Effective Wildness : Part 2
Â
Â
Right off the bat, let’s take care of a couple of “choirsâ€. The effective wildness stat has been said to be driven by —correctly might I add– low walks totals. One user comment on a different site recommended the following:
Â
“If anything, the linear relationship should be HBP/balls or HBP/WP since every out-of-the-strike-zone pitch could hit the guy.â€
Â
Can every outside the strike zone pitch hit a batter? I really don’t think so. By using this example, 0 – 2 waste pitches would effect the outcome. And using an equation that includes wild pitches is counterintuitive to the purpose of effective wildness, as wild pitches aren’t effective at all!
Â
So we’re going to stick with our current formula and see where it takes us! With that out of the way, let’s look at some of the best all-time EF ratios, who the pitchers were, and the success of the group as a whole.
Â
Â
Let’s deal with the elite, shall we? Only 52 times in the history of major league baseball has a pitcher thrown over 100 innings and maintained an effective wildness ratio of 3 or less in a season.
Â
Five players have hit this target ratio twice: David Bush, Pedro Martinez, Josh Towers, David Wells, and Brad Radke. Note that this list consists of pitchers that have pitched post 2000.
Â
Jesse Tannehill is the only pitcher to hit the ratio three times, doing so in 1900, 1902 & 1904.
Â
Therefore, our list consists of 45 different pitchers reaching the mark a total of 52 times. Here’s the list, in ascending order of EW.
Â
First Name“ | Last Name“Â | Year““` | Wins““ | Loss““ | IP“““““““““ | BB““ | HBP“““““““` | EW Ratio |
Barney | Wolfe | 1904 | 6 | 9 | 126.67 | 22 | 11 | 2 |
Red | Donahue | 1903 | 7 | 9 | 136.67 | 12 | 6 | 2 |
Kevin | Brown | 1996 | 17 | 11 | 233.00 | 33 | 16 | 2.0625 |
David | Bush | 2006 | 12 | 11 | 210.00 | 38 | 18 | 2.111111 |
Jesse | Tannehill | 1904 | 21 | 11 | 281.67 | 33 | 15 | 2.2 |
David | Bush | 2005 | 5 | 11 | 136.33 | 29 | 13 | 2.230769 |
Carl | Pavano | 2005 | 4 | 6 | 100.00 | 18 | 8 | 2.25 |
Pedro | Martinez | 2000 | 18 | 6 | 217.00 | 32 | 14 | 2.285714 |
Bob | Locker | 1967 | 7 | 5 | 124.67 | 23 | 10 | 2.3 |
David | Wells | 2005 | 15 | 7 | 184.00 | 21 | 9 | 2.333333 |
Bill | Reidy | 1903 | 6 | 7 | 104.00 | 14 | 6 | 2.333333 |
Bronson | Arroyo | 2004 | 10 | 9 | 178.67 | 47 | 20 | 2.35 |
Jeff | Weaver | 2005 | 14 | 11 | 224.00 | 43 | 18 | 2.388889 |
Jesse | Tannehill | 1902 | 20 | 6 | 231.00 | 25 | 10 | 2.5 |
David | Wells | 2003 | 15 | 7 | 213.00 | 20 | 8 | 2.5 |
Jesse | Tannehill | 1900 | 20 | 6 | 234.00 | 43 | 17 | 2.529412 |
Roy | Halladay | 2005 | 12 | 4 | 141.67 | 18 | 7 | 2.571429 |
Jerome | Williams | 2004 | 10 | 7 | 129.33 | 44 | 17 | 2.588235 |
Brad | Radke | 2001 | 15 | 11 | 226.00 | 26 | 10 | 2.6 |
Nick | Maddox | 1909 | 13 | 8 | 203.33 | 39 | 15 | 2.6 |
Chief | Bender | 1903 | 17 | 14 | 270.00 | 65 | 25 | 2.6 |
Don | Drysdale | 1966 | 13 | 16 | 273.67 | 45 | 17 | 2.647059 |
Pedro | Martinez | 2002 | 20 | 4 | 199.33 | 40 | 15 | 2.666667 |
Bill | Grahame | 1908 | 6 | 7 | 117.33 | 32 | 12 | 2.666667 |
Danny | Darwin | 1996 | 7 | 9 | 122.33 | 16 | 6 | 2.666667 |
Josh | Towers | 2001 | 8 | 10 | 140.33 | 16 | 6 | 2.666667 |
John | Halama | 2004 | 7 | 6 | 118.67 | 27 | 10 | 2.7 |
Jake | Weimer | 1907 | 11 | 14 | 209.00 | 63 | 23 | 2.73913 |
Ed | Summers | 1908 | 24 | 12 | 301.00 | 55 | 20 | 2.75 |
Joe | McGinnity | 1900 | 28 | 8 | 343.00 | 113 | 41 | 2.756098 |
Ken | Johnson | 1968 | 5 | 8 | 135.00 | 25 | 9 | 2.777778 |
Jesse | Stovall | 1904 | 3 | 13 | 146.67 | 45 | 16 | 2.8125 |
Eddie | Plank | 1903 | 23 | 16 | 336.00 | 65 | 23 | 2.826087 |
Brad | Radke | 2002 | 9 | 5 | 118.33 | 20 | 7 | 2.857143 |
Ole | Olsen | 1922 | 7 | 6 | 137.00 | 40 | 14 | 2.857143 |
Eric | Gagne | 2001 | 6 | 7 | 151.67 | 46 | 16 | 2.875 |
