http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8821278?MSNHPHMA
Printable View
If I were on the BBWAA that clown would never get in, but then I would be allowing my personal bias to get in the way of more objective analysis, something the BBWAA never does. :rolleyes:
Also, the title of that story is in line with the MSM stance that only hitters took steroids. Roger *cough* Clemens *cough, cough* anyone?
That is the point of ERA+, it compares his era to those of all the contemporaries and sets it on a base of 100, accounting for the offesive production of what ever era a player throws in ....
Mussina ranks 78th (tied with others such as Juan Marichal, who Mussina stats are remarkably similar to)
Mussina provides an amazing HoF conundrum really, the biggest mark against is he was too conistent, he posted 11 wins in every one of his 17 full seasons and was never lights out dominant. His numbers at the end of the day 270-153(.638), 123 ERA+, 2813k (7.1/9), 1:3.7 BB/K, All seem very good.
But good enough?
That's a good question.
It's the BlylevenII argument!
CrosbyBird at Baseball Think Factory made a good list of criteria that "makes a Hall of Famer":
I agree with it 100%.Quote:
1) You can have an extraordinary peak and extraordinary career value. These guys are inner-circle; they are always easy, easy selections. Greg Maddux.
2) You can have an extraordinary peak and a solid career length. Kevin Brown.
3) You can have an extraordinary career length and a solid peak. Tom Glavine.
4) You can have career length or peak so historically great that it makes up for low peak value or relatively short career relative to the average "legitimate" HOF player. Sandy Koufax. Don Sutton (borderline HOF IMO).
5) You can have a very good peak and very good career length, plus something that distinguishes you greatly from the pack. These are the most difficult cases. I think Smoltz and Mussina are both in this category.
Props to Moose
kevin brown? don't you think the steroid accusations against him will haunt him others from that era and keep him out of the HOF??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Kevin Brown is HOF material? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If so, they'd better clear a spot for Hershiser!
Steroids or no, there's no way on earth he's a HOFer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
He won't get in, partially because of the steroids and partially because of the low win total.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
But, I think he absolutely should. If you look at the numbers, he's right on par with Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. He just doesn't have that "aura" that they have, and also wasn't really media-friendly.
You mentioned Hershiser. I think Brown was clearly ahead of him. Brown had both a much higher peak and a better career.
From 1989-1995, Brown was a solid, above-average pitcher. From 1996-2001 (partial year in 2001), Brown was a phenomenal pitcher. If he managed to be credited with a couple more wins each year, I think his reputation would be higher than it is (and more where it should be). Injuries wrecked him from there on out, but he still was able to throw up another equally phenomenal year in 2003. Solid career, extraordinary peak, HOFer in my book.
Take a look at these stat lines:
211-144, 3256.1 IP, 901 BB, 2397 K, 3.28 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP
216-146, 3261 IP, 711 BB, 3116 K, 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP
210-147, 3395 IP, 992 BB, 3011 K, 3.26 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP
Now, the latter two pitchers have more impressive postseason records, and one of them has a stretch as a solid closer. That's really the only thing that separates these 3 pitchers. Are those two things enough to draw the line between the first guy and the latter two? Not in my opinion.
I don't think any of those 3 are HOFers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Mussina is far more worthy, and I'm not even totally sold on him.
I think Hershiser is a fair comparison to Brown in a lot of ways.
He also holds an outstanding record that may never fall, and won a Cy Young.
But I don't think he, Brown, Smoltz, or Schilling belong in the HOF.
If I had a vote, I wouldn't give the nod to Mussina
Maybe, but I still think Brown is clearly ahead of him. I also think that Brown should've won a Cy Young (1996).Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I can respect that. At least you're consistent.Quote:
But I don't think he, Brown, Smoltz, or Schilling belong in the HOF.
I think they're all Hall of Famers. Using the list I used above, Brown and Schilling fit into #2 and Smoltz #5.
