Hall of Fame criteria for pitchers now

[bmags]

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

 

Yeah, I say that more about his longevity, and how rare it seems to be now. 10 years from now he may stand out a lot more than he does compared to 10 years ago peers.

[caulfield12]

Halladay and Johan Santana were two of the best of their generation and neither will come close, well...Halladay is on the borderline.

 

Cole Hamels? Nah. And he'll get more votes than Buehrle, undoubtedly. East Coast bias from his Phillies' days.

 

Sabathia's another interesting case...at any rate, right now you could probably only make a case for 5-6 current or recently retired pitchers.

 

Felix Hernandez, Verlander and Greinke should soon join the conversation. How much does the late fade (minus 2016) hurt Verlander's chances? Same with Felix, for that matter.

Edited May 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

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

 

You're talking about innings pitched, pitch count.

Which all leads to wins. Looking at total wins will give you a good idea of all of those in combination without looking at the individual parts. Wins show more of the combination of all of those work to together to show effective the pitcher has been. This is in contrast to how good he was individually.

 

Take a guy like Nolan Ryan. He had a great number of K but also a great number of BB. He couldn't win game for the life of him. His average year was 14-12. Now as a GM a guy who is trying to win games to win a world series. How do you judge a pitcher who can never seem to win? Will all of his K and some dominant games be worth it to help the team win? This is where wins can help judge his overall effectiveness. Again ti's not the only thing to look at and the value has decreased over time due to starters usage but it does have it's place.

[ptatc]

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

The flaw of WAR is that it only includes what one group of people consider important. It's not an individualistic look at a player. In the 1920's there were far fewer teams and people playing the "elusive" replacement player would be different than today's player. WAR still uses the same stats for every era but every era is different even if just for the players let alone things like difference in the height of the pitching mound or ball construction.

[greg775]

Lackey has 180 wins, no way for him.

WINS MEAN NOTHING I've been told over and over. So how can you say this? Wins shouldn't be in the discussion.

 

The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless.

And yet wins have been THE major argument for or against a pitcher's going to the Hall. "He had (fill in the blank) 20-win seasons." "He won 25 games one year." My point is no pitchers will be getting in the Hall ever again except relievers because saves still mean something to the Sabes people.

[Eminor3rd]

Which all leads to wins. Looking at total wins will give you a good idea of all of those in combination without looking at the individual parts. Wins show more of the combination of all of those work to together to show effective the pitcher has been. This is in contrast to how good he was individually.

 

Take a guy like Nolan Ryan. He had a great number of K but also a great number of BB. He couldn't win game for the life of him. His average year was 14-12. Now as a GM a guy who is trying to win games to win a world series. How do you judge a pitcher who can never seem to win? Will all of his K and some dominant games be worth it to help the team win? This is where wins can help judge his overall effectiveness. Again ti's not the only thing to look at and the value has decreased over time due to starters usage but it does have it's place.

 

The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value.

 

Thought exercise:

 

A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence.

 

But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence.

 

But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win.

 

So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third.

 

The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control.

[Eminor3rd]

WINS MEAN NOTHING I've been told over and over. So how can you say this? Wins shouldn't be in the discussion.

 

 

And yet wins have been THE major argument for or against a pitcher's going to the Hall. "He had (fill in the blank) 20-win seasons." "He won 25 games one year." My point is no pitchers will be getting in the Hall ever again except relievers because saves still mean something to the Sabes people.

 

You continually seem to be confused about who is making the decisions you rail against. You are correct that this is an issue, but the source is very clear.

 

"The sabes" that told you that wins are meaningless are not the ones keeping pitchers out of the HOF for having few wins. Every year, all of the most prominent "sabes" rally to get Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, etc. into the HOF unsuccessfully.

[greg775]

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

He has 150 wins, not bad in this era, but wins no longer are considered anything to look at. So what do you look at? Somebody said "how dominant a pitcher was in his era."

How do you determine dominance? For those who still look at wins, and we're told we shouldn't, he was 19-5 one year, then 13-12, 14-14, 13-9, 12-10 followed by domination of 15-6 and 18-9. Pretty good, there, but again wins are not a factor.

So is it ERA only? He's got a 3.18 career ERA, pretty darn good. Is is strikeouts? He's got a zillion of those. I'd guess he should be in the Hall of Fame as he did dominate. But ... he's 31. Let's say he is human the rest of the way and barely tops 200 win total. Like I said many pitchers in the past weren't even considered ONLY because they had 'just' 200 wins and were not near the coveted 300 mark.

