Neutrality

Editor's note: Spent all day on a plane Monday getting from San Francisco to New York, so I didn't get to add to my world-record number of July posts. But I have a couple more posts today, including one a little later on about landing in New York and receiving one of the greatest sports thrills of my life. No kidding. It might be THE greatest sports thrill of my life. I'll tell you about it in a bit. In the meantime, here's some Blyleven/Santana stuff.

If I could take one indie baseball statistic and inject it into the popular culture, it might be Lee Sinins’ Neutral Wins and Neutral Losses. It also might not be. I’m going to be brutally honest with you here: I really haven’t put a whole lot of thought into this whole “what indie baseball stat would you inject into the popular culture” question.

But I do like Neutral Wins and Neutral Losses. These represent, as I understand it, a projection for the number of wins and losses a pitcher would have if given average run support. It’s an entirely imagined statistic – it doesn’t reflect what actually happened. Obviously you are giving pitchers wins when his team did not win, losses when his team did not lose, etc. But to me, it’s still telling.

I think of these a little bit like I think of those percentages they show for poker hands. Let’s say you’re playing Texas Hold ‘em, and you have a pair of aces. Well you go all in and someone calls you – even though (as we find out) he has the worst hand you can have. He has a 7 and a 2 off-suit. The odds will say that you have an 88 percent chance of winning the hand. Unfortunately, luck plays a large role in poker, which means that the moron who called you with a 7 and a 2 still has a 12 percent chance of winning, which means about one out of eight times he will beat your aces with his stupid 7 and 2..

If this happens to be one of those times, well, that 88 percent chance you had doesn’t mean squat. It’s not REALITY. You lost. Your money’s gone. But when reviewing what happened (as you would, again and again, over drinks with your buddies) that 88 percent is VERY telling. You did the right thing. You SHOULD have won. He SHOULD have lost. I’m not sure this example really explains what I’m trying to say, but as you know I like to bring up poker when I can, you know, since I am the One Random June Monday Morning Poker Champion of Tunica, Miss.

Anyway, this thought about Neutral Wins comes up because, as a couple of you mentioned comments, Johan Santana is having a great year. He is first in the league in hits allowed per nine, first in WHIP, first in shutouts (well tied for first … he has one), second in strikeouts, fourth in ERA, and he’s been his old amazing self lately (the last six weeks his ERA is 2.48, and the league is hitting .198 against him). I mean this is another dominant season for Santana. He’s still, I think, the best pitcher in the game.

Unfortunately, there are those who say he’s having an “off-year.” Why? His record is 11-8. That’s it. That’s why. Everybody by now understands, or should understand, that won-loss record is, well, not entirely meaningless (as Bill James says, if you have a choice between a guy who is 18-11 and a guy who is 12-14, and that’s the only information you have, you would always take the 18-11 pitcher) but certainly it can be very misleading. Everybody also knows the Twins can’t score runs. And yet, even while people understand that, they cannot get over a pitcher’s record. They just can’t.

And that’s why it would be great if people were just aware of neutral wins and neutral losses. It fills some gaps. Santana leads all of baseball with 13 neutral wins. His “neutral record” of 13-6 would make him the leading Cy Young candidate, which is exactly what he should be. Instead, the voters will look at won-loss record (they can’t help themselves) and choose someone inferior like C.C. Sabathia, who (though he is having a good year) isn’t close to Santana.

Because it has been a while since I’ve done a long blog (and also I’m on the long plane ride from San Francisco to New York) , I have listed here a few underappreciated years in baseball history (well, since 1920) using Neutral Wins and Neutral losses.

Dave Roberts, 1971
Actual record: 14-17
Neutral record: 22-9

Obviously, this is not the Dave Roberts who I’ve been watching play center field like a tourist stumbling through Chinatown looking vainly for the Hang Ah Tea Room. Holy cow. I have not broken down center fielders yet defensively, but I have to predict based entirely on visual evidence that Roberts will not score well. I mean, he’s fast and he seems like a generally cool guy and all that. But he also seems to be on an eight-second delay whenever the ball’s hit.

No, this Dave Roberts was a pitcher who in his fairly long career had a losing record, a below league average ERA and one magical season. Unfortunately, few realized just how magical it was because he had that losing record. But – get this – in 1971, Dave Roberts lost EIGHT GAMES where he pitched seven innings or more and allowed two earned runs or less. Those aren’t no decisions … I’m talking about eight games he lost pitching that well. He also had three no-decisions, including one where he went nine innings and gave up one run and another when he went eight innings and gave up one run.

