This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

The 20 most productive pitchers of 2010

Posted by Andy on March 25, 2011

Following on to my list of the 20 most productive hitters of 2010, here's a list of the 20 most productive pitchers.

First, here are the 20 pitchers with the highest ratios of WAR to IP (minimum 30 IP):

Rk Player WAR IP Year Age Tm G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% SV H R ER BB SO ERA ERA+ OPS+
1 Josh Johnson 6.4 183.2 2010 26 FLA 28 28 1 0 0 11 6 .647 0 155 51 47 48 186 2.30 182 64
2 Joakim Soria 3.8 65.2 2010 26 KCR 66 0 0 0 56 1 2 .333 43 53 13 13 16 71 1.78 236 55
3 Brian Wilson 3.3 74.2 2010 28 SFG 70 0 0 0 59 3 3 .500 48 62 16 15 26 93 1.81 226 65
4 Daniel Bard 3.3 74.2 2010 25 BOS 73 0 0 0 12 1 2 .333 3 45 18 16 30 76 1.93 227 44
5 Carlos Marmol 3.0 77.2 2010 27 CHC 77 0 0 0 70 2 3 .400 38 40 23 22 52 138 2.55 171 38
6 Mariano Rivera 3.0 60.0 2010 40 NYY 61 0 0 0 55 3 3 .500 33 39 14 12 11 45 1.80 238 33
7 Hong-Chih Kuo 2.9 60.0 2010 28 LAD 56 0 0 0 16 3 2 .600 12 29 8 8 18 73 1.20 321 15
8 Billy Wagner 2.7 69.1 2010 38 ATL 71 0 0 0 64 7 2 .778 37 38 14 11 22 104 1.43 275 38
9 Chris Perez 2.7 63.0 2010 24 CLE 63 0 0 0 37 2 2 .500 23 40 15 12 28 61 1.71 226 63
10 Rafael Soriano 2.6 62.1 2010 30 TBR 64 0 0 0 56 3 2 .600 45 36 14 12 14 57 1.73 228 40
11 Andrew Bailey 2.5 49.0 2010 26 OAK 47 0 0 0 42 1 3 .250 25 34 8 8 13 42 1.47 284 48
12 Heath Bell 2.5 70.0 2010 32 SDP 67 0 0 0 57 6 1 .857 47 56 17 15 28 86 1.93 191 69
13 Neftali Feliz 2.4 69.1 2010 22 TEX 70 0 0 0 59 4 3 .571 40 43 21 21 18 71 2.73 159 38
14 Joaquin Benoit 2.4 60.1 2010 32 TBR 63 0 0 0 16 1 2 .333 1 30 10 9 11 75 1.34 295 25
15 Mike Adams 2.3 66.2 2010 31 SDP 70 0 0 0 3 4 1 .800 0 48 14 13 23 73 1.75 210 53
16 Matt Thornton 2.2 60.2 2010 33 CHW 61 0 0 0 13 5 4 .556 8 41 18 18 20 81 2.67 164 47
17 Francisco Rodriguez 2.1 57.1 2010 28 NYM 53 0 0 0 46 4 2 .667 25 45 14 14 21 67 2.20 179 68
18 Darren O'Day 2.1 62.0 2010 27 TEX 72 0 0 0 14 6 2 .750 0 43 15 14 12 45 2.03 213 46
19 Alexi Ogando 1.7 41.2 2010 26 TEX 44 0 0 0 12 4 1 .800 0 31 6 6 16 39 1.30 335 49
20 Joe Thatcher 1.2 35.0 2010 28 SDP 65 0 0 0 12 1 0 1.000 0 23 5 5 7 45 1.29 288 34
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 3/24/2011.

These guys all have WAR at least 3.3% of their IP total. You notice right away that it's supremely closer heavy, with more than half the list racking up at least 20 saves.

Similarly to how WPA tends to overvalue closers, it seems that WAR might as well.

How about if we raise the innings limit to 100, thereby picking up mainly guys who were full-time starters?

Here's the same list, minimum 100 IP, for guys with WAR at least 2.15% of their IP total:

Rk Player WAR IP Year Age Tm G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% SV H R ER BB SO ERA ERA+ OPS+
1 Ubaldo Jimenez 7.1 221.2 2010 26 COL 33 33 4 2 0 19 8 .704 0 164 73 71 92 214 2.88 161 60
2 Roy Halladay 6.9 250.2 2010 33 PHI 33 33 9 4 0 21 10 .677 0 231 74 68 30 219 2.44 165 76
3 Josh Johnson 6.4 183.2 2010 26 FLA 28 28 1 0 0 11 6 .647 0 155 51 47 48 186 2.30 182 64
4 Felix Hernandez 6.0 249.2 2010 24 SEA 34 34 6 1 0 13 12 .520 0 194 80 63 70 232 2.27 174 65
5 Adam Wainwright 5.7 230.1 2010 28 STL 33 33 5 2 0 20 11 .645 0 186 68 62 56 213 2.42 161 68
6 Tim Hudson 5.4 228.2 2010 34 ATL 34 34 1 0 0 17 9 .654 0 189 74 72 74 139 2.83 138 79
7 Clay Buchholz 5.4 173.2 2010 25 BOS 28 28 1 1 0 17 7 .708 0 142 55 45 67 120 2.33 187 64
8 CC Sabathia 5.4 237.2 2010 29 NYY 34 34 2 0 0 21 7 .750 0 209 92 84 74 197 3.18 134 75
9 Jered Weaver 5.4 224.1 2010 27 LAA 34 34 0 0 0 13 12 .520 0 187 83 75 54 233 3.01 135 70
10 David Price 5.3 208.2 2010 24 TBR 32 31 2 1 0 19 6 .760 0 170 71 63 79 188 2.72 145 77
11 Roy Oswalt 5.1 211.2 2010 32 TOT 33 32 2 2 0 13 13 .500 0 162 70 65 55 193 2.76 143 71
12 Jon Lester 5.0 208.0 2010 26 BOS 32 32 2 0 0 19 9 .679 0 167 81 75 83 225 3.25 134 68
13 John Danks 4.9 213.0 2010 25 CHW 32 32 1 1 0 15 11 .577 0 189 93 88 70 162 3.72 117 75
14 Cole Hamels 4.7 208.2 2010 26 PHI 33 33 1 0 0 12 11 .522 0 185 74 71 61 211 3.06 132 90
15 Francisco Liriano 4.6 191.2 2010 26 MIN 31 31 0 0 0 14 10 .583 0 184 77 77 58 201 3.62 115 82
16 C.J. Wilson 4.6 204.0 2010 29 TEX 33 33 3 0 0 15 8 .652 0 161 83 76 93 170 3.35 129 68
17 Clayton Kershaw 4.4 204.1 2010 22 LAD 32 32 1 1 0 13 10 .565 0 160 73 66 81 212 2.91 132 74
18 Johan Santana 4.4 199.0 2010 31 NYM 29 29 4 2 0 11 9 .550 0 179 67 66 55 144 2.98 131 81
19 Brian Duensing 3.7 130.2 2010 27 MIN 53 13 1 1 11 10 3 .769 0 122 42 38 35 78 2.62 159 80
20 Andy Pettitte 3.1 129.0 2010 38 NYY 21 21 0 0 0 11 3 .786 0 123 52 47 41 101 3.28 130 86
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 3/24/2011.

That's more like it. Both Cy Young winners, for one.

Hey, here's some news: the Phillies have some good starters. They've got 3 guys on here, and still have Cliff Lee to boot...

Related posts:

    The 20 most productive players of 2010
    2010 Productive But Not Full-Time Batters
    Very productive run-producers
    Productive Gardening
    Very productive despite batting under .200

This entry was posted on Friday, March 25th, 2011 at 7:01 am and is filed under Season Finders. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

19 Responses to “The 20 most productive pitchers of 2010”

  1. barkie Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Great lists! I've heard lots of people- myself included- talk about how WAR really lacks punch when it comes to relievers. Adjusting for innings really changes that!

    Andy, on the second list, what about WAR/starts instead of innings? The range of those with 33 starts went from 204 innings to 250. I really think there's something to a starter that can chew up good innings.

  2. John Q Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Johan Santana had a terrific year that no one talked about. He ranked tied for 9th in WAR in the National League last year but only won 11 games because of unbelievably lousy run support. Santana ranked 64th/64th in run support in the N.L. with only 2.9 runs per game.

    Cole Hamels is another pitcher that had a great season who flew under the radar last year. He finished 7th in WAR in the N.L. but only won 12 games because of lousy run support. Hamels ranked 54/63 in run support getting only 3.7 per game.

  3. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Can someone explain briefly why Jimenez had more WAR than Halladay (7.1 to 6.9), even though the Doc had 29 more innings with a better ERA+?

    The short explanation of WAR on B-R notes that "This value includes defensive support and includes additional value for high-leverage situations." So I guess the reason I'm looking for must lie therein. I'm just having a hard time getting my head around it. The WPA and WPA/LI numbers both favor Halladay.

  4. Andy Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 10:27 am

    JA my first thought is ballpark factors, but I have no idea if that's right.

    Paging Johnny Twisto...

  5. Jimbo Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Pitching in Colorado.....

  6. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:03 am

    @4-5 -- The park factor would be covered in the ERA+, no? Halladay had a big edge in raw ERA (2.44 to 2.88), but a small one in ERA+ (165-161) due to Jimenez pitching in a tougher home park.

  7. topper009 Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:24 am

    ERA+ accounts for park factors but not defense and scoring decisions. WAR tries to account for those 2 factors by only using total runs allowed and then adjusting for defense. Obviously if 2 pitchers are similar and 1 has Ozzie Smith at SS and the other has Adam Dunn, Ozzie's pitcher will have a lower ERA. Also, it does not allow 2 out HRs after an error to go unaccounted for.

