Can Of Corn: ERA DIPpi... (07/14)
the archives are now free.
0 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
July 14, 2004 Are Knuckleballers Easy to Relieve?...And Other Pressing Issues of Our Time
Today we dip into the mailbag to cover a number of topics related to recent columns. First, a question stemming from the article on starters' support from relievers: I noticed Phil Niekro and Steve Sparks are both on the list of most-helped starters. I would hypothesize that knuckleballing starters are 'easier' to help out than their straight-throwing brethren because of the extreme difference in speed/movement between a knuckler and a typical reliever's mid-90 mph heat. What do you think? --S.S. (no, not Steve Sparks) Good theory. Many other readers were wondering the same thing, and sure enough...
Ex. Act. Runs
Pitcher Rnrs IR IR Saved
----------------------------------------
Phil Niekro 366 139.6 112 27.6
Steve Sparks 105 36.3 19 17.3
Wilbur Wood 213 83.2 72 11.2
Charlie Hough 316 110.8 102 8.8
Dennis Springer 73 30.5 27 3.5
Tim Wakefield 145 57.0 56 1.0
Tom Candiotti 208 75.8 76 -0.2
Joe Niekro 370 130.6 133 -2.4
----------------------------------------
TOTAL 1796 663.8 597 66.8
Four knuckleballers got good or great bullpen support, the other four are essentially average, and the bottom two guys on the list (Tom Candiotti and Joe Niekro) are also the least knuckleball-ish. Eight pitchers aren't enough to prove anything definitively, especially when the effect is so small to begin with. But based on the evidence we have, it looks like there's something to the relieving-a-knuckleballer-is-easier theory. Next, a letter about bad bullpens: I am shocked that no Royals team of the last five-six years made the list of all-time bad bullpens. These guys fight fire with jet fuel. I suspect if you looked for the worst bullpen over five consecutive years my boys would win hands down. --D.C. I feel your pain. When you're watching your team's relievers self-destruct night after night, it's hard to believe that anyone's ever been worse. But rest assured, there have been plenty of fans who have suffered more from their bullpens than you've suffered at the hands of the Royals. Here are the worst five-year stretches for bullpens, by Runs Prevented: Team Years RP ----------------------------------------- Philadelphia Phillies 1926-1930 -292 San Diego Padres 1973-1977 -234 St. Louis Browns 1936-1940 -230 Philadelphia Athletics 1938-1942 -228 Philadelphia Phillies 1938-1942 -228 New York Mets 1962-1966 -227 St. Louis Browns 1947-1951 -222 Houston Astros 1965-1969 -207 Washington Senators 1954-1958 -205 Washington Senators 1946-1950 -193 Philadelphians had to suffer through several long periods of bullpen ineptitude in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, both from the Phillies and the A's. Even in recent years, Royals fans haven't endured nearly as much as Tigers fans, who've had awful bullpens most years since 1991. If it makes you feel any better, 1999 to 2003 is the worst five-year stretch for any Royals bullpen. Here are the best five-year stretches: Team Years RP ----------------------------------------- Anaheim Angels 1999-2003 270 New York Yankees 1996-2000 193 Oakland Athletics 1988-1992 172 Chicago White Sox 1964-1968 171 Cleveland Indians 1992-1996 169 Atlanta Braves 1998-2002 169 Cincinnati Reds 1986-1990 164 Minnesota Twins 1999-2003 163 Colorado Rockies 1997-2001 161 Texas Rangers 1995-1999 155 The recent Angels show up as having by far the best bullpen of all-time. That's pretty impressive since the bullpen has turned over completely in the past five years, from the Al Levine/Mike Magnante pen of 1999 to the Brendan Donnelly/Francisco Rodriguez pen of 2003. Next, a question stemming from the California League articles, part 1 and part 2: I'm having a debate on a message board about if Nelson Cruz is a legit prospect. He leads the league in average and has an OPS over 1.000, but is almost 23 (or 24 depending where you check), strikes out too much and doesn't walk enough. Any thoughts after seeing him? --B.D. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to see Cruz during his short stint in High-A ball. After murdering California League pitching to the tune of .345/.407/.582 and a .325 EqA--he's still on Clay Davenport's California League leader board--he was promoted to Double-A Midland. It's hard to completely dismiss Cruz as a prospect, despite some red flags. Besides the California League line I mentioned, there are other positive bullets on his resume:
However, those bullets looked a lot better when I thought he had just turned 23. And why not think that? He's listed as having a July 1, 1981 birthday by both the Oakland A's media guide and (until the recent promotion) the Modesto A's Web site. But Brian VanderBeek of the Modesto Bee confirms that it's been known for a couple of years that Cruz's birthday is actually a year earlier, making him 24. That year makes a pretty big difference for a guy in the California League. And, for what it's worth, he's gotten off to a slow start in the Texas League: .194/.275/.371 in 62 AB The bottom line: You can't completely ignore a guy with that kind of power, but at his age, he has a lot to prove at the higher levels, and not a lot of time to prove it. Finally, a question about an unusual pitching accomplishment by this year's Mets: I have a Mets blog where I noted that, going into Friday's games, the Mets had the lowest ERA in the league while also getting the fewest strikeouts. They've succeeded by giving up singles only. My question is whether any team has ever finished a season first in ERA and last in strikeouts. --A.M. Believe it or not, it's been accomplished three times since 1900, the last time by the 1956 Milwaukee Braves. The Braves were led by Warren Spahn and Lew Burdette, neither of whom was a great strikeout pitcher. In fact, all their ERA-title-qualifying pitchers that year finished in the bottom half of the league in strikeout rate. The other two teams to accomplish the feat were the 1937 Boston Braves and the 1908 Cleveland Indians.
|