Roberts did get a little Cy Young love because of his 2.10 ERA that year – he finished sixth in the voting, though he pitched better than three of the pitchers ahead of him. It’s hard to say he deserved to win the Cy Young Award, though. Ferguson Jenkins (neutral record, 24-13, 2.77 ERA) won the Cy Young that probably should gone to Tom Seaver (neutral record 23-7, 1.76 ERA).

Bert Blyleven, 1973
Actual record: 20-17
Neutral record: 26-11

We’ll have a lot of Blyleven in here for. He would be in the Hall of Fame, I believe, if people fully appreciated just how good he was in his prime. He finished an absurd seventh in the Cy Young voting in ‘73, though he led all of baseball with those 26 neutral wins and was second in the league in both ERA and strikeouts. Jim Palmer, who won the Cy Young, actually had one hell of a year too. And John Hiller had one of the great relief pitching seasons in baseball history – maybe the best. He won 10 games, saved 38, pitched 125 innings, had a 1.44 ERA. Still Blyleven was sensational.

The point is that if voters understood and appreciated that Blyleven was more than just some guy who hung around for a long time, if they understood and appreciated that he had a prime that was as good as most pitchers in the Hall of Fame, I think he would be there himself.

Randy Johnson, 2004
Actual record: 16-14
Neutral record: 22-8

Randy Johnson finished second in the Cy Young voting to Roger Clemens this year, and I’m guessing that this was entirely and completely because of their won-loss records. Johnson was 16-14. Clemens was 18-4. But if voters had looked at Neutral Wins and Losses along with other statistics, it would blatantly obvious who had the better year.

Johnson: 22-8, 2.60 ERA, 290 strikeouts, 50 Runs Saved Against Average
Clemens: 15-7, 2.98, 218 strikeouts, 32 Runs Saves Against Average

This might be the clearest example in recent years where the significantly better pitcher was snubbed simply because of his won-loss record. Apparently not enough people stopped to realize that OF COURSE their won-loss records were different. Johnson played on a 111-loss Arizona team, Clemens played on a 92-win Houston team.

Sam McDowell, 1968
Actual record: 15-14
Neutral record: 21-8

From 1968 to 1971, McDowell’s records were as follows:
15-14, 1.81 ERA
18-14, 2.94 ERA
20-12, 2.92 ERA
13-17, 3.40 ERA

And his neutral records were as follows:
21-8, 1.81 ERA
18-14, 2.94 ERA
22-10, 2.92 ERA
16-14, 3.40 ERA

So, in reality McDowell was nine games over .500, which is nothing special. And people called him a “hard luck” pitcher, but people rarely mean that as a compliment. Generally, hard luck pitchers are viewed as flawed – as if low-scoring teammates are partly their fault, as if they should somehow DO something about losing 2-1 and 3-2 games, as if they somehow lack intestinal fortitude because they can’t their fastball with a little more life and get their curveball to drop an extra two inches when their own hitters can’t score.

But McDowell’s neutral record over that time period was 31 games over .500, which is very special – only Fergie Jenkins, Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson and Gaylord Perry were better over those four years.

Gaylord Perry, 1972
Actual record: 24-16
Neutral record: 29-11

Perry won the Cy Young Award this year – so it’s hard to say that he was underrated. However, he was. By Neutral Wins, this is the best pitching season by anybody in the last 50 years.

Most neutral wins since 1957

1. Gaylord Perry, 1972, 29
2. Sandy Koufax, 1966, 28
3. Steve Carlton, 1972, 27
4. Bert Blyleven, 1973, 26
(tie) Wilbur Wood, 1971, 26
(tie) Denny McLain, 1968, 26
(tie) Bob Gibson, 1968, 26
(tie) Juan Marichal, 1965, 26

So there you have it, some of the acknowledged greatest years in pitching history – there’s Gibson ’68, Koufax ’66, McLain ’68, Marichal ’65. And Gaylord’s year – my first baseball memory is of going to see Perry pitch this year – was as good or better than any of them. You will notice again, Blyleven fans, that his 1973 season is up there too. We’ll come back to Blyleven again.

