A Thread for Starting Pitchers That Are Jacob deGrom

deGrom's era- is 19, I doubt it stays this way but for reference, the Pedro twin masterpiece seasons were 42 and 35. Gibson's 1968 was 38.

Quick comparison of deGrom's career ERA+ (presently third all-time behind Rivera and Pedro), covering eight seasons, to the best eight-year run of some other post-war pitchers. I'm just doing a visual scan of career boxes, so I may not have the absolute best eight-year run for the some of the others.

Pedro ('97-04) - 194
Maddux ('92-99) - 179
Kershaw ('11-18) - 174
Johnson ('97-04) - 171
deGrom - 155
Clemens ('86-93) - 151
Scherzer ('13-20) - 146
Seaver ('68-75) - 145
Schilling ('97-04) - 142
Koufax ('59-66) - 141
Marichal ('62-69) - 141
Gibson ('64-71) - 140
Verlander ('11-18) - 133
Carlton ('69-77) - 122

There are others who would be on that list--Sale, Santana, Blyleven, probably a few more. Very informal: tried to pick the most famous pitchers.

Carlton's peak was more diffuse, so a couple of his greatest seasons aren't included; ditto Clemens' two years with the Jays.

Pedro is from a distant fictional world.

Also I checked for Halladay ('04-11) and it's 148!

seaver threw 1000 more innings during his eight-year run and even kershaw threw 400 (25%) more

obviously the standards for starters are changing -- we may never have another 300-game winner -- but degrom's rate stats will have to be insane into his late 30s to make up for the overall value lost by throwing so few innings

(tbf he'd have probably thrown 100 more had 2020 been a normal season)

I checked Halladay too, but I got something like 135...I'm guessing you used 2002-2011, a 10-year-run. I was trying to stick to eight, and couldn't get his Cy Young season with the Jays and his greatest years with the Phillies into the same window.

No argument about the innings. One good thing is the widespread and almost total understanding that he might be the most extreme case on record of a meaningless win total.

Not sure if Maddux's domination relative to era (beginning of the offensive boom) is fully appreciated; that window above includes a mediocre year in '99.

ERA + would reflect the hitting at the time tho, no?

It does, that's why he does so well on that list. That's what I mean--I don't think it's fully appreciated that his sub-2.00 years were in the middle of an offensive boom (ditto Pedro/Johnson/Clemens...even more so with Maddux, I think, because he wasn't first and foremost a strikeout pitcher).

I checked Halladay too, but I got something like 135...I'm guessing you used 2002-2011, a 10-year-run. I was trying to stick to eight, and couldn't get his Cy Young season with the Jays and his greatest years with the Phillies into the same window.

No argument about the innings. One good thing is the widespread and almost total understanding that he might be the most extreme case on record of a meaningless win total.

― clemenza, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 7:57 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I went for 2004-2011. Sliding the years to 2003-2010, didn't change much. I probably did something wrong!

The thing I love about deGrom is how even when he doesn't have his best stuff he figures things out. So many games where he gives up 1-2 runs in the 1st or 2nd inning on 20+ pitches, then he starts bearing down and you look up and its the 6th and he's thrown 85 pitches and no one else even got on.

ERA+ doesn't really reflect the hitting climate (other than including park-factor adjustments) -- it's relative to other pitchers, not offense, e.g. maddux's 179 meant he was 79% better than league-average pitchers during that stretch.

i suppose it might actually be easier to differentiate yourself in a high-run environment -- when the league has a 5.00 ERA you can be a star with a 2.50 ERA; when the league has a 2.50 ERA, you can barely make any mistakes at all to be that much better than average

Well, his ERA+ the last four seasons are 218, 171, 182, and, uh, 548 (this season, so far).

(xpost) But the hitting climate determines, to a degree, how well the other pitchers are doing, no? If it's an offensive boom year, and everybody else has an ERA of 3.50+ (Maddux won the ERA title in '94 by over a run, and then in '95 by almost a run), then your sub-2.00 ERA looks that much better. The reasoning seems circular here...you end up back at the same place.

Ya that’s true.

