I was listening to Royals game and they were saying how some pitcher, I forget which one, wouldn't be elected to the Hall cause he didn't have near enough wins.

 

WAIT a minute! I thought in the new sabes era wins mean NOTHING.

So sabes people. No more starting pitchers get in the Hall again? Unless they have some ridiculous amount of strikeouts? Or the Hall will only be for relievers with the good new-wave Sabes stats?

People can't have it both ways. Do wins mean nothing or not? Are voters still going to look at wins for Hall of Fame selection? A lot of starters have been denied the Hall cause of the old stats WINS vs LOSSES. Should all pitchers who got excluded for not being near 300 wins be re-assessed in the era of Sabes?

I mean, think about all the pitchers who are in the Hall because of wins and I've been told by the Sabes people wins mean NOTHING.

Hmmm.

I was listening to Royals game and they were saying how some pitcher, I forget which one, wouldn't be elected to the Hall cause he didn't have near enough wins.

 

WAIT a minute! I thought in the new sabes era wins mean NOTHING.

So sabes people. No more starting pitchers get in the Hall again? Unless they have some ridiculous amount of strikeouts? Or the Hall will only be for relievers with the good new-wave Sabes stats?

People can't have it both ways. Do wins mean nothing or not? Are voters still going to look at wins for Hall of Fame selection? A lot of starters have been denied the Hall cause of the old stats WINS vs LOSSES. Should all pitchers who got excluded for not being near 300 wins be re-assessed in the era of Sabes?

I mean, think about all the pitchers who are in the Hall because of wins and I've been told by the Sabes people wins mean NOTHING.

Hmmm.

Why were you listening to the Royals' game? Was the Sox game not coming in by you?

 

Why were you listening to the Royals' game? Was the Sox game not coming in by you?

 

I was in the car. I live in KC area. I watched Sox fifth til eighth and turned it off after the second bunt attempt. Couldnt take it any more.

Saying that wins "mean nothing" is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone would take. That said, I think it's completely reasonable to acknowledge that wins are far more a product of overall team performance and run support received by a pitcher than they are a product of pitcher performance. I don't think anyone would argue that a 20 win pitcher with a 4 ERA is better than a 10 win pitcher with a 3 ERA, given equal or nearly equal innings pitched.

Saying that wins "mean nothing" is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone would take. That said, I think it's completely reasonable to acknowledge that wins are far more a product of overall team performance and run support received by a pitcher than they are a product of pitcher performance. I don't think anyone would argue that a 20 win pitcher with a 4 ERA is better than a 10 win pitcher with a 3 ERA, given equal or nearly equal innings pitched.

So how do guys get in the Hall of Fame from now on? What criteria?

So how do guys get in the Hall of Fame from now on? What criteria?

 

Have 75% of voters vote for them.

I was listening to Royals game and they were saying how some pitcher, I forget which one, wouldn't be elected to the Hall cause he didn't have near enough wins.

 

WAIT a minute! I thought in the new sabes era wins mean NOTHING.

So sabes people. No more starting pitchers get in the Hall again? Unless they have some ridiculous amount of strikeouts? Or the Hall will only be for relievers with the good new-wave Sabes stats?

People can't have it both ways. Do wins mean nothing or not? Are voters still going to look at wins for Hall of Fame selection? A lot of starters have been denied the Hall cause of the old stats WINS vs LOSSES. Should all pitchers who got excluded for not being near 300 wins be re-assessed in the era of Sabes?

I mean, think about all the pitchers who are in the Hall because of wins and I've been told by the Sabes people wins mean NOTHING.

Hmmm.

 

This is nothing compared what Hawk said about Fernando Rodney lol

I think wins do mean something if extrapolated over a long enough period of time. Take Mark Buehrle for instance... 200+ wins over 15ish years is a really, really good career. He put his team in a position to win games more often than not for a really long time.

 

But yeah, Porcello winning 20 whatever games he won last year was more a product of playing behind an A+ defense and getting a ton of run support, not that he didn't have a great year

Verlander and Felix Hernandez will be two of the pitchers to flesh out the new criteria for pitching...

 

Mussina. Clemens. Pettitte. Jack Morris. Bartolo Colon won't make it. Sabathia will be interesting.

Tim Hudson. Curt Schilling. Buehrle won't make it. Lackey has 180 wins, no way for him.

 

Zack Greinke belongs just behind Felix and Verlander.

 

Jon Lester on the outside looking in for now...not many choices.

 

K-Rod as a closer for so long? Kimbrel if he holds up for another 3-5 years is likely.

 

Verlander and Felix Hernandez will be two of the pitchers to flesh out the new criteria for pitching...

 

Mussina. Clemens. Pettitte. Jack Morris. Bartolo Colon won't make it. Sabathia will be interesting.

Tim Hudson. Curt Schilling. Buehrle won't make it. Lackey has 180 wins, no way for him.

 

Zack Greinke belongs just behind Felix and Verlander.

 

Jon Lester on the outside looking in for now...not many choices.

 

K-Rod as a closer for so long? Kimbrel if he holds up for another 3-5 years is likely.

 

Agreed on Felix. I think that should be the most appropriate model for modern day HOF standards

 

Agreed on Felix. I think that should be the most appropriate model for modern day HOF standards

How would you determine that Hernandez is one of the best pitchers of all time?

Saying that wins "mean nothing" is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone would take. That said, I think it's completely reasonable to acknowledge that wins are far more a product of overall team performance and run support received by a pitcher than they are a product of pitcher performance. I don't think anyone would argue that a 20 win pitcher with a 4 ERA is better than a 10 win pitcher with a 3 ERA, given equal or nearly equal innings pitched.

