Mark Fidrych was great.

Well, MHS and I were debating this weekend whether or not Schil was a first ballot guy. Apparently not. I'd be really stunned if he didn't get in, but all these "He deserves it, despite what you might think...' columns are beginning to convince me.

Well, MHS and I were debating this weekend whether or not Schil was a first ballot guy. Apparently not. I'd be really stunned if he didn't get in, but all these "He deserves it, despite what you might think...' columns are beginning to convince me.

That's basically where I'm at. I'd assumed he'd be an easy case for most voters, but it doesn't seem to be that way.

Marchman mentions it, but in a few years we'll have

Clemens
Maddux
Pedro
RJohnson
Smoltz
Glavine
Schilling
Mussina

up for the HoF. That's some pretty stiff competition. I don't know how you could keep any of these guys out, but that's a lot of guys to go in over a couple of years.

Well, given the dearth of starting pitchers the hall has inducted in recent years, I don't see any problem with letting in a big group of eminently qualified pitchers who happened to retire at around the same time.

I think Mussina is going to run into the Kevin Brown problem. Namely, being compared to Kevin Brown, who nobody seems to want to let into the HOF. Schilling might escape because of postseason escapades, but I don't see how Mussina makes it. Unless he pitches another couple years.

I don't know how you could keep any of these guys out...

Doesn't the last day of 2007 somehow disqualify Glavine? Please?

Marchman mentions it, but in a few years we'll have

Clemens
Maddux
Pedro
RJohnson
Smoltz
Glavine
Schilling
Mussina

Will they all be on at the same time?

How will it compare with this:

1983 - Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Kaat retire
1984 - Jim Palmer
1985 - Rollie Fingers
1986 - Tom Seaver
1987 - Phil Niekro
1988 - Steve Carlton, Don Sutton
1989 - Tommy John

At the time, that was 9 of the 30 winningest pitchers plus the all-time save king going at the same time.

Aside from 1983, the big names were nice enough to space themselves out.

And those same years also had Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Rod Carew, Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Carl Yazstrmski, and Bake McBride retire. Fine, Rose's case was deraild, but no one knew that was going to happen when he stopped playing.

Fine, Rose's case was deraild, but no one knew that was going to happen when he stopped playing.

I knew, but I couldn't tell you.

If Mussina gets to 20 wins this season and keeps his ERA below 4.00, I think he's in.

"I think Mussina is going to run into the Kevin Brown problem. Namely, being compared to Kevin Brown, who nobody seems to want to let into the HOF."

Unlike Brown, Mussina did it without being fingered for PEDs. There, case made. Next?

or you could just use Mike Greenberg’s breathsucking analysis of “To me, you close your eyes when you hear the player’s name and you say, “Yes” or “No”. Usually, that winds up being the right answer.”

Lots of Mike Greenberg hate lately around here.

Bake McBride?

1983

Doesn't the last day of 2007 somehow disqualify Glavine? Please?

I don't understand. He accomplished precisely what we sent him up there for. We just had no idea it would be the Phillies who would benefit.

He's in. Just on the basis of being a great American, he ought to be in.

Schilling is so screwed. Maybe his high RA+ doesn't warrant induction, maybe its too easy to be above average in todays bigger leagues.

If Mussina gets to 20 wins this season and keeps his ERA below 4.00, I think he's in.

I think you are right, IF Mussina can finally get over the 20 win hump, just this once, they'll let him in, they let Sutton in- Sutton of course had 300 wins, but Mussina will be close and his winning % will be higher than Sutton's, much higher than other 250+ win pitcher who hasn't made the hall (ie: Blyleven/John/Kaat).

If he doesn't reach 20? He's screwed.

Maybe his high RA+ doesn't warrant induction, maybe its too easy to be above average in todays bigger leagues.

It isn't so much the bigger leagues, it's the decrease in IP for all starters, especially elite starters. RA+ has decentralized somewhat in the setup/closer era. 13 of the top 52 ERA+ seasons have happened since 1990. (Of course, it's not that many different pitchers.)

He's in. Just on the basis of being a great American, he ought to be in.


There is a Hall of Fame of Great Americans. Perhaps that's where he belongs.

If Mussina gets to 20 wins this season and keeps his ERA below 4.00, I think he's in.

Kind of sad, but this is true. Imagine Sept 28th, Mussina has a 19-9 record and a 3.94 ERA, he loses 4-3 after 6 innings of pitching, marred by a ball Jeter should have reached with the bases loaded, scored a HIT, there goes Mussina's HOF chances. 19-10, 4.01 ERA.

I'm surprised (from Marchman's sampling of opinions) he's not getting more credit for being clutch. And for bleeding. And for being a dominant pitcher for the last 15 years.

There is a Hall of Fame of Great Americans. Perhaps that's where he belongs.

That is exactly where Curt Schilling does not belong.

Who do you guys think is a better candidate? Mussina or Schilling?

I don't think Mussina goes in unless he wins 300. May not be right, but there it is. He'll be overshadowed on the ballot by all those listed above in this thread.

