Eric Gagne Dominated Righties
Eric Gagne‘s run from 2002 to 2004 is historic. Over this three-year period, the goggled Canadian saved a staggering 152 games against only 6 blown saves, including a streak of 84 straight. Gagne was truly dominant, as he compiled FIPs of 1.80, 0.86, and 2.05, good for 3.3, 4.5, and 3.1 WAR, respectively, in 2002-2004. His 2003 season of 4.5 wins was over half a win better than the second best RP season, K-Rod’s 2004.
Any pitcher who can sustain 12+ K/9s for three years is likely to have a pretty dominant run, and in order to do that the pitcher has to be able to shut down hitters on both sides of the plate. Indeed, Gagne pitched quite well against LHBs with the platoon advantage against him – he struck out nearly 8 more batters per 9 innings than he walked, and never allowed a FIP greater than 2.36 to lefties.
To truly tyrannize the league like Gagne did, however, it takes more than a slightly human 12:3 K:BB ratio against one side of the plate. Without truly destroying right handed battters, we would have seen more of the 2003-2005 run of Tom Gordon – 6 wins in 3 seasons. Nothing to sneeze at, but certainly not historic.
Right handed batters just could not beat Gagne. Of the 463 righties that faced Gagne, only 81 reached base. That’s a .174 OBP. Gagne struck out 208 of these batters, 44.9% of them, good for a 14.8 K/9, to complement a sub-2 BB/9. Let the utter ridiculousness of those numbers sink in for a bit, as they’re tame compared to what’s next.
Ready? Now, let’s restrict ourselves to 2003. Gagne faced 151 right handed batters that season en route to 55 saves. 84 of them struck out – just over 55%. Over 55% of hitters failed to make non-foul contact against Gagne. He only had to rely on his fielders to make plays against 45% of the batters he faced, whereas the average pitcher needs help on over 80% of hitters.
Only 26 batters reached base. Only one hit a home run, and only four others recorded extra base hits. With a nearly 12 K/BB ratio against righties and a microscopic HR rate, his FIP was -0.04. That’s not a typo: -0.04. Of course, having a -0.04 ERA is mathematically impossible, but that number is truly representative of what little right handed hitters could accomplish against him at his best.
By dominating such a large population of the league, Gagne cemented his status as one of the best closers in the league. It’s disappointing that his career was derailed as it was by injury, as his potential at the time was seemingly limitless. We can only speculate as to what could have been, but we are still left with a historic run, and one we should not forget.
2
“It’s disappointing that his career was derailed as it was by injury, as his potential at the time was seemingly limitless”
It’s more disappointing that his entire run is in doubt due to alleged use of PEDs more than injury. Probably worth mentioning when writing about any player from this era whose name came up in the Mitchell Report, Canseco’s books or the Clemens fiasco.
If 0.00 FIP is no one ever gets on base, perhaps a negative FIP is nobody ever gets on base and occasionally there are double plays of inherited base runners?
i.e. not only do you get everyone out, but you get more outs than batters faced.
0 FIP isn’t that no one ever gets on base, it’s just a flaw in FIP. It’s not exactly the ERA scale, it’s just approximated to look as much like ERA as possible. Still, it’s a little surprising that one could achieve a 0 (or less) FIP striking out a mere 55% of batters, that leaves 45% or so of the batters subject to your fielders, that’s plenty of room for runs to score.
If a pitcher were to pitch to just one batter and strike him out, what would his FIP be?
-2.8
The formula is ((13*HR)+(3*BB)-(2*K))/IP + 3.2
why even give him credit though…he was an obvious steroid user.
while we’re at it barry bonds’ 73 hrs in 440 abs was pretty incredible too…
you are dumb
“why even give him credit though”
I dunno, maybe because it actually happened? As much as it apparently pains you, you can’t change what actually happened in the past, and Gagne really did put on a hell of an impressive showing, that if you appreciate baseball, you’ll at least be able to recognize as being unusual and worth looking at/appreciating*. It’s not like anyone else during the steroid era performed like that. What he did was noteworthy, whether you like it or not.
*Screw Gagne and anyone else that’s ever been successful for the Dodgers! :)
the tone of the article more than just “notes” gange’s accomplishments. i am not saying we should disregard his performances, just that we shouldnt give him full credit because clearly he was an above-average-at-best pitcher before steroids.
Yo lets throw out all beatles records cause they used CED (creative enhancing drugs). Same goes for Hendrix and every other rock star. Shut up you pansy. Gagne is suffering for his PED use we can still value what he did for our entertainement.
Oh wow, a shitty analogy used to defend steroid use! Rationalize it how you want, Gagne used, and he would not have been able to do this with out steroids.
Career derailed by injuries. Of course, it was access to primo Canadian roid cycles that railed that career in the first place. Not even a mention? Then you’re part of the problem, douche bag.
The roid-rage / interesting comment ratio in this thread doesn’t suggest a long career.
I’m so tired of the idea that people we suspect of using PEDs are history’s greatest villains, while Babe Ruth gets to pile up his career stats without having to face Satchel Paige and Hank Aaron gets to use greenies.
Watching Gagne was amazing, which is why I was so saddened to hear of his PED use. Saying Babe Ruth didn’t face the best competition is a cop out, if it were up to him I’m sure he would want to face the best. Greenies are also nothing compared to steroids, drink a coffee, a redbull and a 5 hour energy in a short period of time, you’ll get the same effect and it’s completely legal. When someone uses designer steroids like Barry Bonds did, they become a superhuman and that is not fair.
“Saying Babe Ruth didn’t face the best competition is a cop out”
Or it’s a recognition that his performance was distorted by something morally objectionable – the exclusion of certain players on the basis of race.
“When someone uses designer steroids like Barry Bonds did, they become a superhuman and that is not fair.”
What designer steroids did Bonds use, exactly, what effect do they have, how much of Bonds performances was caused by PED’s….you talk about fairness, but the most commonly used basis against steroids seems to be that they’re illegal, yet on those grounds, so are greenies, so it seems to me your argument goes to shit when you have to acknowledge them. What, exactly, is so wrong about steroids, and how does that same principle not apply to greenies?
It seems to me the people that get saddest about the issue are the ones that put the least amount of research into it. If you knew that steroids were in baseball since at least the early ’70′s, if you knew how little we actual know about the positive effects of something like steroids (or something like HGH, which doesn’t seem to be effective at making you stronger at all), if you knew about amphetamine use, thought about it, and put all steroid use into the same context, if you knew how many people could have made an effort to curb steroid use a decade before the shit hit the fan (and didn’t, because they all benefited from it, from owners to writers to players to fans), how many players used PED’s of various kinds (and yes, amphetamines are considered a PED), if you knew the history of baseball, knew how many players throughout history have gotten every edge/advantage they could over their competition, the history of drug use in baseball….well, the issue is a hell of a lot deeper than most people care to go into it, and if you really read about all that stuff and give it some thought, I don’t see how you can really get all that sad about any individual performance. Sure, I wish PED’s as a whole hadn’t gotten so widespread, and I view anything that happened in the context of its era, but I really can’t get sad about any individuals use, and I don’t really see how someone else, if they were really informed on the issue, could….
http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/89/2007/09/24/StudySteroidsCanPowerHomeRuns
Here is the best study I’ve seen on the effects of steroids.
I for one think most drugs should be legal, mainly to clear out prisons and cut off the money source for gangs and other members of the black market. If someone wants to do steroids to look like a member of Jersey shore then be my guest.
My problem is that steroids are ruining the realness of sports, “greenies” were just dangerous forms of redbull. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs at age 37 because he was a superhuman monster. Before he started taking them he was one of the best players to ever play the game. 50 lbs of solid muscle added to a great player with a great hitting eye gives you the greatest 4 year stretch of hitting in league history at an odd age.
I think its hard to compare Bonds’ taking steroids to Babe’s not playing in a desegregate league because one is a personal choice, and the other is the result of a culture, and nothing Ruth could control. The only way you could equate the two situation would be that they both benefited from immoral means. This is certainly true in Ruth’s case, but to make this argument you would have to accept that steroids are indeed immoral.
I think they should be banned from sports. While things like HGH do not make you younger, steroids are typically banned because they are unhealthy. They are bad for you, and by allowing players to take steroids you create a chemical arms race, the players with the best drugs (Bonds for example) will do the best. This isn’t fair because it would make players feel pressured into taking roids to compete. Bonds started taking steroids once he stopped being the best player, that pressured him into becoming the hulk-beast he became. No one grows in head size in their thirties, that’s not natural. It will likely cause havoc for his body later on. Players of profession sports should not have to subject themselves to such things to succeed. This is why I personally object to steroids. I agree they happened, are still happening, and witch hunts into the past are futile. Asterisks wont do any good, but steroids should not be tolerated from a health perspective. Someone here posted that most drugs should be legal, I agree with that view, but in certain professions I see nothing wrong with restricting what employees do with their bodies. I don’t watch a heroin addict as a senator, and I’d rather that my favorite team’s third baseman wasn’t a juicer.
“My problem is that steroids are ruining the realness of sports, “greenies” were just dangerous forms of redbull.”
But from the perspective of “what makes it morally wrong”, this doesn’t really seem like much of an argument….
@t-bone rex – And that’s fair, and I think there should be rules against PED’s, and enforcement of those rules. What seems off to me is in the past, there really weren’t much in the form of rules and was 0 in the form of enforcement (whereas there seems to be a good argument that taking PED’s was actually condoned and possibly even encouraged)…yeah, it’s unfortunate that it happened, but people getting as enraged/sadddened as they have over it? Really? And branding a select few group of players as cheaters, when from a moral ground, there’s really not a difference between steroids, HGH, or amphetamines (it’s morally objectionable on the grounds of health risks/legality, right?)….so yeah, it’s not that I promote steroid use, it’s that I think the reaction to it is way offbase, and all we can do now is try to prevent it in the future.
Gagne’s amazing numbers immediately made me think of Pedro’s numbers in his prime. The best year was ’99, with offenses near their peak, he came up with this: 13.2 K/9, 1.56 BB/9, 0.38 HR/9, a 1.39 FIP. In 213 1/3 IP. In the American League. As a starter, facing hitters two and three times. In fact, if you look at his splits on baseballreference, hitters did worse their THIRD (and fourth) time around: 111 K, 10 B, a triple slash line of .191/.225/.266. This was the best year, but any from 1997-2003 (excepting 1998) were similar. Just absurd.
Gagne used steroids.
In other news, the sky is blue and your post was worthless.
I?? pleased, I have to say. Really scarcely will i come across a blog that?? both educative and enjoyable, and let me tell you, you may have hit the nail on the head. Your concept is certainly outstanding; the thing is whatever inadequate people are speaking wisely about. I’m happy I stumbled across this with my seek something about it.