Hall of Fame Pyramid - Honorable Mention Relievers
Jun 17, 2019 7:53:24 GMT -5
RandyP, Rich - Former GM, and 1 more like this
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jun 17, 2019 7:53:24 GMT -5
Welcome to the Reliever section! Our metric works pretty much the same for relievers with one difference; we’ll be using WPA instead of rWAR as our major determiner. In case you need a refresher (it was an hour or so ago), WPA is basically a stat that evaluates every event in terms of effect it has on the chances of winning the game. Think of it as the clutch stat; grounding out the final batter of the game while up one with two outs and the bases loaded is worth a ton (as it guarantees the win, which was quite in doubt). Striking out three straight batters when down by ten is worth almost no WPA (even though striking out the side requires a lot of skill) because being down by ten, your efforts did not appreciably increase the chance of winning. It is also pure and unadjusted; if you give up the losing run because your crappy fielders screw it up, or because the grounder on the Coors Field grass got through the infield too fast, or the batter was Babe Ruth, WPA cares about none of that, only the result. So it has its share of downsides, but the upsides are that it weights heavily toward performance in the clutch. This makes it ideal for the evaluation of relief pitchers (by which, effectively, we mean closers, as normal relievers don’t see the innings or importance of scenario to have comparable value to other positions) because their performance is almost explicitly limited to when the game is on the line. So we use WPA as our determining stat (again, only focusing on the years where it was positive; a WPA of 0 is totally average, contributing neither to a loss or a win), but with rWAR as the reality check, as rWAR does compensate for fielding and park factors.
Also, we’re ignoring saves except as flavor. WPA does everything saves purport to do, but better.
As for the cutoff? Actually, in terms of value over their careers, the cutoff for relievers is about the same as it is for catchers (which is slightly lower than it is for everyone else). So relievers aren’t getting a massive break; if you had to choose between the career of an Honorable Mention reliever or an Honorable Mention catcher, as far as great seasons, the two are pretty comparable. A major difference is that the reliever tiers are compressed quite a bit; the best closer of all time (I’ll leave you all in suspense) would at best be considered a Gold tier player at any other position. So the short comparison is as follows: Honorable Mention Relievers = Honorable Mention Catchers, Bronze Relievers = Bottom ⅔ of Bronze Catchers, Silver Relievers = Border of Bronze / Silver Catchers, Gold Relievers = Low Silver Catchers, Diamond Relievers = High Silver Catchers, Pantheon Relievers = Low Gold Catchers. And with that, here we go!
The first reliever we’ll discuss, and the second farthest back, Lindy McDaniel! McDaniel was the proto-closer. Where Hoyt Wilhelm was a strange knuckleballing exception to normal rules and so could pitch in relief frequently and deep into games, McDaniel was simply a failed starter but a dominant reliever. While not known for his velocity, McDaniel had a sinking fastball, an excellent overhand curve and a forkball that became his go-to pitch late in his career. You’ll notice a trend; all of these pitches are heavy and drop. Willie McCovey, known slugger, opined that he’d rather face a lefty (against which, you may recall, he struggled) than McDaniel, because McDaniel’s pitches were so hard to put in the air.
McDaniel came up with the Cardinals at the age of 19 (1955) owing to his status as a bonus baby. He pitched relief for his first two years and started for the next two but struggled as a starter. In 1959 they made him a full-time reliever and saw him excel, and from thereon out he was a relief ace on whatever team he was on. His overall career stats are not overwhelming. For the years during which he was a reliever relatively in his peak (‘59-72, age 23 to 36) his strikeout rate of 6.6 was about average for a reliever at the time, his control (BB/9) of 2.6 was better than average and his HRA/9 was 0.7, which is better than average but not by as much as you’d guess from his pitch selection. By FIP he was quite good, certainly better than average, but his rWAR is lower on account of his extremely high BABIP allowed, which one must infer was the product of being a serious groundball pitcher in mostly hitters parks (St. Louis and Wrigley Field).
McDaniel’s inclusion on this list is the product of two seasons where he was at his best. In 1960 he pitched 116 innings (he routinely pitched 1.5-2 innings per appearance), with peripherals of 0.6 / 1.9 / 8.1 (HRA / BB9 / K9). He had the best K/9 of any reliever (above 70 IP) that year, as well as the best BB9, an excellent BABIP and the best LOB% in the league, as well as the best ERA (2.09), the most saves (27) and a 12-4 record. This season is worth an astounding 5.9 rWAR (crazy high for a reliever) but an even more impressive 5.7 WPA. This means that he was worth 5.7 wins to his team based on how well he pitched under what clutch conditions (if you’re trying to compare WPA to WAR, add 2 to the WPA number; McDaniel’s 1960 season was the loose equivalent of a 7.7 WAR year, comparable to Ernie Banks or Hank Aaron that season). This season was so good that he finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting, the first reliever ever to receive a Cy Young vote. For the next nine seasons he was decent (ERA+ of 108) but not dominant. Then in 1970, for the Yankees he had another great year (age 34). His stuff had diminished (only 6.5 K/9) but his control was as good as ever over 111 innings. He had a better defense behind him in a pitchers’ park so his 2.01 ERA isn’t quite as good as his performance in 1960, but his aggregate result was still worth another 5.7 WPA. Over his career McDaniel was not overwhelmingly dominant, but 5+ WPA is very high; even Mariano Rivera topped out with a 5 and 5.4 WPA season. Few relievers can be one of the best relievers in the league *and* throw 100+ innings. Lindy McDaniel did it twice.
An unusual pitcher with an unusual name, Dan Quisenberry! The Quiz won five reliever of the year awards for the Royals, which is curious given his makeup. You see, Quisenberry, by most standards, had no arm. Lacking any kind of velocity on his fastball he adapted in the minors (“found a delivery in my flaw” has he wittily characterized it) by becoming a submariner and throwing a sinker and curveball as his primary pitches. He had ridiculous, pinpoint, control and was hard to hit. Which is good, because the guy couldn’t strike guys out. Like, at all. Between 1980 and 1986 (Quisenberry’s peak) 51 relievers threw at least 300 innings. His rankings for those years of those 51: rWAR (2nd), WPA (1st), K/9 (51st). The guy’s peak had him strike out 3.06 batters per nine innings. How in the nine hells is that possible, with him still being in this section?
