Bill James has a new article up entitled "The Bully Factor" that examines pitcher performance on the basis of quality of the opponent. The article was prompted by an inquiry from a subscriber to his website, but Bill says the idea of breaking down a pitcher's performance by quality of opponent originated in a 1969 when Bill argued to a college buddy that Marichal was better than Gibson and his buddy (a big Cards fan) responded by insisting that Marichal tended to beat up on the weak sisters in the league (in the '60s NL, that would be teams like the Mets and Astros). Bill's response at the time, without knowing any of the actual facts, was "bullshit."

Bill finally got around to crunching the numbers and posted his spreadsheet online for downloading (clicking on the preceding link will automatically download the excel spreadsheet to your hard drive). I believe the article itself is only available at Bill's subscriber-only website. Basically, Bill divided teams into four quality categories based on their aggregate records by each decade and then broke down a pitcher's starts against teams in each category. The findings are interesting, if not all that significant. Bill himself makes no great claims as to the significance of his research in judging pitchers. Bill doesn't really make this point but I will: given two pitchers with identical records, one should prefer the pitcher who pitches better against A-list competition. Why? Because if the pitcher's team is in contention, games against other contenders are two-fers. A win against another contender is not only a win for your team but a loss for the other contender.

Here's how Bill described his methodology in arriving at a single metric he refers to as "the Bully Factor":

How do we measure the extent to which each pitcher dominated inferior competition? I looked at six factors relative to that issue, which were: 1) The percentage of the pitcher’s wins that came over “D” quality competition, 2) The difference in the pitcher’s winning percentage versus “A & B” teams and his winning percentage versus “C & D” teams, 3) The difference in the pitcher’s ERA versus “A & B” teams and his ERA versus “C & D” teams, 4) The difference in the pitcher’s overall effectiveness RANK (1 to 702) versus “A & B” teams and his overall effectiveness rank versus “C & D” teams, 5) The difference in the pitcher’s overall effectiveness rank (1 to 702) versus “A” teams compared to his overall effectiveness rank versus all teams, and 6) The player’s career win total versus “A & B” teams compared to his career wins versus “C & D” teams.

I made up an index of these six indicators, which I called the “Bully Factor”; a high Bully Factor indicates that the pitcher pitched much better against weak competition than against strong competition—much better, or in some cases much more. Later, I’ll list the pitchers at the top and bottom of the chart, but first, let’s look at the guys with the most “normal” data, the guys in the center of the chart.

So who are the biggest bullies among notable pitchers? Well, to begin with, Bill was pretty much on target with his "bullshit" response to his buddy's assertion that Marichal was a bully and Gibson wasn't: Marichal generally performed better against the quality competition, whereas Gibson had a greater tendency to beat up on the weak sisters in the league. Bill is careful not draw any grand conclusions from this fact, as well he should be, because Gibson's spectacular big-game record certainly refutes any argument that Gibson couldn't step it up against good teams in big games. But the fact remains that as between the two Gibson did more padding of his stats against the bad teams than Marichal did.

Here are the biggest bullies among the more notable pitchers of the last 60 years (Bill's data covers pitchers with 100 or more starts since 1952): Bob Turley, Denny McLain, C.C. Sabathia, Early Wynn, Jack Morris, Justin Verlander, Roy Oswalt, Bob Lemon, Tim Wakefield, Ken Holtzman, Herb Score, Mel Parnell, Joe Niekro, Camilo Pascual, Derek Lowe and Mark Buehrle. Zack Greinke also has a pretty big Bully Factor so far in his brief career.

Some other notable pitchers who had Bully Factors well above average are Sam McDowell, Luis Tiant, Tim Hudson, Dave Stewart, Mike Hampton, J.R. Richard, Steve Rogers, Don Newcombe, Vida Blue, Bob Gibson, Andy Pettitte, David Wells, Randy Johnson and Bert Blyleven.

Notable pitchers with very low Bully Factors include Frank Lary (aka "the Yankee Killer"), Carlos Zambrano, A.J. Burnett, Kenny Rogers, Bartolo Colon, Jarrod Washburn, Phil Niekro, Dave Stieb, Floyd Bannister, Bob Welch, Frank Viola, Mel Stottlemyre, John Lackey, Al Leiter and Bret Saberhagen.

Some other notable pitchers who had Bully Factors distinctly below average are Bret Saberhagen, Fernando Valenzuela, Nolan Ryan, Tommy John, John Candelaria, Juan Marichal, Mickey Lolich, Cliff Lee, Robin Roberts, Sandy Koufax, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mike Cuellar, Dennis Eckersely, Ron Guidry, Dwight Gooden, Dave McNally, John Tudor, Johan Santana, Curt Schilling and Frank Tanana.

Of most interest to me were the pitchers who performed particularly well against the A category teams. Generally speaking these teams had winning percentages over .550 for the decade. There are five pitchers who really stand out, compiling excellent winning percentages and ERAs against A category teams: Whitey Ford, Sandy Koufax, Bret Saberhagen, Pedro Martinez and Johan Santana. Against A category competition, each had a winning percentage above .630 and an ERA below their career ERA.

There are ten other pitchers who had a winning percentage above .570 against A quality competition (min. 25 wins against A competition): Dwight Gooden, Freddy Garcia, Roy Halladay, Jack Sanford, David Wells, Jim Maloney, Juan Marichal, Tom Glavine, Ron Guidry and John Candelaria.

Categorizing teams based on their records over a decade rather than annual records will produce some anomalies. Just for example, a pitcher who just came into the AL within the last few years will have his games against the Tampa Rays thrown into the D category of weak sisters even though the Rays have been anything but weak the last few years. As another example, Bill's data shows Saberhagen with a .570 winning percentage against teams with decade records above .500 and .601 against teams with decade records below .500. Splits based on annual team records, however, show that Saberhagen's numbers are flipped: he had a .606 W% against teams with records above .500 and a .571 W% against teams under .500.

Still, as always, James is provocative. And some of the findings are very striking. Ford and Koufax were great against top flight competition. Jack Morris and Justin Verlander really feasted on the worst teams. Draw your own conclusions as to the significance of these facts.

Andy Pettitte: Hall of Famer, or just a good pitcher on great teams who was lucky to get great run support? If Andy retired today, I'd have to believe the BBWAA would come down decidedly in the latter camp. But another 15 win season in 2010 and some more October glory could change that.

I would have to admit that Andy is still a marginal HOF candidate, at least by the ostensible standards of recent HOF balloting. But if I had a vote, I'd have to ask myself: can I really vote to exclude a guy who has been such a large part of so much baseball history, and a crucial cog for so many world champions? And what if Pettitte tops the 250 win mark? He's a sure bet to top 240 wins and that's a formidable figure in this era. Who among the best active pitchers is a good bet to reach 240 wins? In an age where Cy Young award winners win 15 or 16 games, I'd venture that not even Sabathia and Halladay - the two most likely to hit 240 - are even-money bets.

The key to Andy's HOF chances is his reputation as a big-game pitcher, of course. But as staggering as his post-season numbers are, Pettitte critics are still loathe to acknowledge Andy's big-game bona fides. As best I can tell, they regard Pettitte as a post-season version of the regular-season Jack Morris: a guy who won a lot but only because he had great run support. This is a myth.

A closer look at Pettitte's post-season record reveals that Pettitte's excellent post-season record is more a function of his clutch pitching than his run support. It also reveals that Pettitte has been getting better in the post-season as he gets older. And if one looks at Pettitte's September record while ihs team is in contention for a playoff berth, they find a record remarkably similar to his outstanding post-season record. Let's take a closer look and see if you don't agree that Andy Pettitte should already have his ticket punched for Cooperstown.

The Post-Season

Here's the post-season record:

Click on the above stat line to see Pettitte's post-season game log. Pettitte's been getting even better in recent years, compiling an 8-2 record and 2.98 ERA in 96.2 innings over his last four post-seasons ('03, '05, '07 and '09). If not for two egregious bullpen collapses by the Astros bullpen in October 2005 Pettitte's post-season record since '03 would be 10-2.

Considering the level of competition a pitcher faces in the post-season, these are great numbers. The stat geeks and ERA+ worshippers, however, aren't impressed by Pettitte's post-season ERA. They assume that his 18-9 record must be a function of autumnal thunder from the Bronx Bombers' bats. Not so. The Yankees have provided Pettitte with an average of 4.575 runs/game. That's slightly above the post-season average of 4.19 runs/game since 1995, but well below the regular-season major league average of 4.81 and still further below the A.L. average of 4.98. A pythagorean calculation based on Pettitte's post-season run support and his runs allowed/game projects a record of 15-12 for a .556 winning percentage. Pettitte has significantly outperformed his pythagorean record, however, by performing exceptionally well in high-leverage situations in the post-season and by pitching his best in those games where pitcher performance is most critical - games in which his team provided between three and five runs of support. These two factors render Pettitte's 3.90 post-season ERA extremely misleading.

Pettitte's "clutch" figure in his 16 post-season starts since 2002 is 1.21 according to Fangraphs.com. This means that Pettitte's clutch pitching in these 16 post-season starts has been worth an incremental 1.21 victories. This translates to approximately 12 fewer earned runs if the runs allowed (and not allowed) by Pettitte in the post-season are weighted in proportion to their impact on the Yankees' win expectancy. This means Pettitte's Leveraged ERA is therefore 2.17 in the 99.2 post-season innings he's pitched since the 2002 post-season, approximately 33% better than his nominal 3.25 ERA. Fangraphs doesn't have the post-season clutch statistics prior to 2002, but if Pettitte's clutch performance prior to 2002 were neutral (i.e., a clutch figure of 0) his Leveraged ERA for his entire post-season career would be 3.47, approximately 11% better than his nominal 3.90 ERA.

Pettitte's clutch pitching within post-season games has been matched by his tendency to pitch his best in games where his performance is most critical in determining the outcome. In games in which the Yankees scored between 3 and 5 runs, Pettitte had a superlative 2.99 ERA and a record of 8-3. In games in which the Yankees scored between 2 and 4 runs Pettitte was even better: a 2.75 ERA and a record of 7-3. By contrast, since 1995 the record of home teams in League Championship Series when they score between 2 and 4 runs is 22-45. Pettitte's record in the post-season when receiving between 2 and 5 runs of support is a significant factor behind his 18-9 record and his ability to outperform his pythagorean projected record.

The World Series

Pettitte's World Series record has been a story of feast or famine. He's had two absolutely atrocious starts - game 1 of the '96 Series and game 6 of the '01 Series - in which he allowed a total of 13 earned runs in 4.1 innings. He's compiled a 2.70 ERA in his other 11 WS starts. Pettitte has actually experienced some pretty tough luck in the World Series, taking losses or no-decisions in four games in which he made quality starts and compiled a cumulative ERA of 2.02.

Perhaps most impressive about Pettitte's World Series record is the number of games in which he's turned in dominating performances. In the last 20 years there have been 24 World Series games in which a starting pitcher has pitched 7 or more innings and not allowed an earned run. Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Jack Morris each had one, for a combined total of four such games out of their cumulative 24 World Series starts. Greg Maddux and John Smoltz each turned the trick twice, for a combined total of 4 such games in their cumulative 13 World Series starts. Andy Pettitte has pitched four such games in his 13 World Series starts. Only four pitchers have had more than two 7 inning, 0 earned run World Series starts during the post-1920, live-ball era: Waite Hoyt and Bob Gibson, each of whom had three, and Whitey Ford and Andy Pettitte, each of whom had four. That's some pretty select company - only Hall of Famers need apply.

Pennant Races

Pettitte's September record when competing in a tight race for a division title or post-season berth is similarly exceptional. He's 26-9 in 51 starts with a 3.69 ERA (approx. a 125 ERA+). He's won four or more September starts in tight races three times: he was 5-1 for the Yankees in his rookie year of '95, 4-1 for the Yankees in '03, and 4-0 with a 1.86 ERA for the Astros in '05 as he and Roy Oswalt led Houston's charge into the World Series.

