Chicago WS: What stuck out was some of the 1900's guys, like Isbell, Jones, Davis, and Scott. And Scott beats out Frank Smith from the same era, huh? I also like Gary Peters, but your other pitcher choices are solid so I can see how he might miss out.
Since I'm sure even few White Sox fans know much about either Jim Scott OR Frank Smith (but Kudos to your thoroughness, sir!) let's take a closer look:
Jim Scott (22.4) was a two-time 20-game winner, though in one of those years he was 20-21. He had a very strong *ERA+ of 121 in 1892 Innings Pitcher over 9 years. Overall he had a losing record, 107-114, but that doesn't figure into WAR. On interesting note: as a rookie in 1909 he pitched 250 innings without giving up a home run, thus leading the league with 0.0 HR/9IP. Home Runs were not as common then, of course, but obviously that at least TIES him for the single season record for lowest HR/9IP.
Frank Smith (17.0) was also a two-time 20-Game Winner, with an overall record of 108-80. But Smith's *ERA+ was lower, at 111, in 1717.1 Innings over 7 years. So while the outcome was slightly better under Smith, Smith was actually not as effective as Scott.
I also like Peters, and would likely have included him, if I'd gotten around to doing the pre- and post-1950 All-Time White Sox. A 20-Game winner in '64, with an overall record of 91-78 and an *ERA+ of 115 in 1560 Innings Pitched over 11 years, Peters racked up a WAR of 18.6, putting him 7 places ahead of Smith.
And HERE'S the kicker...
Peter's ranked #16 in career WAR. And Wilbur Wood (who counts as the one requisite reliver) was already on the team, ranking 5th with 44.9. So I could have totally included Peters! And I might just have to make a change and do so; we'll see. What happened is this:
I wanted to make sure Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhem made a team or two. And to include Wilhelm (12.7) on the ChiSox, I also had to take Keith Foulke (13.9.) Doing this knocked out not only Peters but also Johnny Rigney (19.1). Rigney pitched for 8 years, with time out for WWII, posting a 63-64 record (for some pretty weak teams, I might add) with an *ERA+ of 122 over 1186.1 Innings.
So... there's no reason I couldn't go back, cut Wilhelm and Foulke, and add back Rigney and Peters. (I'd have to do both though, IF I wanted to get Peters.) For now I think I'll leave it, but I may change my mind at some point in the future...
from Hockeydad55:
ReplyDeleteChicago WS: What stuck out was some of the 1900's guys, like Isbell, Jones, Davis, and Scott. And Scott beats out Frank Smith from the same era, huh? I also like Gary Peters, but your other pitcher choices are solid so I can see how he might miss out.
Since I'm sure even few White Sox fans know much about either Jim Scott OR Frank Smith (but Kudos to your thoroughness, sir!) let's take a closer look:
ReplyDeleteJim Scott (22.4) was a two-time 20-game winner, though in one of those years he was 20-21. He had a very strong *ERA+ of 121 in 1892 Innings Pitcher over 9 years. Overall he had a losing record, 107-114, but that doesn't figure into WAR. On interesting note: as a rookie in 1909 he pitched 250 innings without giving up a home run, thus leading the league with 0.0 HR/9IP. Home Runs were not as common then, of course, but obviously that at least TIES him for the single season record for lowest HR/9IP.
Frank Smith (17.0) was also a two-time 20-Game Winner, with an overall record of 108-80. But Smith's *ERA+ was lower, at 111, in 1717.1 Innings over 7 years. So while the outcome was slightly better under Smith, Smith was actually not as effective as Scott.
I also like Peters, and would likely have included him, if I'd gotten around to doing the pre- and post-1950 All-Time White Sox. A 20-Game winner in '64, with an overall record of 91-78 and an *ERA+ of 115 in 1560 Innings Pitched over 11 years, Peters racked up a WAR of 18.6, putting him 7 places ahead of Smith.
And HERE'S the kicker...
Peter's ranked #16 in career WAR. And Wilbur Wood (who counts as the one requisite reliver) was already on the team, ranking 5th with 44.9. So I could have totally included Peters! And I might just have to make a change and do so; we'll see. What happened is this:
I wanted to make sure Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhem made a team or two. And to include Wilhelm (12.7) on the ChiSox, I also had to take Keith Foulke (13.9.) Doing this knocked out not only Peters but also Johnny Rigney (19.1). Rigney pitched for 8 years, with time out for WWII, posting a 63-64 record (for some pretty weak teams, I might add) with an *ERA+ of 122 over 1186.1 Innings.
So... there's no reason I couldn't go back, cut Wilhelm and Foulke, and add back Rigney and Peters. (I'd have to do both though, IF I wanted to get Peters.) For now I think I'll leave it, but I may change my mind at some point in the future...
...If enough people tell me I'm nuts. ;)