First, he allowed 1.16 BB/9 (the best rate ever since 1930), which is profoundly good. His low HRA/9 (0.52) helped. Those two stats are good enough to make him a good pitcher, even with his cellar-dwelling strikeout rate. But those peripherals fit with a 1910s ace (actually, they look similar to Babe Adams), not with a dominant modern closer. There are other interesting things; despite clearly being a groundball pitcher his BABIP was ten points lower than his team’s. Quisenberry (by the way, is anyone else irritated that the best nickname they could come up with was “Quiz” or “Q”? Not “the Quizard of Oz”? Not “Master Q”? Not “the Quisinart”? I ask for so little . . .) was the master of always hitting his spots and inducing weak contact. His career had two sub-2 ERAs and his WPAs are excellent. He has six 2+, four 3+, three 4+ and one *7 WPA* season in 1980. Let me say that again, 7 WPA. That’s like a batter having a 9 WAR season; that’s more WPA than any AL batter from 1980. In fact, measured by WPA, that 1980 season is the third best relief season in MLB history. How many batters did he strike out per 9 that year? 2.6.
It was a perfect storm. He pitched 128 innings (which helps a lot) with his usual masterful control, but actually didn’t benefit from fluky good BABIP or LOB% that year. In many ways his 1980 season wasn’t objectively better than his two 4 WPA seasons (‘83 and ‘84), except because of context. In 1980 he was given very high leverage opportunities (43 high leverage appearances and an average Leverage Index above 2.1, meaning that everything he did, good or bad, was 2.1 times as important to winning or losing the game because of the circumstances of the game when he came in). In fact, in 75 appearances that year he inherited 89 runners (*averaging* a runner or more on base - what the heck!) but he stranded 63 of those (a great percentage). In fact, he was even better in high leverage conditions; only considering the average situation he came in on and his level of pitching he should have only been worth 5.8 WPA. An entire 1.2 extra WPA came from him being at his worst when it didn’t matter, and at his best when his team needed him the most. That 1980 is one of the best relief seasons ever, and that it was achieved by a pitcher who couldn’t strike out more than 3 per 9 is insane.
So why isn’t he Bronze? He did win five reliever-of-the-year awards after all. Honestly, it’s because the guy was incredibly good for six years (1980-1985, ages 27-32), had two mediocre years and then pretty much disappeared. What happened? Well, do you remember me talking about how he was so good at inducing weak contact? His BABIP from 1980-1985: 261 (compare with league average 277). His BABIP from 1986 to 1989: 312 (league average 282). It’s not that he lost his control or his strikeouts dropped even farther (neither happened); it’s that he lost the ability to limit the batters’ contact and they started crushing the ball. In fact, Quisenberry has the 2nd highest BABIP of any reliever for that time period (minimum 200 IP). What he did, being the best closer in the league for years without any ability to strike batters out, is incredibly hard. By the time he hit 33 he just couldn’t do it anymore. His peak is one of the best six-year stretches by any reliever ever, perhaps the best ever. But six great years isn’t enough for Bronze. But we hear he was a Quiz of a Quiz, if ever a Quiz there was.
Quisenberry’s opposite in many ways, Lee Smith! Smith was a fireballing right-hander who always believed his stuff was unhittable when it was on (and he was often right). Between his velocity and his scowl he was quite intimidating. Dusty Baker of Los Angeles admitted, “I don’t run from anybody, but the opinion around the National League is that you’re in no real hurry to get to him.” Growing up in the 70s Smith felt acutely the racial tensions of the south, from his bussing by six white schools on the way to the black school he attended to having six different high school basketball teams forfeit games to avoid playing a team of all African-Americans. He was discovered in one of those trite stories that’s occasionally true; he was playing softball when one of the baseballs from the nearby field was hit out and landed by him. When they saw the speed and accuracy with which he threw the ball back he was encouraged to join the team as a pitcher, and the rest is history.
When he came up for the Cubs in 1980 (age 22) he was wild, but after two years he settled down and became an excellent closer. For his six-year peak (‘82-87) he was the best closer in the league overall, though it’s a bit misleading to call it his peak. From ‘82-84 his peripherals: 107 IP/yr, 0.4 HRA/9, 3.2 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, 2.66 ERA, 2.77 FIP. From ‘85-90 his stats: 85 IP/yr, 0.6 HRA/9, 3.6 BB/9, 10.3 K/9, 2.94 ERA, 2.64 FIP. From ‘91-94 his stats: 61 IP/yr, 1.0 HRA/9, 2.4 BB/9, 8.4 K/9, 3.09 ERA, 3.20 FIP. Where was his peak? They’re very different eras: you have the cautious excellence era (where he allows few home runs and has a lower BABIP, but isn’t striking out a ton of batters), the flamethrower era (where he’s striking out guys left and right, but has less control, gives up more home runs and allows a higher BABIP) and the restrained veteran era (when his K/9 comes down, but not by much, his walks are the best ever, but he’s more easily rocked with home runs). The first of the three was perhaps the best in quality, andt in quantity that was his peak, so that’s where most of his value is. He only had five WPAs above 2: two in the first era (2.7, 3.1), two in the second (2.7, 3.5) and one in the third (3.5).
He’s Quisenberry’s inverse in so many ways. Quisenberry had no strikeout ability; Smith had tons. Quisenberry had perfect control; Smith had below-average control. Quisenberry (for six years) could consistently induce weak contact; Smith always allowed higher BABIPs than you’d expect. Quisenberry had an incredibly high peak (one of the best seasons ever, as well as perhaps the best six-year stretch ever), Smith was merely very good at his peak. Quisenberry was only good for six years; Smith was very good for a long time (he’s probably the best aggregate reliever for the 80s/90s). They’re both Honorable Mentions because they lack the other half; Smith’s peak was too low for Bronze; the Quiz’s career (the part where he was good) was too short. But the two make a heck of a tandem for the decade.