Also, I think his chances of winning 20 are very slim. So far, he's had only 1 no-decision in 16 starts despite averaging less than 6 IP/GS. Though the Yanks certainly can hit, they're hitting especially well when he's on the mound.

He's already got 9 UER on the year. He's a bad bet to keep his ERA down.

Random fact: They're 1-5 when scoring less than 4 runs in his starts and 9-1 otherwise. That seems a bit extreme.

I think Mussina will get to 300. I've felt this way for a few years. Everyone likes to point out that he would have to pitch X more years. Forgetting many (most?) 300 game winners has to pitch to or past 40. Most HOF caliber pitchers can crank out 160 league average innings in their sleep and on a winning team, that is good for an 11-9 record. 3 years of this seems highly reasonable.

I have a hard time imagining all 30 teams are going to find a starter that is clearly better than Mussina in the next 3 seasons. My biggest pet peeve is the article that runs after each pitcher wins his 300th game. "LIKELY ______ FINAL PITCHER TO WIN 300!"

What, we are going on 5 pitchers, 6, where this is claimed? I'm tired of it.

I think Mussina will get to 300.

This is almost certainly Mussina's last season, so I doubt that.

Everyone likes to point out that he would have to pitch X more years. Forgetting many (most?) 300 game winners has to pitch to or past 40. Most HOF caliber pitchers can crank out 160 league average innings in their sleep and on a winning team, that is good for an 11-9 record. 3 years of this seems highly reasonable.

Possible selection sample bias here. How many guys in their late 30s nearing 300 don't make it? Blyleven, Tiant, Jenkins, Palmer, John . . they couldn't through enough innings enough years.

And if he's already a league average pitcher, how long can he be expected to keep going on? He's only had 1 good year since '03. UER are the only reason his ERA+ is good now; and it's barely good.

He should end the year between 265-270 wins. Compare that to the following men through age 39 (who were still playing at age 39):

Greg Maddux 289
Steve Carlton 285
Robin Roberts 271
Eddie Plank 269
Tom Seaver 264
Roger Clemens 260
Fergie Jenkins 259
Don Sutton 258
Red Ruffing 258
Lefty Grove 257
Burleigh Grimes 257
Bert Blyleven 254
Tom Glavine 251

Guys around 260+ wins at this age do generally reach 300, but most of those guys were doing much better from ages 35-39 than Mussina has done.

My biggest pet peeve is the article that runs after each pitcher wins his 300th game. "LIKELY ______ FINAL PITCHER TO WIN 300!"

What, we are going on 5 pitchers, 6, where this is claimed? I'm tired of it.

More than that. Early Wynn said he would be the last man to win 300. That's how long it's been going on.

This is almost certainly Mussina's last season


Why? As well as he is doing, why would he not want to come back? Of course, if he craters the rest of the way, it is a different story.

This is almost certainly Mussina's last season


Why?

I agree. Why? Where are people when players like C Silva are getting $8-10 million per year over multiple years? To think all 30 teams are going to pass on Mussina and pay $10 to lesser pitchers is absurd. Guys like Mussina/Glavine, etc....would have to suck and suck bad for 3 years longer than your typical pitcher before they are kicked out of baseball.

Mussina will play 3 more years and make close to $25 million in the process. Money is the 1st reason players these days would hang around, it is an awful lot of money to walk away from. Glory is #2. Nothing wrong with that.

This is almost certainly Mussina's last season

You likely think Unit will walk away at 295 wins. Fat chance.

Yes when Spahn and Early Wynn were going for 300, Early Wynn was happy when Spahn got it first, "So I can be the last 300 win pitcher."

I actually went to at least 2 games when Wynn was going for 300, he ended up getting it the following season with the Indians.

Just on the basis of being a great American, he ought to be in.

What about Superman? Is Superman in?

Why? As well as he is doing, why would he not want to come back? Of course, if he craters the rest of the way, it is a different story.

His peripherals seem unchanged from last year, for the most part; the one difference is that he's getting luckier on balls in play this year. But it does seem like he's managing to deal with a loss of 2 K/9 from 2006.

The problem is that he's living on the edge. He's managing to post a league average ERA despite the decline in his K rate that started in 2007. And a league average ERA is fine. But if his skills atrophy any further, or if his BABIP increases, he's staring at an ERA of about 5.

Sutton shouldn't be in, though, so Mussina probably wants a different comp, imo.

I think you are right, IF Mussina can finally get over the 20 win hump, just this once, they'll let him in, they let Sutton in- Sutton of course had 300 wins, but Mussina will be close and his winning % will be higher than Sutton's, much higher than other 250+ win pitcher who hasn't made the hall (ie: Blyleven/John/Kaat).

If he doesn't reach 20? He's screwed.

