Repost for flip

Major league players don't choke under pressure, nor are they clutch.

I call BS on that. Pitchers choke all the time. At the most extreme, Steve Blass disease is pure choking. Fielders choke; again Steve Sax, Macky Sasser, Knoblauch disease is the purest form. But Luis Castillo muffing a pop-up that's caught 999999 out of 1000000 times is pure choke.

Hitters don't tend to demonstrate big clutch/choke effects b/c hitting is purely reactive. There's no reason to extrapolate that to all baseball activities, or to other sports.

I believe there are clutch pitchers, and clutch QBs.

How about Schilling and the bloody sock? It's quite likely that what he did in order to help the Sox finally get past the Yankees and claim their first crown since the Great War cost him a productive 2005. Now, I can anticipate your response will be something like "It doesn't matter because he is a lock and doesn't need the extra credit." But what if he did? What if he was on the border of the borderline and needed just one more good year to get over the hump? What if some voters feel he is there right now with the career he actually had? Would it be absurd for them to conclude "Well, normally a guy like this would be just a wee bit short, but I'll give him credit for what he did in the 2004 post season."?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but as an addendum to my previous post, I get around this by being a bigish hall guy who thinks the hall is for statistical merit. By being a bigish hall guy, say small hall +15%, I don't really need to examine close cases. If they are borderline, the sock won't get them in, as they are already getting my +15% big hall credit.

The one thing I will give credit for that people will probably disagree with is longevity. Like Moyer, the guy is freaking 80, who cares if he is a no peak compiler, its not like letting him in is going to flood the hall with 50 year old compilers. He does need to compile HOF quality stats though. He is the outlier on the Awesome Peak, no compiler-no peak, big compiler spectrum.

So they happened to have a good 20 PA span, or a game-winning home run, when everyone was watching. Whoop dee doo.

It's curious having to explain this to people.

Apologies for stooping to this level, but ... do you enjoy watching baseball? When your team wins in improbable fashion, do you angrily mutter to yourself about probabilities?

You want to turn the Hall into something that is rigidly, unbreakably logical. I think that stories matter, and that they can be considered in a case for the Hall of Fame.

Major league players don't choke under pressure, nor are they clutch.

The second clause is true. The first clause has no supporting evidence, and is probably false. In fact, the best empirical definition of the qualities of a player who is famous for being "clutch" is that he his performance doesn't *degrade* in pressurized situations. Derek Jeter isn't "clutch" because he gets better in the playoffs. He's "clutch" because he doesn't get worse.

But Luis Castillo muffing a pop-up that's caught 999999 out of 1000000 times is pure choke

I'm with you on the rest, but to me, choking is letting the pressure affect your play rather than just having a misplay from lack of concentration. Castillo's muff was purely sloppy; I don't see any reason to believe that the situation caused him to become overly tense waiting for the ball to come to him.

And the sample size issues are huge, worrying about what a player did over a span of 20 PA and such.

The question folks in this thread seem to be wondering is whether it makes more sense to consider Andy Pettitte to have thrown 3,055.1 (regular-season) IP in his career (so far) or 3,318.1 (regular-season plus postseason) IP in his career (so far). The latter is the larger sample size.

I don't see anyone lumping postseason stats in with regular season stats, either for single seasons or career numbers/records/etc.

This is basically the focal point of the pro-Pettitte/Morris arguments. Mo Rivera also gets a big dose of this. Sandy Koufax and Whitey Ford's postseason records also mattered, if you care to go back.

Incidentally, it's been 20 years since the start of the wild card and there are now a handful of pitchers who were worked very heavily, repeatedly in the postseason in addition to Pettitte. Tom Glavine accrued quite the workload in the 90's and so did Maddux.

I think Snapper/88 hits the nail on the head with the nature of these outings. Nobody treats these games like exhibitions, and it's really unfair to the participants to ignore their participation, especially when it could make a difference in their Hall candidacy.

Because the games are exhibition games and not all players have the same opportunity to participate. And the sample size issues are huge, worrying about what a player did over a span of 20 PA and such.

This assumes a definition of "exhibition game" that virtually no one applies to the MLB playoffs and World Series, and there are hundreds of reasons that prevent all players from having identical career opportunties and that are fully or partially out of a particular player's control: roster construction, managerial habits, freak injuries, whether he plays in a league with a DH while under team control, etc. Also, in this case we're not discussing some hypothetical player who has 20 post season at bats. Pettitte has more than a season's worth of post season innings.