Jack Morris, 1992
Actual record: 21-6
Neutral record: 13-14

I have become, among friends, something of a crank when it comes to Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame. I can’t help it. I simply cannot accept the myth that has built around this guy. The myth goes that Morris was a gamer, a winner, the kind of pitching warrior who would allow two runs when his team scored three and give up seven runs when his team scored eight, a warrior, etc. Morris already had that reputation when he pitched that amazing Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, and this performance forged the myth in steel (much in the same way that the “Derek Jeter is always in the right place” myth became truth the day Jeremy Giambi didn’t slide”).

There have been studies that show this, “Jack Morris gave up two when you scored three” theory to be, in the delicate British phrase, complete crap. But the myth goes on. Morris never had a sub-3.00 ERA. He never had a season with 20 neutral wins. It’s so weird that so many of the voters who deny Blyleven because they believe he was never a great pitcher are willing to support Jack Morris, who really never was.

And now we’ll look at a few careers:

-- Bob Friend
Career record: 197-230
Neutral record: 228-199

I’m telling you right now that Bob Friend was every bit as good and perhaps a better pitcher than Jack Morris.

-- Bert Blyleven
Career record: 287-250
Neutral record: 313-224

Since the deadball era ended, there have been 10 pitchers with 300-plus neutral wins. All of them are in the Hall of Fame (or will be soon – Clemens and Maddux are on the list) except for Blyleven.

From 1970-1977, Blyleven’s neutral record is better than his actual record every single season. I think Bill James once did a little study to see if Blyleven’s own pitching tendencies were at least partly responsible for the bad luck, and he came out of the study with a strong feeling, if I remember correctly, that it was “not entirely impossible.” So there you go. Still, the numbers are striking.

Blyleven’s actual records:
1970: 10-9
1971: 16-15
1972: 17-17
1973: 20-17
1974: 17-17
1975: 15-10
1976: 13-16
1977: 14-12

Over this eight-year stretch, he saved an astounding 233 runs against average (third for that time period behind Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer – and not to beat this dead Morris again, but Jack Morris saved 78 runs in his ENTIRE CAREER). He was just nine games over .500

His neutral records tell a very different story:
1970: 11-8
1971: 19-12
1972: 20-14
1973: 26-11
1974: 22-12
1975: 16-9
1976: 12-8
1977: 17-12

OK, that’s 57 games over .500. He was a great pitcher! He really was! Dammit, listen to me voters!

-- Jack Morris
Career record: 254-186
Neutral record: 232-208

Well, you knew that was coming. Of course Morris-heads will use this to say it PROVES their point – see how many more games he won than he should have? He was a gamer! A warrior! You can’t beat these guys.

-- Wilbur Wood
Career record: 164-156
Neutral record: 185-135

Wood is the darling of neutral wins and losses. From 1968-1975, Wood had 159 neutral wins, behind only Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins. In there he had a 26-neutral win season and two 25 neutral win seasons.

-- Lew Burdette
Career record: 203-144
Neutral record: 173-174

According to Sinins’ encyclopedia, Burdette won 200 games despite allowing 30 more runs in his career than the average pitcher.

Brilliant reader updates: One of you talked about Orel Hershiser 1988 vs. Orel Hershiser 1989. Very shrewd comparison.

Hershiser in 1988
Real record: 23-8, 2.26 ERA.
Neutral stats: 22-9 40 Runs Saves Against Average

Hershiser in 1989
Real record: 15-15, 2.31 ERA
Neutral stats: 19-11, 25 Runs Saves Against Average.

He was better in 1988, but the difference is not as wide as appears by the win-loss record.

And our resident Cubbie asked about Fergie Jenkins. I'm surprised but his stats are not significantly altered in the neutral environment. From 1967-73, he went 141-100 for the Cubs, and won 20 or more six of the seven years.

Going neutral, he went 146-95. He had 20 neutral wins or more five of the seven years.

Over his career, Jenkins actual record was 284-226. His neutral record was 291-219.

I Can't Wait For Us To Be Crappy Again

Today’s absurd comment doesn’t come from a manager but instead from Giants’ managing general partner Peter Magowan. On Friday, Magowan said what many people are feeling – he will be happy when this Barry Bonds chase ends. As far as I can tell, every human being on the planet feels this way and also dolphins.

