Cainer to start ASG

[calsnowskier]

Interesting thing about the 20 win season. That standard gained popularity when there were four man rotations. Thus, each pitcher would get about 40 starts a year if he stayed healthy. A 20 win season was essentially winning half of your starts.

Now, pitchers get approximately 32 starts. So, the equivalent elite standard is 16 wins. Very few pitchers win that many games in a year.

16 is the new 20
12 is the new 15....that's the standard I look at for a good year -- to the extent that wins and losses have any value at all in evaluating a pitcher.

Edit: last year, 17 pitchers in all of baseball won 16 games or more. 57 won 12 or more. Basically, if you win 12, you're a #2 pitcher on an average team, 14 wins makes you an ace.

Giants wins last year:
Tron, Freak, Bum .....13 wins
Horse ..... 12 wins

Zeet's last full season (2010) was 9 wins.

When did baseball migrate to the 5-man rotation? Early/mid 90s? The A's were a 4-man rotation (Stewart, Welch, Moore, Davis) and that was late 80s.

I do not ever remember there being 17 20-game winners. If I time, I will check for a year-by-year breakdown on this today...


EDIT:
I do not question your premise that 20 is not required anymore to have a 20-win season. I just question the new value of 16...

 

[tzill]

When did baseball migrate to the 5-man rotation? Early/mid 90s? The A's were a 4-man rotation (Stewart, Welch, Moore, Davis) and that was late 80s.

I do not ever remember there being 17 20-game winners. If I time, I will check for a year-by-year breakdown on this today...


EDIT:
I do not question your premise that 20 is not required anymore to have a 20-win season. I just question the new value of 16...

Legit question. A quick review of stats reveals that the 5 man rotation began in 1972 and was widely accepted by 1975.

"I expect the real reason baseball will eventually return to the four-man rotation will be the simplest of all: It helps win games. The five-man rotation is not on that evolutionary path; it's a digression, a dead-end alley. Just as baseball once believed that walking a lot of batters was better than throwing a home-run pitch, we are now chasing an illusion that our pitchers work better on four days' rest and that the five-man rotation significantly improves their future."
- Craig Wright, in The Diamond Appraised, 1989.

Mr. Wright does not seem to be a Nostradamus here.

Regarding 20 game winners prior to 1973, I looked at a five year sample from 68-72. Remember that MLB expanded to 24 teams in 1969:

72 10 winners of 20+ games
71 14
70 11
69 15
68 10

In all, there were 60 20+ game winners over that span of 116 team seasons, or a little over half the number of teams in the league per year, on average. While there were not 17 20+ game winners in any of these five years, the majors had 6-10 fewer teams (and 24-40 fewer qualified starters). Simply put, the league was smaller so you'd expect fewer 20 game winners. Last year, we had 17, 16+ game winners in a 30 team league (53% "aces"). From 68-72, we had 60 20+ game winners in 116 team seasons (52% "aces").

Seems to hold up pretty well.

 

[calsnowskier]

Legit question. A quick review of stats reveals that the 5 man rotation began in 1972 and was widely accepted by 1975.

"I expect the real reason baseball will eventually return to the four-man rotation will be the simplest of all: It helps win games. The five-man rotation is not on that evolutionary path; it's a digression, a dead-end alley. Just as baseball once believed that walking a lot of batters was better than throwing a home-run pitch, we are now chasing an illusion that our pitchers work better on four days' rest and that the five-man rotation significantly improves their future."
- Craig Wright, in The Diamond Appraised, 1989.

Mr. Wright does not seem to be a Nostradamus here.

Regarding 20 game winners prior to 1973, I looked at a five year sample from 68-72. Remember that MLB expanded to 24 teams in 1969:

72 10 winners of 20+ games
71 14
70 11
69 15
68 10

In all, there were 60 20+ game winners over that span of 116 team seasons, or a little over half the number of teams in the league per year, on average. While there were not 17 20+ game winners in any of these five years, the majors had 6-10 fewer teams (and 24-40 fewer qualified starters). Simply put, the league was smaller so you'd expect fewer 20 game winners. Last year, we had 17, 16+ game winners in a 30 team league (53% "aces"). From 68-72, we had 60 20+ game winners in 116 team seasons (52% "aces").

Seems to hold up pretty well.

Nice analysis. I would like to do a bit myself before I really challenge any of your conclusions, but on the surface, it looks good.

One of my initial "ignorant" challenges, however, would be the starting date of the 5-man rotation. While most teams went to 5, there were hold-outs (such as the Bash-Brother A's). I would like to see a bell curve of starts/pitcher per year going from, say, '68 to about '95 or so. I think that may tell more.

If we decide that a 5-man rotation = 32 starts and a 4-man rotation = 42 starts, then lets go with the definition of a "20-win season" as 50% of starts = a win. Fair?

 

[tzill]

Nice analysis. I would like to do a bit myself before I really challenge any of your conclusions, but on the surface, it looks good.

One of my initial "ignorant" challenges, however, would be the starting date of the 5-man rotation. While most teams went to 5, there were hold-outs (such as the Bash-Brother A's). I would like to see a bell curve of starts/pitcher per year going from, say, '68 to about '95 or so. I think that may tell more.

If we decide that a 5-man rotation = 32 starts and a 4-man rotation = 42 starts, then lets go with the definition of a "20-win season" as 50% of starts = a win. Fair?

Here's a partial list for you:

Year # of Pitchers >= 40 GS

1973 12
1974 9
1975 3
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 1
1982 1
1987 1

You can see here by 1975 it's pretty well universal. Sure, there will always be a LaRussa out there, but he'd be an outlier.

 

[msgkings322]

Here's a partial list for you:

Year # of Pitchers >= 40 GS

1973 12
1974 9
1975 3
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 1
1982 1
1987 1

You can see here by 1975 it's pretty well universal. Sure, there will always be a LaRussa out there, but he'd be an outlier.

So by this data not even the late 80s As had a true 4 man rotation?

Edit: looked it up. In 1989 for example they most definitely had a 5th starter, Curt Young
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/1989.shtml

 

[tzill]

So by this data not even the late 80s As had a true 4 man rotation?

Edit: looked it up. In 1989 for example they most definitely had a 5th starter, Curt Young
1989 Oakland Athletics Batting, Pitching, & Fielding Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

Can't say for sure who the outlier was in those years -- could have been the A's. But the broader point stands....16 is the (sorta) new 20. It's been 40 years, so it's not that "new." Shows you how slow baseball is to change its thinking. Witness how the 20 win season was regarded pre-1972 (i.e. the "standard") vs. how a 16 win season is regarded now (i.e. nice, but no big deal). Yet, it's statistically just as rare. You can bet the MLBPA and the agents know this.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Great article from ESPN (for once) :

MLB -- All-Star Giants prove everyone wrong - ESPN