Comparing WAR for past/present Reds

[TRF]

You're joking right?

Did I bring Babe Ruth into a discussion about Billingham?

[TRF]

No other Red could win 19 games. He was usually lousy in Sept. That may have pulled down his overall stats. I'm just going by memory. If they could've found other pitchers to win 19 games they would've

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.

[bucksfan2]

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.

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.

[Tony Cloninger]

He had a couple bad Septembers if I remember right. Got to 19 wins a couple of times and couldn't get to 20 because of his poor Septembers. He was pretty darned good in October though.

I think the pecking order for that Staff was supposed to be Gullett, Nelson, Billingham, Kirby, Norman but Nelson was injured a lot and it became Gullett, Billingham, Kirby, Norman and Carroll. The next year Gary Nolan returned and Kirby fell apart and became a mop-up man and the staff was Gullett, Billingham, Nolan, Norman with Kirby, Pat Darcy and Caroll all getting starts. Gullett was injured by a line drive (Larvell Blanks) and missed a couple of months.

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.

[TRF]

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.

[cobike]

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.

[foster15]

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.

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.

[Tony Cloninger]

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.

[foster15]

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.

[Ky Fried Redleg]

For the record, there are Hall of Famer flakes.

[Sea Ray]

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.

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.

[Sea Ray]

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.

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