(It’s true: A recently recorded voice sample of an Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin was translated to roughly mean, “Well, I don’t care what anybody says, I think there should be an asterisk. The guy cheated, plain and simple. What do you think about this? We’re going to take your calls after the break but first, do you need new gutters? I had my gutters redone by GutterPro, and I’m thrilled.” This proved to scientists that dolphins may not be as intelligent as we had once hoped).

ANYWAY, while Magowan’s overall thought – “I can’t wait until it’s over” – matches up with the rest of civilization, his reasoning is a bit, let’s lovingly call it, “insane.” Here’s the full quote:

“I can’t wait until it’s over. I think we’ll start winning more consistently when this is behind us.”

OK, there are two things to be said about this quote.

1. It’s probably not quite accurate. The Bonds really began in earnest a week ago Friday in Milwaukee, and since then the Giants have won 5 of 8. I realize this is not exactly the Giants Win the Pennant news, but for this Giants team 5 victories in 8 games is something close to a modern miracle. They’re not going to win MORE consistently than that with this team unless meteors hit 24 or 25 major American cities.

Caveat: It is possible, I realize, that Magowan might consider this whole dismal Giants year part of the “Bonds chase,” in which case he should just flog himself because he knew what was coming when he signed the guy.

2. It’s not impossible – improbable yes, but not impossible – that Peter Magowan is unaware that this Giants team is a total and utter disaster. So let me be the one to break the news. I mean, have you looked at this team? They have 35-year-old Dave Roberts with his .327 on-base percentage in the leadoff spot – and he’s signed for another year. They’ve got 35-year-old Rich Aurelia with his .290 on-base percentage signed for another year. They’ve got Randy Winn on some ridiculously pricey contract, they’ve got Ray Durham signed through 2008 (I believe), every single position player starter is 32 or older and the Barry Zito contract might be the worst in baseball history. And this guy is worried about the Barry Bonds homer distraction?

There are only two good things about these Giants. One, they have some young pitchers – Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Noah Lowry - who are pretty fun to watch. And two, they have some guys you haven’t heard from in a while. It’s sort of like coming upon an old-timer’s game. You’ll be going along, and suddenly you will see someone and say, “Hey, there’s Ryan Klesko! I haven't thought about him in years. Good for him, he’s still playing the game. Good for him. Hey, there’s Russ Ortiz. That’s nice that he’s still trying …”

Updated: The Giants won again Saturday night with a comeback in the bottom of the ninth. That's six wins in nine games. The Barry thing is definitely helping this team, not hurting it.

Bloggy Friday: History

Now, I do not consider myself the type of person who downplays history. I embrace history. Take the Civil War. I embrace that. Also the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. I call that embraceable. And don't get me started on Charlemagne.

However, I have to admit I was a bit underwhelmed by what everyone else seemed to deem a historic moment Friday night in San Francisco. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I grow cynical in my old age (I was 40 when I arrived in San Francisco, by the way. As I write this blog, I am 94). Friday night, Mark Sweeney walked up to the plate in the sixth inning to face Matt LIndstrom, and there was definitely a sense that something magical was about to happen. I am not kidding here. At all. The crowd was loud. The television announcers were excited. The Giants teammates were on the top step of the dugout.

Sweeney took a ball and then he fouled one off. I must admit that in Kansas City, I've always known Mark Sweeney only for being the guy whose name sounds like Mike Sweeney, this being the only known similarity between the two men (other than, you know, the carbon-based life form similarity). Mike hit right-handed. Mark really could not hit left-handed. Mike was California. Mark was from Maine. Mark somehow kept ending up on playoff teams. Mike, er, did not.

I guess there was a whole thing in Sports Illustrated about how they get each other's mail or something. Wacky.

Anyway, Mark took a strike, then a ball, fouled one off, took another ball, and then it happened, the moment, history, Mark Sweeney rifled a single to center field. Bedlam. Everyone stood and applauded. Hugs were exchanged. Tears were shed. The ball was taken out of play. Mark Sweeney lifted his helmet to acknowledge the moment. When the inning ended he walked into the dugout where teammates waited to embrace him (see, embracing history). Omar Vizquel actually kissed him.

I'm not kidding about any of this. Really.

I assume you know why all this happened for Mark Sweeney, but I'm holding it back anyway so I can unveil it in italics:

Mark Sweeney moved alone into second-place on the all-time pinch-hit list.

That's right. With that single, Sweeney had 151 pinch hits, moving him ahead of Manny Mota. He's now in second place all alone. It's all his. Joy. Hugs. Triumphant music. The whole works.

