That line of argument is another straw-man situation, Doc.
"Are you really OK with facing Johan Santana as long as the defense is weak?" Johan Santana is not the average pitcher Doc...Johan Santana takes a larger control over the game than your typical starting pitcher...a much larger control. Johan Santana makes the defense a lot less relevant and no sabermetrician would argue that if his defense was poor, Johan Santana would be a piece of cake. Come on now. The same for Walter Johnson. While the TYPICAL major league pitcher was worth less than half the defensive picture on days he started, Walter Johnson was certainly not. Johan Santnaa...Walter Johnson...these guys win 8-10-12-15 games all by their lonesome, Doc. Put an average defense behind an average pitching staff except it has one Walter Johnson and your team defense will win at least 8 (the ace) + 20 (the rest of the average pitching staff) + 18 (the defense) or 46 games...stick an average offense on that team and the ace has turned a .500 club in one that wins 87 games. That's just your garden variety ace...Pedro Martinez once won 15 games for his defenses...in just 200 innings of pitching! Stick a Walter Johnson or Pedro Martinez in there and you're talking about a completely average team MAKING THE PLAYOFFS.
What we have here is a failure by certain blog writers to think things through and do the short form back-of-the-envelop calculations. Take even a 6-win staff anchor from a typical good team...on the days he pitches...he's going to be 90% of the defense. Just THINK about that. Then think about what happens when Jarrod Washburn pitches. By all accounts a league average pitcher. But when he moves from a great Angels defense to a terrible Mariners' defense his ERA goes from (an admittedly lucky) 3.20 to just under 5! All because he's average and at the mercy of his defenses.
Scarecrow or no scarecrow, I'm not making these numbers up. Keep building the straw men Doc. Makes this argument easier for me.
Huge snowball fight over the question of whether defense is 15% of a baseball game, or 20% of it ...
Notice first of all that if it's 20%, then a player's offensive value is 2.5 times more important than his defensive value. That's before factoring in the questions of how much one defensive player varies from another, or how confident we are about our defensive measurements.
If defense is 15% of the game, then a player's bat is 3.3 times more important than his glove. 2.5 or 3.3? Taro, Sandy, and Matt are willing to pig-pile Dr. D on this one... :- )
++
The basic fact is that back in 1920 pitchers fanned about 4 per game — 23 outs to the defense 4 to the pitcher.
In the past decade, it’s just under 7-K per game for pitchers — 20 outs to the defense 7 to the pitcher.What is strange about the discussion of the relative importance of pitching versus hitting is that the discussion BEGINS with the contention that pitchers are 2/3 of the equation, (the initial Jamesian guesstimate).
++
Again, James’ estimate was that defense was 25% of the game early in the 20th century — that defenders and pitchers shared approximately equal responsibility for run prevention.
He believes that it has drifted towards 15-18% of the game now, because of the TTO situation, and because the difference between defenses gets smaller.
………………….
To go with Matt’s estimate of the defense being 30% of the game, you’d have to say that in the top half of the inning, the defense was 60% of what was going on, and the pitcher 40%.
…………….
In 1905, you’d rather have faced Walter Johnson and an average defense, than the league’s best defense and an average pitcher? Not me :- )
How come the 1925 pitchers show such persistence in their ERA’s? I don’t notice that the variance in pitcher ERA’s was so much difference back then.
……………..
You guys really feel OK about facing Johann Santana as long as the defense behind him is weak? :- ) Do you get up on game day and check the DER’s, or check the starting pitchers?
...................
Taro says,
Bill James is a legend, but where exactly did he pull this random 15% out from? Intuition is one thing, but you can’t assume something like that.
Explained above. The upper bound is going to be 25% even if you believe that the defense matters every bit as much as the pitcher.
But James used his Win Shares research, on which he worked hard for 4 years, to come up with the current balance that he sets between pitching and glovework. He freely concedes the estimate could be off.
Taro:
Recent research seems to suggest more of a 50-30-20 split (20% being defense). Under that split, arond 30% or so of a position player’s value is in his defense. Its not as important as offense, buts its pretty important and needsto be a big part of the ? when acquiring a position player.
