5 run pitcher. Identical twin that no one knows about.

My French teacher told us he had a pair of twins in his class. One would always do well on a test and on the next one the other would do well. He figured out how to tell them apart and the pattern changed.

]]>Ahh, I don't think I did that in my post #12, and obviously I should have.

]]>That data was based on league run distribution on the probability that a team would be above or below the runs given up by the pitcher in 2011

Actual win loss record of teams

0 runs 293-0 100%

2 runs 428-149 74%

3 runs 378-255 60%

5 runs 169-333 34%

Normalize to same number of games pitched.

The 0,5 pitcher wins 67%

The 2,3 pitcher wins 67%

The pitching team's batters R/G distribution is the same as the major league R/G distribution

We will throw out the 0, 2, 3 , 5 run games when necessary

In 2011 there were 4053 games where the team scored 1 run or more

SHO pitchers would be 4053-0 or 100%

In 2011 there were 3002 games where the team scored 3 runs or more and 767 where the scored 1 or less.

2 run pitchers would be 3002-767 or 80%.

In 2011 there were 2369 games where the team scored 4 runs or more and 1344 where they scored 2 runs or less.

3 run pitchers would be 2369-1344 or 63%

In 2011 there were 1260 games where the team scored 6 runs or more and 2584 where they scored 4 runs or less.

5 run pitchers would be 1260-2584 or 33%

So if the 0,5 run guy pitches 100 0-run games and 100 5-run games he would be expected to win 133 (66%)

So if the 2,3 run guy pitches 100 2-run games and 100 3-run games he would be expected to win 143 (72%)

The 2,3 pitcher has the edge.

]]>I chose your examples from #8. Team winning % in games allowing either 0 or 5 runs, or when allowing 2 or 3 runs.

............0 or 5....2 or 3

2011:...581......666

2010:...621......693

2009:...574......723

There is a clear advantage to consistency at this level. If you raise the average runs scored, I don't think it would be so clear. The results might also change somewhat if you filter for runs allowed only by the SP.

]]>Boston Daily Globe

Saturday Nov. 26, 1889

page 7

I saw this game June 24, 1990

Chicago 22, Brooklyn 3

1 earned run each team

Brooklyn had 20 errors

"Johnny Ward's folks played ball like harvest hands today. In the fourth inning the White Stockings piled on 13 runs , none earned".

]]>"... will a pitcher generate more win value by allowing 2 or 3 runs every time, or by alternating shutouts with 5-run games?" ]]>

[comparing Fister and Max Scherzer:] *"Although the chances of a poor start from Fister are slightly higher, the chances of a truly shutdown start are also higher. This is a trade the Tigers (or any team) should be more than willing to make -- a pitcher giving up zero runs will never lose, whereas the Tigers' offense could bail Fister out of a four-, five- or even six-run outing behind the powerful bats of Miguel Cabrera, Victor Martinez and crew."*

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6946849/mlb-doug-fister-become-reliable-no-2-starter-detroit-tigers

(sorry, it's an Insider piece; couldn't find a different location)

Could any of the math smarties out there point me towards understanding the truth (or not) of that claim? It's a question that's often raised, but I've not seen a definitive answer: In an average scoring context, will a pitcher generate more win value by allowing 2 or 3 runs every time, or alternate shutouts with 5-run games?

]]>You're right. But the funny part is "5 times in 4 years".

]]>