If only postseason success or failure counted as (in the words of the election rules) "contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

If only there were some text on the actual bronze plaques we could refer to, that might suggest whether postseason play is a factor.

The fact that teams will trade off regular season wins for postseason wins proves they aren't "exhibition games".

I'm with you on the rest, but to me, choking is letting the pressure affect your play rather than just having a misplay from lack of concentration. Castillo's muff was purely sloppy; I don't see any reason to believe that the situation caused him to become overly tense waiting for the ball to come to him.

OK, I have a little broader definition of "choke". I don't think the Steve Blass or Chuck Knoblauch situations were cause by pressure (they couldn't make the throws in Spring Training either) but a mental block or lapse.

I view any sort of pure mental block or lapse to be in the "choke family".

they happened to have a good 20 PA span

Which should be added to their other 500 PA just like every other 20PA span they had during the year.

Even if so, this is not what people are doing.

I don't see anyone lumping postseason stats in with regular season stats, either for single seasons or career numbers/records/etc.

This is really your argument - the stats are sorted into a different bucket? They don't count June stats in the "most career HR hit in May" bucket.

Both May and June stats are counted in (a) seasonal stats and (b) career stats.

And nobody cares about "most career HR in May," just as nobody cares about "most career HR in the postseason."

I don't see anyone lumping postseason stats in with regular season stats, either for single seasons or career numbers/records/etc.

That doesn't make the postseason mere "exhibition games". They are more important than regular season games, and it's not a matter of giving extra credit to 20 PA but more like 100+ in many cases.

And nobody cares about "most career HR in May," just as nobody cares about "most career HR in the postseason."

That's only since they redefined the post-season so many times as to make the record meaningless.

But, I'm pretty sure most people still care about most WS HRs, and it would be a big deal if someone bested Mantle (18 IIRC).

The question folks in this thread seem to be wondering is whether it makes more sense to consider Andy Pettitte to have thrown 3,055.1 (regular-season) IP in his career (so far) or 3,318.1 (regular-season plus postseason) IP in his career (so far). The latter is the larger sample size.

They're not really wondering that. Nobody cites Pettitte as having 3138 career innings. They cite him as having 3055, and then wave their hands about how much strain a measly 263 innings out of a lifetime put on his arm, as if it's 2630 innings.

I think Snapper/88 hits the nail on the head with the nature of these outings. Nobody treats these games like exhibitions, and it's really unfair to the participants to ignore their participation, especially when it could make a difference in their Hall candidacy.

And I think it's unfair to the nonparticipants to ignore their nonparticipation.

And nobody cares about "most career HR in May," just as nobody cares about "most career HR in the postseason."

I'd be willing to bet that plenty of hall voters care about most career HR in the postseason.

But, I'm pretty sure most people still care about most WS HRs, and it would be a big deal if someone bested Mantle (18 IIRC).

I'm pretty sure most people don't.

Even if so, this is not what people are doing.

Yes. It is. The Pettitte backers explicitly argue that Pettitte is better viewed as a 259-148 pitcher rather than a 240-138 pitcher. His IP goes up to 3318 from 3055. His ERA+ remains about 117. The argument goes that it's better to see who that player compares to in terms of HOF balloting. Rivera's HOF record adds 141 IP of .70 ERA pitching roughly 2 seasons worth of work.

WRT Pettitte, I say fine, and then I say "and I still don't think he really cuts the HOF mustard." Pettitte needs the postseason to *become* genuinely borderline, whereas there are pitchers who can use the postseason to move from borderline to Hall of Famers.

EDIT: I actually just saw your 116+117 after posting this, Ray.

a) 263 IP isn't a measly thing in this day + age. It'd lead the league most years. Even breaking it up to the 20 IP or so Pettitte averaged in the postseason, that's still a significant total considering context (cold October weather, tired players who are dinged up, very high pressure + leverage.)

BTW, wrt Schilling and postseason injuries being rare and mileage being "measly", tell that to Rob Nenn, Kirk Gibson (never the same after 1988), or Johan Santana (whose injuries troubles began in earnest after a late regular season start in 08 when he threw a CG SH on a blown knee in the second to last game of the season.) Santana risked his career just trying to MAKE the playoffs. Of course they matter.

b) What do you mean by unfair to ignore their nonparticipation? Fancy Pants is right in that there's some disadvantage to a player missing the playoffs, but the equities tilt in favor of the player who exerted the additional postseason effort. There isn't a direct harm to the player who missed the playoffs, but there is a direct benefit to the player who had a significant postseason career.

I'm pretty sure most people don't.

Not trying to be a dick, but you don't exactly seem to be on top of what "most people" think.

I'd be willing to bet that plenty of hall voters care about most career HR in the postseason.

Who?

They're not really wondering that. Nobody cites Pettitte as having 3138 career innings. They cite him as having 3055, and then wave their hands about how much strain a measly 263 innings out of a lifetime put on his arm, as if it's 2630 innings.

Maybe nobody has specifically cited his career IP total, but clearly, the "postseason counts for Pettitte" crowd (none of whom, on this thread, actually think this pushes him over the borderline anyway, I think) views his postseason stats as being the equivalent of approximately another full season of pitching, so he has "17" seasons instead of 16 or 3,300 IP instead of 3,000, or 259 "wins" instead of 240. Pick your career stat: they want to add one (or more) more typical Pettitte-season worth of credit for his postseason work (53 WAR instead of 50, whatever). They're looking at MORE information on Pettitte's career performance than you are.

P@ Gillick
Ezra #
* Jones
/
Waltzing Ma~
-iell Hammett

It's criminal that this thread went this far without mentioning one Bartolo :

Is that pronounced Brampersandon, or is there another way to say it?

I have a programmer co-worker who can't pronounce "ampersand", which comes up frequently in code. It's "amsterand" or "amsterband" or something. (American and native English speaker, from upstate NY.) I can't help but laugh, even though he gets mad.

This implies that the HoM thinks that 400 IP is worth more than 2 WAR. I agree with this

How can that be true? WAR is included in innings pitched; you can't accumulate WAR without pitching innings. This means the second pitcher (Cone) could go -2 WAR over his next 400 innings and be equal to the first (Pierce). That doesn't sound right; how can there be value in pitching innings at replacement level or worse?

I'd be willing to bet that plenty of hall voters care about most career HR in the postseason.


Who?

Hold on while I check my comprehensive list of HOF voter's personal criteria....

Yes. It is. The Pettitte backers explicitly argue that Pettitte is better viewed as a 259-148 pitcher rather than a 240-138 pitcher. His IP goes up to 3318 from 3055. His ERA+ remains about 117.

I've not seen those numbers peddled as Pettitte's career totals.

The argument goes that it's better to see who that player compares to in terms of HOF balloting.

Unless the comparison is being made while also compiling the career+postseason numbers for all candidates to use in the comparison, it's a dishonest argument.

I've seen exactly nobody present such a comparison.

They just say, oh, look at Pettitte's 263 postseason innings - as if all other pitchers had 0.

Rivera's HOF record adds 141 IP of .70 ERA pitching roughly 2 seasons worth of work.

Two seasons worth of closer work. Yay.

I didn't consider Rivera a HOFer until he had amassed enough regular season innings.

But Luis Castillo muffing a pop-up that's caught 999999 out of 1000000 times is pure choke.

I call horseshit; have you seen the play? It wasn't at all easy, very awkwardly behind him and over his shoulder, and he may also have slowed up for fear of collision behind him. That pop-up gets caught maybe 90% of the time, not nearly one in a million to miss it.

And nobody cares about "most career HR in May," just as nobody cares about "most career HR in the postseason."

I think you left out a "should" there - with a beverage from me to Old Man James.

They're not really wondering that. Nobody cites Pettitte as having 3138 career innings. They cite him as having 3055, and then wave their hands about how much strain a measly 263 innings out of a lifetime put on his arm, as if it's 2630 innings.

Or they say that he has 3055 career innings plus 263 additional postseason innings at a similar quality of performance against, on average, better competition, and that those extra innings make Pettitte's career record more impressive than it would be without them.

But, I'm pretty sure most people still care about most WS HRs, and it would be a big deal if someone bested Mantle (18 IIRC).

I'm pretty sure most people don't.

Most people would be excited if a player even played in 12 WS - the HR record would be a big deal. Reggie Jackson was a huge deal for just hitting 3 HRs.

I'm pretty sure most people don't.

Not that it really has much of anything to do with what this argument is about, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. No, actually, I absolutely sure you're wrong.

I've seen exactly nobody present such a comparison.

