SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Hall of Fame vote debate
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2018 7:25:41 GMT -5
2021 and 2022 will be very interesting. I cannot imagine a year when no one is elected so that might be the year that the steroid guys crack through?
I'm surprised that they project Papi to be a 1st year entry. It looks like at some point, Schilling will get through at least because of a lack of other options unless he's just pissed off too many journalists.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2018 9:57:14 GMT -5
I cannot imagine a year when no one is elected There basically wasn't anyone elected in 2013. The class that year consisted of three veterans' committee picks: umpire Hank O'Day, Exec Jacob Ruppert, and player Deacon White. 1996 was all Veterans' Committee as well.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 30, 2018 10:14:41 GMT -5
I don't see how no one gets elected if Schilling is sitting there. People might hate him, but he has already waited way too long. We made the great case for Mussina, well Schilling has just as good, if not a better case. He has just about the same war,yet had the better peak. He also had 11 seasons in the top 10 of war. He has way more strikeouts, but less wins. He should have been elected in year two. He also has that awesome post season record and huge games like the bloody sock and won 3 titles.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 30, 2018 10:25:41 GMT -5
I don't see how no one gets elected if Schilling is sitting there. People might hate him, but he has already waited way too long. We made the great case for Mussina, well Schilling has just as good, if not a better case. He has just about the same war,yet had the better peak. He also had 11 seasons in the top 10 of war. He has way more strikeouts, but less wins. He should have been elected in year two. He also has that awesome post season record and huge games like the bloody sock and won 3 titles. I hate Schilling, so it pains me but... he should be in. Schilling and Halladay are guys who miss any traditional win total, but that is going to have to shift. I’ve actually been thinking about the Muss discussion, and it has made me rethink Santana, too. Now... I’m likely still a no, but he’s a guy that I might flip on in a few years. Here’s why (and it pertains to the other two): If Santana had been able to be Bartolo Colon, and if he’d had 10 more years 12 wins and average stats (which is not at all HOF), would he have a better chance at 259 career wins? I realize I’d say yes (he’d have Mussina’s career stats with that dominant stretch that Muss didn’t have). Ok... but why does the mediocre stretch really add that much? Anyway, with Santana maybe I still think his career was a bit short. But do Scilling or Halladay really need a few mediocre padding seasons? No. We’ve reached a time when 200-wins may be the new 300 wins Edit: I know people hate wins, but I suppose one could substitute most accumulation stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 11:07:04 GMT -5
Players who lasted on the Hall of Fame ballot for only one year; by position
c Ted Simmons 1b John Olerud 2b Bobby Grich ss Jim Fregosi 3b Dick Allen of Kenny Lofton of Jimmy Wynn SP Rick Reuschel RP Tom Gordon
others who did not get 5% Julio Franco 2013 Andres Galarraga 2010
players not voted in by the Veterans Committee
Lee Smith Don Mattingly Dale Murphy Dave Parker
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2018 11:08:09 GMT -5
Halladay was one of the top couple of pitchers in baseball for an 11-year span. Won a couple Cys and was top 5 seven times. It seems kind of silly to me that he wouldn't be a shoo-in.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 30, 2018 11:18:21 GMT -5
Halladay was one of the top couple of pitchers in baseball for an 11-year span. Won a couple Cys and was top 5 seven times. It seems kind of silly to me that he wouldn't be a shoo-in. Some people are still hung up on the old notion of how many wins a guy needs. Pitchers need to get to 300 or be Pedro-level dominant, basically: it took Blyleven all the way to year 15 to get in. It's insane, but it's really been impossible to crack. There are 29 now Hall of Famers who were active in 1996: 22 position players, and seven pitchers. Two of those pitchers, Hoffman, and Eckersley, are in as relievers (though obviously Eck was a very good starter for a long time first). Now think about all of those borderline or steroids cases we discuss: Bonds, Manny, Walker, McGriff, Rolen, Edgar Martinez, Sheffield... and for pitchers, we're basically on Clemens, Mussina, and Schilling. It's impossible for me to believe that there are were four times as many qualified position players active in 1996 as there are Hall of Fame pitchers. Some of that might just be weird timing, but the bigger issue is that the 3000 hits/500 homers still apply for hitters, and they also elect hitters who don't reach them. Meanwhile, 300 wins is absurd for a post-1980's pitcher, not a useful metric in the first place, AND it seems like a huge portion of the BBWAA is clinging so tightly to its usefulness that they won't even make exceptions for an obvious case like Blyleven who didn't quite get there.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 30, 2018 12:12:59 GMT -5
