(The following is being syndicated from The Captain’s Blog).
In an effort to evaluate whether the Yankees and Rangers are setting themselves up for a fall by offering a long-term contract to Cliff Lee, many have invoked similar deals that were given to the likes of Barry Zito, Johan Santana, C.C. Sabathia, Mike Hampton, Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina. Even if all those pitchers were similar to Lee, it would still be foolish to draw any meaningful conclusion from such a small sample size.
There really is no point in comparing Lee to other pitchers who signed similar long-term contracts. At best it is an anecdotal pursuit. After all, the question we need to answer is whether Lee will be productive over the term of the proposed contract, and a better way to do that is by looking at every starter who pitched from 32 to 38 (the ages Lee would be under a seven-year contract).
Relative Performance of Starters, Ages 32 to 38, Since 1901
| Total | ERA+ >= 100 | ERA+ >= 120 | |
| Lefties | 37 | 32 | 15 |
| Righties | 80 | 65 | 19 |
Note: Includes all pitchers who threw at least 1,000 innings between the ages of 32 and 38 and started at least 75% of their games.
Source: Baseball-reference.com
Since 1901, 397 starters (75%-plus of all games in the rotation) pitched between the ages of 32 and 38. Of that total, 117, or 29%, pitched at least 1,000 innings, of which 83% had an ERA+ of 100 or higher and 29% had an ERA+ of at least 120. Among lefties, the percentage of starters with an ERA+ of 120 or better jumps to 41%.
Based on the data above, it seems that if a starting pitcher is able to stay healthy, he’ll likely be at least league average during his age 32 to 38 seasons. And, if he is a lefty, there is close to an even chance that he’ll be well above average. Looked at in this light, the key question regarding Cliff Lee is whether he will stay healthy over the length of a seven-year deal. Although he has suffered from minor abdominal and back issues during his career, Lee has managed to pitch at least 200 innings in five of the last six seasons (in 2007, he was sent to the minor leagues). The ace lefty also has a reputation for being in good condition and a tireless worker, so there is no reason to think complacency or a premature break down will develop. In other words, Lee fits the profile of a pitcher who should continue to log innings as he progresses deeper into his career. And, once you come to that conclusion, it becomes much more likely that he’ll justify a six- or seven-year contract.
Listed below for further comparison are the top-20 left handed pitchers who meet the criteria referenced above. After his soon-to-be new contract expires, will Lee’s name be added to this list? That remains to be seen, but soon we’ll know whether its the Yankees or Rangers that are sure going to hope so.
Top-20 Left Handed Starters, Ages 32-38, Since 1901
| Player | From | To | IP | Age | GS | ERA+ |
| Randy Johnson | 1996 | 2002 | 1548.2 | 32-38 | 210 | 176 |
| Lefty Grove | 1932 | 1938 | 1628.1 | 32-38 | 183 | 149 |
| Harry Brecheen | 1947 | 1953 | 1191 | 32-38 | 157 | 131 |
| Steve Carlton | 1977 | 1983 | 1854.2 | 32-38 | 242 | 130 |
| Warren Spahn | 1953 | 1959 | 1929 | 32-38 | 240 | 127 |
| Whitey Ford | 1959 | 1965 | 1695.2 | 32-38 | 243 | 125 |
| Carl Hubbell | 1935 | 1941 | 1579.2 | 32-38 | 191 | 125 |
| Thornton Lee | 1939 | 1945 | 1308 | 32-38 | 159 | 125 |
| Tom Glavine | 1998 | 2004 | 1544 | 32-38 | 239 | 124 |
| Al Leiter | 1998 | 2004 | 1360 | 32-38 | 213 | 124 |
| Preacher Roe | 1948 | 1954 | 1277.1 | 32-38 | 173 | 124 |
| Eppa Rixey | 1923 | 1929 | 1779.2 | 32-38 | 221 | 123 |
| Eddie Plank | 1908 | 1914 | 1704.2 | 32-38 | 205 | 123 |
| Tommy John | 1976 | 1981 | 1322.1 | 33-38 | 184 | 123 |
| Eddie Lopat | 1950 | 1955 | 1104.1 | 32-37 | 148 | 121 |
| Jamie Moyer | 1995 | 2001 | 1291 | 32-38 | 194 | 115 |
| Andy Pettitte | 2004 | 2010 | 1262.2 | 32-38 | 203 | 115 |
| Mike Cuellar | 1969 | 1975 | 1921.1 | 32-38 | 264 | 114 |
| Chuck Finley | 1995 | 2001 | 1373.1 | 32-38 | 215 | 114 |
| David Wells | 1995 | 2001 | 1421.2 | 32-38 | 210 | 113 |
Note: Includes all left handed pitchers who threw at least 1,000 innings between the ages of 32 and 38 and started at least 75% of their games.
