If you’ve been here much, you know that I love to consider the Hall of Fame. Several researchers over the years have come up with statistical calculations to determine the merits of one player over another and the likelihood that a player will be in the Hall. Such tests in include the Hall of Fame Monitor, the Hall of Fame Standards, the Gray Ink Test, the Black Ink Test, and the Player Similarity Scores. All of these tests can be found for any given player on that player’s baseballreference.com page. These tests can be very helpful, especially when used together, but none of them directly address the issue of dominance.
Ken Rosenthal of foxsports.com has a Hall of Fame vote and says his primary criterion is ten years dominance. Obviously, there’s room to debate the nature of dominance, but one thing is clear by that statement: the players must be considered within the era they played. A player that hit .280 with 35 home runs in 1985 doesn’t seem special today, but that was really something then. Those would have been “dominant” numbers, while today they’re just good numbers. So the idea behind the current research is, can we isolate a player’s dominance and confine those numbers to the specific era and years in which he played? I have attempted to do just that, and before I discuss the results, let me tell you a bit about the methods I’ve used.
First I started with DFB points. I use DFB points in a lot of my research, and I suppose at some point I ought to really lay out how I calculate them, but I don’t want to right now. Basically DFB points attribute an assigned value for certain statistical achievements, and attempts to do so in a balanced, accurate, and relevant way, and overall, I think they work fairly well without requiring a super computer like Win Shares. Anyway, the first thing I did was gather the top 100 pitchers, according to DFB points, from 1890 to the present. You might be wondering why I chose 1890. The basic reason is that going back that far allows the entire career of Cy Young to be included in the study. Certain Hall of Fame pitchers like Tim Keefe and Pud Galvin played before 1890, but Young is the standard bearer for in a lot of minds and the results of adding the careers of Keefe or Galvin will not really effect the results of the study.
After gathering the top 100 players from each season, I pared them down into smaller categories: A “Good Season” was defined as a pitcher that performed in the top 6-10% of the league for that given year. An “All-Star Season” is players that perform in the top 2.5-5% of the league, a “Premier Season” is players in the top 1-2.5%, and an “Elite Season” was 1% or better. I did not use a strict 10% for each year, as the exact number varies from one season to the next, so I generalized for multiple years, and made adjustments to the total numbers considered to represent 10% at specific points in the game’s history. From 1998-2005, I used the top 60 players as the base. From 1993-1997 I used 50. 1973-1992 was 40, 1961-1972 was 35. I took the top 30 from 1903 to 1960, and the top 20 for seasons before 1903.
Once I had the top 10% for each season, I broke the players down into their more precise percentages and awards points to each player based on which of the above categories they fit in for that year. A Good Season was awarded 1 point. An All-Star Season earned 4 points. A Premier Season earned 8 points, and an Elite Season was given 16 points. These point assignments were arbitrary, but the results seem to be reasonable, and they appear to accurately attribute value to the players depending on just how dominant a particular player was in a given year.
Before I share the meat of the findings, though, I need to do a little more explaining. Specifically regarding what this study does and does not do. This study does a very good job of confining the pitcher’s dominance to the era in which they played. When Ben Sheets was in the elite group in 2004, it had noting whatever to do with comparing his numbers to what it took for Bob Feller to be elite in the 1930’s. Furthermore, because the number of players taken expands over the years, it does a decent job of accounting for the historical trend of improved play. It may or may not do enough to account for this, but it does something to account for it.
This study does not, however, answer the question of the greatest of all time. Most of the usual suspects still appear at the top of this list, but when this list puts Warren Spahn at #1, it just means that he performs very well on this test, but there are still plenty of others factors that go beyond the scope of this study. Secondly, I used a hard and fast line when awarding points and that is not always fair from one year to the next. In the 60’s, when the top 4 pitchers were considered to be elite, Sandy Koufax was often #1, and really much better than the guy that was #4, yet this test awards them both 16 points. And on top of that, the guy that was #5 that year might have missed being #4 by only 2 DFB points, and yet he was awarded only 8 points instead of 16. These lines and cutoff points are typical for tests of this nature and are present in every single test that I mentioned at the beginning of this explanation. That’s why it’s good to have several tests to measure by.
I’ve said this in other articles, but it always bears repeating: Stats don’t mean everything. When we ask the question, “Who is the greatest pitcher of all-time?” the stats are a tool that helps to answer a few of the questions so that we can then focus on the other questions (I stole that from Bill James, at least conceptually). But we also have to agree on how to interpret those stats and use them best. These new methods of reviewing the stats are simply an attempt to simplify the data. I hope that the following research does these things and that we know a little more at the end of it.