If Clemens, Maddux and Pedro weren't eating up all the Cy Youngs in that era, I'd be more inclined to consider these guys HOFers, starting with Mussina. But it seems to me they're all just a smidge shy. Is it their fault those pitchers existed and pitched the way they did? No... but it is what it is. Their lack of accolades and inability to perch themselves at the highest (I mean, top-5 to top-10 year in, year out) tier of baseball players at their position for an extended period of time leaves them out of the HOF in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
So if Clemens had become a football player in high school, Pedro stayed in the Domincan and became a ****-fighting entrepreneur, and Maddux became a professional dart thrower then Moose and co would be in the HoF? That seems like somewhat twisted logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Could the censor please gain a sense of context. ;) I think what filihok was trying to say has something to do with Pedro becoming a chicken-fighting entrepreneur, but unfortunately he used the word c**k and the censor got all upset and left the species identity of the fighters Pedro was entrepreneuring for up to the wild imaginings of Mogulers everywhere. :D
I think that Mussina, Smoltz, Brown, and Schilling are unquestionably amongst the 10 best pitchers of their era. Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Clemens, and Glavine are obviously the top 5, then there's a gap, and then that group. I don't think it's odd that in the era of 30 teams with 5-man rotations there's 9/10 HOF starters.
I mean, take a look at the era around the late 1960s/1970s. Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichel, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, Catfish Hunter, Phil Niekro...That's 10 HOF starting pitchers right there...and there's MORE teams and players now.
I don't see how any of these players "lack accolades", but I that's a broad term so I won't bother with it. As for that second question, I'm bored, so here goes. For Brown, Schilling, Smoltz, and Mussina, I'm going to go through their careers and just quickly see how many years that a good argument could be made for them to be a top 5/top 10 pitcher in the major leagues.Quote:
Their lack of accolades and inability to perch themselves at the highest (I mean, top-5 to top-10 year in, year out) tier of baseball players at their position for an extended period of time leaves them out of the HOF in my mind.
Note, I'm not trying to "disprove" you or anything. You obviously believe in a much smaller Hall than I do (and I would say that you believe the Hall should be much smaller than it has been historically), and that's fine. I'm just trying to facilitate the discussion.
Brown:
Top 5: 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003
Top 10: 1997
Schilling:
Top 5: 2001, 2004
Top 10: 1991, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003
Smoltz:
Top 5: 1996, 2003 (among relievers),
Top 10: 1995, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007
Mussina:
Top 5: 1991, 1994, 1995, 2001
Top 10: 1999, 2000, 2006
And of course, you also can't ignore the other years in which these guys often came in the top 15/20. But, at any rate, I would think (but I haven't checked) that 6-8 years of top 5/10 performance compares favorably to the pitchers in the Hall of Fame.
Obviously its far from the "inner circle" level, but the Hall is for more than just those few elites. I think that all four of these pitchers meet or surpass the established standard of the Hall of Fame.
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes, and take a look at those names. The bottom 5 pitchers in the top 10 pitchers of the 90s weren't anywhere near as impressive as that bottom five. With the exception of probably Catfish Hunter and Juan Marichal, you're looking at 8 pitchers who are better than all but the top 3 pitchers of the 90s.Quote:
I mean, take a look at the era around the late 1960s/1970s. Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichel, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, Catfish Hunter, Phil Niekro...That's 10 HOF starting pitchers right there...and there's MORE teams and players now.
I'm going to say something you'll probably disagree with, but I think pitchers in THIS era and recent eras should face stricter standards than simply being top 10 pitchers. The value of the pitchers you listed was far greater (not as a ratio, but as a total) over the course of a season because of the innings. You just listed 10 guys who would regularly complete 20+ games a season and end up with 30 to 40 decisions. If a pitcher is only going every fifth day and is leaving the game in the 7th inning for reliever specialists, he'd better be able to put up some SICK numbers (Maddux, Pedro).
Brown, Mussina and Schilling never won Cy Youngs, for one thing. That group of four pitchers has a combined grand total of ONE Cy Young Award. To be quite honest, I think their careers look rather silly compared to Maddux, Pedro and Clemens. The only other pitchers I'm in favor of being HOFers from this era are Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera. That's 7, and it's plenty for one decade. Mussina has the next best case, in my opinion. Very close, I could maybe be swayed. I'd put Schilling next, followed by Smoltz and Brown.Quote:
I don't see how any of these players "lack accolades", but I that's a broad term so I won't bother with it. As for that second question, I'm bored, so here goes. For Brown, Schilling, Smoltz, and Mussina, I'm going to go through their careers and just quickly see how many years that a good argument could be made for them to be a top 5/top 10 pitcher in the major leagues.
There were also a lot of pitchers during this time that had one or two amazing years (David Cone, etc.) that took turns annually outpitching the four guys you're arguing for.
