Daily Notes: How Well Did Pitching Coaches Pitch as Players?
Table of Contents
Here’s the table of contents for today’s edition of the Daily Notes.
1. The Pitching Stats for the Pitching Coaches
2. Video: Dave Righetti’s No-Hitter, 1983
The Pitching Stats for the Pitching Coaches
In yesterday’s edition of the Notes, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear, we considered how well the league’s hitting coaches performed as major leaguers themselves. In today’s edition, we turn our attention to the pitching coaches — and to their corresponding major-league pitching careers.
As noted yesterday, there’s nothing to suggest — or, at least, not so far as the author is aware — that a player’s own personal pitching ability is a determinative factor in his ability to coach others well in that same art. Stated differently: this is a mostly trivial exercise the author is conducting.
In any case, there’s no doubting that what follows are the career stats for the 23 current pitching coaches with major-league experience, sorted by park-adjusted ERA relative to league average (ERA-), where 100 is average and a lower figure is better:
| Name | Team | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | BABIP | FIP- | ERA- | WAR | RA9-Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roger McDowell | Braves | 1050.0 | 4.49 | 3.51 | 0.43 | .284 | 98 | 87 | 5.3 | 10.1 |
| Dave Righetti | Giants | 1403.2 | 7.13 | 3.79 | 0.61 | .286 | 86 | 88 | 24.3 | 24.8 |
| Ray Searage | Pirates | 287.2 | 6.04 | 4.29 | 0.69 | .276 | 97 | 89 | 1.6 | 3.9 |
| Doug Brocail | Astros | 880.0 | 6.57 | 3.17 | 0.87 | .294 | 95 | 93 | 8.3 | 9.1 |
| Chris Bosio | Cubs | 1710.0 | 5.57 | 2.53 | 0.85 | .288 | 91 | 94 | 29.7 | 26.7 |
| Rick Honeycutt | Dodgers | 2160.0 | 4.32 | 2.74 | 0.77 | .277 | 100 | 96 | 24.4 | 26.6 |
| Mike Butcher | Angels | 137.0 | 6.31 | 5.39 | 0.92 | .278 | 106 | 96 | 0.2 | 0.9 |
| Pete Walker | Blue Jays | 339.1 | 5.07 | 3.53 | 1.27 | .287 | 110 | 97 | 1.8 | 4.1 |
| Charles Nagy | D-backs | 1954.2 | 5.72 | 2.70 | 1.00 | .310 | 93 | 99 | 34.4 | 29.6 |
| Mike Maddux | Rangers | 861.2 | 5.89 | 2.97 | 0.70 | .294 | 91 | 99 | 9.3 | 7.1 |
| Carl Willis | Mariners | 390.0 | 5.12 | 2.65 | 0.65 | .304 | 86 | 100 | 5.2 | 1.7 |
| Steve McCatty | Nationals | 1188.1 | 4.10 | 3.94 | 0.94 | .265 | 119 | 104 | 4.0 | 13.9 |
| Derek Lilliquist | Cardinals | 483.2 | 4.86 | 2.49 | 1.10 | .293 | 105 | 104 | 3.9 | 5.7 |
| Jeff Jones | Tigers | 205.0 | 5.62 | 4.92 | 1.14 | .273 | 129 | 105 | -2.3 | -0.9 |
| Juan Nieves | Red Sox | 491.0 | 6.45 | 4.16 | 0.99 | .298 | 99 | 110 | 6.7 | 3.5 |
| Curt Young | Athletics | 1107.0 | 4.36 | 2.98 | 1.20 | .270 | 120 | 111 | 4.1 | 9.0 |
| Dan Warthen | Mets | 307.0 | 6.57 | 5.80 | 0.76 | .255 | 114 | 116 | 1.7 | 2.0 |
| Rick Anderson | Twins | 96.2 | 3.91 | 2.70 | 0.84 | .301 | 106 | 118 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Bo McLaughlin | Rockies | 313.0 | 5.41 | 3.54 | 0.63 | .303 | 104 | 124 | 1.6 | -2.2 |
| Don Cooper | White Sox | 85.1 | 4.96 | 4.85 | 1.48 | .291 | 134 | 132 | -0.9 | -0.8 |
| Dave Eiland | Royals | 373.0 | 3.69 | 2.85 | 1.11 | .309 | 113 | 133 | 2.9 | -2.2 |
| Mickey Callaway | Indians | 130.2 | 5.92 | 3.99 | 1.17 | .338 | 107 | 135 | 1.1 | -1.0 |
| Larry Rothschild | Yankees | 8.1 | 1.08 | 8.64 | 1.08 | .226 | 177 | 136 | -0.3 | -0.1 |
| Averages | — | 694.0 | 5.18 | 3.83 | 0.92 | .287 | 108 | 107 | 7.3 | 7.5 |
Notes
• Absent from this list are the seven coaches who never played in the majors. They are as follows, presented in no discernible order: Rick Adair (Orioles), Jim Hickey (Rays), Bryan Price (Reds), Chuck Hernandez (Marlins), Rick Kranitz (Brewers), Rich Dubee (Phillies), and Darren Balsley (Padres).
• As noted, players are sorted by career ERA-. RA9-Wins is essentially Wins Above Replacement, except with ERA (and not FIP) as the input. All averages are simple averages — that is, not weighted by innings pitched.
• By this method, it appears as though 10 present pitching coaches were above-average (although very slightly, in some cases) major-league pitchers. One more (Carl Willis) was exactly league average. Twelve more were below average. Finally, as noted above, seven didn’t play at the major-league level.
• There doesn’t appear to be any, among the league’s present-day pitching coaches, who was definitively superior to his peers. Dave Righetti certainly deserves some recognition for his success on a per-inning basis. Charles Nagy posted the highest WAR and RA9-Win totals as major leaguer.
• A full list of all coaches is available at Baseball Reference. A FanGraphs leaderboard of all the pitching coaches’ career numbers is available here.
Video: Dave Righetti’s No-Hitter, 1983
Here’s video coverage, courtesy MLB.com, of Dave Righetti’s no-hitter against Boston from July 4th of 1983. The reader will likely derive some joy from the sliders at ca. 2:11 and 2:31 (with a replay of the latter at ca. 2:51).
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
A thought that just popped into my head: It’s likely that star hitters/pitchers do not become hitting and pitching coaches because their success meant they were well compensated during their playing career, and don’t need/want to stick around the game for which is surely a moderate salary at best.
Thinking along the same basic lines, but off in a different direction.. the marginal pitchers became better coaches due to the fact that they had to rely on study, research, film, work habits more than talent. The talented players/pitchers have been told that their talent will carry them thru most anything, and as a result may not have done the research etc that translates to the coaching career.
Same premise holds for hitters turned hitting coaches.
I wonder if it’s really true that the stars study less though. I know Manny Ramirez was well known for his work ethic towards hitting, and Tony Gwynn was one of the first big-name proponents of video research.
I don’t remember any anecdotes off hand for pitchers, but Maddux was always referred to as a student of the game, so I assume he was probably watching a lot of video.
It’s not that they work less, it’s that it’s probably harder to verbalize the things that they can pick up or do on due to their own innate talents.
Not quite meaning to say that they dont to the little things like filmwork etc. At least that is not the message I was trying to convey. I was more trying to say that they have more ability to lean on the talent to get them thru. They may listen to the coaches etc but, the message may not sink in as much as one who HAS to rely on coaches.
Think A-Rod vs Eckstein. One has a world of talent and largely found success based on it (along with all the other little things). One, is very dependent on the little things and that stuff sinks in more because he can’t rely on talent alone to carry him thru. But, they both did find success and both have had decent length careers.
Say that to hitting coaches mcgwire or chili davis. And then there is bonds, who wants to be a HC but is blacklisted by MLB. Money isn’t likely to be a huge motivator for the coaches, money is likely more of an ego thing than anything else. Realize that love of the game and teaching ability probably aren’t the best indicator of success, and are likely evenly distributed among the various talent levels. There are many, many more former players of low talent level than former superstars, and hence more coaches from the pool with more numbers.
I’ll also add that you can find many more star players that end up as Managers than HC/PC, and again I think this probably has more to do with ego than their enhanced ability to lead men over players who didn’t make it big. From anecdotal stories you hear about contract disputes with coaches, the moderate salary itself isn’t the problem – instead it’s that their head has gotten too big and they want a high salary for status reasons.
Star players may also get more lucrative post-career opportunities. Becoming a broadcaster or television personality pays a lot better than coaching (presumably).
I know it’s not the only factor, but probably the biggest reason that more marginal players become coaches is that there are more marginal players, in general, than stars. Sheer weight of numbers.