I'm not so sure. He now has 260 wins. If he picks up 7 or so the rest of the season (reasonable?) that puts him at 267. 17 wins in 2008, or in that neighborhood, is more than enough to get him on a roster in 2009, maybe enough to get him a two year contract. And even if he puts up a 5.00 ERA in 2009 and 2010, that has value to a lot of clubs, and should be good for another 10-15 wins over those 2 years, or 277-282 total. It's not 300, total, and there's still no 20-win season in there, but that's got to put Moose awfully close to election to the HOF.

edit: Ray, I didn't see your post before I posted, and I have to think an ERA around 5 isn't going to be what ends Mussina's career.

Sutton shouldn't be in, though, so Mussina probably wants a different comp, imo.

Sutton didn't miss a start for 22 and a half years. This isn't true to the letter - he was out of the rotation, but in the bullpen, for a month in 1968 and missed a post-season start in 1981 with a broken kneecap - but you get the picture.

He also played the position where being durable and consistent has the most importance. Starting pitcher is the position where simple competence is much more valuable than any other because almost all teams could use more starting pitching.

He also played the position where being durable and consistent has the most importance. Starting pitcher is the position where simple competence is much more valuable than any other because almost all teams could use more starting pitching.

And durability surely describes Sutton's career. In his first 21 seasons, he threw over 200 innings 20 times - only missing in the strike season of 1981, when he finished 7th in the league in innings pitched.

Definitely not a HoFer to those who value primarily peak, but his career value was tremendous.

Comes down to how you define borderline. There are a lot of folks who argue "either you're an HoFer or you're not" and writers should just vote in 10 guys if they want. But that's not how it really works and being first-ballot is kind of a big deal. Schilling hasn't been a dominant pitcher. He's clearly no better than the 5th best pitcher of his generation (Maddux, Pedro, Clemens, Johnson) though he'll benefit from Clemens' fiasco. He's in the group of Smoltz, Glavine, Mussina and Brown and I personally wouldn't put him at the front of that group.

He's never been a truly dominant pitcher. Did you realize that he has only 7 seasons with 30+ starts and he's never managed 100 starts over 3 seasons? He's made just 6 AS teams. Even among active pitchers (which doesn't include Clemens), his totals aren't that impressive -- 6th in wins, 17th in win %, 11th in ERA, 10th in ERA+, 7th in IP, 3rd in Ks, 8th in starts. Obviously some of those rankings will "improve" as younger guys enter their decline phase but then a few of them might pass him too.

He'll get in eventually -- he's on my borderline but I won't object to him going in. But it's going to and it should take him a few years, unless there's a miracle clearing of the ballot. And what's gonna push him over is the postseason stuff and, to a lesser extent, the 3,000 Ks. I agree that Mussina and Brown aren't likely to make it and I don't see Schilling as particularly more deserving.

And remember, the writers just don't elect more than 3 and there are going to be a lot of position players along with the great pitchers on the ballots. There could be quite a backlog for a while.

maybe its too easy to be above average in todays bigger leagues.

Yes! This is the point I think the author misses. The reason the seventies and eighties saw so few "dominant players" debut as pitchers was because it was at the tail end of a long period of time where talent was expanding (Latin America, but also it was probably the height of interest for African-Americans) but the league remained close to the same size (aside from the 77 expansion).

The major flaw with statistics like ERA+ is that great pitchers benefit tremendously from expansion...and twice over! Not only do they face a number of batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league, but they are judged against an "average" that is lowered by inferior pitching. Imagine the league of the past 15 years without the four extra teams. Not only would Maddux/Clemens/Johsnson etc not get to face the worst 56 hitters in the league (14 per team), but their ERA+ would drop without the low-end relative to (in part) the performance of the worst 44 pitchers. If you look at the relative level of talent expansion - the nineties saw few new sources of talent (a few Asian players) AND a considerable dropoff in interest among African-Americans who (especially as hitters) contributed so much to the game in the 70s and 80s - in comparison with the expansion of four teams, I think this explains a great deal of why we had so many "great" pitchers in the last 15 years.

An element to consider is that the writers have backed themselves into a particular statistical stance by repeatedly rejecting Blyleven. If they are going to say "Nyet" to a guy with 287 wins, 3000 plus strikeouts, etc. and then stamp Curt's papers they will "lots of 'splain' to do".

Writers don't want those types of questions. Ergo, the easier route is to just say "no".

And end up looking even more foolish in the process..........

Or they could just elect Blyleven. Simple.

An element to consider is that the writers have backed themselves into a particular statistical stance by repeatedly rejecting Blyleven. If they are going to say "Nyet" to a guy with 287 wins, 3000 plus strikeouts, etc. and then stamp Curt's papers they will "lots of 'splain' to do".

Well, given that they'll have elected Blyleven in by the time Schilling enters the ballot, the above won't mean anything. Check what's happened to Blyleven's support in recent years. Last year he was one of the most rapid gainers of anyone on the ballot.

Last year he rose by 14%. He only needs to rise up by another 14% (actually 13.1% in five more elections) to go in. When guys start reaching the top of the backlog, the BBWAA starts looking for reasons to put the guy in. The only thing that can screw him up is if a bunch of similar and clearly superior pitchers immediately make the ballot. Ain't happening.