Yes, I believe in a pretty small Hall. I'd go for up to roughly 10 pitchers in one decade, regardless of teams (the cream rises to the top either way, more players in the league doesn't mean there's more HOF deserving players). Position players are a bit different, because there's a lot of different types of specialization (Ozzie Smith) that can get a guy in.Quote:
Note, I'm not trying to "disprove" you or anything. You obviously believe in a much smaller Hall than I do (and I would say that you believe the Hall should be much smaller than it has been historically), and that's fine. I'm just trying to facilitate the discussion.
The number of top 5s aren't that impressive for HOF arguments, really... none of these guys ever put up numbers like Pedro or Johnson did that could offset their lack of perennial highest tier performance and lack of ridiculous career totals.Quote:
Brown:
Top 5: 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003
Top 10: 1997
Schilling:
Top 5: 2001, 2004
Top 10: 1991, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003
Smoltz:
Top 5: 1996, 2003 (among relievers),
Top 10: 1995, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007
Mussina:
Top 5: 1991, 1994, 1995, 2001
Top 10: 1999, 2000, 2006
If we're talking about the Hall, I can.Quote:
And of course, you also can't ignore the other years in which these guys often came in the top 15/20.
Probably, but again:Quote:
But, at any rate, I would think (but I haven't checked) that 6-8 years of top 5/10 performance compares favorably to the pitchers in the Hall of Fame.
1) TOTAL value for these pitchers doesn't compare to TOTAL value of the Marichals of the past, let alone the Jim Palmers.
2) None of these guys put up numbers that blew my mind, and only one of them ever won a Cy Young award
3) Looking at top 10 alone, 6 to 8 years of that (with a top 5 or 2 sprinkled in throughout) makes a pitcher borderline at best in my mind.
The stalemate of this conversation basically lies in the definition of a Hall of Famer.Quote:
Obviously its far from the "inner circle" level, but the Hall is for more than just those few elites. I think that all four of these pitchers meet or surpass the established standard of the Hall of Fame.
Only if you don't adjust for era. Which I'm getting into right below...Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
But that's penalizing pitchers because of the era they play in. I don't think that's how the Hall of Fame should judge players. The Hall should honor the best players, as compared to their era.Quote:
I'm going to say something you'll probably disagree with, but I think pitchers in THIS era and recent eras should face stricter standards than simply being top 10 pitchers. The value of the pitchers you listed was far greater (not as a ratio, but as a total) over the course of a season because of the innings. You just listed 10 guys who would regularly complete 20+ games a season and end up with 30 to 40 decisions. If a pitcher is only going every fifth day and is leaving the game in the 7th inning for reliever specialists, he'd better be able to put up some SICK numbers (Maddux, Pedro).
Really, if you want to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, none of these pitchers are HOF worthy because compared to the value of pitchers in the 1890s, these guys are nothing. Those guys threw 60 games, completed all of them, 500-600 innings.
I think it's absolutely necessary to adjust for era.
Brown should've won the Cy over Smoltz in 1996, but your statement would still be correct. But this is because...Quote:
Brown, Mussina and Schilling never won Cy Youngs, for one thing. That group of four pitchers has a combined grand total of ONE Cy Young Award.
Yep, and add Johnson to that list. But, that's comparing these pitchers to 3 pitchers with legitimate cases for being in the top-10 EVER, and 1 who had the best peak ever. I don't think it's fair to penalize players that are certainly deserving of the Hall of Fame based on its standards just because those players careers happened to coincide with 3-4 of the greatest pitchers ever.Quote:
To be quite honest, I think their careers look rather silly compared to Maddux, Pedro and Clemens.
Hoffman and Rivera will certainly get in, but I don't agree at all with Hoffman. Plus, relief pitchers are really now a separate category from starting pitchers.Quote:
The only other pitchers I'm in favor of being HOFers from this era are Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera. That's 7, and it's plenty for one decade. Mussina has the next best case, in my opinion. Very close, I could maybe be swayed. I'd put Schilling next, followed by Smoltz and Brown.
I don't see how a pitcher with an ERA+ of 144 in 988 innings (Hoffman) is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than pitchers with 3,500 innings of 127 ERA+ pitching.
It'd take a real ridiculous level of pitching for me to support a modern-day closer of being Hall-worthy simply because of the extreme lack of innings. Rivera is the only closer of today that I would support for the Hall, simply because his level was phenomenal. Hoffman had one year with an ERA+ better than Rivera's career ERA+.