Josh | Towers | 2004 | 9 | 9 | 116.33 | 26 | 9 | 2.888889 |
Jim | Bunning | 1966 | 19 | 14 | 314.00 | 55 | 19 | 2.894737 |
Oscar | Graham | 1907 | 4 | 9 | 104.00 | 29 | 10 | 2.9 |
Win | Mercer | 1900 | 13 | 17 | 242.67 | 58 | 20 | 2.9 |
Rolando | Arrojo | 2001 | 5 | 4 | 103.33 | 35 | 12 | 2.916667 |
Jack | Warhop | 1911 | 12 | 13 | 209.67 | 44 | 15 | 2.933333 |
Clark | Griffith | 1902 | 15 | 9 | 213.00 | 47 | 16 | 2.9375 |
Tom | Walker | 1904 | 15 | 8 | 217.00 | 53 | 18 | 2.944444 |
Walter | Johnson | 1915 | 27 | 13 | 336.67 | 56 | 19 | 2.947368 |
Jack | Chesbro | 1902 | 28 | 6 | 286.33 | 62 | 21 | 2.952381 |
Hank | Robinson | 1912 | 12 | 7 | 175.00 | 30 | 10 | 3 |
Deacon | Phillippe | 1910 | 14 | 2 | 121.67 | 9 | 3 | 3 |
Cy | Young | 1905 | 18 | 19 | 320.67 | 30 | 10 | 3 |
Clyde | Barfoot | 1922 | 4 | 5 | 117.67 | 30 | 10 | 3 |
Carlos | Silva | 2005 | 9 | 8 | 188.33 | 9 | 3 | 3 |
Bill | Swift | 1990 | 6 | 4 | 128.00 | 21 | 7 | 3 |
Â
Chief Bender, Jack Chesbro, Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Walter Johnson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, & Cy Young are all in the baseball Hall of Fame. Pedro Martinez is also a sure fire hall of famer, so we will include him in the HOF group as well. That gives us a total of 9 HOF pitchers to reach the target. Hall of fame pitchers total 20% (9 of 45) of the pitchers that have made the ratio.
Â
Â
To be honest, I didn’t see anything like that coming at all. And I’m not 100% sure what to take from the outcome. Obviously, there have been a few of major league washouts to hit the ratio. But a 20% HOF ratio is hard to ignore.
Â
Â
Outside of the Hall of Famers, there are two players that have received HOF votes, Deacon Phillipe & Jesse Tannehill. We could also assume that pitchers such as Kevin Brown, Roy Halladay, and David Wells will be remembered as stars of their eras.
Â
Â
What’s the success rate of all 45 pitchers and 52 season? I’ve left out ERA, WHIP, etc, as they would all have to be adjusted to each seasons league averages, park factors etc. Instead, we’ve gone with “old reliableâ€, wins and losses. Wins should be squewed by deadball pitchers, but so should their losses.
Â
Â
The overall record of the above group is 641 – 464. Not too shabby. This equates to a winning percentage 58.4%. If a MLB team had the same winning percentage, they would have a record of roughly 95 wins & 67 losses, good enough for at least a wildcard, if not an outright division title.
Â
Â
So what do we take from this? Conclusions will certainly differ, but to me it boils down to yet another equation;
Â
Â
Good Control + Bad Intentions = Success
Â
Â
Readers, share your thoughts! (Early, don’t give away too much). Part three was originally going to be on feared pitchers of the past, but that will now get moved to part four. Why? Because after doing a bit of tinkering I found a way to use the existing EF equation in another equation that produced a group of pitchers that combined for, get this, a 928 – 575 record! All that plus more in part three!
Â
It is interesting to look at your list of David Bush, Pedro Martinez, Josh Towers, David Wells and Brad Radke. With the exception of Pedro, who is just a mean SOB, the rest of the players are soft tossing finesse pitchers. To survive in the MLB they need to have that inside corner or hitters will destro them. From that standpoint the EF stat seems to support that modus operandi.
What do you make of the high HOF ratio?
Just my intuition, but I think it has to do more with low BB totals than high HBP totals. The less guys they put on base the more they are going to be successful, and HOF don’t usually walk guys. I also wonder how many of those HBP are ordered by the manager, maybe it happened moreso in the old school days than today?