Hall of Fame criteria for pitchers now

[ptatc]

Jose Quintana was 10th in WAR in 2016. One stat that shows about where he belongs.

That's true. However, as I've stated before. i would never just look at one data point to make any decision. Just because you have one stat that backs up your view of him doesn't mean it's the only view that matters.

 

With no GM meeting the price that Hahn was asking for, it seems that at least some GM's don't think he was worth the price. Doesn't mean they were right either. It just means there are many ways to look at the value of a player.

[Quin]

Man, Greg thought this was the ultimate "GOTCHA" thread, didn't he?

[chitownsportsfan]

Personally as far as if pitcher is a HOF worthy in the saber era I'd look at a few things but mostly just how good he was relative to his peers in things like ERA+, K%, BB%, WHIP, IP. I wouldn't consider wins in the evaluation. I would also look at fWAR and bWAR ranks from his time in the league.

 

I believe over 15K players have played in MLB. Only 220 or so are in the HOF. Roughly 1.2% of all players that play, have been deemed worthy.

 

I'd keep that ratio in my mind when comparing the player to his peers. Was he in that percentage of dominance?

[OmarComing25]

That's true. However, as I've stated before. i would never just look at one data point to make any decision. Just because you have one stat that backs up your view of him doesn't mean it's the only view that matters.

 

With no GM meeting the price that Hahn was asking for, it seems that at least some GM's don't think he was worth the price. Doesn't mean they were right either. It just means there are many ways to look at the value of a player.

I get what you're trying to say here but I can't think of a single stat for pitchers that I wouldn't look at first before I'd look at wins. Pretty much every other stat tells you more about the value of the pitcher than the win does.

[chitownsportsfan]

I get what you're trying to say here but I can't think of a single stat for pitchers that I wouldn't look at first before I'd look at wins. Pretty much every other stat tells you more about the value of the pitcher than the win does.

 

Hypothetically, if you had two pitchers with the EXACT same WAR (whatever measure, fWAR or bWAR), the exact same K/BB ratio, exact same IP, everything exactly the same except one guy has 300 wins and the other 280 sure use it to break a "tie" but that is probably the only time I would consider it.

 

A win is important to a pitcher because you play to win the game and that starter has to look his team in the eye every night. It's not important to our evaluation of them as fans and analysts.

 

on a side note, seems like traffic has picked up here this year. Awesome.

Edited May 24, 2017 by chitownsportsfan

[OmarComing25]

Hypothetically, if you had two pitchers with the EXACT same WAR (whatever measure, fWAR or bWAR), the exact same K/BB ratio, exact same IP, everything exactly the same except one guy has 300 wins and the other 280 sure use it to break a "tie" but that is probably the only time I would consider it.

 

A win is important to a pitcher because you play to win the game and that starter has to look his team in the eye every night. It's not important to our evaluation of them as fans and analysts.

 

on a side note, seems like traffic has picked up here this year. Awesome.

20 wins over a career is not that much though and there's a good chance that the first pitcher just got better run support/bullpen help or whatever. I just don't see the value. And anything that can point to pitcher A being a better pitcher given the other things being equal is probably a much better stat/thing to look at than wins anyway.

[soxforlife05]

I'd say Fernando Rodney is a shoe in

[LittleHurt05]

Man, Greg thought this was the ultimate "GOTCHA" thread, didn't he?

 

And he hasn't given a single opinion of what he thinks the criteria should be. Just repeating "sabes!"

[greg775]

Maybe. He still was really good. What I don't understand is all the Hawk haters who always slam him for his lack of sabermetric use, but love Stone, who seems to base how good any pitcher is by wins.

In Stone's era wins were ALL that mattered. The newspapers ran the standings with probable starters and you looked at wins and losses.

 

It's more the way the game is played now. The fact is, wins don't really mean anything. The fact that you can blow a save and still get a win is stupid. And starters only pitch 6-7 innings now anyway. It just doesn't make sense as a stat anymore.

Well, they might as well announce that no modern starting pitchers will ever get in the hall again. Cause nobody's gonna win 250 games anymore (which still wasn't enough; you needed 300 by gawd to get in) and if guys are only going six innings they won't have the strikeout totals either to impress. Also if guys are losing 1-2 seasons of a career to tommy john surgery, even more reason for no Hall of Fame. Closers? Doubtful because they only dominate 4-5 years and that's not long enough domination to be worthy of Hall.

