Mark Prior's comparables

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 11:55 AM CST

There isn't much to this diary. It took only a handful of minutes to do the research, but I thought it might be something that interests a few who frequently post on here.

As most of us know, much of the success in 2007 is going to depend on the health of Mark Prior. Perhaps not as much as the past couple of years, but a healthy and productive Mark Prior is, in my opinion, a necessity for this team to contend. That's not what this is really about though.

I got involved in a brief discussion last night and this morning on my blog about when a baseball player's peak year is. To sum up my opinions about the issue, I find it impossible to ignore the overwhelming amount of research that has been done that concludes a player's best years are between the ages of 26 and 28. Obviously this isn't true for everyone, but the average player can expect to have his best season around the age of 27.

Clearly, hall of famers, or potential hall of famers, are going to be quite different than the average player.

The discussion began as an attempt by me to point out how it's quite possible that Mark Prior's best years are behind him. I know that's difficult for some to stomach, but I say this with not just knowledge of Prior's injury history, but based on the peak years for the aveage ballplayer. Prior may prove me wrong. I sure hope he does, but if we're placing bets, the intelligent bet is that his best years are already behind him.

I wanted to take a brief look at Mark Prior's most comparable pitchers (using Baseball Prospectus as my source) and see at just what age his most comparables had their best season in their careers. This is what I found:

The top 20 comparables to Mark Prior and the age at their best season as measured by Pitching Runs Above Replacement (PRAR):

Tom Griffin: 26
Bobby Bolin: 26
Jim Lonborg: 25
Wayne Twitchell: 25
Stan Williams: 24
Tony Armas: 23
Rick Sutcliffe: 26
Ron Schueler: 26
Calvin Schiraldi: 24
Joaquin Benoit: 27
Eric Plunk: 29
Jim Britton: 25
Paul Moskau: 26
Melido Perez: 26
Arthur Rhodes: 32
Mike Corkins: 26
Dennis Rasmussen: 27
Steve Renko: 28
Ryan Rupe: 24
Barry Latman: 25

The average age is exactly 26.

age: number of comparables

Among the most comparables to Mark Prior, 16 of the 20 had their best season between the ages of 24 and 27. 14 of the 20 (70%) had their best season between the ages of 24 and 26. Only one comarable had his best season beyond the age of 30 (Arthur Rhodes). Only 3 comparables had their best season past the age of 27.

This is a very small sample size, but these are the most comparable pitchers to Mark Prior. None of them are Hall of Famers, a few were around only a short time, but most of them had lengthy careers. The average age, as I pointed out above is exactly 26 years of age for these pitchers having their best season.

So, based on historical data that tells us a player's peak years are between 26 and 28 as well as this tiny amount of research done into the comparables to Mark Prior, we get about the same age--26-28.

I have no idea what purpose this serves and I highly doubt it has any value of any kind beyond the obvious lengthy research that has gone into peak years that were done by people far smarter than I. But as this pertains to Prior, in reality, it has little value. There's just too little information here to come to much of a conclusion, but this does clearly show a pattern that's not so surprising--a player's best years are generally between the ages of 26 and 28.

While Mark Prior may have his best years ahead of him (let's hope he does), in all likelihood, his best years are behind him.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 60 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting

though conceivable, I do believe Prior does have the capacity to be a solid Top 1, 2 or 3 in any rotation.

That having been said, I believe the 18-6, 2.35 Mark Prior is a thing of the past. I believe it to be true that his injury is going to make him a different pitcher. This isnt' to say that he won't be ineffective, it is however to say that we're not going to get Johan Santana numbers from him.

It'll be interesting to see.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 11:59 AM CST reply actions

I agree.

I think he still has some good years in him if he is indeed healthy (and can stay healthy!). I do think, however, that at the end of his career his age 22 season will be his best. I can't imagine him topping that at this point. A 4.50 ERA in 2007 would have to be considered a wild success. his 5-year PECOTA projections aren't pretty: 4.64 ERA in 2007, 4.79, 4.70, 4.93, and 4.99. He has a 5-year projected VORP of just over 40 and a 5-year projected WARP of only 7.3.