Let’s move forward a bit to Keith Foulke! Foulke had one of the best changeups of his era, along with a fastball and occasional slider, and he could put any of them wherever he wanted. Foulke came up with the Giants at 24 (1997) but did not impress and was traded to the White Sox midseason. Foulke, both by virtue of pitch selection and style was a flyball pitcher, and early in his career batters were able to take him deep with some frequency. By the time he was 26 he brought his HRA/9 numbers below the league average which, when combined with his excellent control (5.7 BB% for his eight-year peak, best in the league) and quality stuff (24.5 K%, 8th over his peak) made him excellent. But perhaps his most subtle asset was his ability to force bad contact, consistently putting up one of the lowest BABIP in the league (2nd lowest during his peak) and one of the lowest HR/FB ratios in the league.
Foulke at his peak was excellent; from ‘98-04 he was the second best reliever in baseball (behind Rivera of course). For the White Sox he was routinely monstrous, from ‘99 to ‘02 putting up a 2.58 ERA and 96 saves. Then the A’s traded for him, pumped up his value with lots of saves (2.08 ERA, 43 saves in 2005) then let him hit restricted free agency where he was snatched up by the Red Sox. He had one really good year for them, but at 32 injuries sapped his innings, his stuff and his ability to keep balls in the park. He was done shortly thereafter. Foulke had an excellent peak with five 2+ WPA seasons, including a 4.6 (the Oakland year) and a whopping 6.4 in 2000. He pitched better in clutch situations; his WPA is a full three games higher than his quality of pitching suggests (that value, 3 WPA above expected based on quality, is actually the 4th best in this building). He was damned good in his peak; just not good enough to compensate for only pitching 787 innings over his career.
Up next, the section that loved Tom Gordon! Gordon came on as a starting pitcher for the Royals in 1989 (age 21) and played for them until 1996. In that time Gordon established himself as a preeminent strikeout artist, placing 8th in the league over that span in K%. Between his excellent fastball and his two different curves batters swung and missed a lot. But there was a downside; Gordon was wild. In fact, over that stretch he had the 4th highest BB% in the league. The aggregate was a starter with high walks and strikeouts, too dominant to be worthless, too wild to be great. Over his years as a starter he had four different years in the 3-rWAR range, which is fine but hardly Hall-worthy. In ‘97 he signed with the Red Sox where he started for a year. Then they had the bright idea of converting Gordon to a reliever. From ‘98 until his retirement (at age 41 in 2009) he was a great reliever, finding himself a perfect fit for the position.
His K% exploded and his walks actually dropped to league average or better, and suddenly when healthy he was one of the top five relievers in the game. He had two murderously good years, a 5.4 WPA season for Boston in ‘98 and a 4.5 WPA season for the Yankees in ‘04 (age 36). As he aged he relied less on his curves and more on a slider and cutter he developed. He was a great closer for Boston, had Tommy John Surgery in 2000, bounced around the league and in ‘04-05 he was the perfect setup man to pair with Mariano Rivera. As he aged he struggled with injuries more, but his performance barely changed. From ‘98 to ‘05 he is 42nd in innings pitched among relievers, but 6th in WPA. In fact, over this part of his career he emerges as quite comparable to Trevor Hoffman, in aggregate value if not makeup. If Gordon had been a reliever his whole career would he have made Bronze? Possible; he was certainly good enough. But he didn’t get to the bullpen until he was 30, and his time as a starter isn’t at a level necessary to help much. “Flash” Gordon was one of the best relievers in the game at the turn of the century. Worth an Honorable Mention.
About as good as a reliever can be in 723 innings, Jonathan Papelbon! Papelbon was the best closer in the league from the late 00s to the mid 10s. This is impressive but not as good as it sounds; for whatever reason you couldn’t swing a bat in the late 90s and early 00s without hitting half-a-dozen excellent closers. From ‘06 to ‘14 Papelbon leads the league (among relievers) in WPA, fWAR, rWAR, FIP, showing in the top ten for both K% and BB% and finishing 4th in ERA, which is impressive as he played for weak defenses in hitters’ parks most of his career. Taken in the 4th round by the Red Sox, Papelbon came up at age 24 (2005) and pitched excellently almost immediately. He used a splitter and slider but by far his best pitch was a mid-90s fastball. Papelbon pitched brilliantly for the Red Sox until 2010 (age 30), then was released as a restricted free agent and was signed by the Phillies. By age 32 his velocity had started to dip. By 34 he was only league-average and he retired after his age 35 season.
In aggregate? Papelbon didn’t pitch long (only ten full seasons and never more than 70 IP in a year) but he was fantastic when he pitched. He has seven 2+ WPA seasons, five 3+ and two 5+, which is an impressive set of totals. Perhaps equally impressive was his postseason performance; in 27 innings he put up 1.64 WPA, including 0.55 in the World Series against Colorado. His was the highest WPA for the Red Sox in that series. In terms of peak he’s as good as a lot of players Bronze and up, but his career was short and he didn’t pitch a lot compared to some others; his World Series contribution, though significant, was only 4.1 innings. If you thought Papelbon was Bronze because of his dominance of his era, or because of his Bronze-level quality (if not quantity) I couldn’t fault you. For us, he falls just short.
Comparable to Papelbon, pitching more innings but not as well, Francisco Rodriguez! “K-Rod” evolved considerably over his career. He’d always had a low 90s fastball, but his dominant pitches changed. From when he broke into the league in 2002 (age 21) for the Angels to 2007 he boasted a slider and curveball, both of which were monstrous. In 2008 he stopped using the slider completely and while he relied on his curveball more, it stopped being so dominant. Instead he relied on a changeup that he came to throw as often as 40% of the time later in his career, and interestingly, the changeup became his out pitch. In the slider part of his career he was a strikeout machine, 2nd in K% only to Brad Lidge, and while he was a little wild he still had the 3rd most WPA in the league. In the post-slider part of his career his strikeouts dropped (7th best K% for this part of his career) but still posted the 8th most WPA over this timeframe. His ability to evolve as he got older, from his heavy-K days with the Angels to his changeup-heavy days with the Mets and Brewers stretched his career, making everything from age 22 to 34 quality.
