you're reading...
All-Time HoME Leaders, Uncategorized

All-Time HoME Leaders, Pitcher – 1-20

Relief pitching is valuable. Relief pitchers, no so much.

Strange way to begin a post about the best pitchers of all-time since clearly none of the top-20 are relievers. But I’m reminding you of this maxim both to preview our six pitching posts (we’ll get through the top-120) and to make a point.

Eric and I have some fundamental differences on how we rank pitchers. Eric applies a correction, essentially, for what he calls the Schoenfield Paradox. Named for ESPN writer David Schoenfield, the Schoenfield Paradox is the idea that it’s easier to stand out from your peers when there are fewer great players in the league. By reading Schoenfield’s post and then Eric’s, you’ll understand my point much more clearly. I’ll wait.

Okay then. Let me generalize a bit. Eric and I look at the old timey pitchers differently. He sees guys who didn’t outperform their peers by an incredible amount. And he’s right. What I see is hurlers who pitched a larger percentage of their team’s innings than at any other time in history. Those innings have value – in the same way that the lack of innings for closers mean they don’t have much value.

I might run into trouble in ten or twenty years when we go to elect pitchers of today’s era. Will they have enough innings to accumulate the value needed to get into the HoME? I fear they won’t. Luckily, there’s a lot of time to debate and learn until then.

Enjoy the six pitcher posts in the series! And check out all of our rankings below.

[MAPES+], [CHEWS+], [1B, 1-20], [1B, 21-40], [2B, 1-20], [2B, 21-40], [3B, 1-20], [3B, 21-40], [SS, 1-20], [SS, 21-40], [C, 1-20], [C, 21-40], [LF, 1-20], [LF, 21-40], [CF, 1-20], [CF, 21-40], [RF, 1-20], [RF, 21-40]

Pitcher – 1-20

P, 1-20

Why are there no active pitchers in the top-20?

There are two reasons. First, given that there are so many more pitchers than players at any other position on the diamond, it’s harder to reach the top-20. Second, Clayton Kershaw just turned 30 (and is injured frequently enough that he may never make it).—Miller

Kershaw is in the low thirties in my rankings. He’s the highest active or recently retired pitcher on this list. Pitchers just don’t throw many innings, something like ten to thirty percent fewer than the generation that included Clemens, Maddux, and Glavine. That’s it in a nutshell. But let’s poke at this a sec.

This year, Kevin Cash made the theoretical leap. He started Sergio Romo to get through the first inning or two and then turned it over to…a starting pitcher who would go twice through the lineup and would, in turn, hand it over to the late-inning relievers. This is an utterly brilliant tactic. The first inning is the highest scoring, the only inning where the offense gets to determine its sequence of hitters and stack their best bats at the top of the lineup. Combine that with the fact that most pitchers get creamed their third time through the batting order, and it’s a readymade bullpen situation. That is, if a team is willing to see the tactical opportunity and think outside the traditional starter/reliever box. My golly who would get the win???

But in terms of the question at hand, that theoretical leap may be the beginning of the end of the normative model of starting pitching. We have arrived at a point where there are three kinds of pitchers: Excellent starters who can get through a lineup three times; pitchers who can get through it twice most days; and relievers. Well, the second group is why relief pitching in the first inning is a great idea. Depending on a team’s depth, anyone from your number two starter through your number five will fall into that second group. Most relievers are fungible. So that just leaves our excellent starters. Maybe they number thirty or forty? Then again, with injuries and attrition how can you know? But they are fast becoming the focus guys on a pitching staff. Not just the best pitchers on the staff, but ones who need to go seven innings to keep the bullpen from getting too worn out. With thirteen-man staffs, this model may work with lots of roster manipulation to get fresh arms into the backend of the bullpen. But it will place an awful lot of pressure on the top-end starter, and, I suspect lead to much higher season-to-season variance in team performance.

Or I could be completely wrong about this….—Eric

Where do our rankings diverge the most from the conventional wisdom?

Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax. More on them later.—Eric

I’ve talked about Rick Reuschel possibly being the most underrated player in baseball history. What about Phil Niekro? It’s hard to think of someone in the Hall of Fame as underrated, but Niekro is for a ton of reasons. He threw a gimmick pitch. He played for terrible teams. He wasn’t good as a young player. He led the league in losses four years in a row when people really cared about losses. And he pitched during the glory days of National League pitching. But do you know who had the most pitching war in all of baseball for the 69 years from 1929-1997? Well, that, my friends, was Tom Seaver. Yeah, Seaver was better than Niekro. But nobody else was. Yes, my start and end points are artificial. Add 1928, and Lefty Grove was better too. Add 1998, and you have Roger Clemens ahead of Niekro. Still, think about this for a second, Phil Niekro had the second most pitching WAR in the game for 69 years. It doesn’t matter that I’m manipulating the start and end dates. That stat is amazing.—Miller

Where do we disagree with one another the most?

Not in the top-20 since we have the exact same 20 guys, but the disagreements are coming.—Miller

As noted by Miller above, the biggest disagreement we have lies in our disposition toward older pitchers. I have never felt comfortable comparing contemporary pitchers to those from times when 300 innings were either a partial season, the norm, the norm for a quality pitcher, or a total achieved by the very best pitchers. The last time someone threw 300 innings in MLB, Barry Bonds was in high school, Anwar Sadat was alive, the White House still had solar panels, and the most a wristwatch could do was multiply and divide. No pitcher since the 1980s has thrown 280 innings. The last time someone rung up even 250 innings was in 2011 (Justin Verlander, 251). Nary a pitcher has reached 240 since 2014 when David Price and Johnny Cueto turned the trick.

On the other side of the coin, in 1884, Pud Galvin established the never-to-be-broken record of 20.5 WAR in a single season. Tossing 636 innings helps. 20.5 pitching WAR is about three times what our best pitchers this year will earn. Pitchers across history have racked up “just” ten WAR 118 times. Only 51 of those season came after 1901. Only twenty of them came after integration. Only nine since the adoption of the DH. Only four since 2000. Just one since 2002. In my mind, comparing Zack Grienke’s 10.4 WAR in 2009 to the 10.5 that Jim McCormick picked up in 1880 does not compute. A supermajorty of Grienke’s value in 2009 was marginal: 8.3 WAA and 10.4 WAR. Less than 50% of McCormick’s value lay above average.

My solution is to retain pitchers’ value above average and debit their value between replacement and average to resemble contemporary pitchers. It is not, shall we say, theoretically sound, but it produces reasonable results that I can comprehend. And, as we’ll see soon, it pushes Miller and I apart on several important candidates.—Eric

Just to be clear here, in my opinion, there’s nothing at all wrong with Eric’s direction (nor mine, I hope).—Miller

Are there any players who MAPES+/CHEWS+ might overrate or underrate? 

Having just explained a bit about how I look at pitchers, yes, my method may insert some instability into the system. Especially because I use a rate-based component to dole out bonuses. This probably puts two groups to the advantage. Modern starters whose value is more concentrated into fewer innings may benefit a bit. So too might the olde tyme guys. Even though I adjust their innings, I keep so much of their WAA that they get a little boost by the change in the resultant change in denominator.—Eric

Bias is a funny thing. I really want to find an angle to show that Phil Niekro isn’t one of the 13-14 best pitchers ever. Maybe he isn’t. I think, for example, if we needed just one start from a pitcher of the era, most would take Steve Carlton over Niekro. Also, Knucksie’s lack of October experience could drop him behind a guy or three. But man, it’s a sad commentary when I want to trust my gut more than my system. It’s also possible we overrate Gaylord Perry some. As just the fifth best pitcher of his era, perhaps he’s not the 18th or 19th best ever. Is Pedro Martinez, the fourth best pitcher of his era, the 9th or 12th best ever? And where would Clemens have been if his game weren’t chemically enhanced for its last 43% (just my entirely unsubstantiated opinion and that of a hater)?