Halladay was one of the top couple of pitchers in baseball for an 11-year span. Won a couple Cys and was top 5 seven times. It seems kind of silly to me that he wouldn't be a shoo-in. Some people are still hung up on the old notion of how many wins a guy needs. Pitchers need to get to 300 or be Pedro-level dominant, basically: it took Blyleven all the way to year 15 to get in. It's insane, but it's really been impossible to crack. There are 29 now Hall of Famers who were active in 1996: 22 position players, and seven pitchers. Two of those pitchers, Hoffman, and Eckersley, are in as relievers (though obviously Eck was a very good starter for a long time first). Now think about all of those borderline or steroids cases we discuss: Bonds, Manny, Walker, McGriff, Rolen, Edgar Martinez, Sheffield... and for pitchers, we're basically on Clemens, Mussina, and Schilling. It's impossible for me to believe that there are were four times as many qualified position players active in 1996 as there are Hall of Fame pitchers. Some of that might just be weird timing, but the bigger issue is that the 3000 hits/500 homers still apply for hitters, and they also elect hitters who don't reach them. Meanwhile, 300 wins is absurd for a post-1980's pitcher, not a useful metric in the first place, AND it seems like a huge portion of the BBWAA is clinging so tightly to its usefulness that they won't even make exceptions for an obvious case like Blyleven who didn't quite get there. This was largely what I meant above, even as someone who still thinks wins do mean something. They certainly mean less.... guys just don’t win as much as they did. I don’t think we’ll ever see 300 again. There are a few side points: I think pitchers seem to get a pass on the steroid grumbling. If a guy like Bagwell had doubters based largely on his size, why not more pitchers? I am no fan of finger pointing, but the only pitchers I hear mentioned are guys who were actually implicated. The other thing that amazes me (not related to the last point!) is that for all the stat wonkiness of the steroid years, Randy Johnson and Pedro had perhaps the greatest unadjusted peaks in those years in lefty/righty history. That is, for all the impact the era had on the middling pitchers, the elites put up numbers that really didn’t need adjustment to be in line with all time pitchers. So again I wonder if some of the adjustment is as much a testament to how bad the lower tier is — expansion, 5 man rotation etc. I am in agreement that we need to rethink lines on pitchers, but it is also the case that there will be and should me far fewer. For one thing, we ought not compare hitters to pitchers — but break down by all positions. Of course given that there are 8 (or 9) hitters to a pitcher in a lineup, the volume of candidates goes up. And frankly (noe I pitched through college so my bias comes out) being an elite pitcher for a career is just harder. Great hitters have put up big numbers even as they are hobbled — pitchers have had seasons ruined by tweaks. I don’t actually have a problem with celebrating fewer pitchers but admiring that few all the more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 14:33:11 GMT -5
More random information. I've been looking up all kinds of stuff. When you guys bring up a subject I have to research . I don't mean to verge but here's some more information There are 24 pitchers in the 300 Win Club only 5 since 1990. And they are Nolan Ryan Greg Maddux Tom Glavine Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens only Clemens is not in the Hall of Fame. The closest active picture is Bartolo Colon with 233 then Justin Verlander with 173 Felix Hernandez with 154. As as far as strikeouts the Elite goal is 3000 strikeouts which isn't as mythical as 300 wins. CC Sabathia is the closest active pitcher with 2,726 strikeouts Hernandez 2,264 K"s. and Verlander 2,197 strikeouts Clayton Kershaw 28 years old has 1,918 strikeouts. The elite of the elite the 4000 Strikeout Club has only 4 members Nolan Ryan Randy Johnson Roger Clemens and Steve Carlton.Which Kershaw may not be able to break into with the new pitching ideas and use of relievers will cut down his innings.. Now my point for doing this was the whole talk of wins losses strikeouts and how these handicap the modern era pitchers and their Hall of Fame eligibility. I looked up different stats that have been talked about in this thread.One I haven't seen is ERA+. Now remember I'm not a sabermetrics guy at all so stick with me on this explanation. ERA+ is a statistic that accounts for factors including park ,league and era. A ERA+of 130 or higher seems like a logical demarcation for greatness. Example; Kershaw ranks second all-time with an era plus of 159 tops among active players Chris Sale has an ERA+ of 135 followed by Hernandez and Wainwright at 126. Cueto,Hamels Lester price Bumgarner Scherzer and Verlander are between 120 and 125. Trevor Hoffman has a 141 ERA+. Mariano Rivera who is up for the first time for the Hall of Fame next year is the all-time leader of ERA+ at 205.
JAWS= Jaffe Wins Above Replacement Score Devised by Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus in 2004
The one stat that's being used in Hall of Fame debate circles is JAWS.JAWS is a tool for measuring a candidates Hall of Fame worthiness by comparing him to the players at his position who are already enshrined.It uses the baseball reference.com version of wins above replacement 2 estimated players total hitting pitching and defensive value while accounting for the wide variations in scoring levels that have occurred throughout the game's history and from ballpark the ballpark.A players JAWS is the average of his career war total and that of his peak which is defined as his best 7 years.
For starting pitchers JAWS sets the average HOF mark at 62.1. by that standard Mike mussina 63.8 Curt Schilling 64.5 should both be in.But by Hall of Fame balloting with Mussina got 51.8% of the vote and Schilling 45% well below the 75% required to be inducted.