Schilling's going in. One thing Walt left out when discussing if Schilling was dominant was post-season play. He's the best post-season pitcher of his generation with memorable moments in the 1993, 2001, and 2004 postseasons.

And as for his arguments about Schilling's non-dominance in the regular season . . .

He's never been a truly dominant pitcher. Did you realize that he has only 7 seasons with 30+ starts and he's never managed 100 starts over 3 seasons?

100 GS in 3 seasons is a mark of dominance? That's odder than Maddux breaking Cy Young's record for most consecutive 15-win seasons. Yeah, there is a point, but not nearly as strong as has been laid out. Schilling led the league in innings in 2001 (with the second best ERA+), was second in 2002 (with the fifth best ERA+), and third in 2004 (with the second best ERA+), but he isn't dominant because he only had 24 starts in 2003 (and still qualified for the ERA title with the fifth best ERA+).

In that stretch he threw 910.7 IP - third most in baseball behind Mark Buerhle (936 IP) and Livian Hernandez (931). Schilling had an ERA+ of 151, Buehrle 124, and Hernandez 104. Who would you take in that bunch?

And of course, that's just regular season. I don't have a calculater with me, but it looks like he also threw 78 IP in postseason series from 2001-4 while allowing 16 ER. With pen and paper, I reckon that's an ERA of 1.84 against the best teams in baseball.

From 2001-4, only one other man threw more than 720 innings with an ERA+ higher than 142. That was Randy Johnson.

So in a four year period he was the second best regular season pitcher (with a sizable gap over third best) while also being an historically brilliant post-season pitcher.

And that's all using ERA+ as the main way of signifying brilliance. Someone looked it up at BTF last year and found out that Schilling has the smallest percentage of runs allowed classified as UER in baseball history. Of the 323 runs Schilling allowed from 2001-4, only 8 (?!?!?) were unearned.

In his entire career, he's only had 65. Pedro Martinez has 86. Mussina has 100. Johm Smoltz has 107. Tom Glavine had 166. Kevin Brown has 172. Roger Clemens 178. Randy Johnson 183. Maddux 220.

Almost all those guys have longer careers, but that doesn't explain the stark contrast. Heck, Schilling has thrown over 500 more innings than Martinez.

But Schlling was never "truly dominant" because he never posted 100 starts in 3 years.

He'll go in. Dominant prime, very good career numbers, postseason highlights (most notably the bloody sock hook) will get him in. Not on the first ballot, but eventually.

but all these "He deserves it, despite what you might think...' columns are beginning to convince me.

I am going to bombard you with emails telling you that you must send me money.

Reading about Mussina above made me realize that I pay zero attention to W-L in a season any more. I have little idea of what the Phillies' pitchers records are much less anyone else in the league. I guess that Mussina has a bunch of wins so far this year. I have been brainwashed by the sabrites. :)

I am going to bombard you with emails telling you that you must send me money.

That would work...if you were the first person to think of it. Now, sadly, I have no money.

Quick and dirty comparison of Schill to all HoF pitchers who had 251 wins or less (that's so I can comp him to Gibby) whose careers started after 1930 (thus avoiding all the borderline 20's pitchers who got in during the Frisch VC years):

[One thing I noticed WRT unearned runs is that, when I noted a peak ERA+, many times there were tons of unearned runs allowed.]

In that group of 10 pitchers, Schilling is conclusively beaten on peak only by Koufax and Newhouser (the latter of course had those big war year seasons). He's basically even with Gibson, Marichal, and Ford. Gibby had the 1.12 ERA season, and probably rates a big higher for that, but otherwise they're comparable. Marichal and Ford had better ERA+ in their best seasons but as I said above in many of those seasons they allowed 10-15 unearned runs. He whips the rest (Bunning, Drysdale, Lemon, Gomez, Dean).

That would probably put Schill in the middle group of HoFers, below Clemens, Seaver, Grove, Johnson, Maddux et al., even with the guys I mentioned, and comfortably above the lower tier. From there it depends on just how small a Hall you want.

If you look at the relative level of talent expansion - the nineties saw few new sources of talent (a few Asian players) AND a considerable dropoff in interest among African-Americans who (especially as hitters) contributed so much to the game in the 70s and 80s - in comparison with the expansion of four teams, I think this explains a great deal of why we had so many "great" pitchers in the last 15 years.

This is a quite the large exaggeration. First off, players are not oil wells - baseball doesn't have to find completely new sources of talent as long as their current sources are increasing in size. In the last 30 years, since the Jays/Mariners expansion, MLB has added 120 baseball jobs but the US alone has added *80 million* people.

And if talent were really lower, then the spreads of occurrence of data would be significantly higher. On the contrary (I have data going back to 120 for batters with 200 PA and pitchers with 50 IP), they're not. There's an uptick every expansion, as to be expected, with a slow gradual dropoff after that. And it's the same after both the last two expansions. The spread among most statistics is much lower than baseball historically, with BA and OBP having the smallest spread going back to 1920 (and every other spread smaller than the 87-year average, including ERA+).