Pettitte's September record in title races is very similar to Seaver's and Palmer's:







Not much to choose from between Andy Pettitte and these two first-ballot Hall of Famers when it came to pennant races. Pettitte wasn't a Palmer or Seaver from April to August, but in the two months of the baseball season that dominate the history books Andy Pettitte was the equal or better of many of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. Not that Pettitte's regular season record is anything to sneeze at; it compares quite well with the careers of many recent HOF inductees, such as Hunter, Drysdale, Jenkins and Bunning, as well as pitchers like Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven who are within striking range of induction. An argument for Pettitte's elevation to the Hall is not an exercise in incrementally loosening the HOF criteria by setting the bar at the level of the most dubious previous inductee, unless one takes the untenable position that none of Hunter, Drysdale, Bunning, Jenkins, Haines, Pennock, Hoyt, Gomez, Sutter, Coveleski, Lyons, Bender and Chesbro really belong in the Hall. If this is the position of those who would oppose Pettitte's induction into the Hall, then the debate is not about whether to lower HOF standards but whether HOF standards should be radically raised.

Pettitte's argument for the Hall is the same as that for so many HOF inductees: he has remained for many years among the first rank of his contemporaries if not the top handful, he contributed significantly to great teams, and he distinguished himself in the September and October games that matter the most.

One last data point to consider. Pettitte will likely approach Morris's career win total, if not pass it. He will have a significantly better winning percentage, a significantly superior ERA+, and his pennant race and post-season records will be not only superior to Morris's but vastly deeper as well. If, as appears likely, Morris breaks the 50% mark in HOF balloting within the next five years, then Andy Pettitte deserves more than the 75% necessary to gain entry into Cooperstown.

Allie Pierce Reynolds was the unquestioned ace of teams that won six World Series. He is not in the Hall of Fame. This has always struck me as extremely odd. Bizarre, even. If the ace starting pitcher on the team that won five consecutive World Series isn't a Hall of Famer then I'm missing something. But Superchief missed by just one vote in the December 2008 balloting by the pre-1943 Veterans Committee, garnering 8 of the 9 votes required for induction. That's good news for Reynolds, and it might be good news for Ron Guidry, too.

Yes, Reynolds played on great teams. Yes, he pitched to Yogi Berra for his entire Yankee career. Yes, the centerfielders patrolling Yankee Stadium's vast center-left expanse were Joe Dimaggio and then Mickey Mantle. But consider the following: Reynolds was 7-2 in 15 World Series appearances, nine of which were starts. His ERA was 2.79, which equates to an ERA+ of approximately 140.

He faced the Dodgers in four of the six World Series in which he played, pitching against them in 11 of his 15 WS appearances. Each of those Dodgers teams led the N.L. in scoring. The '49, '52 and '53 Dodgers teams featured Snider, Robinson, Reese and Campanella, each a Hall of Famer, and a near-miss Hall of Famer in Gil Hodges. The Dodgers of that era won six NL pennants in the decade between '47 and '56 and are rightly considered one of the greatest NL teams of all time. Reynolds went 5-1 with a 2.77 ERA against The Boys of Summer.

Only one of the Yanks' pennants was won handily during their streak of five straight world championships; the 1953 team led the league by ten or more games for most of September. The '49 to '52 teams each prevailed in very tight races, generally besting Indians and Red Sox teams that were themselves stocked with all-stars and Hall of Famers. Reynolds pitched brilliantly down the stretch in those pennant races, winning four September games each of those years. The Yankees played 157 games in September in their six world championship years during Reynolds' career, a number almost exactly equivalent to one full season, and Reynolds won 22 games in those Septembers.

Reynolds lost the openers to the '51 and '52 World Series and each time followed with a complete game victory in Game 4 to even the Series, saving the Yankees from falling into an all but insurmountable deficit and sparking Yankee comebacks on their way to another world championship.

Quite simply, Allie Reynolds was the greatest big-game pitcher of his era. As great as those Yankee teams were, it was Reynolds and his rotation mates, Vic Raschi and Eddie Lopat, who were the key to the Yanks' success in the five World Series between '49 and '53. Whether it was the World Series or the heat of a September pennant race, Superchief was at his best, and without him the Yankees' historic world championship tally of the late '40s and early '50s would have been fewer by two and perhaps more.

