Did I bring Babe Ruth into a discussion about Billingham?Originally Posted by RiverfrontRed
Did I bring Babe Ruth into a discussion about Billingham?
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
This has been bugging me.
You have two pitchers on the same team. They pitched in the same number of games, same number of starts. One pitched 18 more innings and has better numbers across the board, including fewer losses. The difference is wins. Pitcher wins, not team wins.
In games where Kirby got no decision and he started the game, the Red won 6 times and tied once. That happens. One of those wins was after he pitched 10 innings and gave up 1 unearned run. The Reds had a loss like that too where Kirby pitched 9 innings of shutout baseball. In Billingham no decisions the Reds won 4 times.
Here is the Billingham game log from 74. https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...&t=p&year=1974 I'm not romanticizing the BRM's ability to put up runs, because EVERYONE knows they could. It just happened that when Billingham pitched, they put up a lot of runs. One of Billingham's W's was in relief, his lone relief appearance. In Kirby's relief appearance, the Reds won, and he pitched in the 8th and 9th, but the Reds won in 10. Kirby also pitched a 5 inning CG that ended in a tie. https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...&t=p&year=1974
In 74 when Billingham pitched, the Reds were 23-13. When Kirby pitched 19-16-1 despite Kirby only having been awarded 9 losses.
Billingham got a few favorable decisions simply because the score was pretty lopsided in a bunch of his W's and he vultured a win. As SP he was 18-11, not 19-11.
If anyone is being romanticized, it's Billingham. Anyone making a comparison to today's pitchers simply because of IP is ignoring the context of pitcher use by managers, then and now. If Chase Burns, for example, had all his today ability but pitched then, he'd be Nolan Ryan. And he'd be expected to throw that many innings.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Ron Madden (04-17-2026),shaggy (04-17-2026),Tony Cloninger (04-17-2026)
Isn't the idea of a value stat to place a number on a players value compared to his peers of the day?
While the game of baseball remains the same today as it did back then, well mostly, I don't think they had ghost runners, pitchers not batting, and big bases in the 70's, but the game itself remains the same. However, I think the mentality of the game has changed over the years. It wasn't really until sabermetrics entered the fray that stats like pitchers wins became discounted. While I am not discounting Billingham's value to the Reds during the 70's, and he may have been the exact type of pitcher needed for that team in that era. A guy who was going to take the ball every 5th day, have a league average ERA, and allow one of the greatest assembled lineups of all time do the rest.
Roy Tucker (04-17-2026)
Sounds about right. And by 75-76 Jack was barely the 4-5 starter. In 77 he had about 6 starts were he had leads of 4-6 runs going into the 5-6th innings and fell apart. Like a modern day starter who can barely go through 3x a lineup. He still managed to pitch a few CG shutouts. That’s always the difference I see in today’s game. If you were on you finished it off yourself.
The frustrating part was Jack being dealt in ST 1978 with Vida joining the team and Bill Bonham. And I think they felt Jack was done anyways. Between him and Mike Caldwell in 1978 the Reds would have won the division. Paul Moskau and Tom Hume were not covering that.
Last edited by Tony Cloninger; 04-17-2026 at 11:21 AM.
I'm not discounting his value compared to today's pitchers, but I think a guy like Harang could pitch the way he did then with the K's. I think any pitcher today would be required to pitch the innings they logged back then. And it either would work or their arms would explode. Harang's 2006-2007 seasons were both over 230 IP, 35 and 34 starts. Each season had a relief appearance. How is that not almost exactly the same as what Billingham and Kirby did in 1974? I think when the numbers line up like that, a comparison can be made.
But on his own team, vs his teammates? I'm not discounting his value. I don't think he was as good in '74 as Gullett or Kirby. It's debatable vs Norman.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Me and my friends called him “Shellingbomb” because every time he went out, he was likely to get shelled and give up bombs. Yet he was lights out in the postseason, especially in the Series. I’m still astounded by that.
Hell, if they would've gotten with the times of the early 70s and let their players have facial hair and longer hair, they would've had the 1978 20 game winner of the Expos' Ross Grimsley. They would've also had the 1974 18 game winner of the Orioles' Ross Grimsley(who by the way, was better than both Biliingham and Kirby that year) and we probably beat out the Dodgers in both those years.
