Unlucky Maddux

[Olympic Fan]

Have to confess that even though he no longer pitches for the Braves, Greg Maddux remains my favorite player. It killed me Saturday when he pitched seven scoreless innings and didn't get the decision in an eventual LA win.

I know he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer and with one more win, will break his tie with Roger Clemens and become the second-winningest pitcher ever who didn't pitch before World War I (there are a bunch of pre WW1 guys with huge totals, but only Warren Spahn from those who came after the first world war have more wins).

Still, I don't think I've ever seen an unluckier pitcher over the course of his career when it comes to wins. Back when he was with the Braves, it used to kill me how often the bullpen let him down or how he got little run support. I remember 1998 especially -- Maddux lost the Cy Young Award to teammate Tom Glavive. Now, I also like Glavine, but the award was a joke.

For the season, Maddux pitched 251 innings with a 2.22 ERA ... He allowed 201 hits and 45 walks in those 251 innings and gave up just 13 home runs. He pitched nine complete games and five shutouts.

Glavine pitched 229.3 innings with a 2.47 ERA ... He allowed 202 hits and walked 74 batters. He also allowed just 13 home runs. He pitched four complete games and three shutouts.

Glavine's numbers are good, but while very close to Maddux's, inferior in every single category (except HRs allowed). And that's pitching for the same team in the same ballpark.

So why did Glavine beat Maddux for the CYA?

Clearly, it's because he got more run support, leading to a 20-6 record. Maddux finished 18-9 ... the voters were mezmerized by the disparity in records, without understanding that the won/lost totals are determined by factors beyond a pitcher's control -- his bullpen and his offensive support.

Maddux actually pitched better than Glavine in 1998 -- clearly -- yet finished 4th in the CY vote.

Now, this year, Maddux wouldn't be a CY candidate with all the support in the world. Still his record ought to be a lot better than 7-12.

He's had 17 "quality starts" (six innings or more, giving up three runs or less). He's 5-5 in those games with seven no decisions.

Three times he's pitched at least six scoreless innings (twice seven innings) without getting a win. Seven times he's allowed one run in six-plus innings and he's 2-2 in such games with three no decisions.

In addition to his 17 quality starts, he's had four more starts where he's gone into the sixth inning having allowed two runs (three times) and one run (once).

He's had nine poor starts that account for six of his losses -- those losses are well-deserved as he's averaged 5.2 runs in an average of 5.1 innings in those six defeats. He has two no-decisions after bad starts and exactly one cheap win -- four runs allowed in five innings of work.

With normal run support and bullpen help (the San Diego pen blew at least two wins -- one with two outs in the 9th when future HOFer Trevor Hoffman failed), Maddux should be something like 14-10 on the season.

And with normal luck during his career, he'd be pushing Spahn for victories and not trying to break a tie with the steroid king.

[YmoBeThere]

I will agree that Maddux has gotten some bad breaks this season. However, the game yesterday was a loss for the Dodgers in 10 innings. I remember because I had to tear up the betting slip...

[robed deity]

I'd be curious to see the statistical breakdown for other years too. He is my all time favorite player, so it always annoyed me how he didn't pile on more wins. For instance, one year (was it '96?), he went something like 19-2 with a ridiculous ERA just above 1.50. 19 wins is a lot, but I seem to remember the bullpen blowing their share of games and the lineup not generating any runs in others. He probably should've had more like 25 wins.

I guess he also benefited from being on a good team for all those years, but I really think he got burned a lot. I always brought this point up when arguing with people about who the greatest pitcher of the last 20 years was. It always came down to Maddux and Clemens (who does have a higher winning pct.) Now, of course, because of the Clemens/steroids mess, it's not even a question.

[dkbaseball]

He's my favorite currently active player too. Anybody who's ever taken the mound would have to have the utmost respect for the way he's gone about his business over the years. Especially because he is so untainted in a steroids era, I think he's got a decent shot at Tom Seaver's record for percentage of the vote on the HOF first ballot. He's not a media darling and a New York favorite like Seaver, but he's the ultimate craftsman, and I think that's clear to everyone who will be voting.

[brevity]

I think he's got a decent shot at Tom Seaver's record for percentage of the vote on the HOF first ballot. He's not a media darling and a New York favorite like Seaver, but he's the ultimate craftsman, and I think that's clear to everyone who will be voting.

Tom Seaver received 425 out of 430 votes (98.8%) in 1992. I'm not sure if beating it is even possible. Cal Ripken (98.5%) came damn close, but you have to wonder if a few voters always vote no because they never want to see a unanimous selection.

[Olympic Fan]

Tom Seaver received 425 out of 430 votes (98.8%) in 1992. I'm not sure if beating it is even possible. Cal Ripken (98.5%) came damn close, but you have to wonder if a few voters always vote no because they never want to see a unanimous selection.

You are exactly right -- it's like the one Presidential elector who voted against James Monroe in 1816 because he thought George Washington should be the only president elected unanimously.

There are old fuddy duddys who think, "If Ruth wasn't unanimous, then Willie Mays (or Tom Seaver or Greg Maddux) won't be either."

The funny thing is, the voting rules don't allow a voter to vote against a particular player or even to send in a blank ballot (such ballots are not included in the percentage of the vote.

So what happens is that the obstructionists cast their vote for some player on the ballot that has absolutely no chance of winning election. When next year's vote is published, check it out and you'll see votes for guys like Bucky Dent or Glenn Hubbard (maybe not those guys, exactly, because they won't be on the ballot anymore, but guys like them ... nice players, but by no stretch of the most fevorish imagination a Hall of Famer) -- those are usually throwaway votes by guys who don't want to see Mike Schmidt or Cal Ripken elected unanimously.