• Paul Quantrill’s Place In Yankees History

    Posted by on January 28th, 2008 · Comments (7)

    In terms of guys only working out of the Yankees pen, while in New York, with at least 100 IP for the Bombers, who were the worst in terms of allowing runners to reach base? Thanks to the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia we have the answer:

    BASERUNNERS/9 IP                DIFF   PLAYER   LEAGUE     IP       GS
    1    Paul Quantrill            -1.47    14.49    13.02    127.1        0
    2    Marshall Bridges          -1.06    13.29    12.23    105          0
    3    Dale Murray                -.77    13.28    12.50    120          0
    4    Ron Villone                -.65    13.72    13.07    122.2        0
    5    Hal Reniff                 -.44    12.14    11.70    427          0
    6    Jim Turner                 -.23    12.45    12.22    146          0
    7    Kyle Farnsworth            0.21    12.86    13.07    126          0
    8    Jeff Nelson                0.42    13.11    13.53    311          0
    9    Tim Stoddard               0.44    12.24    12.68    197          0
    10   Steve Karsay               0.54    12.30    12.84    101          0   

    To level the results, BASERUNNERS/9 IP versus the league average is used here.

    By far, Paul Quantrill is the “leader” of the pack here. When you factor in that Quantrill (as a Yankee) allowed 48% of the runners he inherited to score, a case can be made that he was one of the most ineffective relievers in Yankees history. And, sometimes, he didn’t even need a lot of pitches to do his thing.

    Comments on Paul Quantrill’s Place In Yankees History

    1. Rich
      January 29th, 2008 | 12:18 am

      I wonder if Quantrill would have been any more effective if he had not hurt his knee when he collided with A-Rod in that exhibition game in Japan.

    2. Raf
      January 29th, 2008 | 12:45 am

      I wonder if Quantrill would have been any more effective if he had not hurt his knee when he collided with A-Rod in that exhibition game in Japan.
      ======
      I’ll look into it, but if his numbers are similar throughout his career…

    3. Raf
      January 29th, 2008 | 10:36 am

      I’ll look into it, but if his numbers are similar throughout his career…
      =======
      And they are… 2004 is in line with 1994-96 & 1999-2000.

    4. baileywalk
      January 29th, 2008 | 12:43 pm

      Well, I inspired this post from something I said in the “Why Brian Cashman is the AntiChrist: 2003″ post. I said:

      “And Quantrill? Quantrill was a perennial workhorse who was coming off a good year. Had A-Rod not dislocated Q’s knee during spring training, and had Torre not insisted on sending him out there injured, maybe things would have been different. Signing Q was as obvious as signing Gordon. All moves aren’t bad moves just because they turn out to be failures.”

      Well, I stick by that. Quantril threw 70-85 innings a year. Perfect for Joe Torre. He was not a spectacular strikeout pitcher like Gordon, but he certainly was an effective middle reliever. What did he cost to sign? A few million a year? That’s not a smart sign by Cashman? He was coming off a crazy low-ERA year in L.A. Torre had Quantrill throw 95 — 95! — innings out of the ‘pen, and he was pretty good for most of the year (he had a 3.00 ERA in August, after which he fell apart, his knee destroyed). Quantrill threw 95 innings injured — what would Torre have made him throw if he was healthy? 150 innings?

      Anyway, the point is the question was “Was Quantrill a good signing?” And I think he obviously was. Even if Quantrill performed at his career averages to a T, they would have taken that. But Torre continued to run him out there even when it was obvious his knee was totally ruined, and you can make the claim that Torre ruined his career. At the very least he waited way too long to give the guy some rest.

      People want to build a monument to Proctor for his 100 innings out of the ‘pen. I guess Quantrill’s 95 don’t quite cut it.

      Anyway, signings cannot always be judged on their results. Smart, logical and obvious signings occasionally don’t work out — but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have done it. To judge every signing in that way is pure 20/20-highsight, reactionary bullsh-t.

    5. January 29th, 2008 | 12:59 pm

      ~~People want to build a monument to Proctor for his 100 innings out of the ‘pen. I guess Quantrill’s 95 don’t quite cut it.~~

      I don’t see Proctor’s name in that “Top 10 Worst List” here.

    6. baileywalk
      January 29th, 2008 | 1:20 pm

      I don’t see Proctor’s name in that “Top 10 Worst List” here.
      ——-

      QUANTRILL — WASSSSS — INJURED. Ya? Did he make the list before or after he couldn’t walk anymore and had to throw two innings a night?

      On August 14th, 2004, Paul Quantrill had a 3.00 ERA. He had thrown over 67 innings.

      Looking at the gamelog, Torre never DID give him time off. Q continued to pitch just about every other day on his bum knee. So I’m not going to kill a guy for his year, which was partially effective, because his manager wouldn’t let him sit while an injury got progressively worse and he couldn’t do what made him good: keep the ball down and get groundouts.

      But I guess you do. So have fun with that. Quantrill sucks and the only person who sucks worse is Brian Cashman, or maybe Cashman mother for giving birth to him, or maybe for Cashman’s father for getting her pregnant, or the whole goddamned lousy-pitching-evaluating, can’t-build-a-bullpen Cashman bloodline.

    7. January 30th, 2008 | 2:25 am

      Gee, surprising that a great number of that all-time Yankee list were guys who Joe Torre abused repeatedly, huh?

      Must be coincidence.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.