    You just need to pay attention to the Rrep number which is the amount of runs a replacement pitcher would allow over the same number of innings with the same defense and park behind him. This number includes Rdef which is the run support from your defense, Hallday had 4 Rdef and Jimenez only had 2, so Halladay had a better defense behind him.

    For Jimenez Rrep = 144 runs in 221.2 IP, and he allowed 73 total (earned + unearned) runs so he saved 71 runs.

    For Halladay Rrep = 141 runs in 250.2 IP, and he allowed 74 total runs so he saved only 67 runs.

  8. Andy Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 am

    OMG I am going to spend the rest of the day trying to wipe the image from my brain of Adam Dunn playing shortstop.

  9. topper009 Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Another thing that has always bothered me was that pitchers get a boost based on their leverage index but as far as I can tell hitters do not. I'm not sure what the logic was for this but part of me thinks it only exists to try to show Mariano Rivera is the greatest pitcher of all time. I mean if he gets extra credit for saving runs when it is late and close then why doesn't a hitter get extra credit for a 2 run single walk off single, which is obviously worth more than .5 runs.

  10. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Topper, thanks for the concise explanation @7.

    BTW, I was not expressing disappointment that Jimenez had more WAR than Halladay, just puzzlement. I think that Jimenez's proven ability to succeed in Coors Field is one of the most impressive skills in the game today.

    In 358 career IP at Coors, Jimenez has a 3.34 ERA and 0.6 HR/9. In just 3-1/2 seasons, he is already #2 in career Quality Starts in Coors Field, with 39 QS out of 55 home starts (71% QS). The leader, Aaron Cook, has 54 QS out 95 Coors starts (57%).

  11. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Topper @9 -- I'm not clear on how leverage index plays into WAR nor whether it's given more weight for pitchers than for hitters, as you suggest. But even if it were weighted equally for both, wouldn't closers still tend to get more benefit from it in proportion to total appearances, since they only appear in the late innings, and often when the game is close?

  12. topper009 Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    I think for pitchers it takes the number of runs below replacement and multiplies by (LI + 1)/2 and then calculates WAR based on that number of runs.

    For example, last season Andy Pettitte saved 29 runs with a LI of 1.0 and got 3.1 WAR.
    Mariano Rivera saved only 19 runs with a LI of 2.2 but got 3.0 WAR. I think according to WAR Rivera actually saved 19*1.6 = 30 runs which got him the 3 WAR. The conversions are not exact because they didnt pitch in the same stadiums the same number of times etc.

    I have never seen anything like this attempted for batters, like maybe guys who pinch hit a lot may see a boost.

  13. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Andy noted that the original list is closer-heavy, which is true. But what really strikes me is the number of setup relievers (including Kuo and Thornton, who got some saves but worked mostly in setup).

    In particular, note the parallels between setup man Daniel Bard and closer Brian Wilson:
    -- Both worked 74.2 IP with virtually the same ERA+.
    -- Bard worked mainly in the 8th inning (61% of his IP), while Wilson worked mostly the 9th (71%). Yet...
    -- Both earned 3.3 WAR.

    One big difference is that Bard inherited half again as many runners as Wilson (46 to 30); on the other hand, Wilson was more effective at stranding those runners (13% scored vs. 30% for Bard).

  14. topper009 Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    @13 that is because the leverage index can often be just as high in the 8th as the 9th. The Book talks a lot about this and concludes it is best use your relief ace (closer) in the 8th or 9th depending on the LI instead of just always the 9th. So if these setup men pitch with high LIs then their WAR really gets huge.

  15. Andy Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Stepping away from the stats of it, there's no doubt that Bard was used primarily in higher pressure situations. He was occasionally brought in in the 7th with runners on in a close game, and he also filled in for Papelbon some.

  16. John Autin Says:
    March 25th, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Topper @14 -- Yeah, I'm a longtime proponent of that strategy. I was just pointing out that the effect can actually be measured.

  17. John Autin Says:
    March 26th, 2011 at 2:22 am

    I know it's meaningless, but it still seems odd that none of the "20 Most Productive Hitters" and none of the "20 Most Productive Pitchers" (100-IP version) played for the World Champions. I suspect that is unusual; on the other hand, the 2009 champs had only 1 player on either top-20 list (Jeter).

  18. Frank Clingenpeel Says:
    March 26th, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Anyone else norice that these lists are -- as usual -- completely devoid of representatives from Cincinnati? I wonder why a pitcher has so much trouble here...

  19. Michael E Sullivan Says:
    March 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    @Many: WAR is not affected by leverage. The reason closers (and other short relievers) have a higher WAR/IP than starters is the same reason that all their other rate stats look better. Their lighter usage makes them harder to study, and makes it easier for them to bring full on heat on their power pitches. Starters must pace themselves more. Closers always have better ERA+ on average than starters, and they will have better WAR/IP also.

    Unfortunately, there is really no good way to compare closers with starters without making some assumptions.

«
»