I prefer the clean cut look just like Johnny Unitas. A haircut you could set your watch to! Not like that Joe Namath with the flowing hair and fu Manchu. Anyways. I think the Grimsley thing had more to do with his flaky nature. Even if he had Hare Krishna hair style. Sparky got fed up with that and they thought Kirby and a healthier Nelson would offset his loss.
Rettenmund looked great 1970-71. Rebounded very well in 1973. This organization just didn’t tolerate flaky players unless they produced immediately. Like Pedro Borbon. They traded Andujar beacuse of that too. Never gave him a chance.
I don’t think They factored how the NL and AL were different in strike zones and in how pitchers attacked hitters. The AL umps wore chest protectors outside and stood up more. Higher strike zone. The NL was the opposite. NL pitchers threw more fastballs on average than AL. Nolan Ryan included. There was a noticeable adjustment issue when players switched leagues from AL to NL.
I prefer the Rhett Lowder types, well, guys that pitch like him.
For the record, there are Hall of Famer flakes.
" He wants to dream like a young man, with the wisdom of an old man. " ---Bob Seger
" I did something ten times better than watching this overpaid cabal of maladroit baseball practitioners bumble and stumble their way to yet another predictable L. I don’t even remember what I did, but it was better than watching this dreck. " ---TBL
Numbers don't tell the whole story. "There's lies, damn lies and statistics." My point is that sometimes you just gotta watch the games. Billingham was the #2 guy in that rotation IMO. Sparky did start Jack on Opening Day so maybe he'd say that Billingham was #1.
RiverfrontRed (Today)
The folks watching the games back then voted Jack Billingham 6th in the Cy Young ballot. Gullett was 7th. Clay Carroll was 8th. Kirby got zero votes. Zero. Nobody actually watching the games back then thought Kirby had a better year than Billingham. Three Reds pitchers got votes. Kirby wasn't one of them. Mike Marshall had a historic season as a reliever and was a very deserving winner
https://www.thebaseballcube.com/cont...974&view=cy#nl
Just for the heck of it, I looked at games of 1974 that both Billingham and Kirby pitched where they gave up 3 runs or less and added some other stats within those games. Maybe it's meaningful as to why Jack was thought of as better than Clay, or maybe not.
Billingham-----3 runs or less=23 Reds score 3 runs or more=11 Reds record in those 23 games=18-5
Kirby-----------3 runs or less=27 Reds score 3 runs or more=15 Reds record in those 27 games=16-10-1
Somehow, to me this shows that maybe Billingham was the better situational pitcher. In games that Billingham gave up 3 or less, in most cases a quality start, the Reds reciprocated with scoring 3 runs or more in the game 11 times. But the Reds won 18 out of those 23 games. Kirby had games of giving up 3 runs or less 4 more times, and the Reds reciprocated with scoring more than 3 runs exactly 4 more times but only had a 16-10 record plus a tie
There's a lot of intangibles to consider. Like when the Reds did score a ton of runs, did Billingham change his game plan to keep the ball over the plate? Pitchers were/are taught to quit nibbling and throw strikes with a big lead. Walks are intolerable in those situations and just not necessary.
Maybe this shows something, maybe not, but it does show that in quality starts, Reds won more games and lost less when Billingham pitched than when Kirby did. And doing this when they scored 3 runs or more at a lower percentage of Billingham's quality starts than Kirby's.
And there are other intangibles to look at that can pop up in one season. Maybe on days Kirby pitched, Sparky put Plummer out there to catch. Maybe one by pure bad luck had to play against the better offense or the better all around teams more often than the other. Maybe Kirby had the bad luck of having to pitch in more games that our best bullpen guys weren't available. Maybe Billingham had more blow up games but also had more more sensational games also. I mean, as an exaggerated an example that would never happen but I'm using to make a point, would you rather have a pitcher who gives up 100 runs in a single game and none in his other 24 starts(total of 100 runs for the season) or a pitcher who gives up exactly 3 runs a game in each of his 25 starts(exactly 75 runs in a season)? I'd certainly take the former.
Last edited by foster15; Today at 06:19 PM.
Raphael Palmeiro once won a GG playing 21 games at 1B
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote