Relievers Leverage for the Hall of Fame

Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, Goose Gossage and Win Expectancy

By Tangotiger

I recently introduced Crucial Situations. Based on the various game state (inning, score, men on base, and outs), we can determine the chances of winning at any point in the game. We can also determine how much swing (leverage) those situations present. The close and late situations are high-leverage.

Relief pitchers are a different breed because managers can pick and choose the situations they face. And, the better the pitcher, the more likely this pitcher will be pitching in crucial situations, and the more impact he will have to winning (or losing) the game. But how much more?

Bruce Sutter

Bruce Sutter faced 4,251 batters. I looked at each PA, one at a time, and determined how much leverage each PA had (based on my chart). For example, a typical situation has a leverage of "1". One of the most crucial situations of all (bottom of the 9th, ahead by 1, men on second and third, and 1 out) has a leverage over "10". That is, the result of that PA, because of the game state, is magnified 10 times (like having 10 typical PAs all rolled into one).

Bruce Sutter's Leverage Index (LI) was 1.90. That is, Sutter facing 500 batters is the equivalent of a typical pitcher facing 950 batters. Here are Bruce Sutter's career stats, along with the "leveraged" line, with all his numbers multiplied by 1.9. 


Pitcher               IP       H     ER     HR     BB      SO
Bruce Sutter        1042     879    328     77    309     861
Leveraged           1980    1670    623    146    587    1636

I have my own similarity scores for pitchers (adjusted for league run environment, but not for park), and I looked for the most similar pitchers born since 1940, to fit this leveraged profile.

Note: All rate stats are per 9 IP. "xH" is non-HR hits. 


Pitcher                IP       ER       xH       HR       BB       SO
Lvrg. Sutter          1980     2.8      6.9      0.7      2.7      7.4

Mike Scott            2069     3.5      7.3      0.8      2.7      6.4 
Ron Guidry            2392     3.3      7.4      0.9      2.4      6.7 
A. Messersmith        2230     2.9      6.2      0.7      3.4      6.6 
Jose Rijo             1803     3.2      7.4      0.7      3.2      7.8

Bruce Sutter is one of those very good pitchers, with a few great years, but whose career was just not long enough.

Goose Gossage

Goose's LI is only 1.62. Remember, his games as a starter reduces his overall leverage index, but increases the total number of innings. Going through the same exercise, here are Goose's leveraged stats, and his most similar comps 


Pitcher               IP       ER       xH       HR       BB       SO
Lvrg. Gossage        2931     3.0      6.9      0.6      3.6      7.5 

David Cone           2881     3.4      7.0      0.8      3.5      8.3 
Mark Langston        2963     4.0      7.3      0.9      3.9      7.5 
Dwight Gooden        2801     3.5      7.6      0.7      3.1      7.4 
Fernando V.          2930     3.5      7.7      0.7      3.5      6.4

Well, Goose certainly looks a bit better that Bruce Sutter. The way you feel about Dwight Gooden, Fernando Valenzuela, and David Cone, will lead your decision as to whether Goose Gossage should go to the Hall Of Fame.

Lee Smith

Unfortunately, I only have access to Smith's play-by-play records until 1990. His LI until then was 1.73, and this will be the figure I will use. 


Pitcher                IP       ER       xH       HR       BB       SO
Lvrg. Smith           2230     3.0      7.3      0.6      3.4      8.7 

Jose Rijo             1803     3.2      7.4      0.7      3.2      7.8 
David Cone            2881     3.4      7.0      0.8      3.5      8.3 
Bill Singer           2174     3.4      7.5      0.5      3.2      6.3 
A. Messersmith        2230     2.9      6.2      0.7      3.4      6.6

Looks like a combination of players from Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage! I don't see Lee Smith's credentials being that strong.

Other Considertations

While I have covered the aspect of leverage, there is also the aspect of timeliness of performance. That is, is it possible that Goose Gossage performed better in the high-leverage situations, and worse in the low-leverage situations? That would be the topic of another study, similar to the Mills Brothers' Player Win Averages (and their offshoots like Doug Drinen's Win Probability Added, etc). Of course, maybe Gossage's comps have also showed the same proclivities.

Conclusion

The save statistic is perhaps one of the most poorly used statistic in trying to determine the value of a player. We should look beyond the save total to determine a player's true value. Once we get the save numbers out of our mind, we are left with 3 very good pitchers, whose contributions were limited by the innings they threw. The impact of an 80-inning reliever is no more than that of a 160-inning starter. And that's how we should view them.

Acknowledgements

As always, this research would not have been possible without the event files that have been compiled by Retrosheet. The effort in producing this research was made far easier using Ray Kerby's A.S.S. software.