Source: Baseball-reference.com
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
22 Responses to Seven-Year Itch: A Look at Starters in Their Age 32 to 38 Seasons
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I feel really good about Cliff Lee seeing Boomer, Andy and Leiter on this list because all 3 of these guys are very good pitchers but none of them had the kind of playoff dominance that Lee showed these past 2 seasons and while Boomer is comparable in control I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Leiter or Andy have/had the kind of control Cliff does.
My main concern with this deal besides health which factors into every contract of every length is what happens to Cliff if/when he is throwing 84-86 MPH and is having a harder time getting the ball past people, he seems to be a pound the zone with great control kind of guy but not someone who is masterful at expanding the zone like Pettitte or Tom Glavine, if he wants to pitch effectively with less than 90 MPH stuff he needs to be able to make batters swing at pitches out of the zone which he couldn’t do in the World Series when they kept swinging and hitting pitches in the zone.
David Wells was the kind of guy with great control but didn’t expand the zone enough on his own and had to be reminded by catchers and pitching coaches to throw purpose balls both to move feet and expand the zone.
Don’t you have a pretty serious selection bias issue here? The guys who aren’t good enough and, thus, fall out of/don’t meet your criteria for inclusion, don’t affect your outcome. Of course the numbers look good when you only look at the guys who were able to throw that many innings (as starters) between those ages – they were able to throw that many innings, as starters, because they were good/special pitchers. You leave the rest of the pitchers out of the analysis.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, just taking issue with your methods. How many pitchers, between those ages, got hurt and missed significant time? How many saw their performance drop to the point that they weren’t viable starters anymore? How much did their performance dip during that time-sample? There are a ton of other issues to consider here, I don’t think just looking at the performance of the guys who were good and lucky enough to pitch that many innings between those innings gets the job done.
It’s not the guys who aren’t good enough that drop out, but the ones unable to average about 140 innings over seven seasons. Besides, I didn’t leave them out. In the post, I mention that 397 pitchers qualify overall, so anyone interested in the entire population has that as a reference point. I was more interested in how the pitchers who stayed healty performed, so that’s why I used the 1,000 inning limiit. Finally, if you read the conclusion, I state that if Lee can stay healthy, the comps suggest he has a good chance of being successful, making the real question whether or not he will. Your comment seems to imply that none of these points were made in the post, when in fact they were.
“Your comment seems to imply that none of these points were made in the post, when in fact they were. “
I read the post. Sure, you mentioned, as an aside, that 397 pitchers pitchers between the ages of 32-38, but you kind of mentioned that and left it alone. I think looking at the rest of the sample, the guys who didn’t pitch that many innings during those years, is probably really significant.
And hey, put aside my concerns… I’m sorry, but the significance of the rest of it is a little lost on me. So… Pitchers who are good enough and healthy enough to pitch at least 1,000 innings between the ages of 32 and 38 and start at least 75% of their games tend to be… good? Eureka?
Look, I didn’t intend to really dig into the criticism here, I like your posts and the thought you put into them. I just think this could be better, you could drill down into this stuff and come up with some more relevant research and arguments.
So you want a list of the pitchers who didn’t pitch 1000 innings between 32-38? Would like to include pitchers who didn’t pitch into their 30′s?
The point of the list was to see that the names weren’t all hall of fame guys (Boomer, Pettitte, Leiter) and also to prove that most of these guys are comparable to Lee as lefties who don’t overpower (except Randy) who had great control (except Leiter). It’s really just to see if Lee stacks up with the others who pitched well at this age before him.
“So you want a list of the pitchers who didn’t pitch 1000 innings between 32-38? Would like to include pitchers who didn’t pitch into their 30′s?”
Um, you’re putting it in the most snarky way possible, but yes, that’s kinda what I want. If we’re going to look at the guys who were successful in their 30s, why not look at the guys who were successful in their 20s through about 30-31 and then weren’t successful as they got deeper into their 30s? Pretty sure that’d give a more complete picture.
If that’s the tone you choose to read it in fine but that’s neither here nor their.
Except Lee wasn’t succesfull in his 20′s through 31 or so therefore it has no connection to the current player the best comparison would be a list of pitchers who didn’t “find it” until their late 20′s and then continued pitching into their late 30′s but how specific is that list?
As baseball fans we already know the rificulously long list of names of pitchers who didn’t pitch into their 30′s, we don’t need proof that they break down what we (if you assume we are signing Lee) need proof of is that their is a reasonably large list of guys who under similar circumstances and abilities who pitched effectively late into their 30′s which William has provided.
I just don’t see the outrage like he is trying to fudge the numbers or make Lee look better than he is, the truth is some pitchers flame out before 32 and others (as supported by this list) seemingly pitch forever but you can’t know which Lee will do but you can lend evidence to support the fact that others have accomplished what he will be trying.