Dominant prime, very good career numbers, postseason highlights (most notably the bloody sock hook) will get him in. Not on the first ballot, but eventually.

I suspect the writers will need a lot of peak value to offset the relatively "low" 216-win career value. While he has 3 20-win seasons, Schilling only has 2 additional seasons with more than 15 wins. Will that be enough? Maybe, but if pitchers with far more wins (Blyleven, Mussina & perhaps others) don't make it, Schilling may linger on the ballot for quite a while.

And if he's already a league average pitcher, how long can he be expected to keep going on? He's only had 1 good year since '03. UER are the only reason his ERA+ is good now; and it's barely good.

He has pitched wonderfully this season. His ERA is misleading because of his April numbers.

He has pitched wonderfully this season. His ERA is misleading because of his April numbers.

Actually, it's misleading because of his Red Sox numbers:

Moose, vs. Boston: 8.2 IP, 9 ER, (9.35 ERA), 2 K, 0 BB, 3 HR
Moose, vs. Everyone Else: 80.2 IP, 30 ER (3.34 ERA), 48 K, 13 BB, 9 HR

Now those starts aganist Boston were terrible, and they count. But Mussina has been much better this year than people are giving him credit for.

First off, players are not oil wells - baseball doesn't have to find completely new sources of talent as long as their current sources are increasing in size. In the last 30 years, since the Jays/Mariners expansion, MLB has added 120 baseball jobs but the US alone has added *80 million* people.


You might be right that I overstate the case, but I'm not sure the population of the United States is the appropriate measure of the talent pool. By the eighties, almost every single Latin American country had already been exploited (I mean this in the technical, non-judgmental way!) and African-Americans were playing the game at a greater rate.

I think any attempt to calculate "the baseball talent pool" would have so many methodological problems as to produce an unreliable number, but I do think that, generally speaking, the talent is not as great.

Also, the overall spread isn't really the point, because the macro-data will obviously cluster more towards the center as you add more data points (players). What I'm interested in are the extremes. It just seems unsatisfactory to me that the explanation for why so many historically dominant pitchers (and whose dominance is claimed based on ERA+) appeared at one time is random luck. I would think that there has to be a contextual component as well.

Actually, it's misleading because of his Red Sox numbers:

You misspelled "Manny Ramirez"

Schilling hasn't been a dominant pitcher. He's clearly no better than the 5th best pitcher of his generation (Maddux, Pedro, Clemens, Johnson) though he'll benefit from Clemens' fiasco. He's in the group of Smoltz, Glavine, Mussina and Brown and I personally wouldn't put him at the front of that group.

For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter where you slot him into that group, IMO; they're all deserving HOFers.

I rank them, roughly:

Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, Schilling, Brown, Smoltz, Mussina.

There's an argument for moving Brown ahead of Schilling given Brown's higher peak, but Schilling's UER and postseason performance cut against that.

You can probably quibble with some other slots (such as whether Smoltz's postseason performance should move him up).

By the way -- and I love Smoltz -- but I don't give him any special points for being a dominant closer. He gets proper credit for the relief years and no more.

He'll get in eventually -- he's on my borderline but I won't object to him going in.

But then you're basically limiting this generation of pitchers to no more than 7 (I assume that, at worst, you rank Schilling 8th in the above group, ahead of Mussina).

But the bigger point is that I don't see how one can really distinguish Schilling/Smoltz/Brown. (I agree that Mussina is a half-tick below those three, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable keeping Mussina out on that basis; he's really close to them.) If Smoltz is in, how can you keep Schilling out?

But it's going to and it should take him a few years, unless there's a miracle clearing of the ballot. And what's gonna push him over is the postseason stuff and, to a lesser extent, the 3,000 Ks. I agree that Mussina and Brown aren't likely to make it and I don't see Schilling as particularly more deserving.

But Brown _should_ make it, IMO, even if he's not likely to. (Mussina, too, but I know people disagree.) The question is what _should_ happen, not what will.

But your real problem is keeping Schilling out while letting Smoltz in, it seems to me.

I think any attempt to calculate "the baseball talent pool" would have so many methodological problems as to produce an unreliable number, but I do think that, generally speaking, the talent is not as great.

You're arguing that the game is easier to play now than in decades past, particularly for pitchers?

That's a stunning conclusion.

You're arguing that the game is easier to play now than in decades past, particularly for pitchers?

That's a stunning conclusion.

Well, he's arguing there is more weak pitching talent in the league now, so it's easier to set yourself apart. He's not saying the hitters are weaker - rather the pitchers are.

I think that's nutso too, but I'm in the very steep slope school of though with regards to talent levels. (Babe Ruth would be a AA hitter type thing).

The major flaw with statistics like ERA+ is that great pitchers benefit tremendously from expansion...and twice over! Not only do they face a number of batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league, but they are judged against an "average" that is lowered by inferior pitching.

Yes, this would all be true, if expansion consisted of finding 50 people playing beer league softball and giving them jobs.