Reynolds may have won only 182 regular season games in his career, but I'm willing to bet that the biggest winners and Hall of Famers of his era - Spahn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon and Feller - would gladly trade a huge chunk of their career win totals for just a few of Superchief's World Series rings. And I'm willing to bet that the multitude of Hall of Famers on the Dodgers, Giants, Indians and Red Sox teams who competed against Superchief would agree that he is more than worthy of induction into the sacred Hall.

Reynolds' success in recent Veterans Committee balloting may be good news for Guidry because their careers are so remarkably similar. They had similar career lengths, with Reynolds pitching 100 more innings than Guidry. Each periodically pitched out of the bullpen. Each had a huge impact on numerous tight pennant races. Each was the ace of teams that won multiple world championships. Guidry's teams didn't have quite the level of success of Reynolds' Yankee teams, but on the other hand Guidry compiled a slightly superior regular season record in terms of ERA+, winning percentage and number of league leading performances.

If Reynolds is inducted it will plainly be because of his outstanding pennant race and post-season performances, particularly his role in leading the Yankees' stretch drives in the years '49 to '52. If these factors carry Superchief into the Hall then they should militate for Guidry's induction as well, because even Superchief must take a backseat to Ron Guidry when it comes to dominating pennant race performances. Reynolds' record in pennant races is notable for its consistency; like Guidry, Allie had five outstanding September performances in the midst of white hot pennant races. But Guidry's record exceeds Reynolds' in two respects: Guidry never stumbled in a pennant race, whereas even Superchief had a tough finish in '48 while the Yanks were chasing the Indians; and Reynolds' Septembers, while superlative, were never as dominating as Guidry's epic performances in '77 and '78.

The similarities don't end with the numbers. Both Reynolds and Guidry were quiet, stolid leaders, respected by their teammates for combining an unflinching competitive fire with an unflappable demeanor. Each let their play on the field do the talking. Neither liked talking about himself. As the Associated Press noted in its article on the subject of Reynolds' passing in 1994:

The late Dale Mitchell, who played with Cleveland, once said Reynolds might not have made the Hall because he refused to promote himself. "He's not that kind of guy," Mitchell said. "But I'll tell you one thing: In Yankee Stadium in September with that fastball, there wasn't anybody ever lived who was any tougher. With those shadows, we were like ducks in a shooting gallery."

Both Reynolds and Guidry exemplified the team-first ethic, the value of which can't be measured by statistics. Like Guidry, Reynolds graciously accomodated the spot-relief role periodically assigned to him, acceding to manager Stengel's strategy for the good of the team. When asked about his failure to make the Hall, Reynolds  expressed his preference for winning over personal accolades.

I'm kind of indifferent now about whether I make the Hall of Fame," he said. "If it happens, it happens. I'm pretty much laid back on that. They've got to have some kind of rules. I knew that was going to happen with all the relief work I did for the Yankees. That really was a career-shortener. But to me, that was important. Teamwork was more important than some kind of honor."

As was the case with Guidry, pitching from the bullpen when the situation demanded it probably cost Reynolds more than one 20-win season. Superchief averaged more than 10 relief appearances per season with the Yankees, as a consequence never making more than 31 starts in a season. Stengel's strategy was a huge success for the Yankees, less so for Reynolds personally.

It appears as if the Veterans Committee may be prepared to finally look beyond the sterile statistics and recognize Allie Reynolds' contribution to six World Series winners. And if they do, they should take a close look at Ron Guidry, too, whose career win total doesn't capture his role as the ace pitcher for the most successful American League teams of his era. As the plaque in Yankee Stadium's Monument Park puts it, Guidry was "a respected leader of the pitching staff for three American League pennants and two world championships. A true Yankee."

The plaque really says it all. If it's the only plaque he ever gets, there's no doubt Guidry will be just fine with that. But he deserves another plaque, one that will hang in Cooperstown.