I think those projections are pretty realistic. He could do better if he stays healthy, but I'd be surprised if we ever saw a sub 4.00 ERA from him in the future.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 12:18 PM CST up reply actions

yipes

I hadn't seen the PECOTA. With a 4+ consistent ERA I'm seriously doubting a call from the Hall. Unless for some unforseen World Series MVP 2x or a dominant post season (which there would have to be at least 4 or 5 of them) or something, looks like Prior is going to fall into the annals of baseball history as another run of the mill pitcher.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

The "what could've been" kind.

He'll be that player where everybody will talk about what he could have done. I usually try to not get into those kinds of conversations as it's mostly subjective and I don't put much stock into pitch counts and place no blame for his injuries on the former manager like some do. I think Prior is the type of pitcher who never would have made it in previous eras and if he somehow turns it around, he'll be an example of a pitcher who has benefitted from the 5-man rotation.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs do with Prior what they're intention is to do with Wood. Maybe you can get that arm healthy and save some innings and perhaps stretch that peak out a little bit. I don't know. It just doesn't look too pretty the way it is.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 12:38 PM CST up reply actions

hmmm

I never really thought about it. Maybe if Prior truly wants to find any term of success at all it would be in Long Releif.

I have to ask, just to see if my train of thought is consistent with yours, why aren't pitch counts to be looked at as a determining fact?

I'm not in complete denial of pitch counts having an overall difference, simply, that they aren't as telling as they look.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

The short version...

is that we simply don't have enough information to come to the conclusion that so many want to come to. Furthermore, no study done attempts to answer why pitchers in past eras were able to pitch so much with what appears to me to be little difference from season to season. The variance in one season to the next in past generations of pitchers isn't outside of the expected variance anyway.

So to state my opinion in a simple way it would be like this: based on present day data, there seems to be a strong correlation between pitch counts and injury, but this data ignores the 100 years of data beforehand.

I'd like to know why the pitchers today are so brittle compared to yesteryear. I don't see any genetic differences in the human muscles so the answer seems to be the obvious one--it's about conditioning.

I think Bill James said it better than I can and I don't remember the quote off hand, but he basically said that if you've never exercised and you decide you want to get into shape you aren't going to start off by running 15 miles. you'll get to that point gradually and i think that's where the problem is. Today, in the minors, pitchers aren't worked enough or they aren't conditioned in the right manner.

There are more pitching injuries today than there ever have been. Part of that is undoubtedly due to medical technology being able to detect more and more injuries that pitchers in the past pitched through, but some of it must be in the conditioning. Also, weaker pitchers are making it to the big leagues. These pitchers who can't handle a big workload are getting through the minors now when they never would have in the past. Darwinism. The game of yesterday rewarded strength while the game we play today rewards those who are more susceptible to injury than others...and I'm not convinced it's better either.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 1:09 PM CST up reply actions

Would it not be conceivable

that the pitchers of yester-year have a hand in some of the changes in the mechanics and overall outlook in what pitching is today. It's common for retired pitchers to return to the club from which they come up through, therefore, through the nodes of conditioning, they themselves become at fault for the downfall of SOME pitchers.

However, if there was a study pertaining to psycho-sematic injuries I'd be pretty interested to see it. It's laughable, but it would be kind of interesting to see.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

Yes.

Good point. I hadn't thought about that too much, but it makes perfect sense.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 6:24 PM CST up reply actions

Pitchers in the minors

I think you've made a good point. Pitchers in the minors these days simply don't throw enough innings to prepare them for the kind of workload they need to be successful in the majors. It seems that minor leaguers these days seldom throw more than 150 innings a year (20 years ago it wasn't uncommon for a minor leaguer to throw 200). So no wonder they get hurt when they come to the majors (as Prior did) and have to throw 200 or more innings. The reason minor league pitchers seldom throw much any more is money. Teams are trying to "protect" their investment by taking it easy on their young pitchers. But this plan seems to be backfiring.

"Eighty-five percent of the $#@&$ world's working! The other 15 come out here! A %&$&# playground for the $&&*@!"

by danimal15 on Feb 3, 2007 8:12 PM CST up reply actions

I could see Prior being a closer if........

he never regains success as a starter.

RAMIREZ!! PRIOR!!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Feb 2, 2007 12:54 PM CST reply actions

me too.

I think it's possible he ends up there sooner rather than later. if that's what it takes to get production from him, I'm all for it.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

Mark Prior's Comparables

are the straw house and the stick house from the Three Little Pigs.

by NO100 on Feb 2, 2007 1:06 PM CST reply actions

huh

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

I think it's cause he gets knocked down easily

by DTJchris on Feb 2, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

Oh...I get.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

i am so confused

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

OH!

duh.....wow.....