Among active players only Kershaw is closest with 51.5 Sabathia next 49.5 Greinke 48.9 Verlander 45.7 Hernandez 45.0 Hamels 44.7.
IMO JAWS could make it harder for pitchers to get in the Hall of Fame.
Sam Miller of espn.com wrote "voters remain as willing to ignore War as they have ever been"
Another example given was if Kershaw's career was to end tomorrow would he be compared to Sandy Koufax who had a short career and was enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Most of what I read in different articles say that with all the different types of thought in what to used to induct players into the MLB HOF there is for now no clear formula or thought to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2018 14:57:19 GMT -5
I don't get how JAWS would make it harder to get into the Hall. I think you might have some misimpressions.
1) JAWS, as you even write, accounts for the era a player plays in, given that it's based on WAR and that statistic is adjusted relative to the scoring environment the statistics were accumulated in. So JAWS scores aren't declining over time or anything. Active players will of course have lower JAWS totals because it's a cumulative stat, and they, in theory, have more time to keep accumulating.
2) If voters are ignoring WAR they're ignoring JAWS, right? Not sure why you mention that point - maybe it's a separate point you were making?
3) To clear one thing up, the average is not "set" at 62.1. That is where the actual average happens to fall for players in the Hall. It's not a cutoff of any significance based on my understanding, although I could be wrong. A bunch of HOFers, by definition, didn't reach 62.1 in order for it to be the average. That includes some guys who I'd think were shoo-ins at first glance - Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, John Smoltz.
By the way, you were looking last year's ballots on those percentages. This year had Mussina at 63.5%, Clemens at 57.3%, Schilling at 51.2%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 15:32:47 GMT -5
If your point is that there are pitchers in the Hall of Fame below that 62.1% average rating ok you're right Juan Marichal Don Drysdale Jim Bunning John Smoltz Don Sutton Early Wynn even Sandy Koufax.If your point is that I don't understand JAWS WAR ERA+ you're right!But you know what I will figure these stats out.And how they will figure into the new generation of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 30, 2018 15:48:59 GMT -5
I know people hang on to these adjustment stats, but I want to say that I still think they are badly flawed, especially across eras. Let me give an example:
Take two comparable guys, Koufax and Kershaw, both of whom I think deserve to be in the Hall, but the former strikes me as the superior pitcher. Yet Kershaw is 2nd all time in ERA+! How, you ask, dare I? Well, here is the thing I’d like to see: what if Koufax were tasked with going 6 innings instead of 9?
Or put differently: if you take Kershaw’s best 4 years of ERA+, he is 195 in 816 innings. In Koufax’s he is 172 in 1192.2. I am not commenting on the in-season comp... but is it fair to say that Kershaw had a better ERA performance without caveat? If you added almost exactly 100 innings a season to Kershaw’s total, he’d reach Koufax. Would he still be over Koufax’s 172? It seems hard to say.
Last year, when Sale started wearing out, I have to admit part of me thought: why?
Back to Chris’s point about 200 innings. I went to baseball reference and started turning back season by season the top ten in innings. Even a couple years ago the average was at least 10-20 more. I’m not complaining exactly. We live in a different era of specialized bullpens. That doesn’t mean that the best guys shouldn’t be able to handle more of a load, though. It also doesn’t mean we ought not, perhaps, feel even greater admiration for the numbers of guys who pitched before the closer era.
