And his year with the Giants they also made the playoffs. But Pettitte had one year with a mediocre Astros team (though I think that team finished .500) and one year with the Yankees when they failed to make the playoffs; Orel had six years with teams that finished in the bottom half of their division.
Here’s what I’m seeing, and I’ll hand it off to What Exit? at this point: Pettitte pitched 204 fewer innings, started 25 more games, gave up 59 more runs, and won 25 more games in 15 full seasons. With a 57.6 winning percentage, Orel would have won 14 more games if he had the same number of starts as Pettitte, giving Pettitte an 11 win edge. That’s .73 wins a season. This is significant?
Tom Scud - the DH accounts from between .3-.5 runs/game, historically. Give Orel .5-.7 more runs per game (i.e. stick him on the Yankees) - how many more wins does he get? 11 over 15 seasons?
But Winning Pct. has been a major part of the argument from the start, not just wins. This is across multiple thread, though maybe not with you. Probably not with you in fact. I know I made clear mention of the dramatic difference in winning percentage from the beginning of my argument in this thread.
And the difference between Hershiser’s .576 and Pettitte’s .629 is +15 wins and -21 losses. Over 6 seasons with below-average teams, that comes to +2.5 wins and -3.5 losses (or if you consider the 2nd-place, over .500 Houston team below-average, +3 wins and -4.2 losses per season for the 5 seasons’ difference).
Which is the difference between a 20-10 pitcher on a playoff team and a 17-13 pitcher on a losing team. If both players came up for free agency and that was all you knew about them, which one would you want your team to sign to a fat contract?
I really don’t think that 25 wins over 15 seasons nor a Win% difference of 5.3% is significant, especially with a half run advantage. And even then, the argument that Pettitte is just as good as Orel remains that - he’s just as good as the good-but-not-great non-Hall of Famer.
The 20-10 guy, we will never agree on this obviously. It seems simple to me.
Wow. Let me ask you this - if wins and winning percentage are so important, why aren’t you comparing the individual’s numbers and comparing them to his team’s?
Regarding Pettitte-If pitching to the score is a skill, then a perusal of the sortable stats at Baseball Prospectus indicates that it’s a skill Pettitte exercised exclusively while pitching in pinstripes. Appropriately, the statistic in play is called ‘Luck’.
A quick overview shows that Pettitte beat his expected W-L record 11 of 12 years with the Yanks, to a rough average of 4 games over .500 a year. (His rookie year being the exception, he ‘underperformed’ by 1/10 of a win.) In Houston, he was 0/3, down about 1 game per year on average, but two of those years were exceptionally close to expectations.
Run the numbers than and let me know. I know Andy is higher than the Yanks winning Pct.
LUCK? You I don’t need to talk to.
Anyway, just to reiterate my position - a pitcher who has been slightly better than Orel Hershiser over his career (116 vs. 112 ERA + in more innings) is an awesome pitcher, in the top 1% of pitchers who have played in the majors. But I see no reason to think that there’s any explanation for Pettitte’s winning percentage beyond the fact that (1) he’s a good pitcher and (2) he’s literally never played for a below-average team.
Before we do that, what would be significant to you? Both exceed their team’s expectations. Either way, the question still stands. Why don’t you compare a player’s Win% with the team’s Win%?
Regarding Scud’s question - the difference between 20-10 and 17-13 is 10%. What if it was 20-10 v. 18-12? 19-11? Where do you draw the line?
I have followed clutch hitter arguments. One suggests that a guy who hits his normal batting average with RISP is clutch. But Arod has been slammed for a string of bad World Series. He was derided for being bad under pressure.
I don’t suggest a guy morphs under pressure to a better hitter. There is no data to support that.
All I am saying is a cleanup hitter is expected to bring in runners.That is a fact. The 4th hitter on almost all teams is the largest RBI producer. That is by design, like I said. If he does not bring in runs, he will be moved. Runs win games. You can not brush away the RBI.
A fact which NO ONE has disputed. Ever.
Listen pit language omitted, the stat looks at a player’s peripheral statistics and extrapolates a W-L record, then compares that to a pitcher’s actual W-L. For instance Pettitte in 2009, the numbers predicted about an 11-11 season; he went 14-8.
He was 6 more games over .500 than a lot of very smart people expected him to be; they tracked that in a stat they called ‘Luck’. I’ll venture they named it that because they examined the so called pitching to the score phenomenon and came away saying it had more to do with luck than skill.
But if you want to dismiss that, and everything else I say, in a doomed defense of the hypothesis that Pettitte happens to have a very elusive skill for winning more ball games than his peripheral stats would indicate, and further that he exercises this skill exclusively while pitching for the dominant team of an era, well, then by all means, don’t let reason stop you.
Is there a way to see how many starts Pettitte and Hershiser left losing, but their teams won after they were out of the game? That could account for Pettitte’s WP (maybe less losses because of strong comebacks by the Yankees/Astros.)
And I’m saying that there are better predictors of run production even for a cleanup hitter than RBIs, including OPS+, which incorporates both OBP and SLG. The fact of the matter is that a player’s RBI numbers have at least as much to do with the on-base skills of the players hitting in front of him (i.e. something over which the player himself has absolutely no control) as his own batting ability, and that makes RBIs near-useless for making any sort of generalizable statements about that player.
You put Albert Pujols behind a hypothetical leadoff tandem of Yuniesky Betancourt and Adam Everett, and his RBI numbers will plummet. He’ll still get at least 40 RBIs thanks to his [now exclusively solo] home run production, but he will be nowhere near his usual 110+ RBIs.
In other words, the quality of Pujols’s leadoff guys could make as much as a 50-RBI difference over the course of a season, whereas his OBP and SLG (not to mention wOBA and WAR) would not vary one iota. You tell me which of these stats would be more useful to a GM trying to predict Pujols’s performance in future years - especially one interested in seeing how he’d do on a different team and working with different players.
If you go to Baseball-Reference.com, search for a player, then go to the gamelog section, there’s a line on the page that gives the team’s record in games he pitched in, as well as in games started (if he appeared as a starter and reliever at some point during the season.)
For example, here is Andy Pettitte’s gamelog page from 2009. The Yankees record in his starts was 21-11. Pettitte himself went 14-8. Therefore, the bullpen had a 7-3 record in Pettitte’s starts.
As to the question of how many games the Yankees were losing at the time Pettitte left the game, you would probably have to check the individual boxscores for games where Pettitte did not get the decision, and see how the Yankees were doing when Pettitte was taken out.
I’m sorry to keep beating on this - I can’t seem to get all my points in at a time. (I blame work for getting in the way.) But this converstation started when you claimed that Pettitte had a “nose for winning”, a fact that you claimed was on exhibit in the stats, because he’d often win more games with worse peripherals than his teammates. If that were the case, I think you’d have a leg to stand on - because hey, same offense, same bullpen, same pitching conditions, same catcher, same manager etc. But from a pool of 60 examples (4 other starting pitchers for 15 seasons), I came up with 4 - one of which seemed to be a perfect fit for your argument.
Now we’re on a wild goose chase, comparing Pettitte to not only a pitcher on a different team, but a pitcher in a different league in a different timeframe. And for what - to say that Pettitte is as good or slightly better than Orel Hershiser? Pettitte arguments revolve around the Hall of Fame - this argument seems to completely concede that he’s not Hall worthy.
Since the “more wins with worse peripherals” falsity has been exposed, what else is it about wins that you’re holding onto? (I ask this honestly - because the “I’ll take the 20-10 Yankee over the 17-13 Royal” argument baffles me.)
Beyond that I consider this argument insulting to the team’s hitters (your contributions don’t matter, a true winning pitcher can win even if his team is shut out), defense (I made them make you catch the ball), bullpen (I willed you to protect my lead), opposition (you are all equal), and Pettitte himself (I only try when I think I’m gonna get a win out of it)
Look I’ve got nothing more to say on this. You win I guess.
In other news: "Ex-Blue Jays GM Ricciardi joins ESPN as analyst"
Why does ESPN like to hire bad GMs?