Rick Reuschel HOF article...please explain

[Senser81]

http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/02/beyond-era-why-rick-reuschel-had-hall-of-fame-value/

I'm not really familiar with the pitching SABR stats, so does this article make sense to anyone? If so, could you explain it to me?

I was reading through the first comment, and I was immediately lost. The neutralized record thing and the Catfish Hunter comparison wasn't really making sense. Reuschel was 214-191 in reality...neutralized he was 222-172.

*Is the Run Support an actual figure, or just some generic average?

*How do they calculate "expected decisions"?

*When its said "Reuschel's win% was lower than expected, given his actual ERA, adjusted for ballpark", what does 'actual era, adjusted for ballpark' mean? Is it his actual era? Or is it adjusted?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

They are using ERA+ and comparing to league run average to determine what his W/L record should have been in a "fair" environment with luck removed.

I dont like this for a bunch of reasons rooted in both traditional and SABR analysis, but i'll come back when im not on my phone for the longer opinion.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Also, I think you linked the wrong article. The link centers around a WAR argument.

 

[Senser81]

Also, I think you linked the wrong article. The link centers around a WAR argument.

My post was mainly about the comment section, but I didn't really understand the article/WAR argument, either. Do you think WAR is a good way to assess a pitcher's career?

 

[FedEx227]

Yes and no. It tells a decent story about the players environment that you don't get from Wins/Losses and ERA. In this case, they are looking at evidence that Reuschel had a historically unlucky career where he was surrounded by awful defenders or just plain bad luck.

It's a stretch but I see where they are coming from, I don't totally agree though.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

My post was mainly about the comment section, but I didn't really understand the article/WAR argument, either. Do you think WAR is a good way to assess a pitcher's career?

No. But I tend to skew anti WAR in the pantheon of this site. Especially when it comes to pitchers (see thread titled "Hmmm...").

fWAR is heavily dependant on FIP, a stat I loathe and find redundant.

Like Fed said, WAR is a great snapshot stat, especially for context etc. But beware of the occasional wacky calculation, especially with pitchers.

 

[FedEx227]

I think it's apart of the package. Where Warner is on the anti-side, I'm on the middle ground side. I use it from time to time but I use it as apart of a larger package. I like looking at trends and peaks a bit more in the context of HOF arguments.

 

[Senser81]

Would you say the Rick Reuschel was a HOF-quality pitcher, who was similar to Catfish Hunter?

 

[FedEx227]

Well, here's the issue for me. I don't think Catfish Hunter is a HOF pitcher. There's really nothing in his resume that should put him in there, so I'm kind of dumbfounded why he's in. Reuschel by and large has a better resume than Hunter but I'd still say no. He was very good at accumulating WAR over time but he was never seen as a top pitcher during his era. Never received a whole lot of MVP or Cy Young votes and despite a relatively high WAR it's hard to reward or prop up a guy just because he was on bad teams.

 

[Senser81]

Well, here's the issue for me. I don't think Catfish Hunter is a HOF pitcher. There's really nothing in his resume that should put him in there, so I'm kind of dumbfounded why he's in.

Agree that he's one of the weakest pitchers in the HOF. I'm guessing him being the ace of a 3-peat team was the main thing. He also had some great seasons, too. His W-L totals with the A's were good, as was his postseason pitching. My point is you can say "if you ignore his win% and postseason stuff, then...", but thats kind of ignoring why he's in the HOF in the first place.

 

[Senser81]

Reuschel by and large has a better resume than Hunter but I'd still say no. He was very good at accumulating WAR over time but he was never seen as a top pitcher during his era. Never received a whole lot of MVP or Cy Young votes and despite a relatively high WAR it's hard to reward or prop up a guy just because he was on bad teams.

But which seasons was Resuchel overlooked for MVP/Cy Young status? To me, Reuschel has hardly any Cy Young quality seasons on his resume, and thats before digging in to the actual seasons and seeing who else pitched well. Thats my main issue...you see a guy who had a long, productive career accumulating WAR over time, but thats where the analysis should end. The conclusion to be drawn is Reuschel was above-average for many years and accumulated WAR, not that Reuschel should be in the HOF.

 

[FedEx227]

1977 is the only year I see. He had a 9.2 bWAR and a 7.7 fWAR. The Cubs were 81-81 but a team-wide -4.3 defensive WAR, so it was a really bad defensive team. Reuschel himself had a solid year with 2.79 ERA, but yeah, he's a really weird case. He accumulated a bunch of WAR by being a really good player on really bad teams but I'm not sure if we can really give a ton of value to that.

 

[Senser81]

1977 is the only year I see. He had a 9.2 bWAR and a 7.7 fWAR. The Cubs were 81-81 but a team-wide -4.3 defensive WAR, so it was a really bad defensive team. Reuschel himself had a solid year with 2.79 ERA, but yeah, he's a really weird case. He accumulated a bunch of WAR by being a really good player on really bad teams but I'm not sure if we can really give a ton of value to that.

Interestingly, in 1977 Bruce Sutter had a monster year for the Cubs. Would that have had a positive affect on Reuschel, such as not allowing inherited runners to score and ensuring wins for Reuschel?

 

[FedEx227]

Well, Reuschel won 20 games, so the whole "his bad teams prevented him from winning games" doesn't hold any water in arguably his best year.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think it's apart of the package. Where Warner is on the anti-side, I'm on the middle ground side. I use it from time to time but I use it as apart of a larger package. I like looking at trends and peaks a bit more in the context of HOF arguments.

The thing is, I don't hate WAR.

What's interesting is that on this particular site, i'm the "anti WAR guy", because the baseball crew here is a very SABR heavy group. There is another site myself & Fed post on where they skew very traditional/old school, and most of the crew over there considers me a STAT NERD!!!.

WAR (for batters) is fine as a snap shot. I will glance down the WAR column of a player to see how many "above average" or "great" years he had, then look deeper if im so inclined. But I know WAR has some warts. Especially when it comes to incorporating fielding (which is where bWAR & fWAR differ greatly).

I also have a bit of an issue putting a ton of stock in a stat where the formula is in a constant state of flux. Isn't bWAR on something like v2.1?

WAR for pitchers I find almost worthless and almost never refer to it at all. Especially fWAR.

 

[FedEx227]

I personally think ERA+ tells a much better story for pitchers than WAR does.