K-Rod had one great season, 2006, where he led the league with a WPA of 5.4. The rest of his career was consistent but not great: eleven 1+ WPA seasons (very good), but none in the 2s and four 3s. The aggregate is one of the best relievers in the Honorable Mention section. His postseason performance was less stellar, an almost zero WPA over 36.7 innings. That’s still average, and it’s a small sample size, but in comparison to pitchers like Papelbon or Rollie Fingers it hurts. One of the best relievers of the 2000s.
An aside before we get into the PBL relievers. In what can only be characterized as a massive bookkeeping blunder, the first two decades of the PBL recorded absolutely zero WPA information. This means that we’re stuck with rWAR and using historical rWAR -> WPA conversions to guess what their WPA would have been. It’s an imperfect solution, but it’s what we’ve got. Ballpark, a 3 rWAR season for a reliever is usually about 3.5 WPA, and a 4 rWAR season is worth almost 5.
Not breaking into the majors until 2012, Douglas Cluff! Cluff alternated between a sinker that he used to induce contact and a vicious slider that was his out-pitch. He came up with the White Sox in 2012 (age 22), was traded to Houston and finally ended up in Washington in 2017 where he played through age 36. Peak Cluff was a curious mix, striking out 10+ batters per 9 (every year ages 23-31) and forcing 60%+ groundballs (in fact, every year through age 26 was at 70% or higher). Once he got into his early 30s his sinker started losing velocity and it stopped being as good a pair for his slider, and everything started going wrong. His K/9 dropped below 10, his groundball% moved into the 50s and hitters started cranking his pitches, posting BABIPs of 315 or higher most of his remaining years.
He had four glorious years (2015-2018) where he put up consecutive 3+ rWAR seasons, and he won Reliever of the Year in two of them. The rest of his career, however, was consistently good but not dominant. In the early part he struggled with control a bit, and in the later part hitters started to make good contact against him and he could only be so good, even with a K/BB approaching four. He made seven All-Star games, and was one of the best relievers of his time.
A late bloomer, Jose Nunez! Nunez came up young for the Astros in 2014 (age 20) but struggled, walking 10 batters per 9 in his first two seasons. He was traded to the White Sox, where his control was only very bad, walking 6+ per 9. Then he was acquired by the Pirates, and wouldn’t you know, his control problems came, well, under control. After his first season in Pittsburgh (2018, age 24) his walks stabilized around 3 per 9. Which was handy because Nunez’ slider/fastball combination was more than the NL hitters could handle. Before age 27 Nunez averaged almost 10 K/9; after age 27 he averaged almost 12 per 9 through age 38. Neither pitch had much drop and when his pitches hung they were driven (0.9 HRA/9 career) but his stuff was so electric that he was still great. He put up seven different 2+ rWAR seasons and when WPA started being tracked again in ‘29 he put up two different 3+ WPA seasons (ages 36 and 38). He was never the best reliever in the league (six all-stars but no Reliever of the Years) but his ability to maintain the break on his slider so late in his career deserves a lot of credit. Few relievers can strike out batters like he did past age 35.
He pitched for freaking ever, Orlando Lopez! When Carolina landed him in the draft there was talk that he’d develop into a dominant strikeout pitcher. It never happened; it wasn’t until 28 that he broke 10 K/9 and while in his early 30s he averaged 10 K/9, in this building for relievers that’s slightly on the low end. Lopez likewise took a while to bring his BB/9 down (by 24 he’d only allowed 3+, after 24 he never allowed 3 or more BB/9 again) but out of the gate he stopped opposing batters from hitting home runs, a skill that did not change over his career (0.6 HRA/9 career). The result? A pitcher who was incredibly consistent throughout his career, but rarely lights-out. He only had one 3+ WPA season, but ten seasons at 2+ WPA. One thing that’s easy to forget; consistently breaking 3 WPA for a reliever is really hard, just as having ten seasons in a career at 2+ WPA. That’s like a regular player with ten seasons at 4+ WAR but only one in the 5 range. Fantastic career, nonexistent peak.
Not necessarily the guy you expected here, Arnold Nichols! Nichols was a journeyman, playing for eight different teams from age 25 when he came into the league (with Cincinnati) to when he retired at age 42 with the Angels (2030-2047). Nichols is a bit of an outlier here, as his peripherals don’t match those of other pitchers. He was able to put up 10+ K/9 until age 33, he had good control but not overwhelming (2.6 BB/9 career) and did a solid job preventing the deep ball (0.8 HRA/9 career). Nichols doesn’t necessarily meet the eye test of an Honorable Mention closer, so what’s he doing here? Nichols had a few really, really great seasons, fueled by his incredible stamina. At age 39 he pitched 171 innings for Oakland (0.5 / 2.1 / 6.3) with a WPA of 3.9; at age 36 for Oakland he pitched 117 innings (0.5 / 2.2 / 6.7) with a WPA of 4.4 and 2.24 ERA; and at age 33 for Baltimore, in his best season in only 84 innings (0.6 / 1.9 / 11.4) he put up a 1.82 ERA and a WPA of 4.7. Nichols was unusual for a PBL pitcher in that he consistently kept batters from making good contact (career BABIP of 281). The two Oakland seasons show that even when he couldn’t strike batters out his skill was enough to be enormously valuable to his team. That said those seasons were outliers; he had 3 seasons above 3.8 WPA, but only three in the 2 WPA range. At his best he was great but he wasn’t able to duplicate that level of performance consistently.
