Add new comment

The fieldability issue is one I didn't touch on, primarily because Voros' McCracken basically determined that once a ball leaves the bat, pitchers have "statistically" little control over it, (with the exception of the HR ... though HRs are also heavily influenced by parks).  The actual BIP results of pitchers, regardless of type, end up being determined almost entirely by the defense behind them.
Any pitchers on a given team will EN MASSE tend to fare better or worse (in terms of BIPA) as a group. 
Mind you - I *DO* believe that there are a few (very few) pitchers who slip into that gray area where they make balls "easier" to field.  Washburn is my own #1 on that list among active pitchers.  But, even these guys lose out HUGE compared to defenses significantly skewed from average.  You stick Washburn in front of a bad defense, he sucks.  You stick him in front of a great defense, he's great.  The skew in the defensive results routinely overwhelms the difference in pitching-specific stats.
Glavine is a sure-fire Hall of Famer.  Glavine, while throwing in the lesser league, without DHes, has an IDENTICAL K/9 -- an inferior BB/9 -- and only beats out Washburn in a single stat -- HR/9.  Per 162 games, Wash surrendered 27 HRs, while Glavine allowed 18 (for their careers).  Washburn allows 9 extra HRs, but walks 12 fewer hitters per 162 games.  One is a sure-fire HoFer ... the other isn't even remotely in the discussion.
Glavine had top 3 DER teams behind him for nearly 15 years.  Washburn had "elite" defenses behind him just a few times, (2002 and 2009 we had #1 team DERs by wide margins).
The thing is "most" defenses are average.  With an "average" defense, then results are going to be determined almost 100% by the strength of the pitcher.  But, with average pitchers, results are determined almost 100% by the strength of the defense. 
Yes, the two ARE related.  Bad/good defenses will "induce" pitchers to alter their patterns.  A "bad" defense will typically increase walks, (as pitchers feel they need to nibble more).  A good defense may increase Ks ... as pitchers are more aggressive, and pitch ahead in the count, (and with bases empty), more often.
But, the standing principle of pitcher/defense analysis is to "assume" pitchers deserve the bulk of the credit for results.  MY belief is that the idea that pitching is 50/50 or 60/40 or 20/80 is a flawed premise from the get-go.  At the edges, the "credit/blame" can skew 90/10 to EITHER side.  If you DO have an average defense, then results are 100% pitching.  If you DO have an exactly average pitching staff, then 100% of the difference from average is due to the defense.
Yes ... I do believe that having a consistently plus-plus defense turned a pretty good pitcher in Glavine into a sure-fire Hall of Famer.  And I believe if Washburn had played in front of as many top-end defenses in his career, his typical season might easily have been 15-10 instead of 12-12 ... and the questions would be, if Washburn hadn't taken so long to get going, (first 100 IP season was age 26), how he might have an outside shot at the Hall.
Is Denny Neagle heading to the hall?  He went 20-5 and 16-11 during the '97/'98 seasons with Atlanta.  The ERAs that season for the Braves starters?  2.20; 2.96; 2.97; 3.02 (Smoltz was the worst).
Millwood had the unfortunate timing to reach Atlanta just before their team DER began to fall apart.  John Burkett couldn't get his ERA under 5.50 his last two years in Texas.  With Atlanta, in 2001, it was 3.04.  His K/BB numbers didn't change much.  But his H/9 went from 10.6 (and up) all the way down to 7.7.  Oh, facing pitchers almost certainly helped.  But, the league skew from AL to NL is about .3 runs ... not 2.5.