Sigh. Ted Robinson's a pretty nice guy and a decent play-by-play man. But whenever he expresses an opinion (about sports or otherwise), he comes across as an idiot.

Ted Robinson isn't satisfied with merely ruining tennis.

Then play the comparison game and ask how Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez can be in the Hall of Fame and Rice not.

Urge to kill rising....

I love the "better than the worst guy in the Hall" standard for entry. They should let in everyone better than Rizzuto and Vaughn and just induct half the everyday players in history.

Wait, who's Vaughn? Arky Vaughan was really good.

who's Vaughn

Hippo.

who's Vaughn

Hippo.

It's only Mo Vaughn's first year on the ballot. He's not in the HOF yet.

Greg Vaughn was better than some HOFers.

I am greatly disappointed by the lack of Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn references.

Personal bias: I have never understood nor has anyone rationally convinced me how strikeout totals validate the relative worth of a starting pitcher.

Wow! Someone needs to explain to this guy (who I assume is a foreigner from a country that only plays soccer and has just heard of baseball recently) that the only real control a pitcher has is over whether the ball is hit. Once it is hit, he has no control unless it is hit towards him. With that in mind a strikeout is the only AB where the pitcher won the confrontation independently. Next closest thing is the pitcher who excels at inducing grounders, but that requires additional action (field, throw and catch) from other players.

Wow! Someone needs to explain to this guy (who I assume is a foreigner from a country that only plays soccer and has just heard of baseball recently) that the only real control a pitcher has is over whether the ball is hit. Once it is hit, he has no control unless it is hit towards him.

Well, that has predictive value (if you're deciding whether or not to sign or trade for a certain player), but I don't think it adds much to a debate on whether or not a guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

a strikeout is the only AB where the pitcher won the confrontation independently.

Drilling the batter in the kidneys counts as a win in my book.

Greg Vaughn was on the HoF's frontpage yesterday. I was slightly disturbed.

They should let in everyone better than Rizzuto and Vaughn and just induct half the everyday players in history.

Why not Lloyd Waner and Tommy McCarthy, and induct all of the everyday players in history?

The Hall of Merit has essentially inducted everyone better than Phil Rizzuto. Scooter wasn't a huge mistake.

Good luck, 49ers! Punt, pass and catch yourself chewing flammables...he’s all yours now!

Still better than Joe Starkey. And, alas, half the bozos we've gotten on TV the past few years since they've sucked so hard. Have the network NFL announcers gotten worse, or is it just that they don't send only the A & B teams anymore?

The Hall of Merit has essentially inducted everyone better than Phil Rizzuto. Scooter wasn't a huge mistake.

Indeed. Rizzuto at least has an argument. He's not remotely the worst player in the HOF.

Well, that has predictive value (if you're deciding whether or not to sign or trade for a certain player), but I don't think it adds much to a debate on whether or not a guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

In terms of raw value to the team, a strikeout has the same value to the defensive team as a groundout to the shortstop (more or less). But the value of the strikeout accrues entirely to the pitcher, whereas the value of the groundout accrues, in part, to the team's shortstop, so there's less value left to be given to the pitcher in that case. Either strikeouts produce more value for pitchers, or you're saying that fielders have no value and we need to throw Ozzie Smith out of the Hall of Fame.

But the value of the strikeout accrues entirely to the pitcher

There must be some value to those 7 schlubs voguing behind the pitcher, or the batter would simply tap the ball into play and not strike out.

Personal bias 2: I like Blyleven and hope he is elected. Thus, I acknowledge the last voters standing in Blyleven’s path may be wrestling with that very question. Why didn’t he win more games? Run support is the oft-cited answer (my Elias Sports Bureau sage, Rob Tracy, told me Blyleven had one of the lowest career run support totals in history.) Then I think of Tom Seaver, a pitcher whose first 11 seasons were with the run-challenged Mets, preaching that if a starter gets one run of support, he must pitch a shutout. If he gets two runs, he must hold the opponent to one. There does seem some validity to that concept when talking about the game’s greatest honor.

Did Blyleven need to be as good as Seaver so he can make it into the HOF? Sheesh.

Bud Black was a better ballplayer than Effa Manley. Why is he not in the Hall?

Wow! Someone needs to explain to this guy (who I assume is a foreigner from a country that only plays soccer and has just heard of baseball recently) that the only real control a pitcher has is over whether the ball is hit.

This is false. It has been demonstrated to be false, and any minimal experience of playing baseball would show it to be false.

Then I think of Tom Seaver, a pitcher whose first 11 seasons were with the run-challenged Mets, preaching that if a starter gets one run of support, he must pitch a shutout. If he gets two runs, he must hold the opponent to one. There does seem some validity to that concept when talking about the game’s greatest honor.