The last of the Honorable Mention relievers, Alex Munoz! Like Nichols, Munoz relied on a fastball and curveball combination. And like Nichols, Munoz didn’t have the best peripherals. While his command of the strike zone (2.3 BB/9 career, 8.9 K/9 career) was solid, he had a surprising tendency to allow home runs (1.0 HRA/9). In many ways comparable to Keith Foulke, Munoz lived on forcing bad contact (a crazy-low career BABIP of 265) but was vulnerable to the deep ball when his curve didn’t break. Munoz came up with the Padres (age 24, 2032) and had two monster seasons (3.6 and 4.5 WPA), but was dealt to the Marlins in his age 27 year and pitched for them until he was 35. The Marlins pitched him a lot but ignored leverage (six 100+ inning seasons, but only one Leverage Index above 1.26). He had two 3 WPA seasons but is most memorable for his 2037 postseason, where he pitched masterfully. The team’s closer Pepe Nieves struggled in the playoffs (7.88 ERA over 16 innings) but Munoz rose to the occasion, pitching 17.2 innings and contributing 1.1 WPA over the playoffs where the Marlins fell just short to the Red Sox in the World Series. At 36 Munoz went to the Twins and pitched well into his early 40s, contributing another two 2+ WPA seasons. He wasn’t dominant, but he had it where it counted.
Okay, that’s relievers, let’s head back for another round of Honorable Mention Starting Pitchers!
Also, we’re ignoring saves except as flavor. WPA does everything saves purport to do, but better.
As for the cutoff? Actually, in terms of value over their careers, the cutoff for relievers is about the same as it is for catchers (which is slightly lower than it is for everyone else). So relievers aren’t getting a massive break; if you had to choose between the career of an Honorable Mention reliever or an Honorable Mention catcher, as far as great seasons, the two are pretty comparable. A major difference is that the reliever tiers are compressed quite a bit; the best closer of all time (I’ll leave you all in suspense) would at best be considered a Gold tier player at any other position. So the short comparison is as follows: Honorable Mention Relievers = Honorable Mention Catchers, Bronze Relievers = Bottom ⅔ of Bronze Catchers, Silver Relievers = Border of Bronze / Silver Catchers, Gold Relievers = Low Silver Catchers, Diamond Relievers = High Silver Catchers, Pantheon Relievers = Low Gold Catchers. And with that, here we go!
The first reliever we’ll discuss, and the second farthest back, Lindy McDaniel! McDaniel was the proto-closer. Where Hoyt Wilhelm was a strange knuckleballing exception to normal rules and so could pitch in relief frequently and deep into games, McDaniel was simply a failed starter but a dominant reliever. While not known for his velocity, McDaniel had a sinking fastball, an excellent overhand curve and a forkball that became his go-to pitch late in his career. You’ll notice a trend; all of these pitches are heavy and drop. Willie McCovey, known slugger, opined that he’d rather face a lefty (against which, you may recall, he struggled) than McDaniel, because McDaniel’s pitches were so hard to put in the air.
McDaniel came up with the Cardinals at the age of 19 (1955) owing to his status as a bonus baby. He pitched relief for his first two years and started for the next two but struggled as a starter. In 1959 they made him a full-time reliever and saw him excel, and from thereon out he was a relief ace on whatever team he was on. His overall career stats are not overwhelming. For the years during which he was a reliever relatively in his peak (‘59-72, age 23 to 36) his strikeout rate of 6.6 was about average for a reliever at the time, his control (BB/9) of 2.6 was better than average and his HRA/9 was 0.7, which is better than average but not by as much as you’d guess from his pitch selection. By FIP he was quite good, certainly better than average, but his rWAR is lower on account of his extremely high BABIP allowed, which one must infer was the product of being a serious groundball pitcher in mostly hitters parks (St. Louis and Wrigley Field).
McDaniel’s inclusion on this list is the product of two seasons where he was at his best. In 1960 he pitched 116 innings (he routinely pitched 1.5-2 innings per appearance), with peripherals of 0.6 / 1.9 / 8.1 (HRA / BB9 / K9). He had the best K/9 of any reliever (above 70 IP) that year, as well as the best BB9, an excellent BABIP and the best LOB% in the league, as well as the best ERA (2.09), the most saves (27) and a 12-4 record. This season is worth an astounding 5.9 rWAR (crazy high for a reliever) but an even more impressive 5.7 WPA. This means that he was worth 5.7 wins to his team based on how well he pitched under what clutch conditions (if you’re trying to compare WPA to WAR, add 2 to the WPA number; McDaniel’s 1960 season was the loose equivalent of a 7.7 WAR year, comparable to Ernie Banks or Hank Aaron that season). This season was so good that he finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting, the first reliever ever to receive a Cy Young vote. For the next nine seasons he was decent (ERA+ of 108) but not dominant. Then in 1970, for the Yankees he had another great year (age 34). His stuff had diminished (only 6.5 K/9) but his control was as good as ever over 111 innings. He had a better defense behind him in a pitchers’ park so his 2.01 ERA isn’t quite as good as his performance in 1960, but his aggregate result was still worth another 5.7 WPA. Over his career McDaniel was not overwhelmingly dominant, but 5+ WPA is very high; even Mariano Rivera topped out with a 5 and 5.4 WPA season. Few relievers can be one of the best relievers in the league *and* throw 100+ innings. Lindy McDaniel did it twice.
An unusual pitcher with an unusual name, Dan Quisenberry! The Quiz won five reliever of the year awards for the Royals, which is curious given his makeup. You see, Quisenberry, by most standards, had no arm. Lacking any kind of velocity on his fastball he adapted in the minors (“found a delivery in my flaw” has he wittily characterized it) by becoming a submariner and throwing a sinker and curveball as his primary pitches. He had ridiculous, pinpoint, control and was hard to hit. Which is good, because the guy couldn’t strike guys out. Like, at all. Between 1980 and 1986 (Quisenberry’s peak) 51 relievers threw at least 300 innings. His rankings for those years of those 51: rWAR (2nd), WPA (1st), K/9 (51st). The guy’s peak had him strike out 3.06 batters per nine innings. How in the nine hells is that possible, with him still being in this section?
First, he allowed 1.16 BB/9 (the best rate ever since 1930), which is profoundly good. His low HRA/9 (0.52) helped. Those two stats are good enough to make him a good pitcher, even with his cellar-dwelling strikeout rate. But those peripherals fit with a 1910s ace (actually, they look similar to Babe Adams), not with a dominant modern closer. There are other interesting things; despite clearly being a groundball pitcher his BABIP was ten points lower than his team’s. Quisenberry (by the way, is anyone else irritated that the best nickname they could come up with was “Quiz” or “Q”? Not “the Quizard of Oz”? Not “Master Q”? Not “the Quisinart”? I ask for so little . . .) was the master of always hitting his spots and inducing weak contact. His career had two sub-2 ERAs and his WPAs are excellent. He has six 2+, four 3+, three 4+ and one *7 WPA* season in 1980. Let me say that again, 7 WPA. That’s like a batter having a 9 WAR season; that’s more WPA than any AL batter from 1980. In fact, measured by WPA, that 1980 season is the third best relief season in MLB history. How many batters did he strike out per 9 that year? 2.6.