 

I'm thinking very very few if any starters will be named to the Hall in the future. And relievers? Most great ones "dominate" for 4-5 years then they are done. Do they get in just cause of huge save totals in a four-year period?

[greg775]

You are correct that this is an issue, but the source is very clear.

I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still.

[ptatc]

The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value.

 

Thought exercise:

 

A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence.

 

But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence.

 

But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win.

 

So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third.

 

The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control.

I agree with this. I agree that the pitcher has the most control but doesn't have total control of the outcome. The issue with only looking at things he does have control over is that you lose the big picture when looking only at the little pieces. The only things he has control over is k, BB. He was somewhat control over HR but that also includes park factor and flyball rate and other things. what about a pitcher who has a high GB%. He'll have less HR but then is more dependant on the defense. Can the high flyball rate pitcher be effective with a high HR rate.

 

I agree that you can look at all of the minutiae and determine if he was individually good. But how do you determine if he was effective in helping the team win? Just like the hitter and the RBI or runs scored? Those are largely dependent on other players performance but are they important in helping the team win? determining the value of a player is more than just the stats that only he can absolutely control, it's also how much he contributes to helping the team win. WAR attempts to do this but it's flawed. This is why getting as much information as possible is important and completely ignoring things like wins, RBI and runs scored is a mistake.

[Bananarchy]

The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value.

 

Thought exercise:

 

A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence.

 

But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence.

 

But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win.

 

So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third.

 

The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control.

So basically you are saying 60% of the pitchers wins are invalid because they are due to outlying factors

 

This is why no one with any level of baseball acumen takes pitching wins seriously

 

I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still.

 

You? Stuck in the past? You don't say.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Sox-35th

[ptatc]

So basically you are saying 60% of the pitchers wins are invalid because they are due to outlying factors

 

This is why no one with any level of baseball acumen takes pitching wins seriously

 

You are incorrect on this. There is just a group that doesn't take it seriously. Thank you for the insult by the way. I don't think you can come with any single stat or number that encompasses all factors. You should look at all of the information available to make a sound decision (on anything really) and totally ignoring any information just because it doesn't encompass everything is a poor way to go about the decision making process. All information is valuable. Just because some people who look too narrowly at information have a judgement on that piece doesn't mean it's an absolute standard.

Edited May 24, 2017 by ptatc

[Bananarchy]

You are incorrect on this. There is just a group that doesn't take it seriously. Thank you for the insult by the way. I don't think you can come with any single stat or number that encompasses all factors. You should look at all of the information available to make a sound decision (on anything really) and totally ignoring any information just because it doesn't encompass everything is a poor way to go about the decision making process. All information is valuable. Just because some people who look too narrowly at information have a judgement on that piece doesn't mean it's an absolute standard.

Wins don't encompass anything. You can't draw a conclusion about one piece of the puzzle based solely on the performance of the whole, ESPECIALLY when the one piece is at best 35% of the picture.

 

It's like grading intelligence based on head size. It's not meaningful

Edited May 24, 2017 by Sox-35th

[southsider2k5]

The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value.

 

Thought exercise:

 

A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence.

 

But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence.

 

But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win.

 

So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third.

 

The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control.

 

I appreciate the line of thought, but I can't help to think that if the percentage were really THAT low, the statistical flukes like Q would be more the norm than the exception. To a high degree of correlation good pitchers tend to get a lot more wins than bad pitchers. If it were really only 25% on the pitcher, then you should see a lot more bad pitchers with a lot of wins, and good pitchers with a lot of losses.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still.

 

I think it's just that there's never a clean cut-off of power in these things. The current crop of voters is pretty divided on a lot of things, which leads to no one getting in.

[FT35]

Wins is the hang up because it's the only thing that matters but it doesn't matter. Lol. I don't think you can completely ignore it. When you look at a single win, it does not tell you the full story. But collectively, if you have a guy with more wins than anyone else over the course of his career, it does tell you something. You don't get lucky or benefit from a good team on your way to 200 wins. There are many times when the pitcher's performance is what directly led to the win. And nowadays, a ton of wins tells you that you are doing a whole lot right. The HOF-caliber pitchers tend to all have a lot of wins. It's not because they got lucky, but it's because they put their team in a position to win more times than not.