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Feb 2, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

What?

Would you feel better if we compared Prior to guys he isn't deserving of being compared to? Like Maddux and Clemens and Randy Johnson? We can do that, but it has less than zero value. At the very least, what I've done here is shown how Prior's most comparable pitchers have fared in their careers and it's not as good as some people (apparently you) would like to think.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

ignore this snotty comment!

My apologies.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

An interesting look...

...but md, sorry, it doesn't pass the who cares test.

Guessing Mark Prior won't have a great career is kind of like guessing John Kerry will never win another presidential nomination.

It falls under the category of Captain Obvious.

Perhaps Prior can put together one or two more above average seasons, but the chances of him ever becoming the next Jim Palmer, as Peter Gammons once said he might, have dwindled down to almost nothing at all.

And I'm not really seeing where this attitude, that Prior will still be this great pitcher, is prevalent anywhere throughout Cubdom, especially on this board, wrongly accused and mocked in other sectors of the Cub blogosphere, of being overly kool-aidish and stupid.

All of us hope Prior might cobble together a full season and help us to the Promised Land, but I don't think any of us really believe it nor are betting on it.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 2, 2007 2:11 PM CST up reply actions

I wouldn't say that Prior's......

chance of having a great career rivals John Kerry's chances of winning the presidency. While I don't think he'll be a 300 game winner I don't think its unreasonable to believe that if his shoulder woes are fixed that he can't go out and be a good or potentially great pitcher. The only thing that's derailed his progress has been injuries. His window is obviously closing fast......if he was a boxer I'd say he's on the mat and the ref's at 7 but I just don't think you can truly count someout out with that kind of ability until its blatantly over.

RAMIREZ!! PRIOR!!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Feb 2, 2007 2:32 PM CST up reply actions

perhaps an overstatement on my part...

...on the Kerry comparison for the sake of being mildly amusing, however, I don't think I'm overstating much when I say that 2007 will be the year that decides once and for all who Mark Prior will be the rest of his career.

Another year like 2006 and his goose is officially cooked. For good. It's over.

And for my own sanity, my expectation is that he does very little for the Cubs in 2007 and beyond.

Here's hoping like hell that I'm wrong.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 2, 2007 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

and to add this:

...I really like Mark Prior.

He's always been one of my very favorite Cubs.

And I really want him to come back and dominate and prove me and others wrong as a dominant Mark Prior would send this current Cubs team into the stratosphere.

I just can't count on it anymore. I can't expect it anymore. I can barely hope for it.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 2, 2007 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

agreed .. Prior is a project ..

Nothing more, as is Wood. The Cubs CAN'T possibly, rationally entertain the belief that the Mark Prior of 2003 is scheduled to return this season. It can't be anything more than a speculative investment that may have a return of some sort, but to only a certain degree.

I WANT Mark back. BAD. I WANT to see him and Wood come back to even 70% of what he once was. They'd be awesome closers or middle relief men IF they stay healthy. I want to see them pitch their best this spring and get a shot at these jobs, but nothing else. If they surprise us, so much the better.

As I've said before, though, if the towel drills begin in May, they are likely both DONE and the great and shining Hope that they once were will be another sad legacy of "IF ONLY"-gauge ennui.

Well, Next Year is here .. and Jack's century's gotta end some time .. GO CUBBIES!

by cubnational on Feb 4, 2007 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

FOr the sake of my prior jersey

I hope he has a great year sometime soon. I'm not counting on it, and doubt it will happen, but I want it to happen, if only to justify the $100 I spent on it in early 2004!

MCDONOUGH!

by secdelahc on Feb 2, 2007 4:27 PM CST up reply actions

As you have already guessed

I was just joking. Your analysis was intriguing. It's just that with Prior, no one can really know what he would have done without the "freak" injuries (running into Giles and the line drive), so I would think that you have an "unstable" population on which some of this is based. Don't the injuries taint this analysis?

I'm no doctor, but should the injuries be in his past, I could see him having a future that is outstanding and his career path wouldn't look like anyone elses.

For the record, I don't think the injuries are in the past and if he starts 10 games for the Cubs, I'd be surprised.

by NO100 on Feb 2, 2007 4:11 PM CST up reply actions

Sure.

