Was Greinke's Streak Better Than Drysdale's?
Last week, Zack Greinke wrapped up a 38 consecutive scoreless inning streak, garnering him a Sports Illustrated cover, and the most attention a Kansas City player has received in quite some time. Greinke, the 25-year old righty who's been flying under the radar the past several years, made headlines by challenging the pitchers' version of Joe DiMaggio's 56 consecutive game streak. But while Greinke's streak was impressive, surely it was not the quality of Don Drysdale's 1968 feat of 58 innings, which broke Walter Johnson's 55 year-old record and stood for 20 years on its own. Right? Perhaps... To test this, we'll try to calculate the probability of a typical "good" pitcher accomplishing both streaks. Let's take a look at the two streaks: Drysdale's streak of 58 innings started with a May 14th shutout of the Cubs at Dodger Stadium and he pitched 5 additional shutouts before letting up a run in the 5th inning against Philadelphia on May 31st. Greinke's streak of 38 innings started at the end of 2008 and continued through this year until he gave up an unearned run last week in the 5th against Detroit (he finally gave up his first earned run in the first inning of the following game). On the face of it, it would appear that the Drysdale's streak was vastly superior to Greinke's, but let's look at the hitting prowess of each of the opponents they faced. Opponents Greinke's opponents did however, play in slightly more favorable hitters parks than Drysdale's. When adjusting the teams' runs per game by their 3-year park factor, the weighted average of Drysdale's opponents scored 3.48 runs per game and Greinke's opponents scored 4.93 runs per game. This means that an average pitcher facing Drysdale's opponents would give up about 3.48 R/G, but that same pitcher facing Greinke's opponents would give up 4.93. Home Field Greinke on the other hand didn't enjoy those advantages. Only 16 of his 38 innings came at home, making it tougher for him to complete his streak, while the park factors generally cancelled each other out. Overall, the expected runs per 9 IP went up from 4.93 to 5.03. Defense The following chart gives the expected number of runs allowed per 9 IP for each game of both streaks, after taking into account the opponent, park, home field advantage, and defense. Of course, these numbers are for the average pitcher. We want to calculate the probability that a good pitcher, like Drysdale or Greinke, would be able to complete the streak. Of course, a good pitcher would be expected to give up far fewer runs. The ERA+ numbers for both pitchers were around 125 (128 for Drysdale and 123 for Greinke in 2008) so it makes sense to use that as a benchmark. Dividing by the 125 ERA+ number, we would expect a good pitcher to give up 2.47 runs per 9 IP during Drysdale's streak and 4.05 runs per 9 IP during Greinke's streak. Which Streak Was Better? Using these numbers we can compute the probability of our typical "good" pitcher completing each streak. For Drysdale, the chances were (.825) ^ 58 = 1 in 70,000. For Greinke, the chances were (.745) ^ 38 = 1 in 72,000. So in fact, due to the far tougher environment, Greinke's streak was actually tougher to accomplish than Drysdale's! Actually, the numbers are so close that you would have to conclude that both streaks were equally as difficult - the potential error in making our above estimates and assumptions are far greater than this tiny difference. Even so, to the average fan it probably comes as a shock that the two streaks are even in the same company - Drysdale's streak is a celebrated piece of history, while in 40 years Zack's streak is unlikely to be remembered by anyone other than Mrs. Greinke and a few die-hard Royals fans. In any case, it illustrates the importance of considering the time and place of a player's performance. If the two players were competing in equal environments, there's no question that Drysdale's streak would be a far greater accomplishment (when both have a shutout inning probability of .80, the chances are 1 in 5,000 for a 38 game streak, 1 in 400,000 for a 58 game streak). But they weren't and as a result, Greinke's streak is actually every bit as impressive as the Hall of Famer's. So while he won't get the acclaim, here's one writer who wants to say congrats to Greinke for matching Drysdale's timeless accomplishment. |
Comments
Great piece of research and writing, Sky. That was a fine example of thinking outside the box.
Posted by: Al Doyle at May 5, 2009 6:05 AM
That is awesome! This morning I couldn't help but look at Zack Greinke's ERA+, which is 1173. Yeah, an 1173 ERA+ right now. I didn't know it could go up that high.
Posted by: Devon at May 5, 2009 7:59 AM
It would be great to see how Hershiser compares as well.
Posted by: Jeremy at May 5, 2009 8:35 AM
The Bulldog doesn't even get a mention. The current record holder, playing at the cusp of the offensive revolution that would take place over the next two decades isn't even in the article. Wow. I hope leaving Orel out was an oversight.
Posted by: Rafa at May 5, 2009 8:42 AM
The focus of this article was specifically Drysdale vs. Greinke. I can say right now that Hershiser's streak was better than both. Check back Saturday to see if Hershiser's streak was the best ever - and if so, by how much...
Posted by: Sky Andrecheck at May 5, 2009 8:54 AM
Small grammar point - Grienke's work may have been just as impressive to get close to Drysdale, but as a point of fact, he did NOT match Drysdale's streak, even if he pitched better or was more impressive. Drysdale still held opponents scoreless for 20 more innings in a row. It's not his fault it was 1968, any more than it was Grienke's that it's now 2009.
Just because baseball changed in 40 years, the meaning of the word "match" has not. I'll grant that he pitched better ball against tougher teams in a tougher pitching environment, but not that he actually did what Drysdale did.
Posted by: nightfly at May 5, 2009 9:47 AM
The thing i always remember about Hershiser's streak is that it just about got his seasons stats to be almost as good as Danny Jackson.
Posted by: Shthar at May 6, 2009 3:43 AM