Blyleven vs. Palmer: The Sequel

I'm going to do something I shouldn't do--revisit something we beat into the ground a few days ago--and also something I said I wouldn't do, which is to quote a large chunk from Bill James's site. But as indicated earlier, I e-mailed him for his thoughts on the '73 Cy Young vote, and he's just now responded. I'll put it here so as not to derail the HOF thread any further. (I always sign my name to these questions, but I guess I forgot to that time.)

Bill -- Sorry to turn to you as a litigator of message-board arguments yet again. 1973 Cy Young vote...Briefly: a) slam-dunk for Blyleven over Palmer, or b) a case could be made for either. As you might guess, the argument arose out of Blyleven's HOF candidacy.
Asked by: Anonymous
Answered: January 2, 2011

It's a legitimate contest, and a case can be made for either; in fact, I kind of think I might vote for Palmer. They pitched a comparable number of innings (325 for Blyleven, 296 for Palmer), and Palmer had a better ERA (2.40 to 2.52). The Park Factor for Baltimore (Palmer) was actually HIGHER that year (111) than the park factor for Minnesota/Blyleven (108). Lee Sinins' Runs Saved Against Average shows Blyleven at +53 (53 runs better than an average pitcher), Palmer at +54.

The pro-Blyleven argument relies, then, on strikeouts and walks; Blyleven's K/W was 258 to 67, whereas Palmer's was a very unimpressive 158 to 113. Palmer's excellent ERA apparently derived in substantial measure from the superlative Baltimore defense, which had Gold Glove quality fielders at second (Grich), third (Brooks Robinson), short (Belanger) and in center field (Paul Blair). Blyleven's advocates can reasonably argue that the Runs Saved analysis credits to Palmer the good work of the fielders behind him.

Yes, that's true, and certainly...I'm sort of assuming people know this...Palmer had better offensive support. Blyleven was shackled with 2 runs or less in 16 starts. He had a 2.99 ERA in those starts, but was 4-12. Given 3 runs or more to work with he was 16-5, but that only adds up to 20-17.

Palmer, on the other hand, had "only" nine starts of 2 runs or less. He was 1-6 in those starts, but 21-3 with 3 runs or more, which makes 22-9.

Yes, that's true, but there are a couple of other points on Palmer's behalf. First, Palmer was charged with only 7 un-earned runs; Blyleven, with 18. There's another 11 runs for which Blyleven escapes all responsibility because of the vagaries of the un-earned run rule.

Second, if you look at the games that Palmer and Blyleven did have a chance to win...Bert Blyleven had 6 starts in which he had 3 runs of support. He gave up 20 runs in those six games (five of them un-earned), had a 3.00 ERA, and was just 1-4 in those six games. Palmer, in his six games with three runs of support, had a 1.80 ERA with no un-earned runs, and was 4-1. There's a three-game swing that can't be attributed to offensive support.

Both Blyleven and Palmer also had five starts with (exactly) six runs of support. Again, Palmer pitched better in those games. Palmer had a 2.00 ERA in those games, and his team won all five games; Blyleven had a 2.59 ERA, and his team lost one of those games (although Palmer was not charged with the defeat.)

Palmer limited opponents that year to a .199 batting average (.249 slugging percentage) with runners in scoring position. I'd be reluctant to assert that that was luck, in that Palmer's career batting average allowed with runners in scoring position was .213.

It seems to me that to say absolutely that Palmer was better than Blyleven relies heavily on the argument of strikeouts and walks--to the point of saying that other things don't count. I believe in strikeouts and walks, but not to the extent of saying that other things don't count. I think it's a legitimate contest.

I left everything as James wrote it--in the final paragraph, clearly he transposes the names of Palmer and Blyleven.

Alex and everyone else has made their case for Blyleven, so you don't have to make it again. Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes. But again, I was trying to make a simple point all along, one that I didn't think was outlandish, even viewed through the lens of 2010; that there was room for disagreement on who deserved the award.

shoulda been a poll

"It seems to me that to say absolutely that Palmer was better than Blyleven relies heavily on the argument of strikeouts and walks--to the point of saying that other things don't count."

I think James is basically ignoring the defensive component actually.

For what it's worth--it's confusing unless you make the change--that's the sentence where he transposes names; it should read, "It seems to me that to say absolutely that Blyleven was better than Palmer relies heavily on the argument of strikeouts and walks--to the point of saying that other things don't count." I think I said more or the less exactly the same thing at one point. And he doesn't ignore the defensive component; he specifically acknowledges it in his second paragraph. Anyway, we've had our say.

Yes he does acknowledge it there, but it plays no part in his analysis and he ignores it entirely in his conclusion. Also I should point out that most people don't place much weight in single year park factors (ERA+ uses multi-year park factors, I believe which is why Blyleven's ERA+ is better than Palmers.)

Fair enough, but...You're not going to concede an inch on this, are you? This reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall where Woody pulls out Marshall McLuhan to tell the guy in the line-up that the guy doesn't understand his theories. All the methods that you're using--they all basically go back to James, right? He more or less invented the tools you're using. (Not specifically--not BABIP, not FRRR, etc.--more in a general sense.) And he's arguing something several notches beyond what I was proposing--not simply that there's a case to be made for Palmer (me), but that he might even vote for Palmer if the vote were held today.

It seems to me that you want to argue back with McLuhan and tell him that no, it's you who don't understand your own theories.

I will readily concede that someone not blind to stats other than W-L can apparently find an argument for Palmer (I don't read Bill James these days so to me it's not like arguing with McLuhan it's more like arguing with the guy who taught McLuhan at college or something). I don't personally find it a terribly persuasive argument since I think (again) it heavily credits Palmer for the defensive performances of his teammates and penalizes Blyleven for the mediocre performance of his. Either way the 1973 Cy Young vote has had its day in the sun. Let's move on.

it's more like arguing with the guy who taught McLuhan at college or something

Funny! Anyway, agreed--truce.

Clemenza, you have a knack for getting James to take up your pet causes :)

I also think that James isn't factoring in defense properly. And like I said on the other thread, I think Palmer's K/BB ratio is misleading. There are a lot more strikeouts now than there were in the 70's (or during any other era in baseball). It was also pre-Tommy John surgery, before pitchers could blow out their arms and make a full comeback. If you look at the '73-'75 Cy Young votes, K/BB ratios between 1.5 and 2.0 are pretty much the norm, and the exceptions are guys like Catfish Hunter who was considered a great control pitcher at the time (although even his K/BB wouldn't look so special if he was pitching today). Plenty of pitchers posted great ERAs with K/BB ratios that we'd now consider awful.

After two or three days had passed, I didn't think he was going to take it up; it looks like he took some time to go over game logs.

It wasn't a pet cause. If Alex had posted something similar to his post above near the beginning of the whole discussion, I'm pretty sure it all would have ended quickly. But it seemed to keep escalating, and as I tried to make what I thought was a simple, reasonable point, I was accused of: a) essentially putting on a show, arguing for argument's sake because I was having such a good time, and b) not knowing anything about baseball. And between the two of those, the first upset me more than the second. Between being called disingenous--least of all by someone who doesn't know the first thing about me--and being called a dummy, I'd rather be called a dummy.

"It wasn't a pet cause."

Dude you started a thread about it?!?! And argued for half of another thread! And emailed two separate dudes to ask their opinions! I mean if this wasn't something you felt passionate about, I'd hate to see how worked up you get about your "real" causes. ;-)

Again, I was looking for an opinion outside of the bubble of this board--when you start to think "Am I crazy here?", it's human nature to look for someone who'll tell you you're not crazy. With the possible exception of NoTime, I wasn't getting that here.

In other words, it wasn't the issue itself I was passionate about; I've devoted surprisingly little time since 1973 thinking about that year's Cy Young vote. What I do feel passionate about is the idea that you can engage in debate without someone saying "You don't really understand baseball, do you?" or "You're just loving every minute of this, aren't you?"

You aren't exactly convincing me that you don't love every minute of this.

The debate, yes--as I've said more than once. The sniping, no. Not at all.

Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes.
Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes.
Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes.
Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes.
Am I gloating here? I won't lie--yes.

Gloating as it relates you? Yup--big time.

But you don't love the sniping? Maybe I'm crazy. I should email <<insert name of famous message board psychologist>>.

I think it's funny that now there is a debate about the debate about the debate. Oh ILB you are funny place, aren't you?

It is pretty meta at this stage. I think Dr. Phil handles message boards, by the way.

Ask Dr. Phil

:)

"Mr. Dellio--I don't understand #7. I need help."
"Leave me alone. I'm on ILB, arguing about whether or not I enjoyed arguing about an argument. Figure it out for yourself."

"The only parks I liked pitching are Yellowstone and Yosemite"
BB

Trust me, I'm not posting this as a knock on Blyleven. It's just interesting--information is interesting, right?

James posted an article last week called "Tough Games, and Not So Tough Games," where he categorized every game between 1953-2012 on a five-point scale for the starting pitcher. A road game against a post-season quality team was a "5"; a home game against weak opposition was a "1"; the rest fell somewhere in between.

In category 5 games--road start, tough opponent--Blyleven was "notably bad": 15-34, 4.63 ERA. (I'd supply more stats, but he only provided those two.) The toughest pitcher ever in such games, according to James, was Marichal: 29-9, 2.24.

In category 1 games--home start, weak opponent--some people who padded their stats: Drysdale (31-8, 1.97), Guidry (18-3, 1.99), Hershiser (25-9, 1.99), Mike Scott (19-5, 2.09), Koufax (24-7, 2.11...which were basically his overall stats for '63-66 anyway).

Obviously, those are all unadjusted numbers--5 of the 6 guys above pitched in either Dodger Stadium or the Astrodome.

Jack Morris: in 161 "tough" starts, his ERA was 4.14; in 184 "easy" starts, 3.64. You'd expect a lower ERA in the easy starts, but even accounting for that, I'm not sure I detect any special ability to pitch to the opponent the way he had mastered pitching to the score.

@BertBlyleven28
Maybe they meant 4:45? It is the best I have seen downtown Detroit though! Thank you low clouds! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCLGGsbWMAA6U2v.jpg

@BertBlyleven28
Guess I ruffled some feathers with my last tweet about download Detroit! Guess all you that responded haven't seen how ugly your downtown is

@BertBlyleven28
I apologize for my comments: the city of Detroit. It is an exciting time here led by the Ilitch family.