I've compared Pettitte's totals including postseason (3,318.1 IP, ERA+ of 117) to Jim Bunning (3,760.1 IP, ERA+ of 114) in previous threads (I'm not doubting that you didn't see the comparison). Bunning's an easy comp because he never pitched in the postseason, so his numbers are on BB-Ref without requiring any extra math. Personally, I think that still leaves Pettitte short of Bunning and Bunning close enough to the in/out line of the Hall that Pettitte's out as of right now. But I think it's a fairer comparison than one that ignores those 263 postseason IP of Pettitte's.

...I just realized that this time last year, Ray was freaking out about 117 OPS+ (and Japan credit) Ichiro! having a possible (likely + deserving, if you ask me) HOF bid.* This year, it's Andy Pettitte's 117 ERA+ (and postseason credit) and his possible (unlikely + undeserving, if you ask me) HOF bid.

*Ichiro's career OPS+ has since declined to 114. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened with Pettitte after this season.

I've not seen those numbers peddled as Pettitte's career totals.

You just quoted them. I'm not sure how you can claim you didn't see something you just quoted.

I think we have just been RayRolled.

#133, OPS+ has a higher scale than ERA+, because it adds your value-over-average for both OPS and SLG. In other words, there are many more 117 OPS+ hitters than 117 ERA+ pitchers. According to bbref's career leaderboards, 450 of the former and 180 of the latter.

I would disagree with the notion lumping regular and post-season numbers together. WAR and similar values that make an effort to sum everything into a single number are are useful and interesting, and at times very illuminating, but this is one case where we need to keep things separate. Hall-of-Fame voters should to be able to rank players while juggling at least two components of a career.

It's criminal that this thread went this far without mentioning one Bartolo :

Seemed redundant after the mention of : Powell.

It's criminal that this thread went this far without mentioning one Bartolo :


Seemed redundant after the mention of : Powell.

Bartolo * ??

P@ Gillick
Ezra #
* Jones
/
Waltzing Ma~
-iell Hammett

M&y P@☦in;
edit: don't know where the semi colon came from.

I would disagree with the notion lumping regular and post-season numbers together. WAR and similar values that make an effort to sum everything into a single number are are useful and interesting, and at times very illuminating, but this is one case where we need to keep things separate.

My comments above are probably too reductive of cramming everything into a single one-size-fits-all number and putting the output in numerical order. I agree that it's helpful and useful and interesting to look at the underlying numbers that went into that final ranking - peak v. prime, seasons v. career (for example, I think that doing this draws a much clearer distinction between Bunning - who had a 12-year prime that Pettitte could only occasionally match in a handful of scattered seasons - and Pettitte). But I certainly think both postseason and regular season are things that one ought to look at.

I call horseshit; have you seen the play? It wasn't at all easy, very awkwardly behind him and over his shoulder, and he may also have slowed up for fear of collision behind him. That pop-up gets caught maybe 90% of the time, not nearly one in a million to miss it.

OK, pick another example then. It doesn't really matter.

Will Ωan

M&y P@☥in

edit: fixed #139

I'd be willing to bet that plenty of hall voters care about most career HR in the postseason.

Who?

If Manny weren't likely to be blackballed, don't you think there's a chance his post season homer record might be mentioned on his HOF plaque? Or the PS hits record on Jeter's plaque?

I've never been to the Hall, but aren't post season numbers mentioned on some players plaques? (maybe Koufax, Gibson, or Ford, for example?)

I've never been to the Hall, but aren't post season numbers mentioned on some players plaques? (maybe Koufax, Gibson, or Ford, for example?)

Of course.

Mantle's 18 HRs, and Ruth's consecutive scoreless inning streak are both on their plaques.

All people are doing is rewarding players -- but not penalizing them if they perform poorly! -- who happen to have good teammates. This is akin to caring about RBI or pitcher wins, and people really ought not engage in it.

Pettitte didn't just have good teammmates. He was also a good pitcher. He threw an extra season+ of meaningful innings that other pitchers did not, and he threw those innings well. I am not saying that you should weight those innings more heavily than his regular season innings, but you should give them *some* consideration and not pretend they didn't exist. If he had pitched at a replacement level in those innings I would say to ignore them.

I hate to go all Ray DiPerna on you, but here are the instructions provided to voters: "Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played." Nowhere in there does it say that only regular season record should be considered, and "contribution to the team(s) on which the player played" would almost by definition have to include postseason contributions.

