|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Mikey…this guy oughta go to that Baseball-Referendum site and get his facts straight!
Beyond those two items, Pettitte’s candidacy starts to unravel. His 3.91 earned run average would be the worst in the Hall of Fame. He did pitch in a hitters’ era, but we can account for that with a stat called ERA+, which is the park-adjusted league average E.R.A. divided by the pitcher’s E.R.A. times 100. In measuring ERA+, 100 is a league-average pitcher, above 100 is better than average and below 100 worse than average. Pettitte’s 116 ERA+ does match up with Hall of Famers like Jim Bunning (114), Robin Roberts (114) and Waite Hoyt (111), but he would still be in the bottom 10 to 20 of all Hall of Fame pitchers, and most of the pitchers with comparable numbers either have a much better peak or many more innings pitched (ERA+ of all Hall of Fame Pitchers.)
Pettitte’s Cy Young and All-Star résumé is thin for a Hall of Fame pitcher as well. His two All-Star Game appearances would tie him with Satchel Paige for dead last among postwar Hall of Fame pitchers. Pettitte did nearly win the 1996 Cy Young Award receiving 11 out of 28 first place votes, but after his sophomore season he never again cracked the top three in Cy Young voting. His 11 first-place votes would place him close to the bottom among Hall of Fame pitchers who competed for Cy Young awards.
Pettitte also lacks what Bill James called black ink — league-leading totals in important categories like earned run average or wins. In 1996, he led the American League in wins, but beyond that he has never led the league in an important category, finishing in the top 10 in E.R.A. only three times and innings pitched just twice. It wasn’t so much that he was injury-prone (five games started top tens), but he never was good enough to work deep into games and rack up a lot of innings.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: The Book Blog: MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential (55 - 4:18pm, Feb 09)Last: GuyMNewsblog: NY Daily News: Brian Cashman's accused stalker says Yankees GM misled feds on steroid probe (38 - 4:17pm, Feb 09)Last: Jose Can You SeabiscuitNewsblog: Strange Times in Baseball: 1891-1895 (6 - 4:16pm, Feb 09)Last: PerryTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (18 - 4:16pm, Feb 09)Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)Newsblog: WHYGAV: Burnett to Pirates a Good Idea? (8 - 4:15pm, Feb 09)Last: Jose Can You SeabiscuitNewsblog: Fangraphs: Cameron: The 10 Worst Transactions Of The Winter (77 - 4:14pm, Feb 09)Last: Double-Spin MechanicNewsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (5780 - 4:14pm, Feb 09)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (3 - 4:10pm, Feb 09)Last: trtaylor6886Newsblog: Oil Can Boyd says he used cocaine with Red Sox (42 - 4:07pm, Feb 09)Last: Jose Can You SeabiscuitNewsblog: RICH HARDEN TO MISS 2012 DUE TO SHOULDER SURGERY (8 - 3:55pm, Feb 09)Last: Walks Clog Up the BasesNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (350 - 3:14pm, Feb 09)Last: Der_K is getting more dogmatic.Newsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (270 - 2:53pm, Feb 09)Last: phredbirdNewsblog: Justice: 5 things that could make the 2012 season a successful one for the Astros (22 - 2:47pm, Feb 09)Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-9-2012 (17 - 2:45pm, Feb 09)Last: A One-Shoed Craig KNewsblog: NYT: Alderson Remakes Needy Mets From Bottom Line Up (17 - 2:44pm, Feb 09)Last: billyshears
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'm just imagining the people reading the NYT who've never heard of ERA+ seeing that definition and going "Mm-hmm. Look, honey. Nerdery." :)
I was just thinking that the article would probably be more persuasive if it simply said, "He did pitch in a hitters’ era, but even accounting for that he still wasn't good enough."
Although ERA+ is one fo the stats that keep us clicking on his website, so Sean probably wants to pimp it.
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No, not ever.
Was he the best player on his team?
No, not ever.
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No. No.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Yes, many, many times.
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes.
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Some? Yes. Most? No.
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
RTFA.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
He's a True Yankee™.
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
No.
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
One, arguably, but never won one. Two seasons jump out as being spectacular, but there was always someone better.
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
RTFA.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
A few, yes.
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Proved that if you (eventually) apologize for using steroids, even in a roundabout way, then it's okay that you used steroids.
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Depends on how you feel about the 'roids.
------------
I don't think I've ever thought of Pettitte in HoF terms. An impressive career, to be sure, but never a baseball immortal.
seriously
Still I wish people would back off from the black ink argument and stick with the gray ink argument, using black ink doesn't properly adjust for larger leagues. (heck same could be said from gray ink, but at least it doesn't make the player in question look "bad")
It's the NYT. To a fairly large degree, it's a paper built around the concept of nerdery.
