Eck (December 10, 2003)
Click on the discussion link, and go to top of page...
Of all the cases in the HOF, the most interesting is Dennis Eckersley. Not only because of the starter/reliever issue, but because he was at the forefront of the new usage pattern for relievers. Luckily, we have thanks to Retrosheet play-by-play from 1972 to 1992, so we can see how Eck was used.
Please note that I have recently updated my Leveraged Index (LI) numbers. However, I am still using the old ones for this piece. The aggregate numbers will probably be pretty close regardless.
Just to get his starter numbers out of the way, Eck's LI as a starter was 0.95, with 10,330 PAs.
Now, here are Eck's year-by-year LI, including the number of PAs:
Year PA LI
1975 63 1.62
1976 55 0.65
1986 4 0.78
1987 406 1.20
1988 279 1.76
1989 206 1.43
1990 262 1.45
1991 299 1.81
1992 309 1.52
Obviously, 1987 to 1992 is what we care about. If we remember back to last year, we know that Bruce Sutter's career LI was 1.90. Goose and Lee Smith were in the 1.7 range, and today's relievers (Mo, Hoffman) are also in the 1.7 to 1.8 range.
Eck's 1988 and 1991 are consistent with all that. But look at his 1989 and 1990.
Now, a word about LI. LI is a description of the level of fire being faced. What caused the high LI? Well, either your team put you in there (the previous pitcher, the batters, the fielders), or you put yourself into that fire. If you are having an incredible year, as Eck did in 1989 and 1990, then maybe his low LI is simply because he didn't put himself in those situations.
Let's look at 1988 and 1989. Those 2 seasons, the A's won over 100 games, and Eck had one of his best seasons in 1989, and yet his LI was far lower.
In 1988, Eck had 88 (out of 279) PAs where the LI was below 1. In 1989, it was 44 out of 206. That's 32% to 21%. So, at the very least, Eck was facing at least some pressure situations in 1989.
Looking at the typical setup LI levels (LI of 1.0 to 1.7), Eck had 52 in 1988 and 90 in 1989. That makes it 19% to 44%. Eck had ALOT of setup-type situations he was finding himself in, in 1989.
And finally, in those crucial situations, he had 139 in 1988 and 72 in 1989, or 50% to 35%.
Let's look at just his 9th inning performance. 63% of his PAs came in the 9th inning in 1988 and 79% in 1989 in the 9th. Limit that to a 0,1, or 2 run lead in the 9th, and his 1988 PAs were 37% and 50% in 1989.
In 1989, he had only six PAs in extra innings, while in 1988 he had 37. If we remove extra innings from the discussion, his LI was 1.67 in 1988, and 1.42 in 1989.
Looking only at 9th inning PAs with 0 outs and bases empty (essentially, the top of the inning), Eck's LI was 1.63 in 1988 and 1.51 in 1989.
Eck may have been the victim of his own success, but not that much, in 1989.
Let's even just give him a blanket LI for all his relief work at 2.0, thereby adding 800 relief innings to his total, giving him about 4100 innings, with an extra 260 ER, or a leveraged ERA of 3.38. Eck had a string of 6 great years as a reliever, but he managed to pad his save totals with an extra 141 saves with league average performance from 1993 onwards.
Goose Gossage has 1809 real innings, and therefore, Eck beats him on leveraged innings.
Goose, Eck. They're both very, very close.
--posted by TangoTiger at 05:22 PM EDT
Posted 5:52 p.m.,
December 12, 2003
(#1) -
bob mong(e-mail)
(homepage)
This is interesting stuff. I think Ecks case for the HOF is kinda borderline, myself (and I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority among stat-head evaluators).
Here's how I see it: He was a decent starter. Approximately a 151-128 (.541) record as a starter*, with a 3.67 ERA (111 ERA+), with about 1600 strikeouts, 600 walks, 268 HR, and 2400 hits in about 2500 IP. Those don't strike me as HOF numbers, to tell you the truth. Nolan Ryan got in the HOF with approximately the same ERA+ and a worse W/L %, but he also won 300 games, struck out 5700 batters, and pitched over twice as many innings. Ecks starting numbers are basically the same as Jamie Moyer's career numbers.
As a reliever...well, Tango covered that somewhat above. I won't go into my whole argument right now; I'll just say: Eck, as a reliever, had 4 superlative seasons (1988, 1989, 1990, 1992), 3 very good seasons (1987, 1991, 1996), and four average seasons (1993, 1994, 1997, 1998), and one bad season (1995). That relieving career, taken by itself, doesn't strike me as a HOF career either - a little short, maybe, with too many mediocre years in there. Bruce Sutter has a similar career (eight very good or superlative years and 4 bad years), though he averaged 100 IP/season in his good years while Eck averaged 77 IP/season In any case, Sutter isn't in the HOF (though his case is certainly much, much better than Jamie Moyer's).
To me, then, his career as a starter, taken by itself, doesn't merit inclusion in the HOF and his career as a reliever, taken by itself, barely merits inclusion in the HOF, if it does at all.
So, the question is: Do two careers that, by themselves, fall short of the HOF, equal one single HOF career when crammed into one career?
I haven't yet figured out an answer to that question - so I don't know yet whether I think Eck should be in the HOF or not. Right now I am leaning towards exclusion, but its hard to get a handle on the worth of relievers (LI helps, though :)
*For these stats, I treated his pre-1987 career as exclusively a starter and his post-1986 career as exclusively a reliever.
Posted 9:15 p.m.,
December 12, 2003
(#2) -
studes
(homepage)
Bob, I would think that they very clearly do. Those were not two separate players you're talking about -- they're one guy. Think of it in terms of Win Shares, or something like that. What was the total value that he created, over his entire career? I personally wouldn't think of his splits as two separate players.
I'm not arguing that he belongs in the Hall -- he seems right on the borderline to me -- but I wouldn't undervalue his total worth by bifurcating his accomplishments in two.