Any time you're considering a player's comparables there are going to be numerous flaws in the analysis, but I'm not sure Prior has suffered any more freak injuries than many other players have. it's sure seemed like being the Cubs fans we are and the expectations we've had recently, but I think over the course of a player's career these things are apt to even out.

For what it's worth, i remember reading back in 2002 or 2003 how Prior was susceptible to line drives being hit up the middle. I think the article talked to several guys he played against in college as well as college coaches and all of them said they told their hitters to go right back up the middle with the pitch (something you tell hitters when they're facing a very talented pitcher). He's a fly ball pitcher, but not an extreme fly ball pitcher so it stands to reasons that a lot of balls hit in the air are going to be line drives.

Is it really a freak injury getting hit on the elbow when we know this? Or was it inevitable?

Even if we ignore that and don't consider it, the injuries happened and they had an impact on his shoulder and he's now developed issues with it that could affect him his entire career. To me, the freak injuries aren't even an issue any longer...it's the injury he has right now that's the concern. And he did not pitch well coming back last season. How it got there is up for debate (Dusty, freak injuries, karma, God doesn't like the Cubs, etc.) but the seriousness of the injury he has now isn't. How have others come back from this kind of injury? I admit, i don't know and it's something i will look into in the near future.

I think this is a torn labrum that now goes along with his torn rotator cuff he had last season. These injuries have ended pitchers careers before him and they'll end them after him. Will he be one who returns to form? Who knows?

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 6:50 PM CST up reply actions

Yes getting hit on the elbow

is a freak injury. Perhaps the likelihood of him getting hit is more than most, but its still unlikely and there have been many fly ball pitchers that have gone thier entire careers without getting hit on thier throwing arm.

I don't necessarily agree that over the course of a career "freak" injuries even out (regular injuries do, but that's why the others are called "freak"), but regardless of that, Prior's happened early on in his career and have effected these numbers. If injuries do even out, then shouldn't the rest of his career be in that much better state since he's past them?

I don't want to make it seem like I am a Prior apologist. Until he proves me otherwise, I'm assuming that A) he's just one injury after the next, and B) he's been damaged by the injuries and is no longer the same pitcher he was when he won 18 games. He's somthing different. I guess that's why I find comparables to him a bit hard to swallow. He's not the same pithcer from the beginning of his career to what he is now, hence the "unstable" population.

by NO100 on Feb 5, 2007 8:48 AM CST up reply actions

Let us do an anecdotal comparable: Rick Sutcliffe

Age 23 17-10 (39-G) 30-GS, 3.46 ERA 1.298 WHIP
Age 24 3-9 and Age 25 2-2

Trade to Clev

Age 26 CLE 14-8 (4.08, 1.259 WHIP), Age 27 17-11 (4.25 ERA 1.451 WHIP),

Age 28 Chicago 16-1 (3.92 1.078) and 4-5 with CLE (4.08 ERA 1.608 WHIP)

Age 29, 8-8 and Age 30 5-14 (YUCK!)

Age 31 18-10 (4.29, 1.386 WHIP)

Age 32 13-14 (3.63 ERA 1.336 WHIP)

Age 33 16-11 (3.78 1.078 WHIP)

Age 34 0-2

Age 35 6-5

Age 36 Baltimore
16-15 (4.03 and 1.369 WHIP)

Age 37 10-10 (4.42 1.723 WHIP)

Stl
Age 38 6-4 (4.18 ERA 1.847 WHIP)

Maybe I don't see it but Sutcliffe had a great ROY start, had a good year in Clev at 14-8 at 26 but then had better years with Chicago at 28 going 16-1, then 18-10 and a solid 16-11 when his ERA fell to 3.68

Now Prior has been hurt, two freak game related injuries, how much did they take away? Not certain, I propose that they effected the entire package which now is coming back. How far, well I will take and celebrate 18-10 3.50 ERA!

Best Harry moment: 'Hey there's Marla without her shorts on!'

by Ivy Walls on Feb 2, 2007 3:15 PM CST reply actions

I based best season

on Pitching Runs Above Replacement because it compares that pitcher in each season to the rest of the talent in the league that season. ERA changes considerably and there's no adjustments in straight ERA for park factor and wins/losses are more of a team skill than a skill a pitcher has. I'm not saying that what you did isn't right. I just chose to go with a metric that compares across eras because it compares him to the pitchers in the league that season.

i don't doubt the injuries had a serious impact. In fact, I think they had more of an impact than we're willing to admit. The question is whether or not he can recover, which to this point in time the answer is a definite no. Other pitchers who have missed as much time as he has over 3 years are lucky to get back on track (the ones who do are the exceptions) and even they generally have a period of adjustments to make and suffer a couple poor seasons before that happens.