There’s no outrage nor did anyone accuse anyone of fudging numbers. Just pointing out a flaw with this line of reasoning.
And yeah, of course Lee’s career looks different than other pitchers’ careers to this point… If you want to say ‘you can’t compare him to other guys in their 20s (to 31 or whatever age you choose) then why can we compare him to guys from 32-38? Surely many of those guys had careers that looked different from each other’s, and that will look different than Lee’s when all is said and done.
I’m not sure why it’s so bad to point out the flaws in this post, we learn nothing if we don’t criticize our work and try to improve it. If you want to look at a post that says, basically, ‘guys that were good had good numbers,’ go for it, I just don’t think we learn much from that analysis and I think there are other ways we could learn more.
I think Mondesi has some valid points for some purposes, but it’s thesis that sb better defined. I enjoyed reading the names on the list, too, surprised to see so many familiar names, and it gives me comfort, because the whole idea of a seven year contract scares me. Wonder how Greg Maddux’ numbers were, 32-38?
I agree with Mondesi. A much better way of examining the issue is to look at all of the pitchers who’ve done what Lee has up to this point, even if they didn’t pitch another inning. The number of flame-outs for control pitchers (as opposed to power pitchers) after age 31 is even higher.
The odds ain’t fer him, they’re agin him. (To paraphrase Grampa Simpson)
Are you sure power pitchers flame out more frequently? Without seeing data, I wouldn’t accept that as a given. Besides, what defines “what Lee has done up to this point”. Using such a refined screening criteria would likely leave us with another small sample. As mentioned above, the entire population for my criteria is mentioned in the post (397), but only the segment relevant to the conclusion (if healthy, pitchers who make it to 32 usually do ok until 38) was broken out.
Bill James did a study a while back, and the results were pretty conclusive: power pitchers last longer.
As to what defines ‘what Lee has done up to this point’, that means what other pitchers have had similar innings and performance. The size of the sample could be determined by what ‘similar’ means. I’d also include the type of pitcher, but that’s not really necessary.
The problem I have with it, is (as Mondesi mentions) that it includes only pitchers that had a certain level of success and health (and a pretty fair amount of both) past age 32. There are a lot of guys who were as good as Lee up to where he is now and were done 2-3 years down the road.
If you look at baseball-reference’s list of most comparable at age 31, you see a lot of guys that quickly went south and/or got hurt.Guys like Teddy Higuera, Mike Browning, Charles Nagy, Mike Flanagan, etc., who were really good pitchers up to age 30-31 and then faded fast. (And before anyone says none of these guys were as good as Lee, what happened after age 31 diminished there reputation. They were really good pitchers-Cy Young winners and annual all-stars.)
I don’t think you can accurately use a database to look at “who compares to Lee” because the first half of his career skews the numbers the guy didn’t figure it out until he was 29 and had been sent down to triple A the year before.
Lee dosnt have as many miles on his arm as a lot of the “comparable” flame outs I have seen people throw out (Mulder for one) and exactly how many pitchers have had 2 years pro experience, get sent down to the minors at 28 and then the next year win the Cy and rattle off 3 of the most dominating years in baseball?
If you find that guy compare Lee to him.
I think the list of guys b-r found ‘most comparable’ has guys with similar workloads (majors & minors combined), but I think his age has most to do with it anyway. Control pitchers don’t age well, and he’s already had physical problems.
I think comparing him to what similar guys did after age 31 makes a lot more sense than using only the healthy and successful guys did and completely excluding the Teddy Higueras of MLB history.
I really don’t see how either or is more effective…. there have been guys with similar abilities last well into their late 30′s such as Boomer and their have been guys wth similar abilities not pitch past 31 so how does either or prove Lee will be hurt, effective or tank?
The list was really more or less to show that it has been done and other pitchers likee Lee have done what we are asking him to do, we all know the risks that come with a plus 30 year old pitcher of any kind but Williams was simply using these numbers to prove that pitchers older than 32 are more effective than we have been giving them credit for.
At no point did he guarantee Lee would stay healthy or be good he just said based on the numbers a lot of good pitchers have maintained their abilities into their late 30′s.
I don’t think taking a list of guys who had enough success and health to pitch that many innings shows anything, unless the total number of comparable pitchers who did well is compared to the total who didn’t.
A list that intentionally omits anyone with a negative result (who got hurt or lost effectiveness) is useless.
I think you’re mising the point…
Taking a list of guys who had that success and health to pitch that many innings is in and of itself the point of the list, it simply proves it’s been done before. I didn’t take the article to mean “these did this so Cliff Lee has X amount of chance to do it as well” no not at all I took it more along the lines of “older starting pitchers and especially older left handed pitchers have had a history of pitching well late into their 30′s, not at all do and in fact many pitchers don’t ever make it to 32 but there is a president for other pitchers who would fufill their end of a 7 year deal”.