In short, in a way, the era of specialty bullpens is akin to the steroid era. Come in, throw harder, shorter, more pitches per inning (so more Ks), and fewer looks from batters.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 30, 2018 16:17:02 GMT -5
I know people hang on to these adjustment stats, but I want to say that I still think they are badly flawed, especially across eras. Let me give an example: Take two comparable guys, Koufax and Kershaw, both of whom I think deserve to be in the Hall, but the former strikes me as the superior pitcher. Yet Kershaw is 2nd all time in ERA+! How, you ask, dare I? Well, here is the thing I’d like to see: what if Koufax were tasked with going 6 innings instead of 9? Or put differently: if you take Kershaw’s best 4 years of ERA+, he is 195 in 816 innings. In Koufax’s he is 172 in 1192.2. I am not commenting on the in-season comp... but is it fair to say that Kershaw had a better ERA performance without caveat? If you added almost exactly 100 innings a season to Kershaw’s total, he’d reach Koufax. Would he still be over Koufax’s 172? It seems hard to say. Last year, when Sale started wearing out, I have to admit part of me thought: why? Back to Chris’s point about 200 innings. I went to baseball reference and started turning back season by season the top ten in innings. Even a couple years ago the average was at least 10-20 more. I’m not complaining exactly. We live in a different era of specialized bullpens. That doesn’t mean that the best guys shouldn’t be able to handle more of a load, though. It also doesn’t mean we ought not, perhaps, feel even greater admiration for the numbers of guys who pitched before the closer era. In short, in a way, the era of specialty bullpens is akin to the steroid era. Come in, throw harder, shorter, more pitches per inning (so more Ks), and fewer looks from batters. This is the reason why many like WAR or JAWS. They combine the quantitative and qualitative statistics to try and determine who contributed more. But if a player were put in another's era or role, we never know for sure what would have happened. (What if Koufax had pitched in modern times as a closer? Would he have pitched another 10 years? Would his injuries be reparable with modern procedures or not happen at all? Would he have had a better ERA+ than Rivera by pitching one inning at a time?) Even with seemingly much easier modern day transitions there are questions: will Machado be a great shortstop? Would he have been a great shortstop over the last few years? We're going to find out the first question soon but if the answer is 'no' then we can still debate the second question with no clear answer. This is why with the modern statistics we can still become old men arguing over who was better. The only difference is we have more to use in the argument.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2018 17:02:03 GMT -5
I know people hang on to these adjustment stats, but I want to say that I still think they are badly flawed, especially across eras. Let me give an example: Take two comparable guys, Koufax and Kershaw, both of whom I think deserve to be in the Hall, but the former strikes me as the superior pitcher. Yet Kershaw is 2nd all time in ERA+! How, you ask, dare I? Well, here is the thing I’d like to see: what if Koufax were tasked with going 6 innings instead of 9? Or put differently: if you take Kershaw’s best 4 years of ERA+, he is 195 in 816 innings. In Koufax’s he is 172 in 1192.2. I am not commenting on the in-season comp... but is it fair to say that Kershaw had a better ERA performance without caveat? If you added almost exactly 100 innings a season to Kershaw’s total, he’d reach Koufax. Would he still be over Koufax’s 172? It seems hard to say. Last year, when Sale started wearing out, I have to admit part of me thought: why? Back to Chris’s point about 200 innings. I went to baseball reference and started turning back season by season the top ten in innings. Even a couple years ago the average was at least 10-20 more. I’m not complaining exactly. We live in a different era of specialized bullpens. That doesn’t mean that the best guys shouldn’t be able to handle more of a load, though. It also doesn’t mean we ought not, perhaps, feel even greater admiration for the numbers of guys who pitched before the closer era. In short, in a way, the era of specialty bullpens is akin to the steroid era. Come in, throw harder, shorter, more pitches per inning (so more Ks), and fewer looks from batters. Koufax also had a taller mound to throw from. IMO, the most dominant pitchers of all-time are Pedro and Kershaw (to this point, but he has another half a career to finish).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2018 17:34:09 GMT -5
I know people hang on to these adjustment stats, but I want to say that I still think they are badly flawed, especially across eras. Let me give an example: Take two comparable guys, Koufax and Kershaw, both of whom I think deserve to be in the Hall, but the former strikes me as the superior pitcher. Yet Kershaw is 2nd all time in ERA+! How, you ask, dare I? Well, here is the thing I’d like to see: what if Koufax were tasked with going 6 innings instead of 9? Or put differently: if you take Kershaw’s best 4 years of ERA+, he is 195 in 816 innings. In Koufax’s he is 172 in 1192.2. I am not commenting on the in-season comp... but is it fair to say that Kershaw had a better ERA performance without caveat? If you added almost exactly 100 innings a season to Kershaw’s total, he’d reach Koufax. Would he still be over Koufax’s 172? It seems hard to say. Last year, when Sale started wearing out, I have to admit part of me thought: why? Back to Chris’s point about 200 innings. I went to baseball reference and started turning back season by season the top ten in innings. Even a couple years ago the average was at least 10-20 more. I’m not complaining exactly. We live in a different era of specialized bullpens. That doesn’t mean that the best guys shouldn’t be able to handle more of a load, though. It also doesn’t mean we ought not, perhaps, feel even greater admiration for the numbers of guys who pitched before the closer era. In short, in a way, the era of specialty bullpens is akin to the steroid era. Come in, throw harder, shorter, more pitches per inning (so more Ks), and fewer looks from batters. Think of it this way though: The