History Unblurred: Bill James, What Are You Thinking?

Bill James has Joe McGinnity rated as the 38th best starting pitcher in the history of Major League Baseball. He has Addie Joss rated 75th.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

The main problem? They were both starting pitchers from the first decade of the 1900s, the same time period. So, I can pretty much compare apples to apples. When I do that, it becomes apparently obvious that Addie Joss was better...way better.

I had written an article on Bill James a few months ago. I love James and have a lot of respect for the guy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have flaws in his system. Many get bent out of shape when I bring this up.

Someone replied back on my first article, said something like, "I'm sorry if you and Bill James have a different definition of the word better."

I can tell you this, if Bill James says McGinnity is better than Joss (which is exactly what he says), then you're damn right we have a different definition of the word better.

McGinnity vs. Joss Comparison

First of all, the raw numbers.

Addie Joss Pitched from 1902-1910.

Joe McGinnity Pitched from 1899-1908.

Joss, seven of nine seasons overlapped McGinnity.

McGinnity, seven of 10 seasons overlapped Joss.

Either way, they both had seven seasons that they pitched together at the same time.

Side note: I've invented a stat called winning percentage-plus. It's kind of like ERA-plus.

It takes into account what the team was expected to win over a starting pitcher's career. It is a bit complicated because a different weight goes toward a team if the pitcher pitched in 200 innings one season or 85 innings the next. A much bigger weight would go toward the team's season of the 200 inning season, of course.

It's a great stat that many will use someday (I hope). It should NOT be used with relief pitchers and it should not be used for single seasons. But, for a career, it paints a good picture. It isn't the ending argument stat, but none are, not even ERA-plus.

It is, however, part of the formula and many have wanted to use win percentage as part of the formula, but they don't because it depends what team the Pitcher was on. You know, were they good or bad? How good? How bad? Well, this new stat will help us with that. I hope to use it when I get my rating book published, it's one of my three new invented stats. So, when you see me talking about win percentage-plus in this article, this is what I'm talking about.

First, their career numbers:

Addie Joss—1.89 ERA, 142 ERA-plus, 117 win percentage-plus, 0.97 WHIP, 7.3 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.66 ERA, 120 ERA-plus, 108 win percentage-plus, 1.19 WHIP, 8.6 H/9

As you can see, it's not even close. Joss is better in everything, ERA, ERA-plus, win percentage plus, WHIP and H/9. McGinnity is better in nothing. I don't know any other way to say it.

Now, adjusting for McGinnity and his long career (well, kind of long):

What I will do here is take Joe McGinnity's best five seasons. So, I'll drop his worst five seasons. So, I'm only counting the best 50 percent of McGinnity's career. I'll see if it makes him better than Joss. I'll count 1899, 1900, 1902, 1903 and 1904 seasons—most would agree, his best five seasons. That means I'll drop his worst five seasons—1901, 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908.

So, here I go, dropping the worst half of McGinnity and comparing it to Addie Joss' entire career. McGinnity has a huge advantage here, obviously.

Addie Joss—1.89 ERA, 142 ERA-plus, 117 win percentage-plus, 0.97 WHIP, 7.3 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.47 ERA, 138 ERA-plus, 118 win percentage-plus, 1.17 WHIP, 8.3 H/9

Amazing.

As you can plainly see, it still doesn't make up the gap. Dropping the worst 50 percent of McGinnity's career and his numbers are still worse than Joss' raw numbers. That's incredible. McGinnity has a slightly better win percentage-plus than Joss after the adjustments for McGinnity. But, Joss is still better in every other area, ERA, ERA-plus, WHIP, and H/9.

Any questions so far?

You may be asking yourself, how can Bill James say McGinnity was better?

Good question.

Or you may be asking yourself, does Bill James have a flaw?

Good question.

McGinnity Pitched in 180 more games than Joss during his career, that's the reason he has him rated higher. It's not the way it should be. As we proved above, even dropping the worst 50 percent of McGinnity's career doesn't make him better than Joss. So, I don't care if he had Pitched in 180 games more or 280 games more than Joss. That's just 100 more games that he pitched that weren't as good as Joss. I love Bill James, but this is what we're buying? I mean, even dropping the worst 50 percent of McGinnity doesn't make him better than the whole Addie Joss. Come on.