Now maybe it's because this all happened on the same night that Barry Bonds hit his 754th home run, but I guess I'm not as impressed by this historic moment as perhaps I should be. I mean, I do appreciate the extra cheering and all that; hey, it's a nice moment. But am I wrong here -- shouldn't they save the hugs, the taking the ball out of circulation, the tears for the guy who moves into FIRST PLACE on the all-time pinch-hit list?

And here's the thing ... he's not even CLOSE to the all-time record.

Most pinch-hits in a career:
1. Lenny Harris, 212
2. Mark Sweeney, 151
3. Manny Mota, 150
4. Smoky Burgess, 145
5. Greg Gross, 143

Lenny Harris is the Cy Young of pinch-hits. Sweeney is 37 (I originally thought he was 34, but I must have misread his birthdate on Baseball Reerence). so he's almost certainly not going to break the record. But if he does, well I can only imagine what will be the scene that night. I just hope if it happens, the Commissioner is in attendance.

Bloggy Friday: An Offer You Can't Refuse

OK, we’re going to try something bold, something a little crazy, something that I will undoubtedly regret even before I get to the end of this sentence. Yep. I already regret it.

But it is true that I have gathered fielding info on every starter in baseball. It isn’t something I set out to do … it’s just as a voter for the Fielding Bible, I’ve gotten quite a bit of info. I have the typical fielding stats, of course – range factor, zone rating, etc. But beyond that, I have the intensive Fielding Bible stats, which I will use to rank the fielders but I will not reveal right now (I only have them for voting purposes). I also have various mini-scouting reports from people I know who are scouts/reporters/executives/players around baseball.

So, at the end of this ranking-the-best-fielder series I’m doing (I’m estimating that it should end sometime in the middle of next week, after my appearance on the Leonard Lopate Show), I’m thinking about doing something for you, the brilliant reader, a gift in appreciation of you buying the book. I will rank any player you ask about, based on the numbers I have, the scouting reports I have and my own personal beliefs.

Here’s how I was thinking of doing this (and please feel free to offer a different suggestion): I will create up a blog item called, “Rank your favorite fielder here.” And then you can post you comments – “How would you rank J.J. Hardy?” “Where does Derrek Lee rank?” “How could you ignore Alex Gonzalez?” And so on.

And I’ll do the best I can to answer based on what I know and what I’ve got.

In exchange, of course, you stragglers have to buy the book. Heck, buy two, they’re small. Let’s get that Amazon number into triple digits.

Bloggy Friday: A Book Signing Offer

First off, I want to thank those of you in the Bay Area (and in Texas, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, et. al) who left comments or sent emails requesting a book signing. Unfortunately, I’m not the one who can set up such things. That’s up to the good folks at William Morrow, and right now they rightfully might be a little more concerned about book signings for the new Marley & Me children’s book. That lovable Marley!

I can tell you I will be in New York on Wednesday for a Varsity Letters book signing and discussion – more details available here. And for those of you in the NY greater area, you can also meet the great Seth Mnookin, who has made appearances on this site (and also the great Sally Jenkins, who has not). I’m also supposed to be on the Leonard Lopate Show in New York that Wednesday. I’m told he’s a New York legend, sort of an intellectual Joe Franklin (my friends). But if you live in New York you probably knew that.

Even though I’m in San Francisco, I’m not sure exactly how to make a book signing happen because of scheduling and other issues and also because I would not want to miss the opprtunity to be snubbed by Barry Bonds. However, I do want to sign any and all copies – so I’ll make a deal with you. The William Morrow people have been nice enough to send me these bookplates. They’re like stickers you put inside the book only they’re classy (I think).

Anyway, if you would like have a signed book, you can send an email to SoulOfBaseball (at) gmail.com (let’s try that email because I’m having all sorts of problems with the Soul of Baseball email on the Web site). Send me your name, address and any sort of dedication you would like. I’ll sign and dedicate a bookplate (or more if you’ve bought more than one book) and ship it to you.

Obviously, I’m assuming that I will not be flooded with requests (hey, stamps are expensive!) and if this offer should somehow manage to knock us over The Tipping Point and send The Soul of Baseball into Harry Potter land, well, as da (Vinci Code) saying goes, we’ll just cross that Bridges of Madison County when we come to it.