 

To diminish the importance of the win, maybe a stat worth looking into could account for the % of a team's wins that a pitcher gets. Or a stat that compares their wins to the team's overall record for their career. Put the weight on stats like quality starts, maybe develop a new stat called "dominating starts" or something along those lines (7+ innings, 0-1 ER, 1.00 WHIP, 7+Ks). Weigh those stats 70-30 to a pitcher's actual wins. I still think you would find that most HOF-caliber pitchers would be strong in both. The exception would be guys like Quintana, who pitch well for bad teams--who could possibly get into the Hall on different metrics--but do you consider pitchers of Quintana's caliber Hall-of Famers?

 

This is where you can get into trouble, but maybe the W stat needs an overhaul of criteria. One possible fix would be to use simple of logic. If a starting pitcher qualifies for a win and is "in-line" for the win when he departs, he gets credit for the win if his team ends up winning the game--regardless of whether the bullpen first blows the game. If a starter does not qualify for the win by failing to pitch the minimum innings in his outing, or leaves with his team tied or behind, he receives a "no decision," then the win will go to the reliever who was pitching when his team scored the winning run. Or keep the "Win" stat limited to starters--or any reliever who pitches the equivalent of 5 innings (the same a starter needs to qualify for a win)--otherwise a "team win" is earned.

 

What if a game goes 18 innings and multiple pitchers pitch a qualifying 5 innings for the win you ask?! Nothing...because you cap a regular season MLB game to 12 innings and give the teams a tie to save the bullpens. You would RARELY have that problem and if you did, the win would go to the starting pitcher if he lift in-line for the win, the pitcher pitching at the time the winning run was scored--or a team win would be assessed.

 

Examples:

Quintana goes 8 innings of 1 run ball, leaves with a 3-1 lead. Robertson blows the save, Sox end up winning in the bottom of the 9th. Quintana gets the win.

Quintana goes 4 innings, leaves with a lead, Chris Beck comes in and goes 5 innings--Beck gets the win because he qualified with 5 innings.

Quintana goes 4 innings, leaves with a lead, Jennings pitches the 5th--Sox score winning run, Ynoa pitches the 6th, Jones pitches the 8th, Robertson the 9th--Jennings gets the win.

Quintana goes 6 innings, leaves with Sox down 4-2, Jones goes 2 innings, Sox score winning run in 7th, Robertson pitches 9th--Jones gets the win because winning run was scored--Quintana was not "in-line" for the win when he departed.

Quintana goes 5 innings leaves with the lead, Nate Jones pitches an inning and blows the lead, Chris Beck pitches 5 innings, Sox win it in the 11th--Quintana gets the win because he qualified and left "in-line" for the win--even though Beck pitched the qualifying number of innings (VERY unlikely scenario).

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Wins may be overblown, but especially in today's game, it would be pretty hard for a pitcher to win 20 games and not be really good that particular season.

[Jose Abreu]

Wins may be overblown, but especially in today's game, it would be pretty hard for a pitcher to win 20 games and not be really good that particular season.

Porcello was very good last year, but was also very overrated due to his 22 wins. Verlander and Kluber were probably better, but IMO Porcello took the Cy from them because of wins.

[Dick Allen]

Porcello was very good last year, but was also very overrated due to his 22 wins. Verlander and Kluber were probably better, but IMO Porcello took the Cy from them because of wins.

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.

[chitownsportsfan]

If you believe in wins as a metric then you also have to believe that Jose Quintana is a mediocre pitcher, right?

[FT35]

If you believe in wins as a metric then you also have to believe that Jose Quintana is a mediocre pitcher, right?

 

Wins as they are defined now, maybe. Mediocre, no, but Hall-of Fame? ehhh...I don't know...still early, but I would say no now even if he continues down this same path for the rest of his career.

[OmarComing25]

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.

Edited May 24, 2017 by OmarComing25

[Bananarchy]

Wins as they are defined now, maybe. Mediocre, no, but Hall-of Fame? ehhh...I don't know...still early, but I would say no now even if he continues down this same path for the rest of his career.

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.

[ptatc]

If you believe in wins as a metric then you also have to believe that Jose Quintana is a mediocre pitcher, right?

If you only look at one metric to determine the performance of a player then the answer would be yes. Of course if only look at strikeouts he's pretty mediocre as well.

[Bananarchy]

If you only look at one metric to determine the performance of a player then the answer would be yes. Of course if only look at strikeouts he's pretty mediocre as well.

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