Now, I'll compare all seven of their seasons that they pitched together:

Addie Joss—2.77 ERA, 124 ERA-plus, 1.11 WHIP, 7.5 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.84 ERA, 118 ERA-plus, 1.19 WHIP, 8.7 H/9

Joss is again better in everything. McGinnity in nothing. And it was Joss' worst season of his career, still better than McGinnity. Joss takes 1902.

Addie Joss—2.19 ERA, 130 ERA-plus, 0.95 WHIP, 7.4 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.43 ERA, 138 ERA-plus, 1.15 WHIP, 8.1 H/9

Overall, Joss had a better 1903 season. McGinnity had a better ERA+, but Joss had a better ERA, WHIP, and H/9. Joss takes 1902 and 1903. 2 for 2, so far.

Addie Joss—1.59 ERA, 159 ERA-plus, 0.99 WHIP, 7.5 H/9

Joe McGinnity—1.61 ERA, 169 ERA-plus, 0.96 WHIP, 6.8 H/9

Finally, I've done it. McGinnity had a better season than Joss in 1904. Of course, it was the best season of McGinnity's career, but he was better than Joss that season. McGinnity had a better ERA-plus, WHIP, and H/9. Joss just had a better ERA, but the season still goes to McGinnity. That's now two for Joss, one for McGinnity.

Addie Joss—2.01 ERA, 131 ERA-plus, 1.02 WHIP, 7.7 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.87 ERA, 102 ERA-plus, 1.12 WHIP, 8.1 H/9

Again, Joss is better in everything. McGinnity in nothing. That's now three for Joss, one for McGinnity.

Addie Joss—1.71 ERA, 152 ERA-plus, 0.93 WHIP, 7.0 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.25 ERA, 116 ERA-plus, 1.14 WHIP, 8.4 H/9

Again, Joss is better in everything. McGinnity in nothing. That's now four for Joss, one for McGinnity.

Addie Joss—1.83 ERA, 137 ERA-plus, 0.98 WHIP, 7.4 H/9

Joe McGinnity—3.16 ERA, 78 ERA-plus, 1.22 WHIP, 9.3 H/9

Again, Joss is better in everything. McGinnity in nothing. That's now five for Joss, one for McGinnity.

Addie Joss—1.16 ERA, 205 ERA-plus, 0.81 WHIP, 6.4 H/9

Joe McGinnity—2.27 ERA, 106 ERA-plus, 1.23 WHIP, 9.3 H/9

Again, Joss is better in everything. McGinnity in nothing. That's all seven seasons: six for Joss and just one for McGinnity.

Was Joe McGinnity Better than Addie Joss?

It almost seems laughable now, doesn't it?

It's not even close, Joss was way better. McGinnity was a heck of a starting pitcher, don't get me wrong. But he wasn't Joss material, obviously.

I've made adjustments to make McGinnity better than he really was and it still doesn't make him nearly as good as Joss. What else can I say?

Again, I'm not trying to attack Bill James. I love the guy, think he's a genius. Even geniuses sometimes have flaws in their formulas. Hawkins found flaws in some of Einstein's theories, doesn't mean Einstein wasn't a genius.

Some may ask this question: How did McGinnity pitch in 180 games more than Joss, while only pitching one more season?

Here's the quick condensed answer to that question—for the most part—McGinnity pitched on teams with a three man rotation. Joss Pitched on teams with a four man rotation. That's how McGinnity pitched 10 seasons (but 465 games) and Joss pitched nine seasons (but only 284 games). So, historians are generally going to overrate McGinnity and underrate Joss because the managers that they played for chose different rotations.

What? Are you kidding? This is what we take as Gospel? It's time to re-evaluate. It's time to put less weight on who pitched more games. It's time to put more weight on who was better...period.

Again, if James says that Joe McGinnity is better than Addie Joss, then yes, we certainly have a different definition of the word better. Maybe you're reading too much into the "wrong" things. Maybe you should, you know, read less.

I love James and most other respected historians, but let's start telling it like it was.

Let's let it be known that Joss was better than McGinnity. After we tell it like it was, then we can tell them that McGinnity Pitched on a three man rotation and pitched more career games than Joss. Let's do that, not the other way around. Let's unblur history, not blur it.

Thank goodness that the Hall-of-Fame inducted Joss. At least they had since enough to do that.

Thank you HOF.