Dear Ted Robinson,

Eppa Jeptha Rixey is in the Hall of Fame. Nobody knows who he is

Sincerely,

Dave

But the value of the strikeout accrues entirely to the pitcher

The catcher does half the work.

Wow! Someone needs to explain to this guy (who I assume is a foreigner from a country that only plays soccer and has just heard of baseball recently) that the only real control a pitcher has is over whether the ball is hit.

This is false. It has been demonstrated to be false, and any minimal experience of playing baseball would show it to be false.

Even if you take the position that pitchers have some, but not entire, control over what happens once the ball is hit (which I agree with), you're still left with the pitcher sharing credit for groundouts and flyouts to a much greater extent than the pitcher would share credit for strikeouts.

Either strikeouts produce more value for pitchers, or you're saying that fielders have no value and we need to throw Ozzie Smith out of the Hall of Fame.

I'm not saying that fielders have no value, but if pitcher A has similar career length and similar run-prevention numbers (whether you want to call that ERA or RA or ERA+ or whatever) as pitcher B but has fewer strikeouts, you're going to have to do some work to show how pitcher A's home park or defense or whatever make pitcher B better. You can't just say, "pitcher B struck out more batters, therefore pitcher B was better".

I'm not saying that fielders have no value, but if pitcher A has similar career length and similar run-prevention numbers (whether you want to call that ERA or RA or ERA+ or whatever) as pitcher B but has fewer strikeouts, you're going to have to do some work to show how pitcher A's home park or defense or whatever make pitcher B better. You can't just say, "pitcher B struck out more batters, therefore pitcher B was better".

By using a run measure and saying, "comparable RA+ means comparable value", you're implicitly giving all of the credit for run prevention to the pitchers. The RA numbers measure the total value to the teams that these pitchers pitched for. In both cases, that value is properly split between the pitcher and his fielders. I'm just saying that, in terms of raw value, if the value of a strikeout and a groundout is both X, then the pitcher gets a higher percentage of X on a strikeout (even if you want to give some credit to the catcher or the existence of fielders) than he does on a groundout (even if you want to give the pitcher some credit for this).

I didn't - and wouldn't - necessarily go so far as to say that this makes a pitcher with more strikeouts "better", though, just more valuable.

the only real control a pitcher has is over whether the ball is hit

And certainly, to some extent, how hard; otherwise Blyleven wouldn't have given up 430 home runs.

Man, instead of another complaining-about-Rice thread, this one appears to be on the verge of devolving into a classic DIPS Religious War. Awesome.

this one appears to be on the verge of devolving into a classic DIPS Religious War

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that pitchers have no control over balls in play and deserve no credit for inducing ground-outs to the shortstop. I'm saying that pitchers deserve less credit for inducing ground-outs to the shortstop - because surely the shorstop deserves some of the credit for that - than for striking a batter out - because surely the shortstop deserves less credit in this case where he never touches the ball until it's being thrown around the horn after the play is over.

I'm saying that pitchers deserve less credit for inducing ground-outs to the shortstop - because surely the shorstop deserves some of the credit for that - than for striking a batter out - because surely the shortstop deserves less credit in this case where he never touches the ball until it's being thrown around the horn after the play is over.

unless you're Derek Jeter, in which case you deserve credit for strikeouts, too

I hate to defuse a DIPS religous war, but let me throw an example out there:

Two pitchers pitch for the same team and defense, have identical won/lost records, innings, runs and earned runs allowed. Both allow a league average .300 BABIP. One pitcher strikes out 180, the other 120. The lower strikeout pitcher compensates by allowing fewer homers and walks.

Are they not exactly equal in value?

I do understand that the strikeout pitcher is a better bet going forward, since strikeouts regress to the mean the least. But for one year, I think they are even.

By using a run measure and saying, "comparable RA+ means comparable value", you're implicitly giving all of the credit for run prevention to the pitchers.

I'm not saying that comparable RA+ means comparable value. I'm saying that if they're not comparable value, you need to explain why. You can't make an assumption like, "must be the defense". It might well be the defense - if it is, explain why pitcher A got more help from his defense than pitcher B did.

Are they not exactly equal in value?

Yes, I believe they are (assuming everything that you don't mention constant). The pitcher with 180 strikeouts accrues more value by striking 50% more batters out. The pitcher with 120 strikeouts accrues more value (or, maybe more accurately, suffers less negative value) by walking fewer batters and giving up fewer home runs. In the case of both pitchers, though, my point is that a strikeout is more valuable than a ground out. That's all. On the flip side, a bases-empty walk is more costly to the pitcher than a bases-empty single for the same reason - some of the cost of the single accrues to the rest of the defense.

Still better than Joe Starkey. And, alas, half the bozos we've gotten on TV the past few years since they've sucked so hard. Have the network NFL announcers gotten worse, or is it just that they don't send only the A & B teams anymore?

Until I hear Robinson make a smart-ass crack about the 49ers offense, I'll refrain from calling him better than Joe. I'm convinced Joe quit because he just couldn't deal with this shitty franchise anymore.

Why did these stats fail to translate into more wins?

People seem to forget that 287 wins is rather a lot.

People seem to forget that 287 wins is rather a lot.

But its not a round number!

People seem to forget that 287 wins is rather a lot.

As are 250 losses.

-- MWE

years winning half of your starts

This should be the only stat HOF voters look at.

If we had seven fingers instead of ten, Bert Blyleven would have 560 wins!

I'm not saying that fielders have no value, but if pitcher A has similar career length and similar run-prevention numbers (whether you want to call that ERA or RA or ERA+ or whatever) as pitcher B but has fewer strikeouts, you're going to have to do some work to show how pitcher A's home park or defense or whatever make pitcher B better. You can't just say, "pitcher B struck out more batters, therefore pitcher B was better".

I'm not saying that batters have no value, but if pitcher A has similar career length and similar winning numbers (whether you want to call that W% or wins above .500 or whatever) as pitcher B but allowed more runs, you're going to have to do some work to show how pitcher A's home park or batters or whatever make pitcher B better. You can't just say, "pitcher B gave up fewer runs, therefore pitcher B was better."

I'll admit that my post 41 wasn't entirely fair. More strikeouts on their own aren't indicative of more value, if they're accompanied by more walks or hittable pitches. It's just that I think JRE's argument sounds very similar to what a lot of people were saying 15 years ago about W-L vs. ERA.

If we had seven fingers instead of ten, Bert Blyleven would have 560 wins!


What if Antonio Alfonseca was on the Veterans' Committee?

People seem to forget that 287 wins is rather a lot.

As are 250 losses.

As are 316 losses.

the batter would simply tap the ball into play and not strike out.

Welcome to cricket!

As are 316 losses.

Of course, the guy with 316 losses also had 511 wins and a much higher winning percentage.

There are 45 pitchers with 250 or more wins. 40 of them have better winning percentages than Blyleven. Three of the four who don't are in the Hall of Fame, true - although one, Rixey, is considered a mistake and another, Ted Lyons, is close to the border (with career W/L pct and ERA+ virtually identical to Blyleven's, FWIW).

There are 22 pitchers in the 250-299 win range. 20 of them have fewer losses than Blyleven; only Rixey has more (251).

Blyleven is on the Hall of Fame borderline precisely because of those 250 losses. If he'd lost just 1.5 fewer games per season, he'd be 287-217 and almost certainly would be in by now. Voters penalize Blyleven for not reaching 300 wins mostly because he had so many losses - and a fair percentage of those losses occurred in games that one might be expecting an HOF-quality pitcher to win.

250 losses is something that has to be overcome, not ignored or downplayed.

-- MWE

OK, acknowledging the silly use of wins as a way to judge a pitcher and that Blyleven does not need to be as good as Seaver to be worthy, Seaver's first two season weren't great from a W-L perspective and in his next 5, which were great from a W-L perspective, the Mets were over .500 every year and won the division twice. In the next 3 seasons the Mets were way below .500 and Seaver was .500, he excelled them in 1975 by a significant amount, and then was a "winner" again when the Mets were 10 games over .500. It's not as if the Mets were all that "run-challenged" during Seaver's tenure.

Blyelevn's career, from a W-L perspective, is not that different. He generally pitched for teams who were at or below .500 and his own record reflected that. And why would you question why someone with 287 W's, behind only 11 current HOF pitchers, didn't win more games?

someone with 287 W's, behind only 11 current HOF pitchers

?? try 20

Voters penalize Blyleven for not reaching 300 wins mostly because he had so many losses - and a fair percentage of those losses occurred in games that one might be expecting an HOF-quality pitcher to win.

Hold on a sec. I thought that most analysis supported the theory that Blyleven's lower-than-expected winning percentage was due almost entirely to poor run support. So are you saying that Blyleven should have won those games (pitch-to-the-score, or whatever Ted Robinson and others are talking about)? Or are you saying that HOF voters don't appreciate the poor run support Blyleven suffered through most of his career?

If we had seven fingers instead of ten, Bert Blyleven would have 560 wins!

What if Antonio Alfonseca was on the Veterans' Committee?

Then he'd give TWO middle fingers to Ron Santo.

So are you saying that Blyleven should have won those games (pitch-to-the-score, or whatever Ted Robinson and others are talking about)?

Mike is a pitch-to-the-score guy, 6-4-3.