 

Man, Greg thought this was the ultimate "GOTCHA" thread, didn't he?

For a guy who is despised, I talk about things that people pay attention to. They respond to me as much as you despise me.

 

And he hasn't given a single opinion of what he thinks the criteria should be. Just repeating "sabes!"

Part of my angst is I still like wins and losses as a stat. The criteria? None. None of these guys are going to make the hall cause they aren't going to stack up to the guys who won 300 games. The voters won't have it. There is no criteria available that is gonna help these pitchers out in regards to the Hall.

[caulfield12]

Another argument is guys like Schilling, Mussina and Clemens will start to look more attractive again.

 

Can we "re-judge" them fairly, and then take out the political/off the field stuff for Schilling? Maybe not.

 

 

Personally, I feel that Verlander and King Felix were the two best pitchers of their generation, with guys like Scherzer, Sabathia, Greinke, Hamels, and pretty much anyone else you want to mention a notch or two behind.

 

The two closers who deserve consideration are undoubtedly K-Rod (longevity as much as effectiveness) and Kimbrel.

 

 

 

Then you have Kershaw and Sale in the "next generation" of pitchers in the their late 20's/early 30's. Bumgarner might not be in the conversation were it not for his post-season success, but you have to at least consider him for that reason alone.

Edited May 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[greg775]

At this point, do you even know what argument you are trying to make? Is it really that you believe no starting pitchers will ever make the Baseball Hall of Fame again? Is that what you are really trying to argue?

Actually no pitchers at all who are early to mid career. I don't know which guys are eligible right now that might get in cause they are close to 300 wins, but yeah, I don't see anybody ever getting in counting guys early to mid career. Nobody cares about wins any more and that's all they used to care about regarding Hall starters. Closers' careers are short now, so the media won't vote them in for 4-5 dominant seasons alone.

[caulfield12]

Actually no pitchers at all who are early to mid career. I don't know which guys are eligible right now that might get in cause they are close to 300 wins, but yeah, I don't see anybody ever getting in counting guys early to mid career. Nobody cares about wins any more and that's all they used to care about regarding Hall starters. Closers' careers are short now, so the media won't vote them in for 4-5 dominant seasons alone.

 

Mussina, Schilling and Clemens...

[greg775]

And your bat-s*** crazy theory is all based on what the Royals announcers said last night on the broadcast, correct?

No, they were acting like wins and losses were still important which got my mind rolling because this board despises the W/L stat.

[Quin]

No, they were acting like wins and losses were still important which got my mind rolling because this board despises the W/L stat.

 

Well, I heard on talk radio that sabermetrics and traditional stats work well together.

[chitownsportsfan]

I found this sorta interesting:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ch_active.shtml

[caulfield12]

There's no such idea as "wins don't matter."

 

They don't matter as much as they used to, historically, but they will continue to as long as the average BBWAA voter for the HoF is averaging around 50-55 years old.

 

Maybe the next generation of voters will slowly change their criteria, but it certainly won't be announced publicly.

 

It's simply a matter of looking at WHIP, BAA, FIP, WAR and using all those together to paint a comprehensive picture of a pitcher across his career and also versus his peers.

 

 

We also know from following the White Sox that pitchers like James Baldwin and Danny Wright had 10-15 win seasons when they pitched like garbage but had a ton of run support behind them, versus Jose Quintana's string of no decisions since 2012 when statistically he's looked like a Top 15-20 starter in the entire majors during that timeframe. And yet despite all the advanced statistics in the world, scouts and GM's will always take the guy who throws 95-98 and "looks like an intimidating" pitcher.

[caulfield12]

I found this sorta interesting:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ch_active.shtml

 

Forgot about Wainright. Unfortunately, seems like the wear and tear over so many seasons is catching up with him, as well as Molina. Kazmir was another guy who's easy to forget about, and how good Weaver used to be, despite the lack of a fastball much over 90 and now in the mid 80's (the White Sox almost always struggled with that damned guy.)

 

 

White Sox have produced 2 of the top 24 in Sale and Gio Gonzalez. Colon and Shields pitched for the Sox.