I think a 4.50 ERA is possible for Prior if he can stay healthy all season long. I think a 4.50 ERA would have to be considered wildly successful. That's the kind of season I think is a best case scenario for Prior in 2007.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 6:33 PM CST up reply actions

Actually..

... the best comp in that list might be Lonborg. After an outstanding season for the '67 AL champion Red Sox, he was injured in a skiing accident the following offseason. He sucked in '68, which otherwise ought to have been a great year for him (the "Year of the Pitcher").

It took him three more years to get back to a decent fulltime level. He had a good year (14-12, 2.83) for a Brewer team that went 65-91 in 1972.

Then he had several solid to good years for the Phillies, the best being 1976, when he was 18-10, 3.08 at age 34 for a playoff team.

Lonborg had Hall of Fame talent; injuries prevented him from getting there, but he still had a 15-year major league career, winning 157 games.

Prior ought to be able to do at least that. But he had better start RIGHT NOW.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 2, 2007 4:36 PM CST reply actions

I would guess...

a pitcher who pitches 15 years and wins 150 games would also lose around 165 or 170 games in this offensive era with a career adjusted ERA slightly below average.

So, yeah, i think those are accomplishments that Prior may yet attain. I need to see him be healthy and prove that 2006 was a fluke because right now, what we have is a pitcher who lost velocity, lost control, and lost his curveball (that pitcher will be out of baseball in 2 years). Hopefully he's not that pitcher.

I'd like to see Prior throw in Spring Training before I make a prediction for him (maybe you can let me know how he's looking, Al?), but right now I'm somewhat cautiously optimistic about 2007 for him. I see him pitching around 165 innings, 4.40 ERA, 1.35 WHIP. That would probably make him the Cubs 3rd best pitcher in 2007. it's not great, but I think it's about as good as it could be at this point with all the missed time.

by Maddog on Feb 2, 2007 6:41 PM CST up reply actions

I'll definitely...

... post my opinions on Prior's throwing when I see him.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 2, 2007 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

pitch counts

these pitchers today need to be babied what with all the different pitches they throw.everytime dusty let carlos throw 120 pitches i wanted to strangle him.imagine fergie jenkins today,he,d be an ironman.

by NOMAR on Feb 3, 2007 4:12 AM CST reply actions

I think maddog was correct

when he said that it's almost impossible to compare pitchers of previous eras to this one. This holds true going both ways:

Only the very best pitchers of yesteryear could succeed now, because there are ridiculous advantages given to the hitters now (lower mound, smaller parks, smaller strike zone, lots of video to watch pitchers, possibly a tighter wound ball, light maple bats, better vitamins/general health/conditioning and chemical help if needed), and it is also true that pitchers tend to pitch better with less days in between starts, meaning pitchers from different eras would probably struggle in 5 man rotations.
On the other hand, many pitchers from today would struggle mightily (or wouldn't be able to pitch at all) back in the day, because the existence of 5 man rotations and set relief roles (where starters are only expected to go 6-8 innings on average) has effectively protected weaker, more injury prone pitchers (especially power pitchers). Pedro Martinez probably wouldn't have been worth jack shit a few generations ago. Instead, he went on arguably the most dominant run in the entire history of baseball.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Feb 3, 2007 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

I couldn't disagree more.

Any athlete worth his salt would make adjustments in any era he pitched in. Pitchers from yesteryear would figure out how to pitch today, maybe throw more breaking balls, and don't forget, pitchers can watch video of hitters, too, and figure out their weaknesses. Nutrition and conditioning are better for pitchers today too.

As far as anyone from today going back to, say, 1910 and pitching then -- any star pitcher today would have been a legendary superstar then. Can you imagine Carlos Zambrano staring down Ty Cobb?

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2007 3:44 PM CST up reply actions

I couldn't disagree more

Any athlete worth his salt would make adjustments in any era he pitched in.

