me a ton with putting him into proper perspective.

[csh19792001]

Somebody listed Nichols as underrated on the Waddell thread, and yes he's been ranked on the BBF pitcher's rankings. I have mixed emotions about him being under or over. It would seem he's already gotten his just credit by being ranked #13.

True, but ask any baseball fan about Kid Nichols- even someone who is serious about studying today's game. Very few people even know his name, and almost nobody knows anything about the guy even if they do. And yet he's one of the greatest pitchers ever.

Now ask any baseball fan about Dizzy Dean and see the reactions you get. Isn't fame a silly phenomenon? So distortional! Hype begets hype, and obscurity begets the same progeny of its own.

When we do under/overrated threads, we should first specify which population we're discussing. They're two completely different animals.

[digglahhh]

Tom Glavine

So many people don't support him for the Hall and I don't understand why.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Tom Glavine

So many people don't support him for the Hall and I don't understand why.

Here is a post I made last week which very few people looked at, so I will post it again:


Glavine will probably win 300 games or very close to it with a very good .600 W% (.630 since 1991) to boot. Any notion that he is "Suttoning" his way to 300 wins is absurd.

5 20-win seasons (led league all five times)

120 career ERA+ (128 since 1991, 125 since that horrible rookie season)

4,000 innigs pitched (Top 10: 12 times)

Top 10 Games started: 12 times

Top 10 ERA: 8 times

Top 10 ERA+: 9 times

Top 10 wins: 10 times

Top 10 W%: 8 times

Top 10 complete games: 8 times

Top 10 shutouts: 10 times

2 Cy Youngs (top 3 in voting on six occasions)

9 All- Star appearances

Almost 300 Win Shares

Glavine is in the top 30 all-time in RSAA.

Glavine scores a 157 on the HOF monitor, or good for 37th ...and still climbing.

Over the past 15 years, Glavine's ERA+ has been has been under 105 once, and under 118 only three times. 8 times Glavine's ERA+ has been over 130. 5 times over 140.

World Series MVP and career 2.50 World Series ERA.

4 Silver Sluggers

Glavine would have won numerous Gold Gloves if Maddux wasn't around.

IT TOOK A TAXI ACCIDENT TO PUT HIM ON HIS ONLY DL STINT! It takes Kerry Wood a hangnail.

Glavine was the cornerstone of the greatest pitching staff of all-time. Remember, it was Glavine who was the staff ace, two-time 20 game winner, and two-time All-Star Game starter for the first two Braves World Series teams before Maddux was a Brave.

People complain about the 1.30 WHIP, but remeber, Glavine's XB/9 rate is very low, and is afforded to give up more singles. Especialy when you have one of the greatest double plays induced rates ever(even higher than Maddux, who is much more of a ground ball pitcher.) Glavine's total bases per 9 innings rate is very good, and his slugging % against is lower than the likes of Schilling, Mussina and many, many others with much superior WHIPs. That .7 HR/9 ratio and a 1.30 WHIP is just as effective as a super low WHIP and a 1.0 HR/9 ratio.

1.5 GB/FO ratio. (Many of those FO are harmless nubbers off of right hander's bats trying to pull a change-up)

By the way, did I mention that Glavine's WHIP is better than everybodies' favorite, Bob Feller? It is also almost as low as Lefty Grove's! (not sayin Glavine is better, just that if you use WHIP as a reason to leave Glavine out of Cooperstown, then Feller shouldn't even sniff your top 10.)

Glavine is very effective at holding runners, preventing hit batsmen, preventing wild pitches, and balks. All of these things add up to a lot of extra bases over the course of a season. If "secondary average" is important for batters like Biggio, than why does nobody talk about the little ways to keep runners from advancing bases?

I do believe that some pitchers such as Glavine do have some control over where the ball is hit and if an out is produced, and he is also very good at this skill. In my opinion, this legitimizes his double play rates. If you don't agree with this statement, then I guess Glavine getting 20-30 double plays every year is random luck year...after year...after year...after year...after year...

I wish I had the stats, but I know for a fact that Glavine's BAA w/ ROB and K w/ROB are far superior to his normal rates. His BAA w/RISP and K w/RISP are superior to that. This is a good indication of how Glavine pitches: pitch to contact to avoid high pitch counts (which increases WHIP with little singles), then throw a little harder with more movement with men on base. In 1994, Glavine was one of the NL leaders in strikeouts because he made an effort to do so. There was a problem, he also gave up more extra base hits, because while striking out more batters, he also left the ball around the plate more. In 1995, Glavine intintionaly threw with less velocity and went on to have a great season. Glavine could have had higher K rates if he wanted to, but it would have thrown off his rythm, as it did in 1994.

There are three ways in which a pitcher's team can drasitcaly effect his stats. The team's defense, offense, and bullpen. It has widely been regarded that Glavine has had a lot of support in these areas however...

Glavine's career run support is 102. Only 2% higher than league average. In fact, 102 is lower than the average Hall of Famer.

Glavine has recieved good (not Jim Plamer good) defensive support. His all-time adjusted NRA is 3.82, and his DERA is 3.85. Hardly earth shattering support.

Glavine has the sixth worst bullpen support of any starter with 2000 IP since WW2. (I read this is a recent report. I wish I saved it.) Glavine went from being on horrible bullpens through the late 80's to a mediocre bullpen through most of the 90's,(the good times with Wholers or Rocker were short lived) to horrible bullpens with the Mets again. I am sure Glavine would have loved to have had Reardon, Rivera, and Lidge in his bullpen.

The notion than Glavine (Maddux) is a by-product of the Braves' success is rediculous. The exact opposite is true. The Braves built their dynasty around Glavine and Smoltz (and Avery), then Maddux.

And of course Glavine is the only top-notch pitcher to ever get the benefit of umpires calls.

Glavine should without a doubt be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. (I have him ranked 39th all-time as did BBF in last years top 50 polls.) It is time that all of us Glavine fans unite and supress this silly notion of Glavine not being a Hall of Famer. Where are you all?

[leecemark]

Anybody who thinks Glavine isn't a slam dunk Hall of Fame choice has either not watched much baseball in the last 15 years or simply has no idea what a great pitcher looks like. He is a notch below Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez - but so are most Hall of Famers.

[torez77]

True, but ask any baseball fan about Kid Nichols- even someone who is serious about studying today's game. Very few people even know his name, and almost nobody knows anything about the guy even if they do. And yet he's one of the greatest pitchers ever.

Now ask any baseball fan about Dizzy Dean and see the reactions you get. Isn't fame a silly phenomenon? So distortional! Hype begets hype, and obscurity begets the same progeny of its own.

When we do under/overrated threads, we should first specify which population we're discussing. They're two completely different animals.

I guess the population could be EVERYBODY - a combination of the casual baseball fan, which would include many here at BBF, AND the more devoted posters at BBF, who are students of the game. I'm leaning more towards the latter. Despite all of our studying and all of our analysis, there are still many players and pitchers that get underrated. For this thread, we should try to review everything we've learned, all of the rankings we've done, etc., and then look back and see who we've forgotten, or failed to give enough credit to. Same thing with the "overrated" thread.

[Mad Guru]

Underrated pitcher

I think Wes Ferrell is terribly underrated. First, his pitching success was overshadowed by his prowess with the bat. Secondly, he pitched in an era and a park that favored hitters making his statistics appear inflated compared to historical performances.

[Buzzaldrin]

Can't believe we haven't seen Bob Caruthers' name up here yet.

[csh19792001]

Ferrell is up there....

I think Wes Ferrell is terribly underrated. First, his pitching success was overshadowed by his prowess with the bat. Secondly, he pitched in an era and a park that favored hitters making his statistics appear inflated compared to historical performances.

Check out this and posts #27-#42 on this thread.

[538280]

Can't believe we haven't seen Bob Caruthers' name up here yet.

I"m not the biggest Caruthers fan. Any pitcher in that time who got to pitch for the best team in the league was bound to put up huge numbers. His won-lost record says more about the team behind him than him. Even with the awesome team, his ERAs aren't that great for that era, and he finishes well below HOF average in both black and grey ink. His career was ridiculously short (2828.7 innings for 1880s baseball isn't very strong), and the AA was the inferior league. I don't see the case for Caruthers beyond that won-lost record, which isn't really an indication of how good Caruthers himself was.

[Blackout]

I"m not the biggest Caruthers fan. Any pitcher in that time who got to pitch for the best team in the league was bound to put up huge numbers. His won-lost record says more about the team behind him than him. Even with the awesome team, his ERAs aren't that great for that era, and he finishes well below HOF average in both black and grey ink. His career was ridiculously short (2828.7 innings for 1880s baseball isn't very strong), and the AA was the inferior league. I don't see the case for Caruthers beyond that won-lost record, which isn't really an indication of how good Caruthers himself was.

he was also a great hitter too, 135 OPS+ in almost 2500 at-bats