I'm pretty sure Buck did respond. He said something like "Pettitte said only once" as though he didn't quite believe it.

What HOF case? Schilling has the HOF case that people THINK Pettite has.

I haven't heard anyone in the media say that Pettitte will make the Hall of Fame. HGH has nothing to do with it; he's been a good pitcher, but pretty clearly not a HOF pitcher.

What HOF case? Schilling has the HOF case that people THINK Pettite has.

Pettite's case consists primarily of the fact that he was a long time Yankee pitcher that never turned in a particularly bad season. And ... he's associated with Roger Clemens, which up until recently was a big plus.

In Real Life, Pettite was a durable and remarkably consistent - but only slightly above average - pitcher for most of his career. His gaudy W/L totals were boosted by being on some really good teams - his ERA+ only broke 115 4 times in his career.

Bottom line: Pettite compares to Schilling much as Jon Lieber compares to Pettite.

Our own little Jab Jab?

Nice reference.

When it's time for vote for the Hall of Very Good, I'll be there voting for Andy. When it comes to the Hall of Fame, at this point it doesn't if Pettitte was as natural as pick-your-favorite-PED-free player or so juiced up he didn't know up from down. He's not that caliber of pitcher.

BTW, check down at the end of Raissman's article for some classic Mike & the Dog double-talk.

How do HOF voters historically rate pitchers?

20 win seasons- Petitte has 2, not a huge number, but more than Brown or Mussina and as many as Drysdale.
Career Win loss? 210-118. That gives him 226 Fibbonacci Win points- that's actually quite high- high enough that we run into the Jack Morris problem- who has 215-
Both have career W-L records that by themselves pretty typically lead to the HOF- the problem is that Morris really wasn't as good as his 254-186 career mark and Petitte isn't quite as good as his 210-118 mark.
In a "neutral" world, Petitte would be something like 190-138, nice but in no way hallworthy, Morris would be around 230-210 and no one would call him a strong HOF candidate.


I took every pitcher in the HOF with 175-260 wins (1901 to present)
I took every pitcher not in the HOF with 175-260 wins AND a winning % over .550, combined teh two groups and ranked by Fibbonacci win points.

The top 10 out of that group is:
Whitey Ford 293 (in)
Mike Mussina 275 (active)
Mordecai Brown 264 (in)
Pedro Martinez 262 (active)
Carl Hubbell 256 (in)
Juan Marichal 254 (in)
Andy Pettitte 226 (active)
David Wells 226 (not eligible)
Bob Gibson 225 (in)
Herb Pennock 221 (in)

the next ten:
Chief Bender 218 (in)
Jack Morris 215 (out)
Carl Mays 210 (out)
Lefty Gomez 210 (in)
Bob Lemon 207 (in)
Dwight Gooden 205 (out)
Stan Coveleski 202 (in)
Freddie Fitzsimmo 201 (Out)
Curt Schilling 199 (active?)
Kenny Rogers 196 (active)

around 200 teh rate of HOF selection falls off dramatically, though guys like
Joe McGinnity 189
Waite Hoyt 189
Ed Walsh 187
Catfish Hunter 187
Red Faber 179
Hal Newhouser 177
Jack Chesbro 176
Dazzy Vance 172
Jesse Haines 172
Ted Lyons 168
Jim Bunning 163
Don Drysdale 159
Rube Waddell 155

all got in,
but guys like
Dennis Martinez 189
Lon Warneke 189
Luis Tiant 188
Jamie Moyer 186
David Cone 186
Urban Shocker 185
Jimmy Key 183
Wes Ferrell 181
Eddie Cicotte 180

have not and seemingly will not, get in.

Anyway, it seems we have had a fair number of pitchers in recent years with CAREER win-loss records that meet established HOF standards, like David Wells at 239-157, but whom no one really sees as a HOFer...

Or perhaps 40-50 years from now the veteran's committee (or whatever it will be called) will be really kind to some of these guys.

I think if Pettitte has the desire (and stays healthy enough) to pitch into his early 40's, he'll get in.

Say he wins another 7 games this year. If he stays with the Yanks or another good team on a series of 1-2 year deals, he could average 12-13 wins a year for 5 years, putting him at 270 when he's done (at age 41).

I think at that point, nostalgia for the 90's Yankees carries him in.

I just don't think he wants to pitch that long. I'm pretty sure he'll go year-to-year with the Yankees, and, as soon as he has a bad year, he'll retire.

Should I have heard of Fibonacci Win Points before? I just googled it, it seems like a fun little toy, if nothing else.

Should I have heard of Fibonacci Win Points before?

Only if you read The Politics of Glory (or in paperback, Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?). It's a fun little toy, as you say, but because it considers only W/L record it doesn't seem to get much play here.

I was going to ask about Rube Marquard, but the reason he's not listed above is that his winning percentage was only .532 so he doesn't even make the .550 cut. Talk about a ludicrous Hall of Fame pick...

but because it considers only W/L record it doesn't seem to get much play here

Basically it only gets trotted out when discussing how HOF voters have voted and are likely to vote.

It's a neat little toy that reduces a W-L record to one number so you can compare 275-225 to 225-150 easily. It seems to match how we subjectively view such records.

McCarver: “(Pettitte said he took HGH) Only once.”

And then Pettitte admitted that he had lied, and confessed to taking HGH a second time.

He confessed, coincidentally, after the Daily News gave him advance notice that they were going to publish the results of their investigation which showed such.

Ah, the admirable Daily News, making sure a target of their investigation doesn't have the opportunity to commit perjury:

On Jan. 25, The Daily News presented the results of its investigation to Pettitte’s attorney, Jay Reisinger, and agreed to delay publication of this story until the pitcher – who is under governmental scrutiny – had a chance to respond. On Jan. 28, Reisinger declined to comment on his conversations with Pettitte about the allegations. Soon after that, the committee announced a five-day postponement for Pettitte’s deposition.

Pettitte disclosed the information about his father in his Feb. 4 deposition and gave no public statements about what he said until yesterday’s press release. Less than an hour after that, at the start of yesterday’s hearing, the chairman of the committee Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) commended Pettitte for cooperating with the committee.

Then Elijah Cummings fawned over Honest Andy for revealing this "when he didn't have to, since the committee would not have learned it if Pettitte didn't reveal it." (When Cummings said that he likely didn't know that the Daily News knew; but that just demonstrates that Cummings is naive.)

And I must have missed the advance notice the Daily News gave Clemens before they smeared him with their various stories.

I was going to ask about Rube Marquard, but the reason he's not listed above is that his winning percentage was only .532 so he doesn't even make the .550 cut. Talk about a ludicrous Hall of Fame pick...

Actually he made the cut because all HOFers did with 175-260 wins, I just didn't include him in the post because his 131 Fibbo Points is a complete outlier- well Eck is also at 131, but with 390 saves tacked on he's a special case. Smoltz BTW has 186 Fibbo points, and 154 saves.

Since I just use Fibbo as a voting prediction toy, my guess is we should add .25 points per save- that brings Eck to 229 and Smoltz to 225

In Real Life, Pettite was a durable and remarkably consistent - but only slightly above average - pitcher for most of his career. His gaudy W/L totals were boosted by being on some really good teams - his ERA+ only broke 115 4 times in his career.

I don't think Pettitte is a HOFer either, but this sells him short. He has not been "only slightly above average" for most of his career. He has a career ERA+ of 118, which is well above average, and would play in the Hall of Fame if he had a lot more innings than 2600.

He probably deserves to get in but nobody's going to vote for him because he was a fat, out-of-shape blowhard who had problems with management, problems with teammates, problems with the press and problems pushing himself away from the buffet table.

Kevin, Wells's main problem given his 108 ERA+ is that he needs to have a lot more innings than 3,400. He needs to be someone like Don Sutton, who had 5,000 innings.

Wells's only argument is that he was as good as Jim Hunter. But that argument only works if you have the nickname "Catfish."

Wells's only argument is that he was as good as Jim Hunter. But that argument only works if you have the nickname "Catfish."

Boomer's not good enough? tough crowd.

Seriously, to wade into the subjectivity swap- rightly or wrongly, Catfish was seen as an Elite pitcher while active- afterall he won 20 games 5 years in a row! (Dave Stewart had the same aura for awhile- but the MSM has seemingly forgotten about him, but 168-129 isn't close to established HOF standards, whereas Catfish's 224-166 is in the gray area so to speak).

Catfish FWIW had a betetr peak than Jack Morris, any of 1972,74 or 1975 were better than Morris' best year.

In Catfish's 5 year stretch he went 111-49 (and probably deserved to go 100-60)
Outside that period he went 113-117, (and probably deserved to go 110-120....)

Did Catfish deserve to go in? At his best he threw 300innings of 140 ERA+ ball, that's damn good, however outside of 3-4 years he was just a very good LAIM type pitcher (See Liavn Hernandez 1998-2007).
Wells never had a season as valuable as Catfish's best 3-4 seasons.

A few things need to be mentioned:

1. The standards for pitchers have not remained constant over time. The rush of 300 game winners in the 1980's changed everything. It used to be that 280 wins got you in guaranteed. Not anymore. The fact that someone who pitched 80 years ago was elected 40 years ago doesn't tell us that much about a modern pitcher's chances.

2. Players are not voted on in a vacuum. They are compared with others who are also eligible. If Boomer Wells or Andy Pettitte is on the ballot with several players who are obviously more qualified, he is not going to get elected.

3. Anyone who was ever inducted as a result of the veteran's committee is not really a good precedent for anything.

And I must have missed the advance notice the Daily News gave Clemens before they smeared him with their various stories.

I'm not going to check right now, but my strong memory is that Clemens and his idiot attorney were both asked for comment on the stories before they ran. Which is basically what happened with Pettite. There's a hypothetical question--if Clemens or atty Hardin had asked for the paper to sit on the story for 2 days, would the DN have agreed? Who knows, but obviously it makes no sense to criticize a newspaper for hypothetically failing a test they weren't presented with.

The DN has been extremely tough on Clemens but hardly unfair. People just aren't used to seeing actual journalism any more so they're shocked by how aggressive and mean it is when done right. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

McCarver: “(Pettitte said he took HGH) Only once.”

And then Pettitte admitted that he had lied, and confessed to taking HGH a second time.

OMFG! Tim McCarver said something stupid? That never happens! Stop the presses!

He confessed, coincidentally, after the Daily News gave him advance notice that they were going to publish the results of their investigation which showed such.

Ah, the admirable Daily News, making sure a target of their investigation doesn't have the opportunity to commit perjury:

Yes, how dare they exercise the duties of a free press, by performing an investigation of a public figure believed to be in the public interest.

Then Elijah Cummings fawned over Honest Andy for revealing this "when he didn't have to, since the committee would not have learned it if Pettitte didn't reveal it." (When Cummings said that he likely didn't know that the Daily News knew; but that just demonstrates that Cummings is naive.)

OMFG! A Congressman said something stupid? That never happens! Stop the presses!

And I must have missed the advance notice the Daily News gave Clemens before they smeared him with their various stories.

Could you provide a list on which the Daily News has been shown to be wrong about Clemens? Since you use the term "smeared", I can only assume that what they said was false, but I can't find any record of anyone showing their findings to be so. Given the somewhat litigious nature of Clemens, I would also assume that, if they had stated a known falsehood, he would have launched a defamation suit. While the Daily News may be pursuing him aggressively, "smeared" is an inaccurate term.

Incidentally, why try to turn this into a Clemens thread?

Well, Pettitte is overqualified by the Jack Morris Standard.

“Yeah, but not one of those pitchers (who were 100 games over and enshrined in Cooperstown) ever admitted to taking HGH,” Buck replied.

How about amphetamines? And who knows what before testing? I don't think it is nearly so clear that Pettitte actually had a competitive edge over his predecessors.

Most of Sutton's career was before my time, but without checking the records, Pettitte seems Suttonesque -- a good pitcher for good teams. If he keeps pitching a long time, like Sutton, he'll probably make the HOF. It sounds like he doesn't want to, in which case he probably won't. But the HOF honors both great players and great careers. Don Sutton may not have been a great pitcher, but 324 wins constitutes a great career. Pettitte is a good pitcher who has had a good career, and we'll see how much more there is. He still looks pretty good to me.

And to me, scuffing the ball ranks much higher on the cheating scale than HGH, but I realize most see it the other way.

Don Sutton? Yeah, if Pettitte maintains his effectiveness and doubles his current career innings pitched before he retires, he'll be a Hall of Famer for sure.

He has some work to do. Specifically, he needs about three more full seasons at his current effectiveness to become part of the discussion.

Suttonesque --

Don Sutton's actual won-loss record: 324-256 (249 FWP). Nolan Ryan's record: 342-292 (234 FWP). But what about offensive support? Sutton did play for teams that were on average better than the teams Ryan played for. For Hall of Merit consideration, I compute yearly RA+, turn it into decisions based on IP, and turn that into equivalent wins and losses using a sliding Pythag exponent. Conclusions: Ryan 326-273 (231 equivalent FWP), Sutton 320-267 (229 FWP). You might notice that the numbers of equivalent decisions for the two are closer together than the number of actual decisions. That's because, for whatever reasons, Ryan had 8.50 IP per actual decision and Sutton 9.11 IP/decision. There's no peak or big year advantage for Ryan, not in terms of equivalent record.

Don Sutton = Nolan Ryan without the no-hitters.

I haven't worked up either Pettitte or Wells. Do you think either of them has any chance of topping Kevin Brown (RA+ equivalent 216-146?) I don't think so. And you've got to get past Brown to get into the discussion that's coming with Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, and Glavine, not to mention Martinez, Johnson, Clemens, and Maddux.

(Yeah, some of them are known dirty cheaters. Do I care? Not particularly. Am I going to remember for sure who was what five years from now?)

Wells, Pettite, I just can't see these guys going in. Very good, but not great. I'd rather have Ron Guidry and Chuck Finley. Orel Hershiser maybe.

I'd put Jack Morris ahead of all those guys, and I've never argued in favor of his HOF chances. Dave Steib was probably a better pitcher than Morris. David Cone and Kevin Brown were some good ones too. I'm just going from memory, not looking up any WARP list or anything so I'm sure I've missed a few.

Put everyone I just listed in a line behind Bert Blyleven and once he's in we can talk about their cases.

Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, and Glavine, not to mention Martinez, Johnson, Clemens, and Maddux.

This group should go in, but with so many deserving pitchers so close together somebody's going to get Blyleven'd.

Mussina would be my guess. Clemens if the writers are still holding a grudge, Schilling if the postseason-hero sentiment fades over time. Smoltz might have trouble because of his split career, not having the wins or saves to make it on that basis alone. Eckersley is a good comp and he went right in, but he did not have the competition Smoltz will have.

Clemens won't get voted in; he'll be just like Mark McGwire, a non-entity in the voting. There's still a logjam of pitchers even after taking him out, and I agree with you that Mussina is going to be the one left standing without a chair.

Smoltz might have trouble because of his split career, not having the wins or saves to make it on that basis alone.

I believe that he'll get in because he showed he could do either job at an high level.

Clemens won't get voted in; he'll be just like Mark McGwire, a non-entity in the voting.

McGwire may have been made to wait a few years, like Killebrew, before getting in anyway even without PED allegations.

Clemens was an absolute no doubt first ballot guy- how he and Bonds are treated by the voters will tell us more than the lack of votes for McGwire.

Dave Steib was probably a better pitcher than Morris.

You say "probably"? We at the Hall of Merit are willing to be more definitive than that. We elected Stieb (and Saberhagen); Morris doesn't get anywhere close. And Brown looks like a better candidate than Stieb to me.

I'd rather have Ron Guidry and Chuck Finley. Orel Hershiser maybe.

My RA+ equivalent records:

Guidry 158-108 (with one really big year)
Finley 199-156
Hershiser 191-157

and

Gooden 174-137 (with a really, really big year)
Viola 177-138
D. Martinez 231-203
Key 171-117
Cone 190-132
Reuschel 221-174

all compared to Morris 226-199

Reuschel 221-174

No one ever remembers Big Daddy.

Clemens won't get voted in; he'll be just like Mark McGwire, a non-entity in the voting. There's still a logjam of pitchers even after taking him out, and I agree with you that Mussina is going to be the one left standing without a chair.

JPWF13 is right. Clemens and Bonds are the truest tests of the steroids disqualification, since both of them would have been locks even without steroids. Whereas McGwire might be thought to have only passed the HOF borderline because of them.

But I don't think that McGwire's much of a comp to Killebrew. I haven't looked it up, but I doubt if Killebrew was lingering down in the sub-25% range for his first two years on the ballot. McGwire may eventually get in, but as it stands he's going to have to convert over two-thirds of those who are up to now voting against him. That ain't gonna be so easy, even if you attribute all those "no" votes to older writers who are going to die off and be replaced by younger writers who don't see steroids as a mark against him.

But I don't think that McGwire's much of a comp to Killebrew. I haven't looked it up, but I doubt if Killebrew was lingering down in the sub-25% range for his first two years on the ballot.

Killebrew's vote percentages:

81 59.6
82 59.3
83 71.9
84 83.1

Big Mac started off a lot lower than the Killer. But compare him to Eddie Mathews and you'll see a pretty similar starting place:

74 32.3
75 40.9
76 48.7
77 62.4
78 79.4

Guys who could hit homers and take walks, but not much else tend to take a while. Ralph Kiner received all of three votes his first year and took 16 years to be elected.

Raissman: Joe Buck injects doubt into Andy Pettitte’s Hall of Fame chances

You clever devil.

I haven't looked it up, but I doubt if Killebrew was lingering down in the sub-25% range for his first two years on the ballot

Unless I missed an earlier year, Killebrew debuted in 1981 with 59.6% of the vote. I think that McGwire would have sailed in first ballot with 85-90% of the vote if he hadn't testified before Congress, but of course that's unknowable. But the fact that his vote total stayed the same in 2007 (128, 23.5%) and 2008 (128, 23.6%) tells me that the people not voting for him weren't withholding votes on the grounds that he didn't deserve first-ballot induction.

I haven't looked it up, but I doubt if Killebrew was lingering down in the sub-25% range for his first two years on the ballot.

Unless I missed an earlier year, Killebrew debuted in 1981 with 59.6% of the vote. I think that McGwire would have sailed in first ballot with 85-90% of the vote if he hadn't testified before Congress, but of course that's unknowable. But the fact that his vote total stayed the same in 2007 (128, 23.5%) and 2008 (128, 23.6%) tells me that the people not voting for him weren't withholding votes on the grounds that he didn't deserve first-ballot induction.

Right on all counts. It was that Mr. Mum act, and that alone, that did McGwire in, and may very well keep him out forever. Killebrew's ballot debut found him alongside Bob Gibson and three other eventual HOFers (Drysdale, Wilhelm and Marichal), who wound up in a virtual five way tie with Killebrew and Hodges, so it's entirely possible that his low vote total was in part a case of the writers splitting their ballots among six choices. And in his second year he was up against the first ballot inductees Aaron and Frank Robinson, who along with Marichal were the only ones who beat him out.

Whereas in McGwire's second year, the only inductee was Gossage, and between Gossage and McGwire you've got seven other names, including the likes of Andre Dawson and Tommy John. And while Killebrew had 59.3% his second year, McGwire was still stuck under 24%. Killebrew's not much of a comparison to McGwire at all. A much closer comparison (though technically not one at all) to McGwire is one Mr. Pete Rose. The only difference between the two is that in Rose's case the blackball was official rather than merely informal.

You say "probably"? We at the Hall of Merit are willing to be more definitive than that. We elected Stieb (and Saberhagen); Morris doesn't get anywhere close. And Brown looks like a better candidate than Stieb to me.

Since the Schilling debate began heating up a few weeks ago, there has been a lot of consideration for how much credit to give to the postseason. Schilling is probably not a HOF without his postseason performance.

Jack Morris was a great WS pitcher in both 1984 and 1991, it's more than just one game, and that one game may have been the best game 7 ever pitched. He totally crapped out in 1992, but his overall WS record is still outstanding.

It's enough to bump Jack a few spaces on my list, though I still would not consider voting for him until some more qualified pitchers go in first (like Bert).

World Series clutch god Jack Morris, postseason record: 3.80 ERA, 7-4 record (2.96 and 4-2 in WS games).

Poster boy for unclutchness Bert Blyleven, postseason record: 2.47 ERA, 5-1 record (2.35 and 2-1 in WS games).

Oh, and I have Orel Hershiser's regular season record as an RA+ equivalent of 191-157 (140 FWP) compared to Morris's 226-199 (148 FWP) - not too far behind. If you think Morris deserves a postseason boost, what are you going to do with Hershiser?

Poster boy for unclutchness Bert Blyleven, postseason record: 2.47 ERA, 5-1 record (2.35 and 2-1 in WS games).

Nobody's said that Blyleven wasn't excellent in postseason play. The only "problem" with it was that it never had Morris's high points, which included one of the two most dramatic 1-0 shutouts in game 7 history, in a Series where four games went down to the last pitch. The rap on Blyleven is that his career W-L percentage was flat compared to his teams, which often gets translated into "he doesn't know how to win." But AFAIK that's never been a knock against his postseason performance.

My RA+ equivalent records:

Guidry 158-108 (with one really big year)
Finley 199-156
Hershiser 191-157

and

Gooden 174-137 (with a really, really big year)
Viola 177-138
D. Martinez 231-203
Key 171-117
Cone 190-132
Reuschel 221-174

all compared to Morris 226-199

And when you convert to FWP:
Reuschel 171
Cone 170
Key 156
Finley 155
D. Martinez 151
Jack Morris' 147
Guidry 144
Hershiser 139
Viola 138
Gooden 134

You also forgot Koosman 169

Yeah, Koosman too. (My FWP, computed before rounding off the equivalent wins and losses, are often very slightly different than what JPWF13 said, but that's not important.)

Andy: if it's dramatic high points you want, what about Hershiser and his entire 1988 postseason run? This includes two shutouts, one of them a game 7, a complete game win in a closeout game, and a 1-out, bases-loaded 12th-inning save.

Andy: if it's dramatic high points you want, what about Hershiser and his entire 1988 postseason run? This includes two shutouts, one of them a game 7, a complete game win in a closeout game, and a 1-out, bases-loaded 12th-inning save.

First, I'm not making a case for Morris. I'm only noting one of the usual arguments being made for him.

But on its own merits, while Hershiser's postseason was just as good as Morris's, the difference in the seventh game drama was huge: It was the difference between a World Series and an LCS, but far more, it was the difference between a 1-0 shutout decided in the 10th inning and a 6-0 shutout that was already 6-0 by the end of the second. Only a Dodger fan likely remembers much about the details of that game (do you remember this game?), whereas the Morris game is routinely described as one of the all time thrillers.

So OK, we'll put Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame, and then we'll put Don Larsen, Bobby Thomson, Joe Carter and Gene Larkin in, too.

And yes, Orel Hershiser is basically all you need to demonstrate Jack Morris isn't even a valid candidate for the Hall.