It was a perfect storm. He pitched 128 innings (which helps a lot) with his usual masterful control, but actually didn’t benefit from fluky good BABIP or LOB% that year. In many ways his 1980 season wasn’t objectively better than his two 4 WPA seasons (‘83 and ‘84), except because of context. In 1980 he was given very high leverage opportunities (43 high leverage appearances and an average Leverage Index above 2.1, meaning that everything he did, good or bad, was 2.1 times as important to winning or losing the game because of the circumstances of the game when he came in). In fact, in 75 appearances that year he inherited 89 runners (*averaging* a runner or more on base - what the heck!) but he stranded 63 of those (a great percentage). In fact, he was even better in high leverage conditions; only considering the average situation he came in on and his level of pitching he should have only been worth 5.8 WPA. An entire 1.2 extra WPA came from him being at his worst when it didn’t matter, and at his best when his team needed him the most. That 1980 is one of the best relief seasons ever, and that it was achieved by a pitcher who couldn’t strike out more than 3 per 9 is insane.
So why isn’t he Bronze? He did win five reliever-of-the-year awards after all. Honestly, it’s because the guy was incredibly good for six years (1980-1985, ages 27-32), had two mediocre years and then pretty much disappeared. What happened? Well, do you remember me talking about how he was so good at inducing weak contact? His BABIP from 1980-1985: 261 (compare with league average 277). His BABIP from 1986 to 1989: 312 (league average 282). It’s not that he lost his control or his strikeouts dropped even farther (neither happened); it’s that he lost the ability to limit the batters’ contact and they started crushing the ball. In fact, Quisenberry has the 2nd highest BABIP of any reliever for that time period (minimum 200 IP). What he did, being the best closer in the league for years without any ability to strike batters out, is incredibly hard. By the time he hit 33 he just couldn’t do it anymore. His peak is one of the best six-year stretches by any reliever ever, perhaps the best ever. But six great years isn’t enough for Bronze. But we hear he was a Quiz of a Quiz, if ever a Quiz there was.
Quisenberry’s opposite in many ways, Lee Smith! Smith was a fireballing right-hander who always believed his stuff was unhittable when it was on (and he was often right). Between his velocity and his scowl he was quite intimidating. Dusty Baker of Los Angeles admitted, “I don’t run from anybody, but the opinion around the National League is that you’re in no real hurry to get to him.” Growing up in the 70s Smith felt acutely the racial tensions of the south, from his bussing by six white schools on the way to the black school he attended to having six different high school basketball teams forfeit games to avoid playing a team of all African-Americans. He was discovered in one of those trite stories that’s occasionally true; he was playing softball when one of the baseballs from the nearby field was hit out and landed by him. When they saw the speed and accuracy with which he threw the ball back he was encouraged to join the team as a pitcher, and the rest is history.
When he came up for the Cubs in 1980 (age 22) he was wild, but after two years he settled down and became an excellent closer. For his six-year peak (‘82-87) he was the best closer in the league overall, though it’s a bit misleading to call it his peak. From ‘82-84 his peripherals: 107 IP/yr, 0.4 HRA/9, 3.2 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, 2.66 ERA, 2.77 FIP. From ‘85-90 his stats: 85 IP/yr, 0.6 HRA/9, 3.6 BB/9, 10.3 K/9, 2.94 ERA, 2.64 FIP. From ‘91-94 his stats: 61 IP/yr, 1.0 HRA/9, 2.4 BB/9, 8.4 K/9, 3.09 ERA, 3.20 FIP. Where was his peak? They’re very different eras: you have the cautious excellence era (where he allows few home runs and has a lower BABIP, but isn’t striking out a ton of batters), the flamethrower era (where he’s striking out guys left and right, but has less control, gives up more home runs and allows a higher BABIP) and the restrained veteran era (when his K/9 comes down, but not by much, his walks are the best ever, but he’s more easily rocked with home runs). The first of the three was perhaps the best in quality, andt in quantity that was his peak, so that’s where most of his value is. He only had five WPAs above 2: two in the first era (2.7, 3.1), two in the second (2.7, 3.5) and one in the third (3.5).
He’s Quisenberry’s inverse in so many ways. Quisenberry had no strikeout ability; Smith had tons. Quisenberry had perfect control; Smith had below-average control. Quisenberry (for six years) could consistently induce weak contact; Smith always allowed higher BABIPs than you’d expect. Quisenberry had an incredibly high peak (one of the best seasons ever, as well as perhaps the best six-year stretch ever), Smith was merely very good at his peak. Quisenberry was only good for six years; Smith was very good for a long time (he’s probably the best aggregate reliever for the 80s/90s). They’re both Honorable Mentions because they lack the other half; Smith’s peak was too low for Bronze; the Quiz’s career (the part where he was good) was too short. But the two make a heck of a tandem for the decade.
Let’s move forward a bit to Keith Foulke! Foulke had one of the best changeups of his era, along with a fastball and occasional slider, and he could put any of them wherever he wanted. Foulke came up with the Giants at 24 (1997) but did not impress and was traded to the White Sox midseason. Foulke, both by virtue of pitch selection and style was a flyball pitcher, and early in his career batters were able to take him deep with some frequency. By the time he was 26 he brought his HRA/9 numbers below the league average which, when combined with his excellent control (5.7 BB% for his eight-year peak, best in the league) and quality stuff (24.5 K%, 8th over his peak) made him excellent. But perhaps his most subtle asset was his ability to force bad contact, consistently putting up one of the lowest BABIP in the league (2nd lowest during his peak) and one of the lowest HR/FB ratios in the league.