The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. Your example is a perfect example. A 3 ERA pitcher is (generally) better than a 4 ERA pitcher. A 20 win vs 10 win pitcher tells you almost nothing.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Sox-35th

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/active-star...o-shot-at-hall/

 

It's an issue. The problem isn't which stats you decide are important, it's a complete denial of the fact that the game evolves and is really old and therefore norms for counting stats don't hold up over time.

 

We can argue over whether or not wins are important all day -- but the reality is that pitcher usage has changed drastically to the point that wins can simply no longer be accumulated at nearly the same rate as they used to be. The way the game is played today, no pitcher will ever accumulate 300 wins, no matter how good they are, so 300 wins is a stupid way to judge a pitcher. Even if you like the win as a stat, the number 300 is simply not applicable in today's game.

 

This is why so many arguments based on "traditionalism" are nonsense. It's not to say that your preferred aesthetic can't be to preserve tradition, but the world changes and many old ideas and memes just don't hold up, regardless of how you feel about them.

The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. Your example is a perfect example. A 3 ERA pitcher is (generally) better than a 3 ERA pitcher. A 20 win vs 10 win pitcher tells you almost nothing.

i think you are wrong here. The value of them has decreased, rightfully so, but they are not meaningless. A 20 win pitcher vs. a 10 win pitcher, generally stayed in the game longer, was able to be more efficient with pitches, was able to be more competitive deeper into games. As someone said earlier it has decreased significance in a single season as in your example but carries a little more weight over multiple seasons or even a career.

The problem is that the modern bullpen use does not only decrease the wins but also other counting stats like IP, Ks and even WAR because the pitchers simply pitch less.

 

Starters have given up part of their value to the bullpen.

 

The question now is how to handle this.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/active-star...o-shot-at-hall/

 

It's an issue. The problem isn't which stats you decide are important, it's a complete denial of the fact that the game evolves and is really old and therefore norms for counting stats don't hold up over time.

 

We can argue over whether or not wins are important all day -- but the reality is that pitcher usage has changed drastically to the point that wins can simply no longer be accumulated at nearly the same rate as they used to be. The way the game is played today, no pitcher will ever accumulate 300 wins, no matter how good they are, so 300 wins is a stupid way to judge a pitcher. Even if you like the win as a stat, the number 300 is simply not applicable in today's game.

 

This is why so many arguments based on "traditionalism" are nonsense. It's not to say that your preferred aesthetic can't be to preserve tradition, but the world changes and many old ideas and memes just don't hold up, regardless of how you feel about them.

This is very true. You cannot compare the number of wins today compared to earlier eras. Starting pitchers do not pitch anywhere near the amount of pitches, innings and games as their predecessors. So absolute number of wins should not be a yes or no criteria. Due to the usage of relievers, more HOF attention should be placed on this group. However, it's going to become a debate like positional players. How much offense does a great defensive shortstop need for the HOF? How do you rate a reliever who has a advantage in the advanced metrics (K,BB,FIP) as he will rarely pitch tired thus have better numbers than a starter.

The problem is that the modern bullpen use does not only decrease the wins but also other counting stats like IP, Ks and even WAR because the pitchers simply pitch less.

 

Starters have given up part of their value to the bullpen.

 

The question now is how to handle this.

Absolutely. The more "objective" the game stats gets, the more "subjective" the HOF will get.

Have 75% of voters vote for them.

 

i think you are wrong here. The value of them has decreased, rightfully so, but they are not meaningless. A 20 win pitcher vs. a 10 win pitcher, generally stayed in the game longer, was able to be more efficient with pitches, was able to be more competitive deeper into games. As someone said earlier it has decreased significance in a single season as in your example but carries a little more weight over multiple seasons or even a career.

Win count does nothing to support your claim. Wins are meaningless.

 

You're talking about innings pitched, pitch count.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Sox-35th

The problem is that the modern bullpen use does not only decrease the wins but also other counting stats like IP, Ks and even WAR because the pitchers simply pitch less.

 

Starters have given up part of their value to the bullpen.

 

The question now is how to handle this.

 

This is exactly why the exercise of comparing stats across eras is so futile. The game has changes and different phases. The comparison really needs to be with how dominant a player was in his own era as the first litmus test for the HOF.

This is exactly why the exercise of comparing stats across eras is so futile. The game has changes and different phases. The comparison really needs to be with how dominant a player was in his own era as the first litmus test for the HOF.

It's not really, though. WAR is adjusted for era. We know how much more dominant x player in the 1960s was verses today.

It's not really, though. WAR is adjusted for era. We know how much more dominant x player in the 1960s was verses today.

 

WAR is still a very flawed stat.

WAR is still a very flawed stat.

But it's reasonably fair comparing players across eras. Pitching wins, by comparison, is NOT a stat.

HOF for pitchers is getting interesting. I was pretty surprised when I learned Halladay would have a tough time. For the prime years I grew up following baseball, it was Halladay tossing 220 plus innings with a low 3 ERA. 10 years of being really really good.

 

So many other pitchers seem like they spurt and fall off. Could only say Kershaw is the one shoe-in at this point, Hernandez after that. Sale has a good chance, but needs to keep it up through age 31-32 at least, and who knows.

 

I guess Lester could have a shot. Bumgarner if he gets back and pitches like this for 4-5 more years.

 

150 is the new 200

I guess Lester could have a shot. Bumgarner if he gets back and pitches like this for 4-5 more years.

Lester might get in because he played for the Red Sox and the Cubs. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.