Did you actually think before writing that? Are you telling me that guys who got by with the myriad advantages given to pitchers and the smaller talent pool would be able to pitch successfully today? I'm not talking about the Walter Johnsons and Christy Mathewsons--I'm talking about the average talent, not 1 in a million hall of fame talents. And going the other way, do you really think guys like Pedro Martinez, or Chris Carpenter (TJ surgery), or any of the many dozens of oft-injured starters or designated relievers would have lasted a second pitching in 1925? They would have been pitched until breakdown, and then tossed out like so much garbage. Al, you've taken some highly questionable views in your time, but I really can't understand your logic here at all.

Pitchers from yesteryear would figure out how to pitch today, maybe throw more breaking balls

Right, and there injuries would come even faster. Arm stress is much higher on curveballs, still higher on sliders, even higher on slurves, and ridiculous on screwballs.

and don't forget, pitchers can watch video of hitters

Sure, they could, but it is far less beneficial for pitchers watching hitters, since hitters can do nothing but react. Pitchers can learn just as much by using stats--they do keep track of which sector in the strike zone hitters have the highest average and so forth. Stats can also effectively tell pitchers what the batters' tendancies are. Hitters, on the other hand, can use video as a way of finding pitchers' release points, whether they are tipping their pitches at all, the timing between the windup and the pitch and many many more useful bits of info that don't necessarily come out in reading statistics. Videotape is a much bigger advantage for the hitter.

Nutrition and conditioning are better for pitchers today too.

No, you missed my point. I was saying that if you transplant a pitcher directly out of 1920 and made him pitch that same night, he would be at a huge nutritional disadvantage.

As far as anyone from today going back to, say, 1910 and pitching then -- any star pitcher today would have been a legendary superstar then.

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you telling me that Pedro Martinez could go pitch every other day in 1910. That is complete bullshit. Most of the stars today are power pitchers...this is the exact type of pitcher that breaks down more quickly. You misunderstood what I was saying above: I realize SOME of our pitchers would be able to pitch in a different era with more frequency...I'm just saying that A LOT of our biggest stars would break down rapidly in that demanding pitching environment. Guys like Pedro, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling (I believe), John Smoltz, and hundreds of relief pitchers wouldn't have lasted very long back in the day. Guys like Maddux, Clemens, and Santana probably would have been stars in any era.

Can you imagine Carlos Zambrano staring down Ty Cobb?

I can imagine it, and I believe Cobb would mop the floors with Z for a number of reasons. First of all, Cobb was a mostly a contact and spray hitter--these types of hitters give power pitchers (especially like Z who gets easily rattled) the most trouble. Cobb also had an excellent eye (obviously he didn't get those 4000 hits for nothing), and Z would have either walked him like it was his job, or Cobb would have been frequently able to follow and make solid contact against Z's darting and tailing fastballs. Also, Cobb was a mean bastard, and wouldn't have been unafraid to aim a liner or two right back at Z's head.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Feb 3, 2007 4:26 PM CST up reply actions

Cobb? Mean?

C'mon, Thelonious. Everyone knows that Cobb was the pinnacle of kindness and philanthropy.

UZI

"We don't make mistakes here, we just have happy accidents. Everything is possible here. This is your little universe." - Bob Ross

by Ozgreeder on Feb 3, 2007 4:54 PM CST up reply actions

I enjoy torturing puppies, myself

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Feb 3, 2007 5:04 PM CST up reply actions

I see your point, I think.

Mine is that ANY pitcher, ANY athlete, put into a situation, would figure out what he needed to do to win.

There is NO doubt in my mind that today's pitchers -- or hitters -- would indeed have been superstars in the 1920's.

About the Z-Cobb confrontation, remember that only one pitcher in Cobb's day -- Walter Johnson -- threw anywhere near as hard as Z does. I have a feeling Cobb would stand there looking at three 97-MPH Z fastballs and never even foul one off.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

oh, ok

funny you should mention Cobb and Johnson though, as I am almost positive that I remember reading that Cobb had pretty great success against Johnson.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Feb 3, 2007 5:23 PM CST up reply actions

anyone know...

where I can find historical batter vs. pitcher stats?

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Feb 3, 2007 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

Baseball-reference...

... now has them, but only going back to 1957.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2007 5:58 PM CST up reply actions

Yes and No.

Yes, the players of today are far more talented than the players in the past. They have advantages today that players in the past never thought possible (they're simply too many to list). The players we root on today are, for lack of a better word, machines. They perform a task (and sometimes just one) as well as can be done. There is still no such thing as perfection, but it's pretty damn close today.