Which I don't see as a reason against these guys.Quote:
There were also a lot of pitchers during this time that had one or two amazing years (David Cone, etc.) that took turns annually outpitching the four guys you're arguing for.
Again, Pedro and Johnson are two all-time greats.Quote:
The number of top 5s aren't that impressive for HOF arguments, really... none of these guys ever put up numbers like Pedro or Johnson did that could offset their lack of perennial highest tier performance and lack of ridiculous career totals.
Sure, you could. I think that's an extremely limited view of the Hall though, and it certainly isn't in line with the tradition of the Hall. Total career valuQuote:
If we're talking about the Hall, I can.
Only if you don't era-adjust. I'm gonna list the career WARP totals of Johnson, Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Brown, Schilling, Mussina, and then the 1970's guys that I listed, mostly because I'm curious. That'll come in my next post, which might not come til later tonight.Quote:
1) TOTAL value for these pitchers doesn't compare to TOTAL value of the Marichals of the past
I just don't think that the Hall of Fame should be limited to the "mind-blowers" and the award winners. Like I said, the Hall has never operated the way you seem to advocate, and while I respect your opinion of a small hall, I just can't agree with it. Mussina, Smoltz, Schilling, and Brown do meet the level of excellence established by the Hall already.Quote:
2) None of these guys put up numbers that blew my mind, and only one of them ever won a Cy Young award
Along with the WARP totals, I'm going to do the same "exercise" for the 1970s guys I listed. Like I said, that'll come tonight. Supernatural is about to start.Quote:
3) Looking at top 10 alone, 6 to 8 years of that (with a top 5 or 2 sprinkled in throughout) makes a pitcher borderline at best in my mind.
True.Quote:
The stalemate of this conversation basically lies in the definition of a Hall of Famer.
By the way, I think this is an appropriate time to just say that I truly appreciate and enjoy my discussions and depands with you, justanewguy. We don't always agree, but I appreciate how you make well-reasoned arguments AND you're consistent with your opinions. It's really a joy to discuss baseball with you. :)
I think what makes Hall of Famers who they are outside the numbers is if you can tell the story of Baseball and mention these players, (you have to have the numbers as well). You can do that with all the players mentioned except for Brown and Mussina.
You cant go without mentioning the Braves Dynasty with Maddux, Smotlz, and Glavine and all three are HOFers, with Maddux's dominance, Glavine being one of the great lefties, and Smoltz is dominate in the playoffs, and has a good amount of both saves and wins.
Schilling is a hall of famer for his playoff performances with the Phillies back in '94, the D'Backs in '02, and his heroic performances in Boston. He doesnt have the regular season numbers so much, but enough so that deserves serious consideration. Think of him as the Bill Mazeroski of pitchers.
You cant say these things with Mussina however, since he became a Yankee, I do believe he hasnt won a World Series ring, and say what you want, in New York, with the payrolls and talent they had, inexcusable. I cant even recall a memorable pitching performance in the postseason besides the one he had in Baltimore where he struck out like 14 batters or something in that range. The thing that would get him in if I had a vote, is 300 wins however. Thats like 3000 hits, automatic induction.
One more thing, for Yankee fans thinking im hating, Andy Pettite deserves to be in, hes almost like Schilling and you cant mention Yankee titles in the 90's without Andy Pettites name being as a nasty postseason pitcher.
If another black player had slipped into the MLB before Jackie Robinson did, AND if there had been a couple of better 2Bs in the early 50s, there's no way Jackie Robinson would be a HOFer. But he would have done practically the same stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It may be "penalizing" them, but if not for players like George Brett and Dave Winfield and Rod Carew, among others, wouldn't Jim Rice have a much better HOF case (he could be considered a lock, even)? The inverse could also be true. Players could be theoretically rewarded for injuries to or lack of performance from other players. Maybe Todd Van Poppel's busted career and Doc Gooden's cocaine habit clear some HOF room for another pitcher. It's a matter of hindsight. How HOF-worthy would Ozzie Smith be if there had been an even BETTER fielding SS, maybe two, that were doing backflips on the infield dirt during his time?
And the HOF-worthy ones are in, and the ones who aren't didn't put up good enough numbers AND weren't at the top of their era aren't in for those reasons. It's a two-pronged thing: historical value AND era-relative value.Quote:
Really, if you want to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, none of these pitchers are HOF worthy because compared to the value of pitchers in the 1890s, these guys are nothing. Those guys threw 60 games, completed all of them, 500-600 innings.