If only 60% of the challenge when facing the Angels is Lackey and Escobar and Weaver and K-Rod, and 40% is the gloves they have out there, I'll be a monkey's uncle.
Do any of you amigos really believe that? :- ) Here comes CC Sabathia tonight, but what really bothers me is that Franklin Gutierrez is in center....
I'm being tongue-in-cheek. If the math is strong on it, I'm open to the idea that defense could be 40% of the top half of the inning, even in a superhigh-TTO environment and even though both teams have very competent fielders everywhere.
Sandy says:
World Series Participant DERs in recent years: (overall DER - not by league)
1st and 10th in DER
2nd and 6th in DER
3rd and 7th in DER
2nd and 4th in DER
A cool stat.
I'd like to see an overall correlation between DER and W%, and to see this correlation COMPARED to (say) staff K/BB ratio (or BPV). But it's a cool stat.
.............
You guys think 20% of the game; I think 15% of the game. It's possible that you're right. But in neither case am I going to try to win a pennant with nine Paul Blairs. :- )
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
Sure, but we contrasted facing Santana with facing the best defense.
We don't fear All-Star defenses the way we fear All-Star pitchers. But that's not the core argument. It's a supplemental illustration.
...................
You seem rather more irritable than I remember you. :- ) Been a long winter?
Oh BTW...Doc wonders why good pitchers are able to keep their ERAs fairly consistent even in TTO-light leagues. THere's a simple explanation for that.
Good pitchers - even in TTO-light leagues - get more Ks and give up fewer BBs and HRs than the league...they're less defense dependent...and as a result the amount the defense can influence those pitchers is reduced.
Short math example, just for fun:
Pitcher who strikes out 140 and walks 45 while allowing 15 HR in his 1000 PA is leaving 800 PA up to the defense...the difference then between a team with a DER of .280 and one with a DER of .320 would be 239 hits allowed instead of 271 hits allowed (including the longballs). But the pitcher who strikes out just 80 and walks 45 while allowing 25 HR is looking at the difference being 263 hits vs. 297 hits. (the gap increased by 2 hits...a seemingly small number...but also bear in mind that pitchers who are more prone to defense also exhibit a larger range of BABIP variations of their own that are not explained by the team's defense alone...the luck variables are more at play with the weaker pitchers).
The less you rely on defense, the less your ERA will fluctuate. It's a much larger effect than my little short example reveals, but I was trying to illustrate the point without blowing you away with the math.
Good pitchers...in any era...will exert more control over the ball in play results, allow fewer balls in play anyway, and be more consistent than the rest of their league mates.
Weaker pitchers...in any era...will have larger swings in ERA+. See: Silva, Carlos...Washburn, Jarrod..
I demonstrated why Roy Oswalt was able to keep his ERA consistent to you once before...you never responded, perhaps because I didn't word it very well. But I'll keep demonstrating it over and over until I make my case.
And, you'll keep bluntly picking fights with me until we're not pals any more? :- (
LOL. Your side of the case is interesting. Don't worry, folks are listening.
++
Oh BTW…Doc wonders why good pitchers are able to keep their ERAs fairly consistent even in TTO-light leagues. THere’s a simple explanation for that.
Good pitchers - even in TTO-light leagues - get more Ks and give up fewer BBs and HRs than the league…they’re less defense dependent…and as a result the amount the defense can influence those pitchers is reduced.
++
Grrooooaaaaaaaaannnnnn .... :- ) I didn't wonder that, Matty. That's just stating the obvious.
WHY pitchers' ERAs stay consistent -- the method -- isn't what we are addressing here. It's the amount by which they affect the game, compared to the glove guys behind them.
++++++
Good pitchers…in any era…will exert more control over the ball in play results, allow fewer balls in play anyway, and be more consistent than the rest of their league mates.
Weaker pitchers…in any era…will have larger swings in ERA+. See: Silva, Carlos…Washburn, Jarrod..
++++++
Naturally.
But those swings don't occur because the defenses change behind them. These pitchers are controlling their own destinies, to a greater extent than their defenses are controlling their destinies.