Yes and no, and the big factor is indeed the amount of innings you pitch, for which Pedro (become of his injuries and relatively shorter career), Rivera (because of his role) and deGrom (he is a late bloomer) have a rather distinct advantages in that regard. Mookie is right in that changes in pitching strategies will make it hard for us to compare a stat like era+ accross generations.

The first thing I’ve learned from Morbs on ILB is that one stat won’t capture the identity of a player, so looking into just era+ (or era-) won’t really tell the whole story on how deGrom is great and how he compares to other greats.

(I used the era- number myself more as an exclamation point.)

(19!)

If deGrom throws 200 IP this year, he needs to have 25 ER or fewer to beat Gibson. He's given up 4 ER thus far, so he can give up 21 ER in 150 IP the rest of way ... a 1.26 ERA from now until the end of the season. Doesn't seem likely but I hope he finds a way!

You beat me to it--I was going try a similar estimation. Sounds within reach when you lay it out. (Except, just like Thermo is singlehandedly responsible for the meltdown of the Jays' bullpen, this thread has guaranteed that deGrom will get chased in the second inning next start.)

I just used ERA+ because it's quick and easy; of course no stat can capture everything. When I pushed back on WAR when I first came on here, that was basically my point. I'd put together some comparison, include a whole bunch of things, and someone would say "Why bother? WAR already accounts for all that."

I've got to be stubborn on the meaning of ERA+, though. It adjusts for two things: your park and league offense. The second adjustment reflects offense across the league, not the other pitchers, not unless you believe they get better or worse in lockstep, and do so independent of things like PEDs or lively baseballs or emphasis on launch angle and all that. When Pedro gets a huge adjustment for 1999 and 2000 (as he should), it's because of the crazy offense, not because all the other pitchers in the league suddenly and mysteriously got worse.

> one stat won’t capture the identity of a player

Uh, I think you guys are forgetting wins!

I still don't understand how a batter is supposed to pick up his slider vs his change-up... all the while knowing a high 100mph fastball is an option too. As long as he executes his pitches, I don't see how you strategize against him.

Has there been a batter who has consistently got his number?

His personal Tony Gwynn? Interesting question.

stanton is .333/.419/.815 with 4 HR in 31 PA

rizzo is .435/.480/.609 in 25 PA

I was curious, so I looked at the three lowest seasonal ERAs since Gibson's season to see what those ERAs would have been if you removed the pitcher's three worst starts. Three lowest: Gooden in '85 (1.53), Maddux in '94 (1.56), and--same season as Gibson--Tiant in '68 (1.60). The one that may end up being directly comparable to deGrom is Maddux, who only threw 202 innings in a strike-shortened season. Gooden was over 270, Tiant close to 260, so a single start had relatively less effect with them.

All three had one start where they gave up five earned runs. If you eliminate those, you get:

Maddux - 1.38 / Gooden - 1.39 / Tiant - 1.47

After that, you're looking at starts of mostly three earned runs, varying lengths, with one of four earned runs for Tiant. (Tiant didn't go six innings in his second- and third-worst starts).

With their two worst starts eliminated:

Maddux - 1.28 / Gooden - 1.32 / Tiant - 1.39

Eliminating their three worst starts:

Maddux 1.19 / Gooden - 1.25 / Tiant - 1.27

What I get from this is that avoiding one terrible start isn't enough; even when eliminating Maddux's three worst starts in a shortened season, he still comes up short (although very close). deGrom pretty much has to limit himself to one or zero runs every start.

He's almost always good for one or two "bad" starts.

I'm guessing that one bad start is his margin of error. (Those five-run starts by Maddux, Gooden, and Tiant were all five or six innings, by the way.)

James on deGrom's chances (answering a reader e-mail from me): "It's very unlikely...I'd say it is a 5% chance, maybe." (His whole answer was a little longer.)

Posnanski, posted today (much longer): "I'd say he has a real shot...If deGrom can keep the few fly balls he allows in the ballpark, yes, this could be the year."

fwiw ten pitchers have won at least three cys. the only ones who *aren't* in the hall are scherzer, kershaw and clemens

I think the rule-of-three when it comes to Cys or MVPs is 100% if PEDs aren't involved.