That's a good argument, but should Maddux, Pedro, Clemens and Johnson really be allowed to be so "above" their era that they shouldn't still be considered as players that were better than the other pitchers of their time? They're better, they're bodies, and when combined with the slew of great pitchers we saw in the 90s that were good for their careers and OUTSTANDING for a couple of seasons, I just think guys like Smoltz and Brown get lost. Great pitchers though they were, there were ALWAYS several pitchers who were better at any given time.Quote:
Yep, and add Johnson to that list. But, that's comparing these pitchers to 3 pitchers with legitimate cases for being in the top-10 EVER, and 1 who had the best peak ever. I don't think it's fair to penalize players that are certainly deserving of the Hall of Fame based on its standards just because those players careers happened to coincide with 3-4 of the greatest pitchers ever.
A career 144 ERA+ and an all time career record in a major stat are enough for me. And I put Rivera at #1 on my AL Reliever of the Year ballot, so I'm not trying to glorify the save, but it serves its purpose, and Hoffman's ability to be the (theoretically) highest leverage reliever on his team and perform so well in that role for such a long time is absolutely worthy, in my opinion.Quote:
Hoffman and Rivera will certainly get in, but I don't agree at all with Hoffman. Plus, relief pitchers are really now a separate category from starting pitchers.
And Rivera is the greatest reliever ever, so, of course he's a lock.
If it's really a separate category, as you said, then you should see how.Quote:
I don't see how a pitcher with an ERA+ of 144 in 988 innings (Hoffman) is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than pitchers with 3,500 innings of 127 ERA+ pitching.
Keep the innings of the 60s/70s pitchers in mind then, compared to their 90s counterparts. Especially innings per season...Quote:
It'd take a real ridiculous level of pitching for me to support a modern-day closer of being Hall-worthy simply because of the extreme lack of innings.
I'm looking forward to it, actually... and I'm curious to see how it turns out. I'd also like to see it FURTHER adjusted to reflect innings pitched. For a quick example, if a Pitcher A pitched 2000 innings in his career and Pitcher B pitched 1000 innings, Player A's WARP should be effectively doubled (though probably not ACTUALLY doubled), because he provided twice as much of that.Quote:
Only if you don't era-adjust. I'm gonna list the career WARP totals of Johnson, Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Brown, Schilling, Mussina, and then the 1970's guys that I listed, mostly because I'm curious. That'll come in my next post, which might not come til later tonight.
The pitching aspect of baseball is more of a team effort than it was back then, which to me says, yes... pitchers who threw more, regardless of whether or not it was a reflection of their era, should get more attention. If Ned Ninetiespitcher's WARP is a hair above Steve Sixtiespitcher's WARP, but Steve threw 1.5 times more innings, Steve gets the nod for me.
Why is there no blush smilie?Quote:
By the way, I think this is an appropriate time to just say that I truly appreciate and enjoy my discussions and depands with you, justanewguy. We don't always agree, but I appreciate how you make well-reasoned arguments AND you're consistent with your opinions. It's really a joy to discuss baseball with you. :)
But seriously, thanks, and I agree. Though you know more than I do, put more effort into it, do it far more sober, and generally "win," it's a joy for me as well.
Good point, and this is where I begin to question my own adamant opinion about these pitchers. However, I don't think there's enough "outside the numbers" stuff for Smoltz. Schilling does have an argument for that, but for me I'm not sure if it's enough to overcome his great-but-not-legendary numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
It was great, and will go down in history, and all three WILL get in (it's just me, I don't agree with Smoltz), but I don't think that means all three SHOULD get in. Maddux is an absolute, and is an all time top 5 pitcher along with Clemens. Glavine is a total lock in my mind. But Smoltz... I can't get behind it.Quote:
You cant go without mentioning the Braves Dynasty with Maddux, Smotlz, and Glavine and all three are HOFers, with Maddux's dominance, Glavine being one of the great lefties, and Smoltz is dominate in the playoffs, and has a good amount of both saves and wins.
Besides, all those years with "The Big Three" and they never won a championship. So if we're talking about "beyond the numbers," that's a bit of a knock on "The Big Three" (:o ... edit: they DID win a championship, I stand embarrassingly corrected).
And this is why Schilling creeps into my mind right behind Mussina (really outstanding career), but the combination of playoff performances, career numbers, and relative-to-his-era performance from Schilling just isn't enough to get him there for me. Close, but... no.Quote:
Schilling is a hall of famer for his playoff performances with the Phillies back in '94, the D'Backs in '02, and his heroic performances in Boston. He doesnt have the regular season numbers so much, but enough so that deserves serious consideration. Think of him as the Bill Mazeroski of pitchers.
I don't agree with him either.Quote:
One more thing, for Yankee fans thinking im hating, Andy Pettite deserves to be in, hes almost like Schilling and you cant mention Yankee titles in the 90's without Andy Pettites name being as a nasty postseason pitcher.
The Big Three did win a Championship, in 1995 against Cleveland if I remember correctly.
Shame on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Somehow I forgot that Maddux was on that team.
:o
I can see what you mean on those guys, I think one thing that can be agreed upon is Maddux and Glavine. I really think Schilling is a lock too, but I also think the money pitcher before Schilling was Jack Morris and he should be a lock too. But it hasnt worked that way and I wouldnt be surprised if Schil doesnt go either. Nor would I snort and fuss about it.
I gotta disagree with most of this post. Postseason performance certainly deserves credit, but using it as the near be-all-and-end-all, no way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I think that's a special case considering he wasn't allowed to play in the majors during what really would've been his peak years. I'd give credit for that, and put him in the Hall based solely on his MLB work, regardless of whether or not he was the one to break the color barrier. He was a Hall of Fame talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I'm not sure I follow this.Quote:
The inverse could also be true. Players could be theoretically rewarded for injuries to or lack of performance from other players. Maybe Todd Van Poppel's busted career and Doc Gooden's cocaine habit clear some HOF room for another pitcher. It's a matter of hindsight.
But at any rate, I think narrowing it down to specific player cases loses track of the overall point. The top pitchers nowadays throw 230 or so innings. That's just the way it is. The top pitchers in the 1970s threw upwards of 300 innings, yes. I don't think that because a pitcher today throws less innings than a pitcher of the 1970s means that today's pitchers have to be above and beyond those pitchers in terms of pure non-playing time performance. Pitchers have to be judged within the context of their times.
If in some hypothetical future, pitchers are used in an entirely different fashion and medical improvements allow for more wear and tear on the arm and the top pitchers throw 400 innings of work, a mediocre 400-inning pitcher of that day shouldn't have a better HOF case than a very good 230-inning pitcher of today's times.
The player should be compared to the other player's of his position in his era, and then the way he compares to his era should be compared to the way past players compared to their era. Generally speaking, if a pitcher today is 20% better than the pitchers of his time, and the average pitcher in the Hall of Fame is 20% better than the pitchers of their time, that player meets the standard of the average Hall of Famer, and I think that merits induction. I hope that made sense.
I don't see how I'm doing that. Maddux/Pedro/Clemens/Johnson are clearly the top 4 of their era, and clearly above and beyond most pitchers in all of history. The Hall of Fame hasn't only honored the top 4/5 pitchers of his era. Generally, the Hall has honored those guys, plus a handful of other pitchers that weren't quite at the top of their era all the time, but were still outstanding pitchers. I don't think a different standard should be applied to this era, just because the top pitchers of this era were better than the usual top pitchers.Quote:
That's a good argument, but should Maddux, Pedro, Clemens and Johnson really be allowed to be so "above" their era that they shouldn't still be considered as players that were better than the other pitchers of their time?
I think Smoltz, Brown, etc. are the "cream of the crop" of that slew of pitchers you mention. They had the best combined value of peak and career performance, while most of those pitchers either flamed out way too early or simply didn't have comparable peaks.Quote:
They're better, they're bodies, and when combined with the slew of great pitchers we saw in the 90s that were good for their careers and OUTSTANDING for a couple of seasons, I just think guys like Smoltz and Brown get lost. Great pitchers though they were, there were ALWAYS several pitchers who were better at any given time.
Nope, still don't, because putting in Hoffman opens the doors for a handful of other relievers where the only difference is the amount of saves.Quote:
If it's really a separate category, as you said, then you should see how.
Billy Wagner's thrown 818 innings, 180 ERA+. Dan Quissenberry threw 1,003.1 innings, 146 ERA+. John Franco threw 1,245.2 innings, 137 ERA+. Jeff Montgomery threw 868.2 innings, 134 ERA+. The only thing that separates Hoffman from that group of guys is the saves, and I, personally, don't base any evaluation of players on the save.
