Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, April 19, 2013

Perry: Tim Hudson, 200 wins and the Hall of Fame

On Friday night against the Pirates, Braves right-hander Tim Hudson will make his first attempt at earning career win number 200. While I have no use for pitcher wins and losses as a measure of value, this is still a relevant career benchmark. It also raises the question of whether Hudson is cobbling together a case for the Hall of Fame.

In addition to being on the brink of 200 victories, the 37-year-old right-hander also boasts a .657 career winning percentage (21st all-time), a 126 ERA+ (61st all-time) and 1,814 strikeouts (92nd all-time). On a broader level, Jay Jaffe’s JAWS system, which compares players to the established hall-of-fame norms at their respective positions/roles, paints the following picture for Hudson as things presently stand:

...Hudson’s best chance will come via the “career value” path. After all, it’s unlikely that a 37-year-old is going to drastically improve his peak indicators. And those peak indicators (no Cy Youngs, merely three All-Star appearances, for instance) leave something to be desired when it comes to the high standards of the Hall. But Hudson has indeed been remarkably consistent over his career. To put a finer point on it, only once, in 2006, has Hudson logged a seasonal ERA+ worse than 110. He’ll reach 200 wins, of course, and 2,000 strikeouts should come in 2014.

One of the keys for Hudson will be sustaining his rate value (i.e., his run-prevention numbers) while continuing to climb the innings list. At present, Hudson ranks 190th on the all-time innings list with 2,700 1/3 frames to his credit. On that front, Bob Lemon (himself a dubious choice for Cooperstown) probably represents the low end for hall-of-fame innings, with 2,850. That’s certainly within reach, should Hudson choose to continue pitching beyond this season. Hudson could also get to 3,000 innings late 2014 and something in the range of 3,250 would likely place him in the top 100 all-time (Andy Pettitte and Roy Halladay are the only active pitchers ahead of Hudson on the innings list).

Thanks to Los.

Repoz Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:28 PM | 66 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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.

   1. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4419493)
No. He's very good, but he's basically the David Justice of pitchers.
   2. GregD Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4419500)
other than not having a high-enough peak and showing no evidence of putting up a long-enough career, he's a shoo-in
   3. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4419544)
I'm a Hudson fanboy, but I can't see him getting elected. He's in the same situation that Mark Buehrle will be in with a couple more average seasons. Career value makes them both deserving of consideration, but two factors will work against them.

1) As Perry covers in his piece, Hudson's career doesn't have a memorable "hook" that voters can easily recall when he debuts on the ballot. He's a long shot to even reach 250 wins. His 2002-2003 peak is nothing special when compared with other HOF candidates. He doesn't have a memorable postseason performance.

2) The sabermetric community will disagree over Hudson's HOF candidacy as long as we disagree over the amount of credit a pitcher should receive for run prevention.

It's interesting to think about these two factors and how they apply to a cohort of roughly similar pitchers: Schilling, Smoltz, Halladay, Sabathia, Pettitte, Mussina, Brown, Cone. Absent future PED chatter, the first three will get in because they check off both boxes. I think Sabathia is almost in this group, but probably needs another Cy Young or 250+ wins. Mussina will check off Box #2, and newer voters will eventually persuade the electorate that his career is distinct from those of other compilers whose candidacies stalled (Kaat and John). Pettitte probably checks off Box #1 based on his postseason performance, and I can see him being evaluated against a recently elected Jack Morris. Older voters might be more inclined to consider Pettitte, while younger voters might be more skeptical.

What of Brown and Cone? If anything, Box #1 cuts both ways. For Brown, the average baseball fan remembers him as a cheating, mercenary prick who couldn't perform when it mattered (PEDs, 2004 ALCS, contract demands, general surliness). The greatest pitcher of the modern era fits that profile and he didn't clear 40 percent last year.

Cone's poor performance in HOF voting isn't really predicted by this framework. He has the perfect game, the reputation as an ace for championship teams, and a strong sabermetric case, yet he received one fewer vote than Mark Grace. The only explanation I can think of is his career-ending cliff dive.
   4. John Northey Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4419555)
So, what are the pluses for HOF voters (who pay zero attention to JAWS and the like)?

20 wins: once, in his 2nd season
Lead in wins/innings (durability)/strikeouts (power)/ERA: 1 time (that 20 win season)
Playoffs: 6 times in, 1-3 record despite 3.46 ERA, team lost in first round every single time.
Cy Young: 4 times got votes, 2nd place in 20 win season, 4th twice, 6th once.
Others: 3 All-Star games, 5th in ROY voting

I don't see it. HOF voters like guys to lead in the big categories and he only did that once. They like playoff success (see Jack Morris) and he doesn't have that. They like Cy Young awards and he didn't do well there. All-Star games can help, just 3 though is too few.

Just not enough there without him doing some career marks that would 'wow' the voters. 250 wins is the minimum he'd need (Dennis Martinez was 1 and done with 245) and I suspect he'd need 300 to get in (ie: Jamie Moyer finishing kick).
   5. BDC Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4419561)
HOM, then? Hudson's career compares reasonably well right now to the concluded careers of Billy Pierce and Dave Stieb, minor members of the Hall of Merit but at least in there. Hudson's not really that far from Whitey Ford, a HOF/HOM choice, though he'd need to start a fairly huge number of World Series games soon to match Ford for mystique.

When I looked at comps in some other Hudson thread awhile back, my conclusion was just like everybody else's: not a HOFer if he catches the bus, but if he has several more 16-9 seasons, he'll look better and better. I reckon that's been said of a lot of veteran pitchers over the decades, though.
   6. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4419562)
He was my favorite of the Big Three on those Oakland A's teams, but I think Zito is more likely (still unlikely) to make the HoF, depending on whatever late-career "narrative" Zito can muster.
   7. John Northey Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4419567)
Cone is an interesting one. 2 time 20 game winner, a Cy Young, 5 all-star games, 2 strikeout titles, led in innings once, led in wins once. 8-3 in playoffs with 5 WS rings. A profile that seems like a guy who should stick on the ballot awhile and get decent support and might sneak in. But he was a one and done.

What killed his HOF chances? 194 wins is a big one - generally you need a killer peak (ie: multiple Cy Young awards) to overcome sub-200 wins. Mix in the other pitchers on the ballot when he was - 250+ wins: Tommy John, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven. 478 saves for Lee Smith (still the all-time leader at that point). Plus Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice (both went in) and Andre Dawson were on over 2/3rds of the ballots thus filling slots for a lot of voters (many choose to operate on a smaller name limit than 10).

Hard to get in when people think of others as being more deserving who played the same position, and there is a true all-time great on the ballot (Henderson) and a so-so guy getting votes (Rice). Cone needed 200 wins to get serious consideration from Joe Voter, and probably needed 225 to 250 to have a real shot.
   8. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4419586)
What killed his HOF chances? 194 wins is a big one


I don't see any pitcher outside of Pedro getting into the hof through the voters with less than 225 wins. Even 250 needs something more than Hudson have (I do not think that Jack Morris is a good comparison, I honestly think his performance is partially fueled by anti-stat crowd who didn't like the way Bert got in or was improving on the ballot)

Kevin Brown was one and done, he's a hall worthy pitcher. He had the peak, he had almost the career(211-144) but he missed out on the story aspect, a crowded ballot, personality issues, winning awards, changing teams etc.

   9. Sweatpants Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4419589)
I can't see Zito making it and Hudson not. Zito's been mediocre since he was in Oakland, whereas Hudson's pretty much been the Braves' ace since 2007.

He's spent a lot more time in Atlanta than he did in Oakland, even though he was better with the A's; I'm curious about which cap they'd give him if they voted him in (my guess is A's), although that's probably a moot question.

I assume he holds the record for most times making the postseason without ever advancing (it's up to seven if you count the wild card game from last year).
   10. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4419590)
Almost none of the people who played in the last 20 years and deserve to get into the Hall of Fame will get into the Hall of Fame via the BBWAA. It's going to be all about whether they have a compelling narrative and a lot of fans.
   11. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4419599)
I don't see any pitcher outside of Pedro getting into the hof through the voters with less than 225 wins.

Schilling?
   12. DanG Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4419604)
SP in the Hall, less than 2900 IP

Rk         Player     IP ERA+  WAR From   To   W W-L%
1      Dizzy Dean 1967.1  131 42.7 1930 1947 150 .644
2    Sandy Koufax 2324.1  131 53.2 1955 1966 165 .655
3      Addie Joss 2327.0  142 45.8 1902 1910 160 .623
4     Lefty Gomez 2503.0  125 43.0 1930 1943 189 .649
5       Bob Lemon 2850.0  119 37.3 1946 1958 207 .618
6    Jack Chesbro 2896.2  111 41.3 1899 1909 198 .600 


216 to 300 wins, Not in HOF, W%>.540, not active in 2012, since 1893

Player                  W W-LERA+  WAR     IP From   To
Tommy John            288 .555  111 62.2 4710.1 1963 1989
Jim Kaat              283 .544  108 45.4 4530.1 1959 1983
Mike Mussina          270 .638  123 82.7 3562.2 1991 2008
Jack Morris           254 .577  105 43.9 3824.0 1977 1994
Dennis Martinez       245 .559  106 49.4 3999.2 1976 1998
David Wells           239 .604  108 53.5 3439.0 1987 2007
Luis Tiant            229 .571  114 65.9 3486.1 1964 1982
Mel Harder            223 .545  113 48.1 3426.1 1928 1947
Hooks Dauss           223 .551  102 35.1 3390.2 1912 1926
Pedro Martinez        219 .687  154 85.9 2827.1 1992 2009
Kenny Rogers          219 .584  107 51.1 3302.2 1989 2008
Earl Whitehill        218 .541  100 36.4 3564.2 1923 1939
Freddie Fitzsimmons   217 .598  112 33.7 3223.2 1925 1943
Curt Schilling        216 .597  127 80.7 3261.0 1988 2007
Wilbur Cooper         216 .548  116 49.0 3480.0 1912 1926 
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4419611)
Schilling?


oops...I'm going to fudge and with his 11 post season wins, it puts him over that arbitrary line I put up. Yes I think Schilling is going in.
   14. Chokeland Bill Posted: April 19, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4419663)
So, what are the pluses for HOF voters (who pay zero attention to JAWS and the like)?


The big one is Win Percentage, he's in the top 30 of all time and likely to stay there. He's never had a losing season. I think the stat is anyone eligible with 200+ wins and more than 100 games over .500 is in. Hudson has a pretty good shot at that (95 over right now).

Out of the group of pitchers debuting ~2000 who have a shot (Halladay, Sabathia, Hudson, Oswalt, Santana, Buerhle), Halladay stands out by WAR and the rest are all grouped together pretty close. Working in Hudson's favor is that Oswalt and Santana appear done and are way behind in wins. Buerhle is younger and may finish with more wins, but his win percentage and ERA are significantly worse.

Hudson is likely to move up a few spots on the ERA+ chart. He's old enough that he's not likely to face much of a drop (since he probably just retires or is unsigned after a bad year), while several current guys a few points ahead of him have their decline phases still to go through.

The current generation of pitchers aren't exactly throwing up huge seasonal WAR numbers. Hudson's peak years are actually better than those put up (so far) by Felix, Cain, Hamels, and Weaver.

I don't think he'll make it in, but with a couple more years like the last two he will have a reasonable career case by the established standards. He doesn't have the name recognition that I think he'll need to gather votes.

If not for the missed year+ due to Tommy John, I'd like his chances a lot more. He'd probably be sitting at 215+ wins and ~60 WAR already, putting some distance between him and the other guys in his generation.
   15. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: April 19, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4419666)
oops...I'm going to fudge and with his 11 post season wins, it puts him over that arbitrary line I put up. Yes I think Schilling is going in.

If you add his postseason wins, Pedro has exactly 225.
   16. bfan Posted: April 19, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4419709)
I am a huge Hudson fan and would like to see it happen, but everything above is pretty compelling on the "no" side. The only way i could see him sneaking in is with that very high winning percentage. On the list above, only Pedro's is better, and only Mussina is close, and Pedro is a lock isn't he?
   17. flournoy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4419713)
Well the way the Braves are going, Hudson will get about 23 more wins this year, and if you figure that the team will be even better next year since it's such a young team, figure another 30 for 2014, if they bring him back. Then another couple years puts him in the upper 200s. Book it.
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4419735)
Well the way the Braves are going, Hudson will get about 23 more wins this year, and if you figure that the team will be even better next year since it's such a young team, figure another 30 for 2014, if they bring him back. Then another couple years puts him in the upper 200s. Book it.


Of course at some point in time, the Braves are going to play a team that actually belongs in the major leagues besides the Nationals.
   19. flournoy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4419750)
No, the Braves' 1.92 team ERA represents their true talent level.
   20. Bourbon Samurai Posted: April 19, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4419765)
Hudson was my favorite player for awhile, but I don't see HOF for him. When he showed up, after so many Todd Van Poppell's and Ariel Prieto's, he was really symbolic of the A's emerging from the doldrums.
   21. John Northey Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4419771)
The HOF will be tough on pitchers who started around 2000 I suspect. Active win leaders are Pettitte, Halladay and Hudson with 200+, Sabathia 194, 3 in the 170's (Buehlre, Lowe, Colon), Zito at 162, and Freddie Garcia at 152. Outside of Pettitte, Halladay and Sabathia were any of them viewed at any time as elite? Hudson & Zito were close, Colon had his Cy Young year (122 ERA+ but led in wins). Generally speaking though it appears we have another 70/80's crew - where Jack Morris and Dave Stieb were the class of the group with no one really standing out in both career length (Morris) and peak (Stieb).

Pettitte would have been a lock without the PED use imo, but with that he will be held back I suspect. Halladay is clean so far and viewed as a true ace (2 Cy Youngs, twice in 2nd place, 7 times getting votes) with a couple of big highlights (no hitter in playoffs, perfect game in regular season). I see Halladay as an easy HOF'er, Pettitte as likely once the PED craziness wears off (odds are it'll calm down by the time he is eligible) with Hudson/Sabathia having shots if they can stick around for 5 more years of 10+ wins (ie: get close or over 250 for wins).

Justin Verlander is the only other guy with 100+ wins who catches my eye as possibly having a HOF career (126 wins at 30, signed for another 7 years after this one so 200+ is very likely unless he gets seriously hurt at some point). That'll help guys like Hudson, Zito and Sabathia as by the time they are qualified for the HOF most of the greats of the last era will be gone from the ballot (with any luck) and unless a new wave of 'wow' shows up they'll look like the best of the batch to some voters.
   22. flournoy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4419783)
There were a lot of really good pitchers who debuted roughly around 2000, but not many took that next step to Hall of Fame level. Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy, Johan Santana, and Brandon Webb are some more. I doubt it's even a particularly unusual rate of injury/flameout for this past generation. This seems par for the course.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4419785)
The most obvious HoF comp would be Hunter -- just 224 wins. He does have the CYA and other good finishes.

Obviously Hudson has to keep it going for a while but he's only 37. There's no reason to think he doesn't have another 3-4 years after that -- probably at lower innings totals and declining performance but he's a long way from done. While he was obviously nowhere near Maddux's peak, late-career Maddux seems a reasonable upside comp for late-career Hudson.

GM 37-42: 82-75, 1258 IP, 104 ERA+, 5.2/1.4 K/BB, 1 HR/9

Sutton also lasted until he was 42, adding 80 wins, 1300 IP and a 101 ERA+. Reuschel would be more the downside -- technically lasted until 42 but just 1000 IP and 61 wins, 109 ERA+.

HOLY CRAP! We interrupt this post for a very important bit of trivia I never knew -- Reuschel's first name is RICKEY. Talk about two peas in a pod.

Now back to our post ... Hudson's not dead nor, near as I can tell, even pining for fjourds. But even if you give him Reuschel's 37+, Hudson would be sitting on 260 wins and 3700 IP and, I dunno, a 120 ERA+. That is HoF. (It doesn't change much if you give him Reuschel's 37-40 since he added only 100 IP at 41-42.) Hudson will look even more impressive if he matches Maddux or Sutton.

Who else?

Dennis Martinez -- 1300 IP, 82 wins, 121 ERA+
Rogers -- 1250 IP, 87 wins, 107
Wells -- 1350 IP, 98 wins, 105
Glavine -- 1050 IP, 63 wins, 105
Koosman -- 1000 IP, 62 wins, 100
Hershiser -- 800 IP, 54 wins, 96
Darwin -- 850 IP, 48 wins, 95

If Hudson sticks on winning teams, he might accumulate more wins (or maybe just fewer losses) than Glavine/Koosman/Darwin (who was 10 games under 500).

All told there are 26 pitchers in the expansion era with at least 800 IP after age 36. Ignoring the knucklers, Clemens, Johnson, Ryan and a couple others and you still have 17 I think.

In the expansion era, ages 34-36, min 500 IP, Hudson has the 20th best ERA+. Among the guys listed above, he's substantially worse than Maddux and Glavine, about the same as John, (Moyer, Perry), D Martinez, Sutton, (Seaver) and substantially better than Hershiser, Koosman, Wells, Rogers. Reuschel barely had 300 IP from 34-36.

There are 16 guys in the ERA+ range of 115 to 128 (Hudson at 122) and half of them put up at least 800 innings from 37 on and some others (e.g. Blyleven with 700 IP, 43 wins, 90 ERA+) just missed it. Guys like Carpenter and Doyle Alexander are the cautionary tales.

Somewhere around 130-150 starts should do it and that's not a big stretch of the imagination. I think he's more likely in than out somewhere around 250-260 wins. And he should be an HoM shoo-in.

EDIT: "fjourds" of course being the British spelling. :-)
   24. PerroX Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4419786)
I have loved Hudson from the beginning, and that win percentage is impressive, whatever it's meaningfulness. But he's no Hall of Famer.
   25. alilisd Posted: April 19, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4419854)
@ 6: Zito can't carry Hudson's jock.

@ 9: Zito has been worse than mediocre since leaving Oakland. 91 ERA+ in 1,022 IP.
   26. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:13 PM (#4419901)
Zito has been worse than mediocre since leaving Oakland. 91 ERA+ in 1,022 IP


Isn't that pretty much the definition of mediocre?

I think Walt did a good job there. Hudson is going to have to be start earning some street cred as a great competitor, mentor or even just one signature game, but 260-270 wins isn't out of his reach, add in his winning percentage(which should continue to be good) etc...and he could be a legitimate candidate.
   27. alilisd Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4419907)
No. I'd go down to 95 for mediocre, bu not all the way down to 91. ymmv
   28. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4419912)
I expect to vote for Hudson for HOM at some point like 20 from now or something but the HOF has been pretty tough on guys below the Pedro/Maddux level recently. I think he's about as deserving as Burleigh Grimes, Early Wynn, Whitey Ford, Ted Lyons, Stan Coveleski, Chief Bender, and Mordecai Brown, Don Sutton and Clark Griffith. To me he's way above Joe McGinnity and Pud Galvin among others. I don't really care whether he into the HOF or not in terms of my view of his career, but he probably does care, so I'm rooting for him.
   29. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4419921)
Starting pitching average is around 90...era+ is pulled up by the superior numbers that relievers put up. The average number three (or pitcher 60-90th best starting pitchers in baseball) put up about a 90 era+...
   30. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4419930)
Starting pitching average is around 90...era+ is pulled up by the superior numbers that relievers put up. The average number three (or pitcher 60-90th best starting pitchers in baseball) put up about a 90 era+...

Fangraphs says for 2012 starters had a 104 ERA- and relievers a 91 ERA-. Are you talking about a different time period or something else?
   31. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:51 PM (#4419951)

Mussina is the obvious test case for Hudson. Mussina clearly deserves to go in but will probably be treated like a borderline candidate. Hudson is like Mussina but is *actually* borderline on the merits, so I think he's unlikely to make it.
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4419956)
Fangraphs says for 2012 starters had a 104 ERA- and relievers a 91 ERA-. Are you talking about a different time period or something else?


If that's true, that's an enormous change from what's happened historically.

From Hardball Times.

Overall MLB Starter vs. Relief ERA

Years Starter Relief Delta
2001-05 4.50 4.10 - 9%
1996-00 4.68 4.35 - 7%
1991-95 4.24 3.96 - 7%
1986-90 4.02 3.66 - 9%
1981-85 3.93 3.50 - 11%
1976-80 3.88 3.60 - 7%
1971-75 3.60 3.43 - 5%
1966-70 3.48 3.40 - 2%
1961-65 3.76 3.56 - 5%
1957-60 3.88 3.77 - 3%


Relief pitching has always been much easier, particularly considering the inferiority of the players handling that role.

Frankly, I'd be very surprised if ML starters had an ERA+ advantage over their bullpen counterparts in 2012.

   33. RJ in TO Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4419963)
Frankly, I'd be very surprised if ML starters had an ERA+ advantage over their bullpen counterparts in 2012.

He's using ERA-, not ERA+.
   34. SoSH U at work Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4419974)


He's using ERA-, not ERA+.


Now that I believe.

   35. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4419978)
The HOF will be tough on pitchers who started around 2000 I suspect. Active win leaders are Pettitte, Halladay and Hudson with 200+, Sabathia 194, 3 in the 170's (Buehlre, Lowe, Colon), Zito at 162, and Freddie Garcia at 152. Outside of Pettitte, Halladay and Sabathia were any of them viewed at any time as elite? Hudson & Zito were close, Colon had his Cy Young year (122 ERA+ but led in wins). Generally speaking though it appears we have another 70/80's crew - where Jack Morris and Dave Stieb were the class of the group with no one really standing out in both career length (Morris) and peak (Stieb).

Pettitte would have been a lock without the PED use imo, but with that he will be held back I suspect. Halladay is clean so far and viewed as a true ace (2 Cy Youngs, twice in 2nd place, 7 times getting votes) with a couple of big highlights (no hitter in playoffs, perfect game in regular season). I see Halladay as an easy HOF'er, Pettitte as likely once the PED craziness wears off (odds are it'll calm down by the time he is eligible) with Hudson/Sabathia having shots if they can stick around for 5 more years of 10+ wins (ie: get close or over 250 for wins).

Justin Verlander is the only other guy with 100+ wins who catches my eye as possibly having a HOF career (126 wins at 30, signed for another 7 years after this one so 200+ is very likely unless he gets seriously hurt at some point). That'll help guys like Hudson, Zito and Sabathia as by the time they are qualified for the HOF most of the greats of the last era will be gone from the ballot (with any luck) and unless a new wave of 'wow' shows up they'll look like the best of the batch to some voters.


Felix?
   36. RollingWave Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:41 PM (#4420033)
I'd suppose if he had a Johan Santana peak and chucks along for a couple more years than yes... but since he didn't...

essentially for the HOF, you either need to have a great peak and enough longevity, or an exceptional longevity to make it, Hudson only has the "enough longevity" part down.
   37. Walt Davis Posted: April 19, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4420126)
the HOF has been pretty tough on guys below the Pedro/Maddux level recently.

Yes and no. They didn't have many legit candidates. The easy dismissal of Brown obviously doesn't bode well but there was lots of baggage there apparently.

But I agree more than disagree with you (in one sentence above I practically say he's a shoo-in ... but I meant he should be). Eventually the BBWAA will have to lower their standards for starters but Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine and Pedro means they don't have to do that anytime soon. But I believe Schilling and Smoltz will make it relatively easily and Mussina will eventually. And it looks like there's going to be something of a drought after them (of 300 game winner types) which could work in Hudson's advantage or could get him treated like Stieb/Morris/etc.

Hudson is going to have to be start earning some street cred as a great competitor

Unless your name is Blyleven, this pretty much comes automatically with 250 wins. The Tim Hudson story line will start with the 14 (and counting) straight winning seasons and the stellar winning percentage.

But it's true that he won't be easily distinguishable from Mussina or Pettitte and maybe not even Wells and the non-Morris/Hunter BBWAA breaking point is right in there somewhere.

I dunno, I've always had the impression that he's respected out there, moreso than Blyleven or Sutton, less so than Morris. If he can have that Reuschel ending leaving him at 260 wins and 3700 IP then I think he'll have one of those long torturous HoF runs where maybe he falls a bit short like Bunning and probably Morris, maybe he falls well short like John and Kaat but maybe he squeaks over like Blyleven and I think Mussina.

   38. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: April 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM (#4420147)
The big one is Win Percentage, he's in the top 30 of all time and likely to stay there. He's never had a losing season. I think the stat is anyone eligible with 200+ wins and more than 100 games over .500 is in. Hudson has a pretty good shot at that (95 over right now).


Pettitte will be the test case for this one.
   39. bjhanke Posted: April 20, 2013 at 06:02 AM (#4420212)
One factor that I am pretty sure is going to come into play sometime (and perhaps already has) is how many people you want in your Hall of Fame. Do you want the same percentage of the total players in each decade to go in the Hall, or do you want the same raw number of players in the Hall from the 2010s as from the 1910s? This is not an easy question. There are a lot of tradeoffs involved. The Hall of Merit is struggling with this issue now, and has been at least since I started voting there about five years ago. Hudson is one of the guys whose candidacy rests entirely on what decision the voters make. If they decide to limit the raw numbers from current years, Hudson will not go in. If they try to match the percentage of early players who made the Hall, he might very well get there. - Brock Hanke
   40. BDC Posted: April 20, 2013 at 09:24 AM (#4420238)
Felix?

Here are through-age-26 comps for Félix Hernández, centered on him in terms of Starts and ERA+ (ranked by IP):

Player                    IP  GS ERA+   W
Christy Mathewson     2275.0 267  136 174
Don Drysdale          1945.0 262  124 123
Hal Newhouser         1894.0 236  139 131
Fernando Valenzuela   1805.2 234  116 113
Dwight Gooden         1713.2 236  122 132
Vida Blue             1666.0 224  121 110
Felix Hernandez       1620.1 238  127  98
Frank Tanana          1615.1 218  118 102
Sam McDowell          1590.0 225  117  89
CC Sabathia           1406.1 219  115 100 


It's not easy to find comps for him, so the parameters are somewhat broad. Most had fantastic debuts and less-than-HOF careers. Christy Mathewson is in the HOF but isn't especially instructive. Barring a Third World War where Hernandez goes 25-5 every year, he's unlikely to go to the Hall via the Hal Newhouser route. That leaves Drysdale as his most hopeful comp. Drysdale is in the HOM and HOF, had an outstanding career, but obviously not a huge number of wins or an extremely dominant peak and prime; he got his HOF votes by being in the thick of many pennant races and World Series. Felix, like Tim Hudson, needs to work on that part of his resumé :)
   41. bookbook Posted: April 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4420259)
Maybe Felix should use some of his coming millions to buy into the Mariners' ownership. How many wins has his team cost him? 30? 40?
   42. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4420310)
Pettitte would have been a lock without the PED use imo,...


I'm not seeing that at all, and I don't think anyone else thought he had much of a shot in a thread from last year. He's an interesting case, but... Not a very long career for a HOFer of the last 40 years, light ERA+ for a HOFer, very poor ERA for a HOFer, win total nothing special for a HOFer. Was he ever considered anything more than a very good #2?

That Pettitte picked up as much in the Cy voting as he did: 2, 4, 5, 5, 6 isn't bad, but it doesn't help his BBWAA case, it doesn't help him distinguish himself and in fact reinforces his non-ace status. His 3 All-Star appearances are a drawback. If the BBWAA won't consider Mussina an obvious candidate, Pettitte is going to have to stick around for a full, good season to really start to give himself a shot.

Interesting and odd that he seemed done and gone at age 38, and has popped up to play some more, probably getting to 250 wins, and actually, at age 41, has something left.
   43. John Northey Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4420430)
Missed Felix due to the 100 win cut off I was using - he is at 99. Knew there had to be someone else. He is just in his age 27 season though so he has a lot of years to go before he'll be in HOF voter minds. Funny to see he has a 2.20 ERA and a 1-2 W-L record this season. Just goes to show how dumb W-L record is overall. Still, we all know voters use it big time.

Felix is a long way from a lock though - one Cy Young, votes for it 2 more times, 3 All-Star games over 9 seasons including this one. 200 wins should be fairly easy for him to reach, but 300 would be hard due to the poor teams he has been on. If he lasts 15 seasons (including this one) he'd be 41 and would need 13.4 wins a year on average which doesn't sound like much but in the 7 full years he has had (12 starts as a rookie, 4 this year removed) he averaged 13.4 wins. Bit surprising eh? For 200 he just needs 14.4 wins per year over his current 7 year deal.
   44. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4420448)
One factor that I am pretty sure is going to come into play sometime (and perhaps already has) is how many people you want in your Hall of Fame. Do you want the same percentage of the total players in each decade to go in the Hall, or do you want the same raw number of players in the Hall from the 2010s as from the 1910s? This is not an easy question. There are a lot of tradeoffs involved. The Hall of Merit is struggling with this issue now, and has been at least since I started voting there about five years ago. Hudson is one of the guys whose candidacy rests entirely on what decision the voters make. If they decide to limit the raw numbers from current years, Hudson will not go in. If they try to match the percentage of early players who made the Hall, he might very well get there. - Brock Hanke


I'm thinking somewhere in between. Same number of course ignores expansion, larger rosters(yes I know that for the most part roster size has been the same according to the rules, but in reality, older teams didn't keep a full roster--this affects career numbers for veterans hanging around--say a Giambi) and integration, at the same time, the same percentage just "feels" too large to me. Just because the overall quality of play has improved, doesn't necessarily mean that that improvement equally raised the bar all across the board. Add in improved reliance on relievers, and it reduces the potential value of starting pitchers, and thereby reduces the spread between good and great.
   45. John Northey Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4420453)
I see Pettitte as a lock without PED's due to his 19 post-season wins, his being a key part of the Yankee dynasty, his likely 250+ wins, and the weak competition he will likely see in HOF voting when it comes to pitching.

Guys on the HOF ballot for pitching in the next 5 years...
Maddux - lock to be in well before Pettitte is on a ballot
Clemens - who knows
Glavine - safe bet to be in well before Pettite is on a ballot
Johnson - safe bet to be in well before Pettite is on a ballot
Mussina - probably still on ballot (no Cy Youngs, just one 20 win season hurts him with voters)
Moyer - might fall off ballot (sub 5%) despite 269 wins
Morris - over soon
Pedro - safe bet to be in well before Pettite is on a ballot
Schilling - hard to say, should be in
Smoltz - safe bet to be in well before Pettite is on a ballot
Halladay - will go in quickly whenever he is done I suspect
Wakefield - will fall off ballot quickly

I figure the big 3 Atlanta pitchers are locks due to the storyline and 300+ wins for 2 of them while Smoltz had the 200+ wins, 150+ saves, 15-4 post season record (plus 4 saves), 8 ASG, and 1 Cy Young. Just too good a story for writers to ignore.

So pitchers likely to be hanging around when Pettitte is on it will be Clemens (unless something changes with the PED stuff), Mussina, Schilling (maybe but I expect him in soon), and maybe Halladay depending on career path for both of them. No one else of note should be added to the ballot anytime soon after he retires also. That means, without PEDs and Clemens, he would likely be the best pitcher on the ballot for quite a few years if he didn't get in quickly and that is a major asset to getting voted in.
   46. John Northey Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:33 PM (#4420460)
Oh, forgot to include relievers but don't see them having a big effect on starting pitchers. Just to add in though that means Rivera and Hoffman with Rivera an easy first ballot guy while Hoffman might take a bit. Lee Smith will be off the ballot by the time Pettitte is on it.
   47. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4420494)
Out of curiosity...not so much a Hall of Fame question, but a general evaluation of career one.

Hoffman v. Wagner

Thoughts?
   48. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4420497)
Schilling - hard to say, should be in
Smoltz - safe bet to be in well before Pettite is on a ballot


What is the real difference between the two? If Smoltz goes in, Schilling is just as likely to go in. Technically Schilling had the better career and peak, but overall there is really not much difference between the two. I think they both go in pretty easily. Smoltz will wear a Cardinals jersey, while Schilling puts on an Astros jersey. :)

I agree with most of your analysis.... I just can't see how voters would be able to separate Smoltz from Schilling, with Smoltz being the one going in.

For Pettitte you know he isn't a first balloter, so you will have to look at 1. the host of players joining him on the ballot in his first 5 or so years 2. how he looks in comparison to active players at the time.

I don't see him as a lock even without the PED issue. Pettitte brings nothing to the table ahead of Mussina. As long as Mussina is on the ballot, there is no way Pettitte should go in, or I think will go in. As of right now he's remembered fondly, but the purpose of the 5 year break is to give the voters better perspective.
   49. Baldrick Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4420527)
I agree with most of your analysis.... I just can't see how voters would be able to separate Smoltz from Schilling, with Smoltz being the one going in.

Really? It's pretty simple: Smotlz pitching more innings, had a lower ERA, and also has 150 saves from three years as a dominant closer. They had the same number of wins.

Smoltz was famous from very young for being at the core of the greatest rotation ever, while Schilling felt like a somewhat wasted talent until he was 30. He's got 2001 and 2004 going for him, but Smoltz was also a GREAT postseason pitcher.

Obviously, Schilling was BETTER than Smoltz, but all the reasons why take a little bit of digging. Namely: run environment overrates Smoltz, Smoltz had better defenses, and Schilling was historically good at preventing unearned runs.
   50. SoSH U at work Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4420569)
I think a lot of voters won't really look at Smoltz against Schilling or Moose etc., but against the other recent starter/reliever hybrid, Eckersley. And he wins that comparison handily. I think his path is much easier than some of his comparables.

   51. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4420573)
Really? It's pretty simple: Smotlz pitching more innings, had a lower ERA, and also has 150 saves from three years as a dominant closer. They had the same number of wins.


I just don't see any difference there. It doesn't take any digging other than looking at the two players. Smoltz superior era is a product of 1. his park, 2. his years as a reliever 3. his unearned run ratio compared to Schilling. Era+ shows equal era etc... they are basically the same career players each has their own unique and equally impressive stories, but for the most part, I don't see how a voter is going to separate one in, one out...and err on the side of Smoltz being the one in.

   52. Baldrick Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4420577)
Like I said, I agree with you. I'm just telling you why the voters quite possibly will not. I really think they see Smoltz as a definite HOFer, while Schilling is considered much more on the edge.

A lot of voters simply aren't going to even look at park effects, unearned runs, etc. They just aren't. They'll think 'Smoltz was an all-time great starter AND an all-time great reliever. Check.' And they'll think 'Schilling was pretty darn good for a few years there, but not much of a career.' And they'll quickly glance at the numbers, which they can choose to interpret as supporting those presuppositions.
   53. jdennis Posted: April 20, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4420598)
To me, Hudson will end up as Glavine without Cy Young awards or the 300-win benchmark. I think Glavine would basically have no shot if he had neither of those things. Hudson may end up a top 50 pitcher ever to people like us (circa 40), but he's not getting into the hall for at least 20 years after his retirement.

Vets committee is gonna be nuts a generation from now.
   54. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 20, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4420634)
To me, Hudson will end up as Glavine without Cy Young awards or the 300-win benchmark. I think Glavine would basically have no shot if he had neither of those things.

Or the 20-win seasons, although these things are all related. Anyway, Glavine is a bad comparison for Hudson unless Hudson pitches 200 innings a year until he's 45. Glavine has volume to his career that most pitchers of his era do not, which is why I think the comment above is likely not correct (although the 300 and the CYAs likely move him into first or second-ballot territory rather than 5-10 years on the ballot territory).

Glavine's #30 on the all-time innings list; he's 850 innings ahead of Mussina, more than 1,000 innings ahead of Schilling or Brown, almost 2/3 more innings than Hudson. Every modern pitcher ahead of him on the list is in the HOF except Maddux, Clemens, John and Kaat, and those last two didn't have Glavine's level of quality. Hudson can catch up a bit, but he's already behind. At Hudson's age coming into 2013, Glavine had ~660 more innings pitched with a comparable ERA+ (123 to Hudson's 126), and 43 more wins.
   55. BDC Posted: April 20, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4420658)
Felix is a long way from a lock though

I'll venture to say, without even a glance at B-Ref for once in my life, that Hernandez is no greater a peak/prime pitcher than Johan Santana, who is a very long way from the Hall himself. So many pitchers have been great for a while and never got near the Hall that predictions are especially idle about young stars like him.
   56. John Northey Posted: April 20, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4420662)
I'm trying to think like HOF voters... they tend to look at total wins, dominance, major highlights, and storyline.

Looking at some key names...
Mussina loses on all counts - he didn't get 300 wins, had 20 just once, never won a World Series and was 7-8 in the playoffs (under or at 500 at all 3 levels of playoffs), led in wins just once with 19, top 3 in Cy voting just once (2nd place), split career between 2 clubs and somehow hit the exact 8 year window for the Yankees that missed winning a World Series (they won the year before he came and the year after he left, much like the Yankees did with Don Mattingly in the 80/90's where they bookended his career with WS appearances but he had just one playoff appearance). He was a great pitcher, but without a storyline, without a killer peak, without anything but 'long solid career' he'll have a long wait for the HOF.

Smoltz wins on all but net wins - he has a Cy Young, was viewed as a 'bulldog' and 'knew how to win', led the league in wins once with 24, led in saves with 55 so neither was a 'cheap win' (his 16 win title would be viewed as 'cheap'). The 15-4 record in the playoffs, a WS title, perfect 7-0 record in the NLDS all are major pluses. Being part of the big 3 in Atlanta gives a storyline that should push up his votes once Maddux and Glavine are in if he hasn't got in by then. His 213 wins will cost him as it is a low total but the 154 saves helps a lot as does his going back to being a starter after a few years as a closer (which Eck never did).

Schilling has the storyline (bloody sock), big playoff moments with 2 teams, 3 times was 2nd in Cy voting but never won it (negative and positive for HOF), didn't make an all-star team until his 10th season but still made 6 of them. His slow start hurts him, but I figure he should get in sooner than later. His problem is the class he is fighting - Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine - a batch of 300 game winners which makes voters go 'why didn't he win 300 too'. Unlike Smoltz he doesn't have the years as a closer to help. His 11-2 playoff record does help and I am surprised people didn't bring that up more when debating him.

It is funny. bWAR has them Mussina 82.7, Schilling 80.7, Smoltz 66.5 yet I'd bet that Smoltz has the shortest wait of the group for getting into the HOF.
   57. John Northey Posted: April 20, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4420667)
Oh, one more negative on Moose - he showed a complete lack of class when the Jays were honouring Tom Cheek, their broadcaster who was dying from a brain tumour, by complaining about the time for a pre-game ceremony messing up his prep and stuff. I suspect a lot of writers would look poorly on that as while Cheek wasn't a writer he was in a field related to it and they might want to protect their own quietly by not giving him votes early on. Complete lack of class will cost you when it comes to HOF voting and the like.
   58. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4420709)
I'm trying to think like HOF voters... they tend to look at total wins, dominance, major highlights, and storyline.


I think that is oversimplifying the vast majority of the voters position. They try to balance things out instead of looking at just one thing. If a guy is good at everything, but not great, he might take a while, but I think he gets in(note this is in regards to pitchers, not position players, who the writers can't be bothered with any type of complex analysis that requires a 3rd grade level of logic) I think both Schilling and Smoltz make it in fairly easily (no more than 4 years on the ballot, and only because of overcrowding)

Mussina is of course a different story, he was smarter than the writers, and the writers have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are petty when it comes to everything. He's a career guy that is going to get in only after several years on the ballot, and in some respects Pettitte's popularity is going to help him. Mussina was the better pitcher, but I'm betting Pettitte is going to have a lot more articles written about his hof career than Mussina. Then of course the hard line roiders are going to fight back in favor of Mussina. They'll be joined in by the stat community supporting Mussina(which will of course give the anti-roiders some pause, but in their blind fury, they won't care as long as the non-roider gets in over the roider)
   59. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 20, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4420770)
That means, without PEDs and Clemens, he would likely be the best pitcher on the ballot for quite a few years if he didn't get in quickly and that is a major asset to getting voted in.


One way to look at it, and not unreasonable, but it's not like the class of pitchers clearly better than Pettitte who get in before him are going to be forgotten. The comparison w Pettitte will be readily made, and not to his advantage. I think in fact it'll work opposite the way you expect it to (and, as someone noted, Mussina will be around to remind voters there's a better pitcher not on the ballot), with those elected pitchers reminding voters that Pettitte's just not in their class.

We shall see. I'd be interested in what Pettitte understands about the Hall, and where he thinks he stands today.

   60. BDC Posted: April 20, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4420789)
Did I do this one before? Comps centered on Andy Pettitte, in terms of GS and ERA+, ranked by IP:

Player               IP  GS ERA+   W
Ted Lyons        4161.0 484  118 260
Red Faber        4086.2 483  119 254
Vic Willis       3996.0 471  117 249
Bob Feller       3827.0 484  122 266
Jim Bunning      3760.1 519  115 224
Luis Tiant       3486.1 484  114 229
Don Drysdale     3432.0 465  121 209
Vida Blue        3343.1 473  108 209
Chuck Finley     3197.1 467  115 200
Milt Pappas      3186.0 465  110 209
Andy Pettitte    3153.0 494  118 248
Orel Hershiser   3130.1 466  112 204 


If I'd done it awhile back, Pettitte has added to his record since, and it's different now. It's interesting to me that they're all HOFers down the IP list to Bunning, and then Tiant isn't, Drysdale is, and then they're not HOFers anymore. Guys just don't pitch as many innings per start anymore; should that matter, though? Starting pitcher is still a pretty important role. With 248 Wins and 19 more in the postseason, Pettitte is more impressive than one might assume, and isn't slowing down. The presence of Willis, Faber, and Lyons in the HOF gives Pettitte a decent if-then argument, and a likely Veterans' selection sooner or later. If Vic Willis can be inducted long after all living memory of him had ceased, and a single World Series start in his whole career, which he lost, I think Pettitte will someday be in.
   61. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 20, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4420794)
"not on the ballot" should read "not in the Hall".
   62. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4420828)
Guys just don't pitch as many innings per start anymore; should that matter, though?


Yes it does matter though. Look at it from a seasonal perspective. Pitchers used to pitch 220-260 ip. Now you are looking at 240 as the leader and very few even exceeding 200 ip. If you think of that as cumulative value, you are losing roughly 10-20% of the value that pitchers used to get. (From the team perspective the better performance out of relievers make it a no brainer trade off, but for an individual it's value for their hof case that they are losing...mind you they make it up by the longer career in theory, which is why you don't really see much differences in career innings pitched by pitchers post 1920's---notable exception being 70's era hof pitchers) Then you add in that relief pitchers put up better numbers(by 17% :) ) just by the very nature of their usage and you have the separation between the great pitchers and the overall league average being less dramatic because of the reliever advantage.

Basically the changing nature makes it more muddled. It's harder to find the clear in/out line(and it was never easy to begin with.)
   63. bjhanke Posted: April 21, 2013 at 05:47 AM (#4420959)
Cardsfanboy has it right, I think, and what he says is part of a much larger issue. From about 1880 through to the present day, the value of individual pitchers, compared to individual hitters, has steadily decreased, in one of those curves, like error rate, that drops sharply until about 1900 and then "turns the corner" and levels out a lot. But, if you're trying to choose Hall of Famers by value, you're going to end up with fewer pitchers as a percentage of HoF guys and more hitters. It's odd. The importance of pitchING has increased, due to the Three True Outcomes. But the importance of any one pitcher has gone down, due to fewer IP. The added value of pitchING has resulted in a decrease in the value of fieldING, again because of 3TO. But in this case, the value of individual fieldERS has also been drawn down, due to the drop in the number of chances, again due to 3TO. I have no idea how HoF voters - for formal analysis - is going to respond to this, but it's true, and its very relevant to value estimations. The DH rule hasn't helped any. It increases the number of years that a huge immobile homer-hitter can play, making the likes of Rafael Palmeiro and Jim Rice look a lot better than they should look. But again, that's related to value. When you're hitting homers as a DH, you are still adding value to your team, even if you can't play defense at all any more. I'll admit that I'm more than a bit worried about the HoF being overloaded, in the recent future, with sluggers and strikeout pitchers, to the exclusion of all but the absolute inner-circle fielders and non-homer hitters (who don't get to spend the five years after they've lost all defensive value piling up homers). - Brock Hanke
   64. BDC Posted: April 21, 2013 at 09:41 AM (#4420985)
Yes, the fanboy makes a very good point; starters don't contribute as much value as they once did, period. And yet: while the career leaderboard for complete games is dominated by old-timers, the one for Starts is quite mixed: disproportionately many from the 1970s (which is to a lesser extent true of the IP leaderboard), but the Starts list has representatives from Pud Galvin through Roger Clemens. GS is a benchmark that doesn't change a great deal between 1893 and 2013, at least when compared to some other measures of pitching longevity. (One reason why I like to use it in my comps; otherwise you never get pitching comps to cross eras.) I agree that the question becomes very much one of an in/out line, and it's probably true that fewer starters should be inducted (and very few relievers should take their place, logically speaking, since relievers by current definition don't pitch many innings at all in historical terms, or add much individual value). Yet there seems to be something "off" to me about honoring fewer and fewer starting pitchers. True, they don't have as much value as individual starters used to; but individual starters used to have a crazily disproportionate amount of value, compared to their teammates.
   65. SoSH U at work Posted: April 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4420998)

True, they don't have as much value as individual starters used to; but individual starters used to have a crazily disproportionate amount of value, compared to their teammates.


OTOH, as strikeouts rise, starters are packing more responsibility into their IP than in low-strikeout eras.

   66. Walt Davis Posted: April 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4421780)
Min 3500 IP then 4000 IP then 4500 IP, by decade of birth:

1850 9 7 6
1860 5 4 3
1870 4 2 0
1880 6 4 3
1890 6 2 0
1900 6 2 0
1910 1 0 0
1920 3 3 3
1930 7 3 3
1940 12 6 6
1950 4 2 1
1960 6 4 2

It's the 1940s (i.e the 60-70s studs) that stand out and it's that huge group of historically accomplished pitchers that have kinda screwed everything up. The 1950/60 crew don't stand out particularly, maybe at the 4500 IP cutoff. Starters used to throw a lot more IP per season ... and generally a lot fewer seasons. Using starts like Bob does is probably a decent way to control for that.

Now possibly without the shift to the 5-man rotation, etc we'd continue to have seen 10 or so pitchers do this per decade. While it is clear, and has been for a while, that the 60s/70s standards will be too high for future HoF ballots, it's not yet clear that starting pitcher standards need to shift down dramatically.

The batter equivalent to 3500 IP is 10,000 PA (you get 72 names so a lower proportion).

1880 5
1890 5
1900 4
1910 0
1920 2
1930 13 (expansion effect takes hold here earlier)
1940 10
1950 14
1960 13
1970 6 (and counting of course ... AROD in 75)

Quite different. So the modern equivalent of 3500 IP is more like 11,000 PA. But none of the 70s pitchers have made it yet, the ones with the best shots are probably Hudson and Buehrle. Among the 80s crew, CC is close to a lock; Beckett, Peavy and Haren have a shot; Felix is nearly halfway there and is just 27; then there are about a half-dozen guys around 1500 IP and 30 years old, a couple of whom will probably make it. CC seems the only one with a good shot at 4000.

I'd have never guessed it but if Brett Myers hadn't spent two full seasons as a reliever, he'd be closing in on 2000 IP; as is he's got over 1700 and is just 32.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(17 - 4:02pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(15 - 4:01pm, Oct 31)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogMLB.com - In pursuit of Maddon, Cubs dismiss Renteria
(4 - 4:01pm, Oct 31)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4882 - 4:01pm, Oct 31)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogAP: Sandoval, Shields Among 121 Free Agents
(5 - 3:59pm, Oct 31)
Last: zonk

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(31 - 3:59pm, Oct 31)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(137 - 3:35pm, Oct 31)
Last: zonk

NewsblogAFL Saguaros at Rafters
(3 - 3:30pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(653 - 3:29pm, Oct 31)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-31-2014
(21 - 3:12pm, Oct 31)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(33 - 3:08pm, Oct 31)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogNY Times: In Rare Film, White Sox Before They Were Black Sox
(9 - 2:56pm, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(28 - 2:14pm, Oct 31)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogFielding Bible
(4 - 2:03pm, Oct 31)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(100 - 1:51pm, Oct 31)
Last: Ron J2

Page rendered in 0.5943 seconds
52 querie(s) executed