(If they are, even the rule-of-seven doesn't work.)

Good test for deGrom tonight, promises to be exciting.

First 8 pitches: all 100 MPH

That terrible 3rd strike call aside, I was just laughing at the glory of it.

Mets booth said that Dwight Gooden has been scheduling his week around Degrom starts.

Gooden and I have something in common then!

It wasn’t drugs?

Nah, never touched that!

I checked in every few innings online last night. I take it he loaded the bases at one point; that's how precarious and improbable chasing Gibson is--one bad pitch can set you back weeks.

There was an error in that inning so I believe the first run would have been unearned. Also Degrom has in the past been super adept at escaping bases loaded jams unscathed.

Not especially meaningful, but:

https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/private/t_16x9/t_w1536/mlb/cdobiao2scbuwhrunhrq.jpg

Only four innings, but I can't resist:

A Thread for Pitchers Who Are Doing Really Well and Are Jacob deGrom

I have a classic second-guess. Snell walks two guys to load the bases with one out, he's upset over a call, and the next batter swings at the first pitch; check swing, inning-ending double play.

0.58 at the moment.

I'm actually watching. I hardly ever watch baseball anymore. I just fiddle with numbers and spout opinions.

You should watch baseball more often in my opinion, especially Vladdy Jr.

but yeah every deGrom is fun to watch at this point, feels like post-season.

I don't understand that Snell balk.

Jacob DeGrom, former Hall of Fame contender, current fading superstar with 2 ER today and a 1.08 ERA

How the mighty have fallen.

To slightly less mighty, but still pretty mighty.

Second fewest starts (198) after Darvish (197) to 1,500 strikeouts.

https://i.imgur.com/EDLi8QP.png

no idea why they chose those for comparison, but it's been the exact same layout for over a month now. it's true that MLB just doesn't generally understand what their own fans like to see

Do you mean the ERA chart or the Darvish comparison? The latter seems meaningless to me, especially when they call it "fastest to 1500 strikeouts," but Leonard (official record, Negro League mark aside), Gibson (modern-day record), and Gooden (best since 1968) make sense, no?

to me, the ERA comparison is useless for the same reason of "fastest to 1500 strikeouts" - they were all playing in different eras

but also, just from a PR/stats perspective, i'd guess only a small portion of the fans would intuitively understand why the players in the chart above were chosen (to represent different eras and run-scoring environment). and even then...to keep the same little stat template up for like 6 weeks when it only takes 20 minutes to come up with something different and interesting? eh, what do i know. the pandemic has been hard for everyone, including mlb.com data visualizers

To clarify, I thought the "fastest to 1500" was useless because they used starts rather than age (or, at the very least, IP). Darvish and deGrom are the same era, though.

They could use some parenthetical explanations on the ERA chart, for sure.

I think the record he's actually vying for is an the unofficial, esoteric Greatest Injury-Riddled Season Ever record.

https://www.mlb.com/news/jacob-degrom-right-forearm-tightness

On the shelf two more weeks.

Making his first major league start in 13 months tonight. With some first inning adrenaline, his fastball hit 102 MPH. Doesn’t look like he is overthrowing so far.

Looks like he pitched very well tonight.

Either finished for the day or one more inning, but what a game: 5 perfect innings, 10 K.

Retired the first 17! Then Swanson hit a homrerun :/

I caught his last two batters--didn't realize the Jays network had switched over to the Mets game. He came real close to 6 perfect innings with 13 strikeouts.

Kind of relieved they didn’t have to take him while he was throwing a perfect game though. He was at a limit of around 75 pitches, so next time he will get a chance to go deeper.

6 shutout innings tonight, 10 Ks. So great to watch him pitch again.

Small sample size, I know, but: deGrom went into yesterday's start with a 37-1 K/BB ratio. After striking out nine and walking one, his ratio has plummeted to 23-1.

