From: winstonc@aludra.usc.edu (|)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: 1991 Cy Young -- Glavine vs. Martinez
Date: 13 Apr 1992 13:47:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <167C8DC71.CAVGEOE@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> CAVGEOE@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
 >In article <1992Apr13.043616.12979@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
 >cs902159@ariel.yorku.ca (DAVID A LISOGURSKI) writes:
 > 
 >>
 >>BTW, I really think Dennis Martinez should've won the Cy Young last year.
 >>I know he only had 14 wins, but if you only went by wins, Bill Gullickson
 >>should've won it in the AL.  Martinez had an ERA about 2.39 or something
 >>amazing like that, PLUS a perfect game.  And don't forget, he won those
 >>14 games on a last-place team!  WE WUZ ROBBED   (IMcorrectO)  :-)
 >>
 >>--Dave
 > 
 >     OK, let's toss out the wins and losses and compare Glavine and
 >Martinez by runs and innings.  It's true that Dennis has the better
 >ERA, 2.39 to 2.55.  He does even better in RA (counting unearned runs
 >as well), which many people (including me) think is a more accurate
 >measure of a pitcher's ability and rate of performance -- 2.84 to 3.03.
 >But these numbers are only *rates* -- surely you wouldn't argue that
 >Doug Dascenzo should win the Cy Young because he had a 0.00 RA. (I
 >think he pitched last year; anyway, you get the point.)  To measure
 >a pitcher's value, you have to multiply rate of performance by amount
 >of performance (innings pitched).  Thus, the stat which measures a
 >pitcher's value is IP/RA.  Glavine pitched 24 2/3 more innings than
 >Martinez, so Glavine's IP/RA is higher, 81.5 to 78.2.  Therefore, I
 >conclude that Glavine had more value (I haven't even adjusted for
 >the Launching Pad) than Martinez and deserved his Cy Young Award.

I'm not sure I understand this. If you calculate RA as 

runs/9 innings pitched

, then IP/RA becomes

 9 * innings pitched * innings pitched / runs allowed.

What is the significance of this number? Why do you square innings
pitched? If a pitcher hypothetically pitches 600 innings with a RA
of 6.00, is he as useful as a pitcher who pitches 200 innings with
a RA of 2.00? If you get 240 innings out of a pitcher with RA of
4.00 (actually not too bad, could be a first or second starter), is
he better than 180 innings out of a pitcher with RA of 3.00? Maybe
so, but I don't see the linear correlation.

The general theory is good, though, but why not use: runs/9 innings
prevented over league average starter as your rate of production
stat, and multiply that by innings pitched to get:

Total runs prevented over league average starter?

Now suppose the league average starter gives up 4 runs per nine
innings. The 600 inning fellow, with a 6.00 RA, gets a -133 runs
prevented rating, while the 200 inning, 2.00 RA hurler gets a +44
runs prevented. In the second case, the 4.00 RA pitcher is exactly
league average, and prevents 0 runs, while the 180 inning pitcher
saves +22 runs. A 210 IP/3.40 RA pitcher, which is better in your
system, saves only +14 runs. The extra 0.40 runs he allows over
each nine innings does not make up for his 30 extra innings.

In the Glavine/Martinez case, assuming league average is 4.00 RA,
we get that Glavine saved 26.6 runs, and Martinez saved 28.61 runs.
If league average is 4.50 RA, Glavine saves 40.29 runs and Martinez
40.95 runs.

So by this stat alone, a strong case can be made for Martinez. And
why count unearned runs exactly the same as earned runs? (I hear
rumblings in error-land...)

 >     NB: While I am a Braves fan, I did not invent this stat out of
 >thin air to provide a justification for Glavine's Cy Young.  I've

Not saying you did, but I don't understand it or its relevance.

 >been using it to rank pitchers for a few years now.  I don't try
 >to use statistics to justify Pendleton's MVP.
 > 
 >Jeff Caveney
 >GO BRAVES! -- 4-2


-- 
Winston Chang		    "Truth is beauty, beauty truth;
winstonc@aludra.usc.edu	     That is all ye know on earth,
			     And all ye need to know."