In other words it’s been done before and can be done again but how likely it is no one knows… You just don’t seem to follow it that way, you seem to want to make this list a statement that Lee will definitely be a good sign or bad sign when all he is stating is that their have been pitchers pitch well from 32-38 and it’s not impossible just unlikely.
You can’t predict injury or success with any contract (Carl Pavano) all you can do is see if their is a possibility he can live up to it and William has shown yes he can it would just be really hard.
I think:
“After all, the question we need to answer is whether Lee will be productive over the term of the proposed contract, and a better way to do that is by looking at every starter who pitched from 32 to 38 (the ages Lee would be under a seven-year contract).
Relative Performance of Starters, Ages 32 to 38, Since 1901
Total ERA+ >= 100 ERA+ >= 120
Lefties 37 32 15
Righties 80 65 19
Note: Includes all pitchers who threw at least 1,000 innings between the ages of 32 and 38 and started at least 75% of their games.”
My sole objection is that this doesn’t answer what the original post says it does-whether or not he’ll be productive over the term of the proposed contract.
Nobody ineffective or injured enough to get 1,000 innings and start 75% of their games is listed. By eliminating all of the pitchers who failed to be successful, what’s left is a list with only the pitchers who were ‘productive over the term of the proposed contract’. The only thing the list shows is that the guys who were successful, were in fact successful.
No what the list shows is that pitcher have in fact been succesfull late into their careers something most sports writers and fans seem to think never happens.
Maddux is one of the best of all time so his numbers have no value to Cliff Lee since Lee can’t even sneeze in the same breathe as saying Greg Maddux but for fun here are some numbers 32-38 for Greg.
32 years old-2.22 ERA, 2.81 FIP, 251 IP, 1.6 BB/9, 0.98 WHIP, 7.6 WAR
33 years old-3.57 ERA, 3.40 FIP, 219 IP, 1.5 BB/9, 1.35 WHIP, 5.8 WAR
34 years old-3.00 ERA, 3.23 FIP, 249 IP, 1.5 BB/9, 1.07 WHIP, 7.2 WAR
35 years old-3.05 ERA, 3.12 FIP, 233 IP, 1.0 BB/9, 1.06 WHIP, 6.3 WAR
36 years old-2.62 ERA, 3.43 FIP, 199 IP, 2.0 BB/9, 1.20 WHIP, 4.2 WAR
37 years old-3.96 ERA, 3.89 FIP, 218 IP, 1.4 BB/9, 1.18 WHIP, 3.9 WAR
38 years old-4.02 ERA, 4.36 FIP, 212 IP, 1.4 BB/9, 1.18 WHIP, 2.8 WAR
Now obviously these numbers don’t tell the whole story of just how GREAT he really was over this 7 year period (when most pitchers decline) but it’s safe to assume if Lee even comes close to these numbers he’s more than worth the contract and we’ll have at least 2 rings coming.
Thanks, Chris. I read here or there that Cliff doesn’t stretch the strike zone, and maybe that’s some difference from Greg, and was cited as the risk as Cliff ages and loses velocity. But, boy, he sweetly carves it now, and I would expect he learns to adapt as circumstance requires.
Also, the list shows higher correlation of FIP to WHIP than ERA to WHIP, which shows me why people are always fipping. I just don’t like it, but maybe I need to study it again.
I know I was talking about that on here the other day comparing Lee to Glavine… Tom had great control but it wasn’t Maddux like control but what he was able to do better than anyone was make people chase balls out of the zone, with Lee his strategy involves pounding the strikezone again and again and again in order to make batters feel defensive the entire time at the plate (because taking pitches is a quick way to go down 1-2-3 with Lee) but in the World Series when the Giants were hacking at everything he never threw purpose pitches out of the zone.
Look at any tape of Glavine you will almost never see a strikeout on a strike even his called strike 3s were mostly balls but he was so good at expanding the zone even the ump went along with it, Lee would have had much more success in the WS if he had started throwing more balls to try and take advantage of the agressive nature of SF.
With the Yankees you have a very patient team who waits out starters and makes them throw a lot of pitches but that falls right into Lee’s game plan and by the 6th inning every AB is starting 0-1, 0-2 but San Fran took advantage of a bunch of 90-92 MPH fastball in the zone and Lee never got a chance to make them defensive at the plate, quite the opposite in fact they were very offensive minded from the first pitch of every AB.
ERA just doesn’t give you enough information to make an accurate judgement, you can determine the abilities of a pitcher better with FIP because it helps takes away fudging of numbers that can occur from a good or bad bullpen, good or bad defense and good or bad run support it allows you to focus on what the player himself was responsible for and what may have been out of his control.
I’m not a huge fan of UZR but xFIP, FIP, WAR, wOBA these are all great stats to use and get use too.