Edited May 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

In fact, a fascinating interview (or set of interviews) would be asking all those teams who potentially were offseason suitors for Jose Quintana why they didn't pull the trigger on a cost-controlled pitcher in the prime of his career with Top 10-20 rankings in most pitching categories since 2012.

 

At least according to his results this year, they would have made the right move (so far), to not gut their systems.

 

And no scouts will ever throw out their radar guns and just go by advanced/SABR statistics on paper.

[greg775]

With that said, I've never understood the crowd of "Throw them out, they are 100% meaningless, dumbest stat in the world."

What is it hurting? It's information. but why throw a stat out completely?

With all due respect to you, if you are a sabes guy, it's because MANY of the Sabes people are braggarts who want everybody to know they are Sabes people and scoff at the old regular stats. For pitchers that would be W/L, ERA, strikeouts to walks. For hitters it's BA, 2B, 3B, HR, SB, the old "League Leaders" categories that meant something. The old stats are scoffed at by the sabes people. That's the way it is. BA/HR/RBI means very little now because of Sabes.

[FT35]

I think Kershaw is the only active starting pitcher who makes the Hall. Sabathia is borderline but I think he just misses it. Sale would need to be elite into his mid 30s and I don't see it happening. Felix was on track but he's been very mediocre his last few seasons and unless he returns to his previous form (unlikely) I don't see that happening either. If Bumgarner can nab a Cy Young or two I guess he has a shot, but no one else is in the conversation. At least until standards change to reflect the modern era.

 

I think you're spot on with these names and their chances as of now. Maybe Max Scherzer and Verlander could be in this convo. I know I just posted a long line of thought on how to keep the significance of the win in the realm of what matters in assessing pitchers' HOF chances. But I'm not sure we should change the standard of what makes the HOF. You could pretty much make the same argument for catchers now. You have Posey, then up and comers like Sanchez, but aside from them, you really don't have a ton of catchers in the HOF conversation at this time. Should we change the standard so that more should qualify? Or should we just accept the fact that this era is light on HOF-caliber pitchers and catchers?

 

Aside from the starters you mentioned, you are left with guys like Lester, Darvish, Cueto, Grienke, Hamels--all great pitchers...but are they Hall-of Famers!? How many guys like this would be in NOW if we changed the standard to include guys like this!?

[caulfield12]

Sal Perez and Molina are the only other catchers who are even close to being considered.

 

Mauer is the interesting case with his split career...but he's probably not going to make it either. If his career ended in 2010 like Puckett, he gets in but not anymore since he became an average 1B/DH.

[FT35]

Sal Perez and Molina are the only other catchers who are even close to being considered.

 

Mauer is the interesting case with his split career...but he's probably not going to make it either. If his career ended in 2010 like Puckett, he gets in but not anymore since he became an average 1B/DH.

 

Yeah Molina was on the inside track for sure before his injuries started. Mauer was a great catcher, but I think his almost complete lack of power may cost him. Yes, it's possible to see the slap hitters get in but usually you see a very high number of SB offset that lack of power. 6-time all-star certainly helps his case as being the best at his position though. We might have a case for him being in the conversation!

[Bob Sacamano]

Sal Perez and Molina are the only other catchers who are even close to being considered.

Mauer is the interesting case with his split career...but he's probably not going to make it either. If his career ended in 2010 like Puckett, he gets in but not anymore since he became an average 1B/DH.

 

Posey is on track I think.

[LittleHurt05]

I think Kershaw is the only active starting pitcher who makes the Hall. Sabathia is borderline but I think he just misses it. Sale would need to be elite into his mid 30s and I don't see it happening. Felix was on track but he's been very mediocre his last few seasons and unless he returns to his previous form (unlikely) I don't see that happening either. If Bumgarner can nab a Cy Young or two I guess he has a shot, but no one else is in the conversation. At least until standards change to reflect the modern era.

 

I think that will happen sooner than later though, especially with some of the old guard who can't even see anymore getting removed from the ballot list. The voters will realize how much SP has changed and will start comparing these guys against their peers, not with the old time pitchers who were able to notch 350 wins.

[FT35]

Posey is on track I think.

 

I agree. I think with the Championships, he might have solidified that spot even if he makes the switch to 1st full time and puts up decent numbers from here on. He was/is one of the best of his time--and even posted elite catcher numbers after the extreme injuries he's had. I'd vote yes on him.