Since expansion generally takes place after the talent pool has grown tremendously and there's a large backlog of players who are not reduceable to being described as "batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league" and "inferior pitching," your argument is faulty.

Since expansion generally takes place after the talent pool has grown tremendously and there's a large backlog of players who are not reduceable to being described as "batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league" and "inferior pitching," your argument is faulty.

Yes but that's exactly how the MSM and many fans see it. The fact that probably the bottom quarter of MLBers at any point probably overlap with the top tier of the high minors is not just lost- but actively denied.

If you are on a 25 man roster and getting PT you are an MLBer- and better than the IL league MVP. If you are a 27 year old hitting .325 in AAA you are not- you are worse than the 25th man on the worst team, and your inclusion in the league brings down the overall quality of play- even if only slightly.

It's nonsense, it's always been nonesense, but it's been believed by a majority of the fans for at least 50+ years.

The phrases "batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league" is not a moral or value claim. It's simply a descriptively true statement. I also think "inferior" is a proper term to describe the influz of talent that comes in after expansion. Unless you want to make the case that there were 100 players in the minors in (50 in '92, 50 in '97) who could all put up average major league stats, than the talent was absolutely inferior.

You're arguing that the game is easier to play now than in decades past, particularly for pitchers?

I'm arguing that it was easier to put up guady ERA+ numbers in the past 15 years than it was in the 15 years before that. I think claims as to *true* talent across eras is impossible to quantify.


Edit-
"The fact that probably the bottom quarter of MLBers at any point probably overlap with the top tier of the high minors is not just lost- but actively denied."

But expansion doesn't involve swapping out the worst 50 players from the majors with the best 50 from the minors, in which case I would agree. The question is whether that 50 is "average" level, not "replacement" level.

Well, he's arguing there is more weak pitching talent in the league now, so it's easier to set yourself apart. He's not saying the hitters are weaker - rather the pitchers are.

But he _is_ arguing that the hitters are weaker. "Batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league."

Also, the overall spread isn't really the point, because the macro-data will obviously cluster more towards the center as you add more data points (players).

There are mathematical ways to correct for this and the results stay the same.

It just seems unsatisfactory to me that the explanation for why so many historically dominant pitchers (and whose dominance is claimed based on ERA+) appeared at one time is random luck. I would think that there has to be a contextual component as well.

Of the top ERA+ performances in baseball history (by b-r.com), here are the years with the most:

1910: 11
1969: 10
1914: 9
1919: 9
1997: 9
1884: 8
1946: 8
1992: 8
1994: 8
2003: 8
1902: 7
1906: 7
1909: 7
1915: 7
1968: 7
1981: 7
1985: 7
1988: 7
2002: 7

Once you do 5-year moving averages, there's definitely an expansion bump when Florida/Colorado entered the league (but not when Arizona/Tampa Bay did) but by the 2000s, the numbers drop below that of the 40s and the 60s and the late 80s.

The lowest years? The years after WWII but before integration. Would anyone argue that the infusion of black players drastically lowered the level of talent in baseball? For a 20-year period, the number of high ERA+ performances gradually increased as did the number of black players, which is a big problem for this argument.

Thanks Dan, the fact that two of those seasons on the list are 1992 and 1997 would seem to undermine my thesis (though the appearence of 1969 would indicate that context matters a lot).

But in general, I don't see how adding players who are below league average as both batters and pitchers would not artificially boost ERA+ an OPS+, even if not to a sufficient level where the data in post #62 would capture it.

From b-r, here are the top 52 single-season ERA+ performances, sorted by decade. This takes us down to an ERA+ of 192:

1880s: 5
1890s: 1
1900s: 12
1910s: 6
1920s: 1
1930s: 3
1940s: 3
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 2
1980s: 2
1990s: 9
2000s: 5

But in general, I don't see how adding players who are below league average as both batters and pitchers would not artificially boost ERA+ an OPS+, even if not to a sufficient level where the data in post #62 would capture it.

Over the directly previous years, it would, but it's a short-term effect - the long-term growth in MLB jobs is extremely low. In addition to the growth of the number of people dwarfing the growth in MLB jobs, even if you eliminated blacks completely from current population figures, the new teams also aggressively court talent, they don't just take the leavings.

It's also important to note how ERA+ is calculated. Differences in ERA+ mean less at higher numbers - the difference between a 150 and a 200 pitcher is much, much smaller than between a 75 and a 125 pitcher.

Also, the overall spread isn't really the point, because the macro-data will obviously cluster more towards the center as you add more data points (players). What I'm interested in are the extremes. It just seems unsatisfactory to me that the explanation for why so many historically dominant pitchers (and whose dominance is claimed based on ERA+) appeared at one time is random luck. I would think that there has to be a contextual component as well.

Let's not forget that there are more pitchers total. Even if the talent pool expands exactly as fast as the league does, you're going to have more players standing out, simply because there are more overall.