Foulke at his peak was excellent; from ‘98-04 he was the second best reliever in baseball (behind Rivera of course). For the White Sox he was routinely monstrous, from ‘99 to ‘02 putting up a 2.58 ERA and 96 saves. Then the A’s traded for him, pumped up his value with lots of saves (2.08 ERA, 43 saves in 2005) then let him hit restricted free agency where he was snatched up by the Red Sox. He had one really good year for them, but at 32 injuries sapped his innings, his stuff and his ability to keep balls in the park. He was done shortly thereafter. Foulke had an excellent peak with five 2+ WPA seasons, including a 4.6 (the Oakland year) and a whopping 6.4 in 2000. He pitched better in clutch situations; his WPA is a full three games higher than his quality of pitching suggests (that value, 3 WPA above expected based on quality, is actually the 4th best in this building). He was damned good in his peak; just not good enough to compensate for only pitching 787 innings over his career.
Up next, the section that loved Tom Gordon! Gordon came on as a starting pitcher for the Royals in 1989 (age 21) and played for them until 1996. In that time Gordon established himself as a preeminent strikeout artist, placing 8th in the league over that span in K%. Between his excellent fastball and his two different curves batters swung and missed a lot. But there was a downside; Gordon was wild. In fact, over that stretch he had the 4th highest BB% in the league. The aggregate was a starter with high walks and strikeouts, too dominant to be worthless, too wild to be great. Over his years as a starter he had four different years in the 3-rWAR range, which is fine but hardly Hall-worthy. In ‘97 he signed with the Red Sox where he started for a year. Then they had the bright idea of converting Gordon to a reliever. From ‘98 until his retirement (at age 41 in 2009) he was a great reliever, finding himself a perfect fit for the position.
His K% exploded and his walks actually dropped to league average or better, and suddenly when healthy he was one of the top five relievers in the game. He had two murderously good years, a 5.4 WPA season for Boston in ‘98 and a 4.5 WPA season for the Yankees in ‘04 (age 36). As he aged he relied less on his curves and more on a slider and cutter he developed. He was a great closer for Boston, had Tommy John Surgery in 2000, bounced around the league and in ‘04-05 he was the perfect setup man to pair with Mariano Rivera. As he aged he struggled with injuries more, but his performance barely changed. From ‘98 to ‘05 he is 42nd in innings pitched among relievers, but 6th in WPA. In fact, over this part of his career he emerges as quite comparable to Trevor Hoffman, in aggregate value if not makeup. If Gordon had been a reliever his whole career would he have made Bronze? Possible; he was certainly good enough. But he didn’t get to the bullpen until he was 30, and his time as a starter isn’t at a level necessary to help much. “Flash” Gordon was one of the best relievers in the game at the turn of the century. Worth an Honorable Mention.
About as good as a reliever can be in 723 innings, Jonathan Papelbon! Papelbon was the best closer in the league from the late 00s to the mid 10s. This is impressive but not as good as it sounds; for whatever reason you couldn’t swing a bat in the late 90s and early 00s without hitting half-a-dozen excellent closers. From ‘06 to ‘14 Papelbon leads the league (among relievers) in WPA, fWAR, rWAR, FIP, showing in the top ten for both K% and BB% and finishing 4th in ERA, which is impressive as he played for weak defenses in hitters’ parks most of his career. Taken in the 4th round by the Red Sox, Papelbon came up at age 24 (2005) and pitched excellently almost immediately. He used a splitter and slider but by far his best pitch was a mid-90s fastball. Papelbon pitched brilliantly for the Red Sox until 2010 (age 30), then was released as a restricted free agent and was signed by the Phillies. By age 32 his velocity had started to dip. By 34 he was only league-average and he retired after his age 35 season.
In aggregate? Papelbon didn’t pitch long (only ten full seasons and never more than 70 IP in a year) but he was fantastic when he pitched. He has seven 2+ WPA seasons, five 3+ and two 5+, which is an impressive set of totals. Perhaps equally impressive was his postseason performance; in 27 innings he put up 1.64 WPA, including 0.55 in the World Series against Colorado. His was the highest WPA for the Red Sox in that series. In terms of peak he’s as good as a lot of players Bronze and up, but his career was short and he didn’t pitch a lot compared to some others; his World Series contribution, though significant, was only 4.1 innings. If you thought Papelbon was Bronze because of his dominance of his era, or because of his Bronze-level quality (if not quantity) I couldn’t fault you. For us, he falls just short.
Comparable to Papelbon, pitching more innings but not as well, Francisco Rodriguez! “K-Rod” evolved considerably over his career. He’d always had a low 90s fastball, but his dominant pitches changed. From when he broke into the league in 2002 (age 21) for the Angels to 2007 he boasted a slider and curveball, both of which were monstrous. In 2008 he stopped using the slider completely and while he relied on his curveball more, it stopped being so dominant. Instead he relied on a changeup that he came to throw as often as 40% of the time later in his career, and interestingly, the changeup became his out pitch. In the slider part of his career he was a strikeout machine, 2nd in K% only to Brad Lidge, and while he was a little wild he still had the 3rd most WPA in the league. In the post-slider part of his career his strikeouts dropped (7th best K% for this part of his career) but still posted the 8th most WPA over this timeframe. His ability to evolve as he got older, from his heavy-K days with the Angels to his changeup-heavy days with the Mets and Brewers stretched his career, making everything from age 22 to 34 quality.
K-Rod had one great season, 2006, where he led the league with a WPA of 5.4. The rest of his career was consistent but not great: eleven 1+ WPA seasons (very good), but none in the 2s and four 3s. The aggregate is one of the best relievers in the Honorable Mention section. His postseason performance was less stellar, an almost zero WPA over 36.7 innings. That’s still average, and it’s a small sample size, but in comparison to pitchers like Papelbon or Rollie Fingers it hurts. One of the best relievers of the 2000s.
An aside before we get into the PBL relievers. In what can only be characterized as a massive bookkeeping blunder, the first two decades of the PBL recorded absolutely zero WPA information. This means that we’re stuck with rWAR and using historical rWAR -> WPA conversions to guess what their WPA would have been. It’s an imperfect solution, but it’s what we’ve got. Ballpark, a 3 rWAR season for a reliever is usually about 3.5 WPA, and a 4 rWAR season is worth almost 5.
Not breaking into the majors until 2012, Douglas Cluff! Cluff alternated between a sinker that he used to induce contact and a vicious slider that was his out-pitch. He came up with the White Sox in 2012 (age 22), was traded to Houston and finally ended up in Washington in 2017 where he played through age 36. Peak Cluff was a curious mix, striking out 10+ batters per 9 (every year ages 23-31) and forcing 60%+ groundballs (in fact, every year through age 26 was at 70% or higher). Once he got into his early 30s his sinker started losing velocity and it stopped being as good a pair for his slider, and everything started going wrong. His K/9 dropped below 10, his groundball% moved into the 50s and hitters started cranking his pitches, posting BABIPs of 315 or higher most of his remaining years.
He had four glorious years (2015-2018) where he put up consecutive 3+ rWAR seasons, and he won Reliever of the Year in two of them. The rest of his career, however, was consistently good but not dominant. In the early part he struggled with control a bit, and in the later part hitters started to make good contact against him and he could only be so good, even with a K/BB approaching four. He made seven All-Star games, and was one of the best relievers of his time.
A late bloomer, Jose Nunez! Nunez came up young for the Astros in 2014 (age 20) but struggled, walking 10 batters per 9 in his first two seasons. He was traded to the White Sox, where his control was only very bad, walking 6+ per 9. Then he was acquired by the Pirates, and wouldn’t you know, his control problems came, well, under control. After his first season in Pittsburgh (2018, age 24) his walks stabilized around 3 per 9. Which was handy because Nunez’ slider/fastball combination was more than the NL hitters could handle. Before age 27 Nunez averaged almost 10 K/9; after age 27 he averaged almost 12 per 9 through age 38. Neither pitch had much drop and when his pitches hung they were driven (0.9 HRA/9 career) but his stuff was so electric that he was still great. He put up seven different 2+ rWAR seasons and when WPA started being tracked again in ‘29 he put up two different 3+ WPA seasons (ages 36 and 38). He was never the best reliever in the league (six all-stars but no Reliever of the Years) but his ability to maintain the break on his slider so late in his career deserves a lot of credit. Few relievers can strike out batters like he did past age 35.
He pitched for freaking ever, Orlando Lopez! When Carolina landed him in the draft there was talk that he’d develop into a dominant strikeout pitcher. It never happened; it wasn’t until 28 that he broke 10 K/9 and while in his early 30s he averaged 10 K/9, in this building for relievers that’s slightly on the low end. Lopez likewise took a while to bring his BB/9 down (by 24 he’d only allowed 3+, after 24 he never allowed 3 or more BB/9 again) but out of the gate he stopped opposing batters from hitting home runs, a skill that did not change over his career (0.6 HRA/9 career). The result? A pitcher who was incredibly consistent throughout his career, but rarely lights-out. He only had one 3+ WPA season, but ten seasons at 2+ WPA. One thing that’s easy to forget; consistently breaking 3 WPA for a reliever is really hard, just as having ten seasons in a career at 2+ WPA. That’s like a regular player with ten seasons at 4+ WAR but only one in the 5 range. Fantastic career, nonexistent peak.
Not necessarily the guy you expected here, Arnold Nichols! Nichols was a journeyman, playing for eight different teams from age 25 when he came into the league (with Cincinnati) to when he retired at age 42 with the Angels (2030-2047). Nichols is a bit of an outlier here, as his peripherals don’t match those of other pitchers. He was able to put up 10+ K/9 until age 33, he had good control but not overwhelming (2.6 BB/9 career) and did a solid job preventing the deep ball (0.8 HRA/9 career). Nichols doesn’t necessarily meet the eye test of an Honorable Mention closer, so what’s he doing here? Nichols had a few really, really great seasons, fueled by his incredible stamina. At age 39 he pitched 171 innings for Oakland (0.5 / 2.1 / 6.3) with a WPA of 3.9; at age 36 for Oakland he pitched 117 innings (0.5 / 2.2 / 6.7) with a WPA of 4.4 and 2.24 ERA; and at age 33 for Baltimore, in his best season in only 84 innings (0.6 / 1.9 / 11.4) he put up a 1.82 ERA and a WPA of 4.7. Nichols was unusual for a PBL pitcher in that he consistently kept batters from making good contact (career BABIP of 281). The two Oakland seasons show that even when he couldn’t strike batters out his skill was enough to be enormously valuable to his team. That said those seasons were outliers; he had 3 seasons above 3.8 WPA, but only three in the 2 WPA range. At his best he was great but he wasn’t able to duplicate that level of performance consistently.
The last of the Honorable Mention relievers, Alex Munoz! Like Nichols, Munoz relied on a fastball and curveball combination. And like Nichols, Munoz didn’t have the best peripherals. While his command of the strike zone (2.3 BB/9 career, 8.9 K/9 career) was solid, he had a surprising tendency to allow home runs (1.0 HRA/9). In many ways comparable to Keith Foulke, Munoz lived on forcing bad contact (a crazy-low career BABIP of 265) but was vulnerable to the deep ball when his curve didn’t break. Munoz came up with the Padres (age 24, 2032) and had two monster seasons (3.6 and 4.5 WPA), but was dealt to the Marlins in his age 27 year and pitched for them until he was 35. The Marlins pitched him a lot but ignored leverage (six 100+ inning seasons, but only one Leverage Index above 1.26). He had two 3 WPA seasons but is most memorable for his 2037 postseason, where he pitched masterfully. The team’s closer Pepe Nieves struggled in the playoffs (7.88 ERA over 16 innings) but Munoz rose to the occasion, pitching 17.2 innings and contributing 1.1 WPA over the playoffs where the Marlins fell just short to the Red Sox in the World Series. At 36 Munoz went to the Twins and pitched well into his early 40s, contributing another two 2+ WPA seasons. He wasn’t dominant, but he had it where it counted.
Okay, that’s relievers, let’s head back for another round of Honorable Mention Starting Pitchers!