Sure, Pettitte had the postseason opportunity in part because his teammates were better than the teammates of others. But his performance in the postseason still happened. We don't artificially reduce a leadoff hitter's stats because he got more plate appearances than the average player. Ignoring a player's postseason performance because not all players got the same opportunity is taking the idea of context neutralization to an unwarranted extreme.

Note I am also open to taking poor postseason performance into account although I don't know of any examples where that would make the difference for a particular player. Is there someone you have in mind?

Mantle's 18 HRs, and Ruth's consecutive scoreless inning streak are both on their plaques.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the relevant portion of Mantle's plaque reads "Mantle hit 536 real home runs and 18 home runs in in meaningless October exhibition games that Ernie Banks did not participate in."

Of course.

Mantle's 18 HRs, and Ruth's consecutive scoreless inning streak are both on their plaques.

That doesn't mean those were reasons why they were voted in.

I didn't even know Ramirez had the postseason homer record - and I'm a Red Sox fan. Nor did I know that Jeter had the postseason hits record. I imagine you'll say that's because I don't care about these things, but I don't see others trumpeting them either.

I don't see others trumpeting them

You're not looking real hard

But Luis Castillo muffing a pop-up that's caught 999999 out of 1000000 times is pure choke.

I call horseshit; have you seen the play? It wasn't at all easy, very awkwardly behind him and over his shoulder, and he may also have slowed up for fear of collision behind him. That pop-up gets caught maybe 90% of the time, not nearly one in a million to miss it.


I call horseshit on the horseshit calling. It was an easy play that gets caught 99% of the time and Castillo didn't use two hands when there was no reason not to other than typical laziness that players exhibit on routine plays.

I don't see others trumpeting them



You're not looking real hard

Yeah, when David Justice held all time post season RBI record (since surpassed by Manny and Bernie Williams), it was frequently talked about when he was batting.

We don't artificially reduce a leadoff hitter's stats because he got more plate appearances than the average player.

Don't give him any ideas about how to downgrade Ichiro.

David W?
Octavio ·el
Scott ?brink
Mike ?azza
?r Bailey

edit: that did not work right.

Shouldn't that be Mike ?azza?

Don't give him any ideas about how to downgrade Ichiro.

I'm almost positive I've actually heard Ray use this argument with respect to Ichiro already.

Terry ♇

♌ Mazzone

♀ Williams

Dick £


edit: Mine didn't work right either, except for the last one. They all looked good in preview.

edit edit: Fixed

I didn't even know Ramirez had the postseason homer record - and I'm a Red Sox fan. Nor did I know that Jeter had the postseason hits record. I imagine you'll say that's because I don't care about these things, but I don't see others trumpeting them either.

I've never looked up either of these records. I know them because announcers have mentioned them during postseason games. So apparently some people care, or they probably wouldn't bother bringing it up (or even keep track in the first place).

Personally, I think voters do care about postseason numbers and I'm glad they do (well, except with Jack Morris and Game 7). While it's pretty widely accepted amongst the BBTF crowd that Schilling and Smoltz are deserving based solely on their regular season stats, I think they'd be considered borderline by most without the postseason extra credit. So if that's what it takes for people to see them as the truly great pitchers that they were, well, so be it.

Kenshin Kawa,

#123 The problem with giving Pettitte credit for an extra season is that this is a huge bonus for his taste in teammates.

I'm closer to Ray than count it as an extra season, particularly since the only thing remarkable about his post-season record is the volume. He pitched like Andy Pettitte in a lot of opportunities.

I'm not quite with Ray in not counting it at all, but to me it's just something to make a mental note of.

And I'm open to giving John Smoltz credit for his post-season work. No only did he pitch a lot (good taste in teammates) but he pitched significantly better in the post-season than he did in the regular season (his ERA -- weighted by IP -- for the years he pitched in the playoffs is 3.12. He put up a 2.67 ERA in 209 innings)

Why do his teammates make any bigger difference in the post-season than they did during the regular season.l Moreover, none of whatever it was (I'm not for Pettite as a HOF-er, just raising a point or two) Pettite did during the "exhibiton" season was against any but the best teams--no patting those post-season games by going against second-rate teams.

#159 The teammates make a difference because Pettite doesn't get to pitch all of those post-season innings without them.

And while they may have been good teams, I've checked and they were not what you'd call overwhelming offensive teams. They scored roughly 5.25 runs per game (weighted by Pettitte's IP against them)

Pettite was basically Pettite against them. Held slightly above average offensive teams to a 3.97 RA.

We don't artificially reduce a leadoff hitter's stats because he got more plate appearances than the average player.

Don't give him any ideas about how to downgrade Ichiro.

I've already noted this with respect to Ichiro. He gains an advantage in a WAR-type framework simply from racking up PA. And I realize it's to his credit that he's durable, but WAR rewards him beyond that - for a manager decision to bat him leadoff.

The teammates make a difference because Pettite doesn't get to pitch all of those post-season innings without them.

??? (There seem to be some pronouns there whose antecdents are kind of hazy.) Yes, the rules require nine men on the field at all times. Or do you mean that he didn't get to get into the post-season without the contribution from the rest of the team? (Of which he was a fairly important component?)

Yes, the same thing replies in the reverse. He had something to do with his team getting there and he had something to do with the team's success when they got there. Whether he was pitching no better than in the regular season or not. And he was pitching in the post-season only against excellence of the highest order.

It's what he did in the post-season against uniformly the best competition there was. No? That's the argument anyway.

And, again, he was not in the post-season pitching against last-place teams, seocnd-division teams, or even second-place teams, was he? And he did that successfully for a full season plus worth of post-season play against the best. That can be over-valued, but it needs to first be acknowledged as to its value.

And I realize it's to his credit that he's durable, but WAR rewards him beyond that - for a manager decision to bat him leadoff.

The manager, presumably, has reasons for his decision; it's not just an arbitrary selection, and Ichiro has something to do with those reasons. The manager, in other words, is recognizing Ichiro's something about Ichiro's talent.

I've already noted this with respect to Ichiro. He gains an advantage in a WAR-type framework simply from racking up PA. And I realize it's to his credit that he's durable, but WAR rewards him beyond that - for a manager decision to bat him leadoff.

But do you normalize all players' stats to account for such managers' decisions, or just the ones you want to argue against the HOF-worthiness of? As someone noted on the last page, one way or the other you're probably being unfair to somebody.

Pettite was basically Pettite against them. Held slightly above average offensive teams to a 3.97 RA.

I don't see anybody really suggesting that Pettitte's post-season innings were of exceptionally high quality. Some people want to give him extra credit simply for pitching them, not because he pitched like Sandy Koufax in them.

Pettite was basically Pettite against them.

Pettitte being Pettitte will win you a bunch of games.

So will Rice being Rice. But we're talking about the HOF, DL.

No, we're talking about what is to be considered in determining who qualifies for the HOF.

??? (There seem to be some pronouns there whose antecdents are kind of hazy.) Yes, the rules require nine men on the field at all times. Or do you mean that he didn't get to get into the post-season without the contribution from the rest of the team? (Of which he was a fairly important component?)

This seems like a fairly trivial point, not sure how it can cause so much confusion. If Pettitte is on the Pirates instead of the Yankees, he doesn't get to pitch 263 postseason innings. It's basically the same as using W/L record to judge a pitcher.

And I realize it's to his credit that he's durable, but WAR rewards him beyond that - for a manager decision to bat him leadoff.

The manager, presumably, has reasons for his decision; it's not just an arbitrary selection, and Ichiro has something to do with those reasons. The manager, in other words, is recognizing Ichiro's something about Ichiro's talent.

I agree with this. Being good enough to bat at the top of the order is to the player's credit. It's the same effect as being able to take the field at the top of the defensive spectrum. Nobody would suggest that we should treat every player like a SS, because it isn't his fault that a better defender happens to be playing there.*

*now if there is a worse defender playing there, it's a different story.

Morty I have no idea what you're attempting to argue. Pettite pitched as many post-season innings as he did because he had the fortune to play for the teams he did. Giving him extra credit for bulk innings because of this makes no sense to me.

EDIT: OR what FPH says in 168.

#169 Thing is that generally speaking a player bats leadoff not because he's the best hitter on the team but because his talents are assumed to fit the role better.

As it happens I see this as generally a wash. Standard metrics generally slightly underrate a good leadoff hitter on a per plate appearance basis (since generally speaking isolated power is the weakest part of their offensive game and ISO is predictably slightly less important for a leadoff hitter. And not simply because of that one PA per game when there's a money back guarantee that there won't be a baserunner. They are in effect trying to dive in bottom of the order hitters and generally speaking those guys aren't good at getting on base), but they do get those extra PAs.

170

Well, the same to you. What is it that you're refuting? Did he or did he not pitch like he did, contributing to the results that came about. Was the competition tougher in post-season or not?

I didn't realize what I wrote was so abstruse.

Conditions are not the same for everybody. Of course. So what? A model is not reality, and any attempt to equalize everything by ignoring reality to make your model balanced for everyone will be lacking. Take it for granted, if you will, that he was no better in post-season than someone else, and that he was in post-season is due to his team (of which he was a valuable component), but that still does not make what a he did disappear. Since when is that a reason to discount someone's accomplishments? Did Pettite or did he not do what he did in the post-season? Does that have value or does it not? If it doesn't, then take that into account; if does, ditto.

There are some, given the same conditions, the same predicates, who would have and could have done what a hero in combat did--that's not good justification to ignore what he did. Or to deny him honors. Again, not that Pettite deserves to be in the HOF. But it seems to me it certainly can be taken into account, one way or the other. How much plus or negative that is, is something else. The whole object of MLB from spring training on is to make it to post-season--yet, it means nothing what players do in post-season in determining their value? I'll need better reasons than he just luck out being on the Yankees, so we can just pretend it all never happened.

Patton had the resources of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world behind him in WWII--he still did what he did, and that still had value. Douglas MacArthur changed the momentum of the war in Korea instantaneously with Inchon. He had, like Patton, the forces of the preeminent military power of the time behind him--so what? There are others who could have done what Audie Murphy did that got him all those medals--and that he got them may have had something to do with the side he was on; he still did it.

I can think actors who may have acquitted themselves, in their way, as well (or generally as well) as Cary Grant in His Girl Friday, James Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life, Cagney in White Heat, Stanwyck in The Lady Eve, etc. etc. etc. But they did it. That's reality and reality counts for something. It's not to be ignored.

Thing is that generally speaking a player bats leadoff not because he's the best hitter on the team but because his talents are assumed to fit the role better.

And he's not good enough to bat third or fourth. The hitters who would be better than he as leadoff batter are reserved for more premium slots in the batting order. That's why leadoff batters are often overrated--they are really often, usually, not the optimum choice.

Edited 172 for clarity and to correct some typos.

we're talking about what is to be considered in determining who qualifies for the HOF.

To follow up a bit on #137 and #140, players' careers have different shapes and there are different HoF cases to be made for different players. In the case of Andy Pettitte, his case is essentially that of a compiler. He's been a consistent #2 starter for a good long time. So, to me, the question in assessing Pettitte's HoF candidacy is basically, "How many typical Andy Pettitte seasons makes a Hall-of-Fame career?"

BB-Ref says Pettitte's per-162 averages in his career are 17-10, 3.88 ERA, 215 IP, ERA+ of 117. How many seasons like that makes a guy a Hall-of-Famer? If you're a peak-voter or a small-Hall guy, your answer might be "that's just not good enough, no number of such seasons will make a guy a HoFer." That's a perfectly reasonable answer, and you can then end the conversation right there. But if you appreciate pure compiling enough to give some answer - say, "18 years" (to pull a number somewhat out of the air) - I think it's only fair to treat Pettitte's postseason work - 19-10, 3.83, 263 IP - as one (or two) of the seasons that he's compiled. He's pitched about 14 "typical" regular seasons (3,055.1 IP divided by 215 IP/yr) and 1.2 more "typical seasons" in the postseason, which gives him 15.2 "typical Andy Pettitte seasons" so far. Is that enough to make him a HoFer? I don't think so, but 15.2 seasons of that gets him closer than 14.0 seasons do.

If Pettitte is on the Pirates instead of the Yankees, he doesn't get to pitch 263 postseason innings.

Aunt, balls, uncle, etc..

I cannot grok the concept of ignoring/discarding something someone accomplishes within their professional field because certain things fell in their favor to get them there. (And things they considerably contributed to in no small amount to have those certain things occur.) He still accomplished the things he accomplished while playing professional baseball.

I agree with this. Being good enough to bat at the top of the order is to the player's credit.

No. If he were a better hitter he'd be hitting in the middle of the lineup.

Albert Pujols, though he would make a far better leadoff hitter than Ichiro, does not bat leadoff.