I added in Hoffman and Rivera to the list, and they do compare favorably (more so for Rivera) to the starting pitchers, despite the lack of innings, I presume because WARP compares relievers to other relievers (and may adjust for leverage, not sure).Quote:
I'm looking forward to it, actually... and I'm curious to see how it turns out. I'd also like to see it FURTHER adjusted to reflect innings pitched. For a quick example, if a Pitcher A pitched 2000 innings in his career and Pitcher B pitched 1000 innings, Player A's WARP should be effectively doubled (though probably not ACTUALLY doubled), because he provided twice as much of that.
I don't agree. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. WARP, as a counting stat, takes playing time into account. However, WARP compares players to their contemporaries....so (and this is just an extreme generalization) if the average starting pitcher in 1970 threw 300 innings at 100 ERA+, and the average starting pitcher in 2000 threw 200 innings at 100 ERA+, those players would have the same WARP assuming all other aspects of their performance were identical (at least as far as I understand WARP, I could be wrong).Quote:
The pitching aspect of baseball is more of a team effort than it was back then, which to me says, yes... pitchers who threw more, regardless of whether or not it was a reflection of their era, should get more attention.
Because I'm not ashamed. lolQuote:
Why is there no blush smilie?
Jack Morris had one "money" game. His overall postseason stats were nothing special - 7-4, 3.80 ERA. If he didn't have that 10 inning performance, that man wouldn't get half the support he gets, I guarantee it. I think that game did more for Jack Morris's reputation than any other singular game did for any other player in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Also, Morris was a far, far worse pitcher than Schilling in the regular season.
Anyway, those WARP/top 5 and top 10 table, should be posted within an hour or so.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...Stuff/warp.jpg
You can make of that what you will.
Here is the top 5 / top 10 look;
Tom Seaver:
Top 5: 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977
Top 10: 1967, 1981
Jim Palmer:
Top 5: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978
Top 10: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1982
Bob Gibson:
Top 5: 1962, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972
Top 10: 1964, 1965
Juan Marichel:
Top 5: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969
Top 10: 1968
Gaylord Perry:
Top 5: 1967, 1970, 1972, 1974
Top 10: 1966, 1969, 1973
Steve Carlton:
Top 5: 1972, 1977, 1980, 1981
Top 10: 1969, 1982
Fergie Jenkins:
Top 5: 1967, 1970, 1971
Top 10: 1968, 1974, 1978
Don Sutton:
Top 5: 1972, 1980
Top 10: 1971, 1973
Catfish Hunter:
Top 5: 1972, 1974, 1975
Top 10:
Phil Niekro:
Top 5: 1974, 1978
Top 10: 1967, 1969
I'm going to redo the players I did before, because with the guys above I leaned more heavily on VORP, while I didn't consult VORP at all earlier. It shouldn't change the results too much, but I'm also going to add in the Big 5 of Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson, just for consistency's sake (and because I'm bored). I'll also do a chart compiling the top 5/10 finishes of all the players.
Randy Johnson:
Top 5: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
Top 10: 1998
Roger Clemens:
Top 5: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005
Top 10: 1989
Greg Maddux:
Top 5: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001
Top 10:
Tom Glavine:
Top 5: 1991, 1998, 2000
Top 10: 1995, 1996, 1997
Pedro Martinez:
Top 5: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003
Top 10: 2005
John Smoltz:
Top 5:
Top 10: 1996, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007
Mike Mussina:
Top 5: 1992, 1994, 1995, 2001
Top 10: 1999, 2003
Curt Schilling:
Top 5: 2001, 2002, 2004
Top 10: 1992, 1998
Kevin Brown:
Top 5: 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000
Top 10: 1997, 2003
Note, for this ranking i used both VORP and my own slight adjustment in multiple cases (which is why in one case, 2000, 6 of the guys I have listed as top 5, as I felt there was no meaningful difference between two of them, although I forget which off the top of my head). Mussina looks a tiny bit worse as compared to my prior assessment, but according to VORP, he should've won two Cy Youngs - 1992 and 1994. Schilling looks a lot worse this time. Brown looks the same. Smoltz looks slightly worse.
At any rate, this "study" made me appreciate Gibson, Seaver and Palmer more than I had. Below is a table of the players and their Top 5 and Top 10 finishes. Top 10 includes the top 5 finishes as well (sorted by top 10):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...0Stuff/top.jpg
This sort of study isn't very favorable to Glavine, who I think is a lot like Mussina, just with more career value. At any rate, it still appears to me that the Mussina/Smoltz/Schilling/Brown group fit squarely in with the Hall of Famers from the 1960s/1970s era. The 90s guys fit perfectly in with the non-elite (Gibson, Palmer, Seaver) 70s guys both in terms of times in the top 5 and in times in the top 10. For me, this strengthens my belief in all 4 as Hall of Famers. They're certainly not out of place at all among the current Hall of Famers.