Stop by a week from today for pitchers 21-40.


10 thoughts on “All-Time HoME Leaders, Pitcher – 1-20

  1. If you trust your gut more than your system maybe something is wrong with your system. (or you have indigestion)

    Posted by verdun2 | June 18, 2018, 8:27 am
  2. Okay- I really want to get to the pitchers, but I haven’t gotten Right Fielders out of the way yet, so here’s that:

    1. Babe Ruth 392
    2. Stan Musial 267
    3. Hank Aaron 246
    4. Mel Ott 200
    5. Frank Robinson 179
    6. Roberto Clemente 149
    7. Ichiro! 145
    8. Al Kaline 143
    9. Reggie Jackson 136
    10. Joe Jackson 134
    11. King Kelly 129
    12. Paul Waner 123
    13. Larry Walker 122
    14. Pete Rose 120
    15. Sam Crawford 119
    16. Harry Heilmann 116
    17. Gavvy Cravath 112
    18. Gary Sheffield 111
    19. Elmer Flick 110
    20. Tony Gwynn 110

    21. Dwight Evans 104
    22. Reggie Smith 102
    23. Dave Winfield 100

    24. Vladimir Guerrero 97
    25. Willie Keeler 96
    26. Bobby Abreu 95
    27. Bobby Bonds 94

    Ruth – Yeah, I agree with you guys. He’s the best player ever, and its not particularly close.

    Musial – I just have his most value in RF.

    Ichiro – Somewhere in the BBTF HoM discussion threads, Eric generated Win Share MLEs for Ichiro’s time in Japan (unfortunately I never bookmarked it and forgot its actual location). I did a crude conversion from WS to WAR and have added that to Ichiro’s actual ML totals.

    Gavvy Cravath – A couple of notes about Cactus Gavvy. Obviously, I included significant minor league credit for him. And yes, the 1910’s NL was weaker than the AL at the time. And yes, he did take serious advantage of the Baker Bowl. But Wade Boggs did the same with Fenway. And should we really penalize him because others failed to do so? I have him as the best position player in the NL in 1913 and 1915. One of my favorite players I support for the HoM.

    Reggie Smith – includes some minor Japan credit.

    Vladimir, Wee Willie and Bobby Abreu – Basically, any player between a 95 and 100 PEACE+ I have no objection if someone supports them for HoF, etc. – I just have such players just out.

    Posted by Michael Mengel | June 18, 2018, 11:39 am
    • Your comments answered the questions I had as I looked at your list. Thanks!

      You ask an interesting question about the Baker Bowl. I’m going to oversimplify, but my basic thought process is the following: Boggs used his uncommonly great skill set to take advantage of Fenway. Ned Williamson, by contrast, was very fortunate to play in Lake Front Park II for a couple of seasons. Where you rate the Baker Bowl in terms of fairness and where you rate Cravath in terms of hitting prowess probably help you to make the Cravath call. Clearly you’ve thought about it, which I admire.

      Posted by Miller | June 18, 2018, 11:52 am
      • Great minds think alike – I almost mentioned Williamson’s 1884 season as an additional example but didn’t mainly because that was a one-year aberration in the ground rules.

        And in fairness, Cravath didn’t just take advantage of the Baker Bowl. Nicolett Park, where the Minneapolis Millers played, had a very short porch in right, just like the Baker Bowl. He probably perfected his opposite field long ball there and just had the good fortune of having the Phillies bring him back to the majors, where he could use the same approach. But to me that shows he was a smart hitter and may have been able to adapt to other parks if he had ended up elsewhere.

