Newcomb has 0.6 fWAR over 11 starts (58.2 ip). If you use that rate over 33 starts (175.1 ip), that's around 1.8 fWAR.
Ask Joe about his win loss record.
My only problem with Newk is... "if he gets his walks down" has been said for the last 2 years. I am a big Newk supporter, but even I get a bad sense that he just doesn't know how to throw his stuff where he wants to.
Newk will and should get every chance to succeed because of the Ks, low BAA, and low HR rate. But let's be real. If he continues to walk 5/9 he will not succeed. He gets that to 3.5 and he will be very successful. He should basically get all of this year and next to prove one or the other.
Strike 2
One more and you can't be a posi
wait.. what.. are you freaking CB Buckner.. where was strike 1!!!
Newcomb has 0.6 fWAR over 11 starts (58.2 ip). If you use that rate over 33 starts (175.1 ip), that's around 1.8 fWAR.
Ok, because someone had to do it, here it is.
Sandy Koufax pitched part or all of 12 seasons for the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers. In the first six, he averaged 5.6/9 BB. The last six, 2.3/9.
See? He's just like Koufax.
And that is a success in your book?
All responses in this thread have basically assumed Newk is somehow different than all the guys I listed over the last 20 years. All of those guys "just needed to get the walks down and they will be great", but most of them couldn't.
It's common for fans to think their guys are special, but the truth is they aren't. The tiny list of guys fitting the criteria I selected shows just how lucky Newk has been to even be allowed to make 10+ starts this season.
The chances of a 24 year old walking 5+ per 9 suddenly figuring out how to throw strikes is very slim. But I agree, it's not like the Braves have anyone else worth giving those starts. That scenario is what is allowing him to rack up starts despite awful control. I suspect many of the other guys on that list were also allowed to rack up starts while walking so many guys due to similar circumstances within their organization at the time.
That list of guys over the last 20 years, while interesting, had too many conditions. Limiting it to guys who made their MLB debuts at age 24 or older eliminates a ton of very relevant pitchers. I don't think it's fair at all to eliminate guys who made their debuts at 22 or 23 from consideration as comps. Different players mature at different rates or start from different places in development.
Lets go back to Gio Gonzalez. He debuted in his age 23 year but didn't pitch a full season in the majors until age 25. In the year Gonzalez turned 24, he pitched 98 innings for the A's with a 5.11 BB/9 to go along with a 9.94 K/9 and a 1.28 HR/9. Newk's numbers are slightly better at this point.
But, because Gonzalez pitched 34 innings the year before he doesn't appear on that list. BTW, Gonzalez hasn't had a BB/9 higher than 3.54 since 2011.
You are certainly welcome to set your own criteria and come up with your own list of comps. I'll go ahead and predict right now that your expanded list will include a success story like Gio, and 10-20 other guys who busted out.
But how many of the busts are guys who K over 9 per 9 IP? How many have HR rates under 1 per 9 IP? How many have BAA's of under .250? And how many have all three of those?
It's easy to focus on Newk's BBs and it is an important stat. But comparing him to guys with similar BB rates at an age 24 debut doesn't tell half the story.
I'll bet if you put together a list of pitchers with K/9 over 9, HRs per 9 under 1, and a BAA under .250 at age 24 over the last 20 years, you'd see some pretty impressive names.
Ok let's make the criteria so comically restrictive there are hardly any matches. You realize such a list will only be a sub set of the list I already provided above, right?
Here's the results for single seasons, From 1997 to 2017, Age at or above 23, From 1st season to 2nd season, For any choice in Season Totals, (requiring GS >= 10, BBp9 >= 5, SOp9 >= 9 and Hp9