jamie moyer

[chuckywang]

It's a simple formula:

be lefthanded+stay healthy+get some people out= long MLB career

 

if you're not lefthanded:

pitch lots of innings+ stay healthy= long MLB career

 

Makes no sense. There are more right handed batters than left handed batters.

[CubinNY]

It's a simple formula:

be lefthanded+stay healthy+get some people out= long MLB career

 

if you're not lefthanded:

pitch lots of innings+ stay healthy= long MLB career

 

Makes no sense. There are more right handed batters than left handed batters.

But there are less left-handed pitchers.

 

http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/the_more_you_know2.jpg

[TruffleShuffle]

norm charlton and terry mulholland were proof that if you have a left arm and a pulse, you can pitch in the big leagues for a long time. i'm surprised that mike remlinger isn't still hanging around with somebody.

[Tracer Bullet]

Moyer's career ERA+ is 105, which I would call slightly above average. He's had several very good years, but numerous bad years as well. What's helped him is that his best years weren't concentrated during his peak age years. They've been spread out, and he's had some of his best years in his late 30s which has kept him going. His success late in his career hasn't been a result of his physical abilities, but rather his pitching smarts.

 

He was mediocre until age 33 (with 1 big exception in '93). But his peak years were concentrated, they just weren't in the normal peak age. He pretty clearly peaked from 33-40 (again, with 1 exception - the bad year in 2000). Since then, he's back to mediocre.

 

It really looks like an average player's bell-curve type career, just delayed about 7 years.

I wouldn't call them concentrated, but maybe I'm using the word "peak" more loosely than you. He broke out in '93, then sucked again, then broke back out, had a bad year at 37 in 2000, then defied the odds with a renaissance from 38-40. Then he sucked again for a couple of years before putting up above average numbers in '06. I don't call that concentrated, that's several good to outstanding seasons with a few bad ones mixed in over a 13 year period.

 

Quick bit of trivia on the side...have any other players ever appeared in an all-star game for the first time at age 40? Every other 40 year old I can think of that's made it had been there at least a few times before.

 

Your phrasing is pretty bad. He was mediocre to bad from his debut in '86 until '93. Then he was great in '93. You can call it a breakout or whatever, but it was one great year amongst many not great ones. I wouldn't call 105 and 91 ERA+ seasons in 94/95 "sucking" - one's slightly above average, one's slightly below. The bolded sentence makes it sound like he was on a roller coaster of suck and stud for a couple years. In reality, that sentence spans a 10-year period.

 

All of the best seasons of his career (except '93) came from '96-'03 with 1 down year in '00. 7 of a guy's 8 best years of his career come during an 8-year span and you don't call that concentrated? Using ERA+ it looks like this:

 

'93-'03

Great

Average

Average

Great

Very good

Great

Great

Bad

Great

Great

Great

 

Then average for 5 years

[Keener98]

norm charlton and terry mulholland were proof that if you have a left arm and a pulse, you can pitch in the big leagues for a long time. i'm surprised that mike remlinger isn't still hanging around with somebody.

 

Jeff Fassaro is pissed you left him out.