Yes, the players of today would be legendary if they were able to play against talent that lacked all the advantages that make them so great. I, for one, get a bit angered when people say that the league is watered down with talent. At no point in the history of this great game has there been more talent than there is today. And in 50 years, if baseball is still around, the same will be true.

However...

No, the players of today, when making adjustments to even out the advantages/disadvantages, would not be legendary. They'd be very much like the players of the past. They'd not have the strength they have today if they played in the past. They would not have all of the advantages that are around today. Adjustments must be made to make up for this.

I'm a big Pedro fan. I brought his name up in the greatest pitcher diary recently and argued that his name is deserving of being at the very top of the list (further research has shown me that we probably have to give the nod to Clemens and Walter Johnson before Pedro). But he's right there. However, Pedro has proven to be a somewhat injury prone pitcher. These types of athletes, no matter how talented, simply would not have had the careers they've had today. Teams could not have paid Martinez to be on the DL as much as he has and he'd have been replaced by a less injury-prone pitcher.

The game in the past was a game where only the strong survived. Health was probably more important than talent...in many ways anyway. Much of the reason we can truthfully say that pitchers, and offensive players as well, were more healthy, is the result of the type of players that were given jobs. Some of it, of course, is due to the great medical advances we've made, but it does not, and will not explain it all. Players were different then.

This isn't something that any athlete is going to be able to accomplish. Pedro has proven to be a weak pitcher in the 5-man rotation era and it's highly unlikely pitching on fewer days rest would have kept him healthy. He would have been replaced by a lesser talented, but healthier pitcher.

The same is true if we move the clock ahead for the players in the past. Many of the players had jobs because they weren't as talented as the other players who proved to be injured too frequently. With the great medical advances, the ease with which teams will put players on the DL and pay them to do nothing, and many other advantages of today....many, many players from the past never would have made it today. They would have been replaced by the more talented, but less healthy players.

by Maddog on Feb 5, 2007 9:16 AM CST up reply actions

Good assessment

But I'm not sure if you're right that players got injured as much in the old days as they do today and the healthier players just naturally moved to the top. I truly think injuries, particularly to pitchers, are more common today than even when I was growing up (in the 1970s and 1980s). Perhaps it's time to re-assess the five-man rotation.

"Eighty-five percent of the $#@&$ world's working! The other 15 come out here! A %&$&# playground for the $&&*@!"

by danimal15 on Feb 5, 2007 9:24 AM CST up reply actions

This is an interesting debate

And I'm not really knowledgeable enough about the subject to have an educated opinion. But I like reading the posts. Hope to see some more.

"Eighty-five percent of the $#@&$ world's working! The other 15 come out here! A %&$&# playground for the $&&*@!"

by danimal15 on Feb 3, 2007 8:19 PM CST reply actions

AN ANGRY QUESTION FOR AL:

Unless I missed something, or unless he's grossly overrated on the 100 best Cubs, how in the blue F*ck is RICK BLEEPING WILKINS in the top #100 Cubs list and Mark Prior isn't?

Mark's 2003 alone should get him at 99, especially when you include the postseason, his showdown against Greg Maddux, the Bartman game, etc. Rick Wilkins was a blip on the screen, a virtually meaningless entity even when he had his aberrant "great" season.

Mark Prior was the golden boy of hope (and to an extent still is). The hype surrounding him, his tremendous 2003 season, and his fall from grace make for far better storytelling and make him a far better candidate than some dipshit catcher who stumbled onto 30 home runs one season and then fell down the well after that.

Even if he never pitches another inning for the Cubs, Mark Prior was one of the most exciting players to happen to the Cubs in our lifetimes, and the stunning disappointment and tragedy that his career has become puts him on the list imo. And most certainly if it's between the Guy Traded for Ryne Sandberg, Prior, and some galoot.

Of course, I suppose there's still a chance he breaks the top #15, but then, that would almost be even more of a headscratcher.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 4, 2007 4:56 AM CST reply actions

Your point is taken.

I missed a few. Yes, Prior's 2003 season was spectacular and is, of course, one of the primary reasons the Cubs made the postseason that year.

I included Wilkins because of that 30-HR season. The only other Cub catcher who hit 30 HR in a season was Gabby Hartnett, a Hall of Famer.

Looking back at the list, that's probably less of a blip than I thought it was. Wilkins seems to have generated the most anger of anyone I included.

As I said somewhere, when this is done perhaps someone (you?) would like to start a diary about some people who got left off -- maybe we could do a dozen or so "honorable mentions" and have profiles run of them occasionally during the season. Prior would be one. So would Jon Lieber, who is the Cubs' last 20-game winner and who should definitely have been included.

Hey, I'm not perfect. But that's part of the fun of doing this list, too.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 4, 2007 5:18 AM CST up reply actions

I might be persuaded to do one of a list...

...of former Cubs who have no business being remembered at all, a.k.a. The Ones We Hated (I see lines forming around the block to do Neifi and Ronny C's profiles already, and I believe gravediggity would have dibs preemptively on Jason Marquis).

But man, shutting out Prior from the 100, I'm still stunned.

When and if you do Honorable Mention posts, give me Prior, I'll absolutely effing nail it. Promise.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 4, 2007 5:31 AM CST up reply actions

You got it.

I think this is something we should absolutely do once the top 100 series is finished. You can post a diary if you'd like and we'll take nominations.

Thanks!

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 4, 2007 5:50 AM CST up reply actions

As one of the last remaining.......

Prior fans out there I'd like to play a part in this. From my perspective I wouldn't even be a Cub fan if it weren't for Mark Prior so if its possible to do some sort of a collaboration I'd like to be involved.

RAMIREZ!! PRIOR!!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Feb 4, 2007 9:31 AM CST up reply actions

No, I hate you and so does Prior...

(just kidding)

Absolutely. Let us reason together.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Feb 4, 2007 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

Sounds good to me.

I'll try to get this organized sometime before the season starts.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 4, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

I think...

there's more people out there that like Prior than I think there are.

At the convention he received lots of support which I was happy to see.

Hurray for the Mark Prior Fan Club! :)

"I don't talk. I just let what I do talk for myself." -Johan Santana

by sparkles721 on Feb 4, 2007 12:54 PM CST up reply actions

I love Prior still

I still have my Prior jersey that a very close friend of mine bought for me in Chicago in 2003.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Feb 4, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

Me, too

It's always a tough choice for me when I go to a game, whether I wear my Prior jersey or my Murton jersey...

MCDONOUGH!

by secdelahc on Feb 4, 2007 1:36 PM CST up reply actions

I have a Prior jersey too.

A blue alt-jersey. The only other one I owned, before I bought the Neifi game-worn, was a Wood jersey I bought in 1998. Has all the '98 patches, too. Still have all of them.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 4, 2007 1:58 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not sure...

...that there are that many people that really dislike Prior. I think there are a lot of people who are upset with the Cubs organization and how they've handled Mark Prior. Perhaps some of us, maybe most of us, take this frustration out on Mark Prior. I know I have and will probably continue to do so, but what I'm really sick and tired of has little to do with Prior, himself. It has to do with how the Cubs continually fail to protect themselves against what has become an oft-injured pitcher. If he is ever healthy, and there hasn't been too much damage, the production the Cubs could get from Prior could be spectacular. I think it's highly unlikely that he sustains any kind of success at this point in his career, but one really good season is not out of the question at all. It's not really out of the question for any player in this game...Prior's just probably more likely to deliver. Prior should be treated like they've treated Wade Miller and Ryan Dempster in the past. Unfortunately, he hasn't been. He's been relied upon far too much and the frustration we (myself included) have had with the Cubs organization for this has been taken out on Prior.

And while the Cubs aren't counting on "Wood and Prior" in 2007, they are indeed counting on Rich Hill and Mark Prior. So that frustration with the Cubs organization that myself and others have is likely to be taken out on Prior once again. It will probably get to the point this coming season like it did with Corey Patterson in 2005 and Sammy Sosa the year before. I just hope we get more in return for a pitcher who was once as valuable as Mark Prior was.

by Maddog on Feb 5, 2007 9:24 AM CST up reply actions

Where do you see...

... that they are "counting" on Prior? At this stage, the rotation appears to be Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis and Miller.

Thus anything they get from Prior is a bonus.

"[BCB] is much better than... well, everything." -- gravedigger, January 21, 2007

by Al Yellon on Feb 5, 2007 9:28 AM CST up reply actions

I'm not saying your not right......

but do you really think if Hendry wasn't relying on Prior to some degree that he would have signed Marquis? There were much better pitchers out there to sign if that was the case.

RAMIREZ!! PRIOR!!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Feb 5, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions