Comments on: All-time Cardinals-Rangers team This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Lawrence Azrin Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:08:14 +0000 @55/ John -
John, one small correction - Chesbro did indeed win more than 25 games in a year besides 1904, he had (a league-leading) 28 wins in 1902. Your overall point is valid, though; he had a short career, and wasn't a truly dominant pitcher except in 1904.

Deacon Phillipe, Sam Leever, and Jesse Tannehill were three other excellent Pirates pitchers of the era, along with Chesbro (and Babe Adams). Those four have very similar career records to each other, and indeed show up in each other's Top-10 Most Similar lists. Even WAR rates them as very close (Leever - 40.3; others - 32 to 33). So why is Chesbro in the HOF, while the others got a handful of votes (peak of 0.8%)?

Obviously, it was 1904; the 41 W-12 L, 48 CG in 51 starts, and 454 IP, are easy selling points. Useless factoids: in 1904, his 1.82 ERA was fourth, and his 6 shutouts were 6th (!). He led the AL in most of the other positive stuff, though.

By: John Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:09:21 +0000 LOL... thanks, Kahuna. I looked right at one name, and typed another.

Although I suppose, now, that "far worthier" is pushing it. While Plank is indeed a much better pitcher than Chesbro, Walsh and Chesbro are more similar in terms of career accomplishment.

By: Kahuna Tuna Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:05:28 +0000 Also, Eddie Plank -- a far worthier pitcher -- turned in a 40-win season just four years later.

John (which I feel totally comfortable calling you), I think you mean Ed Walsh. Plank never won more than 26 games in a season.

By: Kahuna Tuna Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:01:29 +0000 John @10: should it be Mr. Tuna, since I don't know you?

This made me laugh. Since we've seen each other's avatar, I think we're on a first-name basis. That work for you? (-;þ

[*channels Crush the Sea Turtle*] "Dude, Mr. Tuna was my father." (You dads know what I'm talking about.)

By: John Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:50:07 +0000 And Chesbro, let's admit, was greviously overrated, because his 40-win season happened to fall on the near side of the turn-of-the-century. He never won so much as 25 games before or after his career year, and his career was pretty short.

I remember Bill James writing (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it's not as if the media ran around screaming, "Dear Lord: Chesbro won 40 games!" Big-league baseball hadn't seen a 40-win season in 13 years, but during the previous stretch of multiple big leagues (NL/AA/UA, from 1882-1891), there was at least one 40-game winner every year. (I know this is ancient baseball history, but when Chesbro won his 40, it was still pretty recent.)

Also, Eddie Plank -- a far worthier pitcher -- turned in a 40-win season just four years later.

By: Lawrence Azrin Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:40:43 +0000 @49/ John Autin -
Reviewing the the best Cardinals pitchers in franchise history, I was struck by the lack of all-time great pitchers who played the majority of their careers with the team.

There's Gibson and Dean, of course, and Carlton is an all-time great, but his best years and the bulk of his career was with the Phillies, as did Pete Alexander. For a team that been around nearly 130 years, that's not much. Kid Nichols is an all-time great, but had only one (excellent) year with the Cardinals.

Jess Haines is in the HOF and spent most of his career w/the Cards, but he is considered one the worst HOF picks (still an excellent pitcher though). Sutter is in the HOF, but only had four years w/the Cards. Harry Breechen, Bob Forsch, Joquin Andujar, all had excellent years with the Cardinals, but are a ways from all-time greats. Maybe Carpenter or Wainwright will reach that level, but it seems doubtful.

It is just kind of odd, similar to the Pirates' lack of truly great pitchers. There's only one Pirates HOF pitcher (Jack Chesboro) and a whole lot of good-to-excellent: Phillipe, Leever, Tannehill, Adams, Cooper, Law, Face, Friend, Veal, and Drabeck.

By: pauley Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:23:30 +0000 46- John, I can sympathize with you trying to strengthen the Red Sox, I probably tried to do the same with the A's to make them competitive with the Yanks, although they have better pitching to begin with. My teams were based on career numbers and each team had 'right of first refusal' for the players, so when I first made the teams A-Rod was a Mariner, now he'd be a Yankee.

By: Spindlebrook Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:22:55 +0000 Most obscure Cardinal/Ranger - Scarborough Green maybe?

By: Dukeofflatbush Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:39:41 +0000 Ahh, Ken, I see you beat me to the punch.
The whole story, for some reason, made me look up Latrell Sprewell.
If there ever was a more demeaning position than Schuerholz signing Smith’s checks, it has to have been when PJ Carlisemo’s Warriors lost to Sprewell’s Knicks twice in December, just a week before he was fired.

By: John Autin Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:30:58 +0000 Bruce Sutter vs. Todd Worrell with the Cardinals:

IP -- Worrell 426, Sutter 397
ERA -- Worrell 2.56, Sutter 2.72
ERA+ -- Worrell 145, Sutter 132
Saves -- 127 each
SO/9 -- Worrell 7.7, Sutter 5.9
W-L -- Worrell 33-33, Sutter 26-30
WAR -- Worrell 10.1, Sutter 7.6
-- Peak seasons: Sutter 4.7 and 1.9, Worrell 3.3 and 2.9 (Sutter wins this, but his biggest year was '84, when the Cards were not serious contenders)

Worrell 2.01 ERA in 22.1 IP, 14 games, 4/5 in save tries, 1-1 record (the loss was the BS, also was the "Denkinger game")
Sutter 3.00 ERA in 12 IP, 6 games, 3/3 in save tries, 2-0 record

It's often forgotten that Sutter had 1 bad year out of 4 with the Cards -- in 1983, he had a 4.23 ERA with 21 saves, 9 blown saves and a 9-10 record. Worrell never had a bad year for the Cards.

I can see why some would take Sutter, but for me it's Worrell.