Pedro 1999: 213.1 IP, 23-4, 2.07, 234 ERA+, 1.39 FIP, 0.923 WHIP, 8.46 K/BB, 9.8 bWAR

Pedro 2000: 217.0 IP, 18-6, 1.74, 291 ERA+, 2.17 FIP, 0.737 WHIP, 8.88 K/BB, 11.7 bWAR

DeGrom 2020-22: 203.1 IP, 16-5, 1.64, 250 ERA+, 1.61 FIP, 0.689 WHIP, 9.48 K/BB, 9.0 bWAR

Staying healthy and playing means everything, of course.

10 Ks through four innings so far

13 Ks today, but Cruz got the better of him.

https://i.imgur.com/ESUg3c4.png

“Days since injury” conspicuously missing. Heroes: none is extremely funny though.

i guess there's the small chance he was trying to be funny? i don't know much at all about degrom the person or personality. but i agree, hero "none" is good stuff

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qY6ZaJK_ARc/maxresdefault.jpg

i want to believe he drew the cactus and sun and baseball

“I fully anticipate making my next start”: The New Jacob Degrom Thread

I was sure after they pulled him he was gonna be out for at least a month

Woop

he fully intends to make his next start

Shit in one hand and wish in the other etc

Out for a couple of more weeks.

he fully intends to make his next start
― Michael F Gill, Friday, April 28, 2023 11:46 PM (one week ago)

Missed that--nice deadpan, reminds me of Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby on her excruciating pain: "Oh, haven't you heard? It'll go away in a day or two."

I am irrationally angry at deGrom for being injured so much. I want to watch him pitch and I want the rangers to win the AL West. Get it together Jacob!

I am irrationally angry at deGrom for being injured so much. I want to watch him pitch and I want the rangers to win the AL West. Get it together Jacob!

:(

“Fighting through tears as he addressed the media on Tuesday evening, Jacob deGrom expressed his frustration with his unfortunate situation.

deGrom's Rangers tenure was dealt a significant blow on Tuesday with the announcement that the two-time Cy Young Award winner will undergo surgery to repair a tear in his right ulnar collateral ligament. Rangers GM Chris Young didn't specify if the procedure will be reconstructive Tommy John surgery or another surgery, but either way, the celebrated right-hander is done for the season.”

No better distraction than being in first place and playing .650 baseball. If they were floundering around near the bottom, they'd be getting crucified in the media right now.

It’s probably better that this happened in Arlington instead of Queens, for sure. He only made 6 starts this year and he may be out for most/all of next season too if it’s a full recovery from Tommy John surgery.

Wherever this had happened--and you're right, being far away from New York helps--I think the media would be much tougher on the team that signed him than on deGrom himself--who does get subjected to jokes, here and elsewhere, but that someone signed him for 185 million/5 years still boggles the mind.

His upside is as high as almost anyone who has ever pitched, and I assume that can be enough for a team that already a billion dollar infield. It’s not very logical. The way he pitched during his 2 Cy Young seasons, along with one of the greatest half-seasons ever, that is high level magic/sorcery that everyone wants a piece of, hoping it will rub off on them. It’s almost hall of fame worthy, but it feels like too short of a peak.

*already has

I feel bad for him, the team is winning and he obviously wants to compete. On the other hand, he'll be getting 185M no matter what, and the Rangers were dumb enough to roll the dice.

Verlander was a few years older than deGrom when he had TJ and came back better than ever, so I want to be optimistic that we haven't seen the last of peak deGrom.

I watched the deGrom clip. If it's possible to feel sorry for someone who with $185 million dollars, I did--I'm sure he's carrying around a fair amount of guilt in with the disappointment.

Missed this piece from a week ago:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2023/06/12/jacob-degrom-tommy-john-surgery-injury-hall-of-fame-career#gid=ci02c19f43b00025c3&pid=1

Kind of funny that he includes Ruth, who seemed to move past the bittersweetness of his aborted pitching career. I know Fidrych's injury happened early, but I might include him instead.

Thought of José Fernández, too, but I see he does include both him and Fidrych as a different category.

Domingo Germán perfect through seven for the Yankees

Lol wrong thread

xp respect