On to the List
From 1890 to the present, I found 1,141 different pitchers that performed in the top 10% of their league at least once. Obviously, I can’t put the whole list on here, so I’ll simply give you the top 50 or so and highlight other players of note, making some comments along the way, and then point out some interesting facts about the results of the study. Active players are in bold. If you want to receive the entire list, I would be happy to send you a copy in a Microsoft Excel file.
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | HOF? | |
| 1 | W Spahn | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 216 | 17 | HOF |
| 2 | W Johnson | 11 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 202 | 12 | HOF |
| 3 | G Maddux | 10 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 18 | 201 | 13 | |
| 4 | R Clemens | 9 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 19 | 195 | 14 | |
| 5 | R Johnson | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 13 | 170 | 11 | |
| 6 | G Alexander | 7 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 148 | 10 | HOF |
| 7 | L Grove | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 141 | 12 | HOF |
| 8 | C Mathewson | 5 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 140 | 12 | HOF |
| 9 | R Roberts | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 132 | 8 | HOF |
| 10 | G Perry | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 130 | 9 | HOF |
I imagine most of you find the top ten to be pretty typical stuff. Warren Spahn and Robin Roberts are both probably higher on the list than most would suspect, but can you name many other significant pitchers in the 40’s and early 50’s? Having looked at those years it just appears that those two guys were the cream of the crop with very little competition. You might also be surprised to see Greg Maddux ahead of Roger Clemens, but again, I wouldn’t put a tremendous degree of weight on the difference between being #3 and #4.
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | HOF? | |
| 11 | S Carlton | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 18 | 127 | 7 | HOF |
| 12 | P Martinez | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 11 | 124 | 8 | |
| 13 | B Blyleven | 3 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 16 | 121 | 9 | |
| 14 | K Nichols | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 118 | 9 | HOF |
| 15 | C Schilling | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 117 | 9 | |
| 16 | N Ryan | 4 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 18 | 115 | 8 | HOF |
| 17 | D Drysdale | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 114 | 8 | HOF |
| 18 | J Bunning | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 114 | 7 | HOF |
| 19 | C Hubbell | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 113 | 7 | HOF |
| 20 | F Jenkins | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 111 | 7 | HOF |
Again, more typical stuff: All the players are either in the Hall of Fame or will be when their time comes, with one notable exception: Bert Blyleven. I believe, and I’m not alone, that Blyleven is currently the most dramatic oversight in Hall of Fame voting. 287 career wins, 5th on the all-time strikeout list (3rd when he retired); how is that not Hall of Fame worthy? Anyway, besides that, 11-20 probably does not surprise you.
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | HOF? | |
| 21 | A Rusie | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 108 | 7 | HOF |
| 22 | J Marichal | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 106 | 6 | HOF |
| 23 | B Feller | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 105 | 7 | HOF |
| 24 | T Seaver | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 17 | 104 | 8 | HOF |
| 25 | K Brown* | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 102 | 7 | |
| 26 | C Young | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 101 | 8 | HOF |
| 27 | M Mussina* | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 96 | 9 | |
| 28 | J Palmer | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 93 | 8 | HOF |
| 29 | B Gibson | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 90 | 7 | HOF |
| 30 | P Niekro | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 15 | 88 | 6 | HOF |
I guess there are two surprises here: 1) Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina rank that high? 2) Cy Young ranks so low? The data on Brown and Mussina speaks for itself: they’ve both pitched a long time, and while they’ve been good, they haven’t been Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson. Right now Brown and Mussina are viewed as either washed up or probably washed up pitchers that had decent careers but really aren’t that special. Lucky for them, there will be five years between the time they retire and the time they go on the Hall of Fame ballot. That five years will give us all some perspective. As for the other surprise, Cy Young is different animal. If you haven’t ever given his numbers a good look, when you do, your jaw will hit the floor. Pitchers just are not used that way anymore, but if you look at the other pitchers from Young’s era, you’ll notice that 40 wins and 450 innings is just not that uncommon. Young had his peers beat on longevity, but he really wasn’t the very best pitcher for a long time, and most of the experts agree that Cy Young is really not in the discussion of the greatest pitcher of all-time.
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | HOF? | |
| 31 | D Vance | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 86 | 5 | HOF |
| 32 | E Walsh | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 85 | 5 | HOF |
| 33 | J Morris | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 84 | 5 | |
| 34 | H Newhouser | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 81 | 6 | HOF |
| 35 | D Cone | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 78 | 6 | |
| 36 | F Valenzuela | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 77 | 5 | |
| 37 | D Dean | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 76 | 5 | HOF |
| 38 | T Glavine | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 14 | 75 | 3 | |
| 39 | S Koufax | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 73 | 5 | HOF |
| 40 | B Lemon | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 73 | 6 |
Now we’re into the border line. Five of the ten are in, one is active, one is yet to reach the ballot (Dave Cone), one is still on the ballot (Jack Morris), and two are off the ballot. We all know that Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean were really great, and by great I mean absolutely fabulous, pitchers that just didn’t last long. I never in my life would have thought Fernando Valenzuela would be so comparable to those guys, but there it is – almost identical from a dominance standpoint. Did the voters make a mistake? I don’t know. Koufax and Dean are legends, and I was too young to pay attention to Fernando when he was at his best.
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | HOF? | |
| 41 | L Gomez | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 70 | 5 | HOF |
| 42 | P Derringer | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 69 | 5 | |
| 43 | E Wynn | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 68 | 5 | HOF |
| 44 | B Pierce | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 67 | 5 | |
| 45 | W Cooper | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 67 | 5 | |
| 46 | J McDowell | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 66 | 5 | |
| 47 | J Smoltz | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 65 | 5 | |
| 48 | H Vaughn | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 65 | 5 | |
| 49 | B Grimes | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 63 | 6 | HOF |
| 50 | C Hunter | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 63 | 4 | HOF |
Fairly similar to the previous ten. I guess I’m a bit surprised to see Jack McDowell up so high. John Smoltz would have been a borderline Hall of Famer, but I think his starting pitcher record combined with three and a half years as a premier closer makes him a lock.
Other Hall of Famers
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | ||
| 57 | E Plank | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 62 | 4 | |
| 58 | V Willis | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 62 | 3 | |
| 60 | J McGinnity | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 61 | 4 | |
| 62 | W Ford | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 60 | 3 | |
| 63 | S Coveleski | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 59 | 5 | |
| 65 | D Newcombe | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 58 | 5 | |
| 68 | R Waddell | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 57 | 4 | |
| 71 | D Sutton | 0 | 1 | 10 | 8 | 19 | 56 | 1 | |
| 79 | R Faber | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 52 | 4 | |
| 91 | E Rixey | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 47 | 4 | |
| 92 | R Ruffing | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 14 | 47 | 3 | |
| 94 | C Griffith | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 46 | 4 | |
| 95 | M Brown | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 46 | 4 | |
| 102 | A Joss | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 45 | 2 | |
| 110 | T Lyons | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 43 | 3 | |
| 132 | H Pennock | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 36 | 3 | |
| 142 | J Chesbro | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 34 | 1 | |
| 179 | R Marquard | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 27 | 2 | |
| 189 | W Hoyt | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 25 | 1 | |
| 218 | D Eckersley | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 23 | 2 | |
| 249 | J Haines | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 20 | 1 | |
| 266 | C Bender | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 1 |
These are the other Hall of Famers and their places on the list. It should be noted that Dennis Eckersley performs poorly and Hoyt Wilhelm and Rollie Fingers do not even appear on the list. This is basically because relief pitchers just don’t do as well in DFB points as the starting pitchers, and there’s nothing we can do about it now. Eckersley’s numbers on this list are predominantly from his days as a starter. Otherwise, I can come up with some reasonable explanations for other guys on this list, but not all of them. For instance, Don Newcombe spent some time in the Negro Leagues, Don Sutton, despite a lack of great dominance, still manage 300+ wins, and Clark Griffith was just as significant as a baseball executive. But I don’t have any suggestions for you on Jesse Haines or Chief Bender.
Other Notable Active Pitchers
| Player | Elite | Premier | All-Star | Good | TA | TRNK | E+P | ||
| 66 | D Gooden | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 58 | 5 | |
| 77 | O Hershiser | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 53 | 4 | |
| 83 | C Finley* | 1 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 50 | 2 | |
| 86 | R Oswalt | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 49 | 3 | |
| 97 | A Pettitte | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 46 | 3 | |
| 99 | J Vazquez | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 3 | |
| 103 | B Colon | 0 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 45 | 4 | |
| 116 | D Wells | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 41 | 3 | |
| 119 | H Nomo* | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 40 | 3 | |
| 125 | T Hudson | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 38 | 3 | |
| 127 | J Moyer | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 37 | 4 | |
| 137 | K Appier* | 1 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 12 | 36 | 1 | |
| 140 | J Schmidt | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 35 | 2 | |
| 146 | F Garcia | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 34 | 1 | |
| 150 | B Zito | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 33 | 2 | |
| 154 | J Santana | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 33 | 2 | |
| 155 | L Hernandez | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 32 | 3 | |
| 156 | M Buehrle | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 32 | 3 | |
| 158 | B Radke | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 32 | 2 | |
| 159 | R Halladay* | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 32 | 2 | |
| 165 | A Leiter* | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 30 | 2 | |
| 183 | K Millwood | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 27 | 1 | |
| 191 | K Rogers | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 25 | 2 | |
| 194 | J Lieber | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 25 | 2 | |
| 202 | M Hampton* | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 25 | 1 | |
| 209 | D Neagle* | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 24 | 2 | |
| 211 | J Lima* | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 24 | 2 | |
| 223 | C Park* | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 22 | 2 | |
| 236 | E Loaiza | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 22 | 1 | |
| 247 | B Sheets | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 1 | |
| 248 | C Carpenter | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 1 | |
| 250 | C Zambrano | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 2 | |
| 254 | M Mulder | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 1 | |
| 261 | M Morris | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 19 | 1 | |
| 282 | D Willis | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 18 | 1 | |
| 299 | A Sele* | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 0 |
I included a few players that are no longer active, but have also not yet been on the Hall of Fame Ballot. You can see from this list that having just one elite season can really put you on the map. And in case you were wondering, Babe Ruth is #301. Eddie Cicotte is #95. Cicotte was still pitching effectively when he was banned in 1920 as a part of the Black Sox scandal.
And Now for Some Handy Observations
Hall of Famers
From 1890 to the present, there have been 25 pitchers that have had 5 or more Elite Seasons. Six of them are active, the other nineteen are in the Hall of Fame. The Active players are Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, and Brown. Of the pitchers with 4 dominant seasons, all of them are in the Hall except Valenzuela. That makes 83% of pitchers with 4 elite seasons Hall of Famers.
If you measure it by adding the number of Elite and Premier Seasons together, you’ll find that there are 34 pitchers with 6 or more seasons of that caliber. Eight of them are not yet eligible, two are not in the Hall, and 24 are – 92%.
Only one pitcher is in the Hall of Fame despite never having an elite season: Don Sutton, who still managed 300 wins. He is one out of 861 eligible players. Sutton is, however, tied with Roger Clemens for the most appearances on the list (19).
The number of total appearances on the list is a bit less conclusive as measure from just the Elite Seasons, but 13 total appearances seems to make a pitcher pretty close to a lock. There are 22 pitchers with 13 appearances. 5 of those are active, and 15 of the remaining 17 are in the Hall. The two that are not in are still on the ballot: Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris.
Of the legitimate Hall of Famers, Koufax, Dean, Joe McGinnity, and Addie Joss have the fewest appearances with only 6.
As for total points, 80 looks to be the magic number. There are 34 players with 80 or more, 7 are active, and 25 of the remaining 27 are already in the Hall. The other two? Blyleven and Morris.
Of players with 50-80 points, 7 are either active, on the ballot, or not yet on the ballot, and 15 are in the hall of fame, or about 40%.
The Average Hall of Famer has about 10.5 total appearances and 82 points.
One-Hit Wonders & Odd Combinations
377 pitchers appear on the list only once. Of those, 300 had Good Seasons (79.6%), 62 had All-Star Seasons (16.4%), 13 had Premier Seasons (3.5%), and only 2 had Elite Seasons (0.53%).
This should come as no surprise, but the all the pitchers with the most Elite Seasons are in the top 10.
Every pitcher with 5 or more Premier Seasons has at least 1 Elite Season. Spahn, Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, and Mussina have the most Premier Seasons with 7 each. Six pitchers have had 4 Premier Seasons without ever having an Elite Season: Eppa Rixey, Bartolo Colon, Nap Rucker, Jamie Moyer, Ted Breitenstein, and Camilo Pascual.
Don Sutton had 10 All-Star Seasons without ever being Elite. Dennis Martinez and Jack W. Taylor did the same thing 7 times. Rick Reuschel, Aaron Sele, and Bob Knepper each had 4 All-Star Seasons and were never better than that.
Sutton, Kevin Appier, and Larry Jackson had 8 Good Seasons. Sutton and Jackson did it without ever being Elite. Jack Quinn had 7 good seasons and was never better that that. Bill Doak and Red Donahue did the same thing 6 times.
187 different players have had an Elite Season. These players average 7.4 total appearances on the list. 136 of these players did not manage to get to the Hall of Fame average of 10 total appearances (73%).
I’m sure I could come up with other relevant, or at least interesting, facts from the list, but I think I’m on the verge of exhuming the corpse of a dead horse that had already been beaten.
Posted by chefchuddy at December 26, 2005 04:35 PM | TrackBack