I like that line. :)
I don't think I've ever thought of Pettitte in HoF terms. An impressive career, to be sure, but never a baseball immortal.
I personally hate the Keltner test, but your answers are too black and white for me, 5 top 5 Cy Young finishes indicates he was well regarded,
not sure who was better on his team in 1997?? Bernie has an argument I guess, but not Cone.
One thing I would note is that even cfb in #8 does the thing that jumped out first at me in Sean's wording: "park-adjusted" treated as a known thing.
I don't think Sean's "pimping" anything here. ERA+ (which a certain Stalinist cadre of post-neo types apparently have taken to trash-talking) has been around for more than two decades and is certainly better known than UZR. That was pimping; this isn't.
well when I first wrote it, I didn't include the words park-adjusted, added it just before I posted it, wasn't too sure if it was necessary or not in the simplified definition.
Like many on here, I migrated from the Rob Neyer board, and his real strength was introducing people to sabermetric wisdom by simplifying it so that even if the readers didn't know the numbers behind the numbers, they trusted it because the explanation was worded that they got enough of a gist.
I didn't have to see the studies that says ops relates better with team scoring than average, obp or slugging to trust the conclusion. Once you start there you can branch out and get a better grasp on these concepts to the point that you yourself start questioning the conclusions, (I was never on board with there being a break even point for steals, to me it was taking a random result and pretending it happened at a random time which goes counter to what I knew about steals, just like I questioned hitter strikeouts aren't bad to have to be shown the evidence that makes me agree now) It's a step process, get them to one stat, then another(how many people on bbtf still use raw era for much? ops?)
Does the fact that he only got one vote in 2005 mean he was that well regarded?
yep.
you have three votes for Cy, for any starter to make a ballot, is a clear indication you were well regarded. It may have been a bad decision, but still it shows that you were regarded by one of 14 writers.
who is this? and why? I mean sure there are a few flaws, primary the same flaw with era in regards to earned runs versus unearned runs, and arguments about how much defense figures into the number(mind you that is a ridiculous argument as they are debating something era isn't really trying to do) There still isn't a better stat for gauging the results of a starting pitchers seasonal/career performance out there right now, that is as accessible.
Black ink lost relevance after the expansion in the 1960s and it's even less relevant now.
Tossing a gem and winning tonight's game would help a lot. He'll probably need to work cheap so he can stay with the Yanks and push the win total over 270, though.
Don, I might point you to a very long thread from this offseason that would argue the very point of Mussina (and Smoltz, et al) and "lock".
Regardless, I don't think Mussina is or should be a lock, I damn sure don't think Pettitte should be going in. I hear his name, and the name that immediately comes to mind is Allie Reynolds. Next is Vic Raschi. Not perfect comparisons to be sure, but still. Pettitte has a 177/155/135/129 best four seasons. He has no other season above 112. Sorry, no. Postseason? Admirable that he had basically the exact same ERA as regular season, and better performance due to stronger competition (though not as big as some claim.) Very good pitcher. Hall of Fame? Not a chance.
And his kids should be taken from him.
(*) He does not have "5 top 5 Cy Young finishes"; he has 4. Three of those are 5, 5, and 4. (He also has a 6.)
Edit: But I had a vote, I wouldn't give it to him.
Daly beat me to it, but try claiming that a pitcher with decent but not great peripherals had a good season based on his ERA+ on a Mariners blog and see what the response is.
Somehow I'm guessing that you're not thinking of Pettitte's career stat line when you say this.....you'd probably blackball Fielder and Leyritz, too.
That said, I think he and Wells are on the outside looking in. Though I'd love to see Boomer's acceptance speech...
Now if Pettitte keeps pitching for, say, four more years and gets to ~280 wins, his odds do go up.
Without a link to that thread, I can't evaluate those arguments, but common sense tells me that a guy with 13 seasons of .600+ WPCT, regardless of his run support totals, is going to get in on the first or second try. That's just reality. The historical starting pitcher evaluation tool I've been tinkering with for a little while now ranks both Schilling and Smoltz ahead of Mussina, and Pettitte trails both of them significantly. I suspect Smoltz and Schilling will get in, but it will take them longer than Moose, because of the WPCT.
3562.2 IP to an ERA+ of 123, which puts him right in the middle of Sean's list.
270-153, for 117 games over .500, or a WP of .638.
Top ERA+ seasons of 163(strike shortened), 157, 145, 142, with a total of 11 seasons at 125 or better.
Taken all in all, why is this NOT clearly a HOF career?
edit: Andy Pettitte is 94 games over .500. he could get there.