point of these statistics is not to directly compare, say, Koufax to Kershaw. It's to directly compare how good Koufax was relative to the players of his generation to how good Kershaw is relative to the players of his generation. I think your point makes a lot of sense as it relates to the first comparison, for sure. But the point is the latter comparison, which is admittedly not the same thing but probably the best we can do. You make a good point with the innings pitched, but as others have mentioned, there are considerations in the other direction. There's the height of the mound for one. There's the offensive environment as well - consider that in Koufax's best (and final) season in 1966, he won the ERA title at 1.73. In 10th was Jim Perry at 2.54. Last year, Kluber won the ERA title at 2.25, and Greinke was 10th at 3.20. You could come up with ways things were different in each era in different directions, and that's why a direct comparison is pretty much impossible, so we can only compare how good players were relative to their peers, which includes, in theory, conventional usage of players at the time as well. And at any rate, Koufax is probably a terrible comp for anyone given that his career ended immediately after a five- or six-year prime, wheras, say, Kershaw has already been the best pitcher in baseball for a seven-year period.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2018 18:33:35 GMT -5
Halladay was one of the top couple of pitchers in baseball for an 11-year span. Won a couple Cys and was top 5 seven times. It seems kind of silly to me that he wouldn't be a shoo-in. Some people are still hung up on the old notion of how many wins a guy needs. Pitchers need to get to 300 or be Pedro-level dominant, basically: it took Blyleven all the way to year 15 to get in. It's insane, but it's really been impossible to crack. There are 29 now Hall of Famers who were active in 1996: 22 position players, and seven pitchers. Two of those pitchers, Hoffman, and Eckersley, are in as relievers (though obviously Eck was a very good starter for a long time first). Now think about all of those borderline or steroids cases we discuss: Bonds, Manny, Walker, McGriff, Rolen, Edgar Martinez, Sheffield... and for pitchers, we're basically on Clemens, Mussina, and Schilling. It's impossible for me to believe that there are were four times as many qualified position players active in 1996 as there are Hall of Fame pitchers. Some of that might just be weird timing, but the bigger issue is that the 3000 hits/500 homers still apply for hitters, and they also elect hitters who don't reach them. Meanwhile, 300 wins is absurd for a post-1980's pitcher, not a useful metric in the first place, AND it seems like a huge portion of the BBWAA is clinging so tightly to its usefulness that they won't even make exceptions for an obvious case like Blyleven who didn't quite get there. Yeah, the voters aren't great when it comes to hitters, but they are completely lost in the wilderness when it comes to pitchers. There's the old Bill James line about how if you split Rickey Henderson in half, you'd have two hall of famers. Well, you could make three pitchers as good as Trevor Hoffman out of Mike Mussina and still have enough left over for a LOOGY.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 30, 2018 19:44:14 GMT -5
I know people hang on to these adjustment stats, but I want to say that I still think they are badly flawed, especially across eras. Let me give an example: Take two comparable guys, Koufax and Kershaw, both of whom I think deserve to be in the Hall, but the former strikes me as the superior pitcher. Yet Kershaw is 2nd all time in ERA+! How, you ask, dare I? Well, here is the thing I’d like to see: what if Koufax were tasked with going 6 innings instead of 9? Or put differently: if you take Kershaw’s best 4 years of ERA+, he is 195 in 816 innings. In Koufax’s he is 172 in 1192.2. I am not commenting on the in-season comp... but is it fair to say that Kershaw had a better ERA performance without caveat? If you added almost exactly 100 innings a season to Kershaw’s total, he’d reach Koufax. Would he still be over Koufax’s 172? It seems hard to say. Last year, when Sale started wearing out, I have to admit part of me thought: why? Back to Chris’s point about 200 innings. I went to baseball reference and started turning back season by season the top ten in innings. Even a couple years ago the average was at least 10-20 more. I’m not complaining exactly. We live in a different era of specialized bullpens. That doesn’t mean that the best guys shouldn’t be able to handle more of a load, though. It also doesn’t mean we ought not, perhaps, feel even greater admiration for the numbers of guys who pitched before the closer era. In short, in a way, the era of specialty bullpens is akin to the steroid era. Come in, throw harder, shorter, more pitches per inning (so more Ks), and fewer looks from batters. Think of it this way though: The point of these statistics is not to directly compare, say, Koufax to Kershaw. It's to directly compare how good Koufax was relative to the players of his generation to how good Kershaw is relative to the players of his generation. I think your point makes a lot of sense as it relates to the first comparison, for sure. But the point is the latter comparison, which is admittedly not the same thing but probably the best we can do. You make a good point with the innings pitched, but as others have mentioned, there are considerations in the other direction. There's the height of the mound for one. There's the offensive environment as well - consider that in Koufax's best (and final) season in 1966, he won the ERA title at 1.73. In 10th was Jim Perry at 2.54. Last year, Kluber won the ERA title at 2.25, and Greinke was 10th at 3.20. You could come up with ways things were different in each era in different directions, and that's why a direct comparison is pretty much impossible, so we can only compare how good players were relative to their peers, which includes, in theory, conventional usage of players at the time as well. And at any rate, Koufax is probably a terrible comp for anyone given that his career ended immediately after a five- or six-year prime, wheras, say, Kershaw has already been the best pitcher in baseball for a seven-year period. I don't want to be taken to be arguing some black-or-white position, and I definitely acknowledge a host of factors that complicate things. Fields are better maintained, people have full time trainers, we have learned the magic of juiced kale, etc. I do think, returning to a big picture of the Hall, that pitchers are a more complicated subject that hitters. There are eras in hitting -- dead ball, steroid, etc. -- and so numbers change. The current era loves walks like no era ever has before, and no one cares as much about striking out anymore. Still, guys place somewhere in the range of 155-162 games, get virtually the same number of plates appearances etc. So there is a base against which to judge. Pitchers, it is totally changed. We've gone from guys starting 40 times and throwing 260-300 innings, to guys starting 29-33 times and throwing 190-210 innings (I mean top guys, of course -- I don't mean everyone was doing the 40/260+). What I think is interesting is that we accept that things have changed -- but we do it without judgment. That is, we say, sure, guys used to complete 15, 20 games, now they don't -- so what? Why not say, sure, guys used to complete 20 games and holy cow -- when you look at that from the perspective of the current game it seems all the more amazing. Thus, in response to someone who said Kershaw is one of the most dominant pitchers of all-time, I would say, in his own way, yes. But it is hard for me to put him over, say, Tom Seaver, who from age 23-32 averaged 16 complete games and 276 innings a year -- while compiling an ERA of 2.46. Indeed, I'd go further and say that one can find stretches in unlikely places that compare favorably to more recent pitchers we tend to think as among the most dominant of all time. Johan Santana had 5 seasons over 5 bWAR, age 25-29. In that span, he amassed a bWAR of 35.4 a record of 86-39, ERA of 2.82 Frank Tanana, from age 20-25, in 5 seasons amassed a bWAR of 30.9, a record of 82-59, ERA of 2.86 But Tanana threw 81 complete games, Santana 9. Santana had 6 shutouts. Tanana had 22. My point is manifold: first, Tanana is a cautionary tale -- the rest of his career is a mixed bag (though he had a number of very good seasons). He got ZERO HOF votes! Yet... his run is exceptional, arguably as good as Santana's -- given that we really should credit him for his extraordinary innings value (perhaps another reason WAR doesn't translate across generations -- if most pitchers were completing games, than we would assume a replacement would be closer in complete games -- but what would Tanana's WAR be in the 90s?). We know Santana fell apart soon after this. Tanana went on to have a solid career. How dominant would Kershaw be next season if he'd been completing 15+ games a season to date? Given his injury track record, could he complete that many? I think Kershaw is a great pitcher, a Hall of Famer. But I think there is no active pitcher who compares to the best pitchers of all time. Heck, there are no active starters who compare the best starters of the 1990s. Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Maddux -- all better. Maddux and Johnson bloomed slightly later, but if you look at the age 23-29 seasons for Clemens and Pedro, they are as good or better than Kershaw. Because people love it -- Clemens had a bWAR in that age range of 58.5; Pedro 51.3; Kershaw 45.8.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2018 0:21:08 GMT -5
I guess my reaction is that you're putting way too much value in how many innings a guy pitches, but that's just my opinion and it's no more valid than yours or anything.
There is definite value to a starter eating innings, but I think what a guy does in his innings is far more important.
As for Tanana vs. Santana, it's not even close for me. Tanana had a great three or four year peak in which he was probably one of the best pitchers in baseball for two, and was a league average pitcher for another 16 years or so. Santana was one of the best pitchers in baseball for seven seasons. It's not even a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 31, 2018 0:42:25 GMT -5
I guess my reaction is that you're putting way too much value in how many innings a guy pitches, but that's just my opinion and it's no more valid than yours or anything. There is definite value to a starter eating innings, but I think what a guy does in his innings is far more important. As for Tanana vs. Santana, it's not even close for me. Tanana had a great three or four year peak in which he was probably one of the best pitchers in baseball for two, and was a league average pitcher for another 16 years or so. Santana was one of the best pitchers in baseball for seven seasons. It's not even a comparison. Well, I’m partly working out my own feelings... Santana obviously had a better prime by far. But that is literally it. He didn’t gave a few post-prime decent but unspectacular seasons. So Tanana is a good example of a pitcher who had a few dominant seasons and a long career as an often good pitcher. I am not disagreeing that Santana is better. But can a prime alone be enough for the Hall? You and others have tilted me toward the idea, and Tanana partly explains it: why do long seasons of meh to good add to the case? But... I think it is interesting that people get on closers as throwing relatively few innings but don’t similarly (not exactly, of course) make the same relative case for starters who are asked to go only 6-7 against guys who would go the full game 15-20 times... and on 3 days rest not infrequently. Part of the reason I chose Tanana is he is a famous case of a guy who blew his arm out from early overuse. It used to be far more sink or swim. Those who swam should get a lot more credit for that. Kershaw, Scherzer, Greinke... guys I think will have good cases... these are guys with fewer complete games in their careers than many HOF pitchers had in seasons. That is simply a big advantage in terms of how you approach a game, in-game fatigue, and long term health.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 31, 2018 2:11:40 GMT -5
A word of caution. Tanana was a phenomenal talent. Drysdale did color for the Angel broadcasts in the 70s. I would catch those at night in Las Vegas. Nolan Ryan drove him nuts but Tanana he loved. Everybody did and they ruined him. They piled so many innings on that arm at such a young age that he was damaged goods at 24, and never close to the same pitcher afterwards.
There's a reason why the game has evolved the way that it has. Once players started getting paid what they were worth they became valuable assets and not just disposable commodities. Teams take much better care of the players, medical, dietary & conditioning care, and yes innings limits.
For every rubber-armed Ryan, there are dozens of Tanana's littering the MLB archives, guys who had all the talent in the world, until they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2018 10:17:58 GMT -5
I guess my reaction is that you're putting way too much value in how many innings a guy pitches, but that's just my opinion and it's no more valid than yours or anything. There is definite value to a starter eating innings, but I think what a guy does in his innings is far more important. As for Tanana vs. Santana, it's not even close for me. Tanana had a great three or four year peak in which he was probably one of the best pitchers in baseball for two, and was a league average pitcher for another 16 years or so. Santana was one of the best pitchers in baseball for seven seasons. It's not even a comparison. Well, I’m partly working out my own feelings... Santana obviously had a better prime by far. But that is literally it. He didn’t gave a few post-prime decent but unspectacular seasons. So Tanana is a good example of a pitcher who had a few dominant seasons and a long career as an often good pitcher. I am not disagreeing that Santana is better. But can a prime alone be enough for the Hall? You and others have tilted me toward the idea, and Tanana partly explains it: why do long seasons of meh to good add to the case? But... I think it is interesting that people get on closers as throwing relatively few innings but don’t similarly (not exactly, of course) make the same relative case for starters who are asked to go only 6-7 against guys who would go the full game 15-20 times... and on 3 days rest not infrequently. Part of the reason I chose Tanana is he is a famous case of a guy who blew his arm out from early overuse. It used to be far more sink or swim. Those who swam should get a lot more credit for that. Kershaw, Scherzer, Greinke... guys I think will have good cases... these are guys with fewer complete games in their careers than many HOF pitchers had in seasons. That is simply a big advantage in terms of how you approach a game, in-game fatigue, and long term health. I mean, I'd also argue that Santana's career was better. Tanana was great for two years and good for 3 or 4, and the rest he was clearly not a HOF pitcher. Even if you cut off the years of "meh," he's not a Hall of Famer. Even if you just look at his best stretch of 8 years, 1974-1981, it's pretty underwhelming. He's kind of an extreme case, so I'd say it's possible that a guy gets hurt from continuing to play rather than having to retire, so maybe someone has an example. That's something I've thought about - does having longevity hurt you if it adds years of "meh" to your elite prime? If there's an example of this, it's not Tanana, to me. I also think you may be unintentionally overestimating just how much of an innings difference there is for elite starting pitchers now and those in prior generations. Tanana averaged 259 IP/year from 1974-1978. Santana averaged 216 from 2004-2010, 229 if you cut it off at 2008. To draw in your other point, compare that with a closer like Hoffman, whose career high was 90 IP and career IP average/year was 61. It's a difference of degree that isn't present comparing starters from different generations, unless you're going back to guys like Cy Young who were throwing 400+ innings and starting 40 or 50 games in the 1800s. FWIW, I don't think Santana is a HOFer either (and I don't think many or anyone here does either - the point many were making, I think, is that it's surprising he fell off so quickly). I just think his case for it is way more compelling than Tanana's. Anyway, fun discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2018 10:28:34 GMT -5
A word of caution. Tanana was a phenomenal talent. Drysdale did color for the Angel broadcasts in the 70s. I would catch those at night in Las Vegas. Nolan Ryan drove him nuts but Tanana he loved. Everybody did and they ruined him. They piled so many innings on that arm at such a young age that he was damaged goods at 24, and never close to the same pitcher afterwards. There's a reason why the game has evolved the way that it has. Once players started getting paid what they were worth they became valuable assets and not just disposable commodities. Teams take much better care of the players, medical, dietary & conditioning care, and yes innings limits. For every rubber-armed Ryan, there are dozens of Tanana's littering the MLB archives, guys who had all the talent in the world, until they didn't. Dwight Gooden might be a good example as well. 276 IP as a 20 year old in 1985 probably didn't do him any favors and yeah, neither did the cocaine. Though that season was one of the best all-time seasons for a pitcher. 12.2 bWAR I still think he should be in because he was as good as Pedro when he was so young.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 31, 2018 10:29:16 GMT -5
A word of caution. Tanana was a phenomenal talent. Drysdale did color for the Angel broadcasts in the 70s. I would catch those at night in Las Vegas. Nolan Ryan drove him nuts but Tanana he loved. Everybody did and they ruined him. They piled so many innings on that arm at such a young age that he was damaged goods at 24, and never close to the same pitcher afterwards. There's a reason why the game has evolved the way that it has. Once players started getting paid what they were worth they became valuable assets and not just disposable commodities. Teams take much better care of the players, medical, dietary & conditioning care, and yes innings limits. For every rubber-armed Ryan, there are dozens of Tanana's littering the MLB archives, guys who had all the talent in the world, until they didn't. This is, indeed, my point. As a fan, of course I cringe to see guys throw too many pitches or innings. I want the Sox to keep guys healthy for years. But I also then look back at the pitchers who endured the crucible as essentially superhuman. Tanana was abused, fell apart. Today... what if those first four years were stretched to 6-7? If rather than averaging 18 complete games, he averaged 3? Put differently... if 200 innings is now a far higher number, what if you go back and measure guys in blocks of 200? Then a guy like Tanana’s “prime” grows etc. I am not trying to make a case for Tanana. I use him because he was a sad story and one that likely happened a lot. But I would say we should take into account the difference between guys asked to be “dominant” for 6 and guys tasked with throwing 9 who remain dominant or even excellent. Edit: to address something Chris mentions... it’s true, often the inning gap is not great. But in the earlier Mussina discussion Jim Palmer came up. From 1969-1978, he averaged 18 cgs and 277 innings. Two of those years were incomplete: in the other 8, he was under that average once. He threw over 295 6 times. In 1975, for example, Palmer pitched 24 games on 3 days rest. 14 complete games, 202.2 innings. Kershaw has never started on 3 days rest in his career. How does that get factored in value? Imagine if the Red Sox didn’t need to worry about a fifth starter for most of the season?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2018 16:52:20 GMT -5
A word of caution. Tanana was a phenomenal talent. Drysdale did color for the Angel broadcasts in the 70s. I would catch those at night in Las Vegas. Nolan Ryan drove him nuts but Tanana he loved. Everybody did and they ruined him. They piled so many innings on that arm at such a young age that he was damaged goods at 24, and never close to the same pitcher afterwards. There's a reason why the game has evolved the way that it has. Once players started getting paid what they were worth they became valuable assets and not just disposable commodities. Teams take much better care of the players, medical, dietary & conditioning care, and yes innings limits. For every rubber-armed Ryan, there are dozens of Tanana's littering the MLB archives, guys who had all the talent in the world, until they didn't. One of the interesting things about late 90s/early 2000s baseball is that despite the crazy offensive numbers, you also had a handful of guys like Pedro, Maddux, and Johnson putting up historically great pitching numbers. To put it another way, raw peak Kershaw numbers look pretty close to raw peak Pedro numbers. But if you compare their numbers to league average, Pedro comes out ahead. Waaaaaaay way way ahead. Pedro peaked at close to 200% better than league average, Kershaw has only been a little over 100%. How do you account for that difference? Well, you can say that Pedro was better, and I believe that, but I don't believe he was THAT much better. I don't think that if peak Pedro pitched in the NL in 2015 he'd have a 0.63 ERA or something. Kershaw is just too close to perfection for anyone to have been that much better. For them to look as different as they do when compared to their leagues, the leagues themselves must have changed. So, how did the league change? Pitch counts. Sometime around when Dusty Baker rode Mark Prior into the ground, the league started getting really serious about protecting young arms. The Pedros and Johnsons of the world stood out more in the pre pitch-count era because so many their peers had their arms ruined throwing 139 pitch games for the Toledo Mudhens. The league's model of pitching use and development at the time meant that only the rubber armed guys survived, and that meant they produced a lot more Jose Limas than Randy Johnsons. Go look at the back end of an ERA leaderboard from 1998. Steroids era? Maybe in part. I'm more and more convinced it was the John Burkett era, when guys who were basically never any good could still have 2500 inning careers because they took the mound every fifth day. Now of course, it's the opposite. Baseball now selects pitchers for ability, not durability. If you have great stuff, teams will baby you as much as they possibly can in order to get you to the majors and get value out of you before you break down. This is part of the reason modern bullpens look the way they do; guys who used to end up as broken starters are now throwing 98 with wipeout sliders in the seventh inning. The soft throwing homer prone innings eater types almost don't exist anymore., or if they do we tell them to only throw their two best pitches and we'll pull them after two times through the order. The difference between the best and the worst pitchers in the league is smaller. The complete game is dead and with good reason; bullpens are so stocked with crazy arms, why would you want your tired starter out there for the seventh? Anyway, two HOF takeaways from this. One, I don't think it's necessarily incorrect for the "steroids era" to be underrepresented when it comes to HOF pitchers. That era broke pitchers to the extent that the industry needed to completely revamp the way it developed them. Two, we're never going to have another 300 game winner and we can't keep only putting guys who got saves into the HOF. Halladay probably helps break this dam when he come up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 31, 2018 17:45:00 GMT -5
Pedro's peak season in 2000, happens to be the higgest amount of runs per game since 1936. He was that good at the peak of the steriod era. I could see that Pedro in the NL facing pitchers easily having an era under 1 in 2017.
|
|
|