Friday, in the wake of Johnny Cueto's brilliant debut against Arizona, I quoted David Pinto referencing Bill James about the significance of a single game. A friend points out that Baseball Prospectus' Joe Sheehan wrote on this subject (subscribers only) just last year ...
I was talking sleepers with Rotowire's Chris Liss the other day ... and we got into an exchange about Royals right-hander Luke Hudson. Liss likes Hudson in part because of one start last September, a 10-K, one-walk effort against the Yankees. The idea is that, having shown he can perform at that level, he must have a certain minimum of talent, and that makes him more likely to succeed than a comparable pitcher who didn't have a day like that.
This is a concept known as "signature significance," and my recollection is that Bill James first mentioned it in one of the early 1990s Baseball Books. I know that Rany Jazayerli and I were using it as far back as 1993 to become wildly optimistic about Jason Bere, whose 13-strikeout, no-walk effort against the Red Sox late that year elevated him far too highly in our eyes.
Is there anything to the idea that a pitcher like Hudson, who shows that he can be dominant, will succeed?
--snip--
Just since 2000, 72 pitchers have had at least one signature start, with Randy Johnson's 20 leading the way. There are a lot of great pitchers towards the bottom of the list, including Andy Pettitte, Kevin Brown, and Tom Glavine. On the other hand, there are also a lot of pitchers who, shall we say, don't have quite the same resume. On April 26, 2001, Kevin Jarvis had a day in the sun against the Phillies, whiffing 10 without walking a man. Jose Acevedo owned the Rockies on May 19, 2004, upping the ante to 11 strikeouts without a free pass. Chris Brock and John Wasdin and Jamey Wright all did this in just the last seven years; hell, Jason Bere even shows up on the list.
Having one big day didn't mean anything for these guys. It was one day. Maybe it was really cold, or maybe they were facing a day-game-after-night-game lineup. Maybe they just applied their particular talents in a way that they never could again. What's clear, though, is that one big start didn't herald great things.
|
I think it's important to make a distinction between the Jason Beres of the world, and the Luke Hudsons and Kevin Jarvises.
When Bere struck out 13 and walked none, he was 22 years old, and toward the end of an excellent rookie season. In that season (1993) and the next, Bere went 24-7 with a 3.64 ERA. In '93 he finished second in Rookie of the Year balloting; in '94 he pitched in the All-Star Game. Yes, Bere walked more batters than you'd like. Yes, he was young and thus a big question mark like all young pitchers, no matter how talented. But in 1994 every team in the majors would have been thrilled to have him. It just didn't work out.
Hudson, though? When Hudson posted
his signature performance it was hardly significant; he was 29, and had spent many years establishing himself as a fringe major leaguer. Jarvis? He was 31 when he pitched his
great (for him) game.
Those guys were marginal major leaguers who happened to get lucky. As a few pitchers will, given enough time. Hudson's and Jarvis' brilliant outings might have been signatures. But they were not significant.
Cueto is 22. His first signature start came in his first-
ever start, which of course means he'll have many, many more chances. That doesn't mean he's going to become a star. What it probably means is that he's got the talent to become a star, which might be only half the battle but is a pretty important half.
Rob Neyer