Really? I think Smoltz is carrying the "aura" of a HOFer, by reason of his association with Glavine and Maddux as the Braves Big 3 during their division-winning run; because of his great post-season record; and by reason of his unique status as a great starter turned great closer turned back to a great starter.
By contrast, I get a huge "Bert Blyleven" vibe off Mussina. I think he may have to wait a while.
I could see Schilling going in quick, and I could see him waiting. He had a fantastic peak in Arizona, and was involved in a memorable World Series for which he shared MVP honors, but was overshadowed by Unit; he then went on to be a key player in Boston's first WS in 80+ years, with the whole bloody sock thing; and over all he has a great post-season resume of 11-2, 2 post-season MVPs, and 3 rings. But he also has only a 216-146 record, and has probably rubbed a few voters the wrong way.
I would argue that Bernie Williams IS getting enough HoF chatter. He is getting HoF chatter. And any such chatter is enough.
I think Pettitte has exactly the same business in the HOF as either of those guys. All three are free to buy tickets and see plaques of their betters. Albert Belle's a better candidate than Pettitte.
Get in line behind Tim Raines, Bernie.
I think Pettitte has exactly the same business in the HOF as either of those guys. All three are free to buy tickets and see plaques of their betters. Albert Belle's a better candidate than Pettitte.
You may be right on all counts there, Sam, but I still don't think that Mr. Game 5 of 1996 had nothing to do with your original comment about how Pettitte voters should be "drawn and quartered"....
I don't really hold Game 5 of '96 against Pettitte. I hold it against the right field umpire, Rafeal Belliard, Mark Wohlers and Jim Leyritz, in that order.
If Petitte really pitches 4 more years and reaches 280 wins, and keeps his ERA+ around 115 or so, THEN I think he'd be a valid borderline candidate (ie: Not as good as Moose, but better than Rice).
Yes his W-L was helped quite a bit by the offenses behind him (even more than Jack Morris was)
BUT, you know what, Yankee Dee in many of those years HURT him, he was better than a 115 ERA+ pitcher, perhaps even a 120 (still not as good as his W-L)
His W-L is inflated, but he's no Catfish or Jack Morris, he is./was a better pitcher than those guys.
Reynolds, 162, 125, 115, 111 (500 less IP, and and ERA+ 5 points worse)
Raschi, 122, 120, 117, 112 (1000 less innings that Petitte)
Look if Petitte retires after this week, he's not in, he shouldn't be in, period.
But those aren't good comps.
Steve Rogers maybe, or Luque, or even Chuck Finley (who I think someone mentioned)
Link
No, not ever.
----------------------------
I'd say he was pretty clearly the best player on the '96 Yanks.
Yep. I was thinking it might be more accessible to say something like, "ERA+ compares a pitcher's league ERA to the league totals. 100 is average, above that is better than average and below that is worse." Maybe slip "park-adjusted" in there somewhere.
That year Mariano pitched 107 relief innings to the tune of a 239 ERA+. With leverage, that may outdistance Andy. Maybe not, but it was one hell of a performance from the pen.
If not Mo, then only Bernie Williams with 143 games in Centerfield with an OPS+ of 131, back when he could still field the position, is the only competition. So you may be right.
It gets confusing when you talk about the Niekros.
"I'd argue Bernie was better (now THERE'S a guy who isn't getting enough Hall chatter)."
Lots of Latin Grammy buzz to make up for it, though.
Because "Relative ERA" won't fit into statistical table headers, and people are going to call it by its most common abbreviation. I guess you could call it rERA or something, but at this point, I don't think that's going to displace OPS+ from the vernacular.
Keep jousting those windmills though :)
Well, "ERA+" and "OPS+" and so on were designed to be table headers. I don't think anybody expected people to actually pronounce "E R A plus". These stats were named "Normalized ERA" and "Normalized OPS" 25+ years ago.
Well, then anybody doesn't have much clue about human nature. :P
17-9, .654 W%, 3.88 post-season ERA. No idea how that compares to others, but it seems impressive, on it's face. If he gets to 20 PS wins, that would be pretty cool (how many others have done that?)
As a cardinals fan, I always completely dreaded facing Pettitte, and was overjoyed when he went back to NY. Never thought of him as HOF material, though.
Although "Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?" might benefit players from the current era, I've never understood what good that question does on the list anyway. How many players are playing regularly in the majors right now after having already passed their primes? 100? Luis Castillo, Rich Aurilia, Livan Hernandez, Pedro Feliz, Chan Ho Park, Jason Kendall, Mike Cameron, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Lee, Russ Ortiz - they all get a decisive YES on that question.
It's particularly weakly applied to a left-handed pitcher.
It's not useful for every player, but it does help sort out the players who were finished at 32 from the legitimate candidates.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main