I agree with everything you said. The only problemo is, that it doesn't address the question of whether defense is 30%, vs. 40%, of the top half of the inning.
OK...let's deal with the contrast of Santana vs. top team defense.
1) It's rare that top team defenses get assembled (most teams are trying to get bats into the line-up and have trouble finding 4+ guys who are ++ fielders to fill out the line-up)
2) But when it happens...when you get 4 gold glovers on the same roster...what you get is results like the 1905-1909 Cubs dynasty, the 1970s Orioles, the 1990s Braves and the 2000s Cardinals.
Now we're not saying that the 1990s Braves didn't have good pitching (by DNRA, they were among the best pitching teams in major league history)...we are however saying that those 1990s Braves converted fairly mediocre pitchers like Steve Avery, John Burkett and and similar into guys with mid-3s ERAs. The 2005 Cardinals ran a whole staff of "ace plus 4 #4s" and the #4s all had good ERAs...facing them was a chore because their defense was great.
The 1970s Orioles had Brooks Robinson, Paul Blair, Mark Belanger and Bobby Grich all on the same team...playing up the middle efense...and they turned solid innings eaters like Jim Palmer Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally etc into aces. Who ran multiple years in a row with ERAs below 3.50. Over 250 innings. Who were nasty-tough to face. When you get a team defense together that truly is great...it has the same influence on results for average starters that ace starters have on an average defense. Seriously, Doc...look up the lines of decent but unspectacular pitchers who pitched for juggernaut defenses and you find a whole slew of great years that fooled pundits into thinking these pitchers were all-stars.
The 2003 Mariners had one of those juggernaut defenses, ran a whole rotation of mediocre starters out there and won 93 games with a team ERA in the top half in the AL. They didn't even have that ace like the Cardinals or those big nasty innings eaters like the 70s Os. They have NO ONE...nothing but warm bodies.
The Cubs dynasty, like the Braves dynasty had some great pitchers too...but the Jimmy Sheckard, Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, Frank Chance Cubs also ran a whole bunch of fairly average arms out there who posted 140 or 150 ERA+ seasons when the defense was in place.
Do you really think Jarrod Washburn went from a 3.20 ERA to a near-5 ERA because he stopped being able to control his own destiny as well as he did just one year earlier? Or could it have something to do with how badly the Mariners play defense? Do you really think it's a coincidence that defense-dependent pitchers have less predictable ERAs than DIPS-stars?
I must admit...I'm confused as to what in the last two long posts I made is giving you cause to say I'm "bluntly picking fights" with you. This is not the first time we've argued about the importance of defense...it's an area I've studied at length and I'm just trying to make my case and point out why your arguments aren't really directed properly. I feel it's a little misleading to direct our attention to the best pitchers in the world and use their domination as evidence that the typical pitcher controls his own destiny in the same way...I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking you the person...I'm attacking the Jamesian position that pitchers are as "in control" as he claimed. And I certainly don't want to make you dislike me.
Whatever it is I've said that you feel is unfair...I apologize.
A short list of mediocre pitchers from the 1906 Cubs...and where their careers went as soon as the juggernaut defense stopped.
Jack Pfiester:
ERA+ figures of 174, 216 and 160 during the 4-year run of defensive mastery (1906-1909)...out of baseball 2 years later.
Orval Overall:
Career ERA+ of 122 mostly between 1905 and 1909...out of baseball by 1912.
Ed Reulbach:
From 1905-1909, the ERA+ went: 209, 159, 147, 116, 142
ERA+ after that: 108 Bounced around with a bunch of loser franchises including a Federal League team and ended his career a lowly Boston Brave
Carl Lundgren:
Stable 120 ERA+ guy from 1904 to 1907
Arm blew up. OK, this one isn't the defense's fault. :)
How about Guys who've passed the the 200s Cardinals' rosters:
Jason Marquis
Jeff Suppan
Joel Pineiro
Braden Looper...all had decent seasons out of context with their normal abilities as Cardinals.
What about the 1970s Orioles?
Tom Phoebus:
ERA+ of 113, 102 and 109 with the Orioles...moves to San Diego - career isntantly over.
Jim Hardin:
ERA+ all over 100 include one over 130 season...moves to another team...instant death.
There are others who run counter to my argument (Mike Cuellar for example had simile success with another good defensive team - the Astros, so it's hard to make a case there, and Pat Dobson ran similar ERA+ lines with multiple franchises)
THe reason it's hard to "see" how a great defense can make the same impact that an ace SP can make is that great defenses often get put to work turning bad pitchers into average ones (because when you sink resources into improving something on a team, it usually screws up something else). The 90s Braves are an example of a dynastic run created by the synergy between great defense and good pitching. But there are teams that illustrate the power of great defense on average arms.
Oh BTW...I think one other thing needs some clarification.
When we say a great defense can have the same impact as an ace starting pitcher...we mean a great defense can add the same number of wins as an ace starter adds. The ace starter adds more to his team when he is actually pitching than a great defense adds in any given game...but the defense is out there every game...not once every 4 or 5.
Instead of replacing a 100 ERA+ starter with one 150 ERA+ starter...you're replacing five 100 ERA+ starters with 5 110 ERA+ starters.
It just doesn't SEEM as dramatic...that's the problem with your ace starter vs. ace defense analogy. But it doesn't undercut the reality that fielding is 40-45% of the defensive pitcher on any typical day.
Matty -- if you say you're not trying to be provocative, that's good enough for me. I apologize too. :- )
Rattlesnakes, it's rumored, fight for supremacy by pulling in their fangs and pushing each other around. :- ) For such sharp, strong-minded amigos as you guys are to get along in a friendly manner as well as they have on D-O-V and MC, it's necessary IMHO to make an effort to soften the language.
I try to stay away from stuff like "As long as Matt keeps offering this stuff, I'll keep knocking it down" and samesuch. But it's no biggie.
..............
This is also probably the wrong time to bring this up, LOL, but I need to spend 90% of my blog time on original articles, since am getting paid per the word and the comments are pro bono. :smile:
Like we sez Matty if you have interest in getting freelance writing work, we'll hook you up, as soon as the ice under our own feet hardens a bit...
Cheers,
Jeff
++
It just doesn’t SEEM as dramatic…that’s the problem with your ace starter vs. ace defense analogy. But it doesn’t undercut the reality that fielding is 40-45% of the defensive pitcher on any typical day.
++
Hm. Your estimate is 40-45% of the run prevention?
And what % in the 1900's? :- )
On the 00's Cubs... great list.
As you know, we could produce any number of modern pitchers who were superb for four years and then fell off the table, but still, that's a cool list because they're all Cubs.
Am sure you could produce another list of pitchers who were good for awhile and then flutzed out despite going to *better* defenses, but still ....
Circumstances *can* make or break a lousy starting pitcher, even today, although you're not going to see four straight 120 ERA+'s out of a BAD pitcher... for example, this guy:
ERA+ figures of 174, 216 and 160 during the 4-year run of defensive mastery (1906-1909)…out of baseball 2 years later.
There isn't any way that a guy is going to be CONSISTENTLY *GREAT*, year after year, and then be below RLP ... because of Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance. :- ) If that were the case, no Cubbie pitcher would have ever failed. It would be comparable to some pitcher running four straight 2.25 ERA's in our time, and then coming to Seattle and running 7's. Not gonna happen -- unless the pitcher's hurt or something.
But still, the list is suggestive. Gracias.
Doc...the percentages in the 1900s are higher than today...before I conducted normalization on PCA, fielders were getting credit for slightly more wins than pitchers...it was probably about 53-47 to the defense over the arms. Today, it's about 60-40 to the pitchers.
So there has definitely been a move toward DIPS-efficient pitching and offense over defense...but the position still has enough value form where I'm sitting that it can make a big difference.
BTW, if this blog does take off and you're in the position to "hook me up" as you say...I'm all for the opportunity. It would be kind of funny to see you write an article and then me follow up with a rebuttal...the back and forth could be great for our collective readership...LOL