Coincidentally, Eric Seidman at Fangraphs just wrote an article about Kevin Brown.
This chart goes to show you that Seaver, Clemens, Maddux and Johnson are in the top 5-6 of all time. Pedro had one of the best peaks of all time, up there with Koufax.
I don't know about top 5/6 for all 4 of them. There's a lot of other great pitchers from prior to the 60's to contend with...Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Mordecai Brown, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I remember 1998 when he was with the Padres, Brown was just amazing! That effort he put in 1998, if my memory serves me well...he led the team, kind of like how Johnson led the 95 Mariners.... 1998 version of Brown just off my memory was just awesome...without looking numbers...
True :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Your memory serves you well.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
257 innings, 257 strikeouts, just 49 walks, allowed just 9 home runs, 164 ERA+ (2.38 ERA).
Outside of Andy Ashby and him, the Padres staff was average or worse.
Of course, his 1996 was better, almost Pedro-ian levels in terms of run prevention, 1.89 ERA, 216 ERA+. If I had to pick off the top of my head, I'd say Brown 1996 is one of the most underrated and underappreciated seasons in recent memory, mostly because John Smoltz stole the Cy Young thanks to 24 wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think that a good argument can be made for a more limited membership in the Hall, and if we were starting it up today, I'd say that it would probably be best if we designed the selection process so that not as many players are honored. (Though I don't think I'd like to see it go as far as some. Justanewguy's standards would probably halve the membership, and I've read ideas that would go even further.)
But since the Hall isn't being set up now, and the membership is what it is, it just isn't fair to apply stricter standards to today's players than was applied to players of the past.
Who cares about fair? There is no rule that says the selection criteria of the past have to apply today. Maybe it takes more now to impress people, maybe free agency means that very good but not exceptional players form less of the 'story of baseball'. I think that is fine. And basing new entrants off of the weakest of former entrants will just continue to lower the bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Agreed on this part, but, that's not what we're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Mussina, Smoltz, Brown, and Schilling stack up well with the pitchers in middle-ground of the Hall of Fame, or slightly above. If we were using the weakest Hall of Famers to construct an argument, we'd be letting in literally hundreds of players.
Sorry, I just don't agree with the argument - player A is as good as player B - player A is in the HOF so player B should be. And I don't care if player A is the worst player in the hall, or the best. I tend to agree with the sentiment that I can't define a Hall of Famer, but I know it when I see it. And to me, none of the four players mentioned is above the bar that I set. I realize that is not objective - but I don't think that the HOF needs to be objective. I do look at statistics - but I do think that 'fame' is a key word in the title. There is more to the HOF than those players currently seen as the best.
The Hall of Fame isn't meant to honor famous players (and if it was, I still think Smoltz and Schilling in particular fit that argument). It's meant to confer fame upon players that deserve it.
Again, I respect the opinion of those that believe all 4 of the players in question aren't Hall of Famers. It's consistent logic. I just can't get over the people that say two of the four, or one of the four, or whatever are deserving, while the other isn't. I don't think there's enough separation between the 4 to draw the line somewhere in between them. (Note: I understand that nobody here has expressed that opinion.)
Also, I wouldn't use the "Player A is as good as Player B" argument when it comes to using just two players. Using "Player A is as good as the established standard of the Hall" is a different argument because the established standard is an amalgamation of all the players in the Hall.
Based on past selections, Schilling, Mussina, and Smoltz will make the HOF with no problem, like it or not. Pettitte will probably make it. Brown seems unlikely to me, but its possible. Moyer and Rogers will not. Of course, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez are absolute locks for the HOF, along with Rivera and Hoffman.
Fine, I don't put much value in the 'established standard'. I don't think voters should feel any pressure on the basis of past decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If you are talking about predicting who will get in, then fine, use the voting record. But then it doesn't make much sense to worry about what a somewhat different set of voters did 20 years ago. My prediction, Smoltz will probably get in, and I think Mussina and Schilling have a decent shot. And Kevin Brown won't get in. But that has nothing to do with whether they should - in my opinion.