Here are the top 52 career ERA+ performances, sorted by decade. This takes us down to an ERA+ of 127 (which includes Smoltz/Schilling/Brown, who are all at 127):

1870s: 2
1880s: 2
1890s: 4
1900s: 7
1910s: 3
1920s: 1
1930s: 3
1940s: 3
1950s: 2
1960s: 3
1970s: 5
1980s: 4
1990s: 7
2000s: 6

I did my best at picking a "best decade" for each pitcher.

Keep in mind that the 5 of the 6 pitchers slotted into the 2000s decade (Oswalt, Webb, Santana, Zambrano, and Halladay) haven't pitched through their decline phases yet. (Schilling is the 6th pitcher I slotted in there; I decided to put Smoltz in the 90s.)

Of course, the 2000s decade also has 1.5 years to go.

The major flaw with statistics like ERA+ is that great pitchers benefit tremendously from expansion...and twice over! Not only do they face a number of batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league, but they are judged against an "average" that is lowered by inferior pitching.

You're double-counting here. If the batters are weaker, then all the other pitchers in the league get the same benefit from facing them. Since ERA+ measures a pitcher against the other pitchers in the league, that's not an advantage for any particular pitcher (unless you think the top pitchers benefit more from facing scrubs, but I would guess that, if anything, the opposite is true).

Over the directly previous years, it would, but it's a short-term effect

How short? If it's 3-4 years, then players like Maddox, Clemens, Martinez and Johnson have benefited in 6-8 years of their respective careers.

Let's not forget that there are more pitchers total. Even if the talent pool expands exactly as fast as the league does, you're going to have more players standing out, simply because there are more overall.

Sure, but the author's point was that no pitcher who debuted in the last 38 years has been elected to the Hall. Yet, we are going to have something close to 6-9 elected who debuted in the last 20. This can't be accounted for simply because there are more players.

Also, the data from post #64 would seem to contradict your second statement, at least as far as ERA+. From the 20s until the 80s, the league went from 16 teams to 28, yet the number of great ERA seasons stayed about the same. During this time, the league expanded, but so did the talent pool, from desegregation to the influx of Latin players. But from the start of the 90s, I think the relative growth of the talent pool diminished (Latin influence leveled off, african-american interest declined) even while the league grew.

Edit- "You're double-counting here." You might be right. I don't know what the data is on whether elite pitchers do disproportionately better against weaker hitters than their average and below average colleagues.

I think that's nutso too, but I'm in the very steep slope school of though with regards to talent levels. (Babe Ruth would be a AA hitter type thing).

That's an incorrect way of looking at the timeline adjustment (if you are willing to acknowledge it-which I am). It's not so much that Babe Ruth would be equivalent to a AA player of today, but rather that there were more AA players in the majors back then, creating a larger gap between the best players of his day, the average players, and the replacement-level players. I am certain that the Bambino, if transplanted to the present day and given every advantage that sportsmedicine and modern nutrition (etc.) has to offer, would indeed still be a top-tier player (he was an amazing athlete as it was). He wouldn't hit .378 with 457 total bases, but he'd probably resemble David Ortiz in Papi's best years (recall that the Babe K'd 90 times a year in a league where the K rate is about half of today's). Chick Galloway (career OPS of 69) would suck even more. I know of no adjustment which would drop a hitter with a 207 OPS+ all the way down to ~90, in 80 years-that would lead you to believe that the stars of a mere 20-30 years ago would all be average-level players today, which is silly.

In previous discussions we've brought up the hypothesis that ERA+ is not linear in relation to varying offensive levels (i.e. you can improve your pitching stats only so much, irrespective of the offensive level). Sounds like a good topic for a Hardball Times or BBPro type study, but to my knowledge nothing like that has been done. But in these discussions we all assume that's it's linear, for every player and in every era, and I seriously doubt that is absolutely true.

The major flaw with statistics like ERA+ is that great pitchers benefit tremendously from expansion...and twice over! Not only do they face a number of batters who wouldn't otherwise be in the league, but they are judged against an "average" that is lowered by inferior pitching.

I agree that expansion doesn't cover it. But what no one has mentioned, unless I missed it, is that more and more innings are going to lesser quality pitchers nowadays. Look at two pitchers with very similarly outstanding ERA+, Steve Carlton 1972 ans Jason Schmidt 2003.

In 1972 in the NL, very few innings were going to a team's 11 and worse pitchers, guys who ranked 11th and lower in IP. The Pirates used a total of 13 pitcher all year, and got all but 21 innings out of their top 10. The Reds got only 12 innings from pitchers out of their top 10. The Expos, 21, Padres 31, and so on. Only 3 teams topped 100, with the Mets the most at 151. For the league as a whole, 845 innings total (70/team) were thrown by pitchers outside of a teams top 10, ~ 5% of total innings.

In 2003, only the Phillies and Cubs had fewer than 150 innings thrown by their bottom pitchers. The Reds had 502, and 4 other teams topped 300. All total, 4105 (256/team) innings came outside of the top 10, ~18% of the total.