        Posted by Michael Mengel | June 18, 2018, 12:14 pm
  3. Okay, now that I’ve caught up on the position players, I can begin to fall behind om the pitchers 🙂

    Since you started with a note about relievers, I will continue in that vein, especially since I will bring up an intriguing result from my bonus point system. Like the two of you, the only relievers in my Hall are Rivera (technically, in next year when he’s eligible) and Gossage, while the general consensus often places Wilhelm 2nd. My interesting note about Wilhelm is constructing my yearly All-Star teams, Wilhelm was never once the best reliever in baseball for any year of his career. In fact, the only reliever other than Rivera (8 times) to be the best in baseball post – WWII more than twice was Dick Radatz and his three-in-a-row from 1962-64.

    I wish I could be in complete agreement with you two and have the exact same top 20, but I can’t. I only have 19 the same (spoiler alert: Miller’s gut bias will be happy).

    But first a quick explanation (refresher?) on how I evaluate pitchers. Theoretically, I am more toward Eric’s side, but I accomplish this via different methods. If I remember correctly, he makes an historical-based adjustment on innings pitched for replacement level purposes. In contrast, I balance the historical numbers by including an input with which I know you two don’t agree, but for my system, it makes things work perfectly: Along with bWAR and gWAR, I average in FWAR and it’s FIP-based numbers for my yearly pitcher totals (adjusted for standard deviation, as well). If I didn’t include fWAR, nearly every major pre-1893 pitcher would be qualified. By including fWAR, only 7 make the cut (the 6 that are in the Hall of Merit – Spalding, Galvin, Keefe, Radbourn, Clarkson, Caruthers, plus Buffinton). Plus, including fWAR, because of the increasing use of analytics and looking at players’ K/BB percentages, tends to help modern pitchers. And because of the continuing decrease in IP of modern pitchers, that is another reason I include my Cy Young and All-Star bonuses – to make sure to be fair to all eras and give future pitchers a fighting chance to make my Hall (because deep down, I know that’s what they’re really playing for – ,my approval [/sarcasm]. The other thing I do is whereas I give full season-length extrapolation to all hitters, I only do that for pitchers from 1920 on. All previous seasons I keep as is.

    Onto the rankings:

    1. Walter Johnson – 280 PEACE+
    2. Cy Young 270
    3. Lefty Grove 255
    4. Roger Clemens 246
    5. Pete Alexander 228
    6. Kid Nichols 201
    7. Christy Mathewson 200
    8. Randy Johnson 197
    9. Greg Maddux 191
    10. Tom Seaver 183
    11. Warren Spahn 183
    12. Pedro Martinez 177
    13. Bert Blyleven 168
    14. Bob Gibson 166
    15. Robin Roberts 155
    16 Steve Carlton 152
    17. Bob Feller 145
    18. Gaylord Perry 143
    19 Eddie Plank 142
    20. John Clarkson 141

    Lefty Grove – I’m giving him credit for his Baltimore years.

    Bob Feller – Yes, it’s a war-credit thing. And I know you guys don’t give war credit, but especially hate war credit for pitchers due to the increased injury risk. And I agree with that risk, so instead of giving full credit like I do for hitters, I reduce each pitchers yearly war credit by one-third in order to account for this injury risk.

    Posted by Michael Mengel | June 19, 2018, 11:40 am
    • Feller is one of my favorite underrated pitchers of all-time. Yeah, he’s better than his numbers show since he missed some real prime years. Of course, you do point out the caveat – potential injury.

      I certainly can’t be troubled by your list overall. Any system that knocks Clemens down a peg gets my approval!

      Looking forward to your take on Niekro if it’s more than an fWAR thing. But I think it’s going to be an fWAR thing.

      Posted by Miller | June 19, 2018, 1:01 pm
      • It’s definitely partially (mostly?) an fWAR thing. But because he was a knuckler and could also throw so many innings without arm trouble (and yes, innings-eating has a ton of value, it just doesn’t make one great for me), he ends up suffering some in my rate-based components.

        And in other teasers, I don’t think Eric will be too happy with my #22 pitcher, although #21 may come as a pleasant surprise (it was very surprising to me).

        Posted by Michael Mengel | June 19, 2018, 1:33 pm

Tell us what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Institutional History

%d bloggers like this: