Starting IX Newsletter: Best four-year stretch from a starting pitcher and the Philadelphia A’s dynasty runs to four
For those unfamiliar with the set-up — welcome! Here’s the scoop. Otherwise, let’s dive right in.
“One Final Imagination of the Baseball Hall of Fame” Pre-excerpts: To Hall or not to Hall, Pt. 2
Last week, we ran an excerpt from a super fun portion of OFIBHOF (the fourth floor) where I take one player who is in the Hall of Fame, and one player who currently isn’t, and I compare the two to determine who is actually worthy of the plaque. I really like that section, so I’m going to go back to the well to run a few more of those, especially since those debates are still front of mind with the empty Hall of Fame class to come in 2021.
Jeff Kent vs. Goose Gossage
Why the two were paired: They’re both asshats.
Brief statistical comparison:
Our first batter vs. pitcher comparison, and to compound the issue, the pitcher is a closer. As such, it is shocking that the career WAR totals for the two are even in the same ballpark. It speaks both to Gossage’s excellence, as well as just how different the position of closer was when The Goose was closing out games. Gossage basically filled the 2016 Postseason Andrew Miller role all season every season. He would come into games in the seventh and finish them off with aplomb. It’s a role that has evaporated from baseball and isn’t likely to find its way back onto the scene, as bullpens get more and more specialized. Which is a shame. The true fireman is a glory to behold. Jayson Stark has gone as far as to call Gossage the greatest reliever of all time. Yes, even over Mariano Rivera.
As for Kent, he was an excellent hitter and rather average defender. However, his offense brought the added punch of coming from the second base spot. Especially in an NL lineup, having a second baseman who can actually do some damage with the stick is massive boon. It’s not at all surprising that Kent won four Silver Sluggers, nor is it shocking that he has an Most Valuable Player trophy on his mantle.
Brief anecdotal comparison: So why were each of these guys asshats? Well, for Kent it was during his playing days. He once did the unthinkable: He got the general public to side with Barry Bonds in a public spat. Bonds took umbrage with how Kent was treating a fellow teammate, with Bonds standing up for third baseman George Bell, after Kent laid into Bell following a defensive miscue. The argument escalated to some pushing and shoving, and the incident got the title, “The Slugout in the Dugout,” despite no real punches landing.
It’s not at all surprising that Kent came to near-blows with Bonds, both were headstrong, with Kent in particular being just a not-happy man. I used this quote in my first book, but I’m going to re-use it here because it just so perfectly sums up Kent. Lance Berkman once asked Jeff Kent “How’s it going?” to which Kent responded, “What is it with you guys? You think I’ve got to walk around saying hello to everyone. I see you every day.” He also told SI, “I’d like to leave the game without a single friend.” Woof.
As for Gossage, he had the reputation of being a popular player in his own time, but he hasn’t aged so gracefully. First things first, he has checked off the “old player hates new aspect of the modern game” BINGO card more times than you can count. He seems to feel the need to weigh in on basically every single baseball story, Yankee-related or otherwise, and he usually comes off as ornery at best. He went on record as saying that just being compared to Rivera and other “one-inning” closers was insulting to him, Goose Gossage. He loves using words like “soft” and “nerd,” and he once auditioned for the role of drunk uncle on SNL, but they said he was actually too believable in the role. (OK, the last nugget was made up.) He has also railed against bat flips (weirdly lumping modern Latin players into a big bin when doing so), and told Bryce Harper to “quit acting like a fool.” He’s just not a fun or pleasant man.
Who is actually in the OBHOF: The old Yankee with the ring, Goose Gossage. See how easy this guessing game is.
Personal winner: This is a really interesting. Gossage was near-transcendent at his position, but Kent wasn’t far off, with arguably a top-ten all-time hitting career for second baseman. And if you ask which position, second base or closer, is more important, the answer is clearly the one that is in the lineup every day.
That being said, Gossage wasn’t a closer in the modern way we think of closers. He truly did contribute multiple wins a season to his team’s output every year, and he is likely a bit undersold by WAR. And as for Kent, he raked with the stick, but he was pretty pedestrian with the glove, actually costing his team about four wins over his career on the defensive side of things. For that reason, I’m going with Goose Gossage in what is one of the tighter decisions so far.
Fred McGriff vs. Deacon White
Why the two were paired: They were two of the more interesting players on the fourth floor, and I wanted to write about them, so I paired them together… And I guess… generational comparisons are cool!
Brief statistical comparison:
Similar to Scott Rolen and Jimmy Collins last week, these two men are a fun, close comp, despite their careers taking place over 100 years apart. White came into the sport right when the sport came into official existence, playing in the first season on record (1871), as a 23-year-old and went on to play 20 seasons in three different leagues (although he mostly played in the early days of the National League). He was often among the league leaders in many statistical categories, with two batting title, three RBI crowns, and a time each leading the league in SLG, OPS, OPS+, hits, triples, and games played. It’s that final stat that I actually want to highlight. The biggest gap in the profiles of these two men is games played. McGriff played in over 900 more games than White, and that plays a large role in his edge in WAR and all other counting stats. However, that was, once again, largely due to the short schedule played in baseball’s early days. White led the league in games played in 1873 with 60 games played.
Now, we shouldn’t entirely discount the added wear and tear of having to play 162-game seasons like McGriff did, but it’s worth keeping in mind throughout this debate.
For me, this debate centers around a pair of statistical edges: McGriff’s seven-point edge in OPS+ vs. White’s 18.9-win difference in terms of defensive value (about one win a season). And man, is that a tight comparison.
Brief anecdotal comparison: As noted before, White came into baseball right as baseball came into itself, and so it’s not shocking — though it is impressive — that he has the first plate appearance, hit, and run of the National Association, the earliest official league in baseball history, meaning, for many, he has the first official plate appearance, hit, and run of baseball history, coming on May 4, 1871 for the Cleveland Forest Citys.
McGriff was responsible for some deadball era history of his own, or more accurately: responsible for some history that hadn’t occurred since the deadball era, when he won the 1992 home run crown, becoming the first player since the 1800s to win a home run crown in both leagues. He also accomplished something no other player in history had done at the time, when he hit 30 home runs with the Chicago Cubs in 2002. The Cubs became the fifth team with which he hit 30 homers, a feat previously unaccomplished. McGriff’s 493 career home runs are a bit historically-deflated because he played during the PED era, but he’s a player who never had even a sniff of an allegation, and no player in baseball history who has as many home runs — and isn’t tied to PEDs — lacks a plaque in Cooperstown. In fact, there’s an interesting case to be made that McGriff should have some sort of xHR total that is adjusted for all the other players who were inflating their home run totals, but McGriff still managed to lead the league in long balls twice (notably before PEDs really took off) and hit nearly 500 total for his career. The PED users around him almost certainly hurt his career WAR total, as the rest of the league’s offensive numbers went through the roof. That WAR total, which is often quoted in OBHOF cases against McGriff, deserves a bit of an injection, if you will.
Who is actually in the OBHOF: The man with the historical backing, Deacon White.
Personal winner: This is another case where White definitely deserves to be in the Hall — his role in baseball’s history, in addition to his very strong career make an easy case for the OBHOF. McGriff is more of a borderline case if we’re framing this in an OBHOF, yes-or-no binary. That would seem to make White the winner. However, when the decision is removed from that yes-or-no oversimplification, and we can just enjoy both men without having to decide whether or makes the cut or not, I actually lean towards Fred McGriff. His numbers were surrounded by even more insane numbers around the league during his time, but we already covered why that argument against him is more than a bit disingenuous. White needs to be here because of his ties to baseball history, but McGriff was the better ball player.
Burleigh Grimes vs. Mark McGwire
Why the two were paired: Both flirted with the edge of legality.
Brief statistical comparison:
As noted in our last hitter-pitcher comparison, statistically comparing pitchers and hitters is a remarkably difficult task. Thankfully in this case, it actually isn’t that difficult, at least on the surface. One of the better (but still not perfect) ways of doing this comp is to look at the pitcher’s ERA+ against the batter’s OPS+. Each is scaled so that 100 is exactly league average and each digit above is one percent better, after lots of era, ballpark, etc. factors have been taken into account. McGwire’s 163 OPS+ crushes Grimes’ 108 ERA+. Another cross-positional group of stats are the value stats. McGwire crushes Grimes in wins above average (37.1 to 14.1) and holds a healthy margin in terms of WAR (62.2 to 46.9). That number is just Grimes’ value from pitching, and the number jumps to 52.8 for Grimes if we add his defensive and offensive value to his career total, but it’s still about a ten-win edge for Big Mac.
Brief anecdotal comparison: Of course, the numbers will be ancillary for many baseball fans looking at this comparison. McGwire is one of the most notorious PED users of his era, one of the few to actually admit and apologize for his use, and that fact (the use, not the apology, which has actually done quite a bit of good for his public image) casts a large shadow over those numbers.
What might not be known is that Grimes’ numbers also deserve a bit of an asterisk, as well. He was the last legal spitballer, and “Ol Stubblebeard” even got grandfathered in, meaning that, for part of his career, he was literally the only dude in the league allowed to be throwing the pitch he used most frequently (Red Faber held it down for the spitball crew in the American League for some of this time). Even with that advantage, he was never truly dominant, never leading his league in ERA, and only once leading his league in pitching WAR (and never leading the league in total WAR).
Who is actually in the OBHOF: You know McGwire has never made the cut, so it’s not shocking that it is indeed Burleigh Grimes who was voted into the OBHOF in 1964 (ironically alongside aforementioned fellow spitballer, Red Faber).
Personal winner: In many ways, both these players have significant warts on their statistical profiles, in addition to the warts that come with the potential legality of their baseball actions. Grimes was never really that dominant, and McGwire didn’t do a whole lot more that pound the piss out of the ball. But at least Mark McGwire was able to parlay that skill into pitching fearing him, and thus, his on-base percentage jumping through the roof. Personally, I would have neither in the OBHOF, but they are both fourth floor worthy, with a slight edge to McGwire.
OOTP Year-by-Year Re-Simulation: 1912
We continue our trek through re-simulating each season in baseball history using Out of the Park Baseball 21, the most realistic baseball simulation game on the market.
MVP: Heinie Zimmerman and Frank Baker
Cy Young: Claude Hendrix and Walter Johnson
Both of those American League names should look familiar to you and are covered plenty in my two books, but these NL winners are a little more obscure.
Both players finished in that mushy 30–35 career WAR where you know and have strong feelings for that player if they are in a generation in which you followed the sport, but when they played over a century ago, it’s far more likely you have to do a little digging to stumble across their story.
Zimmerman broke in to the league in 1907 as a second baseman with the Cubs, and he did indeed have a stellar real-life 1912, winning the Triple Crown with 14 home runs, 104 RBI, and a .372 batting average. His 170 OPS+ and 318 total bases also led the NL. Of the 13 players to win the Triple Crown in the modern era (1901 onward), he is the only player without a plaque in Cooperstown. (Well, Miguel Cabrera doesn’t have one yet, but he undoubtedly will five years after he is retired.)
Hendrix was a pitcher for the Pirates for three seasons before going over to dominate the Federal League in 1914, eventually retuning to MLB to play five more seasons with the Cubs after the upstart league folded. Per SABR, Hendricks was a spitballer who was also one of the most athletic and best fielding pitchers of his era. As that same SBAR Bio points out, however, he is most well-known today for throwing a game that led to the uncovering of the Black Sox Scandal.
American League pennant winners: Philadelphia Athletics
National League pennant winners: New York Giants
World Series: Athletics 4, Giants 0
There it is, four in a row for the A’s! They dominated the regular season to the tune of 106 wins, and dispatched the Giants with ease in the World Series. The series was a bit of a dud with the A’s winning by a combined 19 runs in the four games, so let’s dive into this super fun and somewhat forgotten A’s team with the thing we love to do here most: lists! Here are the top five most interesting players associated with this era of Athletics:
5) Frank “Home Run” Baker — Regular brain: Home Run Baker got his nickname during the 1911 World Series; large brain: Home Run Baker actually got his nickname after a run of long balls during spring training in his rookie season; Home Run Backer got his nickname from a few lucky ladies who were made known to what was a legendary, cough, member, cough.
4) Eddie Plank — The “Gettyburg Eagle” was kind of like an early century Chris Archer, marching around the mound and talking to himself during each and every start. Whatever he did worked, with his 326 career wins and three World Series rings.
3) Byron Houck — Sure, sure, sure, some of these guys had better baseball careers, but did any of them help make Buster Keaton movies after the left the sport?!
2) Connie Mack — Some say that Connie Mack’s 50 (!) seasons coaching the Athletics is his most impressive feat. I say it was coming back incarnate as Bobby Cox in the `90s.
1) Chief Bender — Tom Swift begins Bender’s SABR Bio as such:
“American Indian. Innovator. Renaissance man. Charles Albert ‘Chief’ Bender lived a unique American life, fashioned a Hall of Fame career, and was an important member of modern baseball’s first dynasty.”
And what a dynasty they have proven themselves here in this OOTP sim.
Ironically, Eddie Collins was probably the best player of this dynasty, but the Ivy League graduate just wasn’t as fun as some of these guys.
Also, he was out of Philadelphia by 1907, so I didn’t include him with this crew, but if you don’t know the story of Rube Waddell… oh boy.
“Starting IX” Excerpt: Which pitcher had the best four-year run in MLB history?
For this week’s “Starting IX” excerpt, we’re going to be using Randy Johnson’s years with the Diamondbacks as the framing device to debate the best four-year stretch any pitcher put together in MLB history.
SP Randy Johnson (1999–2004; 2007–2008)
Wow. What a stretch Johnson had with the Diamondbacks. Over eight seasons in Arizona, he managed to have what many would have considered a strong career. After establishing himself as an excellent starter in Seattle in the early `90s, he switched over to the National League and completely obliterated the competition in the senior circuit. In half a season in Houston, he compiled a 10–1 record with 1.28 ERA and didn’t slow off that pace too much when he moved west to Arizona that offseason. He won four Cy Young awards in the six years of his first stay in Phoenix. He also finished second in the Cy Young once, and led the league in strikeouts five of those seasons. Always having been a power strikeout pitcher, Johnson figured out how to control his walks and jumped his game up another level, becoming an all-time great in the process. He also delivered when it mattered most, posting excellent numbers in the Diamondbacks 2001 championship run and winning co-MVP with Curt Schilling in the World Series thanks to three wins, including Game 7 in relief.
Johnson’s numbers really jump off the page at you, and it could be argued that he had the strongest four-year stretch a pitcher has had… so let’s find out! This is an exercise that every baseball writer worth her/his salt has at least scribbled in the margins of their college notebooks, and many have published on Baseball Prospectus, the Baseball Research Journal, etc. That being said, this will be the best of that bunch. Guaranteed.
In Johnson’s first four years in Arizona, he won 81 games with a .750 win percentage. But many pitchers have compiled that many wins over a four-year stretch and wins can be more of a team stat than individual stat. He made the All-Star team all four years and won the Cy Young all four years. However, as we’ll go into later in the book, not all Cy Young awards are created equal. A Cy Young is based on the competition from pitchers around the league, so although four straight is an impressive feat (the only other to have accomplished it is Greg Maddux), it is not enough to hand him the crown yet. The Cy Young is a good place to start to look for other candidates, however, because dominance over other pitchers in your league is definitely a factor in deciding who had the best four-year stretch for a pitcher.
So let’s meet the candidates. Among the players to just miss the cut:
** Addie Joss’ 1906–1909 seasons
** Bob Feller’s 1940–1946 seasons
** Bob Gibson’s 1968–1971 seasons
** Roger Clemens’ 1989–1992 seasons
** Robin Roberts’ 1951–1954
** Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown’s 1906–1909 seasons
** Dazzy Vance’s 1927–1930 seasons
** Ed Walsh’s 1907–1910 seasons
** Tom Seaver’s 1970–1973 seasons
** Cy Young’s 1901–1904 seasons
** Christy Mathewson’s 1908–1911 seasons
** Lefty Grove’s 1928–1931 seasons (the final cut)
** Clayton Kershaw’s 2011–2014 seasons
** Pete Alexander’s 1914–1917 seasons
Now on to the top 5 in chronological order: Walter Johnson 1912–15, Sandy Koufax 1962–65, Greg Maddux 1992–95, Pedro Martinez 1997–2000, Randy Johnson 1999–2002. There are four charts that will act as a preview/guide for the upcoming breakdowns. The categories are Surface Statistics, Advanced Metrics, League Comparison and Team Success.
Now the question becomes how heavily to weigh each of these categories. Team success is probably the hardest to rate because a transcendent pitcher can carry a team to success, but certainly not without help. In basketball, if you have a LeBron James or a Kobe Bryant, you know you’re making the playoffs at least, but in baseball, a pitcher who pitches every fifth day (or fourth in the case of Koufax and sometimes third in the case of Walter Johnson) can only take a bad team so far. Also, Walter Johnson is at a disadvantage because the only teams to make the playoffs in his era were the two pennant winners, and he and Koufax both played when there was no Divisional Series to pad playoff stats. So this category will probably act as more of a tiebreaker.
Although the surface statistics don’t tell us as much as the advanced metrics, there is something to be said for being able to lead your team to victories. The league comparison, and advanced stats, are definitely the most important for making this decision. They allow us to see real dominance over the league in a four-year stretch. When looking at the most inclusive of metrics, WAR, Walter Johnson has the lead by a decent margin. This comes with a grain of salt, though. Pitchers of Walter’s era pitched more frequently and longer into games than our other four pitchers. You might be saying, “But why should that hurt his case for most dominant stretch?” Well, what we’re looking for here is dominance; if all the other pitchers of this time are also pitching more often and deeper into games, it doesn’t take away from the feat, but it hurts your case of standing out from the pack. By this same idea, strikeouts were not nearly as common in Walter Johnson’s era, which make his 974 all the more impressive. So what we’re seeing already is that comparing across generations is very tricky. Statistics such as ERA+, which account for ballpark and generational factors, make it a little easier, but the task is still daunting.
The process has to start somewhere, though, and the best way to do this is Agatha Christie-style. Maddux wasn’t a huge strikeout guy, and despite having impeccable control later in his career, his strikeout-to-walk ratio wasn’t off the charts at this point yet. I’m going to eliminate him for another reason along with that, though. Maddux was an outstanding pitcher, but given the opportunity to face any of these pitchers in their prime, wouldn’t you want to face Maddux? Maybe it’s because the regular fan has no chance of catching up to any of these other pitchers’ fastballs, and they can kind of talk themselves into thinking they could at least make contact off Maddux, but I think that most people would take their chances against Maddux so I’m eliminating him. I also don’t think this is just speculation. Think about Larry Walker in the 1997 All-Star Game. Walker was straight up terrified of Randy Johnson, and he was one of the best hitters of all time. You think any batter would have done that against Maddux? Because I certainly don’t. Johnson was a bad dude. He is one of only two pitchers (Pedro is the other) to have a season in which he tallied more than twice as many strikeouts as hits allowed. Think about that. In 2001, he became just the second player (after Koufax) to strike out more than 300 more batters than he walked. This came after struggling with control early in his career. This stat might be the most telling: against members of the 3,000-hit club, Johnson allowed a .157/.272/.254 slash line. Having impeccable control is an excellent trait, but the fear that Johnson, along with the other four pitchers who remain, put in their opposition can’t be calculated. One down, four left.
Another way to eliminate a pitcher is through consistency. In order for one to say he had the best four-year stretch as a pitcher, each year should be at the top of his game. This is where Pedro kinda gets screwed. Pedro would probably be the favorite if this was a two-year stretch, and maybe even if you could take the five best non-consecutive seasons from one career, but his 1998 campaign (2.89 ERA, 163 ERA+) is the weakest of the remaining pitchers. Not a bad season by any stretch of the imagination — in fact, quite impressive considering the switch from the pitcher-friendly National League to the hitter-friendly American League and the era in which he was pitching, but it’s the weak link of the remaining four. Two down, three still in play.
Only one remaining pitcher missed games due to injury during their four-year stretches; that was Koufax. Now the question becomes how much to punish for injury. Injury alone, especially considering it only caused Sandy to miss around 10 starts, probably wouldn’t do it, but injury mixed with the fact Koufax has the worst advanced statistics of the three remaining is. While both Johnsons led pitchers in their league in WAR all four years, Koufax missed the league lead not only the year he was injured but the next year as well. He also trailed both by over 5 WAA, and his ERA+ is the lowest as well (and, remember, ERA+, unlike ERA, should be high), thanks to the fact that Dodger Stadium was one of the friendliest pitcher’s parks of all time. Having a friendly home stadium shouldn’t hurt you normally, but in a contest as close as this, it does. Three down, two to go.
So we’re down to the two Johnsons, which, believe or not, is not a name of a porno, as far as my extensive research could find. These two come from vastly different eras, so a strictly by-the-numbers comparison is very tricky. Randy had the most consistently dominant stretch (lowest ERA+: 181) while Walter had two years where he completely obliterated the league (ERA+ of 240 and 259 respectively).
For my money I’m taking Randy. The league in 1999–2002 was at the prime of not only PEDs (which should hypothetically be accounted for by league-wide scoring adjustments of ERA+, WAR, etc.), but baseball was openly trying to promote offense after the strike (remember “Chicks dig the long ball”?). So for Randy to put up his numbers in an era of exceptionally corny slogans is even more impressive than numbers can quantify. Also, he wins the tiebreaker of team success, and having the better nickname by a hair. As great of a nickname as “The Big Train” is for Walter Johnson, who wouldn’t have killed to have the nickname “The Big Unit” in college?
Who Is This Player?
Answer at the end of the newsletter (I’m debating formats here, so feedback on how easy/difficult this section is would be appreciated)
Pop Culture Recommendation of the Week
The Zendaya + Sam Levinson combo strikes again. The duo who combined for the first season of Euphoria, as well as the absolutely electric Christmas episode of the show that was filmed during quarantine released Malcolm & Marie on Netflix this Friday, and if you are at all a fan of the vibes of Euphoria, this will be an excellent use of your two hours. Zendaya is the most talented actor/actress working right now — easily.
Keep You On Your Toes
The Equal Justice Initiative’s mission is, by their words:
“…committed to ending mass incarceration and excessive punishment in the United States, to challenging racial and economic injustice, and to protecting basic human rights for the most vulnerable people in American society.
Their website is a great resource with frequent stories of the work they are doing as well as the greater picture, and there are links to donate/support on their site as well.
Quiz Answer
That’s the full career of the man whose four-year peak was the aforementioned last cut in our debate above and who was a key part of the second A’s dynasty: Lefty Grove.
Remember to follow along here on Medium for the first few months before I move to the actual email newsletter format.
Feel free to reach out to Jim.Turvey21@gmail.com for any feedback or inquiries.