The additional innings thrown by a teams 11th, 16th, 25th best pitchers (the 2003 Reds employed 30 pitchers) is almost as great as the increase in innings due to expansion.

So, in calculating ERA+, Steve Carlton's ERA is compared to 95% top 10 pitchers and 5% drek (broadly speaking), whereas Jason Schmidt's ERA is compared to 82% quality and 18% drek.

How short? If it's 3-4 years, then players like Maddox, Clemens, Martinez and Johnson have benefited in 6-8 years of their respective careers.


Yeah, but pretty much any pitcher in the last 50 years with a career long enough for the Hall of Fame would be able to benefit from the temporarily-slightly-weaker leagues that expansion bring.

Here are the total MLB job increases in MLB.

1961: 12.5%
1962: 11.1%
1968: 20.0%
1977: 8.3%
1993: 7.7%
1998: 7.1%

So you're only hurting a few pitchers slightly that peaked between, say, 1980 and 1993. So, let's say guys that debuted between 1975 and 1982 were hurt. The 200 win guys are:

Dennis Martinez
Jack Morris
Bob Welch

That's it. Those 3. You can cross off Dennis Martinez - he peaked in the 90s. Of the realistic writers votes (without special circumstances) there are only 2 starters that peaked in the 80s that voters would vote for.

Their career ERA+s are 105 and 106 respectively. Suppressed ERA+ numbers, however, wouldn't affect their rankings within their leagues. Both Morris and Welch finished in the top 10 in ERA+ only 4 times in their careers.

Now, let's give them the absolute most ridiculously generous gift of expansion-era "dilution." I'm going to take the 4 best seasons of each of their careers and allow them to have 8.3% of their innings and make them absolutely *scoreless* not simply against replacement-level hitting.

Morris getting to face *trash-cans* instead of regular hitters saves him 31 runs total in his 4 best years. He warps from a 105 ERA+ for his career to a 107 ERA+. Welch saves 25 runs in his 4 best years, blasting his ERA+ from 106 to 109.

Now, as unbelievably kind as this is, let's now allow both Morris and Welch to turn these non-existent expansion players into trash-cans for every year from 1980 to 1992 (allowing a few years for the 1977 expansion to "wear off").

Welch ends up with a 119 ERA+. Facing a chunk of galvanized steel more than once every time through the lineup still doesn't get Welch into the top 100 all-time in ERA+. Jack Morris? He ends up with a 114 career ERA+ which ties him for 209th all-time.

Why aren't there more 80s pitchers in the Hall? Because there are essentially only two "80s pitchers" with 200 wins and neither were all that good.

Sometimes, the Hall will vote in players with less than 200 wins if they're incredible pitchers and there's some sort of unusual circumstance.

John Candelaria
Danny Darwin
Dennis Eckersley
Mike Flanagan
Ron Guidry
Bill Gullickson
Mike Moore
Scott Sanderson
Dave Stewart
Dave Stieb
Rick Sutcliffe
Fernando Valenzuela
Frank Viola

These are the 150-win pitchers that debuted during that timespan. Let's take the most generous definition of "incredible pitcher" to just mean "received Cy Young votes in two different seasons. We lose most of these guys and end up with:

Dennis Eckersley
Ron Guidry
Mike Moore
Dave Stewart
Dave Stieb
Rick Sutcliffe
Fernando Valenzuela
Frank Viola

I don't think I've ever heard anyone, drunk or sober, dare suggest that Mike Moore or Rick Sutcliffe are Hall of Famers and Eckersley actually is a Hall of Famer, so let's look at the other 5 (Guidry, Stewart, Stieb, Valenzuela, Viola). Who would be comparable to the cinch Hall of Famers today if we give them a presidential term worth of bins?

Player IP Old ERA+ New ERA+
Stieb 2895.1 122 126
Guidry 2392.0 119 124
Viola 2836.1 112 116
Fernando 2930.0 104 108
Stewart 2629.2 100 103

The HOF arguments for Fernando and Stewart aren't based on career ERA+ at all - even a Rubbermaid expansion world completely out of the realm of possibility only puts the former at 352nd all-time, the latter 548th.

Viola manages to crack the top 200, but there's no way he'd touch the Hall with a 176-150 record.

Ron Guidry had a very short career for a Hall of Fame starter - Brown and Mussina have careers 50% longer than his at the same effectiveness when we're generous. Maybe if he got killed or something.

That kind of leaves Dave Stieb as the only 80s starter that has an ERA+ that could even slightly be conceivably hurt by not pitching to expansion batters. But it's the statheads, the ones that like ERA+ that have been the strongest supporters of Stieb.

The reason why there's a dearth of Hall of Fame pitchers that peaked in the 80s seems pretty clear - there just weren't as many pitchers that were good for a long time as there were in the decades immediately preceding and following.

The fact that probably the bottom quarter of MLBers at any point probably overlap with the top tier of the high minors is not just lost- but actively denied

But ... but ... Crash Davis was only in the Show for 21 days! He hit white balls for batting practice.