If you have figured this out by now, we are treating pitchers a little differently than the other positions. However, some of the precepts that governed those positions also governs pitchers. Simply put, we are looking for similarities. Great players have few peers. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. The further you move away from great the more people will be similar.
We separate pitchers differently because the nature of pitching changes more than the other positions. So, we are splitting baseball into 20 to 25 year increments. However, the concept is still the same. The index is not meant to rank order guys. It is meant to group them with other similar players so we can compare them.
If this is the first one of these you are reading then you will see the index followed by some sabermetric pitching numbers, awards voting, and postseason pitching numbers. None of these tests will definitely say anything, but in concert could tell us a lot about who belongs in and who belongs out. It becomes an “if….then” statement. If a player is similar to someone we believe should be in then they probably should be in too.
Remember the index does not rank order players. This does not mean that Felix Hernandez was the best pitcher from this group. It also doesn’t mean that he isn’t. That is what the other tests are for. So, essentially we are looking at pitchers that are similar. It is really a question of math. The index involves four different sources when you include the peak value element.
So, a 10 win gap is really a two to three win gap. A two to three win gap. A two to three win gap over a 12 to 15 year career is really nothing. These are all very similar pitchers in terms of value. If you read the last two articles then you know we went from three pitchers to four pitchers and now to six. As the index gets lower, the number of similar players gets higher.
If we believe that the Hall of Fame is meant for the very best then it becomes harder and harder for players at this level to distinguish themselves. Furthermore, a simple statement of value is not enough. We have to look at how the player accrued that value. That is what the other tests are for.
Out of these numbers, ERA+ is probably the easiest to comprehend. It is a measure of how many percentage points better the pitcher is than the league. 100 is average. The rest of the numbers are very descriptive but less well known. Waapct measures what a pitcher’s winning percentage should be if he had average offensive and fielding support behind him.
That dovetails into neutral wins (NW) where we take the number of decisions and multiply it by the waaPCT. That leaves quality starts percentage. The origin of that stat is an interesting story. Scott Boras was looking for a way to sell Kevin Brown before he became Kevin Brown. He noticed that he seemed to work late into games and the Orioles were bad, so he wasn’t winning those games.
Boras discovered he had a lot of starts where he pitched six or more innings and gave up three runs or less. Thus, the quality start was born. If you have been following these then you also know about bases per out. It is more of a make your own stat that measures a pitcher’s ability to limit damage. The lower the better. If you noticed, these numbers cut multiple ways depending on which one you choose to look at. That tends to point to these pitchers being fairly similar in value. Let’s see what happens when we look at the awards voting.
Most of these categories are self-explanatory, but the numbers deserve some explanation. A first place finish gets ten points, top five finishes get five points, and top ten finishes get three points. We do the same with their finishes in BWAR. We look at the difference to see which pitchers were appreciated by the voters for who they really were.
The top spot represents how many times the pitcher led the league in pitcher BWAR. So, you could say it represents deserved Cy Young awards. Like on the position player side, a lack of Cy Youngs should not preclude you from being a Hall of Famer, but having them is a feather in your cap. That tells us that Santana’s career was short, but pretty impactful.
Houston fans obviously have a lot invested in Roy Oswalt and he never won a Cy Young, but he deserved one. The same is true with Felix. At the end of the day, Hernandez and Oswalt will come out looking very similar. I suppose that is your “if…then” statement. If you support one then you should support the other. If you don’t support one then the other is more difficult to support. However, let’s see what happens when we look at the playoff numbers.
I have a hard time with playoff numbers. In order to really give it a go you would need to assert that it is Hernandez’s fault the Mariners never made the playoffs. That logic is backwards. Opportunity is not the same thing as a achievement. As sabermetricians it becomes painfully important that we separate the two. Some stats are stats that measure quality. Some stats measure opportunity.
Oswalt has a better winning percentage in the playoffs than the other pitchers. Some would be apt to consider that a feather in his cap. Others would discount it completely. I’ve always considered playoff performance to be a bit of a tie breaker. It would be fair to say that Hernandez and Owalt are similar enough to be tied. Therefore, it would be fair to say this breaks the tie.
Of course, that assumes that any of these guys belong in the Hall of Fame. I’m not making that assumption. One of the problems when you have a lot of similar guys is that it can seem unfair. I’m inclined to say no across the board, but I also prefer a more restrictive Hall of Fame. Anyone is obviously free to disagree.